THE UNITY OF THE BOOK
OF GENESIS
BY
WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D.
PROFESSOR
OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN PRINCETON
THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1895
COPYRIGHT, 1895, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
[Digitally prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt
Gordon College, MA 9/11/2002]
TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
NEW YORK
PREFACE
ALL tradition, from whatever source it is
derived,
whether
inspired or uninspired, unanimously affirms that
the
first five books of the Bible were written by one man
and
that man was Moses. There is no
counter-testimony
in
any quarter. From the predominant
character of their
contents
these books are commonly called the Law.
All
the
statutes contained in them are expressly declared to
have
been written by Moses or to have been given by the
LORD
to Moses. And if the entire law is his,
the history,
which
is plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the
law,
must be his likewise.
The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
has, how-
ever,
been challenged in modern times in the name of
the
higher criticism on two distinct and independent
grounds. One is that of the document hypothesis in its
various
forms and modifications, which occupies itself
with
the narrative portion of the Pentateuch, and on
the
ground of literary criteria claims that this is not the
product
of anyone writer, but that it has been compiled
from
different documents, which are clearly distinguish-
able
in diction, style, conception, plan, and design, and
which
belong to widely separated ages. The
other is
that
of the development hypothesis, which has attached
itself
to the preceding, but deals characteristically with a
different
portion of the Pentateuch and employs a differ-
ent
style of argument. Its field of
operation is the laws,
which
it claims were not and could not have been given by
Moses,
nor at anyone period in the history of Israel.
vi PREFACE
It
professes to trace the growth of this legislation from
simple
and primitive forms to those which are more
complex
and which imply a later and more developed
civilization. And it confidently affirms that these laws
could
not have been committed to writing in their pres-
ent
form for many centuries after the age of Moses.
These hypotheses are discussed in a
general way in my
"Higher
Criticism of the Pentateuch," where the fallacy
and
inconclusiveness of the reasoning by which they are
defended
and the falsity of the conclusions deduced from
them
are exposed. In order to a complete
refutation of
these
hypotheses it is necessary to show still further by
a
detailed examination their inapplicability to, and in-
compatibility
with, the phenomena of the Pentateuch,
and
that, so far from solving the question of its origin,
they
are destitute of any real basis; they find no support
in
the Pentateuch itself, but are simply the creations of
learned
ingenuity and a lively imagination.
The present treatise occupies itself
exclusively with
the
document hypothesis, and aims to prove that the
book
of Genesis is not a compilation from different docu-
ments,
but is the continuous work of a single writer.
The
demonstration that this hypothesis has no foothold
in
Genesis effectually overturns it for the rest of the
Pentateuch,
or, if the critics please, the Hexateuch.
It
took
its rise in Genesis; the most plausible arguments
in
its favor are drawn from that book; and the verdict
rendered
by that book substantially settles the case for
those
that follow. It is on the basis of the
assumption
that
it is firmly established in Genesis that it is carried
through
the Hexateuch. If that assumption is
proved
to
be false, the hypothesis collapses entirely.
What is here proposed is a critical study of Genesis
from
beginning to end, chapter by chapter and section
by
section. The history of critical opinion
is given in
PREFACE
vii
full
in the more important passages, and is throughout
traced
sufficiently to place before the reader the various
views
that have been entertained, together with the
grounds
adduced on their behalf. Pains have been
taken
to
carefully collate and frankly state whatever has been
urged
in defence of the hypothesis by its ablest and
most
eminent advocates on each successive passage; and
this
is then subjected to a thorough and candid exami-
nation. The reader will thus be put in possession of
the
reasons
for and against it to the best of the writer's abil-
ity,
and can form his own conclusion. The
writer, while
aiming
at entire fairness in presenting both sides of the
argument,
does not conceal his own assured conviction
of
the overwhelming preponderance in favor of the faith
of
ages and against the divisive hypothesis of modern
times.
As the alleged criteria of the different
documents are
most
fully and clearly stated by Dr. Dillmann, his pres-
entation
of them is followed throughout the book, unless
where
some other authority is expressly mentioned.
To avoid constant circumlocution P, J, E,
and D are
frequently
spoken of as though they were the real en-
tities
that the critics declare them to be, and passages
are
said to belong to one or the other because critics so
affirm. Such language adopted for brevity must not be
understood
as an admission that the documents so called
ever
existed.
In replying to the objections of Bishop
Colenso in
1863
the author ventured the suggestion that he might
at
some future time prepare a work on the criticism of
the
Pentateuch. Since that time the
positions then
taken
by leading critics have been abandoned by them-
selves,
and their whole conception of the origin and con-
stitution
of the Pentateuch has been revolutionized.
The complex character of the Pentateuchal
question
and
the tedious minuteness required in its thorough ex-
amination
doubtless supply the reason why so many
critics
are content with repeating or building upon the
conclusions
of their predecessors without investigating
for
themselves the soundness of the basis on which these
conclusions
rest. The author frankly confesses for
him-
self
that, while he felt at every point the weakness and
unsatisfactory
character of the arguments of the divisive
critics,
he was long deterred by the complexity of the
task
from undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the
nature
of the case required. He might have
continued
still
to shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888,
by
his friend Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable dis-
cussion
of the subject in the columns of the Hebraica.
The
kindly proposal was accepted, though with some
hesitation
lest the cause whose defence was thus under-
taken
might suffer from unskilful advocacy. It
seemed,
however,
to involve less responsibility and to be a less
onerous
undertaking to engage in such a discussion,
piecemeal,
in the columns of a quarterly journal, at
the
solicitation of a friend, than to set myself to the
preparation
of a work on the entire subject of my own
motion. The discussion thus begun was continued at
intervals,
step by step, through the whole of the narrative
portion
of the Pentateuch. Though convinced at
the
outset
of the unsoundness in the main of the arguments
urged
on behalf of the critical partition of the Penta-
teuch
by its principal defenders, I did not know but
there
might be some fire where there was so much
smoke,
and some possible foundation for the positive
assertions
in which the critics are so prone to indulge.
The
discussion was accordingly begun with no absolute
prepossession
on my part for or against the existence of
Pentateuchal
documents. One thing was clear to my
mind
from the beginning, that the Pentateuch as inspired
PREFACE ix
of
God was a true and trustworthy record; everything
else
was left to be determined by the evidence which it
should
supply. As the discussion proceeded I
found my-
self
unable to discover sufficient reason anywhere for the
assumption
that the Pentateuch was a compilation from
pre-existing
documents; and by the time that my task
was
completed I had settled down in the assured belief
that
the so-called documents were a chimera, and that
the
much-vaunted discovery of Astruc was no discovery
at
all, but an ignis fatuus which has misled critics ever
since
into a long and weary and fruitless search through
fog
and mire, that might better be abandoned for a
forward
march on terra firma.
The discussion in the Hebraica
prepared the way for
the
volume now offered to the public, in which the
attempt
is made to treat the question with more thor-
oughness
than was possible in the limitations necessarily
imposed
in a crowded quarterly. The ground there
traversed
has been carefully re-examined and explored
at
afresh in the light shed upon it by the ablest minds on
either
side of the controversy. The prominence
ac-
corded
to German scholars is due to the fact that the
have
been the chief laborers in the field.
The various
partition
hypotheses, after Astruc's conjecture, as he
himself
termed it, had pointed out the way, have been
originated
and elaborated by German scholars. And if
they
have failed to put them upon a solid basis, it is but
from
no lack of learning, ingenuity, or perseverance, but
much
from the inherent weakness of the cause.
It is hoped that this volume may prove a
serviceable
text-book
for the study of criticism; that it may meet
the
wants of theological students and ministers who de-
sire
to acquaint themselves thoroughly with a subject of
such
prominence and importance; and that it may like-
wise
prove helpful to intelligent laymen who, omitting
x PREFACE
the
discussion of Hebrew words that are necessarily in-
troduced,
may be led by it to a better understanding of
the
book of Genesis in its connection and the mutual
relation
of its several parts, and be helped in the solu-
tion
of difficulties and the removal of objections.
It
stands
on the common ground, dear alike to all who re-
gard
the Pentateuch as the word of God through Moses,
whether
Jew or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, clergy-
man
or layman. If by the divine blessing it
shall be
made
to contribute in any measure to the elucidation or
defence
of this part of Holy Scripture, or to the confir-
mation
of the faith of any, or to the relief of such as
may
have been perplexed or troubled by anxious doubts
or
misgivings, the author will be profoundly grateful to
Him
to whom all praise is due.
PRINCETON, N. J., September 26, 1895.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
THE
BOOK OF GENESIS, 1
The creation of the heavens and the
earth (Gen. i. 1-ii. 3),
words indicative of P, 4.
I
THE
GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.) 7
Primitive state and fall of man (ch. ii.
4-iii. 24), 7; false critical
methods, 7; no duplicate account of the
creation,
9; no discrepancies, 20; words and phrases
indicative of J,
29 ; mutual relation of this and the
preceding section, 33.
Cain and Abel--Cain's descendants (ch. iv.),
36; marks of J, 39.
II
THE
GENERATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. 1- VI. 8), 42
Adam to Noah (ch. v.), 42; the Cainite
and Sethite gen-
ealogies, 43; duplicate statements, 47;
primeval chronology,
49; marks of P, 50. The Sons of God and the Daughters of
Men (ch. vi. 1-8), 51; marks of J, 61.
III
THE
GENERATIONS OF NOAR (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29), 65
The flood (ch. vi. 9-ix. 17), 65; the
critical partition of
ch. vi. 5-ix. 17, 66; J not continuous, 71;
P not contin-
uous, 78; no superfluous repetitions, 83 ;
the divine names,
88; no discrepancies, 90; difference of
diction, 94; marks
of P, 96; marks of J, 116; numerical
correspondence, 121;
the Assyrian flood tablets? 122, Noah after the flood (ch.
ix. 18-29), 127.
xii CONTNETS
IV
PAGE
THE
GENERATIONS 0F THE SONS 0F NOAH. (CH. X. l-XI. 9), 131 Origin of nations (ch.
x.), 131 ; marks of P, 141 ; marks
of
J, 143. Tower of Babel (ch. xi. 1-9),143; marks of J, 145.
V
THE
GENERATIONS 0F SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26), 146
Shem to Abram (ch. xi. 10-26), 146.
VI
THE
GENERATIONS OF TERAH (Cx. XI. 27-XXV. 11), 148
Preliminary remarks, 148; the divine
names, 151; the crit-
ical partition, 154; no discrepancies,
161. The family of
Terah (ch. xi. 27-32), 168. The call of Abram and his jour-
neys
(ch. xii.), 171; critical partition of vs. 1-9, 172; marks
of
P, 175; marks of J, 181. Abram in Egypt
(vs. 10-20),
182;
marks of J, 185. Separation from Lot
(ch. xiii), 185;
grounds
of partition, 186; marks of P, 192; marks of J, 193.
Abram's
rescue of Lot (ch. xiv.), 195. Promise
and cove-
nant
of Jehovah (ch. xv.), 202. Birth of
Ishmael (ch. xvi.),
208;
marks of P, 213; marks of J, 215.
Covenant sealed
by
Abraham (ch. xvii.), 217; style of P, 226; marks of P,
231. Visit to Abraham and destruction of Sodom
(ch. xviii.
1-xix.
28), 236; marks of J, 240. Lot's incest
(ch. xix. 29-
38),
246; marks of J, 250. Abraham with
Abimelech, king
of
Gerar (ch. xx.), 250; critical embarrassment, 250; diction
of
ch. xx., 252; not referable to a distinct document, 254;
marks
of E, 259. Birth of Isaac and dismissal
of Ishmael (ch.
xxi.
1-21), 262; critical perplexity, 262; division impossible,
266
; marks of P, 269; marks of J, 269; marks of E, 270.
Abraham
at Beersheba (ch. xxi 22-34), 273; marks of E,
276. Sacrifice of Isaac (ch. xxii. 1-19), 277; the
critical par-
tition,
278; marks of E, 286; marks of R, 288; no proof of
separate
documents, 290. Family of Nahor (ch.
xxii. 20-24),
291;
marks of J, 292. Death and burial of
Sarah (ch. xxiii.),
293;
marks of P, 296. Marriage of Isaac (ch.
xxiv.), 298;
marks
of J, 304. Conclusion of Abraham's life
(ch. xxv.
1-11),
307; marks of P, 310.
CONTENTS xiii
VII
Page
THE
GENERATIONS OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXV. 12-18), 312
Marks of P, 313.
VIII
THE
GENERATIONS OF IsAAC (CH. XXV. 19-XXXV.), 314
Esau and Jacob (ch. xxv. 19-34), 314;
marks of P, 320;
marks of J, 321. Isaac in Gerar and Beersheba (ch. xxvi.
1-33), 322; marks of J, 326. Jacob's blessing and depart-
ure (ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9), 328; marks of
P, 332; marks of
of J, 333; marks of E, 333. Jacob's dream (ch. xxviii.
10-22), 335; marks of J, 341; marks of E,
342. Jacob in
Haran (chs. xxix., xxx.), 344; the divine
names, 350;
marks of J. 353; marks of E, 354. Jacob's return from
Haran (ch. xxxi-xxxii. 3), 357; hiatus in
the document P,
362; the covenant of Laban and Jacob, 365;
the divine
names, 369; marks of P, 370; marks of E,
370. Meeting
of Jacob and Esau (ch. xxxii. 4-xxxiii. 17),
372; Jacob
wrestling with the angel, 377; no proof of a
parallel narra-
tive, 380; the divine names, 380; marks of
J, 381. The
rape of Dinah (ch. xxxiii 18-xxxiv.), 382;
Jacob's arrival
in Shechem, 383; critical difficulties, 386;
divergence of the
critics, 388; not composite, 398; marks of
P, 402; marks
of J, 403.
Jacob at Bethel and Isaac's death (ch. xxxv.),
404.
Jacob at Bethel, 405; death of Rachel, 408; grounds
of partition irrelevant, 411; conclusion of
the section, 412.
IX
THE
GENERATIONS OF ESAtJ (CH. XXXVI.-XXXVII.1), 415
Opinions of critics, 415; unity of the
chapter, 417 ; no dis-
crepancies, 420; no anachronism, 425.
X
THE
GENERATIONS OF JACOB (CR. XXXVII. 2-L.), 430
The unity of plan, 430; lack of
continuity in the docu-
ments,
434; the divine names, 434; diction and style, 435.
Joseph
sold into Egypt (ch. xxxvii. 2-36), 437; variance
xiv CONTENTS
PAGE
among critics, 437; grounds of partition,
447; marks of J,
450.
The narrative of Judah and Tamar (ch. xxxviii), 452;
no lack of order, 452; no anachronism, 454;
marks of J,
455.
Joseph is cast into prison (ch. xxxix.), 457; no dis-
crepancies, 457; the divine names, 459;
marks of J, 462.
Dreams of the butler and baker (ch. xl.),
463; no discrep-
ancy, 464; no anachronism, 466; diction,
467. Pharaoh's
dreams (ch. xli.), 467; grounds of
partition, 468. Journeys
of Jacob's sons to Egypt (ch. xlii.-xliv.),
473; no discrep-
ancy, 475; the divine names, 482; marks of J
and E, 483.
Joseph makes himself known (ch. xlv.), 487;
marks of E,
491.
Removal to Egypt (ch. xlvi 1-27), 492; marks of J,
498; marks of E, 498; marks of P, 498. Settlement in
Goshen (ch. xlvi. 29-xlvii. 11),499; marks
of P, 502; marks
of J, 502.
Joseph's arrangements in Egypt (ch. xlvii. 12-27),
504; marks of E, 506; marks of J, 507; marks
of P, 509. Jacob
charges Joseph and adopts his sons (ch.
xlvii. 28-xlviii.
22), 510; marks of P, 518; marks of E, 518;
marks of J,
519.
Jacob's blessing and death (ch. xlix.), 519; no vati-
cinium post eventum, 521; marks of P,
526. The burial of
Jacob and death of Joseph (ch.l.), 526;
marks of J, 529;
marks of E, 530.
CONCLUSION,
531
Grounds of partition, 531; repetitions
and discrepancies,
532; the divine names, 538; diction, style,
and conception,
548; continuity of Genesis, 554; chasms in
the documents,
556; when and where produced, 560. Summary of the argu-
ment, 571.
INDEX.
I. THE DIVINE NAMES, 573
II.
STYLE, CONCEPTION AND THE RELATION OF PASSAGES, 573 III. CHARACTERISTIC WORDS
AND PHRASES, 574
IV.
THE ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS, 579
WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS
VOLUME
***
These works are here arranged in the order of their publication.
The
reader can thus see at a glance where each belongs in the history of
critical
opinion.
Matthew
Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, First Edition, 1683.
Astruc,
Conjectures sur leg Memoires Originaux, dont il paroit, que
Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre
de la Genese, 1753.
Harmer,
Observations on Divers Passages of Scripture, Second Edi-
tion, 1776.
Ilgen,
Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihrer Urgestalt,
1798.
Vater,
Commentar uber den Pentateuch, Theil i, ii., 1802; Theil iii,
1805.
Eichhorn,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Dritte Ausgabe, 1803;
Vierte Ausgabe, 1823.
DeWette,
Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Erstes Band-
chen, 1806; Zweiter Band, 1807.
Ewald,
Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, 1823.
Gramberg,
Libri Geneseos Secundum Fontes rite dignoscendos Adum-
bratio nova, 1828.
F.
H. Ranke, Untersuchungen fiber den Pentateuch aus dem Gebiete
der hoheren Kritik, Erster Band, 1831;
Zweiter Band, 1840.
Hengstenberg,
Die Authentie des Pentateuches, Erster Band, 1836;
Zweiter Band, 1839.
Movers.
Review of von Bohlen's Genesis in Zeitschrift fur Philosophie
und Katholische Theologie, 1836.
Havernick,
Handbuch der historish-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, Erster Theil, Zweite Abtheilung,
1837.
Tuch,
Kommentar uber die Genesis, 1838; Zweite Aufiage, 1871.
Stahelin,
Kritische Untersuchungen uber den Pentateuch, die Bucher
Josua, Richter, Samuels, und del Konige,
1843.
Kurtz,
Die Einheit der Genesis, 1846.
Winer,
Biblisches Realworterbuch, Dritte Aufiage, 1847.
Ewald,
Jahrbucher del Biblischen Wissenchaft for 1851-52.
xvi WORKS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME
Knobel,
Die Genesis, 1852.
Delitzsch,
Die Genesis, 1852, Dritte Ausgabe, 1860; Vierte Ausgabe,
1872.
Neuer Commentar uber die Genesis, 1887.
Kurtz,
Geschichte des Alten Bundes, Erster Band, Zweite Aufiage, 1853.
Hupfeld,
Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung,
1853.
Robinson,
Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Re-
gions, 1856.
Bohmer,
Das Erste Buch der Thora, Ubersetzung seiner drei Quellen-
schriften und der Redactionszusatze mit
kritischen, exegetischen,
historischen Erorterungen, 1862.
Noldeke,
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, 1869. Merx,
Article on Dinah in Schenkel's
Bibel-Lexikon, 1869.
Schrader,
Editor of the "eighth thoroughly improved, greatly en-
larged and in part wholly transformed
edition" of DeWette's
Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen
Einleitung in die kanonischen
und apokryphischen Bucher des Alten
Testaments, 1869.
Kayser,
Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels und seine
Erweiterungen, ein Beitrag zur
Pentateuch-kritik, 1874.
George
Smith, Translation of the flood tablets in his Assyrian Dis-
coveries, 1875; the Chaldean Account of
Genesis, 1876; and Records
of the Past, vol. vii., 1876.
Wellhausen,
Die Composition des Hexateuchs, in the Jahrbticher fur
Deutsche Theologie, 1876-1877; republished
in Skizzen und
Vorarbeiten, Zweites Heft, 1885; and again
in Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der hist orischen Bucher
des .Alten Testa. ments,
1889.
Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, trans-
lated by A. H. May, vol. i, 1874.
Dillmann,
Die Genesis, first edition published as the third edition of
Knobel's Commentary, 1875; second edition
(Knobel's fourth),
1882; third edition (Knobel's fifth),
1886.
Wellhausen,
Geschichte Israels, 1878, republished as Prolegomena zur
Geschichte Israels, 1883. Third edition, 1886.
Oort,
The Bible for Learners, English translation, 1878.
Colenso,
The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined,
Part Vii., 1879.
Reuss,
Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, 1881. Haupt, Der
keilinschriftliche Sintfluthbericht, in Schrader's Die Keil-
inschriften und das Alte Testament, 1883.
WORKS REFERRED TO IN TH1S VOLUME xvii
Budde,
Die Biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. i-xii 5), 1883.
Kuenen,
An Historico-critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composi-
tion of the Hexateuch. Translated by P. H.
Wicksteed, 1886.
Vatke,
Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1886.
Stade,
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1887.
Kittel,
Geschichte der Hebraer, 1888.
Harper,
The Pentateuchal Question, in the Hebraica for 1888-1892.
Kautzsch
und Socin, Die Genesis mit ausserer Unterscheidung der
Quellenschriften, 1888; Zweite Aufiage,
1891. Reproduced in
English as Genesis Printed in Colors,
showing the original sources
from which it is supposed to have been
compiled, with an intro-
duction by E. C. Bissell.
Cornill,
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1891.
Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1891.
Strack,
Die Genesis, 1892.
Davis,
Genesis and Semitic Tradition, 1894.
Kuenen,
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Biblischen Wissenchaft.
Aus dem Hollandischen ubersetzt von K.
Budde, 1894.
THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF
GENESIS
THE BOOK OF GENESIS
THE history opens with an introductory
section (ch.
i.-ii.
3), which declares how God in the beginning created
the
heavens and the earth as the theatre upon which it
was
to be transacted. This is followed by
ten sections
of
unequal length, which make up the rest of the book
of
Genesis, and are introduced by titles of a uniform
pattern. These titles are as follows:
1. Gen. ii. 4. These are the generations of the heaven
and
of the earth.
2. Gen. v. 1. This is the book of the generations of
Adam.
3. Gen. vi. 9. These are the generations of Noah.
4.
Gen. x. 1. These are the
generations of the sons of
Noah.
5. Gen. xi. 10. These are the generations of Shem.
6.
Gen. xi. 27. These are the generations
of Terah.
7. Gen. xxv. 12. These are the generations of Ish-
mael.
8. Gen. xxv. 19. These are the generations of Isaac.
9. Gen. xxxvi. 1. These are the generations of Esau.1
10. Gen. xxxvii. 2. These are the generations of
Jacob.
1 Repeated, ver. 9, for a
reason to be explained when that
chapter
comes under consideration.
2 THE BOOK OF
GENESIS
These titles are designed to emphasize and
render
more
prominent and palpable an important feature of
the
book, the genealogical character of its history. This
results
from its main design, which is to trace the line of
descent
of the chosen race from the beginning to the
point
where it was ready to expand to a great nation,
whose
future organization was already foreshadowed, its
tribes
being represented in the twelve sons of Jacob, and
its
tribal divisions in their children. The
genealogies
contained
in the book are not merely incidental or sub-
ordinate,
but essential, and the real basis of the whole.
They
are not to be regarded as addenda to the narrative,
scraps
of information introduced into it; they constitute
the
skeleton or framework of the history itself.
They
are
not separate productions culled from different sources,
and
here inserted by the author as he found them.
From
whatever
quarters the materials may have been obtained
they
were cast into their present form by the writer him-
self,
as is evident from the uniformity of the construc-
tion
of those relating to the chosen race on the one hand,
and
those of alien races on the other, together with the
unbroken
continuity of the former. These exhibit at
once
the kinship of Israel to all the nations of the earth,
all
being of one blood and sprung from one common
stock,
and their separation from the rest of mankind for
a
special divine purpose, God's gracious choice of them
to
be his peculiar people until the time should arrive
for
spreading the blessing of Abraham over all the
earth.
There is, accordingly, a regular series of
genealogies of
like
structure, or rather one continuous genealogy extend-
ing
from Adam to the family of Jacob. This
is inter-
rupted
or suspended from time to time, as occasion re-
quires,
for the sake of introducing or incorporating facts
of
the history at particular points where they belong;
THE BOOK OF GENESIS 3
after
which it is resumed again precisely at the same
point,
and proceeds regularly as before until it reaches
its
utmost limit, thus embracing the entire history with-
in
itself. Thus, for example, the genealogy
in ch. v.
states
in identically recurring formulae the age of each
parent
at the birth of his child, the number of years that
he
lived subsequently, and the length of his entire life.
But
when the name of Noah is reached, the record is,
ver.
32, "And Noah was five hundred years old; and
Noah
begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth," three sons being
mentioned
instead of one, as was uniformly the case be-
fore. And here the genealogy abruptly terminates
with-
out
the further statements that analogy would lead us
to
expect, how long Noah lived after the birth of his
children,
and how many years he lived in all. This
is
not
the end of a genealogical fragment, disconnected from
all
that follows. It is merely interrupted
for a time in
order
to introduce the account of the deluge, which so
intimately
concerned Noah and his three sons; after
which
the missing members are supplied, and the series
resumed
in substantially the same form as before (ix. 28,
29). Again, the genealogy continued in xi. 10 sqq.
breaks
off
(ver. 26) precisely as it had done before, by stating
the
age of a father at the birth of his three sons.
"And
Terah
lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and
Haran;"
the usual statement as to the length of his life
and
the fact of his death being postponed to ver. 32, in
all
the order to introduce some facts respecting Terah and par-
ticularly
respecting his sons, which had an important
bearing
on the subsequent history. And the
entire life
of
Abraham is fitted into the next link of the genealogy:
his
age at the birth of his son Isaac (xxi. 5), whom he
begat
(xxv. 19), and his full age at the time of his death
(xxv.
7, 8).
4 THE BOOK OF GENESIS
THE CREATION
OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
(CH. I. 1-II. 3).
The critics assign this opening section
of Genesis to P,
because
of its unvarying use of Elohim, as well as on the
ground
of its style and diction. They also
include in
this
section ii. 4a, which they regard as a summary state-
ment
of its contents. This and the alleged
difference of
style
between this section and the next can best be con-
sidered
hereafter. For the present it will be
sufficient to
give
attention to the diction. Dr. Dillmann
adduces the
following
words and expressions as indicative of P:
Nymi
kind,
species
(vs. 11, 12, 21,24, 25); Cr,xAhA ty>aHa beast of the
earth (vs. 24, 25, 30); CrawA creep, swarm, bring forth abun- dantly,
and Wm,r, moving
creature (vs. 20, 21); WmarA creep,
and Wm,r, creeping thing (vs. 21, 24-26, 28,
30); wbaKA
subdue
(ver.
28); hlak;xA
food (ver. 30); hv,q;mi gathering together, col-
lection (ver. 10); hbArAv; hrAPA be fruitful and multiply (vs. 22,
28) hbAqen;U rkAzA male and female (ver. 27); lyDib;hi divide (vs.
4,
6, 7, 14, 18); tUmD;
likeness (ver. 26). .
The distribution of these words in the
Hexateuch is instructive. That which is rendered "likeness" occurs
besides
in it only Gen. v. 1, 3, where it is used with ex-
press
allusion to i. 26. "Subdue"
occurs besides in the
Hexateuch
only Num. xxxii. 22, 29 (a chapter in which,
according
to the critics, the documents P, J, and E are intermingled, and both of these
verses contain what are
reckoned
indications of JE), and Josh. xviii. 1, an iso-
lated
verse in a JE paragraph. The rest of
these words
and
phrases occur nowhere else in Genesis, unless it be
in
the account of the flood. And the reason why most
Q of
them are to be found there is obvious.
The different
classes
of land animals brought into being at the creation
perished
in the flood, and it is natural that they should
be
mentioned in both cases; like mention is also made
THE CREATION (CH. I. 1-II. 3) 5
of
"food" as necessary to life; the perpetuation of the
species
leads to the reference to the sexes. The
full
phrase,
as used in Gen. i. "Be fruitful and multiply and
fill,"
or "replenish," only occurs again (ix. 1), in the
blessing
pronounced upon mankind after the flood, which
was
as appropriate as after the creation; the phrase "Be
fruitful
and multiply" occurs besides only in application
to
Abraham and his descendants, where it is equally in
place. Such of these words as occur elsewhere are
found
only
in the ritual law. "Food" and
"kind" and differ-
ent
sorts of animals are, as a matter of course, spoken of,
where
direction is given in respect to what mayor may
not
be eaten; and sex in like manner in prescribing the
animals
to be offered in sacrifice, or the purifications at the
birth
of children, or the rite of circumcision.
"Divide"
does
not occur in the narrative of the flood, but is found
again
in the ritual law with reference to the distinctions
there
made in regard to clean and unclean, holy and un-
holy
or common, or separating to special functions or
purposes,
or to cleavage in sacrifice. The word
translated
"gathering
together" is found but twice in the Hexateuch
apart
from Gen. i., viz., Ex. vii. 19, Lev. xi. 36, where
collections
of water are referred to, and nowhere else in
this
sense in the entire Old Testament.
It is manifest from the foregoing that
the occurrence
of
these words is determined, not by the predilection of
a
particular writer, but by the subject which calls for
their
employment. They belong not to the
characteris-
tics
of a document, but are the common property of all
who
use the language, and may be found whenever there
is
occasion to describe the object denoted by them.
Their
absence from all the paragraphs or clauses as-
signed
by the critics to J or E is to be accounted for
precisely
as their absence from every paragraph of P but
those
designated above.
6 THE BOOK OF GENESIS
For a more detailed account of the usage
of the words
common
to the creation and flood, see under ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P.
Elohim is plainly the appropriate name for
God
throughout
this section, which regards the Most High as
working
in nature and in the world at large.
True, the
creative
act may be ascribed to Jehovah (Ex. xx. 11),
when
the thought to be conveyed is that Israel's God,
who
brought him out of the land of Egypt, was the cre-
ator
of the world; but when the announcement to be
made
simply is that the world had a divine creator, Elo-
him
is the proper term, and is hence constantly used in
the
account of the creation.
I
THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE
EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.)
PRIMITIVE STATE AND FALL OF MAN (CH. II.
4-III. 24)
THE question to be considered is, Do
these chapters continue the narrative begun in the preceding section, or
do
they introduce a new and independent narrative from
an
altogether different source? The critics
allege that
they
stand in no relation to what goes before, that a new beginning is here made,
and that this account is taken
from
another document, that of J. It is said that the
second
chapter of Genesis cannot have been written by
the
author of the fu'st chapter; for (1) it is a second ac-
count
of the creation, and is superfluous for that reason;
(2)
it differs from the first account, and is irreconcilable
with
it; (3) the diction and style are different.
FALSE CRITICAL METHODS
The critics here bring into operation at
the outset two
vicious
methods, which characterize their whole course
of
procedure and are the most potent instruments which
they
employ in effecting the partition of the text.
The first is the arbitrary assumption that
two different
parts
of a narrative, relating to matters which are quite
distinct,
are variant accounts of the same thing.
It is
very
easy to take two narratives or two parts of the
same
narrative, which have certain points in common
8 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
but
which really describe different transactions, and lay
them
alongside of one another and point out the lack of correspondence between
them. The artifice of the crit-
ics
consists in their identifying distinct things, and then
every
divergence of the one from the other is claimed
as
evidence that these are variant traditions, and that
these
discrepant accounts cannot be by the same author;
they
must have been taken from different documents.
Whereas,
there is no mystery in the case and no occa-
sion
for any such extraordinary conclusion.
The simple
fact
is that the writer has finished one part of his story
and
has proceeded to another; and, as might be ex-
pected,
he does not detail over again what he had just
detailed
before.
The second of the vicious methods, which
is continu-
ally
practised by the divisive critics and is one of their
most
effective weapons, also finds exemplification in the
chapters
now under consideration. It is their
constant
effort
to create a discordance where none really exists.
Passages
are sundered from their context, which eluci-
date
and determine their meaning, and then any form of expression which admits of a
signification at variance
with
what is stated elsewhere is seized upon and pressed
to
the utmost and urged as a proof of diverse representa-
tions,
requiring the assumption of different documents;
when,
if it were only allowed to bear its natural sense in
the
connection in which it stands, all appearance of dis-
crepancy
will disappear. There is nothing for
which
the
critics seem to have such an aversion as a harmoniz-
ing
interpretation; and very naturally, for it annuls all
their
work. And yet it is the plain dictate of
common
sense
that the different parts of the same instrument
should
be interpreted in harmony, provided the language employed will in fairness
admit of such an interpreta-
tion.
PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-11I. 24) 9
The simple observance of this obvious
rule, together
with
the principle before referred to, that things which
are
really distinct should be treated as distinct, will not
only
relieve all the critical doubts and perplexities rela-
tive
to the chapters now before us, but the great major-
ity
of those which are raised in the rest of Genesis and
author;
of the Pentateuch as well.
NO DUPLICATE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION
That the second chapter does not contain
another ac-
count
of the creation additional to that in the first can
be
readily shown.
And in the first place it does not profess
to be an ac-
count
of the creation, but something additional to and )f their different from it. It
is in express terms declared to be a L in the sequel of the narrative of the
creation. The second sec-
tion
is introduced by a special descriptive title (ver. 4a) :
"These
are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth
when they were created." It is very
important to
understand
the precise meaning of these words and the
purpose
for which they are introduced. There has
been
much
dispute both as to the proper connection of this
clause
and how it is to be understood.
Is it a subscription to the preceding
section, setting
forth
its contents? Or is it introductory to
the following
section
and descriptive of its contents? It can
be shown
beyond
question that it is the heading of the section that
follows,
and is here introduced to announce its subject.
The formula "These are the
generations," etc., occurs
ten
times in the book of Genesis, and in every instance
but
the present indisputably as the title of the section to
which
it is prefixed. The history is parcelled
into" the
generations
of Adam" (v. 1), "the generations of Noah "
(vi.
9), "the generations of the sons of Noah" (x. 1),
10 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
"the
generations of Shem" (xi. 10),
"the generations of
Terah"
(ri. 27), and so on to the end of the book.
Each of these titles introduces a new
section of the
history,
longer or shorter as the case may be, and an-
nounces
the subject treated in that section. The
book
of
Genesis after the first or preliminary chapter is thus,
in
the plan of its author, divided into ten distinct sections,
to
each of which he has given a separate heading of this
uniform
pattern. They are called
"generations" be-
cause
the, framework of the entire history is a genealogy,
which
is traced in a direct line from Adam to Jacob and
his
posterity. All the facts that are
related and the
statements
made are introduced between the links of this
genealogy. The line of descent is arrested at the proper
point,
the narratives belonging there are inserted, and
then
the line of descent is taken up again just where it
left
off and proceeds as before. Divergent
lines are
traced,
as occasion arises, to a sufficient distance, and are
then
dropped, the writer uniformly reverting to the main
line
of descent, that of the chosen race, which is his prin-
cipal
theme. This being the constant plan of
the book
this
formula, which in every other instance is the title
of
the section to which it is prefixed, must be the same
in
this case likewise. It is the heading of
the second
section,
and can be nothing else.
This conclusion is not only demanded by
the uniform
analogy
of the entire series of similar titles but by other considerations likewise:
1.
It is confirmed by the identical structure of the im-
mediately
following clause here and in v. 1, where the
connection
is unquestioned. "In the day of
Jehovah
Elohim's
making earth and heaven," follows the title
"the
generations of the heaven and of the earth," in pre-
cise
conformity with "in the day of Elohim's creating
Adam,"
after the title "the generations of Adam."
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 11
2.
If ii. 4a is a subscription to the preceding section,
then
ii. 4b-iv. 26 is the only portion of the book without
a
title, while i. 1-ii. 3 will have two titles, one which is
entirely
appropriate at the beginning (i. 1), and one which
is
altogether unsuitable at the end.
3.
On the divisive hypothesis the additional incongru-
ity
results, that when the section ascribed to J (ii. 4b-ch.
iv.)
is excluded, and the connection restored, as it origi-
nally
existed in P, ii. 4a will be immediately followed by
v.
1, and thus two titles will have stood in direct juxta-
position.
Now what does the generations of the
heavens and of
the
earth mean? It has sometimes been
interpreted to
mean
an account of the origin of the heavens and of the
earth,
such as we find in ch. i., to which it is then claimed
that
this must be attached as explanatory of the contents
of
that chapter. But neither the words
themselves nor
their
usage elsewhere will admit of this interpretation.
"The book of the generations of Adam
" (v. 1) is a list
of
the descendants of Adam. "The
generations of Noah"
(vi.
9) records the history of Noah's family.
"The gener-
ations
of the sons of Noah" (x. 1) and "the generations
of
Shem" (xi. 10), trace the various lines of their descend-
ants. And so it is uniformly. "The generations of A
or
B" do not detail his ancestry or his origin, but either
give
the history of his immediate family or the continu-
ous
line of his descendants. And this the
proper signifi-
cation
of the Hebrew word so rendered necessarily de-
mands. It denotes "generations" in the
sense of that
which
is generated or begotten, the offspring of a pro-
genitor.
Accordingly this title, "the
generations of the heaven
and
the earth," must announce as the subject of the sec-
tion
which it introduces not an account of the way in
which
the heaven and the earth were themselves brought
12 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
into
being, but an account of the offspring of heaven and
earth;
in other words, of man who is the child of both
worlds,
his body formed of the dust of the earth, his soul
of
heavenly origin, inbreathed by God himself.
And so
the
sections proceed regularly. First, Gen. i. 1, "In
the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the
title
announcing that the theme of the first chapter is
the
creation. Then ii. 4, "The generations of the heav-
ens
and the earth," announcing that the theme of what
follows
is the offspring of heaven and earth, or the his-
tory
of Adam and his family. Then v. 1,
"The genera-
tions
of Adam," in which his descendants are traced to
Noah
and his sons. Then vi. 4," The
generations of
Noah,"
or the history of Noah's family, and so on to the
end
of the book.
But here we are met by Dr. Dillmann and
other lead-
ing
advocates of the divisive hypothesis, who say, It is
true
that "the generations of the heavens and the earth"
denote
that which has sprung from the heavens and the
earth;
but this is the title of ch. i. nevertheless, which
records
how grass and trees and animals and man came
forth
from the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars made
their
appearance in the heavens. This must,
therefore,
originally
have stood at the beginning of ch. i., and it has
been
transposed to its present position by the redactor.
This
shows what a useful person the redactor is in the
service
of the critics. Here is a clause which is
seriously
in
their way where it stands at present. It
rivets the
second
chapter to the first in more ways than one.
It
declares
positively that ch. ii. is not a parallel account of
the
creation taken from another source, but is a sequel
to
the narrative of the creation already given in ch. i.
Moreover,
this formula, which the critics tell us is one of
the
marks of the document P, to which the first chapter
is
alleged to belong, as distinguished from the document
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 13
J,
to which the section before us is referred, and whose
words
are the words of P and not of J, is here found at-
tached
to the wrong document, thus annulling in certain
marked
respects their favorite argument from diction and
style. It is an obstacle to be gotten rid of,
therefore, at
all
hazards. The aid of the redactor is
accordingly
called
in, and the disturbing clause is spirited away to a
safe
distance and located at the beginning of the first
chapter,
instead of the beginning of the second section,
where
it actually stands.
Only it is unfortunate that the redactor
is of no avail
in
the present instance. The clause in
question never
could
have been the title of ch. i. It is
obvious that the
heavens
and the earth must first be brought into exist-
ence
before the generations of the heavens and the earth
can
be spoken of, just as Adam and Noah must precede
the
generations of Adam and the generations of Noah.
Besides,
it would be altogether inappropriate as a title of
ch.
i. The firmament and the heavenly
bodies, the seas
and
the dry land, the work of the first four days, are
identical
with the heavens and the earth, not their off-
spring. The creating and shaping of the material uni-
verse
cannot with propriety be included under the "gen-
erations"
of the heavens and the earth, and the writer of
the
chapter could never have expressed its purport in
such
terms. And even the vegetable and animal
prod-
ucts,
which by creative fiat were made to issue from the
earth
on the third, fifth, and sixth days, were wholly of
an
earthly, not a heavenly, mould. And the
title, if un-
derstood
of such products, would stand in no relation to
the
subsequent titles of the book. Grass and
trees and
animals
supply no stepping-stone to the next title, the
Generations
of Adam. It is only Adam himself that
can
do
this. It is not until ver. 26 that the
creation of man
is
reached. And man in ch. i. is considered
simply in his
14 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
place
in the general scheme of created things.
He is in-
troduced
into the world; but there is no record of what
befell
him or his family, such as we are authorized to ex-
pect,
such as is in fact given in ii. 4b-iv. 26.
Every sim-
ilar
title in Genesis is followed either by a history of the immediate offspring or
by successive generations of de- scendants.
The clause which we have been considering
is an ob-
stacle
to the partition of the first two chapters which it
has
not been possible to remove by any critical device.
It
plainly declares the subject of the second section to
be
not the creation of the world, but the formation of
man
and the first stage of human history.
It remains to be added that an examination
of the
second
section itself will show that it does not in point
of
fact contain a fresh account of the creation.
The
opening
words, "In the day that Jehovah God made the
earth
and the heavens," do not introduce an account of
making
earth arid heaven, but presuppose it as having
already
taken place, and the writer proceeds to indicate
the
condition of things when it was done and what fol-
lowed
subsequently. No mention is made of the
forma-
tion
of the earth or the production of the dry land; none
of
the sea and its occupants; none of the firmament or of
the
sun, moon, and stars; none of covering the earth with
its
varied vegetation, but only of planting a garden in
Eden
and making its trees grow from the ground (vs. 8, 9).
When
banished from Eden, man was to eat "the herb of
the
field "(iii. 18), whose existence is thus assumed, but
whose
production is only spoken of in ch. i.
These par-
ticulars
could not be omitted from an account of the crea-
tion. To say, as is done by Dr. Dillmann, that they
may originally have been contained in
ch. ii., but were omitted
by R
because they were treated sufficiently in ch. i., is to
make
an assumption without a particle of evidence,
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-111. 24) 15
which
amounts simply to a confession that ch. ii. is not
what
it would have been if the writer had intended to
give
a narrative of the creation, and that its omissions
are
with definite reference to the contents of ch. i. In
other
words, ch. ii. has no claim to be regarded as a sep-
arate
and complete account of the creation; and it has
not
been prepared independently of ch. i., but is design-
edly
supplementary to it.
Chapter ii. has thus far been considered
negatively,
and
it has been shown what it is not. It is
not a second
account
of the creation; and it has not been prepared in-
dependently
of ch. i. and without regard to the contents
of
that first chapter. It is now in order
to state posi-
tively
what ch. ii. actually is. It is
evidently through-
out
preliminary to ch. iii., the narrative of the fall. In
order
to make this intelligible it was necessary to ex-
plain
(1), the two constituents of man's nature, his body
formed
of the dust of the ground, and the breath of life
imparted
directly by God himself (ver. 7). It was
neces-
sary
that this should be known, that the reader might
comprehend
on the one hand the potential immortality
set
within his reach, and on the other the sentence ac-
tually
incurred that dust must return to dust (iii. 19).
(2)
The locality, which was the scene of the temptation
and
fall, the garden of Eden, with its tree of life and the
tree
of the knowledge of good and evil (vs.8-17).
(3)
The
actors, Adam and Eve, in their superiority to the
rest
of the creation, and their relation to each other (vs.
18-25). These particulars could not have been incor-
porated
in ch. i. without marring its symmetry.
That
deals
with the creation of the world at large.
Every-
thing
is on a universal scale. And to
introduce a de-
tailed
description of the garden of Eden, with its arrange-
ments
and man's position in it, would have been quite
inappropriate. The plan and purpose of ch. i. made it
16 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
necessary
to reserve this for the following section, and
it
is accordingly given in ch. ii.
It follows from what has been said that
all compari-
sons
made, or contrasts drawn, between ch. i. and ch. ii.
on
the assumption that they are separate and indepen-
dent
accounts of the same transaction are necessarily fal-
lacious. In the one the scene embraces the whole world
with
all that it contains. In the other it is
limited to the
garden
of Eden, which is fitted up for the habitation of
the
first human pair. The first advances by
a succession
of
almighty fiats from the initial production of inanimate
matter
to the culmination of the whole grand process in
the
creation of man in the image of God. The
second
deals
exclusively with the primitive state of man, which
is
minutely explained with a special view to the tempta-
tion
and fall; all is on the plane of individual life and
moves
steadily forward to that first transgression by
which
man lost his original holiness and communion
with
God. The second chapter is thus in no
sense par-
allel
to the first, but is its natural sequel.
It is the suc-
ceeding
scene in the sacred history, the next act; so to
speak,
in the divine drama which is here transacting.
It
introduces
the reader to a new and distinct stage in the
unfolding
of that plan of God which it is the purpose of
the
book of Genesis to record.
With such marked differences in the
design and the
contents
of the two chapters, it follows, of course, that each
has
a character of its own distinct from the other.
It is
very
easy to set one over against the other and to point
out
their distinctive qualities. But the
dissimilar feat-
ures,
which so readily offer themselves to the observer,
result
directly and necessarily from the diversity of the
subjects
respectively treated in each, and require no as-
sumption
of the idiosyncrasies of different writers or the
peculiarities
of separate documents to account for them.
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 17
Thus, for example, if it be said with Dr.
Harper (" He-
braica,"
vol. i., pp. 25-27) that ch. i. is " generic," dealing
with
species and classes, and ch. ii. is "individual," how
could
they be otherwise, considering their respective
themes? One records the formation of the world as a
whole,
and of the various orders of beings that are
in
it; the other deals specifically with the first human
pair.
If it be said that the first chapter is
"systematic,"
"chronological,"
and "scientific," the reason is that the
nature
of its subject brings these features into marked
prominence. When the work of six successive days is
to
be stated, each advancing upon the preceding by reg-
ular
gradations, and together embracing all the various
ranks
of created things, the subject itself prescribes the
mode
of treatment adapted to it, which must be system-
atic,
chronological, and scientific, if the theme proposed
is
to be clearly and satisfactorily presented.
But why
should
a writer who shows his capacity for the classifi-
cation
of genera and species where his subject demands
it,
lug in his scientific terms or methods where no such
classification
is called for? If he has pursued a
chrono-
logical
method in ch. i., where the subject divides itself
into
successive periods, what is to hinder his adoption of
a
topical method in chs. ii. and iii., where he groups the
various
incidents and particulars with masterly skill, and
all
leads as directly up to the catastrophe of the fall as
in
ch. i. all marches steadily forward to the Sabbath-day
of
rest? There is as clear evidence of
system in the
logical
order of the narration in chs. ii. and iii. as in the
chronological
order of ch. i. And there is the same
graphic
power and masterly presentation in the grand
and
majestic tableaux of ch. i. as in the simple and
touching
scenes so delicately depicted in chs. ii. and iii.
When
it is said that ch. ii. is "picturesque and poet-
18 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
ical,"
it may "be said with equal propriety that ch. i. is
sublimely
poetical. The scenes are drawn in bold
relief,
and
stand as vividly before the reader as anything in the
chapters
that follow; only the scenes themselves are of a different description. One gives the impression of im-
mensity
and power and vast terrestrial changes; the
other
of beauty and pathos and the development of per-
sonal
character. Cannot the same writer handle diverse
themes? And if he do, must he not be expected to
treat
each
in he way appropriate to itself ?
It is claimed that ch. i. deals in
"stereotyped"
phrases
and is "verbose and repetitious," while the
style
of chs. ii. and iii. is "free and flowing." This
again
is due to the nature of the subjects with which
they
respectively deal. Ch. i. is monumental,
conducted
on a
scale of vastness and magnificence, and its charac-
ters
are massive and unyielding as if carved in granite.
Chs.
ii. and iii. deal with plastic forms of quiet beauty,
the
charms of paradise, the fateful experiences of Adam
and
Eve. In the onward progress of creation
all is con-
ducted
by the word of omnipotence, to which the result
precisely
corresponds. To mark this correspondence
in
the
most emphatic manner, the command is issued in
explicit
terms; and the answering result, which exactly
matches
it, is described in identical language. There
are,
besides,
certain constant and abiding features, which
characterize
the creative work from first to last, and
which
abide the same in the midst of all the majestic
changes
which are going forward. There is the
regu-
lar
recurrence of each creative day, of the daily putting
forth
of almighty power, of God's approval of his work
which
perfectly represents the divine idea, the name
given
to indicate its character, the blessing bestowed to
enable
it to accomplish its end. To mark all
this in the
most
emphatic manner, the identical phrases are re-
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 19
peated
throughout from first to last. The
solemn and
impressive
monotone, which thus runs through the
whole,
heightens the grandeur of the description, and is
suggestive
of that divine serenity which steadily and un-
deviatingly
moves onward in its appointed course, while
the
ponderous periods aptly befit the massive objects
with
which they deal. There is no call for
such a style
in
simple narrative like ch. ii., where it would be utterly
out
of place and stilted in the extreme.
That the char-
acteristics
which have been referred to are due to the
subject
of ch. i., and not to some imaginary peculiarity
of
the writer, is plain, even if the critical partition of
Genesis
were accepted. For the narratives, which
the
critics
assign to the same document as ch. i., differ as
widely
from it as ch. ii. does.
In like manner Dr. Dillmann urges, in
proof of a di-
versity
of writers, that the author of ch. i. "restricts
himself
to the great facts without entering in an explan-
atory
way into particular details," and that he uses "a ceremonious,
solemn, formal style of writing," as dis-
tinguished
from the "evenness" of chs. ii. and iii. This
is
sufficiently answered in what has been already said.
The
difference arises from the nature of the subject, not
from
the habit of the writer. As Dr. Dillmann himself
justly
says: "The author in writing was
fully conscious
of
the unique loftiness of his subject; there is not a
word
too much, yet all is clear and well defined; no-
where
is there anything artificial and far-fetched; only
once
in an appropriate place he allows himself to rise to
elevated
poetic speech (ver. 27); even the expressions
savoring
of a remote antiquity, which he here and there
employs
(vs. 2, 24), have evidently come down to him
with
the matter from the olden time, and serve admi-
rably
to enhance the impression of exalted dignity."
It is said that ch. i. proceeds from the
lower to the
20 GENERATIONS OF REA VEN AND EARTH
higher,
ending with man; while, on the contrary, ch. ii.
begins
with the highest, viz., with man, and proceeds to
the
lower forms of life. But as ch. ii.
continues the his-
tory
begun in ch. i., it naturally starts where ch. i. ends,
that
is to say, with the creation of man, especially as the
whole
object of the chapter is to depict his primitive
condition.
These various contrasts between ch. i.
and ii. explain
themselves
at once, as has now been shown from the di-
versity
of theme. They could only be supposed to
lend
support
to the critical hypothesis of different documents
on
the false assumption that the theme of both chapters
was
the same.
NO DISCREPANCIES.
While each of these chapters pursues
consistently and
steadily
its own proper aim, they have certain points of
contact,
in which it is to be remarked that the second
chapter
supplements the first, but there is no discrep-
ancy
between them. In fact it is as
inconsistent with the
document
hypothesis as it is with that of unity of
authorship
to suppose that we have here two divergent
stories
of the creation. The redactor does not
place
them
side by side, as two varying accounts, which he
makes
no attempt to reconcile, but lays before his read-
ers
precisely as he found them. There is no
intimation
that
they are alternatives, one or the other of which may
be
accepted at pleasure. On the contrary,
chs. i. and ii.
are
recorded as equally true and to be credited alike.
The
inference cannot reasonably be avoided that the re-
dactor,
if there was one, saw no inconsistency in these
narratives. Elsewhere the critics tell us he has
corrected
divergent
accounts into harmony. He could have
seen
no need
of correction here, for he has made none.
The
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 21
case
is supposable indeed that some minute and subtle inconsistency may have escaped
his notice. But there
can
be no open or glaring inconsistency, or he would
have
detected and removed it, or at least remarked upon
it. To suppose otherwise is to charge him with
defi-
ciency
in ordinary intelligence.
The first chapter continues the narrative
of the crea-
tion
until the crowning-piece was put upon the work by
making
man in the image of God, and giving him, as
God's
vicegerent, dominion over all in this lower world.
To
prepare the way for the history of the temptation and
fall,
which comes next in order, it was needful to give
further
particulars respecting man's primitive condition,
which
it would have been incongruous to include in the
general
account of the creation of the world in ch. i.
These
are accordingly supplied in ch. ii.
One of these particulars is his location
in the garden
of
Eden. In order to lead up in a simple
and natural
way
to the description of this garden, the writer reminds
his
readers, in precise conformity with ch. i., that when
heaven
and earth were first made the latter contained
nothing
for the subsistence of man. Ch. ii. 4, 5
should be
rendered,
"In the day that Jehovah God made earth and
heaven
no bush of the field was yet in the earth, and no
herb
of the field had yet sprung up."
There was neither
bush
nor herb to serve man for food. The threefold
classification
of i. 11, 12--grass, herb, and tree--is not
repeated
here, for grass was the food of beasts, and there-
fore
not to the purpose. "Bush" is
used rather than
"tree,"
to make the negative stronger. There was
not
only
no tree, there was not even a bush.
Subsequently
trees
(ii. 9) and herbs (iii. 18) are named, as the plants
yielding
food for human use, just as in i. 29.
The suggestion that in ch. i. both trees
and herbs are
assigned
to man as his food from the beginning, while in
22 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
chs.
ii., iii. he eats the fruit of trees in
Eden, and is
condemned
to eat herbs after his fall (iii. 18), overlooks
the
real point of contrast, which is not between trees and
herbs,
but between the trees of the garden and the herb
of
the field, between the tillage of paradise and gaining
his
bread by the sweat of his face from a reluctant soil
bringing
forth thistles and thorns. Only trees
are ex-
pressly
spoken of in Eden, because one tree was the test
of
obedience, and another the pledge of immortal life;
but
there is no more reason for denying the existence of
esculent
herbs in paradise than for assuming that there
were
no fruit-trees outside of it.
The form of expression, "In the day
that Jehovah
God
made earth and heaven," has given occasion to cavil,
as
though that was here assigned to one day, which ch. i.
divides
between the second and third creative days.
It
might
as well be said that Num. iii. 1, "In the day that
Jehovah
spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai " implies that
all
the revelations given to Moses at Sinai were made
within
the compass of a single day; or that " the day of
adversity
"means a period of twenty-four hours.
The
use
of "day," in the general sense of "time" is too fa-
miliar
to require further comment.
The reason given for the absence of
food-bearing
plants
is twofold; there was no rain to moisten the
earth,
and no man to till the ground.1
There is no vari-
ance,
here with ch. i. The suggestion that if
the land
had
just emerged from the water, rain would not be
1 My friend, Dr. C. M. Mead, of Hartford
Theological Seminary, in casual conversation on this subject suggested what, if
my memory
serves
me, was also maintained by Ebrard in a little tract on Natural
Science
and the Bible, issued several years since, that the last clause
of
ii. 5 is not connected with that which immediately precedes.
"There
was no plant (for there had been no rain), and there was no
man." Upon this construction there is not even the semblance
of an
intimation
that man existed before plants.
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 23
needed,
leaves out of view that according to i. 9, 10, the separation of land and water
was complete, and the earth
was
dry land, before any plants appeared upon its sur-
face. A well-watered garden with ever-flowing
streams
was
to be the abode of man; in anticipation of this it
was
natural to refer to the need of rain.
And there is
no
implication that man was made prior to the existence
of
vegetation, contrary to i. 12, 27. For
1. Ch. ii. alleges nothing respecting the
relative prior-
ity
of man or plants. It does not deal with
the general
vegetation
of the globe any further than to carry us back
to a
time when it did not exist. Of its
actual production
ch.
ii. says nothing. Its positive statement
is restricted
to
the trees of the garden of Eden (vs. 8, 9), and we are
nowhere
informed that these were brought into being at
the
same time with vegetation elsewhere.
Nothing is
said
of the origin of grass and herbs, or of trees, outside
of
Eden, except in ch. i. Dr. Dillmann
admits this. He
says: "One would expect that in what follows,
either
before
or after ver. 7, mention should be made of the
production
of the vegetable world, and completing the
formation
of the world itself. But there is
nothing of
the
sort. There can hardly have been such a
gap orig-
inally;
it rather appears that something has been omitted
by
R, either because it seemed a needless repetition after
ch.
i., or disagreed with ch. i." The
passage does not ful-
fil
the critics' expectation, for the simple reason that the
writer
had no such intention as they impute to him.
He
is
not giving another account of the creation.
He is
merely
going to speak of the garden of Eden; and that
is
all he does.
2. The existence of man is stated to be a
condition of
that
of plants designed for human use, not as an ante-
cedent
but as a concomitant. His tillage is
requisite (ii.
5),
not to their production but to their subsequent care
24 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
and
cultivation. Jehovah planted the garden
and made
the
trees grow in it, and then set man to till it, ver. 15,
where
the same verb is used as in ver. 5.
3.
The order of statement is plainly not that of time,
but
of association in thought. Ver. 7, man
is formed;
ver.
8, the garden is planted and man put in it; ver. 9,
trees
are made to spring up there; ver. 15, man is taken
and
put in it. We cannot suppose the writer's
meaning
to
be that man was made before there was any place in
which
to put him, and that he was kept in suspense until
the
garden was planted; that he was then put there be-
fore
the trees that were to supply him with food had
sprung
up; and that after the trees were in readiness he
was
put there a second time. It is easy to
deduce the
most
preposterous conclusions from a writer's words by
imputing
to them a sense which he never intended.
In
order
to pave the way for an account of the primitive
paradise,
he had spoken of the earth as originally desti-
tute
of any plants on which man might subsist, the ex-
istence
of such plants being conditioned on that of man
himself. This naturally leads him to speak, first, of
the
formation
of man (ver. 7); then of the garden in which
he
was put (ver. 8). A more particular
description of the
garden
is then given (vs.9-14), and the narrative is again
resumed
by repeating that man was placed there (ver. 15).
As
there was plainly no intention to note the strict
chronological
succession of events, it cannot in fairness
be
inferred from the order of the narrative that man was
made
prior to the trees and plants of Eden, much less
1The critics' assumption that vs. 10-15 is
an interpolation, inasmuch
as
the description of the garden is a departure from strict narrative
which
is afterward resumed, as well as Budde's notion (Biblische Ur-
geschichte,
pp. 48 sqq.) that the tree of life is to be erased from ver. 9
and
elsewhere, as not belonging to the narrative originally, deserve
notice
only as illustrating the perfectly arbitrary standard of genuine-
ness
which is set up.
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 25
that
he preceded those of the world at large, of which
nothing
is here said.
But what cannot be accomplished by the
order of the
narrative
some critics propose to effect by means of a
grammatical
construction. They put vs. 5, 6, in a
paren-
thesis,
and link ver. 4 directly to ver. 7, and read thus:
Ver.4,
In the day that Jehovah God made the earth and
the
heavens (ver. 5, Now no bush of the field was yet in
the
earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up;
for
Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,
and
there was not a man to till the ground.
Ver. 6, And
there
went up vapor from the earth, and watered the
whole
face of the ground). Ver. 7, Then
Jehovah God
formed
man, etc. The meaning will then be: "In the day
that
Jehovah God made earth and heaven, Jehovah God
formed
man of the dust of the ground, while no bush of
the
field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field
had
yet sprung up." But apart from the
fact that the
assumption
of so long a parenthesis is of very doubtful
propriety
in Hebrew construction generally, it is abso-
lutely
impossible here. Ver. 5 states a twofold
reason
why
there were no plants adapted to human use; there
had
been no rain and there was no man to use them.
The
first of these conditions is supplied in ver. 6, vapor
rises,
and falling in rain waters the ground; the second, in
ver.
7, man is made; vs. 6 and 7 must accordingly
stand
in like relation to ver. 5, so that ver. 6 cannot be
included
in the parenthesis and ver. 7 be linked back to
ver.
4.
Furthermore, ch. ii. does not contradict
ch. i. in re-
spect
to the order of the creation of man and of the
lower
animals. The allegation that it does
rests upon the
assumption
that the Hebrew tense here used necessarily
implies
a sequence in the order of time, which is not
correct. The record is (ver. 19), "And out of the
ground
26 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
Jehovah
God formed all the beasts of the field, and all
the
fowls of heaven, and brought them to Adam." Ac-
cording
to Hebrew usage this need not mean that the
formation
of the birds and the beasts was subsequent to
all
that is previously recorded in the chapter, or that they
were
then first formed with the view of providing a suit-
able
companion for Adam. And when the scope
of the
passage
is duly considered it will be seen that this can-
not
be its meaning.
It is a significant fact that Dr.
Delitzsch, who is an
adherent
of the document hypothesis, and can be sus-
pected
of no bias against it, and who in all the former
editions
of his "Commentary on Genesis" found ch. i.
and
ch. ii at variance on this point, in the, last edition,
embodying
his most matured views, affirms that there is
no
discrepancy whatever, that "et formavit . . . et
adduxit
== et cum form asset adduxit," and that this is
both
possible in point of style and consonant to the
mode
of writing in the Bible history.
The English rendering which best suggests
the rela-
tion
of the clauses is, "Jehovah God having formed out
of
the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of
heaven,
brought them unto the man." The
Hebrew
phrase
suggests that forming the animals preceded their
being
brought to the man, but need not suggest anything
whatever
as to the relation of time between their forma-
tion
and what had been mentioned just before in the nar-
rative. In numberless passages in the English version
of
the Bible similar expressions are paraphrased in order
to
express this subordination of the first verb to the
second. Thus in Gen. iii. 6 the Hebrew reads,
"And
the
woman saw that the tree was good for food, . . .
and
she took of the fruit thereof," for which the English
version
correctly substitutes, "And when
the woman saw
. .
. she took." It might with equal
propriety be
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. ii. 4-III. 24) 27
rendered,
"The woman seeing that the tree was good for
food
. . . took of the fruit thereof. "
Dr. Dillmann admits that the tense here
used might
antedate
what immediately precedes, but insists that ver.
18, "I will make him an help meet for
him," implies that
the
animals were now made as well as brought to Adam.
But
to suppose that the beasts and birds were made in
execution
of this divine purpose is not only a grotesque conception in itself, but
involves the incongruity that the
LORD'S
first attempts were failures. If there
are critics
who
account this "the natural interpretation," it is in
the
face of the whole Israelitish conception of God as
expressed
by every writer in the Old Testament.
Ob-
serve
that God's original purpose, as here announced, is
not
I will make him a companion of some sort, or such a
companion
as he may be willing to have, but I will make
him
an help meet for him, or, more exactly rendered, a
help
corresponding to him, a precise counterpart to him-
self. The beasts were brought to Adam not as the
com-
panion
intended for him, but "to see what he would call
them,"
i.e., to let them make their impression on him and
thus
awaken in his mind a sense both of his need of com-
panionship
and of their unfitness for the purpose.
When
this
had been accomplished Eve was made. The
ani-
mals
are here regarded simply with a view to this end.
If
the writer were describing the creation of the inferior
animals
as such, he would speak of all the orders of liv-
ing
things, not neglecting reptiles and aquatic animals.
The LORD made the birds and beasts and
brought them
to
Adam. The main point is that they were
brought to
Adam. It was of no consequence, so far as the imme-
diate
purpose of the narrative is concerned, when they
were
made, whether before Adam or after, and the mere
order
of statement cannot in fairness be pressed as
though
it determined the order of time in this particu-
28 GENERATIONS
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
lar. If, however, this is insisted upon, and we
are told
that
according to the "natural interpretation" of this
passage
it teaches that the birds and beasts were not
made
until after Adam, then it must be said that the
same
sort of "natural interpretation" will create absurd-
ities
and contradictions in many other passages beside.
Thus
in Gen. xxiv. 64, 65, "Rebekah saw Isaac and light-
ed
off the camel, and she said to the servant, What man
is
this, and the servant said, It is my master." Here, if
the
order of statement is made the order of time, Re-
bekah
alighted, out of respect to her future husband, be-
fore
she had inquired and learned who the man was that
she
saw. So Ex. iv. 31, "And the people
believed and
they
heard, . . . and they bowed their heads and wor-
shipped." According to this the people believed the
words
of Moses and Aaron before they heard them.
It
is
said of the men sent by Joshua to spy out Jericho
(Josh.
ii. 22), "They came unto the
mountain and abode
there
three days until the pursuers were returned; and
the
pursuers sought them and found them not."
From
which
it appears that the pursuers returned from their
unsuccessful
search before their search was begun.
The
old
prophet in Bethel asked his sons about the man of God
who
came from Judah (I Kin. xiii. 12), "What way
went
he? And his sons saw what way the man of
God
went." Here "saw" is plainly equivalent to
"had seen,"
since
the man had left some time before. Isa. xxxvii.
2-5,
Hezekiah sent Eliakim and others to Isaiah, and
they
said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah so and so:
and
the servants of Hezekiah came to Isaiah and Isaiah
said
unto them, etc. That is, they told
Isaiah what they
had
been bidden to say before they came to him.
Deut.
xxxi.
9, "And Moses wrote this law and
delivered it
unto
the priests," i. e., he delivered to them the law
which
he had written; the delivery of the law was subse-
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 29
quent
to the address to Joshua (vers. 7, 8), but not the
writing
of it.
Now, any candid man may judge whether
declining to
accept
a principle of interpretation which leads to such
absurd
results can be called wresting Scripture from its
natural
sense? If not, then no suspicion of
wresting
Scripture
language can possibly attach to the assertion
that
there is not a shadow of contrariety between ch. i.
and
ch. ii. in respect to the order of creation.
It is clear that the alleged
inconsistencies do not exist
in
the record but are of the critics' own making.
It is
surprising
that they do not see that in their eagerness to
create
discrepancies in evidence of a diversity of writers
they
are cutting away the ground beneath their own
feet. Glaring discrepancies might consist with the
frag-
mentary
but not with the documentary hypothesis.
The
manner
in which these documents are supposed to be
woven
together demands a high degree of skill and intel-
ligence
in the redactor; and to allege at the same time
that
"he did not have insight sufficient to enable him to
see
that he was all the time committing grave blunders"
is
self-contradictory.
In the diction of these chapters Dillmann
notes the
following
words and phrases as indicative of J :
1. hWAfA make or rcayA
form, instead of xrABA create, as in ch. i.
But
"make" is used ten times in the first section, and of
the
same things as "create," cf. i. 1 with vs. 7, 8; i. 26
with
ver. 27; i.21 with ver. 25, ii. 3. In
ch. i. the promi-
nent
thought is that of the immediate exercise of divine
almighty
power, hence, ver. 1, "God created the heaven
and
the earth;" ver. 21, "created whales and winged fowl;"
ver.
27, "created man," so v. i. 2; "all which God created"
ii.
3; and these are all the P passages in which the word
occurs. Ch. ii. directs attention to the material, of
which
the
bodies were composed; hence, ver. 7, "formed man
30 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
of
dust;" ver. 19, "formed beasts out of the ground." In
Isa.
xliii. 1; xlv. 7, 12, 18, "create," "form," and "make
"
are
used together, and in the same sentence, of God's
creative
agency. "Form" occurs nowhere
in the Hexa-
teuch
except in this chapter; in the only other instance
in
which the creation of man is alluded to in a paragraph
assigned
to J, Gen. vi. 7 the word "create" is used; it
likewise
occurs in Ex. xxxiv. 10; Num. xvi. 30 J.
And if
the
absence of "form" from the rest of J has no signifi-
cance,
why is there any in its absence from P?
2. hd,W.Aha tY.aHa beast of the field (ii.19, 20; iii. 1, 14) instead
of Cr,xAhA
ty>aHa beast
of the earth, as
i. 24, 25; also hd,W.Aha HayWi
bush
of the field
(ii. 5), hc,W.Ah bW,fe herb of the field (ii. 5; iii.
18). The open field is here in tacit contrast with
the en-
closed
and cultivated garden; cr. iii. 18.
"Beast of the
field"
is the ordinary phrase throughout the Bible.
But
when
terrestrial are contrasted with aquatic animals
(i.
21, 22), and especially when the whole broad earth
is
spoken of, they are naturally called "beasts of the earth."
3. MraPaha this
time, now (ii. 23). See chs. xviii.,
xix.
Marks
of J, No.9.
4. rIbfEBa because (iii. 17). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of J,
No.
17.
5. yTil;bil; not to (iii. 11). See chs. xvii., xix., Marks of
J,
No. 14.
6. txz.o hma
what is this (iii. 13). See ch.
xii. 10-22,
Marks
of J, No.7.
7.
NObc,Afi sorrow, toil (iii 16, 17); it occurs
but once
besides
in the Old Testament (v. 29), and with express
allusion
to this passage.
8. wreGe drive out (iii. 24). See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks of
E,
No.5.
9. lOql;
fmawA
hearken unto the
voice
(iii. 17). See ch.
xvi.,
Marks of J, No. 8.
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 31
10. hBAr;hi hBAr;ha greatly multiply (iii. 16). See ch. xvi.,
Marks
of J, No. 10.
Jehovah is distinctively the God of
revelation and of redemption; hence in this section, where God's grace to
man
is the prominent thought, his care and favor be-
stowed
upon him in his original estate, the primal prom-
ise
of mercy after the fall, and the goodness mingled with
severity
which marked the whole ordering of his condi-
tion
subsequently, that salutary course of discipline which
was
instituted with a view to gracious ends, Jehovah is
appropriately
used. At the same time, to make it plain
that
Jehovah is not a different or inferior deity, but that
the
God of grace is one with God the Creator, Jehovah
Elohim
are here combined. In the interview of
Eve with
the
serpent (iii. 1-5), however, Elohim is used, as is cus-
tomary
when aliens speak or are spoken to. This
shows
that
these names are used discriminatingly, and that the
employment
of one or the other is regulated not by the
mere
habit of different writers, but by their suitableness
to
the subject-matter.
It is alleged that a different conception
of God is pre-
sented
in this section from that which is found in the
preceding. "Jehovah forms men and beasts, breathes
the
breath
of life into man's nostrils, builds a rib into a woman,
plants a garden, takes a man and puts
him into it, brings
the
beasts to the man, walks in the cool of the day, speaks
(iii.
22) as though he were jealous of the man." But as
Elohim
and Jehovah are words of different signification
and
represent the Most High under different aspects of
his
being, they must when used correctly and with regard
to
their proper meaning be associated with different con-
ceptions
of God, This does not argue a diversity of
writers,
but simply that the divine name has each time
been
selected in accordance with the idea to be expressed,
Elohim is the more general designation of
God as the
32 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
Creator
and providential Governor of the world and of
all
mankind. Jehovah is his personal name,
and that by
which
he has made himself known when entering into
close
relations with men, and particularly the chosen race,
as
the God of revelation and grace. The
intimacy thus established between the Creator and the creature involves
a
condescension to man and placing himself in accord
with
man, which requires anthropomorphisms for its ex-
pression
and can be made intelligible in no other way.
There
is not the slightest inconsistency between the an-
thropomorphisms
of chs. ii., iii., and the lofty conceptions
of
ch. i., and no ground whatever for assuming that they
are
the ideas of distinct writers. They
abound alike in the
Prophets
and in the Psalms, where they are freely in-
termingled
in their devout utterances. With one
breath
the
Psalmist speaks of God as knowing the secrets of the
heart
(xliv. 22), and with the next calls upon him, "Awake,
why
sleepest thou?" (ver. 24). Ps.
cxxxix. links with the
most
exalted description in human language of the omni-
presence
and omniscience of the infinite God the prayer,
(ver.
23), "Search me and know my heart," as though it
was
necessary for the Most High to make a careful in-
vestigation
in order to ascertain what is hidden there.
It should be observed further that the
preceding sec-
tion,
with all its grandeur and simplicity, has its anthro-
pomorphisms
likewise. Each creative fiat is uttered
in
human language (i. 3, 6 sqq.). God
"called the light
MOy"
(i. 5), giving Hebrew names to that and various other
objects. He "saw the light that it was good"
(i. 4), thus
inspecting
the work of each day and pronouncing upon
its
quality. He uttered a formula of
blessing upon the
various
orders of living things (i. 22, 28). He
deliberated
with
himself prior to the creation of man (i. 26).
Man
was
made "in the image of God," an expression which
has
been wrested to imply a material form.
Time was
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 33
spent
upon the work, and this was divided into six suc-
cessive
days, like so many working periods of men.
When
the work ,vas done, God rested on the seventh
day
(ii. 2); and thus the week was completed, another
human
measure of time. All this is
anthropomorphic.
He
who would speak intelligibly to finite comprehension
of
the infinite God must use anthropomorphisms.
The
difference
is not of kind, but of degree.
MUTUAL
RELATION OF THIS AND THE PRECEDING SECTION.
The inter-relation between these sections
is such as to
show
that they cannot be, as the critics claim, from sep-
arate
and independent documents.
1.
The distribution of the matter gives evidence of pre-
arrangement
and cannot be purely accidental. The
crea-
tion
of the world, heaven, earth, and sea, with all that
they
contain, is described in ch. i., and is assumed in ch.
ii. The latter simply gives details, which were
necessa-
rily
passed over in the plan of the former, respecting the
separate
formation of man and woman and fitting up the
garden
for their habitation. Ch. ii. 19 is the
only ap-
parent
exception to the specific and limited character of
this
section. But even this is no real
exception, since it
is
obvious, as has already been shown, that the formation
of
the beasts and birds is only incidentally mentioned as
subordinate
to the principal statement, and the one of
chief
importance in the connection that God brought
them
to Adam to receive their names. Again,
God gave
names
to certain things in ch. i.; Adam gave names to
others
in chs. ii., iii.; and these are precisely adjusted to
one
another, neither duplicating nor omitting any.
God
gave
names to day and night, heaven, earth, and seas (i.
5,
8, 10), and to Adam (v. 1). Adam gave
names to the
inferior
animals (ii. 20), and to Eve (ii. 23 ; iii. 20).
34 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
2. The title ii. 4a has been shown to belong to
this
section,
and contains explicit reference to the preceding
of
which this is declared to be the sequel.
And in the
body
of the section there are numerous allusions to, or coincidences with, the
preceding or other so-called P sec-
tions. If the construction of i. 1 adopted by
Dillmann
be
correct, there is a striking similarity in structure be-
tween
i. 1, 2 P, and ii.. 4b, 5 J, "in the beginning when
God
created, etc., the earth was waste and void," corre-
sponding
to " in the day that Jehovah God made, etc., no
bush
of the field was yet in the earth." J ii. 4b strikingly
resembles
P v. 1b in the form of expression; so do i. 4a
P
and vi. 2a J; i. 31a, vi. 12a P and viii.13b J;
Cr,x, earth, without the article, i. 24 P, as ii. 4
J. The paronomasia
UhbovA UhTo (i.2),
Ubr;U
UrP; (i. 22,28) P
recalls in J MdAxA .
. .
hmAdAxE (ii.
7), wyxi... hw>Axi (ver. 23), dnAvA fnA (iv.14), rp,xevA rpAfA (xviii. 27). The first person plural used of God (i. 26
P),
notwithstanding the strictness of Hebrew monotheism
has
its counterpart in J, iii. 22; xi. 7.
The use of hWAfA
made (iii. 1 J) in reference to the beasts,
instead of rcayA
formed, as ii. 19 J, is a reminiscence of i. 25
P. 'C~~':'I'~ cherubim (iii. 24 J) occurs in the Pentateuch besides only
in
P.
3.
The repeated occurrence of Jehovah Elohim
throughout
chs. ii., iii. is with evident reference to ch. i.
This
combination of divine names occurs nowhere else
with
such regularity and frequency, though it is found
in a
few other passages, e.g., Ex. n. 30; 2 Sam. vii. 22,
25;
1 Chron. xvii. 16, 17; Jon. iv. 6; cf. 1 Sam. vi. 20.
This
relieves it from. Dr. Harper's charge1
of being "an
un-Hebraic
expression," and refutes the notion of Hup-
feld2
that it is adopted here without reference to ch. i.,
because
as the full name of God it was appropriate to
the
state of paradise; from which there was a descent to
1 Hebraica, vol. i., p.
23. 2 Quellen der Genesis,
p. 124.
PRIMITIVE
STATE OF MAN (CH. II. 4-III. 24) 35
Jehovah
alone after the fall; that of Reuss1 that it is
indicative
of a special document distinct from both P
and
J, and that of Budde2 that it arose from the com-
bination
of two documents, one of which used the name
Jehovah
and the other Elohim. In every other
passage,
in
which it is found, it denotes that Jehovah the God of
Israel
is likewise Elohim the God of the universe.
It
must
have the same meaning here; it can only be in-
tended
to suggest that Jehovah, now first introduced, is
identical
with Elohim before spoken of in ch. i.
This
is
admitted by the critics generally, who seek, however, to
evade
the natural inference of the common authorship of
both
sections by the assumption, which has no other
basis
than the hypothesis that it is adduced to support,
that
Elohim was inserted by R.
And while it is plain that chs. ii., iii.
is thus adjusted to
ch.
i., it is no less clear that i. 1-ii. 3 anticipates what is
to
follow, and purposely prepares the way for it.
1.
The emphasis with which it is repeated at the close
of
each creative act, "and God saw that it was good" (i.
4,
10, 12, etc.), and affirmed at the end of the whole, "be-
hold,
it was very good" (ver. 31), would be unmeaning
except
as a designed preliminary to the reverse which
was
shortly to follow in the fall (ch. iii.).
And this,
moreover,
is necessary to explain the otherwise unac-
countable
declaration (vi. 11 P), that "the earth was cor-
rupt
before God," the mystery of which is unrelieved by
anything
that P contains.
2. Ch. ii. 3 is evidently preliminary to
the fourth com-
mandment
(Ex. xx. 8-11), which again in its terms dis-
tinctly
refers back to i. l-ii. 3. The ten
commandments
in
Ex. xx. are by the critics referred to E, with which,
according
to Dillmann, J was acquainted. He must,
1 Geschichte der heiligen Schriften d. A. T., p. 257.
2 Biblische Urgeschichte, pp. 233, 234.
36 GENERATIOINS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
therefore,
have known and believed that the world was
created
in six days, and can have written nothing in
Gen.
ii., iii. inconsistent with this
belief. This can only
be
evaded by alleging that the commandments are not
preserved
in Ex. xx. in their genuine original form.
Dill-
mann
disputes Ex. xx. 11, because a different reason is
given
for observing the Sabbath in Deut. v. 15.
But Ex.
xx.
is the authentic transcript, while Deut. v. is a repro-
duction
with hortatory modifications. This
Dillmanna
admits
in other instances; but Delitzsch very properly
contends
that this is no exception. The rejection
of the
verse
is simply the usual device of the critics for dispos-
ing
of whatever contravenes their hypothesis.
Instead
of
adapting their hypothesis to the phenomena presented
by
the text, they insist upon remodelling the text into
accordance
with their hypothesis. The advantage of
this
method is that the critic can thus triumphantly es-
tablish
whatever be sets out to prove.
CAIN AND ABEL--CAIN'S DESCENDANTS (CH.
IV.).
It is said that vs. 17-24 is at variance
with the rest of
the
chapter, and with the J document generally in re-
spect
both to the life of Cain and the fact of the deluge.
It
is hence claimed that extracts from separate documents
have
here been combined.
While Cain is represented in vs. 11, 14, as condemned
for
the murder of his brother to be a fugitive and a wan-
derer
in the earth, it is affirmed that, according to ver. 17,
he
led a settled life and built a city. But
(1) it then re-
mains
to be accounted for, if these stories are in such
direct
antagonism, that R could have put them to-
gether
without explanation or remark, as though he per-
ceived
no conflict between them and had no idea that his
readers
would suspect any. (2) The fact is that
Cain was
CAIN AND ABEL (CH. IV.) 37
expelled
from the seat of God's presence, the society of
man,
and cultivated land, to the wild steppes of the land
of
Nod (so called from dnA wanderer, in his sentence),
equivalent
to the nomad region. The Hebrew word for
city
is in usage broad enough to cover a nomadic encamp-
ment
(Num. xiii. 19; 2 Kin. xvii. 9). The
dread lest his
murder
might be avenged (ver. 14), betrayed itself afresh
in
his constructing such a defence for himself and his
family,
which subsequently may have grown from these
small
beginnings1 into much larger proportions. The
builders
of the first huts on the site of Chicago may be
said
to have laid the foundations of the city.
(3) Cain
had
previously been a "tiller of the ground." That he
continued
to be an agriculturist is certainly not stated in
the
text and is in fact inconsistent with it.
The arts de-
veloped
by his descendants are those of nomads, viz.,
pasturage,
music, and metallurgy, but not the cultivation
of
the soil. Jabal was "the father of
such as dwell in
tents
and have cattle," in a very different sense from that
in
which Abel was a "keeper of sheep" at his paternal
home. (4) The explicit reference in iv. 24, where
Lamech
speaks
of Cain being avenged sevenfold, to the pledge
which
the LORD had given him in ver. 15, shows very
plainly
that both belong to the same continuous narra-
tive. Dillmann can find no escape from this but
either
by
putting the cart before the horse and supposing the
allusion
to be the other way, and that ver. 15 was shaped
into
conformity with ver. 24, or else by ejecting ver. 15a
from
the text as an addition by R. Budde ("Biblische
Urgeschichte,"
pp. 184", 185) strangely imagines that the
language
of Lamech gave rise to the story of Cain's
murder.
1Observe the form of statement in the Hebrew, which is significant,
hn,bo yhiy;va "he was building a city," as a work in progress, not
"he
built
it," as though it were completed by him.
38 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
A still more surprising inference from vs.
17-24 is that
the
writer knew nothing of the interruption of human
history
by the deluge. This inference hangs by a
very
slender
thread. As the invention of various arts
is here
traced
to the sons of Lamech in the line of Cain, the
conclusion
is drawn that as the arts have been perpetu-
ated,
so must the race have been that invented them;
which
is an evident non sequitur. As
though an art in-
vented
by one race of men could not be adopted by an-
other
race, and the knowledge of it be kept alive though
the
original inventors had passed away. That
the race
of
Cain was extinct seems to be implied by the fact that
the
genealogy breaks off as it does, without being con-
tinued,
like every other genealogy in Genesis, to tribes or
persons
existing in the writer's own day.
Wellhausen in-
trepidly
suggests that Cain is a collective name for the
Kenites,
as in Num. xxiv. 22, who are thus traced up to
the
origin of mankind; a piece of historical criticism akin
to
that which finds an allusion to South America in "the
gold
of Parvaim" (2 Chron. iii. 6), since Parvaim is the
dual
of Peru.
Wellhausen maintains that this section, in
which the
arts
of building cities, care of cattle, music, and metal-
lurgy
are traced to the godless descendants of Cain is a
sequel
to the narrative of the fall in chs. ii., iii., in which
the
tree of knowledge bears forbidden fruit.
The com-
mon
idea in both, he claims, is that knowledge is peril-
ous,
and Jehovah jealously restrains man from its posses-
sion;
advancing civilization betokens growing corruption.
These
two sections, pervaded by this idea, he sunders
from
the J of the rest of Genesis, and supposes that they
belong
to some antecedent document, J', which J has here
incorporated
in his own production. Dillmann agrees
with
him that the first half of ch. iv., containing the
story
of Cain and Abel, is by a different writer from the
CAIN AND ABEL (CH. IV.) 39
second
half of the chapter, containing the account of
Cain's
descendants; but insists that it is the former and
not
the latter which is by the author of the narrative of
the
fall and is its continuation. And he
points in evi-
dence
of this to ver. 7b, which is repeated from iii. 16b;
the
mention of Eden (ver. 16); the identity of aim, viz., to
trace
the growth of sin, the beginning of which is de-
scribed
in ch. iii., and the sameness of the diction as
shown
in a number of words and expressions common
to
vs. 1-16 and chs. ii., iii., as well as other passages re-
ferred
to J. On the other hand, Budde
("Biblische
Urgeschichte,"
pp. 220, 221) points out coincidences
in
expression between vs. 17-24 and various J passages.
Whereupon
Dillmann concludes that if any significance
is
to be attached to, these coincidences, the author of chs.
ii.,
iii. may himself have introduced vs. 17-24 from its
original
source into his own document, regardless of the
discrepancy
in ver. 17, not so much with a view to the
invention
of arts as the development of crime as shown
in
Lamech's impious speech. As it has
already been
shown
that there is no inconsistency between ver. 17 and
the
preceding verses, the entire critical structure based on
that
assumption collapses. Dillmann is right in link-
ing
chs. ii., iii. with iv. 1-16, and Wellhausen in linking
those
chapters with vs. 17-24. And there is
but one
author
for the whole.
MARKS OF J.
Dillmann finds the following points in
common between
chs.
ii., iii., and the diction of vs. 1-16.
1. hmAdAxE ground
(vs. 2, 3, 10, 12). See ch. xxviii. 10-
22,
Marks of J, No.4.
2. hd,WA field (ver.8). See chs. ii., iii., Marks
of J, No.2.
This
word is by no means peculiar to J. It
occurs re-
40 GENERATIONS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH
peatedly
also in P, e.g., xxiii. 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, and
often
elsewhere.
3. hmAdAxEhA dbafA till the ground (vs. 2, 12, as ii. 5; ill. 23).
As
the phrase occurs nowhere else in the Hexateuch, its
absence
from P sections is to be explained in the same
manner
as its absence from all the rest of those that are
assigned
to J. No alignment for a diversity of
documents
can
be derived from it.
4.
wreGe
drive out (ver. 14, as ill. 24).
See ch. xxi. 1-21,
Marks
of E, No.5.
5.
yTil;bil; not to
(ver. 15, as iii. 11). See chs. xviii.,
xix.,
Marks
of J, No. 14.
6.
hTAxa rUrxA thou art cursed (ver. 11, as iii. 14).
This
verb
is always referred either to J, E, or D, there being
no
occasion for its employment in any of the passages as-
cribed
to P.
7.
The questions asked by the LORD (vs. 9, 10) are
similar
to those in iii. 9, 13. These various
points of
similarity
between vs. 1-16 and chs. ii., iii. create a strong
presumption
that they are from the same writer, as Dill-
mann
urges, but afford no proof that he is distinct from
the
author of the passages referred to P.
He also finds the following expressions
in vs. 1-16,
which
recur in J passages elsewhere:
8. JysiOh
in the adverbial
sense again (vs. 2,12). This is
uniformly referred to J or E, except in Lev. xxvi. 18.
9. Ol
hrAHA be
angry
(vs. 5, 6). See chs. xviii., xix., Marks
of
J, No. 30. 10.
10. hp, hcAPA open the mouth (ver. 11). This occurs but
twice
besides in the Hexateuch (Num. xvi. 30, J; Deut.
xi.
6 D).
Budde finds the following indications of
J in vs. 17-
24.
11. dlayA beget
(ver. 18). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No.
20;
also under ch. x.
CAIN AND ABEL (CH. IV.) 41
12.
xvhi MGa (ver.
22), she also. See ch. xxii.
20-24,
Marks
of J, No.3.
13.
vyHixA Mwev; (ver. 21) and his brother's name, as x. 25.
These
are the only two instances in the Hexateuch in
which
a second son is introduced by this particular for-
mula.
The divine names are appropriately
used. It is to Je-
hovah,
who had given her the promise of offspring, that
Eve
gratefully ascribes the bestowment of her first child
(ver.
1). To Jehovah offerings are brought by
Cain and
Abel
(vs. 3, 4). It is Jehovah, who condescendingly
re-
monstrates
with Cain and explains to him the defect in
his
offering and how it may be remedied (vs. 6, 7).
It is
Jehovah
again, the defender of his own people, who ar-
raigns
Cain for his awful crime, and while sparing his
guilty
life banishes him from his presence (vs. 9-16).
It
is
Jehovah upon whose name the pious race of Seth and
Enosh
devoutly call, iv. 26.
It might at first sight appear surprising
that Eve, who
had
recognized the grace of Jehovah in the birth of Cain,
should
speak of Seth as coming to her from Elohim (ver.
25). But there is a reason for this. The good gift of
God
is set in contrast with the evil deed of man.
"Elo-
him
hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel;
for
Cain slew him." It is to be observed
that Elohim
here
occurs in a J section; so that the critics themselves
must
admit that it is discriminatingly used, and that there
is a
special propriety in its employment.
II
THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. I-VI. 8)
ADAM TO N0AH (CH. V.)
THOSE who insist upon regarding the entire
antedilu-
vian
history of the, Bible as mythical, and on a par with
the
early myths of heathen nations, labor, though with
small
success, to find ancient parallels to the genealogy
contained
in this chapter. The nearest approach to
it is
the
ten antediluvian kings of Chaldean story with reigns
on
an average of 43,000 years each, as reported by Berosus.
Whether
Lenormant is correct or not in giving them an as-
tronomical
interpretation, their names plainly stand in
no
relation to the names in this Scriptural list.
The
sole
point of resemblance is in the number ten; and this
is
vague enough. Others have sought to find
meanings
in
the names mentioned in this chapter, which might
suggest
the idea which lay at the basis of the genealogy
and
account for its formation. They are
interpreted by
Boettcher1
as indicative of the successive stages by which
the
human race advanced in civilization; by Ewald2 as
in
part at least the names of various deities; and by
Knobel
as representing the Western Asiatics, while the
descendants
of Cain denote the Chinese and other popu-
lations
of Eastern Asia. It is evident, however,
that in
the
intent of the sacred historian it simply traces the line
of
descent from Adam to Noah in the pious line of Seth.
1Exegetisch-kritische Aehrenlese, pp. 4. 5.
2Geschichte Israels, 2d edit.,
i., p. 357.
ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 43
Budde's
inference from the names Jared (descent) and Methuselah (man of weapon) that
while the first five in
the
line were good men, the last five, with the exception
of
Enoch and Noah, were wicked, rests on purely fanci-
ful
interpretations of the names.
The longevity attributed to the
antediluvians has been
declared
to be inconsistent with physiological laws; but
in
our ignorance of the extent to which the conditions
affecting
human life may have been modified, such an as-
sertion
is unwarranted.
THE CAINITE AND SETHITE GENEALOGIES.
There is a remarkable similarity in the
names of the
descendants
of Seth in ch. v. and those of Cain, iv.17,
18,
as shown in the following lists:
Adam Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan Cain
Mahalalel Enoch
Jared Irad
Enoch Mehujael
Methuselah Methushael
Lamech Lamech
Noah
The six names in each column, beginning
with Kenan
or
Cain, are strikingly alike; and if Mahalalel be trans-
posed
with Enoch, they will follow each other in the
same
identical order. It is natural to
conclude that this
cannot
be altogether casual. Buttmann2
inferred that
these
are variants of one and the same genealogy as pre-
served
in two related but hostile tribes. In
its original
intent
it enumerated the early ancestors of the human
1Biblische Urgeschichte, p.
96. 2Mythologus, i., pp.
170-172.
44 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
race
sprung from its first progenitor, who in one form of
the
myth was called Adam and in the other Enosh, each
having
the same signification (man). The two
were sub-
sequently
harmonized by making Enosh the grandson of
Adam. The names differed sufficiently for the race
of
Seth
to regard the Cainite tradition as distinct from
their
own and descriptive of a godless race, and so Cain
was
held to be the ancestor not of all mankind, but of
this
hated tribe.
The majority of critics accept this
identification of the
two
genealogies, and have drawn other consequences
from
it. Dillmann contended that the redactor
has trans-
posed
the story of Cain and Abel (iv. 1-16) from its true
position
later in the history. Cain was not the
Son of
Adam,
but belongs where Kenan stands in the geneal-
ogy
(v. 9), with whom he is identical; or, as he has mod-
ified
his opinion in the latest edition of his "Commen-
tary,"
Cain and. Abel were not the only sons of Adam, but
were
born subsequent to Seth. He thinks it
strange
that
the distinction between tillers of the ground and
keepers
of sheep, and between bloody and unbloody offer-
ings,
should be found in the first children of primeval
man;
and that the advance from the first sin to fratri-
cide
should be made so soon. This only shows
that his
opinion
differs from that of the author of the narrative.
He
appeals also to the words of Cain (iv. 14), "Every
one
that findeth me shall slay me," which imply a consid-
erable
population; but he forgets how greatly the de-
scendants
of Adam may have multiplied by the time that
he
attained his one hundred and thirtieth year (v. 3, cf.
iv.
25). Wellhausen goes so far as to
identify Abel with
Jabal
(iv. 20), "the father pf such as have cattle." But--
1. That Wellhausen's wild conjecture
expressly contra-
dicts
the statements of the history is obvious.
And it
requires
not a little critical manipulation to carry through
ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 45
the
hypothesis of Dillmann. In iv. 25 the
word "again,"
in
the first clause, and the whole of the last clause after
the
word fraz,
seed, viz., "another instead of Abel, for
Cain
slew
him," must be thrown out of the text as an interpo-
lation
by R. The statement (iv. 1) that Cain
was the son
of
Adam and Eve must be gotten out of the way, if he is
to
be made the same as Kenan the son of Enosh (v. 9).
And
R must have reversed the order of the statements in the
chapter
for no very intelligible reason.
2.
The distinctness of these genealogies is expressly
affirmed. That in iv. 17, 18, J, professes to record
the
descendants
of Cain after his murder of Abel and his re-
moval
to the land of Nod, while that in ch. v., P, records
the
descendants of Seth, a different son of Adam.
The
critics
cannot consistently claim that this is merely a
variant
representation by J and P of what is in fact the
same
thing, but which R has erroneously set down as
two
quite separate lines of descent. For by
their own
hypothesis
J (iv. 25, 26) traces the line
"Adam, Seth,
Enosh"
precisely as is done by P (v. 3-6); and v. 29 is
attributed
to J as another fragment of the same line.
From
this the critics infer that the document J must have
contained
a complete genealogy from Adam to Noah par-
allel
to that of P, though the greater portion of it has
been
omitted by R as superfluous repetition.
Now these
broken
and scattered links of J utter the same voice with
the
full record of P, that Noah and his father Lamech
were
descended not from Cain but from Seth.
Both
these
genealogies in substantially their present form
were,
therefore, according to the critics contained in the
document
of J, who in this followed the sources whence
he
derived his history. This is a
confession that the
same
writer can have recorded them both; consequently
their
presence in the existing text of Genesis affords no
argument
for critical partition. The unity of
Genesis is
46 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
not
affected by the alleged conversion of one genealogy
into
two, which on the critics' own theory must have oc-
curred,
if at all, in the course of its oral transmission
prior
to the writing of the book of Genesis, or even of
the
document J, which is held to be one of its oldest
constituents.
And in regard to this it would appear that
a sweeping
conclusion
is drawn from very slender premises.
Sup-
pose
that we are unable to account for the coincidence
of
names, does it follow that the persons represented by
them
never existed? Delitzsch directs attention to the fact
that
but two names are the same in the entire series,
viz.,
Enoch and Lamech: and in both cases statements
are
made which show that the persons are quite dis-
tinct. The first of these names means initiation
or con-
secration, and might very well be applied in the
former
sense
to the first son of Cain born in exile, as subse-
quently
to the first-born of Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9), and in
the
latter sense to that holy man who walked with God
and
was not, for God took him. The meaning
of the
name
Lamech is unknown; but the identification of the
persons
so called is forbidden by the speeches preserved
from
them, which reflect totally diverse characters.
Cain
and
Kenan, Irad and Jared are distinct not merely in
their
form but in their radical letters and probable sig-
nification.
So is the second and determining member in
the
compound names Methushael and Methuselah.
Ma-
halalel,
praise of God, which stands over against Mehu-
jael,
smitten of God, may suggest that the descendants of
Cain
have names with a bad meaning and those of Seth
have
names with a good meaning.
The meaning of most of these ancient names
cannot
now
be ascertained. Several of them do not
appear to
be
Hebrew. And it is doubtful whether even
those
which
simulate Hebrew forms may not be merely modi-
ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 47
fications
of some unknown original to adapt them better
to
the Hebrew ear. It is not surprising if
these parallel
lists
of unintelligible names should undergo changes in
their
transmission through long centuries, and if they
should,
whether with or without design, be gradually con-
formed
to one another. The disposition to
produce like-
sounding
contrasts, as in Isa v. 7 FPAw;mi ... hPAW;mi,
hqAdAc; .
. . hqAfAc;, or by slight modifications as of Beel-
zebub
into Beelzebul, or Shechem into Sychar, to give a
different
turn to the meaning of words, may easily have
been
operative. The LXX. has two more names
alike in
both
lists than the Hebrew, which indicates a tendency
in
such cases to come into a closer approximation in the
course
of repeated transcription. The
Mohammedan
names
for Cain and Abel are Kabil and Habil; see Sale's
Koran,
note to ch. v. 30.
DUPLICATE STATEMENTS.
Dillmann thinks that the composite
character of the
book
of Genesis is shown more plainly in the duplicate
mention
of the birth of Seth and Enosh (iv. 25,26 ; v. 3-
6)
than anywhere else. Why should the same
writer
thus
repeat himself? The supplementary
critics, as Tuch,
held
that J inserted iv. 25, 26, in order to effect the tran-
sition
from the preceding account of Cain and his de-
scendants
to that of the line of Seth. The more
recent
critics
follow Hupfeld, who regarded these verses, as to-
gether
with v. 29, the remnants of J's genealogy from
Adam
to Noah parallel to that of P in ch. v.
R, while
omitting
the greater portion as superfluous repetition, saw
fit
to retain these three verses because of the additional information which they
convey. He inserted v. 29 in
the
body of P's genealogy, but preserved iv. 25, 26 dis-
tinct. Now it is difficult to see why the same
motive, be
48 THE
GENERATIONS OF ADAM
it
what it might, which could determine R not to blend
iv.
25, 26 with the corresponding verses of ch. v. as is
done
with v. 29, might not be similarly influential with
the
original writer. Some reasons for such a
separate
statement
naturally offer themselves.
1.
These closing verses of ch. iv. are necessary to the
proper
understanding of ch. v. While the
insertion of those
statements
in this chapter would have been confus-
ing
and would have marred its symmetry, it was impor-
tant
to set v. 3 in its true light in relation to iv. 1, 2.
The
critics say that they are contradictory, since they
infer
from v. 3 that according to P Seth was the first
child
of Adam. But this is not necessarily
implied any
more
than Ex. ii. 1, 2 implies that Moses was the oldest
child
of his parents, though ver. 4 declares the contrari-
not
to speak of Ex. vii. 7. To make the
matter perfectly
plain
to the reader, iv. 25 distinctly states that Seth was
born
after the murder of Abel. And then iv.
26 was
added
to indicate the character of the godly race of Seth
in
contrast with the ungodly race of Cain, and thus pre-
pare
the way for the sparing of Noah and his house
when
the rest of mankind perished in the flood.
2.
Another reason for putting these statements at the
close
of ch. iv. grows out of the original plan of the book
of
Genesis and its division into successive sections each
in a
manner complete in itself and introduced by its own
special
title. The section ii. 4---ch. iv. had
recorded a
constant
descent from bad to worse, the sin of our first
parents,
their expulsion from paradise, the murder of
Abel,
Cain's descendants reaching in Lamech the climax
of
boastful and unrestrained violence. That
the section
might
not be suffered to end in unrelieved gloom a
brighter
outlook is added at the close, precisely as is
done
at the end of the next section in vi. 8.
Seth is
substituted
for Abel, whom Cain slew, and instead of
ADAM TO NOAH (CH. V.) 49
piety
perishing with murdered Abel it reaches a new de-
velopment
in the days of Enosh.
The whole arrangement bears evidence of
adaptation
and
careful thought, and is suggestive of one author, not
the
combination of separate compositions prepared with
no
reference to each other.
A further indication of the same sort,
implying the
original
unity of these chapters, is their correspondence
with
the general plan of Genesis in respect to genealo-
gies. Uniformly the divergent lines are first
traced be-
fore
proceeding with the principal line of descent leading
to
the chosen people. In ch. x. the various
nations of
mankind
sprung from the three sons of Noah; then (xi.
10
sqq.) the line from Shem to Abram.
Nahor's descend-
ants
(xxii. 20 sqq.), those of Keturah (xxv. 1 sqq.), and of
Ishmael
(vs. 13 sqq.), before those of Isaac (vs. 19 sqq.).
Those
of Esau (xxxvi. 1 sqq.) before those of Jacob
(xxxvii.
2 sqq.). In like manner the degenerate
and God-
forsaken
race of Cain is traced (iv. 17 sqq.) before
proceeding
with that of Seth (ch. v.).
PRIMEVAL CHRONOLOGY.
It should be remarked here that no
computation
of
time is ever built in the Bible upon this or any other
genealogy. There is no summation of the years from
Adam
to Noah, or from Noah to Abraham, as there is of
the
abode in Egypt (Ex. xii. 40), or of the period from
the
exodus to the building of the temple (l Kin. vi. 1).
And
as the received chronologies and the generally ac-
cepted
date of the flood and of the creation of the world
are
derived from computations based on these genealo-
gies,
it ought to be remembered that this is a very pre-
carious
mode of reckoning. This genealogy could
only
afford
a safe estimate of time on the assumption that no
50 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
links
are missing and that every name in the line of descent
has
been recorded. But this we have no right
to take
for
granted. The analogy of other biblical
genealogies
is
decidedly against it. Very commonly
unimportant
names
are omitted; sometimes several consecutive names
are
dropped together. No one has a right,
therefore, to
denominate
a primeval chronology so constructed the
biblical
chronology and set it in opposition to the de-
ductions
of science, and thence conclude that there is a
conflict
between the Bible and science. See the
article
on
this subject in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1890.
MARKS OF P.
Dillmann finds the following indications of
P in this
chapter.
1.
The back reference from -vs. 1-3 to i. 26-28. But
it
is linked to the same extent and in precisely the same
manner
with J sections. The genealogy is traced
(ver.
32)
to Noah and his three sons, all of whom are similarly
named
in ix. 18 J; ver. 29 refers back to iii. 17 J.
The
critics
say that ver. 29 is an insertion by R.
They say
so
because their hypothesis requires it and for no other
reason. It might just as well be said that R inserted
vs.
1, 2, and modified ver. 3. Both passages
stand on
the
same footing, and should be dealt with in the same
way.
2.
The formality and precision of statement. This is
the
uniform style of the genealogies leading to the chosen
race
as distinguished from those belonging to the diver-
gent
lines, whether attributed to P or J.
3. tlol;OT generations (ver. 1). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks
of
P; No. 1.
4. tUmD;
likeness (vs. 1, 3). See ch. i. 1-ii. 3.
5. Ml,c, image
(ver. 3). This word occurs here and
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 51
ix.
6, with specific allusion to i. 26, 27; and besides in
the
Hexateuch only Num. xxxiii. 52 J.
6. hbAqen;U rkAzA male and female (ver. 2).
See chs. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No. 12.
7. dyliOh beget (vs. 3 sqq.). See chs. vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.
20.
8. Myhilox<-tx, j`l.ehat;hi walk with God (vs. 22, 24).
This
phrase occurs besides vi. 9 P, and nowhere else in
the
Old Testament. The nearest approach to
it is walk
before
God
(xvii. 1 P; xxiv. 40 J; xlviii. 15 E).
The assertion that according to this
writer "this first
age
of the world was still a time of rest and primitive
perfection,
into which corruption did not penetrate till
toward
its close" (vi. 9 sqq.), is gratuitous and un-
founded. It has no basis whatever in the sacred
text.
The
universal corruption described in vi. 11, 12; finds its
only
explanation in the fall of man (ch. iii.), and the sub-
sequent
development and spread of evil (ch. iv.; vi. 1-8),
and
proves conclusively that these passages cannot be
separated
and assigned to distinct sources.
The names of God are appropriately used
in this chap-
ter. Elohim is rendered necessary in ver. 1 by its
refer-
ence
to i. 27, and Jehovah in v. 29 by its reference to
iii.
17. Elohim is required in vs. 22, 24,
since walking
with
God is a general designation of piety as contrasted
with
what is earthly and sensual.
THE
SONS OF GOD AND THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN
(CH. VI. 1-8)
In
regard to the paragraph Gen. vi. 1-8, the most re-
cent
critics have fallen back upon the position taken up
by
fragmentists, such as Vater, who affirmed that it was
not
only disconnected with the genealogy in ch. v.,
which
precedes, and with the account of the Hood which
52 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
succeeds
it (vi. 9 sqq.), but that it falls apart itself into
two
unrelated paragraphs (vs. 1-4) concerning the pri-
meval
giants, J', and (vs. 5-8) the divine purpose to
destroy
the world and save Noah, J.
But the fact is that there is the most
intimate connec-
tion
throughout, and this passage can neither itself be
split
into fragments nor sundered from the context in
which
it stands. The genealogy in ch. v.
conducts the
line
of descent by regular steps from Adam to Noah,
pausing
here because there was something to record
about
Noah before proceeding further, and departing
from
the analogy of the rest of the chapter by naming
three
sons of Noah instead of one, as in the case of every
preceding
patriarch, because they were all concerned in
what
was to follow. The closing verse of ch.
v. is thus
directly
preparatory for the account of the deluge which
comes
after. Further, this verse contains the
statement
of
Noah's age at the birth of his children, but the length
of
his subsequent life and the duration of the whole,
which
had been regularly given in the case of preceding
patriarchs,
are here wanting. These are, however,
sup-
plied
(vii. 6) by the statement of Noah's age at the com-
ing
of the flood, and then, after the account of the deluge
had
been given and all that was to be said further about
Noah,
there follows in the identical forms of the geneal-
ogy
(ch. v.) the time that Noah lived after the flood and
the
total of his years (ix. 28, 29). This is
a clear indica-
tion
that this genealogy, instead of being broken off and
terminated
at the close of ch. v., is simply enlarged by
the
insertion of the narrative of the deluge, which is in-
corporated
within it. After this the divergent
lines of
descent
are introduced (ch. x.), and then the main gene-
alogy
is resumed, and proceeds (xi. 10-26) until it
reaches
the name of Abram, when it pauses, or rather is
enlarged
again, to receive the history of the patriarchs.
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 53
Again, vi. 1-8 is formally linked to what
precedes in
the
original Hebrew by Vav Consecutive, and by the
statement
of men's beginning to multiply on the face of
the
earth, which sums up the substance of ch. v. in a
few
words, the expansion of the race being indicated by
the
statement repeated in the case of each patriarch,
"He
begat sons and daughters." It is
further appropri-
ate
to the connection as preparing the way for what fol-
lows,
by explaining the universality of the corruption
which
was the moral cause of the flood. This
is the
subject
of vs. 1-4, which is accordingly intimately re-
lated
to vs. 5-8, and leads directly to it, making that
clear
which would otherwise be quite unaccountable.
The sons of God (vs. 2, 4) are not angels
nor demi-
gods,1
whose intermarriage with the daughters of men
brought
forth a race of monsters or superhuman beings.
1.
This purely mythological conceit was foisted upon
the
passage in certain apocryphal books like the book
of
Enoch; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled
by
the analogy of ancient heathen fables.
But it was
repelled
by the great body of Jewish and Christian in-
terpreters
from the earliest periods, though it has been
taken
up again by a number of modern scholars.
It is
assumed
by them that a transgression of angels is here
spoken
of, though the existence of angels has not been
before
mentioned nor in any way referred to in the pre-
vious
part of the book of Genesis. This view has no
sanction
whatever in Scripture. Jude, vs. 6, 7,
and 2
1The Targums and some other
Jewish authorities understand by
"sons
of God " nobles, men of high rank or official station, who in Ps.
lxxxii.
6 are denominated "sons of the Most High"; and by "daugh-
ters
of men" women of inferior position, as in Ps. xlix. 2; lxii.9,
Mdx ynb are
contrasted with wyx rnb
as men of low degree with men
of
high degree. But no such contrast is
suggested here; and the in-
termarriage
of different classes in society is nowhere represented as dis-
pleasing
to God or provoking the divine judgment.
54 THE GENERATIOINS OF ADAM
Pet.
ii. 4 have been tortured into sustaining it; but they
contain
no reference to this passage whatever. And
there
is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for the adop-
tion
by the sacred writers of mythological notions in
general,
or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage
of
angels and men. Sexual relations are
nowhere in
Scripture
attributed to superior beings. There is
no
suggestion
that angels are married or are given in mar-
riage;
the contrary is expressly declared (Matt. xxii. 30).
Male
and female deities have no place in the Bible, ex-
cept
as a heathen notion which is uniformly reprobated.
The Hebrew
language does not even possess a word for
"goddess." The whole conception of sexual life, as con-
nected
with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to He-
brew
thought, and for that reason cannot be supposed to
be
countenanced here.
2.
The sole foundation for this mistaken interpreta-
tion
is the allegation that "sons of God" must, accord-
ing
to Scriptural usage, mean "angels;" which, how-
ever,
is not the case. Even if that were the
more -usual
and
obvious interpretation of the phrase, which it is not,
the
connection in which it stands would compel us to
seek
a different meaning for it here, if that were possible,
and
one which would be compatible with marriage.
Sons
of God" Myhilox<hA yneB; is a poetic designation of
angels
occurring three times in the book of Job (i. 6 ; ii.
1;
xxxviii. 7) and a like expression Mylixe
yneB; is
found
twice
in the Psalms in the same sense (xxix. 1; lxxxix.
6). Daniel iii. 25, NyhilAx< rBa "son of the gods," has
also
been
appealed to; but this has nothing to do with the
case,
as it is the language of Nebuchadnezzar, and repre-
sents
a genuine heathen conception. Angels are
no-
where
so called in the Pentateuch, nor anywhere in the
Bible
but in the few passages already referred to.
3.
On the contrary, "sons of God " is a familiar des-
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 55
ignation
of the chosen race, the worshippers of the true
God.
Moses is instructed to say to Pharaoh (Ex. iv.
22),
Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son: let my son
go. So Deut. xiv. 1, Ye are the sons of Jehovah
your
God. In the Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) this idea
of
sonship
occurs repeatedly. Ver. 5, They have
dealt
corruptly
with him, they are not his sons. Ver. 6,
Is
Jehovah
not thy father? Ver. 18, He is called
the Rock
that
begat thee, the God that gave thee birth: and the
people
are called (ver. 19) his sons and his daughters.
Hos.
i. 10, Ye are the sons of the living God; xi. 1, Is-
rael
is called God's son. Isaiah in repeated
passages
speaks
of the people as God's sons (Isa. i. 2; xliii. 6 ;
xlv.
11). In Jer. xxxi. 20 the LORD calls
Ephraim his
dear
son, his favorite child. In Ps. lxxiii.
15 the pious
are
called "the generation of God's children." And, on
the
other hand, the worshippers of false gods are called
their
children. Thus (Num. xxi. 29) the people
of Moab
are
spoken of as the sons and daughters of Chemosh.
Mal.
ii. 11, an Israelite who had taken a foreign wife is
said
to have married the daughter of a strange god.
It
is
in entire accord with this Biblical usage that the pious
race,
who adhered to the true worship of God, are called
the
sons of God in contrast with the descendants of
Cain,
who had gone out from the presence of Jehovah,
and
abandoned the seat of his worship entirely.
4.
And this brings the verses before us into corre-
spondence
with numerous other passages of the Penta-
teuch
in its practical aim. The law of Moses
again and
again
forbids intermarriage with the Canaanites lest they
should
contaminate Israel and seduce them to idolatry.
The
book of Genesis inculcates the same lesson when it
depicts
Abraham's concern about the marriage of Isaac
(xxiv.
3, 4), and that of Isaac and Rebekah about the
marriage
of Jacob (xxvii. 46 ; xxviii. 1, 2), the distress
56 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
which
Esau's marriage caused his parents (xxvi. 34, 35;
xxviii.
6-8), and the trials of Jacob's family at Shechem
(ch.
xxxiy). If the verses before us point
out the ruin-
ous
consequences of the intermarriage of the godly race
with
the ungodly, it furthers an aim which the writer of
Genesis
and of the Pentateuch evidently had greatly at
heart. A warning not to intermarry with angels would
be
altogether unmeaning.
5.
This explanation of how it came to pass that the
pious
portion of the race were infected with the uni-
versal
degeneracy is not only appropriate in the connec-
tioni
but is necessary to account for the universality of
the
following judgment, which is repeatedly and largely
insisted
upon. This is an integral and essential
part of
the
narrative, the omission of which would leave an un-
filled
chasm. The primal source of human
corruption
had
been germinally shown in the fall (ch. iii.); the
degeneracy
of the Cainites had been traced (ch. iv.).
Nothing
but good, however, had thus far been said of the
race
of Seth (iv. 26; v. 22, 24, 29). That
this pious race
were
themselves involved in the degeneracy which had
overtaken
the rest of mankind, is here stated for the first
time. But this is necessary to explain why the
whole
race
of man, with the exception of a single family, should
be
doomed to destruction.
6.
The explanation now given is further confirmed by
ver.
3, where sentence is passed for the offence described
in
the preceding verse. In what the offence
consisted,
if
the sons of God were angels, is not very obvious. It
is
not illicit intercourse which is described; the terms
used
denote lawful marriage. But if it was
wrong for
the
angels to marry women, the angels surely were the
chief
offenders; and yet no penalty is denounced upon
angels. The divine sentence falls exclusively upon
men.
There
is such an obvious incongruity in this that
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 57
Budde1
insists that ver. 3 is an interpolation and does not
belong
in this connection, but has been transferred from
the
account of the fall of our first parents. The incon-
gruity
that is alleged, however, does not show the verse
to
be an interpolation, but simply that the mythological
sense
which has been given to the passage is false.
7.
The word Nephilim, occurring ver. 4, has given rise
to
the strange deduction that this passage originally
stood
in no connection with the account of the flood;
that
the author of it in fact knew of no such event.
The
only
foundation for this inference is that the same word
is
found again in N urn. xiii. 33, in the evil report of the
spies
respecting Canaan. If the Nephilim here
spoken
of
were still in existence in the days of Moses, how could
there
have been a catastrophe in the interval which swept
away
all mankind except the family of Noah?
But this
rests
upon the unproved assumption that the Nephilim
of
the book of Numbers were lineal descendants of those
of
Genesis. And on this uncertain basis the
author or
compiler
of Genesis is charged with the absurdity of in-
troducing
a passage as preliminary to the deluge, which
by
its very terms implies that no deluge had taken place.
Could
he have so grossly mistaken its meaning? Or is
it
not possible that modern critics may have put a wrong
interpretation
on these isolated verses? The mere fact
that
the same term, "Nephilim," is applied both to ante-
diluvians
and to Canaanites is a very slender premise on
which
to base so extraordinary a conclusion.
The word
is
obscure in its meaning and its derivation.
It is more
probably
an appellative or descriptive term than a gen-
tile
noun. The LXX. translates it
"giants;" other old
Greek
versions render it "assailants " or " violent men."
It
does not occur again in the narrative of the conquest
of
Canaan, as though it were the proper name of a tribe,
1 Biblische Urgeschichte, p.
30.
58 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
but
only in the report of the spies, whose excited imagi-
nation
could best express the terror inspired by these
men
of great stature and powerful frame by saying that
they
were the old giants revived.
It is further to be observed that the
Nephilim are not
said
to have sprung from the union of the sons of God
with
the daughters of men. The statement is
that the
Nephilim
were in the earth prior to these intermarriages,
and
also after these intermarriages had taken place. But
it
is not said that they were in any case the fruit of such marriages. The
critics, however, tell us that though this
is
not expressly stated, it is implied.
This is by no
means
necessarily so. But Suppose it to be
granted; the
mythological
interpretation is an impossibility neverthe-
less. The idea that the Nephilim were a superhuman
race
sprung from the union of angels with the daughters
of
men is completely nullified by the explicit declaration
that
the Nephilim existed before such marriages took
place
as well as after. No new species of
creature can
be
intended, therefore, whose origin is traced to the in-
termarriage
of different orders of beings.
8. It is objected that "the daughters
of men" must
have
the same universal sense in ver. 2 as in ver. 1; and
that
the contrast of "the sons of God" with "the daugh-
ters
of men" shows that different orders of being are here referred to. But
this contrast works precisely the other
way. It has been already shown that in Scripture
lan-
guage
the sons of God are his chosen people--the God-
fearing
race. In contrast with them "the
daughters of
men"
are necessarily limited to the rest of mankind, the
ungodly
mass. Abundant illustrations can be
given of
the
restriction put upon universal terms by their context.
In
Jer. xxxii. 20 God is said to have set signs and won-
ders
in the land of Egypt, in Israel, and among men.
It
is
said of the wicked (Ps. lxxiii. 5), "They are, not in
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.I-8) 59
trouble
as men; neither are they plagued like men." In
Judg.
xvi. 17, Samson says: "If I be shaven I shall be-
come
weak and be like all men." No one
has ever in-
ferred
from these passages that Egypt and Israel, the
wicked
and Samson, belonged to some other race of be-
ings
because they are set in contrast with "men." The
universal
term is restricted by its connection; and hence
the
English version properly inserts the word "other "
and
reads "other men."1
A precisely parallel case may
be
found in the sentence pronounced upon the serpent
(Gen.
iii. 15), "I will put enmity between thee and the
woman,
and between thy seed and her seed."
The seed
of
the woman interpreted by the following verse and
taken
in its unlimited sense would denote all her de-
scendants. But the contrast with the seed of the serpent
necessarily
limits it to those of her race who have not
fallen
under the power of evil, and of whom alone it can
be
said that they shall bruise the serpent's head.
9.
Whatever interpretation be put upon doubtful ex-
pressions
in ver. 3, it plainly intimates the divine pur-
pose
to inflict some penalty affecting the life of the whole
human
race. "His days shall be an hundred
and twenty
years,"
if spoken of the generation then living, would
mean
that they should not survive that limit; if of suc-
cessive
generations of men, that this should henceforth
be
the term of human life. The former is
demanded by
1Professor Strack (Comment. on Genesis, p. 21.) refers likewise to
several
other passages in which general terms are limited by the con-
nection,
e.g., Gen. xiv. 16, "the women and the people," i.e., the rest
of
the people; or in which the same expression is used first in a uni-
versal
and then in a restricted sense. In Judg.
xix. 30 "the children of
Israel
"means the entire people, but in the immediately following
verses
(xx. 1-3) all except Benjamin. In 1 Sam.
xiii. 6 "the people "
first
means the whole, then a portion, and in ver. 7, "all the people "
means
the rest of the people. So Lev. viii. 15, "the blood " and
"the"
(rest of the) "blood." Compare
Ex. xxix. 12; Lev. iv. 7, 18,
25,
30, 34.
60 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
the
context. The latter is preferred by,
critics whose
uniform
usage is to interpret at variance with the context,
if
possible. It is here absolutely without
support.
There
is no suggestion anywhere that the duration of
human
life was ever fixed at one hundred and twenty
years. It is contradicted by all that is recorded of
the
ages
of subsequent patriarchs from Noah to Jacob.
This
verse, then, explicitly points to a catastrophe, in
which
that whole generation should be involved, and
which
should take place in one hundred and twenty years.
10.
Finally, it is to be remarked that the argument
for
diversity of writers is not here rested in any measure
upon
differences of diction and style. The
attempt which
is
made in this connection to analyze one of the so-called
Pentateuchal
documents still further into primitive and
secondary
portions, and to assign vi. 1-4, with a few other
brief
passages, to J', in distinction from J", is stoutly re-
sisted
by Dr. Dillmann,1 who says, "Aim, the writer's
style
and linguistic peculiarities are alike throughout the
alleged
older and more recent J passages; and one can-
not
see how the later writer could succeed in imitating
the
primitive document in so deceptive a manner; more-
over,
the differences between the passages of the
alleged
primitive document are actually much greater than be-
tween
it and that which is alleged to be secondary."
Budde,2
too, has pointed out in detail the exact conform-
ity
of vi. 1, 2, in all its clauses and expressions, to the
language
of other passages, which are ascribed by the
critics
to the document J.
This passage has been considered thus at
length in
1Die Biieher Ntimeri, Deuteronomium
und Josua, P. 632, so, too,
Genesis,
p. 89, and yet on p. 117 he not very consistently concludes that
vs.
1-4 is a paragraph from a more ancient document which J has incor-
porated
into his work, and has modified the style of vs. 1, 2, into con-
formity
with his own.
2 Biblische Urgeschichte, p. 6.
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 61
order
to show how futile is the critical allegation that
the
opening verses of ch. vi. are imbued with mytho-
logical
ideas, and have been inserted here from some un-
known
document, and made to bear a sense at variance
with
their original and proper meaning. We
have before
seen
how groundless is the assertion that iv. 17-24 im-
plies
that there had been no deluge. Neither
is there
any
such implication in xi. 1-9. The further
conclusion
that
these passages are isolated extracts from a common
source,
which knew nothing of any such catastrophe,
falls
of itself.
MARKS OF J.
Dillmann finds the following indications
of J in vs. 1,
2,
5-8.
1. Jehovah. The divine names will be considered
separately.
2. lHehe begin, also in P (Num. xvii. 11,
12) (E. V. xvi.
46,
47).
3. hmAdAxEhA yneP;-lfa on the face of the ground.
Though
hmAdAxE is
made a criterion of J, and its presence in a pas-
sage
is held to warrant its reference to J, it nevertheless
occurs
in P (Gen. i. 25; vi. 20; ix. 2). And it
is only by
critical
artifice that hmAdAxE yneP; (viii. 13b) is excluded from
P,
though it is enclosed between vs. 13a, 14, which are
both
attributed to P, and it is the direct continuation of
13a,
and is in structure conformed to vi. 12, P.
The
occurrence
of Cr,x, in 13a and of hmAdAxE in 13b does not
justify
the assumption of different sources any more than
the
same change in vii. 3, 4, or in viii. 7, 8; see also vs.
9,
11, where no one dreams of a difference of sources.
4. MdAxAhA
Though Adam is used as a proper noun in
P,
it is also treated as a common noun, and as such has
the
article in i. 27; vii. 21; ix. 5, 6.
5. bOF
in a physical
sense. So in P (Gen. i. 4; xxv. 8 ;
62 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
Lev.
xx-vii. 102 129 14, 33; Num. xiv. 7; xxx-vi. 6). If it is
not
applied to personal beauty in P, the simple reason is
that
the critics do not assign to P any passage in which
this
idea is expressed.
6. rc,ye
imagination.
This word occurs but three times
in
the Hexateuch (Gen. vi. 5; -viii. 21; Deut. xxxi. 21),
and
is uniformly by the critics referred to J.
7. qra only. This word,
which occurs repeatedly in J,
E,
and D, does not chance to be found in the passages
attributed
to P.
8.
bc.efaq;hi to
be grieved. This verb is here found in a
J
passage (vi. 6). It occurs twice besides
in the Hexa-
teuch,
once in the same (Hithpael) form (xxxiv. 7), and
once
in a different species (Niphal) (xlv. 5).
The critics
claim
them all for J, but in so doing have to resort to a
somewhat
violent procedure. Ch. xxxiv. 7 is in a
P con-
nection,
the preceding verse and the following
verses be-
ing
given to P; but ver. 7 has this J word, an E phrase,
"which
ought not to be done " (cf. xx. 9), and a D phrase,
"wrought
folly in Israel " (Deut. xxii. 21), a combination
which
is readily explained on the assumption of the unity
of
the Pentateuch, but on the principles of the divisive
critics
is sufficiently puzzling. So without
more ado the
refractory
verse is cut out of the connection to which it
manifestly
belongs, and the entire conglomerate is made
over
to J.
Gen. xlv. 5 is in an E connection, and con-
tains
what are regarded as E characteristics, but is split
in
two in order to give this verb to J.
9.
hHAmA blot out, destroy. See under chs. vi.-ix., Marks
of
P, No. 19.
10. NHe xcAmA find favor. It is not surprising that this
expression,
which naturally has its place chiefly in narra-
tive
sections, does not occur in P, to which only occa-
sional
scraps of ordinary narrative are assigned.
And
yet
it requires some nice critical surgery to limit it to J.
SONS
OF GOD AND DAUGHTERS OF MEN (VI.1-8) 63
Gen.
xxxiv. 11 is in a P connection. Shechem
there con-
tinues
the entreaty begun by his father (vs. 8-10, P), and
the
sons of Jacob make reply to Shechem as well as to his
father
(vs. 13-18, P). Nevertheless this verse
is sundered
from
its connection and given to J on account of this very
phrase.
11. "Human feelings attributed to
God" (vi. 6, 8).
Elohim
is the general term for God, and describes him
as
the creator of the world and its universal governor,
while
Jehovah is his personal name, and that by which
he
has made himself known as the God of a gracious rev-
elation. Hence divine acts of condescension to men and
of
self-manifestation are more naturally associated with
the
name Jehovah; whence it follows that anthropo-
pathies
and anthropomorphisms occur chiefly in Jehovah
sections. But there is no inconsistency between the
ideas
which these are intended to suggest and the most
spiritual
and exalted notions of the Most High.
The
loftiest
conceptions of God are, throughout the Scriptures,
freely
combined with anthropomorphic representations.
His
infinite condescension is no prejudice to his supreme
exaltation. These are not different ideas of God sepa-
ately
entertained by different writers, but different as-
pects
of the divine Being which enter alike into every
true
conception of him. The writer of 1 Sam.
xv. 35
does
not hesitate to say, "Jehovah repented," though he
had
said but a few verses before (ver. 29), "he is not a
man
that he should repent." The prophet
Amos de-
scribes
Jehovah's majestic greatness in lofty terms (v. 8),
and
yet speaks of his repenting (vii. 3), and of his smelling
the
odors of Israel's offerings (v. 21).
"Jehovah smelled
a
sweet savour" (Gen. viii. 21, J), is identical in thought
and
language with the constant phrase of the ritual, "a
sweet
savour unto Jehovah" (Lev. i. 13, P; cf. Lev. xxvi.
31). There is, accordingly, no incompatibility
between
64 THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM
the
representations of God as Jehovah and as Elohim.
These
supplement and complete each other, and there is
not
the slightest reason for imputing them to the variant
conceptions
of distinct writers.
Jehovah is used in vs. 3, 5-8 because the
reference is
to
his plan of grace and salvation, which the growing
wickedness
of men threatened to defeat: in order to pre-
vent
this frustration of his purpose he determines to de-
stroy
the entire human race with the exception of right-
eous
Noah. Elohim is used in ver. 2, because
of the
contrast
between the human and the dime, those of
an
earthly and those of a heavenly mind--between the
daughters
of men and the sons of God.
III
THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29)
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17)
IN the passages hitherto examined the
portions referred respectively to P and J have been separate sections; and
an
ostensible ground of partition has been found in the
alternation
of divine names, in difference of subject, or in the
varied
treatment of the same theme. But now and
henceforward
P and J are supposed to be blended in
what
has every appearance of being one consistent and
continuous
narrative. And great critical tact and
skill
are
needed to separate what has been so intimately
joined
together. Nevertheless the narrative of
the deluge
is
counted one of the firmest supports of the divisive hy-
pothesis. It is affirmed that--
1.
When properly disentangled chs. vi.-ix. will be
found
to contain two entirely distinct accounts of the
deluge,
each complete in itself, and that these differ irrec-
oncilably
in several respects.
2.
There are repetitions which show that two different
accounts
have been put together.
3.
The alternation of divine names in successive para-
graphs
shows that these have proceeded from different
writers.
4.
The same thing can be inferred from diversities of
language
and style.
66 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
THE
CRITICAL PARTITION OF GEN. VI. 5-IX. 17.
The Prophetic Narrator, J, in Italic.
The Priestly Writer, P, in Roman.
The Redactor in Brackets.
VI. 5. And the LORD saw that the
wickedness of man
was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts
of his heart was only evil continually.
6. And it
repented
the LORD that he had made man on the earth,
and
it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the LORD said,
I
will blot out man whom I have created from the face of
the
ground [both man and beast, and creeping thing, and
fowl
of the heaven]; for it repenteth me that
I have made
them. 8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the
LORD.
9. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH:
Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his-
generations:
Noah
walked with God. 10. And Noah begat three sons,
Shem,
Ham, and Japheth. 11. And the earth was cor-
rupt
before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12. And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was
corrupt;
for
all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is
come
before me; for the earth is filled with violence
through
them; and behold, I will destroy them with the
earth. 14.
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms
shalt
thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and
without
with pitch. 15. And this is how thou shalt
make
it:
the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth
of
it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16.
A
light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt
thou
finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou
THE FLOOD (CH. VI.9-IX. 17) 67
set
in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third
stories
shalt thou make it. 17. And I, behold, I
do bring
the
flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh,
wherein
is the breath of life, from under heaven; every
thing
that is in the earth shall die. 18. But
I will estab-
lish
my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into
the
ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy son's
wives
with thee. 19. And of every living thing of all
flesh,
two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark; to
keep
them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after their kind, and of the
cattle after
their
kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after
his
kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep
them
alive. 21. And take thou unto thee of all food that
is
eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food
for
thee and for them. 22. Thus did Noah; according
to
all that God commanded him, so did he.
VII. 1. And the LORD said unto Noah,
Come thou and
all
thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous
before
me in this generation. 2. Of every clean
beast thou
shalt
take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female
and
of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his
female: 3.
also of the fowl of the heaven, seven and seven,
male
and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the
earth. 4. For
yet seven days, and I will cause it to
rain
upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every
living
thing that I have made will I destroy from off the
face
of the ground. 5. And Noah did according to all that
the
LORD commanded him. 6. And
Noah was six hundred
years
old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
7. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife,
and his
sons'
wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of
the
flood. 8. [Of clean beasts, and of
beasts that are not
clean,
and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon
the
ground 9. there went in two and two, unto Noah into
68 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
the
ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah].
10.
And
it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of
the
flood were upon the earth. 11. In
the six hundredth
year
of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seven-
teenth
day of the month, on the same day were all the
fountains
of the great deep broken up, and the windows
of
heaven were opened. 12. And the rain was upon the
earth
forty days and forty nights. 13. In
the selfsame day
entered
Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the
sons
of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of
his
sons with them, into the ark; 14. they, and every
beast
after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind,
and
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
after
his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird
of
every sort. 15. And they went in unto Noah into the
ark,
two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of
life. 16.
And they that went in, went in male and female
of
all flesh, as God commanded him: and the LORD shut
him
in. 17.
And the flood was forty days upon the earth;
and
the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was
lift
up above the earth. 18. And the waters prevailed,
and
increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went
upon
the face of the waters. 19. And the waters pre-
vailed
exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high
mountains,
that were under the whole heaven, were
covered. 20.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters pre-
vail;
and the mountains were covered. 21. And all
flesh
died that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and
cattle,
and beast, and every creeping thing that creepeth
upon
the earth, and every man. 22. All in
whose nostrils
was
the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was in the
dry
land, died. 23. And every living thing was destroyed
which
was upon the face of the ground [both man, and
cattle,
and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven]; and
they
were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only was
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 69
left,
and they that were with him in the ark. 24. And the
waters
prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty
days.
VIII. 1. And God remembered Noah, and
every living
thing,
and all the cattle that were with him in the ark:
and
God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the
waters
assuaged; 2. the fountains also of the
deep and
the
windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from
heaven
was restrained; 3. and the waters
returned from
off
the earth continually: and after the end of an hundred
and
fifty days the waters decreased. 4. And the ark
rested
in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day
of
the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5. And the
waters
decreased continually until the tenth month: in
the
tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the
tops
of the mountains seen. 6. And it came
to pass at the
end
of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark
which
he had made: 7. and he sent forth the raven, and it
went
forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from
off
the earth. 8. And he sent forth the dove
from him, to see
if
the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
9.
but the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and
she
returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the
face
of the whole earth: and he put forth his
hand, and
took
her, and brought her in unto him into the ark.
10. And
he
stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the
dove
out of the ark; 11. and the dove came in
to him, at
eventide;
and, lo, in her mouth an olive leaf pluckt off: so
Noah
knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
12. And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent
forth the
dove;
and she returned not again unto him any more.
13.
And
it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in
the
first month, the first day of the month, the waters
were
dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and
looked, and, behold, the face of the
70 THE
GENERATIONS OF NOAH
ground
was dried. 14.
And in the second month, on the
seven
and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry.
15.
And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16. Go forth of
the
ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons'
wives
with thee. 17. Bring forth with thee every living
thing
that is with thee of all flesh, both fowl, and cattle,
and
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth;
that
they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be
fruitful,
and multiply upon the earth. 18. And Noah
went
forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons'
wives
with him: 19. every beast, every creeping thing,
and
every fowl, whatsoever moveth upon the earth,
after
their families, went forth out of the ark.
20. And
Noah
builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every
clean
beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-
offerings
on the altar. 21. And the LORD smelled the
sweet
savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not
again
curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that
the
imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;
neither
will I again smite any more every thing living, as I
have
done. 22. While the earth remaineth, seed-time and
harvest,
and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and
day
and night shall not cease.
IX. 1.
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said
unto
them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.
2. And the fear of you and the dread of you
shall be
upon
every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of
the
heaven, even all that moveth upon the ground, and
all
the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they de-
livered. 3.
Every moving thing that liveth shall be food
for
you; as the green herb have I given you all.
4. But
flesh
with the life thereof, the blood thereof, shall ye
not
eat. 5.
And surely your blood of your lives will I
require;
at the hand of every beast will I require it, and
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 71
at
the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother
will
I require the life of man. 6. Whoso sheddeth man's
blood,
by man shall his blood be shed: for in
the image
of
God made he man. 7. And you, be ye fruitful, and
multiply;
bring forth abundantly in the earth, and mul-
tiply
therein.
8.
And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him,
saying, 9. And
I, behold, I establish my covenant
with
you, and with your seed after you:
10. and with
every
living creature that is with you, the fowl, the
cattle,
and every beast of the earth with you; of all that
go
out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.
11.
And
I will establish my covenant with you; neither
shall
all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the
flood;
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy
the
earth. 12. And God said, This is the token of the
covenant
which I make between me and you and every
living
creature that is with you, for perpetual genera-
tions: 13. my
bow have I set in the cloud, and it shall
be
for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a
cloud over
the
earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, 15. and
I
will remember my covenant, which is between me and
you
and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters
shall
no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16.
And
the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon
it,
that I may remember the everlasting covenant between
God
and every living creature of all flesh that is upon
the
earth. 17. And God said unto Noah, This is the
token
of the covenant, which I have established between
me
and all flesh that is upon the earth.
J NOT CONTINUOUS.
Let us now examine the portion of the
narrative which is assigned to J, and see whether it gives a complete ac-
72 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
count
of the flood, with no breaks or interruptions.
It
begins
with vi. 5-8. We read in ver. 8,
"But Noah
found
grace in the eyes of the LORD."
This implies that
the
reader had already been made acquainted with Noah.
And
so he had in the scriptural account, which details
his
ancestry in ch. v.; but this is given by the critics to P.
No
previous mention of Noah, or allusion to him is made
in
the sections attributed to J; yet here he is spoken
of
as a well-known personage. Evidently
something is
wanting
in J corresponding to what has been abstracted
from
preceding chapters and assigned to P.
The critics
endeavor
to escape this difficulty by alleging that v. 29,
in
which Noah is mentioned, belongs to J.
But in doing
so
they violate their own test. It is one
of their criteria
for
distinguishing these documents that in J the mother
gives
name to the child, but in P the father; see Dillmann
on
Gen. x-vi. 11. Consequently, on their
own principles,
"And
he (Lamech) called his name Noah" must belong
to
P; and not to J. In ver. 7 we are told
that the redac-
tor
has inserted the second clause, "both man and beast,
and
creeping, thing, and fowl of the heaven," because such
detailed
enumerations are foreign to J's supposed style.
This
is a confession that the text in its present form can-
not
on critical principles be assigned to J.
It does not
suit
the hypothesis, but must be amended into conform-
ity
-with the hypothesis. In other words,
the hypothesis
must
here be supported by an inference drawn from
the
hypothesis. But this clause, though
unwelcome to the
critics,
cannot be omitted from the verse, for the plural
pronoun
"them" at the end of it refers to these particu-
lars
in this second clause, not merely to "man" in the
first
clause, which would call for a pronoun in the singu-
lar;
see "his heart," ver. 5.
If, however, we take ver. 7 as the critics
have corrected
it
leaving, out the second clause then it declares that the
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 73
LORD
said, not to Noah but to himself, i.e., he resolved,
that
he would destroy man, no mention being made of
the
way in which this was to be effected, nor whether the
inferior
creatures would be involved. J then
springs at
once
to vii. 1, where "the LORD said to Noah, Come thou
and
all thy house into the ark;" though there is no
previous
allusion in J to the fact that Noah had a family,
or
that there was an ark, or any occasion for there being
an
ark. To be sure, all this has been
explained before;
vi.
10 speaks of Noah's three sons, and vs. 13-22 tell
how
God told Noah of the coming flood and bid him
build
an ark for the safety of his house and the various
species
of living things, and that Noah did so.
But all
this
is assigned to P; there is not a word of it in J.
Clearly
there is something missing in J; and just that is
missing
which has been abstracted from the previous
narrative
and given by the critics to P.
In vs. 7-10 we have J's account of Noah's
entry into
the
ark. But ver. 9, we are told, has been
manipulated
by
the redactor. The words "there went
in two and
two,"
"male and female" and "God" are characteristics
of
P. Here again the text is not in accord
with the hy-
pothesis;
a number of P's words and expressions are in
a J
paragraph, and it must be the fault of the redactor.
But
this is not all. There is not a verse in
the para-
graph
which is just as it should be, if the critics are
right. The detailed enumeration, "Noah and his
sons,
and
his wife, and his sons' wives" (ver. 7), instead of
simply
Noah and all his house, as ver. 1, is foreign to J;
so
in ver. 8, "beasts and fowls and every thing that creep-
eth,"
instead of "every living thing," as ver. 4; and
"waters
of the flood"1 (vs. 7, 10) refer back to P's
1Noldeke says that the agreement of J and P is very remarkable in
the
words lUBma
flood, hbATe ark, and Hano Noah. Budde and Dillmann
try
to escape the admission that ver. 7. J, refers back to ver. 6, P, by
arbitrarily
transposing ver. 10 so as to stand before ver. 7.
74 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
phrase,
vi. 17; vii. 6. It is said that the
redactor "ap-
parently
designed to bring the style a little more closely
into
harmony with that of P." But why he
should be so
concerned
just here to alter expressions which he leaves
unchanged
elsewhere, does not appear. And it is
par-
ticularly
surprising that he should of his own motion
introduce
what the critics consider a discrepancy into
J's
account. How could he make J appear to
say in vs.
8,
9, "of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean
. .
. there went in two and two unto Noah into the
ark,"
in open contradiction, as the critics allege, with what
he
had said just before in ver. 2,1 that clean beasts were
to
go in seven and seven, and of beasts not clean two?
And
yet we are told that the documents "are woven to-
gether
in a highly artistic/manner," and the redactor's
work
is "admirably" done. If this
is so, he must have
been
an intelligent person and could not have made
grossly
contradictory statements within the compass of a
few
lines without perceiving it. He
certainly could have
seen
nothing of the sort here, or he would not gratui-
tously
have inserted a discrepancy in the text of his own
accord,
which was not there in the document from which
he
was copying. And if he did not see it,
perhaps there
is
no contradiction after all. It may be
that the critics
are
mistaken in fancying that there is one.
And in
point
of fact there is no discrepancy between the general
statement
that two of every species, a male and a female,
entered
the ark and the more particular declaration that
there
were seven of every species of clean beasts and two
of
those that were not clean. If, then, the
redactor is in
harmony
with J (vii. 2, 3), there is no discrepancy be-
tween
J (vii. 2, 3) and P (vi. 19 ; vii. 15).
1 Kayser, p. 8, enlarges the
text of vii. 3, to restore it to what he con-
ceives
to be its primitive form. So, too, he
modifies the text of vii. 7-9
into
what he considers its primitive form.
The fact that it is not as he
would
reconstruct it, shows the falsity of his critical presuppositions.
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 75
In what follows, the semblance of
continuity can only
be
made out for J by means of scattered sentences and
clauses
torn from their connection in an arbitrary man-
ner. Thus J proceeds to ver. 12, and then skips to
16b:
"And
the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty
nights
. . . and the LORD shut him in." It
is nat-
ural
to ask why the LORD waited forty days before he
shut
the door of the ark behind Noah. It is
obvious
that
the last clause of ver. 16 has no proper connection
with
ver. 12, to which the critics attach it.
It plainly
belongs
where it stands in the text. The
severance of
ver.
16 annuls the significant and evidently intended
contrast
of the two divine names in this verse, to the
significance
of which Delitzsch calls attention, thus dis-
crediting
the basis of the critical analysis, which he nev-
ertheless
accepts. Animals of every species went
into
the
ark, as Elohim, the God of creation and providence
directed,
mindful of the preservation of what he had
made;
Jehovah, the guardian of his people, shut Noah in.
The rise of the waters of the flood is
depicted in vs.
17-20
in four successive stages. The critics
arbitrarily
sunder
one of these (ver. 17) from the rest, and assign it
to
J. The destruction accomplished by the
flood is simi-
larly
described in three successive statements of grow-
ing
intensity (vs. 21-23). Two of these are
parted from
the
remaining one and given to J (vs. 22, 23).
The next clause of J is viii. 2b,
"and the rain from
heaven
was restrained." Just before we
read in vii. 24,
"the
waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty
days." The critics find a discrepancy between this
and vii.
4,
12, according to which it rained forty days.
The intel
ligent
redactor has been at fault here again.
He has in-
serted
this clause respecting the stopping of the rain in
the
wrong place. It should have preceded
vii. 24, instead
of
following it. But we may shelter
ourselves behind
76 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
him
once more. If he saw no impropriety in
putting
this
clause where he did, perhaps there was none.
He
may
not thus have brought J into conflict with himself
after
all. If it had been said that the rain
from heaven
was
not restrained after one hundred and fifty days had
passed,
there would, indeed, have been a discrepancy.
But
where is the discrepancy in saying that it had
stopped?
The last clause of viii. 2 is separated
from the first,
one
being given to J, and the other to P.
But this is
severing
what of necessity belongs together. We
find
the
same combination here as in vii. 11, 12, where the
sources
of the flood are described, and the critics split
them
asunder after the same fashion. These
sources
were
two, viz.: the rushing in of the waters
of the ocean
upon
the land, and the torrents descending from the sky.
The
tenses of the Hebrew verbs at once indicate to the
reader
that the bursting forth of the fountains of the
great
deep and the opening of the windows of heaven
are
separate items, while the fall of the rain is a sequence
of
that which just preceded. The opening of
the win-
dows
of heaven prepares the way for the downpour, but
is
not the downpour itself. The thought is
not complete
until
the actual fall of rain is added. Comp.
Mal. iii. 10.
The
opening of the windows of heaven cannot, therefore,
be
attributed to one writer and the rain to another; both
belong
indissolubly together. The same is the
case with
viii.
2; the last clause is inseparable from the first. And
besides,
"the rain from heaven" is evidently contrasted
with
"the fountains of the deep," so that the two clauses
of
the verse are bound together thus again.
And ver. 3a
cannot
be separated from ver. 2. The latter
states that
the
sources of the flood had ceased; but this would not,
of
itself account for the subsidence of the water.
The
stopping
of the fountains of the deep and of the windows
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 77
of
heaven are purely negative to this must, be added the
positive
flowing off of the water, if the flood was to be
reduced. To sever this clause from P and give it to J,
as
is done by the critics, leaves P's statement inadequate
and
incomplete. And the phraseology used
shows the
same
thing; "the water returned;"
whither? certainly
not
to heaven (2b), but to the deep (2a), from which the
great
body of them had come. So that if the
word "re-
turned"
is to have anything like its proper force, ver. 3a
is
tied to 2a, and cannot be severed from it as the critics
propose.
Then the sending out of the birds (vs.
6-12) is given
to
J. In vs. 13, 14, the drying of the
earth is stated in
two
stages; one of these (ver. 13b) is arbitrarily given to
J,
and the other (ver. 14) to P. J makes no
allusion to
Noah's
leaving the ark, which is another serious break
in
his narrative. This is spoken of,
indeed, in the
Scripture
account (vs. 15-19); but it is given to P.
So
that
here again we miss in J precisely what has been ab-
stracted
by the critics and attributed to the other docu-
ment. J's account concludes with Noah's sacrifice
(vs.
20-22).
Instead, therefore, of a complete account
with no in-
terruptions,
we find in the portion assigned to J several
important
gaps created purely by the critical partition;
other
chasms scantily bridged by scattered clauses torn
from
their context, in which they are indispensable, or
attached
to passages where they are inappropriate; ex-
pressions
which by critical rules cannot belong to J, and
require
the assumption, which has no other basis than
the
exigencies of the hypothesis, that the text has been
manipulated
by the redactor; and discrpancies, so called,
which
are wholly due to the redactor's gratuitous inter-
ference.
78 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
P NOT CONTINUOUS
Let us now see how it is with P. The first paragraph
assigned
to him is vi. 9-22. We here read (vs.
11, 12),
"And
God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt;"
and
so corrupt that he was determined to destroy it. The
form
of expression here is with manifest allusion to i.31,
where
P had said, "And God saw every thing that he had
made,
and, behold, it was very good." The
existing state
of
things is plainly set in designed contrast to the state-
ment
made at the creation. But not a word of
explana-
tion
is offered to account for this dreadful change.
It is
indeed
explained sufficiently in the Scripture narrative.
The
intervening chapters tell us of the fall, of the grow-
ing
degeneracy of the ungodly race of Cain, of the infec-
tion
even of the godly race by intermarriage with the rest.
But
all this is by the critics attributed to J; there is
nothing
of the kind in P. Plainly something is
missing
here;
and just that is missing which the critics have
transferred
to another document.
P then proceeds to tell that Noah was
instructed to
build
the ark, which he did, and records his age at the
coming
of the flood (vii 6, 11), and his entry with some
of
all living things into the ark (vs. 13-16).
The sacred writer labors to produce a
vivid impression
of
the enormous rise of the waters of the flood by de-
scribing
it in four successive stages until it reached the
prodigious
altitude which it actually attained.
First
(ver.
17), the water rose sufficiently to float the ark.
Then
(ver. 18) it rose very much higher still, and the ark
mounted
aloft upon its surface. Next (ver. 19),
it at-
tained
such a height as to cover all the high mountains
within
the entire horizon. Finally (ver. 20),
it reached
its
maximum, fifteen cubits above the mountain-tops.
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 79
This
regular gradation is broken apart by the critics,
who
assign the first or lowest stage to J, and the other
three
stages to P, thus giving to each a truncated de-
scription,
which when put together match precisely and
supply
just what before was wanting in each. Is
this
a
lucky accident, or has not this entire description eman-
ated
from one mind?
The sacred writer seeks again to give
adequate expres-
sion
to the destruction wrought by the flood by three
successive
statements of increasing strength. First
(ver.
21),
he declares with emphatic particularity that all flesh
died,
fowl and cattle and beast and creeping thing and
man. Then (ver. 22), in the most universal terms,
"All
in
whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all
that
was in the dry land, died." Finally
(ver. 23), universal
and
particular terms are combined, and the most forcible
expression
for complete destruction added in contrast
with
the sole survivors: "And every living thing was
wiped
out which was upon the face of the ground, both
man
and cattle and creeping thing and fowl of the
heaven;
and they were wiped out from the earth; and
Noah
only was left, and they that were with him in the
ark." Disregarding these climactic periods, which
are
heaped
together in order to intensify the contrast of the
last
clause, the critics give the first of the sentences to
P,
thus sundering it completely from what follows, the
result
of which is to make P affirm, in the most absolute
manner,
the universality of the destruction without so
much
as a single survivor. The next two
verses are
given
to J in spite of the enumeration of particulars in
ver.
23, "both man and cattle and creeping thing and
fowl
of the heaven," which, according to critical princi-
ples,
is foreign to his style, and must be thrown out of
the
text as an insertion by the redactor.
The passage
does
not correspond with the hypothesis, and is hence
80 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
corrected
into conformity with it. And yet this
clause,
which
is objectionable to the critics and which they pro-
pose
to eliminate, is one of the features of the verse
which
adapts it to the climactic position that it occupies.
It has before been shown that viii. 2, 3,
cannot be par-
titioned
as the critics propose; and that the severance
of
vs. 2b, 3, as an insertion from J, would leave P's
statement
incomplete.
The narrative then proceeds after the same
analogy to
describe
the subsidence of the flood. And it may
be
proper
to note that the seven stages of the decline of the
water
precisely correspond with the four stages of its
rise
added to the three statements of its wide-spread deso-
lation. First (viii. 1), a wind passed over the
earth,
J
which served to reduce the volume of the water.
Sec-
ondly
(vs. 2-4), the sources of the flood had ceased, and
the
water flowed off to such an extent that the ark rested
on
the mountains of Ararat. Thirdly (ver.
5), the water
still
further decreased and the tops of the mountains ap-
peared. Fourthly (vs. 6-9), as the water continued to
sink,
a dove was sent forth after forty days, but the
flood
was still at such a height that no resting-place
could
be found. Fifthly (vs. 10, 11), after
seven days
more
the water had abated sufficiently for trees to
emerge,
as was shown by the olive leaf plucked off by the
dove. Sixthly (ver. 12), the dove was sent out and
re-
tuned
no more. Seventh, and finally (ver. 13),
the day
is
noted on which Noah discovered that the water was
dried
up from off the earth. This regular gradation
is
spoiled
by the critics, who assign (vs. 6-12) the mission of
the
birds, to J; the consequence of which is that P
springs
at once from ver. 5, the first appearance of the
mountain-tops,
to ver. 13, where the waters were dried
up
from off the earth.
The prominence given to the sending out
of the birds
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 81
in
the Chaldean account of the deluge, which is univer-
sally
confessed to stand in an intimate relation to that
in
Genesis, further shows that any narrative of the flood
would
be incomplete if this were not included.
Least
of
all can this be questioned by those who maintain that
the
Hebrew narrative was borrowed from the Chaldean.
The paragraph respecting the birds (viii.
6-12) is quite
devoid
of any critical marks allying it to one or the other
of
the documents, as is apparent from the history of its
treatment. From Astruc and Eichhorn to the supple-
mentary
critics Tuch and Knobel, it was almost uni-
formly
assigned to P. Stahelin is uncertain
about it.
Reuss
regards it as the sole surviving remnant of a third
account
of the flood, distinct from the other two.
Hup-
feld
gives (ver. 7) the raven to J, and (vs. 8-12) the dove
to
P. Friedrich Delitzsch reverses the
matter, and gives
the
raven to P and the dove to J. Kayser,
Wellhausen,
Kuenen,
Dillmann, and others assign the whole to J, in
which
they were preceded by the eccentric Ilgen.
The
motive
which at present inclines the majority to J, ap-
pears
to be twofold. Such a graphic incident
is thought
to
befit the more "picturesque" narrator, and this is the
most
striking parallel with the cuneiform tablets, with
which
J is held to stand in the closest relation.
Both an
argument
and an inference are supplied from these two
points
of view of a somewhat circular character.
It is as-
signed
to J because he is picturesque and allied to the
tablets;
and being so assigned proves him to be pictu-
resque
and allied to the tablets. One cannot
but feel
that
if the critics had anything to gain by so, doing, they
might
with equal ease have imputed to the writer of this
paragraph
an alleged characteristic of P, and said that
his
style was "stereotyped," and abounding in "regular
formulas"
and the "repetition of like phrases," thus:
"And
he sent forth the raven" (ver. 7); cf. "and he
82 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
sent
forth the dove" (ver. 8); "and he stayed yet other
seven
days and sent forth the dove" (twice, vs. 10, 12);
"waters
were abated from off the face of the ground"
(twice,
vs. 8, 11), cf. also ver. 9; "to him into the ark"
(twice,
ver. 9); "going and returning," (twice (in Heb.),
vs.
3, 7), cf. ver. 5.
The drying of the ground is likewise
stated in two
successive
stages. First (ver. 13), the surface was
so far
dried
that the water had disappeared. Then
(ver. 14),
the
earth was dry. These are, as before
stated, divided
by
the critics between J and P.
P proceeds to tell of Noah's leaving the
ark (vs. 15-
19). But he records no act of worship or
thanksgiving
for
this great deliverance. Yet he had
spoken of Noah
as a
righteous man, who walked with God (vi. 9).
In
fact,
throughout the entire patriarchal history P never
mentions
an altar or sacrifice or any act of worship.
These
are, indeed, spoken of repeatedly in the sacred
history;
but they are invariably referred to other docu-
ments,
never to P. And yet P, according to the
critics,
is
the priestly writer, who is especially interested in rit-
ual
worship and in ceremonial matters. It is
he who re-
cords
the institution of the Sabbath (ii. 3), and of cir-
cumcision
(xvii. 10), and the prohibition of eating blood
(ix.
4); and he never relates anything derogatory to the
patriarchs,
but always exalts them as model men of God.
Is
it conceivable that he should have omitted to mention
that
Noah devoutly praised God for his merciful inter-
position
on his behalf? Surely there has been an
omis-
sion
here; and the more evidently so, as a sacrifice is so
prominent
a feature in the Chaldean account of the del-
uge.
It thus appears also that there are
serious chasms in
P's
account likewise, that the symmetry of the narrative
is
spoiled in repeated instances by the proposed parti-
THE
FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 83
tion,
and that passages are rent from their connection
and
assigned to J, which are indispensable in the con-
text
in which they stand.
NO SUPERFLUOUS REPETITIONS.
It is further claimed that there are
repetitions which
betray
the composite character of the narrative, and show
that
it has been made up by combining two separate ac-
counts. But this is a mistake; there are no
superfluous
repetitions
to warrant such a conclusion. We are
pointed
in
the first instance to the opening verses.
It is said
that
vi. 5-7 contains J's account of the wickedness of
man
and of the LORD'S purpose to destroy the race; then
follows,
in vs. 11-13, P's account of the very same thing;
but
a slight consideration of the circumstances will make
it
appear that the critics' conclusion is altogether unwar-
ranted. The title (vi. 9), "These are the
generations of
Noah,"
marks the beginning of a new section of the his-
tory,
and indicates its subject to be the fortunes of Noah's
family. In entering upon this topic the writer first
ex-
plains
the situation with the view of placing distinctly
before
the minds of his readers at the outset the causes
of
what was about to take place. He commences by
stating
the character of Noah (ver. 9b 1), which explains
the
intimation in ver. 8 of the special favor shown to him.
He
then recapitulates some statements previously made,
which
are necessary to the understanding of the follow-
ing
narrative. He speaks of Noah's three
sons (ver. 10),
though
they had been named in identical terms in v. 32,
which
the critics likewise refer to P; no one thinks of
1Kayser (p. 8) says: "Noah
was a righteous man and perfect in his
generations,"
belongs to J (see vii. 1); "Noah walked with God" to P,
(v
21). Other critics quietly ignore this
identity of expressions, and
give
the entire verse, which manifestly belongs together, to P.
84 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
a
difference of writers because of this repetition. He
further
speaks of the universal corruption (vs. 11, 12);
this
had already been mentioned at the close of the pre-
ceding
section (ver. 5) as a sequence from facts previously
stated.1 But it lay so at the basis of what was to be
re-
corded
in this new section that it is mentioned here again,
And
there is no more reason for suspecting a diversity of
writers
than there is in ver. 10, which all acknowledge to
be
by the same writer as v. 32. It is just
such a recapit-
ulation
as any writer might be expected to make under
the
circumstances. On the other hand, ver. 13
is not a
repetition
of the statement made in ver. 7, but is an ad-
vance
upon it. In ver. 7 mention is made of
the LORD'S
purpose
to destroy man; in ver. 13 this purpose is com-
municated
to Noah, which is quite another thing.
In vs. 18-20, while directing Noah to
build the ark.
God
tells him the purpose for which it was to be made,
and
that he was to take with him into it some of every
species
of living things in order to keep them alive.
After
the ark had been built, and the time for sending
the
flood drew nigh, the LORD bade Noah to go into it
with
his family and with some of every species of ani-
mals
(vii. 1-3). But there is no superfluous
repetition
here. Two distinct divine communications were made
at
different times, and each is reported in its proper
place.
The critics, however, lay great stress
upon the fact that
the
entry into the ark is twice recorded; vs. 7-92, they;
tell
us, is J's account, and vs. 13-16 that of P.
But this,
too,
is a mistake; there is nothing here requiring the
1Noldeke (p. 16) remarks that
other sections (v. 1; x. 1, and xi. 27)
in
like manner begin with the repetition of what had been before
stated.
2Schrader and Dillmann give vs.
8, 9, to R; Noldeke gives vs. 7-9
to R
as his elaboration of the originally brief words of the Jehovist.
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 85
supposition
of distinct documents. It has been
before
shown
that vs. 7-9 cannot by critical rules be referred to
J,
without a reconstruction of the text in each individual
verse. But besides this it is to be noted that ver.
6 gives
a
general statement of Noah's age at the coming of the
flood;
he was then six hundred years old. In
ver. 11
this
is stated again with more particularity, in order to
indicate
the precise day on which the flood began, viz.,
the
six hundredth year of Noah's life, the second month,
the
seventeenth day of the month. The critics do not
find
this repetition incompatible with the sameness of
the
writer; vs. 6 and 11 are both alike referred by them
to
P. In precisely the same manner, with
the view of
exhibiting
the precision of the divine arrangements, the
sacred
writer points out the fact in vs. 13-16 that Noah
and
all his company entered the ark on the self-same day
on
which the flood broke forth; and the emphasis which
he
puts upon this thought appears from the particularity
of
detail and the iteration in these verses.
Now why
should
this repetition for this evident purpose be any
more
suggestive of a diversity of writers than the like
repetition
in regard to Noah's age?
The critics are embarrassed here by their
own hypoth-
esis. Different views have been entertained in
respect to
the
relation of J and P. According to some
critics J and
P
each wrote a separate and independent document, and
these,
after circulating singly for a time, were at length
combined
by a redactor. These are known as docu-
mentary
critics. Others have held that J did not
write
a
complete document of his own, but simply edited an
enlarged
edition of P. The document P was made
the
basis,
to which J simply made additions, supplementing
it
here and there as he had occasion. These
are known
as
supplementary critics.
In the case befol'e us the documentary
make this point
86 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
against
the supplementary critics, that no editor in sup-
plementing
a pre-existing work, would introduce of his
own
motion what was already in almost identical terms
in
the work before him. Such a superfluous
repetition
could
only be accounted for by supposing that a redactor
was
combining two works, for each of which he had a
great
reverence, so that he was reluctant to omit any-
thing
that either of them contained. Thus it
came to
pass
that after copying a statement from one of his
sources
he finds the same thing stated likewise in the
other,
and copies it also. This has a plausible
sound.
It
certainly silences the' supplementary critics.
But
there
are two insuperable difficulties in the way of ac-
cepting
the solution which the documentary critics offer.
1. Judged by their own critical rules the
compiler has
not
preserved what was peculiar to J in vs. 7-10, but has
conformed
it throughout to the style of P. 2. In other
cases
he has not shown a similar care to preserve all the
contents
of his Sources. Why has he not given a
dupli-
cate
account of the building of the ark, or of the exit
from
it, as well as of the entry into it? The
obvious
reason
is that in the former there was no coincidence
in
time to emphasize, as there was in the latter.
Hence
the
emphatic repetition in the one, whereas there was no
occasion
for it in the others.
It has before been shown that the
statements respect-
ing
the rise of the waters, their destructiveness, and their
subsequent
fall cannot be parcelled between different
writers;
and that the attempt to find two parallel accounts
of
these particulars by J and by P is not successful. The
verses
and clauses which are given to J cannot be sun-
dered
from the context in which they stand.
Moreover,
the
description of successive stages is not identical repe-
tition,
and as such suggestive of distinct documents.
And
if it were, four statements of the rise of the waters,
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 87
three
of their destructive effects, and seven of their fall,
cannot
be distributed between two documents without
leaving
repetitions in each. More than two
documents
are
necessary, if each repetition is indicative of a sepa-
rate
writer. The critical argument is in this
case plainly
self-destructive.
It should also be observed that like
repetitions are
found
in other cases which the critics quietly ignore, and
never
think of tracing to a diversity of documents.
Thus
the
corruption and violence prevailing in the earth is stated
four
times in as many successive clauses (vi. 11, 12); the
entry
of all living things into the ark with Noah is re-
peated
three times (vii. 14-16), where Dillmann remarks,
"It
is as though the author, moved by the momentous
character
of the day, could not do enough to satisfy him-
self
in the detailed portraiture of the transaction." God's
establishment
of his covenant with Noah is twice stated,
(ix.
9, 11); and the bow in the cloud as the token of the
covenant
is mentioned again and again (ix. 12-17).
In
all
these cases the critics recognize but one writer. So,
too,
the triple mention of the names of Noah's sons (v. 32;
vi.
10; x. 1) is given to P; the fourth mention of the
same
(ix. 18) being assigned to J. A rule
which plays
fast
and loose in this manner at the pleasure of the op-
erator,
is a very insecure dependence.
It has also been claimed that Noah's
sacrifice and the
LORD'S
resolve not to destroy all living things again (viii.
20-22),
are parallel to God's blessing Noah, and his cove-
nant
not to send another universal flood (ix. 1-17); and
that
the former is the account of J, and the latter that of
P
respecting the same thing. But these are not the same;
one
is the sequel of the other; viii. 21, 22 states the di-
vine
purpose, that "the LORD said in his heart;" in ix.
1-17
this purpose is made known to Noah.
The examination of the narrative of the
flood thus
88 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
shows
that so far from everything being duplicated,
nothing
is duplicated from first to last except the entry
into
the ark, and that for a special reason not suggestive
of
two documents but excluding them.
THE DIVINE NAMES
It is still further urged that the
alternation of divine
names
in successive paragraphs of this narrative gives
evidence
of its composite character. It is
affirmed that
this
requires the assumption of two different writers, who
were
in the habit of using different terms in speaking of
the
Most High. One (P) always spoke of him
as "God"
(Heb.,
Elohim); the other (J) as LORD (Heb., Jehovah),
The
narrative, as we possess it, has been made up from
the
combination of the accounts in these two documents;
and
hence the blending of these two names, as they are
here
found. But this is a superficial and
mechanical ex-
planation
of what is really due to a different and more
satisfactory
cause.
There are two aspects, under which the
flood can be
contemplated,
and two points of view from which its
place
and function in the sacred history can be regarded.
It
may be looked upon as the act of the Creator, destroy-
ing
the work of his hands because it had become corrupt
and
so perverted from its original intent, and at the same
time
providing for the perpetuation of the several species
of
living things. Or, on the other hand, it may be con-
sidered
in its relation to the work of redemption.
The
wickedness
of man threatened to put an end to the scheme
of
grace and salvation; in order to prevent his merciful
designs
from being thwarted thus, the Most High re-
solved
to destroy the ungodly race, and rescue the one
surviving
pious family to be the seed of a new race,
among
whom true religion might be nurtured until it
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 89
should
ultimately fill the whole earth. The
sacred writer
has
both these aspects of this great catastrophe in
mind,
and he suggests them to his readers by the alter-
nate
use of the divine names. When he has
regard to
the
divine government and providential care, as mani-
fested
in it, he speaks of it as the act of Elohim.
When
he
has regard to his special guardianship over the pious,
or
to aught that concerns divine worship, he uses the
sacred
name Jehovah.
Thus it is Elohim who sees with
displeasure the dis-
order
introduced by the corruption of mankind, and
makes
known his purpose to destroy them, but institutes
measures
for preserving the various species of animals
by
means of an ark to be built for this end (vi. 9-22).
It
is Elohim agreeably to whose command creatures of
both
sexes went in unto Noah into the ark (vii. 9, 16).
It
is Elohim who remembered Noah and every living
thing
that was with him in the ark, and who made a wind
pass
over the earth to assuage the waters (viii. 1).
It is
Elohim
who bade Noah go forth of the ark, and bring
forth
with him every living thing that they may mul-
tiply
upon the earth (viii. 15-17). It is
Elohim who
blessed
Noah and his sons, as he had blessed man at his
creation
(i. 28), bidding them Be fruitful, and multiply,
and
replenish the earth (ix. 1). It is
Elohim who estab-
lished
his covenant with Noah and with every living
creature,
pledging that there should be no flood in future
to
destroy all flesh (ix. 8-17).
On the other hand, it is Jehovah (E. V.,
the LoRD), in
whose
eyes Noah found grace (vi. 8), and who was re-
solved
to put a sudden end to the downward progress of
growing
wickedness which infected every imagination of
the
thoughts of man's heart and threatened to banish
piety
from the earth (vs. 5-7). It is Jehovah
who bade
righteous
Noah come with all his house into the ark,
90 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
and
take with him animals fit for sacrifice in larger
numbers
than the rest (vii. 1-3). It is Jehovah
who shut
Noah
in, after he had entered the ark (ver. 16), though in
the
very same verse it is Elohim who commanded that
the
beasts of both sexes should enter in. It
is Jehovah
to
whom Noah builds an altar and offers sacrifice, and
who
graciously accepts the offering (vs. 20, 21).
It thus appears that the divine names are
discrimi-
natingly
employed throughout the entire narrative; there
are
no superfluous repetitions, suggestive of a combina-
tion
of distinct documents; there are serious gaps and
halting-places
in each of the accounts, into which the
critics
propose to divide the history of the deluge; and
in
numerous instances the partition attempted is imprac-
ticable
because it would sunder what is plainly indivis-
ible. It is further noteworthy that there is no
pretence
of
basing the critical partition of these chapters on di-
versity
of diction. The scattered clauses
assigned to J.
which
have already been shown to be inseparable from
their
contexts, have not even this poor pretext in their
favor. In fact ,there is scarcely more than three or
four
words
or phrases in all that is attributed to J in the entire
narrative
of the deluge which is claimed elsewhere as
characteristic
of that document; while there are several
phrases
and forms of speech, as has been already pointed
out
that are elsewhere held to be characteristic of P, not
to
speak of the word "create" (vi. 7), which in ch. i. is
made
a mark of P in distinction from J.
NO DISCREPANCIES
The attempt is made to create a variance
between vi.
5
and ver. 12 by alleging that J attributes the flood to
the
wickedness of man, but P to the corruption of "all
flesh,"
meaning thereby the entire animal creation as well
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 91
as
man; and when P speaks of the earth being filled
with
violence he refers not merely to human deeds
of
violence and crime, but also to the rapacity and ferocity
of
beasts which prey upon weaker animals instead of feed-
ing
upon the herbage allowed them at their creation (i.
30). But the term "all flesh" has a
wider or narrower
meaning
as determined by the connection. When it
is
said
(vii. 21) that "all flesh died" in the flood, men and
animals
are both intended. But vii. 15,
"two and two of
all
flesh went in unto Noah into the ark," has reference
to
animals only. And in such phrases as
"God of the
spirits
of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16 ; cf. Jer. xxxii.
27);
"who is there of all flesh that hath heard the voice
of
the living God? "(Deut. v. 23, E. V. 26); "all flesh shall
see
the glory of the LORD" (Isa. xl. 5); "I will pour out
my
Spirit upon all flesh" (Joel iii. 1, E. V. ii. 28); cf.
also
Ps. lvi. 5 (4); lxv. 3 (2) ; cxlv. 21; Isa. lxvi. 16, 24;
Ezek.
xxi. 10 (E. V. 5); Zech. ii. 13, the reference is to all
mankind. This is also evidently the case in Gen. vi.
12,
"all
flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth;" for
moral
character and responsibility can only be affirmed
of
man, not of the inferior animals.
It has before been shown that there is no
discrepancy
between
the general direction (vi. 19 P), to take a pair of
each
kind of animals into the ark in order to preserve
alive
the various species, and the more specific require-
ment,
when the time arrived for entering the ark, that
clean
beasts should be taken by sevens and the unclean
by
twos (vii. 2 J). If it had been said
that only two
should
be taken of each kind, the case would have been
different. J also relapses into the general form of
state-
ment
(vii. 9); or if the critics prefer, R does so, which
amounts
to the same thing, as by the hypothesis he had
J's
previous statement before him. There is
no contra-
diction
here any more than there is between the general
92 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
and
the more exact statement of Noah's age in vii. 6 and
11.
In vii. 10 the Hood came seven days, not
after Noah
entered
the ark, but after the announcement, vs. 1-4; so
that
there is no conflict with vii. 13.
It is alleged that there is a serious
variance between
J
and P in respect to the duration of the flood.
Ac-
cording
to P (vii. 11) it began on the seventeenth day
of
the second month, and ended on the twenty-seventh
day
of the second month of the following year (viii. 13,
14). According to J (vii. 12) it rained forty
days, at
the
end of which (viii. 6-12) Noah sent forth birds at
the
intervals of three successive periods of seven days,
whereupon
(ver. 13b) the face of the ground was dried;
the
flood only lasted, therefore, sixty-one days, or, if the
forty
days of viii. 6 are additional to the forty of vii. 12,
it
lasted one hundred and one days, instead of a year and
ten
days as reckoned by P.
The fallacy of all this is obvious. It is simply pa-
rading
a part as though it were the whole.
"At the end
of
forty days Noah opened the window of the ark" (viii.
6). Forty days from what? The critics are in doubt
whether
to reckon from the beginning or the end of the
forty
days' rain. What, then, is to be thought
of the
intelligence
of R in compiling this narrative? As
this
verse
stands it is not possible to reckon otherwise than
from
the first day of the tenth month (viii. 5).
Adding
to
this the three periods of seven days, it appears that
the
dove was sent out for the last time on the first day of
the
twelfth month. After another month Noah
removes
the
covering of the ark, and in a month and twenty-seven
days
more he leaves the ark entirely. All is thus in per-
fect
harmony.
The inference of the critics is, besides,
quite unfounded
upon
their own principles. By their own
concession J
THE FLOOD (CH. VI, 9-IX, 17) 93
is
not complete. His genealogy from Adam to
Noah is
only
preserved in part, His account of building the ark
and
of Noah's leaving it have been omitted, R not judg-
ing
it necessary to repeat from J what he had already
inserted
from P. Whence, then, this sudden
confidence
that
no numbers originally in J have been omitted, not-
withstanding
the fact that such an assumption gives to
his
statements a meaning that they cannot now have, sets
them
in opposition to otherwise uncontradicted state-
ments
of P, and convicts R of incapacity or worse?
J list here the perplexity of the critics
in respect to
vii.
17a is instructive. "The flood was
forty days upon
the
earth," is given entire by Dillmann to J, by Kuenen
to
R, and with the exception of the words "forty days,"
by
Kautzsch and Socin to P; also by Hupfeld to P with-
out
exception, only he insists that the " forty days " must
be
understood differently from J in vii. 4; Budde gives
it
to P, but strikes the "forty days " out of the text, and
reads
"the flood of waters was upon the earth." All is
with
the design of bringing J and P into conflict regard-
ing
the duration of the flood; so that is effected they are
not
particular about the mode of accomplishing it.
The conjecture that still another
estimate of the dura-
tion
of the flood is intimated in vii. 24, and that the one
hundred
and fifty days of its increase imply the same
length
of time for its decrease, so that it must have
lasted
just three hundred days (see Dillmann, "Genesis,"
p.
130) is a pure figment with no foundation whatever
in
the Biblical narrative. The statement is
not that the
flood
continued to increase for one hundred and fifty
days,
but that having previously reached its full height
it
continued at its maximum until that time, reckoned
from
its beginning, and then decreased for seven months
and
ten days, when the earth was dry.
94 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
DIFFERENCE OF DICTION
It is further contended, however, that
there are certain characteristics peculiar to each of these so-called docu-
ments,
which distinguish them from one another in dic-
tion,
style, mode of conception, and range of ideas; and
that
these are so marked and constant as to prove diver-
sity
of origin. These are most fully and
succinctly
stated
by Dillmann,l who has enlarged and corrected the
collection
diligently gathered by Knobel. He gives
the
following
distinctive marks for the recognition of P in
chs.
vi.-ix.: (1) The title, vi. 9. (2) Reckoning by the
years
of Noah's life. (3) The exact statements
of time
respecting
the course of the flood. (4) The
measure-
ments
of the ark. (5) Weaving in a law, ix.
1-7, and its
referring
back to i. 27 seq. (6) The covenant and
its
sign,
ix. 8 sqq. (7) Diffuseness and
constantly recurring
formulae. (8) The antique description of the sources of
the
flood, vii. 11; viii. 2; recalling i. 6-8.
(9) The
image
of God, ix. 6. (10) The mode of speaking
of,
Noah's
family, vi. 18; vii. 7, 13; viii. 16, 18 (on the
contrary,
vii. 1). (11) rWABA-lKA vi. 12 seq., 17, 19; vii. 15 seq.,
21;
viii. 17; ix. 11, 15-17. (12) hbAqen;U
rkAzA vi. 19; vii.
9,
16. (13) Mh,yteHoP;w;mil; viii. 19.
(14) hWAfA
NKe
vi. 22. (15)
hbArAv; hrAPA viii.17; ix. 1, 7. (16) tyriB; Myqihe or NtanA
vi. 18;
ix.
9, 11 seq., 17. (17) You and your seed
after you, ix. 9.
(18)
fvaGA vi. 17; vii. 21. (19) tyHiw;Hi and tHewi (not hHAmA)
vi.
13, 17; xi. 11, 15. (20) dyliOh vi. 10.
(21) hlAk;xA vi.
21;
ix. 3. (22) CrawA
wild beast, vii.
14, 21; viii. 1, 17, 19;
ix.
2, 5. (23) Nymi
vi. 20; vii.
14. (24) Mc,f, self-same, vii.
13. (25) CrawA and Cr,w, vii. 21; viii. 17; ix. 7. (26) wmarA
and Wm,r, vi. 20; vii. 14, 21; viii. 17, 19; ix. 2
seq. (see vi
7;
vii.' 8, 23). (27) dxom;
dxom;
vii. 19. (28) B; used dis-
tributively,
vii. 21; viii. 17; ix. 10, 15 seq.
1 Commentary on
Genesis.
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17)
95
This certainly has the appearance of a
very formidable
list. But such lists may prove very delusive. It should
be
remembered that no piece of composition can be so
divided
that precisely the same words and phrases and
ideas
shall occur in each of the parts, and that neither
shall
contain any that are not to be found in the other.
If
any such piece should be divided at random, and an
elaborate
and exhaustive search be instituted to discover
what
there was in one of the parts that was missing in
the
other, and vice versa, no doubt long lists could be
made
out of what might be called the characteristic pe-
culiarities
of each part. Nevertheless, these would
not
have
the slightest significance, and would have no ten-
dency
to prove that these sundered parts ever had a sepa-
rate
and independent existence and were the primal sources
from
which the composition in question was derived.
More especially is this the case when the
partition is
made
on the basis of certain assumed characteristic dif-
ferences. It is assumed at the start, we may suppose,
that
a given production is a composite one, formed by
the
combination of two pre-existing documents.
Two
sections
respectively assigned to these documents are
then
compared, and the resulting differences noted as
severally
characteristic of one or the other. The
docu-
ments
are then made out in detail by the persistent ap-
plication
of the criteria thus furnished. Every
para-
graph,
sentence, or clause, in which any of the one class
of
characteristics is to be found, is regularly and consist-
ently
assigned to the one document, and with like regu-
larity
and consistency all, in which any of the other c1ass.
of
characteristics appear, is referred to the other docu-
ment,
the number of the criteria growing as the work
proceeds. When now the process is completed, each
document
will be found to have the assumed series of
characteristics
for the simple reason that it was through-
96 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
out
constructed by the critic himself upon that pattern.
He
is arguing in a circle, which of course returns upon
itself. He proves the documents by the criteria, and
the
criteria by the documents; and these match as far
as
they do because they have been adjusted to one an-
other
with the utmost care. But the
correspondence
may
be factitious after all. It may show the
ingenuity
of
the operator, without establishing the objective real-
ity
of his conclusions. The documents which
he fancies
that
he has discovered may be purely a creation of his
own,
and never have had an independent existence.
MARKS OF P
We shall now examine the alleged marks of
P seriatim
with
the view of discovering what significance is to be
attached
to them.
1. The title (vi. 9). (a). A like title, "These are the
generations,"
etc., occurs besides in Gen. ii. 4; v. 1; x.
1;
xi. 10, 27; xxv. 12, 19; xxxvi. 1, 9; xxxvii. 2; Num.
iii.
1, and once out of the Pentateuch in imitation of the
phrase
as there used.
(b).
The word " generations "
tvdlt
occurs, apart from
the
titles just cited, Gen. x. 32; xxv. 13; Ex. vi. 16, 19;
xxviii.
10; Num. i. 20-42, and out of the Pentateuch,
Ruth
iv. 18; 1 Chron. v. 7; vii. 2, 4, 9; viii. 28; ix. 9,
34;
xxvi. 31.
These titles are so far from lending any
support to the
hypothesis
that they can only be classed as belonging
to P
on the prior assumption of the truth of the hypothe-
sis. That in Gen. ii. 4 is assigned to P, not by
reason of
its
environment, but notwithstanding the fact that it is
the
title of a J section, to which it is assumed that it has
been
transferred from a former imaginary position at the
beginning
of ch. i., for which it is not suitable and where
THE FLOOD (OR. VI. 9-IX. 17) 97
it
could never have stood. In xxxvii. 2 it
introduces a
section
composed of alternate paragraphs of J and E, in
which
there is not a single sentence from P until xli. 46,
and
then not another till xlvi. 6. In xxv.
19 it is followed
by
long passages from J, interspersed with paragraphs
from
E, and with scarcely anything from P.
Ch. xxxvi.
9
stands at the head of a section about which the critics
are
divided; some refer it to P, others in large part to R
or
to JE. The natural inference would seem
to be that
these
titles, prefixed alike to J and to P sections, were
suggestive
of the common authorship of those sections,
or
at least that the titles proceeded from him to whom
Genesis
owes its present form, be he author or com-
piler. Hence Kayser 1 says, " he formula 'These
are the
generations,'
which is commonly regarded as Elohistic,
belongs
just as well to the other document."
And again,
"This
formula, with which the history of Esau or of the
Esauids
(xxxvi. 9), as well as the history of Jacob (xxxvii.
2)
begins, is not exclusively Elohistic.
The Jehovist uses
it
here as in xxv. 19, in order to commence a new section
after
the death of a patriarch." And the
other passages,
in
which the word tdlvt is
found, look in the same direc-
tion. Gen. x. 32 occurs at the close of what is
consid-
ered
a J section of a genealogy. Ex. vi. 16,
19 is in a
genealogy
which Kayser assigns to R, which in the
judgment
of Wellhausen and Kuenen does not belong to
P,
but is a later interpolation, and which Dillmann merely
refers
to P on the general ground that genealogies as a
rule
are to be so referred; while nevertheless he claims
that
the entire context has been seriously manipulated.
Gen.
xxv. 13 is in a genealogy which is referred to P on
the
same general ground, but is embedded in a J context.
It
would seem, consequently, that there is no very solid
ground
for the claim that this word is peculiar to P.
1 Das Vorexilische Buch, pp. 8, 28.
98 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
2. "Reckoning by the years of Noah's
life."
The arbitrary character of the critical
rule that state-
ments
of age are to be referred to P appears from the
fact
that in repeated instances this is done in defiance of
the
context. Thus Isaac's age at his
marriage and at the
birth
of his children is cut out of a J context (xxv. 20,
26);
so that of Joseph when feeding the flock with his
brethren
(xxxvii. 2), and when he stood before Pharaoh
(xli.
46), and the length of time that Jacob lived in Egypt
and
his age at his death (xlvii. 28) are all severed from a
foreign
context, either J or E. Moreover, the
age of Jo-
seph (Gen. 1. 26), of Caleb (Josh. xiv. 7,
10), and of
Joshua
(Josh. xxiv. 29) is by common critical consent at-
tributed
to E.
3. "The exact statements of time
respecting the course
of
the flood."
(a) P reckons one hundred and fifty days
until the
flood
began to subside (vii. 24; viii. 3). But
time is
noted
with similar exactness in passages referred to the
other
documents. Thus in J seven days until
the rain
was
to begin, forty days that it was to continue (vii. 4,
10,
12); after forty days Noah opened the window of the
ark
(viii. 6); after seven days he sent forth a dove (vs.
10,
12); three months (xxxviii. 24); in E twelve years
(Gen.
xiv. 4, 5) (so Dillmann); seven years (xxix. 20, 27,
30)
; twenty, fourteen, and six years (xxxi. 38, 41); two
years
(xli. 1); seven years (xli. 48, 54); two and five
years
(xlv. 6).
(b) P notes the month and the day which
marked
certain
stages of the flood (vii. 11; viii. 4, 5, 13, 14).
But
nothing sufficiently momentous to call for such nota-
tion
occurs in the rest of Genesis, whether in JE or in
P
sections. And in the remainder of the
Hexateuch it is
limited
to two things, viz., the annual sacred seasons as
described
in detail in the ritual law, and for that reason
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 99
assigned
to P, and the most signal occurrences in the
march
of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. Thus the
month
and
day of their leaving Egypt are indicated (Num.
xxxiii.
3); of the first gift of manna (Ex. xvi. 1); of the
arrival
at and departure from Sinai (Ex. xix. 1 ; Num. x.
11);
of setting up the sacred tabernacle (Ex. xl. 2, 17); of
numbering
the people and organizing the host (Num.
i.
1, 18); of the return to Kadesh in the last year of the
wandering
(Num. xx. 1); of the death of Aaron (Num.
xxxiii.
38); of Moses's final exposition of the law (Deut.
i.
3); and of the passage of the Jordan just when the pre-
dicted
term of wandering was complete (Josh. iv. 19).
These
are all assigned to P in spite of the fact that Ex.
xix.
1; Num. xx. 1; Deut. i. 3; Josh. iv. 19 are not in a
P
context; yet they are severed from their connection
and
attributed to P because of the prior assumption that
"he
alone reckons by months and days."
4. "The measurements of the
ark."
There
is but one other structure of which measures are
given
in the Pentateuch, viz., the tabernacle and its ves-
sels. And the reason why such: detailed statements are
made
respecting them is not because P had a fancy for
recording
measures, but because these structures were
built
by divine direction and on a divine plan which was
minutely
followed. And this is not the
peculiarity of a
particular
writer, for the author of Kings and the prophet
Ezekiel
detail in like manner the measures of the temple.
5. "Weaving in a law, ix. 1-7, and
its referring back;
to
i. 27 seq."
But the same thing occurs in passages
assigned to the
other
so-called documents; thus in J, the law of mar-
riage
is woven into ii. 23, 24; that of levirate marriage,
xxxviii.
8; intermarriage with Canaanites disapproved,
xxiv.
3, and the institution of sacrifice, ch. iv., viii. 20, 21;
in E
the payment of tithes, xiv. 20 (referred to E by
100 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
Dillmann),
xxviii. 22. And if the reference of ix.
6 to i.
27
links it to P, the reference of xxvii. 45 J to ix. 6 links
it
equally to J, and is thus suggestive of the common ori-
gin
of what the critics consider separate documents.
6. "The covenant and its sign (ix. 8
sqq)."
Three covenants with their appointed signs
are spoken
of
in the Old Testament, viz.: The covenant with Noah
and
the rainbow as its sign, the covenant with Abraham
and
his seed and circumcision as its sign (xvii. 10, 11),
and
the covenant with Israel and the sabbath as its sign
(Ex.
xxxi. 13-17). These are all referred to
P, and no
sections
of P but these three make mention of a cove-
nant
sign. If now the absence of this
expression from all
the
rest of the P sections does not imply difference of
authorship,
why should such a significance be attributed
to
its absence from the J sections? But in
fact both the
name
and the thing are found in sections attributed to J.
Thus
Gen. xv. 18, Jehovah made a covenant with Abra-
ham
granting him the land of Canaan; and as he asked
for
something (ver. 8) whereby he might know that he
should
inherit it, a symbol of the divine presence, fire
and
smoke, passed between the pieces of the slaughtered
victims,
as was customary for contracting parties among
men
(Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19). The word
"sign" does not oc-
cur
in the passage, but Dillmann ("Commentary" in loc.)
correctly
calls this "the sign by which the covenant en-
gagement
was concluded." In Ex. iii. 12 E
God gives
Moses
a sign of his divine commission to deliver Israel.
In
Ex. iv. J he gives him a series of signs
to confirm the
faith
of the people in the same. The critics
assign to P,
with
the exception of a few refractory clauses, Ex. xxxi.
12-17,
which makes the sabbath the sign of God's cov-
enant
with Israel. And they avow as one of
their chief
reasons
for doing so (Dillmann in loc.), that P must have
recorded
the sign of the Mosaic covenant as he did those
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 101
of
the covenants with Noah and Abraham.
And yet they
attribute
the entire account of the contracting of the
Mosaic
covenant (Ex. xxiv. 1-11) to JE, thus separating
what
manifestly belongs together. How can P
report the
sign
of the Mosaic covenant, if he has said nothing of
such
a covenant being formed?
7. "Diffuseness and constantly
recurring formulae."
But the emphatic iteration of the
historian, who would
impress
his readers with the magnitude of the world-
wide
desolation wrought by the flood, is not to be con-
founded
with the aimless diffuseness of a wordy writer.
The
enlargement upon special features and the repeti-
tions
are due to the vastness of the theme, not to need-
less
verbosity. Thus Delitzsch commenting
upon vii.
17-20
says: "The description is a model
of majestic
simplicity,
of exalted beauty with no artificial expedients.
. .
. The tautologies of the account, as it lies before
us,
picture the frightful monotomy of the illimitable
watery
surface, and the refuge floating securely above it,
though
encompassed by the terrors of death."
And
Dillmann
says of vii. 16, in which the author repeats for
the
third time the entry into the ark, "It is as if
the
author, moved by the momentous character of the day,
could
not do enough in the way of detailed portraiture of
the
event." These surely are not
unmeaning platitudes.
8.
"The antique description of the sources of the
flood
(vii. 11, viii. 2), reminding one of i. 6-8."
The expression "windows of heaven"
occurs twice in
the
account of the flood, and nowhere else in the Hexa-
teuch. In both passages it is associated with rain,
which
is
only sundered from it by the arbitrary partition of the
critics;
and the form of the verb used in both implies
that
the rain was consequent upon the opening of those
windows,
and the stoppage of the rain upon closing them. I
There
is not the slightest suggestion of two different con-
102 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
ceptions,
whether the windows of heaven be interpreted
as
literal sluices through which the waters of a supernal
ocean
poured, or as a figurative representation of delug-
ing
rains proceeding from the clouds, which are spoken
of
as waters above the firmament. And that
waters from
the
great deep were united with torrents from the sky in
producing
the flood can be no ground of literary parti-
tion,
while it is in exact accord with geologic phenomena.
9.
"The image of God (ix. 6)."
This expression is here used with explicit
allusion to i.
26, 27,
where it occurs in the account of the creation of
man;
and it is found nowhere else in the Old Testament.
This
cannot surely be urged as a characteristic of the
writer.
10.
"The mode of speaking of Noah's family, vi. 18 ;
vii.
7, 13; viii. 16, 18, as opposed to vii. 1."
But why should diversity of authorship be
inferred be-
cause
vi. 18 has "Thou and thy sons, and thy wife, and
thy
sons' wives with thee," and vii. 1, "Thou and all thy
house,"
any more than from xlv. 10, "Thou and thy
children,
and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and
thy
herds, and all that thou hast," while ver. 11 has
"Thou
and thy house, and all that thou hast," which
plainly
belong together, and are by the critics commonly
assigned
to E. Wellhausen, indeed, ascribes xlv.
10,
with
its detailed enumeration, to J, thus precisely re-
versing
the characteristic brevity imputed to J in vii. 1.
Moreover,
the detailed statement of Noah's family occurs
(vii.
7) in a passage alleged to contain J's account of the
entry
into the ark, and in connection with expressions
claimed
to be characteristic of J, "waters of the flood,"
"clean
beasts and beasts that are not clean;" so that
the
critics find it necessary to resort to the evasion that
the
text has been manipulated by R, who substituted the
present
reading for the presumed original, "Noah and
THE FLOOD (CR. VI. 9-IX. 17) 103
his
house." And if slight variations in
the form of ex-
pression
are to be made the pretext for assuming a di-
versity
of writers, it is to be observed that vii. 13 is pe-
culiar
in giving the names of Noah's sons and the number
of
their wives, and viii. 16 in mentioning the wife before
the
sons. Must these verses be referred to a
distinct
author
on this account?
11. rWAbA-lKA all flesh (vi. 12 seq., 17, 19; vii. 15 seq.,
21;
viii. 17; ix. 11, 15-17).
This expression occurs thirteen times in
the passages
just
recited in the account of the flood, to indicate the
universality
of corruption and death and the measures
for
preserving the various species of living things. As
there
was no occasion to use it elsewhere in Genesis, it
occurs
besides neither in P nor in J sections.
It is
found
three times in Lev. xvii. 14, "blood the life of all
flesh,"
which Dillmann says ("Commentary," p. 535) is
a
mixed passage, and he adds that " all flesh " is no sure
proof
of P. It further occurs in Num. xvi. 22;
xxvii. 16,
"God
of the spirits of all flesh;" and in a law of the
consecration
of the first-born of all animals (N um. xviii.
15),
and nowhere else in the Hexateuch. J
passages offer
no
substitute for it, and do not employ it for the simple
reason
that they have no occasion to express the same
idea. It is further found repeatedly in other books
of
the
Bible, so that it is no peculiar possession of P.
12. hbAqen;U rkAzA male and female (vi. 19; Vii. 9, 16).
These words can only be expected where
there is some
reason
for referring to the distinction of sex.
They are
found
together (i. 27; v. 2) where the creation of man is
spoken
of, and (vi. 19; vii. 3, 9, 16) in the measures for
the
preservation of the various species at the time of the
flood,
but nowhere else in Genesis. They are
also found
together
in the ritual laws respecting sacrifice, (Lev. iii.
1,
6); childbirth (Lev. xii. 7) ; uncleanness (Lev. xv. 33;
104 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
Num.
v. 3); vows (Lev. xxvii. 3-7); and nowhere else in
the
Hexateuch except Deut. iv. 16 referring to objects
of
idolatrous worship. And it is almost
exclusively in
ritual
connections that the words indicative of sex are
used
at all, even separately. Thus male
occurs in Gene-
sis
only in relation to circumcision (Gen. xvii. 10, 12,14,
23;
xxxiv. 15, 22, 24, 25); and besides in a like connec-
tion
in Ex. xii. 48, P; Josh. v. 4, R. It is
further found in
the
Hexateuch in relation to sacrifice (Ex. xii. 5; Lev. i.
3,
10; iv. 23; xxii. 19); hallowing the first-born (Ex.
xiii.
12, 15, J; Deut. xv. 19, D); directions concerning
the
priests. (Lev. vi. 11 (E. V., 18), 22
(E. V., 29); vii.
6;
Num. xviii. 10); childbirth (Lev. xii. 2); copulation
(Lev.
xviii. 22; xx. 13, J, so Dillmann; Num. xxxi. 17,
18,
35); the census (Num. i. 2, 20, 22; ch. iii.; xxvi. 62;
Josh.
xvii. 2, JE, except only the word males, so Dill-
mann);
and war (Num. xxxi. 7, 17). Female
occurs sep-
arately
in connection with sacrifice (Lev. iv. 28, 32; v.
6);
childbirth (Lev. xii. 5); and war (N um. xxxi. 15).
As
the creation, flood (for the most part), and ritual law
are
assigned to P, it is not surprising that nearly all the
allusions
to sex are in the sections and paragraphs at-
tributed
to P. And yet in the limited references which
J is
supposed to make to matters that admit of an allu-
sion
to sex, the word male finds entrance there also. It
is
alleged that J uses a different phrase, OTw;xiv; wyxi man
and
his wife
(vii. 2), instead of male and female.
Never-
theless,
male and female likewise occur (vii. 3, 9) in para-
graphs
assigned to J. The critics say that
these words
were
inserted by R, the only evidence of which is that
they
are at variance with critical assumptions.
And
why
R should have been concerned to insert them here,
and
not in vii. 2, does not appear.
13. Mh,yteHoP;w;mil; according to their families (viii.
19.)
This particular form of expression occurs
once of the
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 105
various
species of animals that came forth from the ark.
With
that exception it is limited to genealogies, viz.,
of
the sons of Noah (Gen. x. 5, 20, 31); of Esau (Gen.
xxxvi.
40); and of the Levites (Ex. vi. 17, 25); the cen-
sus
of the tribes (Num. i.-iv., xxvi.); and the division of
Canaan
(Num. xxxiii. 54; Josh. xiii., sqq). As
these are
for
the most part given to P by rule, the word is chiefly
found
in P sections as a matter of course. Yet
it is
classed
as belonging to P in x. 20, 31, though the pre-
ceding
genealogy to which it relates is given to J.
The
word
itself is found in J (Gen. xii. 3; xxviii. 14 ; Josh. vi.
23,
JE); and with the same preposition, "according to
your
families" (Ex. xii. 21, J); "according to his fami-
lies"
(Num. xi. 10, JE).
14. hWAfA NKe so did he (vi. 22).
This is part of an emphatic declaration
that the divine
directions
were punctually obeyed. Such statements
are
mostly
found in connection with the ritual, and naturally
have
their place in P, to which ritual passages are regu-
larly
assigned. In Ex. xii. 28 it is preceded
and followed
by a
J context, with the former of which it is intimately
united,
to which it evidently refers, and from which its
meaning
is derived. And yet it is torn from this con-
nection
and linked with a distant P paragraph solely and
avowedly
because it contains the formula in question.
It
occurs
but once in the book of Genesis, where it describes
the
exactness with which Noah heeded the injunctions
given
him. The expression in vii. 5 J is less full, but this
is
no indication that it is from a different source. The
emphatic
formula connected with the general statement
in
Ex. xxxix. 32 is preceded, and that in Ex. xl. 16 is
followed,
by numerous particular statements with a
briefer
formula, but no one suspects a difference of au-
thorship
on this account.
15. hbArAv; hrAkA be
fruitful and multiply (viii. 17; ix.1,7).
106 THE
GENERATIONS OF NOAH
This phrase occurs ten times in Genesis
and once in
Exodus,
and in all of them is referred to P.
This looks
like
a strong case at first sight, but all its seeming
strength
is dissipated upon examination. The
phrase is
an
emphatic combination designed to express exuberant
fertility;
and its meaning is repeatedly heightened by the
addition
of other synonymous words, or of intensifying
adverbs.1 It is used in the Pentateuch of three things,
and
of these only. 1. The blessing of fruitfulness pro-
nounced
upon animals and men at their creation (Gen. i.
22,
28) and after the flood (viii. 17; ix. 1, 7).
2. The prom-
ise
to the patriarchs of the multiplication of their descend-
ants. 3. The
actual multiplication of the children of Israel
in
Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 27; Ex. i. 7). Since
the entire account
of
the creation and almost all of the account of the flood
are
given to P, the blessings then pronounced take the
same
direction as a matter of course. Of the
two state-
ments
of the multiplication of the Israelites in Egypt, Gen.
xlvii.
27 stands in a J context, and Ex. i. 7 in an E con-
text;
and both are sundered from their proper connection
and
referred to P principally on account of the phrase
in
question.
In the blessing upon Abraham and his
descendants in
Gen.
xvii., these two verbs are first used separately--
"multiply,"
ver. 2, "make fruitful," ver. 6, and then both
are
combined in ver. 20. This climactic
promise of off-
spring
to Abraham after long years of waiting and when
every
natural expectation had vanished, was confirmed
by
the announcement that it came from the Almighty
God
(ver. 1), who was able to fulfil what nature could
1 Gen. i. 22, 28 ; ix. 1. vxlmv
vbrv vrp.
viii. 17.
vbrv vrpv . . .
vcrwv
ix. 7.
vbrv .
. . vcrw
vbrv vrp
xlvii. 27. dxm vbryv
vrpyv
Ex. i. 7. dxm dxmb vmcfyv vbryv vcrwyv vrp..
THE FLOOD (OR. VI. 9-IX. 17) 107
not
accomplish.1 This promise was
repeated with ex-
plicit
allusion to this occasion by Isaac to Jacob, xxviii.
3,
by God himself to Jacob, xxxv. 11, by Jacob to Jo-
seph,
xlviii. 3, 4. In all these cases the
emphatic words
of
the original promise, "Almighty God," "be fruitful,"
"multiply,"
are repeated together. These are
uniformly
assigned
to P, not because of the connection in which
they
stand, but because of the critical assumption that
these
words are characteristic of P, and must always be
attributed
to him. These comprise all the instances
in
the
Hexateuch, in which "be fruitful" and "multiply"
occur
together, except Lev. xxvi. 9, which Driver assigns
to
another than P, and Dillmann gives to J.
16. tyriB; Myqihe or NtanA , establish or ordain a
covenant
(vi.
18; ix. 9, 11 seq., 17).
These expressions are said to be
characteristic of P,
while
J habitually uses instead tyriB; traKA conclude a cove- nant. The fact is
that there is a difference in the signifi-
cation
of these terms, which should be noted, and which
is
the true and sufficient explanation of their usage, with-
out
the need of having recourse to the proclivities of dis-
tinct
writers. The first two expressions are used exclu-
sively
of God as instituting covenants with men; establish
(lit.
"cause to stand ") indicates the permanence and sta-
bility
of the arrangement divinely made; ordain (lit.
"give"),
suggests its divine appointment or bestowment.
These
are applied to two covenants granted in perpetu-
ity,
that to Noah (establish, vi. 8; ix. 9, 11, 17; ordain,
E.
V. "make," ix. 12) and to Abraham (establish., xvii. 7,
19,
21; Ex. vi. 4; ordain, E. V. "make," Gen. xvii. 2);
and ordain,
E. V. "give," is once besides applied to the
covenant
of a perpetual priesthood granted to Phinehas
1 Gen. xvii. 1, 2. dxm dxm jtvx hbrxv . . .ydw lx ynx.
ver. 6. dxm dxmb jtx . . . ytrphv
ver. 20.
dxm dxmb vtx . . . ytybrhv vtx ytyrphv.
108 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
(Num.
xxv. 12). Conclude (lit.
"cut," E. V. "make")
according
to its original signification alludes to the sac-
rificial
rites attending the ratification of a covenant, and
the
cutting of the victim asunder for the contracting par-
ties
to pass between the separated pieces (Jer. xxxiv. 18,
19). It properly refers, therefore, to the act of
conclud-
ing
a covenant, with predominant allusion, in some in-
stances
at least, to the accompanying ceremonies.
It is
accordingly
used--
a.
Of covenants between men; thus between Abraham
and
Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 27, 32 E), Isaac and Abime-
lech
(xxvi. 28 J), Laban and Jacob (xxxi. 44 E), Israel and
Canaanites
(Ex. xxiii. 32 E; xxxiv. 12, 15 J; Deut. vii. 2 D;
Josh.
ix. 6 sqq. E), Joshua and Israel (Josh. xxiv. 25 E).
b.
Of the covenants of God with men, when the attention
is
directed to the ratification rather than to the perpetu-
ity
of the covenant. It Occurs once of God's
covenant
with
Abraham on the occasion of its formal ratification
in
condescension to the customs of men, when a symbol
of
the Divine Being, by whom the engagement was made,
passed
between the parts of the slaughtered victims (Gen.
xv.
18 J). But when the climax was reached
and the faith
of
childless Abraham had been sufficiently tried, the
covenant
conveying the land of Canaan was more explic-
itly
unfolded as a covenant, in which the Almighty God
pledged
himself to be a God unto him and to his seed; a
covenant
that was not merely entered into, but declared
to
be everlasting, and the stronger word establish is hence-
forth
used in relation to it (Gen. xvii. 7). Conclude
(lit.
"but")
is invariably used of God's covenant with Israel,
ratified
by sacrifice (Ex. xxiv. 8 J), and solemnly renewed
(Ex.
xxxiv. 10, 27 J; Deut. iv. 23; v. 2, 3; ix. 9; xxviii.
69
(E. V. xxix. 1); xxix. 11, 13, 24 (E. V. vs. 12, 14, 25);
xxxi.
16). Establish is never used in speaking
of this
covenant
with Israel, as of that with Abraham, because
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 109
the
element of perpetuity and inviolability was wanting.
It
was liable to be broken. It was once
actually ruptured
by
the crime of the golden calf and again by their rebel-
lion,
when the spies brought an evil report of the prom-
ised
land and they were in consequence condemned to
die
in the wilderness. The people were ever
afresh re-
minded
that its persistence was conditioned on their own
fidelity. Only once in the Pentateuch is its
perpetuation
set
before them as a blessing of the future;1 if they will
walk
in the LORD'S statutes, he will establish his covenant
with
them (Lev. xxvi. 3, 9.J, Dillm.). It is
quite likely,
however,
that the phrase is here used in the secondary
sense
of performing or fulfilling, as it is in relation to the
covenant
with Abraham in Deut. viii. 18. The
occurrence
of
what is claimed as a P phrase in J and D shows that it
is
not the peculiar property of anyone of the so-called
Hexateuchal
documents. And the superficial exegesis
which
finds here only an unmeaning difference of usage
in
different writers overlooks the profound significance
which
underlies the constant employment of these sev-
eral
terms.
17. " You and your seed after
you" (ix. 9).
This or the like phrase, with a simple
change of the
pronoun,
is uniformly ascribed to P. It occurs in
the
promise
to Noah (ix. 9); Abraham (xvii. 7 bis, 8, 9, 10,
19)
; Jacob (xxxv. 12); repeated by Jacob to Joseph (xlviii.
4);
the injunction to Aaron (Ex. xxviii. 43), and the prom-
ise
to Phinehas (Num. xxv. 13). But the
expression is not
uniform
even in passages assigned to P, e.g., "to thee and
to
thy seed With thee" (Gen. xviii. 4; Num. xviii. 19);
"to
him and to his seed throughout their generations" (Ex.
xxx.
21). Why then should a slight additional
variation
1 And once besides in the Old
Testament (Ezek. xvi, 60, 62), where,
however,
it is based not on the fidelity of the people, but on the pre-
venient
grace of God.
110 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
in
three additional passages be thought to indicate a dif-
ferent
author? viz., "to thee and to thy
seed for ever"
(Gen.
xiii. 15 J); "unto thee and unto thy seed" (xxvi. 3
R.;
xxviii. 13 J); especially as one author in Deuteronomy
uses
all these phrases; "Unto them and to their seed
after
them" (i. 8); "Unto them and to their seed" (xi.
9);
"thee and thy seed forever" (xxviii. 46).
18.
fvaGA die,
expire,
for which J is said to use tUm (vi.
17;
vii. 21).
This word is only found in poetry except
in the Hexa-
euch,
where it is an emphatic word, only used of the
death
of venerated patriarchs or of great catastrophes.
It
occurs twice in relation to those that perished in the
flood
(vi. 17; vii. 21); also of those who were cut off by
divine
judgment for the rebellion of Korah (Num. xvii.
27,
28, E. V. vs. 12, 13; xx. 3 bis), or the trespass of Achan
(Josh.
xxii. 20). It is used in connection with
tUm
died,
of
the death of Abraham (Gen. xxv. 8), Ishmael (ver. 17),
Isaac
(xxxv. 29), and with the equivalent phrase, "was
gathered
to his people," of Jacob (xlix. 33); also of Aaron
(Num.
xx. 29), where the preceding verse has tvm.
The critics improperly sunder Gen. vii.
22, which has
tvm,
from its connection with ver. 21, which has fvg, as-
signing
the former for this reason to J and the latter to
P;
although ver. 22 directly continues ver. 21, and is a
comprehensive
restatement in brief, added with the view
of
giving stronger expression to the thought.
Num. xx.
3b
is cut out of an E connection, and referred to P on ac-
count
of this word fvg,
though the similar passage, Num.
xiv.
37, shows that it belongs where it stands.
This
word
could not be expected in the passages assigned
to
J, since they record no death in all the Hexateuch
except
those of Haran (Gen. xi. 28), the wife of Judah
(xxxviii.
12), and a king of Egypt (Ex. ii. 23); in all
which
the word tvm
is appropriately used. The passages
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 111
assigned
to P in like manner use tvm of
the antediluvi-
ans
(Gen. v.), Terah (xi. 32), Sarah (xxiii. 2), the kings of
Edom
(xxxvi. 33-39 so Dillmann), Nadab and Abihu (Lev.
x.
2), and several times besides as an emphatic addition
to fvg.
There is in all this no difference of usage what-
ever,
and certainly nothing to suggest diversity of author-
ship.
19. tyHw;hi and
tHewo destroy, not hHAmA blot out, J (vi.
13,
17; ix. 11, 15).
What is here claimed as a P word occurs
but once in
P
outside of the account of the flood (Gen. xix. 29);
while
it occurs repeatedly in J (Piel form, Gen. xiii. 10;
xix.
13; xxxviii. 9; Ex. xxxii. 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 5); and in
E
(Piel, Ex. xxi. 26; N urn. xxxii. 15 ; Josh. xxii. 33), in
J
(Hiphil, Gen. xviii. 28, 31, 32; xix. 13, 14; Ex. xii. 23).
And
the alleged J word hHAmA occurs
four times in the
narrative
of the flood (vi. 7 ; vii. 4, 23 bis) ; and five times
besides
in the Hexateuch, twice in J (Ex. xxxii. 32, 33);
twice
in E (Ex. xvii. 14); and once in P (Num. v. 23).
The
writer is led to use tHw
in vi. 13, 17 because of the
twofold
signification of the word, which may have respect
to
character or condition and may mean "to corrupt" or
"to
destroy." All flesh had corrupted
their way, where-
fore
God was resolved to destroy them. In
vii. 23 hHAmA,
though
referred to J, is in connection with the enumera-
tion
of "man, beast, creeping thing, and
fowl of heaven,"
which
is reckoned a characteristic of P, and can only be
accounted
for by the assumption that it has been inserted
by
R.
20.
dyliOh beget (vi. 10), for which J is said to use dlayA.
As is remarked by Dillmann ("
Commentary on Gen.," v.
3), dyliOh
said of the father, belongs to greater
precision
of
style. Hence this is uniformly used in
the direct line
of
the genealogies leading to the chosen race, which are
drawn
up with special fulness and formality (Gen. v.; vi.
112 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
10;
xi. 10 sqq.; xxv. 19; Num. xxvi. 29, 58).
And dly
is
as
uniformly used of the side lines, thus iv. 18 (in the
line
of Cain), x. 8, 13, 15, 24, 26 (line of Ham, and that
of
Shem outside of the chosen race), xxii. 23 (Bethuel),
xxv.
3 (Keturah). The only apparent
exceptions are
not
really such; in x. 24 Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber head
a
divergent line proceeding with Joktan (cf. xi. 12-17).
In
xi. 27 Haran begat (dylvh)
Lot, but this is included in
the
genealogy with Abraham, just as (xi. 26) Terah begat
(dylvh) three sons, and Noah (v. 32 ; vi. 10)
begat (dylvh)
three
sons, these being included in a genealogy of the
direct
line. In xvii. 20 the promise that
Ishmael shall
beget
( dylvy) twelve princes is not in a genealogy,
and
besides,
it is part of a promise to Abraham. The
varia-
tion,
which the critics attribute to distinct writers, is sim-
ply
the carrying out of a consistent and uniform plan by
the
same writer. Besides, it is only by critical
legerde-
main
that dly is restricted to J. Gen. xxii. 23 is referred
to J
notwithstanding the allusion by P in xxv. 20, which
makes
it necessary to assume that P had stated the same
thing
in some other passage now lost. This
carries with
it
xxii. 20, whose allusion to xi. 29 requires the latter to
be
torn from its connection and referred to J.
And in
xxv.
3 dly alternates with ynbv, which is made a criterion
of P
in ch. x.; comp. also xlvi. 9 sqq.; Ex. vi. 15 sqq.
21.
hlAk;xA eating (E. V. food, vi. 21; ix. 3).
Delitzsch (Commentary on Gen., vi. 21)
says, "lkox<l,
to
eat, and
lkAxEmal; for
food,"
and quotes with approval from
Driver,
"a thing is given lkox<l, on a particular occasion,
it
is given lcAxEma for a continuance." It is said that J
uses lcAxEma as its equivalent; but lcAxEma and hlAk;xA occur
together
in Gen. vi. 21 P, where the difference is plainly
shown; hlAk;xA denotes that which is eaten, hlAc;xA
the act of
eating;
hlAk;xA
occurs seven
times in the Hexateuch. In
each
instance some particular article of food is prescribed
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 113
for
constant eating; and these are the only passages in
which
this is done. In Gen. i. 29, 30, to man
and beast
at
the creation; vi. 21 to Noah and those that were with
him
in the ark during the flood; ix. 3 to man after the
flood;
Ex. xvi. 15 to Israel manna during their abode in
the
wilderness; Lev. xi. 39 to Israel animal food allowed
by
the law; xxv. 6 to man and beast during the sabbat-
ical
year.
As all these verses are assigned to P,
and these com-
prise
all the passages of this description, it is not sur-
prising
that hlkx
does not occur
in J. But some nice
critical
work is required to effect this. Ex. xvi. 15 has
to be
split in two; its first clause is said to belong to J,
but
its last clause is attributed to P because of this very
word
(so Dillmann). Kayser ("Das
Vorexilische Buch,"
p.
76) refers Lev. xxv. 1-7 to another than P; Kuenen
("Hexateuch,"
p. 286) refers it to P', who is distinguished
from
P, or as he prefers to call him, P", the author of
"the
historico-legislative work extending from the cre-
ation
to the settlement in Canaan" (p. 288).
22. hy.AHa wild beast (vii. 14, 21 ; viii. 1, 17, 19; ix. 2,
5).
There is no difference in this between the
passages re-
spectively
assigned to the so-called documents. hy.AHa
beast is distinguished from hmAHeB;
cattle in P (i. 24, 25;
vii.
14, 21; viii. 1; ix. 10), but so it is in J (ii. 20). In
i. 30;
viii. 19; ix. 2, 5 P, it is used in a more compre-
hensive
sense and includes domestic animals precisely as
it
does in ii. 19 J. In vi. 20 P hmAHeB;
cattle is used in
a
like comprehensive sense and embraces all quadrupeds
as
in vii. 2 J. In the rest of Genesis and
of the Hexa-
teuch,
while hyH beast occurs in the sense of wild
beasts
in
Gen. xxxvii. 20, 33 JE, Ex. xxiii. 29 E, Dent. vii. 22
D,
it is nowhere used in this sense in P, to which it is
conceded
that Lev. xvii. 13; xxv. 7; xxvi. 6, 22, do not
properly
belong; and in Num. xxxv. 3 P, where beasts
114 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
are
distinguished from cattle, it is nevertheless plain that domesticated animals
are meant.
23. Nymi kind (vi. 20; vii. 14).
This word is only used when there is
occasion to refer
to
various species of living things, as in the account of
the
creation (Gen. i., ten times), and of the preservation
of
animals m the ark (vi. 20, four times; vii. 14, four
times),
and in the law respecting clean and unclean ani-
mals
(Lev. xi., nine times; Deut. xiv., four times).
It
occurs
but once besides m the entire Old Testament
(Ezek.
xlvii. 10), where reference is made to the various
species
of fish. As the creation, the flood (in
large part),
and
the ritual law are assigned to P, and there is no oc-
casion
to use the word elsewhere, it cannot be expected
in
passages attributed to J; not even in vii. 2, 3, 8,
where
attention is drawn to the distinction maintained
between
clean and unclean rather than the variety of
species
preserved, which is sufficiently insisted upon vi.
20
and vii. 14.
24. Mc,f, self-same (vii. 13).
This is an emphatic form of speech, which
was but
sparingly
used, and limited to important epochs whose
exact
time is thus signalized. It marks two
momentous
days
in the history, that on which Noah entered into the
ark
(Gen. vii. 13), and that on which Moses the leader
and
legislator of Israel went up Mount Nebo to die
(Deut.
xxxii. 48). With these exceptions it
occurs mainly
in
ritual connections. It is used twice in
connection with
the
original institution of circumcision in the family of
Abraham
(Gen. xvii. 23, 26); three times in connection
with
the institution of the passover on the day that the
LORD
brought Israel out of Egypt (Ex. xii. 17, 41, 51);
and
five times in Lev. xxiii., the chapter ordaining the
sacred
festivals, to mark severally the day on which the
sheaf
of the first-fruits was presented m the passover
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 115
week
(ver. 14), which is emphasized afresh on the ob-
servance
of the first passover in Canaan (Josh. v. 11);
also
the day on which the two wave loaves were brought
at
the feast of weeks (ver. 21); and with triple repeti-
tion
the great day of atonement (vs. 28-30).
Since ritual
passages
are regularly assigned to P, and the two em-
phatic
moments in the history calling for the use of this
expression
have likewise been given to him, it might not
seem
surprising if it had been absolutely limited to P.
And
yet it is found once in an admitted JE section
(Josh.
x. 27), showing that it can have place in these sec-
tions
as well as others, if there is occasion for its em-
ployment.
25.
CrawA creep or swarm, and Cr,w,
creeping or swarming things (vii.
21; viii. 17; ix. 7).
Cr,w, creeping things occurs among other species
of ani-
mals
at the creation (i. 20), in the flood (vii. 21), and in
the
ritual law as a source of defilement (Lev. v. 2; xxii.
5),
or prohibited as food (Lev. xi., ten times; Deut. xiv.
19);
and it is found nowhere else in the Old Testament.
The verb Crw is used with its cognate noun at the
creation
(i. 20, 21), and flood (vii. 21), and in the law of
unclean
meats (Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46); and in the
sense
of swarming or great fertility in the blessings pro-
nounced
upon animals and men after the flood (viii. 17;
ix.
7); the immense multiplication of the children of Is-
rael
in Egypt (Ex. i.7); and the production of countless
frogs
(Ex. vii. 28, E. V. viii. 3, repeated Ps. cv. 30);
and
it is used but once besides in the entire Old Testa-
ment. In the creation, flood, and ritual law it is
given
to P
as a matter of course; but it occurs in J in Ex. vii.
28;
and in Ex. i. 7 it is only saved for P by cutting it
out
of an E connection.
26.
WmarA creep and Wm,r, creeping thing.
These words occur in the account of the
creation (i.
116 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
21,
24, 25, 26, 28, 30); and the flood (vi. 20; vii. 14, 21,
23;
viii. 17, 19; cr. 2, 3) P; also vi. 7; vii. 8, 23, in a J
connection;
in the ritual law respecting clean and un-
clean
beasts (Lev. xi. 44, 46 P; xx. 25 J) (so Dillmann);
and
in the prohibition of making an image of anything
for
worship (Deut. iv. 18); and in but three passages be-
sides
in the Old Testament (Ps. 1m. 35; civ. 20; Ezek.
xxxviii.
20). Their signification limits their
occurrence
to a
class of passages that are mostly assigned to P,
though
the noun is likewise found in D, and both noun
and
verb are only excluded from J by critical legerde-
main.
27.
dxom; dxom; exceedingly
(vii. 19).
This duplicated intensive adverb is
referred to P also
(Ex.
i. 7; N um. xiv. 7), and with a preposition prefixed
(Gen.
xvii. 2, 6, 20). But it is admitted to
belong to J
(Gen.
xxx. 43).
28.
B; used
distributively (vii. 21; viii. 17; ix. 10, 15
seq.).
But it occurs in JE likewise (Ex. x. 15).
It appears from the above examination of
these words
and
phrases that they are for the most part found in the
other
so-called documents as well as in P; when they are
limited
to P or preponderate there, it is due not to the
writer's
peculiarity, but to the nature of the subject, and
in
many cases to critical artifice.
MARKS OF J
The following are alleged to be
indications of J :
1.
"Distinction of clean and unclean beasts (vii. 2, 8),
mention
of altar and sacrifice" (viii. 20, 21; comp. iv.
3,
4).
For the reason given under Ch. vi. 1-8,
Marks of J, No.
11,
it was as Jehovah chiefly that God was worshipped, that
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 117
prayer
was addressed to him, and offerings made to him.
Hence
it is almost exclusively in Jehovah sections that
mention
is made of altars and sacrifices; and the dis-
tinction
of clean and unclean beasts here made had rela-
tion
to sacrifice.
The notion of the critics that, according
to P, sacrifice
was
first introduced by Moses at Sinai, is utterly prepos-
terous
and altogether unwarranted. It is
preposterous
to
suppose that the pious patriarchs, who were honored
with
special divine communications and were in favor
with
God, engaged in no acts of worship. And
it is
wholly
without warrant, for there is no suggestion of any
such
idea in the paragraphs assigned to P.
This is one
of
those perverse conclusions which are drawn from the
absolute
severance of what belongs together, and can
only
be properly understood in combination.
The prev-
alent
absence of allusion to sacrifice in passages where
God
is spoken of as Elohim simply arises from the cir-
cumstance
that Jehovah is the proper name to use in
such
a connection.
2.
"Prominence given to the inherent sinfulness of
men"
(viii. 21).
Jehovah's gracious revelation has for its
object the re-
coveryof
men from sin and their restoration to the di-
vine
favor. Now, since the disease and the
remedy go
together,
it is quite appropriate that human sin should
be
chiefly portrayed in Jehovah sections.
3. OTwxiv;
wyxi a
man and his wife,
applied to beasts, "a
male
and his female " (vii. 2), used instead of " male and
female." See above, Marks of P, No. 12.
As these terms are nowhere else applied to
the lower
animals
in J, it is not strange that they are not so ap-
plied
in P sections. But a fairly parallel
case occurs in
Ex.
xxvi. 3, 5, 6, 17 P, where terms strictly denoting
human
beings receive a wider application, curtains and
118 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
tenons
being said to be coupled, "a woman. to her sis-
ter,
i.e., one to another, as it is in Ex. XXXVI. 10, 12, 13,
22. Moreover, in Gen. viii. 19 hHpwm is used to denote
species
in animals, while Nym
is always used in this sense
elsewhere. Yet both are alike referred to P by the crit-
ics. With what consistency, then, can a difference
of
writers
be inferred from the fact that vtwxv wyx
is used
in
one verse (vii. 2) instead of hbqnv
rkz?
4. MymiyAl; in days or at the completion of days
(vii. 4, 10).
This
expression occurs nowhere else in the Hexateuch
in
this sense; but the preposition is similarly used (xvii.
21
P; see Dillmann on Gen. iii. 8, to which he refers
vii.
4 as a parallel).
5. OBli-lx, at or unto his heart (vi. 6; viii. 21).
Nowhere else in the Hexateuch.
6. rUbfEBa because of (viii. 21).
This occurs only in narrative passages,
viz., 15 times in
Genesis,
7 times in the first twenty chapters of Exodus,
and
nowhere else in the Hexateuch. It is 3
times at-
tributed
to R (Ex. ix. 14, 16 bis); and with this excep-
tion
the passages in which it is found are divided be-
tween
J and E, to whom the great bulk of the narrative
in
the Hexateuch is ascribed.
7. yH-lKA every living thing (viii. 21; iii. 20), contrary
to
vi. 19 P, yHaha-lKA all the living things.
These words do not occur together again in
the Hexa-
teuch,
whether with the article or without it.
The inser-
tion
or omission of the article in such a phrase is a very
slender
ground on which to base the assertion of a dif-
ference
of writers, especially as its insertion in vi. 19 ap-
pears
to be due to the qualifying, expression that follows,
"all
the living things of all flesh."
8. hcAp;nA was overspread (ix. 19).
Dillmann says that P writes drap;ni
(x. 5, 32); and
then
he
annuls the force of his remark by adding, "not quite
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 119
in
the same sense." If the sense is not the same, why
should
not the word be different?
Dillmann further calls attention to the
fact that differ-
ent
expressions are used for the same thing in different
parts
of the narrative of the flood. Thus:
9. P, in vi. 16, speaks of rhaco a light;
but J (viii. 6) of
NOl.Ha a
window in
the ark.
There is some obscurity in the description
of the for-
mer
which makes its precise construction doubtful
Dillmann
thinks that it was an opening a cubit wide, ex-
tending
the entire length of all the four sides of the ark
just
beneath the roof, for the admission of light and air,
and
only interrupted by the beams which supported the
roof. The window was a latticed opening, whose
shape
and
dimensions are not given. There is
nothing to for-
bid
its exact correspondence and identity with the open-
ing
before mentioned. And there is nothing
strange in
the
use of one term to describe it when considered sim-
ply
as intended for the admission of light, and another
term
when reference is made to the lattice which Noah
had
occasion to unfasten.
10. MUqy; living substance (vii. 4, 23).
This is. found but once besides in the
Old Testament
(Deut.
xi. 6). In both the former passages it
is given to
J,
notwithstanding the mixed state of the text, as the
critics
regard it, in ver. 23. It there stands
in combina-
tion
with "man, cattle, creeping things, and fowl of the
heaven,"
and "who were with him," both which are ac-
counted
marks of P.
11. lqa lightened or abated (viii. 8, 11).
As this word is nowhere else used in a
like sense by J
it
is not strange that it does not occur in P.
And as two
different
words are employed (viii. 1, 3) to express a sim-
ilar
thought, both being referred by the critics to the
same
writer, why should the use of a third word bearing
120 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
an
analogous sense compel us to think of a different writer altogether?
12. hy.AHi (Piel) keep alive (vii. 3) J,
while (vi. 19, 20) P
has hyAH,h< (Hiphil).
But this can be no indication of a
diversity of writers,
for
both forms occur repeatedly in passages assigned
to J
elsewhere; thus Piel, Gen. xii. 12; xix. 32, 34;
Hiphil,
xix. 19; xlvii. 25. Both occur in the
same con-
nection
(Num. xxxi. 15, 18) and are referred to the same
writer. The Hiphil is but once again referred to P
(Josh.
ix. 20), and the Piel, which occurs in the same
connection
(ver. 15), is only given to another by a crit-
ical
dissection of the verse. The Piel and
Hiphil of this
verb
are used indiscriminately as those of tHawA
are, which
are
both given to P; see above, Marks of P, No. 19.
13. lUBm.aha yme waters of the flood (vii. 7, 10; not so vi.
17).
The attempt to create a distinction
between the so-
called
documents in the mode of speaking of the flood is
not
successful. When the flood is first
mentioned the
unusual
word lUBma is defined by the added phrase
"waters
upon the earth" (vi. 17; vii. 6 P).
We then
read
(vii. 7, 10 J) of "waters of the flood," and the same
in
ix. 11 P. Then (vii. 17 J) of "the
flood" simply,
and
so in ix. 15, 28 P.
It thus appears that the so-called
characteristics of J
are
no characteristics at all. They are for
the most part
words
or phrases of rare occurrence, several of them be-
ing
found nowhere else, and they cannot therefore be ad-
duced
as belonging to the writer's ordinary style.
And
there
is not a single instance that is suggestive of a di-
versity
of documents.
The critical arguments for the severance
of this narra-
tive
thus collapse entirely upon examination.
And yet
this
is accounted one of the most plausible cases of crit-
THE FLOOD (CH. vI.1 9-IX. 17) 121
ical
partition. As it fails here, so it does
everywhere
throughout
the Pentateuch. The evidences of unity of
authorship
are everywhere too strong to be overcome
by
the devices which the critics employ for the purpose.
NUMERICAL CORRESPONDENCE.
The attempt has been made to discover
numerical
correspondences
in the duration of the flood, but with-
out
any marked success. The rains began on
the 17th
day
of the 2d month, and on the 27th day of the 2d
month
in the following year the earth was again dry
(viii.
14). If the reckoning was by lunar years
of 354
days,
this would amount precisely to a solar year of 365
days. But this was plainly not the case, since the
5
months
to the resting of the ark (viii. 4; comp. vii. 11)
amounted
to 150 days (vii. 24). Five lunar months
would
yield but 147 days. Evidently the
reckoning is
by
months of 30 days. If the year consisted
of twelve
such
months, the flood lasted 371 days; if 5 intercalary
days
were added, as in the ancient Egyptian year, the
flood
lasted 376 days. As neither of these
sums corre-
spond
with any customary division of time, critics have
claimed
that the text has been remodelled by a later
hand,
and a conflicting computation inserted, according
to
which the flood lasted 300 days, rising to its height in
150
days (vii. 24), and subsiding for an equal term. To
be
sure the period of subsidence is nowhere so reckoned,
but
the critics suppose that it must have been intended,
since
75 days, one-half of this term, elapsed between the
resting
of the ark on the 17th of the 7th month (viii. 4),
and
the appearance of the tops of the mountains on the
1st
of the 10th month (ver. 5). But it was 4
months and
26
days after this before the earth was sufficiently dry
for
Noah to leave the ark. There is no
conflict of state-
122 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
ment,
therefore, and no need of remodelling the text.
The
writer was more concerned for the historical truth
of
his statement than for a numerical correspondence,
such
as the critics are so eager to discover, and which
the
LXX. sought to introduce by changing 17th to 27th
in
vii. 11, thus making the flood continue exactly a year.
THE ASSYRIAN FLOOD TABLETS.
The Babylonian account of the flood, as reported
by
Berosus,
has long been known to bear a striking similar-
ity
to the narrative in Genesis. This has
been recently
confirmed,
and our knowledge of the relation between
them
materially increased by the discovery of the cunei-
form
flood tablets belonging to the library of Assurbani-
pal,
and copied from a much older Babylonish original.
The
coincidences between the Babylonish and the He-
brew
account are so pervading and remarkable as clearly
to
establish a community of origin; while, on the other
hand,
the divergences are so numerous and so serious as
to
make it evident that neither has been directly copied
from
the other. The suggestion of Friedrich Delitzsch
and
of Haupt, that the story was first adopted by the
Jews
at the time of the Babylonish captivity, is very
justly
repelled by Schrader and Dillmann on two dis-
tinct
grounds. 1. "It is utterly
insupposable that the
Jews
should have appropriated from their foes, the Bab-
ylonians,
a local tradition altogether foreign to them-
selves
originally, and saturated by the most silly polythe-
ism." 2.
Its inseparable connection with portions of the
Pentateuch
which are demonstrably pre-exilic. The
manifest
allusions of the earlier prophets to passages in
the
Pentateuch, which all divisive critics agree to refer
to
J, make it impossible to assign that so-called document
to a
later period than the seventh or eighth century be-
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 123
fore
Christ. Beyond all question the story of
the flood
was
known to the Jews at that time, and formed a part
of
their sacred tradition. The fact that
Noah is not ex-
plicitly
mentioned in the subsequent Scriptures until Isa.
liv.
9 (which the critics pronounce exilic) and Ezek. xiv.
14,
20, as a purely negative testimony is of no force
against
the positive proof above adduced. Dr.
Dillmann
shows
the futility of the argument from that source by
adducing
the parallel case of the nal'rative of the fall
(Gen.
iii. ),1 which is nowhere else alluded to in the Old
Testament. Kuenen, Schrader and others maintain that
the
account of the flood was first brought from Assyria
or
Babylonia in the seventh or eighth century before
Christ. But, as Dillman urges, why should the Jews
have
accepted
this foreign story, so variant in many particulars
from
their own style of thought, and enshrined it in the
place
which it occupies in their sacred traditions and the
line
of their ancestry, if it was altogether unknown to
them
before? And why, he asks, should it be
imagined
that
the story of the flood never spread to surrounding
nations
until so late a period as this? And if
to other
nations,
why not to Israel? The readiness with
which
high
antiquity is conceded to the productions and beliefs
of
other nations, often on the most slender grounds, while
the
opposite propensity is manifested in the case of Is-
rael,
and everything assigned to the latest possible period,
is,
to say the least, very singular and is not very credit-
able
to scholarly impartiality and fair dealing.
The well-attested fact of the migration
of Abraham,
or
the ancestors of Israel, from U r of the Chaldees,
gives
a point of connection which on any theory of the
relation
of these narratives satisfactorily explains both
their
agreement and their divergence. Whether
Abra-
ham
derived his knowledge of the flood from traditions
1The critics themselves refer J
to the eighth century B.C.
124 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
current
in the region of Ur, which were purged of their
polytheistic
taint by his own purer faith and that of his
descendents,
or whether, as I believe, a truer account
free
from mythological conceit was transmitted to him in
the
line of a pious ancestry, we need not now inquire.
But
on either view of the case an obvious solution of the
whole
matter, and one against which no serious objec-
tion
can be urged, is that Abraham brought with him to
Canaan
substantially that conception of primeval history
which
subsequently formed part of the faith of his de-
scendants. There is not the slightest reason for the as-
sumption
that this was a post-Mosaic addition to Israel's
creed.
The only further question with which we
are at pres-
ent
concerned, is as to the bearing of the flood tablets
upon
critical partition. The patent fact is
that they
stand
in equal relation to the entire Hebrew narrative as
an
undivided whole, with no suggestion of any such
line
of partition as the critics undertake to draw in it,
but
both having a like affinity for, and exhibiting a like
divergence
from, all that lies on either side of the line, or
what
the critics severally denominate J and P.
The Chaldean account agrees, in the first
place, with
what
is affirmed in P and J paragraphs alike, that there
was
a great flood, divinely sent, which destroyed all men
and
animals except those saved in a single vessel with
one
man, to whom the coming of the catastrophe had
been
disclosed, and who had gathered into this vessel
different
species of tame and wild beasts, and the mem-
bers
of his own family. The Chaldean account
adds his
relatives,
and male and female servants, together with his
valuables
and a pilot. Assurance is given in both
ac-
counts
that mankind should not be again destroyed by a
flood;
the Chaldean adds that other forms of judgment
might
take its place, as wild beasts, famine, and pesti-
THE FLOOD (CH. VI. 9-IX. 17) 125
lence. There is an intimation near the close of the
Chal-
dean
account that the flood was sent because men had
offended
Bel, one of the gods; but no prominence is
given,
as in the Hebrew, to the thought that it was a
righteous
retribution. It is ascribed rather to
the hasty
temper
of Bel, which was censured by the other gods.
And
the deliverance was not due to the righteousness of
any
that were saved. Bel was indignant that
any escaped
the
destruction which he had intended for the entire race,
and
was only calmed by the remonstrance of other
deities.
There are special points of agreement
between the
Chaldean
account and the paragraphs assigned to P,
viz.,
that the patriarch was divinely directed to build the
vessel,
and that of prescribed dimensions, length, breadth,
and
height (though the measures are not the same), to
pitch
it within and without with bitumen, and to stock
it
with provisions; that he entered it on the very day
that
the flood came, or the day before; that the great
deep
as well as the heavens supplied the waters of the
flood;
that the ark rested on a mountain, though the lo-
cality
is not the same.1
There are also special points of agreement
between the
Chaldean
account and. the paragraphs assigned to J, viz.,
the
mention of a covering to the ark, of the shutting of
the
door (by Jehovah in the Hebrew, by the patriarch
himself
in the Chaldean); of the duration of the storm
(though
the time stated is different, in the Hebrew forty
days
and forty nights, in the Cha1dean six days and six or
perhaps
seven nights); of the opening of a window (in
the
Hebrew after, in the Chaldean before, the resting of
the ark);
of the sending forth of birds to ascertain
1 Dr. Haupt at one time understood the
tablets to state in addition that
a
celestial bow was displayed after the occupants of the ark had landed.
But
he has since abandoned this translation as incorrect.
126 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
whether
the flood had ceased (in the Chaldean seven
days,
in the Hebrew forty days after the resting of the
ark;
in the Chaldean a dove, a swallow, and a raven, each
immediately
upon the return of its predecessor, the last
not
returning at all; in the Hebrew a raven, which did not
return,
then a dove, thrice at intervals of seven days, first
returning
as it went, the second time with a fresh olive
leaf,
the third time not returning); and after disembark-
ing,
of the erection of an altar and offering sacrifice,
whose
sweet savor was agreeable to the divinity (in the
Chaldean
the gods gathered like flies about the sweet
odor). The Chaldean makes no mention of the distinc-
tion
of clean and Unclean beasts recognized in the He-
brew.
The Chaldean account departs entirely
from the He-
brew
in representing the patriarch as apprehending the
ridicule
of the people if he should build the ship (ac-
cording
to a probable understanding of it), and pleading
that
such a ship had never before been constructed, and
in
portraying his distress at beholding the scene of deso-
lation;
also in representing the gods as terrified by the
flood
and in the whole polytheistic setting of the story,
and
in the translation of the patriarch and his wife to
dwell
among the gods.
This common relation of the Chaldean
account to the
Hebrew
narrative as a whole testifies strongly to its
unity,
and to the arbitrary character of the partition
made
by the critics.
See the translations of the flood tablets
by George
Smith,
the discoverer of them, in his "Assyrian Discov-
eries,"
1875; "Chaldean Account of Genesis," 1876;
"Records
of the Past," vol. vii.; also by Dr. Paul Haupt
in
Schrader's "Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,"
and
by Dr. John D. Davis in the Presbyterian Review
for
July, 1889, and in his Genesis and Semitic Tradition.
NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. IX. 18-29) 127
NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. IX. 18-29).
The critics assign the concluding verses
of this para-
graph
(vs. 28, 29) to P. They evidently refer
back to
the
statement of Noah's age at the time of the flood (vii.
6),
and complete the record of Noah's life begun in v. 32
in
the exact terms of the preceding genealogy.
They are
thus
linked at once with the narrative of the flood and
with
ch. v., and must be by the same author.
We have,
however,
seen no evidence in these sections of a narrator
P as
distinguished from J, and none is suggested in the
verses
before us. It is at any rate a
remarkable circum-
stance,
if Genesis is compiled from different documents,
all
of which must have mentioned the death of each of
the
patriarchs whose lives they recorded, that the fact of
their
death is invariably taken from P, and never from J,
even
when, as in the present instance, a J section imme-
diately
precedes.
The opening verses of the paragraph
(vs.18, 19) are as-
signed
to J, who had previously spoken of the sons of
Noah
(vii. 7) as entering with him into the ark, but had
not
mentioned their names, while these have been be-
fore
stated by P (v. 32; vi. 10; vii. 13, and again in x.l).
But
if the same writer could repeat their names four
times,
there is no very evident reason why he might not
do
so once more, or why the fifth repetition must neces-
sarily
imply a different writer. The critics
tell us that
vs.
18, 19 were in J introductory to the table of nations
as
given in that document, and were immediately fol-
lowed
by it, though, as they divide ch. x., J only records
the
descendants of two sons of Noah, Ham and Shem,
but
none of Japheth; and ver. 18b "Ham is the father
of
Canaan," plainly shows them to be preparatory to
the
narrative in vs. 20-27, a conclusion which can
128 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
only
be escaped by rejecting this clause as an interpola-
tion.
Verse 20 is understood to trace the origin
of the art of
agriculture,
and especially the culture of the vine, to
Noah. It is hence conjectured that vs. 20-27 is a
frag-
ment
from an ancient document, to which iv. 17-24 con-
taining
a record of the origin of other arts is likewise re-
ferred,
and from which J is supposed to have again
drawn. While in the preceding narrative Noah's sons
are
spoken of as married, it is alleged that here they are
represented
as children and occupying the same tent with
himself. But this is pure invention; there is no such
declaration
or implication in anything that is said.
Ham
is
here called Noah's youngest son (ver. 24); this is held
to
imply in J a different conception of their relative ages
from
that of P, who always names them in the order
Shem,
Ham, and Japheth. But they stand in the same
order
in ix. 18, which is attributed to J. If
it be said
that
R has in this instance changed J's order to make it
conform
to that of P, the question arises why he did not
likewise
correct ver. 24 for the same reason. The
fact is
that
the order of their names is not determined by their
respective
ages but by an entirely different reason.
Shem
as the ancestor of the chosen race is placed first,
as
Abram is for the like cause in xi. 26.
Ham, as the an-
cestor
of nations standing in a nearer relation to the He-
brews
than the descendants of Japheth, comes next,
and
Japheth last. In ch. x. the order is
precisely re-
versed. The table of nations begins with those sprung
from
Japheth as the most remote; Ham follows, then
Shem,
the series thus drawing gradually nearer to the
chosen
race, whose direct genealogy is reserved for xi.
10
sqq.
In ix. 20-27 an ancient prophecy from
the mouth of
Noah,
in which the names of Shem, Japheth, and Canaan
NOAH AFTER THE FLOOD (CH. IX. 18-29) 129
appear,
is recorded together with the circumstances
under
which it was delivered.
Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Blessed be Jehovah the God of Shem .
And let Canaan be his servant.
God enlarge Japheth,
And let him dwell in the tents of Shem;
And let Canaan be his servant.
The
critics think the circumstances improbable; there-
fore
they pronounce them untrue. Noah, they
say, is
here,
ver. 20, a "husbandman, a role quite distinct from
that
of a navigator," which he sustains elsewhere; the
remark
seems to imply that he should have been culti-
vating
the soil during the flood, or should continue to
sail
about in the ark after the flood was over. The crit-
ics
can see no reason "Thy sentence should have been
pronounced
upon Canaan for the shameful deed of his
father;
therefore they conclude that there was no reason,
and
that it was not done. As though it were
not the
keenest
of inflictions upon a father to be punished in his
child;
and as though the law of heredity, the propaga-
tion
of character, and the perpetuation of the evil conse-
quences
of transgression generation after generation, were
not
among the most patent and familiar facts, of which
the
beastliness of the Canaanites and their merited doom
afford
a signal illustration. And now if they
may change
the
text of the narrative on the pretext of conforming it
to
the prophecy, and so make Shem, Japheth, and Canaan
the
three sons of Noah, they can bring it into conflict
with
every other statement on the subject in the history;
whence
they infer that this has been extracted from a
document
J', at variance with both J and P. Or if
they
may
reverse the process and insert Ham instead of
Canaan
in the prophecy, they can show that it was not
130 THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH
fulfilled. Or if they may put a belittling
interpretation
upon
the prophecy, and restrict it to tribes inhabiting
Palestine,
Shem denoting Israel and Japheth the Philis-
tines
in contrast with the Canaanites, as is done by Well-
hausen,
they can show how the meaning can be perverted
by
giving arbitrary senses to words at variance with their
well-known
and invariable signification. By this
time
they
have shown that something is absurd.
They think
that
it is this venerable prophecy, whose profound and
far-reaching
meaning, whose appropriateness in a book
intended
for Israel about to enter on the conquest of
Canaan,
and whose exact fulfilment have been univer-
sally
recognized. Most persons will think that
the ab-
surdity
is in the critical treatment of the passage.
Delitzsch says, in his
"Commentary" upon Gen. ix.
18b,
"And Ham is the father of Canaan:"
"This clause
is
now mostly regarded as an addition by the redactor,
since
the conclusion is drawn from the curse upon
Canaan
that in the original form of the narrative it was
Canaan
who sinned against Noah (Dillmann and others).
Some
go farther and maintain that in its original shape the
three
sons of Noah were not Shem, Ham, and Japheth,
but
Shem, Japheth, and Canaan (Wellhausen).
From
this
Budde, by means of critical operations, which tran-
scend
our horizon, obtains the result that the following
narrative
originally stood after xi. 9, and began,
'There
went
forth also from Babel Noah, the son of Jabal, he
and
his wife and his three sons, Shem; Japheth, and
Canaan,
and he came to Aram-naharaim and abode there.'
So,
as he supposes, wrote J', who, as Wellhausen and
Kuenen
also assume, knew nothing of a deluge.
We
here
see a specimen of what emulation in the art of sev-
ering
can accomplish."
IV
THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH (CH.
X. 1-
XI. 9)
ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.)
THE generations of the sons of Noah (ch.
x. 1-xi. 9)
record
the dispersion of mankind over the earth; and
the
generations of Shem (xi. 10-26) trace the line of de-
scent
to Abram. This completes the preliminary
por-
tion
of the history of Genesis, inasmuch as it fills up the
interval
between the flood and the birth of Abram, with
whom
the history of the chosen race properly begins.
These
sections are intimately related to one another, as
well
as closely connected both with what precedes and
what
follows. The genealogical table in ch.
x. exhibits
the
filiation and relationship of the several nations of
antiquity,
and is intimately united with the antecedent
history
of Noah's family. Ch. x. 1 contains an
explicit
reference
to the flood, the narrative of which had just
been
concluded, and proposes to state the descendants
of
the three sons of Noah, that were born to them after
the
flood. The way for it had been prepared by God's
blessing
Noah and his sons (ix. 1, 7), and bidding them
multiply
and replenish the earth; as well as by the
statement
(ix. 19) that of the three sons of Noah was the
whole
earth overspread. Thus introduced, a
detailed
account
is given of the particular nations sprung from
them,
which did thus overspread the earth (x. 32).
Then
follows
(xi. 1-9) a narrative of the occurrences at Babel,
132
THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS 0F NOAH
which
led to their being scattered over the earth, of
which
intimations had already been given (x. 10, 25).
This table of the nations of mankind has
its appro-
priate
place in the sacred history. It is
inserted just
here
for a double reason: 1. To make a
distinct declara-
tion
at the outset of their kinship to the chosen race,
with
which the history is henceforth more particularly to
occupy
itself. All are sprung from the same
ancestry,
and
all are ultimately to share in the blessing to come
upon
all the families of mankind through the seed of
Abraham
(xii. 3). This conception of the universal
brotherhood
of man is peculiar to the Hebrew Script-
ures,
and is as remote as possible from that which was
generally
entertained by ancient nations, who looked
upon
foreigners as barbarians and enemies. 2.
They
are
thus in accordance with the uniform plan of the
book
formally dismissed from the sacred history, which
proceeds
at once in accordance with the intimation given
(ix.
26, 27) to devote itself to the consideration of the
chosen
seed by tracing the descent of Abram from Shem;
precisely
as (iv. 17 sqq.) the descendants of Cain were
recorded
before leaving them to trace the line of descent
through
Seth (ch. v.), and as in the various instances
that
follow the divergent lines are first indicated before
proceeding
with the direct and principal line.
The speciality with which the Canaanitish
tribes are
noted
and their residences specified (x. 15--19) is also ob-
servable,
since this is intimately linked with the general
purpose
of the books of Moses, and with the occasion
upon
which they were written.
Noldeke, in common, as he says, with the
majority of
critics,
assigns ch. x. to P, with the exception of a few in-
sertions
by R, viz., vs. 8-11, relating to Nimrod and
Asshur,
ver. 21, and some words in vs. 19 and 25.
Kay-
ser
gives the entire chapter to J, as is done likewise by
ORIGIN OF NATIONS I (CH. X.) 133
Tuch,
Hupfeld, and others, in imitation of Astruc and
Eichhorn;
and claims that vs. 8-1 1and 21 are properly
connected
as they stand. Movers1
divides the chapter,
giving
vs. 8-19, 21, 24-30, to J, and the rest to P; in
this
he is followed by Wellhausen (who gives ver. 24 and
a
clause in ver. 14 to R), Dillmann (who gives R, in ad-
dition,
ver. 9, and some words in ver. 19), and most re-
cent
critics.2
This partition is altogether
arbitrary. It is princi-
pally
based upon a variation in the form of expression
in
different verses of the chapter. Those
verses in which
the
line of descent is traced by the phrase" the sons
of,"
are assigned to P; the remaining verses, which use
the
word dlAyA
begat or l; dl.ayu were
born to, are attributed to
J. But--
1. The genealogies assigned by the critics
to P are not
uniform
in this particular; thus while the P sections of this
chapter
have "the sons of," ch. v. and xi. 10-26 have
dylvh begat; nor do the different parts of the same
genealogy
invariably preserve the same uniform style
(Gen.
xlvi., see ver. 20; Ex. vi. 14 sqq., see vs. 20, 23, 25).
There
is no propriety, therefore, in making the lack of
absolute
uniformity here the pretext for critical division.
2.
The same diversity of expressions as in ch. x. re-
curs
in other genealogies, which no critic thinks of par-
celling
between distinct sources on that account.
Thus
xxv.
1-4 is attributed to J, although ver. 3a has dlayA
begat, and vs. 3b, 4, "the sons
of." In xlvi. 8-27 "the
sons
of" and l; dl.ayu were born to,
occur not only in the
same
indivisible genealogy, but in the same verses (vs.
22,
27). And were born to l; dl,UAy.iva 3 occurs in a P verse
1 Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und
Katholische Theologie, Heft 18,
1836,
p. 102.
2 Schrader divides it between J and E.
3 The Niphal future of this verb
corresponds to the Pual preterite. Compo iv. 18, 26; xlvi. 20, 27; 2 Sam. iii.
2, 5.
134 THE GENERATIONS 0F THE SONS OF NOAH
in
the genealogy before us (x. 1). The
attempt has been
made
to evade this by dividing the verse and assigning
ver.
1a to P, and ver. 1b to J. But Dillmann
says of
this
arbitrary sundering of the sentence:
"No reason
can
be seen why ver. 1b should be not from P, but a
continuation
of ix. 18a J."
3.
The proposed partition of this chapter is impracti-
cable
for a double reason. (1) The
incompleteness of
the
portion ascribed to J, and (2) the mutual depend-
ence
of what is respectively given to J and to P.
The
critics
are compelled to give J a share in this chapter,
both
in order to justify the intimation given in that doc-
ument
(ix. 18, 19), "of the three sons of Noah was the
whole
earth overspre_ad," and to find something by which
to
bridge the chasm from Noah to Abram, who when first
introduced
in J (xi. 29), is spoken of as though he were
already
known. And yet the portion attributed to J
fails
to meet the requirements of the case, since it does
not
fulfil the expectations legitimately created in either
of
these respects. As a statement of the descendants of
Noah,
it begins abruptly, and is fragmentary in its charac-
ter. Kautzsch imagines that ix. 18, 19 has been trans-
posed
by the redactor, and that it originally stood at the
head
of the genealogical table in J, and was connected
with
x. 1b. This groundless conjecture is an
attempt to
supply
an appropriate beginning to J which is mani-
festly
lacking. Moreover, it contains no
mention of the
descendants
of Japheth, which must have been included
in
any conspectus of those who were sprung from the
sons
of Noah; see also x. 21 J. And further,
there is no
introductory
statement connecting the descendants of
Ham,
vs. 8 sqq., with Ham himself. These gaps
are all
created
by the partition, and result from sundering what
belongs
together. What is thus obviously missing
in J
lies
before us in what the critics have arbitrarily sepa-
ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 135
rated
from it and given to P. And what has
been given
to J
is needed to make up the deficiencies thus created in
P. P tells us of Mizraim and Canaan, sons of
Ham,
but
we must look to J for the names of their descend-
ants. Evidently these belong together.
It is claimed that what is missing from
J's account
may
have been contained in that document originally
and
omitted by R, because already stated with sufficient
fulness
in the extracts taken from P. It is easy
to spec-
ulate
on what might have been. But the fact is
that
the
gaps in J are adequately supplied in the text as it
stands
at present. The assumption that another
parallel
account
of the very same things ever existed as a part of
the
document J is based on the prior assumption of the
separate
existence of that document as a complete and
independent
production. An inference from a hypothe-
sis
lends no support to that hypothesis, but depends
upon
it, and is only valid after the hypothesis has first
been
established.
On the ground of the correspondence
between ver. 25
and
xi. 16, Wellhausen claims that the former bears wit-
ness
to the existence of a genealogy in J parallel to xi.
10-26,
which traces the descent of Abram from Shem.
This
is coupled with the assertion that x. 24 is an inser-
tion
by R with the view of harmonizing J's account with
that
of P (xi. 10-14); and that the line from Shem to
Abram
in J, embraced but seven names (Arpachshad,
Shelah,
and Probably Nahor,l the father of Terah, being
omitted)
as against ten in P (comp. the six names from
Adam
to Lamech in iv. 17, 18 J, and the nine in ch. v.
P,
with one to be added to each series for Noah, as Well-
hausen
conjectures). But this is baseless
speculation in
all
its parts. For x. 24 is indispensable in
its place, and
cannot
have been interpolated by R. In x. 21,
Shem is
1So Wellhausen, Prolegomena, p. 330.
136 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH
called
"the father of all the children of Eber," i.e., the
Hebrews
as well as other tribes and nations sprung from
the
same stock, vs. 26-29. But the links of
descent from
Shem
to Eber are first given in ver. 24.
Budde1 proposes
to
remove this difficulty by altering the text of x. 21 to
"Shem
the father of Eber," as the only expedient by which
it
can be made "a serviceable link in a J genealogy." The
need
of so violent a remedy exposes the falsity of the as-
sumption
which requires it. Ver. 24 is a
necessary con-
stituent
of the text, and cannot have been a later addition
to
it. And then the dependence of vs. 24,
25 upon ver. 22,
and
their substantial identity with xi. 10-16, forbid the
notion
of their being independent genealogies extracted
from
distinct sources. The abbreviated form
of the for-
mer,
and the use of dly instead
of dylvh begat, are not sug-
gestive
of diversity of authorship, but ordinary charac-
teristics
of the side lines in distinction from the direct
genealogy
of the chosen race. Moreover, x. 25 is
not a
relic
of what was originally a complete genealogy from
Shem
to Abram, the remainder having been omitted by
R as
a needless parallel to that in ch. xi.
It belongs in
the
line of descent of the tribes named in vs. 26-29,
which
diverged from that of the chosen race with the
birth
of Peleg, so named because "in his days was the
earth
divided." Mention is here made of
Peleg with al-
lusion
to the narrative of the dispersion of the nations,
which
is to follow in the next chapter, and as a link of
connection
binding the two chapters together. .
Nor can ver. 21 be sundered from ver. 22
and assigned
to a
distinct document. The absence of the
conjunction
v; and, from the beginning of ver. 22 shows that
it stands
in
the same relation to ver. 21 as ver. 2 to ver. 1; while
the v; and, of ver. 21 links the paragraph containing the
descendants
of Shem to the preceding, as in ver. 6 the
1
Urgeschichte, p; 221, note.
ORIGIN OF NATIONSI (CH. X.) 137
descendants
of Ham. Driver appeals to xvh
Mg to
him
also, as iv. 22, 26; xix. 38;. xxii. 20, 24,
and the father of,
as
characteristics of J. But the father
of occurs also in
a P
genealogy (xxxvi. 9, 43 P, as IV. 20, 21; xix. 37, 38
xxii.
21 J); and though there does not chance to have
been
any occasion for connecting Mg
with xvh in a P sec-
tion,
it occurs with other pronouns, e.g., Ex. vii. 11;
Lev.
xxvi. 24; Num. xviii. 28.
Nor is there any good reason for regarding
vs. 8-12 as
a
later addition to this chapter,1 or as unsuited because
of
its individual character to a place in this table of na-
tions. If this were so, it would be a bar to the
proposed
critical
partition, for it would be as foreign to that por-
tion
of the chapter which is imputed to J, as to that of
P. It is introduced in order to connect the
Babel to be
spoken
of in the next chapter with a descendant of Cush;
but
there is no need on this account of assuming with
Dillmann
that it should properly follow xi. 1-9.
It is
agreeable
to the usage of the author of the Pentateuch
to
insert in genealogical tables allusions to persons or
events
of note, especially those that have been mentioned
previously
or are to figure afterwards, e.g., v. 29; x. 25;
xxii.
23; xxxvi. 6-8, 24; xlvi. 12; Ex. vi. 20, 23, 25;
Num.
xxvi. 9-11, 33.
It is further urged in proof of the
blending of separate
sources
that diverse origins are attributed to the same
people;
thus Havilah and Sheba according to ver. 7 (P)
are
descended from Cush the son of Ham, but according
to
vs. 28, 29 (J) from Joktan in the line of Shem; ac-
cording
to ver. 22 (P) Lud sprang from Shem, but ac-
cording
to ver. 13. (J) from Mizraim the son of
Ham;
1 Dillmann urges that Nimrod is
not named in ver. 7 among the sons
of
Cush; but they are nations, while he is an individual, and is a son
not
in the sense of an immediate descendant, but as Jesus was a son of
David,
and David a son of Abraham (Matt. i. 1).
138 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH
Aram
is said to be descended from Shem, and U z from
Aram,
vs. 22, 23 (P), but, xxii. 21 (J) Uz and
Aram are
traced
to Nahor, the brother of Abraham, and, xxxvi. 28
(R),
Uz is included among the descendants of Seir; Dedan,
ver.
7, is included among the descendants of Cush the
son
of Ham, but, xxv. 3, among those of Abraham by
Keturah. It is claimed that these variant representa-
tions
must have proceeded from different writers.
This is,
however,
by no means a necessary inference. For--
(1) The critics themselves do not adhere
to this rule;
Sheba
(x. 28) was descended from Joktan, but (xxv. 3)
from
Abraham by Keturah, yet the critics refer both these
passages
to J.
(2) The apparent difficulty admits of a
ready solution
in
one or other of two ways. The same Dame
may have
been
borne by distinct peoples. Thus Asshur
(x. 22) was
descended
from Shem; and yet Asshurim are mentioned
(xxv.
3) among those that sprang from Abraham by
Keturah. Here it is obviously incredible that the
author
could
have meant to identify this obscure tribe with the
great
Assyrian nation, and to represent the latter as de-
scended
from Abraham. Dillmann acknowledges that
the
Ludim (x. 13), who are not only here but by the
prophets
(Jer. xlvi. 9; Ezek. xxvii. 10; xxx. 5) associ-
ated
with the Egyptians and other African peoples, are
quite
distinct from Lud (x. 22), the Lydians of Asia
Minor. These are not to be confounded any more than
the
Trojans of ancient times with their modern hame-
sakes
in the State of New York, or the Indians of Amer-
ica
with those of southeastern Asia. .
(3) Or tribes may be of mixed origin, and
so are
properly
traceable to different lines of descent.
Thus
Dillmann1
says of Sheba: "It is a matter of
course that
a
people with such an extended trade had stations and
1 Genesis, 5th edition, p. 182.
ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 139
connections
everywhere, on the sea and on caravan
routes,
and came to be mingled with their associates, so
that
they could be variously connected genealogically."
And
Delitzsch, commenting on x. 7, says to the same
purport
of Sheba and Dedan: "Arab tribes of Semitic
origin
are so called in ver. 28; xxv. 3; but there is no
reason
for denying an older Cushite stock in each of
these
Arab trading peoples." In like
manner, in expla-
nation
of the double origin of Havilah, he says:
"It is
an
acknowledged fact that migrations of Cushites and
Arabs
took place to and fro across the Arabian Gulf."
The mention of the same name in different
lines of de-
scent
accordingly involves no discrepancy in the cases
named,
and no diversity of writers. If
different tribes
bearing
the same name are of diverse origin, or if the
same
tribe is partly of one race and partly of another,
one
writer surely could tell the tale as well as two.
This table of the generations of the sons
of Noah con-
tains
just 70 names, not reckoning Nimrod (ver. 8),
which
is the name of a person, viz.: 14 descendants of Ja-
pheth
+ 30 of Ham + 26 of Shem == 70. This was also
the
number of Jacob's family when they went down into
Egypt
(Gen. xlvi. 27; Ex. i. 5; Deut. x. 22), a number
perpetuated
in the permanent constitution of Israel with
its
57 families 1 + 13 tribes, as well as in the representa-
tive
body of seventy elders (Ex. xxiv. 1, 9; Num. xi. 16,
24,
25). The families of Israel are thus set
in numerical
relation
to the families of mankind, which are to be
blessed
through their instrumentality (Gen. xii 3). This
correspondence
seems to be intimated. in Deut. xxxii. 8:
"When
the Most High gave to the nations their inheri-
tance,
when he separated the children of men, he set the
bounds
of the peoples according to the number of the
children
of Israel." It is frequently
remarked upon by
1 Num. xxvi., not reckoning the Levitical families.
140 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH
the
rabbins, as in the following passage from the book of
Zohar:1 "Seventy souls went down with Jacob into
Egypt,
that they might restore the seventy families dis-
persed
by the confusion of tongues." It is
scarcely sup-
posable
that the seventy names in Gen. x. can be for-
tuitous.2 And if it was intentional, the unity of the
chapter
is a necessary conclusion; for it is only in the
chapter
as a whole, not in its severed portions, that
the
number 70 appears. This further excludes
the ar-
bitrary
conjectures, which have nothing whatever to
recommend
them, that the clause, "whence went forth
the
Philistines" (ver. 14), and the names of the Canaan-
itish
tribes (vs. 16-18a, so Wellhausen, Kautzsch), are
later
additions to the text.
The high antiquity of this table is
attested by the fact
that
several names familiar in later times find no place
in
it. Thus, while Sidon is mentioned (vs.
15, 19), there
is
no allusion to Tyre, which by the time of David had
already
outstripped it; nor do such names occur as
Arabians
(Isa. xxi. 13), or Minni (Jer. Ii. 27), or Persians.
The
tribes of Moab, Ammon, Ishmael, Edom, Amalek, as
well
as those sprung from Keturah and from Nahor, are
1 Quoted by Lightfoot, Heb. Exercit. on
Luke iii. 36.
2 Furst (Geschichte der biblischen
Literatur, i., p. 7) and Noldeke
(Untersuchungen
zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, p. 17) call attention
to
the fact that the descendants of Terah's three sons--Abraham, Nahor,
and
Haran-likewise amount to 70. From
Abraham the 12 tribes of
Israel;
16 of Edom (Gen. xxxvi.), viz., 5 sons (vs. 4, 5) + 11 grandsons
(vs.
15-17); 12 of Ishmael (Gen. xvii. 20; xxv. 13-16); 16 of Keturah
(Gen.
xxv. 1-4) ; from Nahor, 12 (Gen. xxii. 20-24); from Haran, the
2
sons of Lot (Gen. xix 36-38). Total, 12 + 16 + 12 + 16 + 12 + 2 =
70. Such a repetition of this number, which, even
where it is not ob-
vious
upon the surface, yet underlies the entire scheme of the geneal-
ogies
of this book, adds its evidence to the significance attached to it
by
the writer; and it supplies a fresh link to bind together in unity its
component
parts, and to show that they have all proceeded from the
same
hand, and that they cannot be distributed between P, J, and R,
as
is done by the critics.
ORIGIN OF NATIONS (CH. X.) 141
not
included in this table, because their descent is to be
stated
subsequently. The genealogies of Genesis
thus
complete
one another, and thereby evidence themselves
to
constitute together one general scheme, and to be
from
the same hand and not referable to distinct sources,
as
the critics affirm. Aboriginal races,
like the Emim,
Anakim,
Rephaim, Horim, Zamzummim, and Avim
(Deut.
ii.), which had almost or quite disappeared in the
time
of Moses, are of course omitted.
The strange conceit of Wellhausen, and
adopted from
him
by Budde, Stade, and E. Meyer, that the three sons
of
Noah primarily, denoted three different populations
which
tenanted Palestine-Israel, the Canaanites, and the
Philistines--and
only at a later time came to be regarded
as
the progenitors of all mankind, is very justly and em-
phatically
set aside by Dillmann as "so utterly devoid
of
any foundation in fact that it is not worth while to
enter
upon it."
MARKS OF P.
The
linguistic marks of P in ch. x., according to Dill-
mann
are:
1. The title "these are the
generations;" but this is not
restricted
to P sections.
2. "The concluding formula, vs. 5,
20, 31, 32;" but the
J
genealogy (xxv. 4) has one likewise.
3. "Its verbosity," which simply
emphasizes four par-
ticulars
in order to indicate that this is a genealogy
not
of individual men, but of nations, with their families
or
tribal divisions, speaking various tongues and occupy- ing different countries,
and there are numerous passages
attributed
to J in which particulars are similarly enu-
merated
in detail, e.g., vii. 7, 23 ; xv. 19-21, where this ad-
mission
is only escaped by assuming interpolations by
142 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH
R.,
xii. 16; xxvi. 13, 14; xxx. 32-35, 39, 43; xxxii. 6, 8
(A.
V. vs. 5, 7).
4. "Mtvhpwml after their families," this word occurs
eighty
times in the Hexateuch, and in a slightly altered
orthography
Mhytvhpwml, twice more; and it is in every
instance
referred to P. This sounds like a very
sig-
nificant
statement; but as soon as the facts in the case
are
examined it appears that it has no bearing what-
ever
upon the question of a diversity of documents.
With
one single exception it is exclusively found in
connection
with the genealogies of nations or tribes
(Gen.
x. 5, 20, 31; xxxvi. 40; Ex. vi. 17,25), or the cen-
sus
of the tribes of Israel (Num. i., iii., iv., xxvi.), or the
distribution
of the promised land among the several
tribes
(Josh. xiii., xv.-xix., xxi.). And the
great body of all
such
material is given to P. Its occurrence,
therefore,
is
directly traceable to the subject-matter, not to the pe-
culiarity
of a particular writer. The one
exception is
Gen.
viii. 18, where the various species of animals that
came
forth from the ark are figuratively denominated
"families." The same form of the word, with the same
preposition,
in an identical meaning, occurs likewise in J,
only
with a different suffix; Mkythpwml Ex.
xii. 21;
vythpwml
Num. xi. 10; or with the article instead,
tvHpwml Josh.
vii. 14. Apart from genealogies, the
census
and the apportionment of the land, or laws relat-
ing
to it, as Num. xxvii. 1-11 ; xxxvi., and Lev. xxv. (the
return
to family possessions in the jubilee), the word
hHpwm is
exclusively found in J, Gen. xii. 3; xxviii. 14;
xxiv.
38, 40, 41; Lev. xx. 5 (J according to Dillrnann);
Josh.
vi. 23; vii~ 14, 17.
5.
"The prep. b in
vs. 5, 20, 32," which is certainly
a
very slender string to hang an argument for diversity
of
authorship upon. See ch. vi.-ix. Marks
of P, No.
28.
TOWER OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9) 143
MARKS OF J.
The marks of J, besides those already
explained, are:
1. "vcpn (ver. 18 as ix. 19) instead of vdrpn P (x. 5,
32);"
but, as Dillmann on ix. 19 admits, the words are
not
used in precisely the same sense. The
former means
to
be dispersed or spread abroad; the latter to be divided,
suggesting
the idea of distinctness or separation.
More-
over,
the word, which is here represented to belong to P,
in
distinction from J, elsewhere is found almost exclu-
sively
in J, viz.: Gen. ii. 10; xiii. 9, 14; xxv. 23; xxx.
40;
Deut. xxxii. 8; and but once in P (Gen. xiii. 11),
where
it is cut out of a J connection by a critical ma-
noeuvre.
2. "hkxb as thou comest (used as an adverb)" (vs. 19
bis,
30); this occurs but twice elsewhere (xiii. 10 J, and
xxv.
18, which the critics regard as a gloss).
Such cri-
teria
are of no account.
TOWER
OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9).
It is alleged that xi. 1-9 cannot be from
the same
author
as ch. x., because they represent quite different
conceptions
of the cause which led to the dispersion of
mankind
over the earth; one traces it to the simple mul-
tiplication
of the race, the other to an immediate divine
intervention. Hence Noldeke assigns ch. x. to P and
xi.
1-9 to J; Wellhausen, who finds both P and J in ch.
x.,
attributes xi. 1-9 to J', supposed to be an earlier
stratum
in the document J. But the explicit
allusions
to
Babel and to the dispersion which took place there, in
x.
10, 25, shows that this transaction was before the mind
of
the writer of ch. x. And there is not the slightest in-
consistency
between the two passages. The writer sim-
144 THE GENERATIONS OF THE SONS OF NOAH
ply
proceeds in ch. xi. to detail in its proper place an
additional
fact connected with the peopling of the earth.
It is further urged that there is in xi.
1-9 no mention
of
Noah's three sons and their descendants as in ch. x.,
but
simply of the population of the earth as a unit. To
which
Dillmann very properly replies:
"The sons, grand-
sons,
etc., of Noah can very well be regarded as in the
first
instance united in one place and forming the entire
population
of the earth, until God constrained them to
disperse." He also enters a caveat against a misconcep-
tion
of the real meaning of what is here narrated:
"The
author
does not say that the manifold languages of men
now
came into existence ready made on the instant; he
only
fixes a point of time at which the divergence of na-
tions
and languages began. Still less is he
responsible
for
the conceit of the later Jews and of the church fathers,
that
Hebrew was the original language from which the
others
branched off in consequence of this confusion."
Jehovah is the only divine name that
occurs in this
section,
and it is in each instance appropriately used.
The
builders at Babel are frustrated in their ambitious
design
by Jehovah (xi. 5, 6, 8, 9), in the interest of his
purpose
of mercy to the world. The massing of
the
race
together and concentrating them in what must have
become
one vast ungodly power was thwarted by scatter-
ing
them over the earth. In x. 9 Nimrod is
twice spoken
of
as "a mighty hunter before Jehovah" (comp. vi. 11).
Both
the character of the chapter in general, and the con-
nection
of this verse with that which precedes and fol-
lows,
show that Nimrod is here described not as a hunter
of
wild beasts, but as a conqueror and oppressor of men,l
and
the founder of a great empire. And
Jehovah is ob-
1 Dillmann refuses to admit this sense, so
obviously demanded by the
context,
to be the one originally intended, and is obliged in consequence
to
regard ver. 9 as an interpolation.
TOWER OF BABEL (CH. XI. 1-9) 145
servant
of all his schemes of conquest, ready to limit and
control
them in the interest of that divine kingdom
which
it is his purpose to introduce among men.
MARKS OF J.
1. "hpw lip
(vs. 1, 6, 7, 9), instead of Nvwl tongue (x. 5,
20,
31)." But while "lip" may
be used for "a lan-
guage"
in the singular, the plural is always expressed
by"
tongues." Thus Isa. xix. 18,
"the lip or language
of
Canaan," but Isa. lxvi. 18, "all nations and tongues;"
Zech.
viii. 23, "all tongues of the nations," but Zeph.
iii.
9, "a pure lip or language."
Moreover, if the same
writer
can use both "lip " and "tongue " in this sense
in
the same sentence, as Isa. xxviii. 11; xxxiii. 19;
Ezek.
iii. 5, 6, why not on successive pages?
2.
"Jehovah comes down from heaven" (vs. 5, 7);
but
in xvii. 22; xxxv. 13, passages attributed to P, it is
said
that God went up after speaking with Abraham and
with
Jacob, which implies a previous descent.
3.
"The etymology" (ver. 9).
But allusions to the sig-
nificance
of names are likewise found in P (Gen. xvii. 5,
17,
19, 20). It should further be observed
here that the
sacred
writer is not to be understood as giving the real
derivation
of the word Babel, but simply as noting the
very
significant sense suggested by it to a Hebrew ear.
It
was an instance of a nomen et omen.
Cf. John ix. 7,
where
no one imagines the evangelist's meaning to be
that
the pool of Siloam derived its name from the cir-
cumstance
which he relates.
V
THE GENERATIONS OF SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26)
SHEM TO ABRAM (CH. XI. 10-26)
THE table of descent from Shem to Abram
is evi-
dently
constructed upon a uniform plan with that in
ch.
v. from Adam to Noah, giving not a bare list of
names
as in ch. x. and in the side lines generally, but
stating
the age of the father at the birth of the son
through
whom the line is continued; then the length of
his
life after the birth of his son, with the mention of his
begetting
sons and daughters; and after running through
nearly
the same number of links (one ten, the other
nine),
they alike terminate with a father who has three
sons,
that are all named together without indicating the
intervals
between their birth. The only difference
in
their
structure is that ch. v. sums up the years of the
life
of each patriarch, while ch. xi. does not.
A close
connection
is thus established between the genealogy in
ch.
v. and that in ch. xi., showing that xi. 10-26 could
not
have constituted a genealogical fragment by itself.
It
is manifestly the continuation of the genealogy in ch.
v.,
and yet it could not have been joined directly to it
without
the sections which now intervene; as though
what
was once a continuous genealogy had been sun-
dered,
and chs. vi.-n. 9 inserted between the severed.
parts. The last verse of ch. v. does not complete
the
statements
about Noah in the regular form consistently
pursued
throughout the genealogy, so that the next term
SHEM TO ABRAM (CH. XI. 10-26) 147
in
the genealogy might be expected immediately to follow.
It
both states more and less than had been regularly
stated
in each of the preceding terms. More, in
that it
mentions
three sons instead of one, leading us to expect
that
something is to be said about all three; this is a
preparation,
therefore, for the narrative of the flood,
with
which they are concerned, and also for the table of
the
descendants of each given in ch. x. This
verse also
states
less than was customary in all preceding cases;
for
while it gives the age of Noah at the birth of his
sons,
it does not state how long he lived subsequently,
nor
the entire length of his life. These
missing state-
ments
are found in what follows by combining vii. 6, 11,
with
ix. 28, 29. Ch. xi. 10 also implies the
preceding
narrative
of the flood; and vs. 10-26 completes the ac-
count
of the descendants of Shem, which x. 21-31 (see
particularly
ver. 25) only gives in part. At xi. 26
the
genealogy
is again enlarged in the same way to intro-
duce
the history that follows.
VI
THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-XXV.
11)
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
THE sixth section, which extends from the
birth to the
death
of Abraham, is called the Generations of Terah,
and
begins with a restatement of his three sons, precisely
as
the fourth section is entitled the "Generations of
Noah,"
and begins with a restatement of his three sons.
As
this latter section describes the fortunes of Noah,
Shem,
Ham, and Japheth, so that now before us is occu-
pied
with what is to be told respecting Terah, Abram,
Nahor,
and Haran. The life of Abram, who is the
prin-
cipal
figure in this portion of the sacred narrative, was
for
some time united with that of Lot, the son of Haran,
and
Abram's son Isaac married Rebekah, the grand-
daughter
of Nahor.
The call of Abraham (xii. 1) is related to
the promise
to
Shem (ix. 26), as its initial fulfilment.
In Abraham's
life
all revolves about the promised land and the prom-
ised
seed. He is to go to a land that the
LORD will
show
him, and become the father of a great people, and
all
the families of the earth shall be blessed in him. As
soon
as he arrives in Canaan, the LORD tells him that
this
is the land and that his seed shall possess it.
Both
of
these particulars are further defined and confirmed in
what
follows. He has scarcely arrived in
Canaan before
he
is obliged to leave it in consequence of a famine (xii.
10
sqq.), and go to Egypt. This is a trial
of his faith
PRELIMINARY REMARKS 149
in
the future possession of the land. Then
follows the
risk
of losing Sarah, which was a trial of his faith in the
promised
seed. The peril is averted by divine
interfer-
ence,
and enriched he returns with Lot to the land of
promise. Lot separates from him (xiii. 5 sqq.), though
without
leaving Canaan, when a more definite promise
is
made of giving all the land to Abram and his seed
(vs.
14,15). The land is invaded, and Lot
taken captive;
Abram
pursues and chastises the invaders, rescues his
nephew,
and is blessed by Melchizedek, king of Salem
and
priest of the Most High God (ch. xiv.).
Meanwhile Sarah has no son, and the
prospect is that
Eliezer
will be Abram's heir (xv. 2 seq.). But
he is as-
sured
that it is not merely one born in his house, but
a
son of his own body who shall be his heir, and whose
posterity
shall be as numerous as the stars of heaven,
(vs.
4-6). A prospect of the future of his
seed is shown
him. And the LORD by a visible token ratifies a
cove-
nant
with Abram to give his seed the land, and definitely
designates
its dimensions (vs. 7-21). The promise
of the
land
has now reached its utmost solemnity and precision.
Years
pass on, and Sarah abandons all hope of having
children,
and gives her maid to her husband; she bears
him
Ishmael (ch. xvi.). At length,
twenty-four years
after
Abram's arrival in Canaan, the LORD appears to
him
again as the Almighty God, and engages that Sarah,
notwithstanding
her advanced age, should have a son the
very
next year, and that her child, and not Ishmael, should
be
the promised seed. In view of this he
was on his part
to
enter into covenant with God by the rite of circumci-
sion,
as God had already formally entered into cove-
nant
with him (ch. xvii.). Both the
contracting parties
having
thus sealed the engagement, it is finally con-
cluded
by a meal, of which the LORD partakes in human
form
in the tent of Abraham. And the
confidential in-
150 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
timacy
to which the latter is admitted is further shown
by
the communication to him of the divine purpose re-
specting
Sodom (ch. xviii.). Then follows (ch.
xix.) the
destruction
of Sodom and Lot's deliverance, and the
parentage
of Moab and Ammon, tribes related to Israel
and
in their vicinity during the forty years' wandering,
respecting
which there were special requirements in the
law
presupposing this genealogical statement (Deut. ii.
9,
19); so that the history of Lot is preliminary to these
injunctions. At the court of Abimelech Sarah is once
more
imperilled, and is divinely delivered (ch. xx.). Isaac
is
born; Ishmael must give way to him, and goes with
his
mother to the wilderness of Paran (xxi. 1-21).
God's
blessing
upon Abraham is recognized by Abimelech, who
solicits
his friendship (xxi. 22 sqq.).
Then comes Abraham's last and sorest trial in
respect
to
his son. He is bidden to offer him up to
God on the
altar
(ch. xxii.). In the act of obedience his
hand is
stayed,
Isaac is restored to him, and all the promises
previously
made to him are repeated in their fullest
form,
and confirmed by the new solemnity of an oath.
The
period of trial is now over. The
successful endur-
ance
of this severest test of his faith marks the culmina-
tion
of Abraham's life, which henceforth flows peacefully
and
quietly to its close. The account of
Nahor's family
(vs.
20-24) paves the way for the subsequent narrative
of
Isaac's marriage. We then read of
Sarah's death, and
of
the formalities connected with the purchase of a bur-
ial-place
(ch. xxiii.), the first possession in the promised
land
where Sarah and Abraham were to lie, thus even in
death
attesting their faith in this sure inheritance.
Then
Rebekah
is brought to be the wife of Isaac (ch. xxiv.).
This
is followed by the marriage of Keturah, and the
names of her sons; and finally Abraham's death
and
burial
(xxv. 1-11).
THE DIVINE NAMES 151
THE DIVINE NAMES.
Throughout this section the divine names
are used
with
evident discrimination. The name Jehovah
is used
in
ch. xii.-xvi.; Elohim does not occur until ch. xvii.,
where
it is found repeatedly, and, with the exception of
ver.
1, exclusively. It is Jehovah the God of
the chosen
race
who bids Abram leave his kindred and his father's
house
(xii. 1-4), with the promise to multiply his seed
and
to give him Canaan (xii. 2, 7; xiii.14-17); to whom
Abram
erected altars in this land and paid his worship
(xii.
7, 8 ; xiii. 4, 18); who guarded Sarah, Abram's wife
(xii.
17); who noted and would punish the guilty occu-
pants
of the promised land (xiii. 10, 13; xv. 16); to
whom
Abram appealed as the universal sovereign (xiv.
22),
while to Melchizedek he was not Jehovah but El
Elyon,
God most High (vs. 18-20); who appeared to
Abram
(xii. 7), spake to him (xii. 1, 4, 7; xiii. 14; ch.
xv.),
and covenanted with him (xv. 18); whom Sarah
recognized
as directing all that affected her (xvi. 2, 5);
who
cared for Hagar as a member of Abram's family
(xvi.
7 sqq.), though in the mouth of this Egyptian maid
(xvi.
13), as well as in the name of her son (xvi. 11, 15),
we
fuid not Jehovah but El.
It may be asked, why is it not still
Jehovah, the God
of
the chosen race, who in ch. xvii. enters into covenant
with
Abraham and establishes circumcision as the seal of
that
covenant and the perpetual badge of the covenant
people? It is Jehovah who appears to Abram and
forms
this solemn engagement with him, as is expressly
declared,
ver. 1. In doing so he announces himself as
the
Almighty God, and the reason for this is obvious.
The
promise of a numerous seed made to Abram at the
outset
had been repeated from time to time for four and
152 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
twenty
long years, and there had been as yet no indica-
tion
of its fulfilment. Meanwhile in his
advancing age
and
that of Sarah all natural hope of offspring had van-
ished. The time has now come when his persistent
faith
shall
be rewarded. Nature has failed, but the
divine
omnipotence
is all-sufficient. Isaac shall be born
the
next
year. The emphasis here laid on God's
almighty
power
is indicated by El Shaddai, God Almighty (ver.
1),
followed by Elohim, the title of the God of creation,
throughout
the interview and to the end of the chapter.
It is Jehovah again in ch. xviii. who in
condescending
grace
concludes the covenant transaction with Abram by
becoming
his guest, and in the familiarity of friendship
admits
him to his counsel respecting Sodom and accepts
his
intercession on its behalf; and who still further (xix.
1-28)
executes the purpose which he had disclosed to
Abraham,
of purging his Own land of gross offenders
(cf.
xiii. 13; xv. 16; xviii. 20, 21). Here the critics claim
that
xix. 9 is a fresh account of the destruction of Sodom
and
the rescue of Lot, which instead of relating in detail,
as
in the previous part of the chapter, despatches all in
a
single sentence, using Elohim of the very same matter
in
regard to which Jehovah had been before employed
throughout.
B ut--
1.
This verse, instead of relating the overthrow of
Sodom,
presupposes this event as known and already
narrated,
and proceeds to declare what took place when
it
occurred. The direct course of the
narrative had been
interrupted
(vs. 27, 28) to mention Abraham's early
visit
to the scene of his former intercession, and what he
there
beheld. Then in returning to his
narrative the
writer
sums up in a single sentence what he had already
related,
and proceeds to say what further became of Lot.1
1 Thus Gen. ii.1 recapitulates the work
of the six days (ch. i), in
order
to connect with it the rest of the seventh day (ii. 2, 3) ; xxxix. 1,
THE DIVINE NAMES 153
2. The reason for the change in the divine
name is
now
apparent. In the paragraph which begins
with this
verse
and extends to the end of the chapter; the writer is
speaking
of Lot, now and hencefotth completely severed
from
Abraham, and removed beyond the boundaries of
the
promised land, the ancestol'" of Moab and Ammon, to
whom
God is not Jehovah but Elohim, as to all outside of
the
chosen race.
In like manner in the affair of Abimelech,
king of Ge-
rar,
a Gentile prince (ch. xx.), Elohim is the proper word,
and
is accordingly used throughout, both in God's deal-
ings
with Abimelech (vs. 3, 6, 17), and in what Abraham
says
to him (vs. 11, 13). Only in ver. 18,
where the
writer
introduces a statement of his own that the inflic-
tion
there spoken of was for the protection of Abraham's
wife,
Jehovah is introduced precisely as in the similar
case,
xii. 17.
The birth of Isaac recalled alike the
pledge of al-
mighty
intervention and the gracious promise of Abra-
ham's
God; hence the use of Jehovah in xxi. 1, with
special
reference to xviii. 10, 14, and of Elohim in vs. 2,
4,
6,1 with reference to xvii. 10, 19, 21. In the narrative
of
the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael (v.s. 9-21) Elohim
is
used throughout, because they are now finally severed
from
the family of Abraham; whereas in xvi. 7-13, while
Hagar
still belonged to his family, it is the angel of Jeho-
vah
who finds her in the wilderness; and sends her back to
her
mistress. In Abimelech's visit to
Abraham he nat-
after
the digression of ch. xxxviii., sums up the narrative of xxxvii.
28-36,
on returning to the history of Joseph; so Ex. vi. 28-30, for a like
reason,
repeats vs. 10-12; Ex. xii. 51 repeats ver. 41 ; Judg. iii. 4, cf.
ver.
1; xxi. 8, cf. ver. 5 ; 1 Kin. vi. 37, cf.. ver. 1.
1Cf. with ver. 6 in its allusion to God's
almighty intervention in con-
trast
with natural causes, Eve's language at the birth of Seth (iv. 25),
with
Elohim in what the critics consider a J section because of the im-
plied
contrast between God and man.
154 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
urally
speaks of Elohim (xxi. 22, 23), whereas in Abra-
ham's
act of worship he calls on the name of Jehovah
(ver.
33). In ch. xxii. it is ~Iohim who puts
Abraham to
trial
by the command to offer up Isaac; it is Jehovah
who
stays his hand. God the creator has the
undoubted
right
to demand of his creature the dearest and the best;
but
the God of Abraham, the God of revelation and sal-
vation
accepts the spiritual surrender and spares the
child. In ch. xxiii. Elohim occurs but once, and
very
properly
in the mouth of the children of Heth (ver. 6).
Jehovah
guided Abraham's servant in his search for a
wife
for Isaac (ch. xxiv.), and this in so conspicuous a
manner
that even Laban and Bethuell recognize the hand
of
Jehovah, the God of Abraham in the whole affair (vs.
50,
51), and address the servant as "blessed of Jehovah"
(ver.
31). In xxv. 11, "after the death
of Abraham Elo-
him
blessed his son Isaac." Jehovah, as
the guardian and
benefactor
of the chosen race, would certainly have been
appropriate
here. And yet Elohim is appropriate
like-
wise,
as suggestive of the general divine beneficence and
providential
goodness, which bestowed upon Isaac abun-
dant
external prosperity. Such bounty is by no means
limited
in its exercise to the chosen race.
THE CRITICAL PARTITION.
The constant regard to the distinctive
meaning of the
divine
names, as this has now been exhibited, must be
due
to the intention of the writer. It
cannot be the ac-
cidental
result of the combination of separate Elohist
and
Jehovist documents. Nevertheless the
critics un-
1 So the heathen mariners call upon the
name of Jonah's God in the
tempest,
which they recognize as sent by him.
They cry unto Jehovah
and
fear Jehovah (Jon. i. 14, 16), though they had previously "cried
every
man unto his god," ver. 5.
THE CRITICAL PARTITION 155
dertake
to parcel the contents of this section between
P,
J, and E; and in so doing present us with three mu-
tilated
and incoherent narratives instead of the one
closely
connected and continuous narrative which we have
already
traced in the text as it lies before us.
The only paragraphs of any length ascribed
to P are
chs.
xvii. and xxiii., the former recording the covenant of
circumcision,
the latter the death of Sarah and the pur-
chase
of the cave of Machpelah. But ch. xvii.
is closely
linked
to both the preceding and the following history.
Thus
it appears from xvii. 8 that Abraham is in Canaan;
and
from vs. 18-20 that he has a son Ishmael, who is not
the
child of Sarah, and that Sarah is shortly to have a
son
of her own. And the Elohim verse (xix.
29) speaks
of
Lot, to whom Abraham was attached, and who dwelt
in
the cities of the plain. The facts thus
alluded to are
all
recorded in full in the accompanying narrative, of
which
ch. xvii. and xix. 29 are thus shown to form com-
ponent
parts. But the critics seek to detach
them from
the
body of the narrative by singling out scattered verses
here
and there, rent from their proper connection, suffi-
cient
to cover these allusions, and stringing them to-
gether
so as to create an appearance of continuity for P
here,
as is done for J in the account of the deluge.
It
should
be borne in mind that there is no evidence what-
ever
that the hypothetical narrative thus produced ever
had
a separate existence but that which is found in the
vague
critical criteria, which we shall examine shortly.
The
skeleton life of Abraham that is ascribed to P is
devoid
of all real interest or significance. It
is stripped
of
everything indicative of character.
There is in it no
exercise
nor trial of faith; no act of piety, or generosity,
or
courage; no divine purpose; no providential dealing
with
him, no divine communication made to him, except
on
one single occasion four and twenty years after he
156 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
had entered
Canaan. The life of the father of the
faith-
ful,
so rich in the most important spiritual lessons, is re-
duced
to a jejune and barren annalistic record.
This
the
critics not only admit, but insist upon; they tell us
it
is the fault of P. He has no taste for
narrative; he
has
no historic sense, and no interest in history, but
only
for legal facts and institutions, dates and figures,
and
unmeaning lists of names. It is not
disputed that
such
a writer is abstractly possible or conceivable;
whether
there is proof of his actual existence will be
considered
hereafter. All that is proposed at present is
to
state the critics' own conception of the matter. The
document
of P in the section now before us, apart from
ch.
xvii. and xxiii., consists of these few scraps.
xi. 27.
Now these are the generations of Terah.
Terah
begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran
begat
Lot. 31. And Terah took Abram his son,
and
Lot
the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his
daughter-in-law,
his son Abram's wife; and they went
forth
with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the
land
of Canaan; and they came unto Haran and dwelt
there.
32. And the days of Terah were two hundred
and
five years: and Terah died in Haran. xii. 4b.
And
Abram
was seventy and five years old when he departed
out
of Haran. 5. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and
Lot
his brother's son, and all their substance that they
had
gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in
Haran;
and they went forth to go into the land of Ca-
naan;
and into the land of Canaan they came. xiii. 6.
And
the land was not able to bear them, that they might
dwell
together: for their substance was great, so that
they
could not dwell together. 11b. And they separated
themselves
the one from the other. 12a. Abram dwelled
in
the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of
the
Plain. xvi. la. Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him
THE CRITICAL PARITION 157
no
children. 3. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar the
Egyptian,
her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten
years
in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her
husband
to be hi~ wife. 15. And Hagar bare Abram a
son:
and Abram called the name of his son; whom Ha-
gar
bare, Ishmael. 16. And Abram was fourscore and
six
years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.
(Here
follows ch. xvii. in P.)
xix. 29.
And it came to pass, when God destroyed the
cities
of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and
sent
Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he
overthrew
the cities in which Lot dwelt.1
xxi. lb. And
[the
LORD] did unto Sarah as he had spoken
2b. at the
set
time of which God had spoken to him.
3. And
Abraham
called the name of his son that was born to him,
whom
Sarah bare to him, Isaac. 4. And Abraham cir-
cumcised
his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as
God
had commanded him. 5. And Abraham was an
hundred
years old when his son Isaac was born unto
him. (Here follows ch. xxiii. in Pr)
xxv. 7.
And these are the days of the years of Abra-
ham's
life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fif-
teen
years. 8. And Abraham gave up the ghost, and died
in a
good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was
gathered
to his people. 9. And Isaac and Ishmael his
sons
buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of
Ephron
the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before
Mamre; 10.
the field which Abraham purchased of the
children
of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and
Sarah
his wife. 11a. And it came to pass after the
death
of Abraham that God blessed Isaac his son.
Wellhausen ("Prolegomena," p.
333) thus characterizes
1 In order to find any tolerable connection
for this verse it is neces-
sary
to suppose that it originally stood immediately after xiii. 12a, and
has
been transposed by R to its present position.
158 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
the
document P: "The individuality of
the several nar-
ratives
is not merely modified but absolutely destroyed
by
the aim of the whole. The complex whole
leading
up to
the law of Moses is everything; the individual
members
signify nothing. The entire material
thus also
itself
becomes a perfect vacuity; apart from covenant-
making
it consists only in genealogy and chronology."
This
being the sort of material that is attributed to P, in
distinction
from J and E, to whom the narrative pas-
sages
are ascribed, a ready explanation is at once sug-
gested
of the difference of style and diction, upon which
such
stress is laid as though it indicated diversity of
authorship.
Wellhausen also calls attention to another
fact of no
small
importance ("Prolegomena," p. 311), that "the his-
torical
thread of P runs completely parallel to the history
of
JE. Only thus has it been possible to
incorporate
these
two writings into one another, as they lie before us
at
present in the Pentateuch." He
further shows in detail
(p.
336) that this coincidence in the arrangement of the
materials,
which prevails elsewhere, characterizes "also
the
patriarchal history; the outline is the same in P and
JE." This intimate and pervading relation leads to
the
inevitable
conclusion that these cannot be altogether in-
dependent
documents. Thus he says (p. 356):
"What
is
offered us in P is the quintescence of the tradition, not,
in
an oral but in an already written form.
And the
written
shape of the preliminary history which is used
is
JE's narrative book. The arrangement
which is there
given
to the popular legends1 is here made the core of
1 In Wellhausen's esteem the sacred history before Abraham is all
myth. The patriarchal history is legend, containing
elements of truth.
"No
historical knowledge about the patriarchs is to be gained here,
but
only about the time in which the stories about them arose in the
people
of Israel; this later time is here, in its internal and external
THE CRITICAL PARTITION 159
the
narrative; the plan, which is there hidden under its
detailed
treatment, comes out here shalp and distinctly
marked,
while agreeing throughout, as the main. matter
of
the whole."
A correspondence so remarkable and
continuous as to
permit
the documents to be dovetailed together in the
manner
alleged by the critics, certainly makes their inde-
endent
origin quite insupposable. One of two
things
must
be true. Either one of these documents
must have
taken
its shape from the other, or both have alike taken
their
shape from one common source. Dillmann
admits
J's
dependence upon E, but denies that of P upon JE,
alleging
that their apparent coincidence in the arrange-
ment
of material is due to R, who in combining the docu-
ments
made P the basis, and transposed the contents of
JE
to correspond with it. These
transpositions are merely conjectural, however, and are of no weight beside the
palpable
fact of the identical order manifest in these
supposed
documents, as they lie embedded in the text
before
us. The majority of the critics accept
the former
of
the alternatives above stated, that of the dependence
of
one document upon the other. The
advocates of the
features,
unconsciously projected back into a hoary antiquity, and mir-
rors
itself there as a transfigured fancy picture " (p. 336). While thus
converting
the lives of the patriarchs into tribal or national occur-
rences
of a later period, he is puzzled what to do with Abraham."
Abraham
is certainly not the name of a people like Isaac and Lot; he
is
on the whole rather incomprehensible.
Naturally we cannot on this
account
regard him in this connection as a historical person; he might
rather
be a free creation involuntarily conceived.
He is likely the
most
recent figure in this company, and probably only prefixed to his son
Isaac
at a tolerably late period" (p. 337).
Unbelieving critics, as a rule,
take
the same view of the unhistorical character of Genesis, and critics
of
every shade of belief, who accept the date currently assigned to J
and
E, in so doing adopt a conclusion based on the assumption that the
stories
respecting the patriarchs are not records of actual fact, but the
inventions
of a later period.
160 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
old
supplementary hypothesis held that J was in posses-
sion
of P, and made it the basis of his work.
Wellhau-
sen
and they that follow his lead allege that P was in
possession
of JE, and shaped his production by it.
The
other
alternative, however, affords quite as ready an ex-
planation
of the evident relationship. If the
Pentateuch
is
the original, and the so-called documents are its sev-
ered
parts, both their agreement in the general, and the
seeming
discrepancies which the critics fancy that they
discover,
will be fully accounted for. Which of
these
alternatives
is the true one may be left undecided for the
present.
The narratives ascribed to E in this
section are dis-
connected
anecdotes, in which persons figure who do not
belong
to the chosen race; as foreign princes with whom
Abraham
is brought into contact (ch. xiv., so Dillmann;
xx.
; xxi. 22-32), or Hagar and Ishmael in their final de-
parture
from his house (xxi. 8-21), and a portion of ch.
xxii.
relating to the sacrifice of Isaac. Here
it is obvious
that
the character of the passages themselves explains
the
use of Elohim in them; so that this does not require
the
assumption of a separate writer, who occupied him-
self
exclusively with recording incidents connected with
foreigners,
and one solitary demand of the Creator, not
suffered
to be carried into execution, but designed to be
a
supreme test of Abraham's faith and obedience.
All
these
incidents have their place and fitness in the life of
the
patriarch as a whole, but sundered from the rest and
taken
by themselves they lose their chief significance
and
value. It is not even pretended that
they constitute
a
complete life of Abraham, or a connected and continuous
narrative
of any sort. They form only a
fragmentary
account,
with no proper beginning, no mutual connection,
and
no governing idea. Only two direct
divine commu-
nications
to Abraham are recorded, one (xxi. 12), direct-
NO DISCREPANCIES 161
ing
him to dismiss Ishmael, and the other (xxii. 1), to sac-
rifice
Isaac. Neither of these can be properly
understood
in
their isolation; and the latter especially becomes in-
telligible
only as the crowning act of that long-continued
course
of divine discipline and training by which Abra-
ham
was fitted for his unique position as the father and
exemplar
of the chosen people of God. There is
nothing
in
these so-called E paragraphs to suggest that they were
ever
grouped together in a separate document.
And it
is
safe to say that such a notion would never have en-
tered
the mind of anyone, who was not committed to a
hypothesis
which required it.
The main body of this section, all of it
in fact except
the
portions severed from it for P, and for E, for reasons
explained
above, is given to J. The predominant
use of
Jehovah
in this portion of the history is, however, plainly
due
to its theme, and creates no presumption that there
was
a separate writer whose characteristic habit it was
to
employ it.
NO
DISCREPANCIES.
It is alleged that there are
discrepancies in the state-
ments
of P, J, and E, and that the same persons and
events
are conceived and represented differently.
This
charge
is based upon the fallacy of making the part
equal
to the whole, or of identifying things which are dis-
tinct. These alleged discrepancies are used as
arguments
for
the critical partition, when they are simply the conse-
quences
of sundering that which, taken in connection, is
entirely
harmonious.
Thus, 1. by splitting the account of
Abram's migration
a
variant representation is produced of his original home,
which
according to P was in Ur of the Chaldees (xi. 31),
while
J is said to locate it in Haran (xii. 1; xxiv. 4, 7,
10). And yet xv. 7, which is in a J connection,
and has
162 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
the
style and diction of J, expressly declares that Jeho-
vah
brought Abram from Ur of the Chaldees.1 But crit-
ics
have an easy way of ridding themselves of testimony
which
is not to their mind. This unwelcome
verse, on
the
sole ground of its annulling a discrepancy which
they
wish to create, is summarily declared to be an in-
terpolation
by R with a view to harmonizing the con-
flicting
sources. The statement of P (xi. 31)
clears up
the
whole matter; Abram went first from Ur to Haran,
and
thence to Canaan. But this does not satisfy Well-
hausen,
who suspects that it is only an effort on the part
of P
to harmonize variant traditions.
"If this doubling
the
point of departure did not originate from the purpose
of
making a connection with JE, there is no such thing
as
harmonizing,"2 or as he puts it in his first edition,3
"I
do not know what harmonizing means."
The critics
may
be allowed to settle between themselves whether
it
was R or P that did the harmonizing where there
was
nothing that needed to be harmonized.4
2. The charge that in J (xii. 1-4a) Abram
went, to
Canaan
by divine direction, but in P (vs. 4b, 5), of his own
motion,
is made out by rending asunder a statement
1 See Budde: Urgeschichte, p. 439.
2 Prolegomena, p. 331.
3 Geschichte Israels, p. 325, note.
4 The expression tdlvm
Crx (xxiv. 7; xxxi,
13) is used interchange-
ably
with tdlvmv Crx (xxiv. 4 ; xxxi. 3). If
upon the critics' own hy-
pothesis
R saw no difficulty in the latter being used of Haran (xii, 1),
just
after Abram's migration thither from Ur had been spoken of, why
should
any difficulty arise from J's employing both these equivalent
expressions
of Haran likewise? It is plain from xii.
1 that they can-
not
be restricted to "land of nativity" in the strict sense, but are
properly
employed also of Abraham"s second home, the land of his
kindred. See Delitzsch on Gen. xii. 1. Budde (Urgeschichte, p. 441),
who
equally with Dillmann and Wellhausen imagines a contradiction
in
the case, finds it to lie not between P and J, but between the two
supposed
constituents of the latter document, J" which makes Ur
Abram's
original home, and J' which makes it Haran.
NO DISCREPANCIES 163
which
is entirely harmonious, and setting its divided
parts
in opposition.
3.
It is said that in J the promise is made to Abram
of a
land, a numerous seed, and a blessing to all nations
of
the earth (xii. 1-3; xviii. 18; xxii. 17, 18); but in P
(xvii.
4-8), simply of a land and a numerous seed, without
any
intimation of a blessing to extend beyond his own
descendants. But this is simply expecting a complete
statement
in one which is designedly partial. In
the
original
promise and in the renewal of it upon two occa-
sions
of special solemnity, one when the LORD signified
his
approval of Abraham's unfaltering faith by coming as
his
guest in human form, and again as a reward of his
most
signal act of obedience, the blessing is set before
him
in its most ample sweep. But during all
the inter-
vening
period of long expectancy of his promised child
the
divine communications made to him from time to
time
were designed to keep alive his faith in that particu-
lar
promise, whose fulfilment was so long delayed; hence
mention
is merely made of his numerous seed, and of the
land
which they were to occupy, alike in xiii. 14-17; xv.
5-
7, 18, which the critics assign to J, and in xvii. 4-8,
which
they give to P.
4.
It is claimed that according to J (xii. 7, 8; xiii. 4,
18),
and E (xxii. 13), sacrificial worship existed in the
times
of the patriarchs; while P makes no allusion to it
until
the time of Moses, by whom in his opinion it was
first
introduced. But this is attributing to
distinct docu-
ments
embodying different conceptions of the patriarchal
period
that which simply results from the distinction
between
the divine names Elohim and Jehovah.
This
distinction
is ignored by the critics, and these names
treated
as though they were practically identical, when in
fact
they represent the divine being under different as-
pects. It. is not Elohim, God in his general
relation to
164 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
the
world, but Jehovah, as he has made himself known
to
his own people, who is the object of their worship.
Hence
Abram built altars to Jehovah (xii. 7; xiii. 4, 18),
and
called on the name of Jehovah (rii. 8; xxi. 33); and
all
passages in which the word Jehovah appears are for
that
reason uniformly ascribed to J. Their
absence from
P is
due to the principle which governs the partition,
not
to some peculiar notion as to the origin of sacrifice.
In
xxii. 1 E it was Elohim, not Jehovah, who bids
Abram
offer up Isaac, because the Creator might rightful-
ly
demand of his creature the surrender of that which he
had
given him. But this was only intended as
a test of
obedience. Jehovah did not desire the sacrifice of the
child. Accordingly the angel of Jehovah restrained
Abram's
hand; and the ram providentially provided
was
offered up instead of his son (ver. 13).
Wellhausen ("Prolegomena," p.
359) remarks upon the
absurdity
of the conception which the critics have sought
to
fasten upon the imaginary author of the document P,
that
"religion was at first naturalistic, then became some-
what
more positive by jumps, and finally altogether posi-
tive
in the year 1500 B.C. How is it possible
to see
historical
fidelity in the representation that the patriarchs
could
slaughter but not sacrifice; that first the sabbath
was
introduced, then the rainbow, then circumcision, and
finally,
under Moses, sacrificial worship?"
The ridicule
here
directed against P really falls upon the critics
themselves,
who are the sole authors of this glaring ab-
surdity.
5.
In P (xiii. 6) Abram and Lot separate for want of
room
simply, while in J (ver. 7a) it is because of the
strife
of their herdmen. But this is merely
objecting
that
the part is not equal to the whole. The
story is
arbitrarily
split in two. The lack of room which
leads
to
the strife is given to P; the strife which results from
NO DISCREPANCIES 165
the
lack of room to J. Each part implies the
other and
is
incomplete without it.
6.
J (xii. 13, 19) tells of Abram's prevarication about
Sarai
(so E xx. 2); Sarai's quarrel with Hagar (xvi. 6),
(so
E xxi. 10); and Lot's incest (xix. 30 sqq.); while P nev-
er
mentions anything discreditable to the patriarchs. J
speaks
of angels (xvi. 7-11; xix. 1,15; xxiv. 7,40); so E
(xxi.
17 ; xxii. 11); P never does. J tells of a divine com-
munication
in a vision (xv. 1), and E in a dream (xx. 3,
J
6); P mentions neither. According to P
Abram dwelt in
Mamre
or the region of Hebron (xxiii. 2; xxxv. 27); ac-
cording
to E in Gerar (xx. 1), and Beersheba (xxi. 31).
P
tells of his purchase of the cave of Machpelah as a
burial-place
and that Sarah was buried there (ch. xxiii.),
and
Abraham himself (xxv. 9), and subsequently Isaac
and
Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah (xlix. 31; 1. 13); but
E and
J make no allusion to any such place of common
burial. There is no real discrepancy in any of these
cases. The apparent variance is created solely by
the
partition
and cannot be adduced in support of that upon
which
it is itself dependent.
7. It
is said that different versions are given of the de-
liverance
of Lot from the overthrow of Sodom. In P
(xix.
29) he is saved for Abraham's sake; in J (xviii. 23)
because
of his own righteous character. In P he
was
sent
out of the midst of the overthrow, implying that
time
and opportunity were afforded for escape after the
destruction
had begun; in J the destruction did not
come
upon the city until after Lot had left it (xix. 22-
24). The apparent variance is created by sundering
re-
lated
verses, and then putting an interpretation upon
them
which their connection forbids. Even on
the crit-
ical
hypothesis of different documents, the true meaning
of
each must be preserved in their combination, if R is
to
be trusted. God's remembering Abraham (xix. 29)
166 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
and
delivering Lot, is a plain allusion to the intercession
of
the former (xviii. 23), and its meaning is determined
by
it. God s sending Lot out of the midst
of the over-
throw,
when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt,
is a
summary statement by way of resumption of what
had
been narrated (xix. 15-25), and it must be under-
stood
accordingly.
8.
According to xvii. 24, 25; xxi. 5, P, Ishmael was
fourteen
years old when Isaac was born; yet it is said
that
(xxi. 14-20) E represents him after this as a young
child
needing to be carried by his mother. But
the al-
leged
inconsistency is due to misinterpretation.
The
LXX.
has (xxi. 14), "and he put the child on her
shoulder;"
and Tuch so interprets the Hebrew. Dill-
mann,
however, admits that this is not the meaning of
the
existing Hebrew text, in which "putting it on her
shoulder"
is parenthetic, and refers only to the bread
and
bottle of water, while "the child" is dependent on
the
previous clause, "gave unto Hagar."
Delitzsch
points
out a similar construction of the words "and
Benjamin,"
in Gen. xliii. 15. Dillmann's conjecture
that
the
reading of the LXX. is the original one, and that the
Hebrew
has been altered for the sake of harmonizing, is
gratuitous
and unfounded. Neither does "she
cast the
child
under one of the shrubs" (ver. 15) imply that he
was
an infant; Delitzsch compares Jer. xxxviii. 6, where
Jeremiah
was cast into a dungeon, and Matt. xv. 30,
many
were cast at Jesus's feet to be healed.
Nor is there
any
such implication in the direction to Hagar to "lift
up
the lad " (vel". 18), who was faint and sick, nor in the
statement
(ver. 20) that he "grew," which simply means
that
he advanced to manhood.
9. The
statement that Sarai was so fair as to attract
the
attention of Pharaoh, to the peril of her husband's life
(xii.
11, 15 J), is said to be incompatible with xii. 4b (cf.
NO DISCREPANCIES 167
xvii.
17 P), according to which she was at that time up-
wards
of sixty-five years of age. And it is
said to be still
more
incongruous that she should have attracted Abim-
elech
(xx. 2 sqq. E), when (xvii. 17 P) she was more
than
ninety years old. The only point of any
consequence
in
this discussion is not what modern critics may think
of
the probability or possibility of what is here narrated,
but
whether the sacred historian credited it.
On the
hypothesis
of the critics, R believed it and recorded it.
What
possible ground can they have for assuming that J
and
E had less faith than R in what is here told of the
marvellous
beauty and attractiveness of the ancestress of
the
nation? If the entire narrative could be
put to-
gether
by R, and related by him with no suspicion of
discord,
the same thing could just as well have been
done
by one original writer. It may be added,
if it will
in
any measure relieve the minds of doubting critics, that
Abimelech
is not said to have been taken with Sarah's
beauty. He may have thought an alliance with "a
mighty
prince" (xxiii. 6) like Abraham desirable, even
if
Sarah's personal charms were not what they had once
been. And when Abraham lived to the age of one hun-
dred
and seventy-five, who can say how well a lady of
ninety
may have borne her years?
10.
It is said that J and P differ in their conception
of
God; J's representation is anthropomorphic, that of
P is
more exalted and spiritual. But the two
aspects of
God's
being, his supreme exaltation and his gracious
condescension,
are not mutually exclusive or conflicting,
but
mutually supplementary. Both must be
combined
in
any correct apprehension of his nature and his relation
to
man. These are not to be sundered, as
though they
were
distinct conceptions of separate minds.
They are
found
together throughout the Bible. Since
Elohim is
used
of God as the creator and in his relation to the
168 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
world
at large, while Jehovah is the name by which he
made
himself known to his chosen people, his chief acts
of
condescending grace naturally appear in connection
with
the latter. It is Jehovah who adopts the
forms of
men
in covenanting with Abram (xv. 17), and who enters
into
familiar intercourse with him (xviii. 1 sqq.).
And
yet
the manifestation of Jehovah's presence in smoke
and
flame (xv. 17 J) has a precise parallel in P in the
cloud
and fire above the tabernacle which guided Israel
through
the desert (Ex. xl. 36 -38; Num. ix. 15 sqq.).
Jehovah
appeared to Abram three times-twice in J (xii.
7;
xviii. 1); once in P (xvii. 1), where the critics say
that
the text should be Elohim. Jehovah spake
repeat-
edly
to Abram, and on one occasion to Hagar (xvi. 13);
so
did God in P to Abram (ch. xvii.), to Noah (vi. 13;
viii.
15), and to the first human pair (i. 28).
If it is
speaking
after the manner of men when Jehovah speaks
of
going down to Sodom to see how they have done
(xviii.
21), it is no less so when Elohim tests the obedi-
ence
of Abraham (xxii. 1), a passage which the critics as-
sign
to another than P; but in P God went up from
Abraham
(xvii. 22), which implies that he had come
down
to speak with him.
We now proceed to consider the critical
partition of
this
section in detail.
THE FAMILY OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-32).
The critics have had no little perplexity
in disposing
of
this paragraph. In consequence of its
intimate rela-
tion
to ch. xii., Astruc assigned it to J; Eichhorn, though
with
some hesitation, gave it to P. The
majority of
critics
thenceforward attributed it to the latter document.
Dillmann
did the same in his first edition of Genesis; in
his
second edition he followed Wellhausen in referring
THE FAMILY OF TERAH (CH. XI. 27-32) 169
ver.
29 to J and the rest to P, ver. 30 being supposed to
belong
originally at the beginning of ch. xvi., and to
have
been transferred thence by R; in his third edition
he
followed Budde and Hupfeld in assigning vs. 27, 31,
32,
to P, and vs. 28-30 to J. The critical
embarrassment
arises
from the circumstance that while all parts of the
paragraph
are knit together in inseparable unity, they
are
at the same time linked to what precedes and follows
with
an entire disregard of the critical severance, being
bound
alike to passages referred to P and to J.
Thus,
ver.
27 repeats the last words off the preceding genealogy,
as
is done at the opening of al new section (vi. 10; xxv.
19);
and ver. 32 sums up the life of Terah in the terms
of
the genealogy of ch. v., as is ,done in the case of Noah
(ix.
29). It is clear that vs. 27, 32, are
from the same
hand
as the genealogies of chs. v. and xi., which they con-
tinue
and complete; they are accordingly held to belong
to
P. So is ver. 31, whose phraseology is
identical with
that
of xii. 5, which the critics for reasons to be consid-
ered
hereafter find it convenient to refer to P, though it
is
cut out of a J connection, to which it manifestly be-
longs.
On the other hand, according to the latest
conclusions
of
the critics, vs. 28-30 belong to J; ver.
28 since "land
of
his nativity" is reckoned a J phrase; ver. 29 because
it
is preliminary to xxii. 20 sqq. J, although xxv. 20 P
requires
the assumption that P must here or elsewhere
have
given a similar account of Rebekah's descent from
Bethuel
and Nahor, which R has not preserved; ver. 30
because
it would be premature in P before ch. xvi.,
whereas
it is appropriate in J as preliminary to chs. xii.,
xiii.,
and especially xv. 2, 3. And yet this
paragraph
cannot
be torn asunder as the critics propose.
For vs.
28,
29 presuppose ver. 27, and are abrupt and unex-
plained
without it; and ver. 31 implies the previous
170 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
statement
of Abram's marriage (ver. 29), and needs ver.
28
to explain why Lot went with Terah without his
father;
and ver. 30 follows naturally and properly after
ver.
29 with the mention of a fact at the outset, upon
which
the life of Abraham so largely turned.
Moreover,
the
portion assigned to J (vs. 28-30) is not only without
any
proper beginning, but severed from ver. 31 fails to
explain
the fact assumed in ch. xxiv. J, that Abram's
former
home was in Mesopotamia and that other de-
scendants
of Terah were settled there. How the
home
of
Abram's ancestors came to be in Ur of the Chaldees
(xi.
31), when the ark landed on the mountains of Ara-
rat
(viii. 4 P), and Terah's descendants are subsequently
found
in Haran and Canaan, is a puzzle in P.
This has
led
Dillmann and others to fancy that Ur of the Chaldees
lay
in Mesopotamia, in spite of its name and its posi-
tive
monumental identification, or else that it has been
interpolated
in this verse by R. The puzzle is
entirely
of
the critics' own creation. The missing
link, which
explains
the course of migration, is found in xi. 1-9,
which
is attributed to J; and the whole trouble arises
from
sundering this from P, in which it is indispensa-
ble. Dillmann's assertion that if Ur lay in
Chaldea, this
must
have been inserted in ver. 31 by R in order to con-
nect
it with xi. 1-9, simply amounts to a confession of
the
real nexus in the case, introduced not by R but by
the
original writer.
Still further, the occurrence of "Ur
of the Chaldees,"
both
in ver. 28 J and in ver. 31 P, annihilates, on the
critics'
own showing, the alleged discrepancy between
these
imaginary documents as to Abram's original home,
the
fallacy of which has been remarked upon before.
It
is
here bolstered up by assuming that these words do
not
properly belong in ver. 28, but have been inserted by
R.
CALL
OF ABRAM AND HIS JOUJNEYS (CR. XII.) 171
THE
CALL OF ABRAM AND HIS JOURNEYS (CH. XII.).
The critics endeavor to make a show of
continuity for
P in
the history of Abraham, as has before been stated,
by
picking out a sentence here and there from chs. xii.-
xvi.,
sundering it from its connection and transferring it
to
P, while the body of these chapters is given to J.
But
they have no better reason, and are no more suc-
cessful
in this than in their attempt to establish the con-
tinuity
of J in the narrative of the flood. In
order to
bridge
the chasm from ch. xi. to ch. xvii., six verses and
parts
of three others, referring to the principal events
that
had taken place in the interval, are rent from their
proper
context and claimed for P, viz., Abram's removal
from
Haran to the land of Canaan (xii. 4b, 5); his sep-
aration
from Lot (xiii. 6, 11b, 12a); his connection with
Hagar
(xvi. 1, 3); and the birth of Ishmael (vs. 15, 16).
These
verses and clauses fit perfectly in their context,
and
no one would ever dream that they had been in-
serted
from another document, but for the necessity laid
upon
the critics to discover something that could be at-
tributed
to P, which might explain the situation in ch.
xvii.,
viz., Abraham's presence in Canaan (ver. 8); his
son
Ishmael (vs. 18, 20), born thirteen years before (ver.
25),
though Sarah had no child (vs. 17, 19); as well as
Lot's
abode in the cities of the Plain (xix. 29).
But
notwithstanding
this urgent motive, Ilgen (1798) is, so
far
as I know, the only critic prior to Hupfeld (1853)
who
could find any indication of P in chs. xiii., xv., xvi.
Astruc,
Eichhorn, Gramberg, Stahelin, Delitzsch (1st
edition),
and even Vater, with his fragmentary procliv-
ities,
were equally unable to sunder anything from ch.
xii. Tuch (1838) suggested doubtfully in his
exposition,
though
with more confidence in the introduction to his
172 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
"Commentary,"
that xii. 5 belonged to P on a ground
which
subsequent critics have annulled, viz., its resem-
blance
to xxxvi. 6 and xlvi. 6, which are in a context re-
ferred
by him to P, but denied by others to be his.1
The critics divide this chapter as
follows: J, xii. 1-4a,
6-9,
10-20; P, vs. 4b, 5. Knobel refers vs.
6, Sa, 9, to
P;
Schrader to E; Kittel also to E, though ascribing
vs.
6-9 in its present form to J. Wellhausen and Kue-
nen
make ver. 9 an insertion by R, Schrader, Well-
hausen,
Kuenen regard vs. 10-20 as a later addition to
J;
Dillmann, Kittel, as belonging to J, but transposed
from
their original position after ch. xiii.
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CR. XII. 1-9).
P's account of Abram's removal from Haran
begins
abruptly
(xii.4b), and in a manner that implies that
something
is missing. The statement that
"Abram was
seventy
and five years old when he departed out of
Haran,"
presupposes that this departure had been al-
ready
mentioned. And so in fact it is in what
immedi-
1 An apt illustration is here afforded of
the facility with which critics,
by
slightly shifting the lines of division, can serve the purpose which
they
have in view, or can alter the complexion of the alleged docu-
ments
with which they are dealing. Tuch
(Genesis, p. xliii, note) was
inclined
to assign xii. 5, 6, 8; xiii. 18 to P.
This would account for
the
place of Sarah's death and burial (xxiii. 2, 19), which otherwise
there
is nothing in P to explain. Knobel
reaches a like result by giv-
ing
P xii. 4b, 5, 6, 8a, 9. The connection
in J was thus broken, but
that
was no objection on the supplementary hypothesis, of which they
were
advocates, that J was not an independent document, but con-
sisted
of sections and paragraphs added to P. Schrader gives vs. 6a,
8a,
9, to E, on the ground that one from the northern kingdom, as he is
assumed
to be, would feel more interest in associating Abram with She-
chem
and Bethel, than J from the kingdom of Judah.
Dillmann ob-
jects
that 6b and 8b cannot be separated from 6a and Sa, an objection
equally
valid, as is shown in the text, against his own removal of ver.
5,
which is a necessary link between ver. 4 and ver. 6.
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII.
1-9) 173
ately
precedes (vs. 1-4a). But this, we are
told, belongs
to
J. So that it is necessary to assume
that the prelim-
inary
part of P's narrative has been omitted, and these
verses
from J substituted for it. The attempt
has been
made
to confirm this by alleging that a special title,
"These
are the generations of Abram," must originally
have
stood at the beginning of Abram's life 1 in P, as in
the
case of Isaac (xxv. 19), and Jacob (xxxvii. 2), since a
separate
section must have been devoted to this greatest
of
the patriarchs, instead of including him under "the
generations
of Terah," who is of much less account, and
whose
life is brought to a formal close in the preceding
chapter
(xi. 32); but that R, in replacing the opening
words
of P by those of J, dropped the title of the former
as
well. Plausible as this may sound, it is
clearly a mis-
take. For--
1.
Even if such a substitution had been made, it would
not
account for the omission of the title, had it been ap-
propriate
and originally stood there; for like titles occur
at
the head of sections which are wholly J's (ii. 4), or in
whose
opening chapters there is not a single sentence
from
P (xxxvii. 2).
2.
The proper title of this section is "the generations "
not
of Abram but "of Terah," since it deals not only with
Abram
but other descendants of Terah as well, who are
accordingly
for this reason introduced to the reader at
the
outset (xi. 27, 29), viz., Lot, who journeyed with
Abram
to Canaan, and Nahor, whose descendants are re-
cited
without a separate title (xxii. 20-24), preparatory
to
the marriage of Isaac into this family of his kin-
dred
(ch. xxiv.). Bruston suggests that these
last should
have
had a special title, "the generations of Nahor,"
1So Knobel, Wellhausen,
Dillmann, and others, following a sugges-
tion
of Ewald in his review of Delitzsch on Genesis in his Jahrblicher d.
Bibl.
Wissenschaft for 1851-52, p. 40.
174 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
and
been inserted at the close of ch. xi. No
doubt the
author
might have disposed his matter differently, and
included
it under different titles, if he had seen fit to
do
so. But the question is not what he
might have done,
nor
what in the opinion of the critics he ought to have
done,
but what he actually did.
3.
While it is true that in several instances the sections
of
Genesis terminate with the death of the person named
in
the title, this is not necessarily nor invariably the
case,
e.g., the generations of Adam (ch. v.). "The gener-
ations
of Terah" are not occupied with the life of Terah,
which
is only the starting-point. The aim of
the section
is
to trace the fortunes of the three families sprung from
him,
so far as they came within the proper scope of the
sacred
history. The limitation of this section
to xi. 27-
32
makes it altogether unmeaning. It
becomes still
more
glaringly so on the critical hypothesis that vs. 28-
30
are from a different document J, and do not belong to
the
section in its original form in P; a view of which
Dillmann
justly said, in his first edition, one can then see
no
reason for a Terah section at all.
4.
The generations of Abram would be an unsuitable
designation
of a history, the emphasis and interest of
which
for several successive chapters turns upon the pa-
triarch's
childlessness.
5.
That this entire section is, in the intention of the
author,
included under the title "the generations of Te-
rah,"
not of Abram, further appears from the opening
of
the next section (xxv. 19), where the genealogy is
linked
directly with xi. 27, 32, by beginning "Abraham
begat
Isaac."
No title has been dropped, therefore, from
the begin-
ning
of ch. xii.; consequently no presumption can be
drawn
from that source in favor of different narrators.
It
may be added that as xii. 4b requires 4a to make it in-
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 175
telligible,
and this is indissolubly bound to vs. 1-3, so
xii.
1 is linked as firmly with the preceding chapter. J's
account
cannot have begun with ch. xii. Dillmann (1st ed.),
nor
with xi. 29 Dillmann (2nd), not with xi. 28 Dillmann
(3rd)
, for in each case Abram is introduced abruptly
and
without explanation; and xi. 27 P is required to
precede
them. Thus P is linked with J, and J
with P,
each
dependent on the other to supply the needed ex-
planation
of what it contains, neither complete without
the
other, both fitting accurately together and precisely
filling
each other's gaps. Is this harmonious
production
a
piece of patchwork? Can extracts from
wholly inde-
pendent
documents be made to match in this manner,
however
skilfully arranged? And how do those
repeated
omissions,
now from one document, now from the other,
which
must of necessity be assumed by the advocates of
the
current critical hypothesis, comport with what is al-
leged
of the conduct of R elsewhere, his concern to pre-
serve
the briefest and most scanty statements of his
sources,
even when they add nothing to fuller narratives
drawn
from elsewhere, the insertion being detected by its
being
a superfluous and unmeaning duplication? (Cf.
vii.
7-9 with vs. 13-16; ix. 18, 19; xiii. 6, lIb, 12a; xix.
29.)
MARKS OF P.
The reference of xii. 4b, 5, to P is
argued by Hupfeld
and
others on the following grounds :
(1) Because ver. 5 repeats 4a. But--
a.
This is no mere identical and superfluous repetition.
A
general statement of obedience to the divine command
(ver.
4a) is followed by a more particular account of
what
was done in accordance with it (ver.5).
Nothing is
more
common in the Hebrew historians than brief sum-
maries
of this sort followed by fuller and more specific
176 THE GENERARTIONS OF TERAH
details,
where no one imagines that there is a diversity
of
writers. So Gen. vii. 5, 7 sqq.; xxxvii.
5-8; xli. 45c,
46b;
xlii. 19, 20c, 24c, 26 sqq.; Judg. iv. 15c, 17; 1 Sam.
xvii.
49, 50; 2 Sam. xv. 16a, 17; 2 Kin. xi. 16c, 20b.
b.
Verse 5 is indispensable to make the connection
between
vs. 4a and 6. In 4a Abram goes forth, it
is not
said
whither. In ver. 6 he is already in
Canaan and
passing
through it. It is presupposed that he
had ar-
rived
there, and that the name of the country has been
made
known to the reader and need not be repeated.
But
the missing statements on these points are only
found
in ver. 5.
(2) xii. 5b is parallel to xi. 31b, and
evidently its con-
tinuation.
This is unhesitatingly admitted, and is quite
consistent
with
the unity of the book, of which it is a natural se-
quence.
(3) Verse 5 has words and phrases peculiar
to P. The
following
instances are adduced, viz.:
1. Hqa.y.iv took,
as in xi. 31; xxxvi. 6; xlvi. 6. But it
is
used
in precisely the same manner in J (xxiv. 51; xxxii.
23,
24 (E. V., vs. 22, 23); xliii. 13; xlvii. 2); and in E.
(xx.
14; xxii. 3; xlv. 18, 19).
2. wUcr;
substance, goods, and
wcarA to
get, gather,
are
claimed
as undoubted characteristics of P, but, as it
would
appear, on very slender grounds. The
verb and
noun
occur together in four passages (Gen. xii. 5; xxxi.
18;
xxxvi. 6, 7; xlvi. 6); and the noun alone in six other
places
in Genesis, and twice besides in the rest of the
Pentateuch. The critics themselves refer it six times to
another
than P (Gen. xiv. 11, 12, 16, 21; xv. 14; Num.
xvi.
32). Once, and once only, it stands in a
context by
common
consent referred to P (Num. xxxv. 3). In
every
other
instance the verse or paragraph in which it is
found
is cut out of a J or E context, or one of disputed
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 177
origin,
and is assigned to P mainly because of this very
word
which is arbitrarily assumed to belong to him.
3.
wp,n, person,
is not peculiar to P, as appears from its
occurrence
in Gen. ii. 7; xiv. 21 ; Deut. x. 22; xxiv. 7;
xxvii.
25; Josh. x. 28-39; xi. 11; not to speak of Gen.
xlvi.
15-27, which several eminent critics ascribe to
another
than P. Dillmann ("Genesis," p. 230) remarks
that
"it was scarcely possible to avoid using wp,n, for per-
sons
of both sexes, free and slave," and (" Exodus, Leviti-
cus,"
p. 535) that it is not a certain indication of P.
4. NfanaK;
Cr,x, land
of Canaan, is
classed as character-
istic
of P; but it occurs repeatedly in both J and E, viz.:
xlii.
5, 7, 13, 29, 32; xliv. 8; xlv. 17, 25 ; xlvi. 31; xlvii. 1,
4,
13, 14, 15; 1. 5, where, as Dillmann remarks, it stands
in
contrast with the land of Egypt. In like
manner it is
used
in the passages now in question to designate the land
promised
to Abram (xvii. 8), in contrast with Haran from
which
he came (xii. 5; xvi. 3), and with the cities of the
plain
selected by Lot (xiii. 12).
5.
It appears, accordingly, that these words, whether
regarded
singly or collectively, afford no indication of P
as
distinguished from the other so-called documents.
There
is, however, a striking resemblance in the phrase-
ology
of xii. 5; xxxi. 18; xxxvi. 6; xlvi. 6; which cre-
ates
a strong presumption, if not a certainty, that these
verses
are all from the same hand. The critics
refer them
all
alike to P; but they do so in spite of the fact that
xii.
5 is in a J context, xxxi. 18 and xlvi. 6, in an E con-
text,
and that of xxxvi. 6 is disputed. Their
assignment
to P
is altogether arbitrary. They are made
to sustain
each
other in this, while there is no reason for sundering
anyone
of them from the connection in which it stands,
and
attributing it to a different document, but the mere
will
of the critics. Words descriptive of the
possessions
of
the patriarchs are naturally grouped together when
178 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
mention
is made of their migrations. But the
only rea-
son
for alleging these words to be characteristic of P is
that
these migrations are assigned to him in the arbi-
trary
manner already described. The critics
have them-
selves
created the criterion, to which they then confi-
dently
point in justification of the partition which they
have
made.
(4)
This statement could not have been lacking in P.
This
is a frank avowal of the motive by which the
critics
are actuated in rending ver. 5 from its connection.
It
is necessary in order to make out an appearance of
continuity
for this supposititious document. Instead
of
an
argument for the hypothesis it is simply a confession
of
the straits to which it is reduced.
(5)
The mention of Abram's age in ver. 4b is held to
be a
sufficient reason for ascribing it to P.
a.
It is a purely arbitrary assumption that dates and
statements
of men's ages are to be referred to P, even
when,
as in the present instance, the context in which
they
are embedded is derived by the critics from some
other
document. A particularly glaring case
occurs in
xli.
46, where Joseph's age when he stood before Pharaoh
is
assigned to P, though there is nothing in that docu-
ment
to which to attach it. It is easy to
manufacture a
criterion
of this sort, and carry it relentlessly through,
and
then point to the tact that all the dates are to be
found
in P in evidence of the correctness of the rule.
They
are there for the simple reason that this is where
the
critics have put them. It has no further
significance
if
the various statements of the ages of the patriarchs,
when
put together, yield a consistent chronology;1 this is
1 It may be observed here that there is no
conflict in the chronology
between
xii. 4b and xi. 32; though, if there were, this would be no
argument
for a diversity of writers, since in the esteem of the critics
both
belong to the same document. Abram left
Haran many years be-
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CR. XII. 1-9) 179
no
excuse for critical surgery, but is only one indication
more
that the book of Genesis is woven together too
firmly
to be rent asunder, except by a violence which will
destroy
the fabric. Inconsistently enough, where
a dif-
ferent
motive operates, the critics allow that E recorded
Joseph's
age (Gen. 1. 22, 26), and that of Joshua (Josh.
xxiv.
29) in which P, as a native of Judah, is presumed
to
have less interest; and even that of Caleb of the tribe
of
Judah (Josh. xiv. 7, 10), which occurs in a connection
that
constrains them to refer it to E.
b.
4b presupposes 4a. It is not a
statement that
Abram
went forth from Haran, but a declaration of his
age
at the time, implying that the fact of his having done
so
had been already mentioned; and for this reason it
cannot
connect with xi. 31, as the critics propose, where
no
such affirmation is made.
(6)
According to vs. 4b, 5, Abram simply continues the
migration
to Canaan begun by his father (xi. 31), acting
from
the same impulse, and from natural motives but
without
any divine call; whereas ver. 1 represents his
journey
as undertaken at the divine command, Abram
not
knowing whither he was to go.
But there is no diversity of
representation implying
that
these verses have been drawn from diverse sources.
On
the contrary they are mutually supplementary.
The
movement
initiated by Terah to find more desirable
quarters
was carried out by Abram at Jehovah's bid-
ding,
who guided him to the land to which his father had
originally
intended to go. And with this the
statement
fore
Terah's death. Only the writer, according to his uniform method,
completes
Terah's life before proceeding to that of Abram (cf. xxv. 7;
xxxv.
29). The Samaritan text, in order to
relieve this imaginary diffi-
culty,
reduces the age of Terah from two hundred and five to one hun-
dred
and forty-five years. Acts vii. 4
follows the order of the narrative.
not
that of time.
180 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
of
xv. 7 is in full accord. Jehovah
providentially led
Abram
to accompany Terah to Haran, and then by an
immediate
call brought him to Canaan. The divine
call
which
is expressed in ver. 1 is implied in 4b, according
to
which Abram leaves Haran in the lifetime of his
father. Why should he leave Terah behind him if they
were
migrating under one common impulse?
Knobel assigns vs. 6, 8a, i 9, also to P;
to which Dill-
mann
objects that P shows no interest in connecting the
patriarchs
with the holy places of later times, though he
excepts
xxxv. 9 from this remark. Schrader
refers 6a,
8a,
9, to E, who, as a North-Israelite, inclined to link
Abram
with Shechem and Bethel. With this
Dillmann
and
Kittel concur so far as to regard E as the source from
which
J, as the author of vrs. 6-9, drew the mention of
these
localities. This is based upon the
notion that the
recorded
lives of the patriarchs are not the recital of ac-
tual
events, but a reflection of the ideas or later times,
and
that the places where they are said to have dwelt or
worshipped
are so designated because of local sanctua-
ries
established there in subsequent ages, to which credit
was
attached by stories that they had been hallowed by
the
presence of their ancestors. All
speculations about
authorship
which spring from this false conception of
the
patriarchal history, are, of course, entirely baseless.
Meanwhile the unity of the entire
paragraph (vs. 1.-9)
is
obyious. Verse 8b presupposes 8a, and
cannot be sep-
arated
from it; 8a presupposes ver. 6, and this in its turn
ver.
5, which defines the land referred to and mentions
the
arrival there, which is implied, but not stated, in ver.
6. Again, 4b presupposes 4a, and this vs.
1-3. The
grant
of the land in ver. 7, notwithstanding its present
occupancy
by others (6b), is with express reference to the
promise
in ver. 1. And ver. 9 is the natural
continua-
tion
of the marches in vs. 6, 8. All is thus
concatenated
THE CALL OF ABRAM (CH. XII. 1-9) 181
together
in a manner to defy critical severance. On the
assumption
that vs. 10-20 is an interpolation, it has been
argued
that ver. 9 was inserted by R as a connective.
This
inference is by no means necessary, even if the as-
sumption
were correct; but it falls as a matter of course
if
the latter is shown to be untrue, which will be done
presently.
MARKS OF J.
Dillmann finds the following criteria of
the document
J in
vs.l-4a, 6-9, viz.: 1, The divine
call; 2, divine wor-
ship; 3, hvhy Jehovah;
4, hmAdAxEhA tOHP;wmi-lKA all the fam-
ilies
of the earth; 5, b; j`rabini be blessed in; 6,
ll.eqi
curse.
It
has been before shown that there is a reason for the
occurrence
of the name Jehovah here and elsewhere in
the
life of Abram quite independent of the question of
documents;
also that patriarchal worship is as a rule
connected
with that name; and there is an equally ob-
vious
reason why the call of Abram should likewise be
similarly
connected. It will be observed that the
lin-
guistic
criteria alleged are all limited to one verse (ver.
3). The phrase, "all the families of the
earth," occurs
but
once besides in the Pentateuch (xxviii. 14), where
the
same promise is repeated to Jacob. The
other repe-
titions
of this promise are by the critics referred to R
(xviii.
18; xxii. 18; xxvi. 4), and there the equivalent ex-
pression
Cr,xAhA
yyeOG lKo all
the nations of the earth,
is used.
The
Niphal of j`riBA to bless, occurs but three times in the
Old
Testament, each time in this same promise (xii. 3;
xxviii.
14 J; and xviii. 18 R). Since these
expressions
are
limited to this one promise, and occur in J but once
in
addition to the verse now before us, they cannot be
classed
as indications of the existence of a separate doc-
ument
so called. Moreover, the promise of a
blessing
to
all nations was given three times to Abram on occa-
182 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
sions
of special note (xii. 3; xviii. 18; xxii. 18), once to
Isaac
(xxvi. 4), and once to Jacob (xxviii. 14); on all other
occasions
in J (xii. 7; xiii. 15, 16; xv. 5, 7, 18), or P,
(xvii.
4-8; xxviii. 3, 4; xxxv. 11, 12) attention is especially
directed
to the gift of Canaan and of a numerous poster-
ity
without any mention of their relation to the would at
large. And the limitation in these instances is not
sug-
gestive
of the peculiarity of a particular document, but
grows
out of the circumstances of each case.
That the
phrases
now in question could have no place in these re-
stricted
promises is obvious. Neither their
occurrence
nor
their omission can afford a plea for a diversity of
documents. It remains to be added that while the pre-
cise
combinations and forms above adduced do not occur
in
P, for the reason now given, the words themselves are
found
in passages ascribed to P; thus hHAPAw;mi family,
very
frequently, and even in application to the nations
of
mankind (x. 5, 20, 31, 32); hmAdAxE earth (i. 25; vi. 20;
ix.
2); j`reBe bless (Gen i. 22, 28; ii. 3; v. 2; ix. 1,
etc.).
One word remains of the alleged
characteristics of J,
ll.eqi curse, which is as little to the purpose as the
preced-
ing. Apart from Gen. xii. 3 it occurs but once in
J
(viii.
21); four times in P (Lev. xxiv. 11, 14, 15, 23);
once
in E (Josh. xxiv. 9) ; once in D (Deut. xxiii. 5, E.
V.,
ver. 4); twice in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi.
17;
xxii. 27, E. V., ver. 28); three times in the Holiness
Laws
(Lev. xix. 14; xx. 9 bis).
ABRAM IN EGYPT (VS. 10-20).
Three instances are recorded in which the
wives of
the
patriarchs attracted the attention of monarchs, and
through
the prevarication of their husbands were
brought
into peril, from which by God's providence
they
were delivered, viz.: Sarai at the court
of Pharaoh
ABRAM IN EGYPT (CH. XII. 10-20) 183
in
Egypt (xii. 10-20); and again with Abimelech, king
of
Gerar (ch. xx.); and Rebekah before another king of
the
same name (xxvi. 6-11). These are to the
critics va-
riant
accounts of the same event, or different forms of
the
same legend. Knobel regards ch. xx. as
the original
narrative,
and chs. xii. and xxvi. as later modifications of
the
legend. Kuenen ("Hexateuch,"
p. 252) says that a
saga,
of which Isaac was originally the subject, has here
and
in ch. xx. been transferred to Abram.
Delitzsch
ventures
no positive affirmation, but seems in doubt
whether
some duplication or transposition may not have
taken
place. "It is enough," he
says, "for us to know
that
the three histories are three traditions contained in
ancient
sources, that the redactor deserves our thanks
for
not suppressing one in favor of the others, and that
all
these attest God's grace and faithfulness, which ren-
der
the interference of human weakness and sin with
his
plan of grace harmless, and even tributary to its suc-
cessful
issue." But the value of the
religious lesson is de-
pendent
on the reality of the occurrence. Is
this a Jew-
ish
notion of God embodied in a fiction, or is it a fact in
which
God has himself revealed his character?
A dis-
trust
of well-accredited facts because of a certain meas-
ure
of similitude to other facts would throw history into
confusion. Must we regard the battles of Bull Run,
fought
in successive years on the same spot, and termi-
nating
the same way, but in different periods of the war
and
under different commanders, as variant and conflict-
ing
accounts of some one transaction that can no longer
be
accurately identified? Why might not
Abram repeat
in
Gerar what he had done in Egypt, when it was under-
stood
between him and Sarai that they were to pass for
brother
and sister in "every place " to which they
should
come (xx. 13)? And why may not Isaac,
whose
life
was so largely patterned after that of his father, have
184 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
been
misled into an imitation of his error in this in-
stance?
Wellhausen claims that vs. 10-20 is a
later addition to
the
text of J, because Lot was not with Abram in Egypt,
though
according to J he was with him both before (ver.
4a)
and after (xiii. 5); and Abram was at the very same
place
in xiii. 4 as in xii. 8, from which it may be inferred
that
he had not meanwhile changed his position.
Dill-
mann
thinks that the true place of this narrative in J
was
after the separation of Abram and Lot (ch. xiii.), and
that
it was transposed by R to remove it further from ch.
xx. But the visit to Egypt is confirmed by xxvi.
1, 2;
the
presence of Lot there by the express statement, "Lot
with
him" (xiii. 1); and Abram is explicitly said to have
retraced
his steps to the point from which he had started
(vs.
3, 4). These positive confirmations are
by a stroke
of
the critics' pen ejected from the text, and attributed to
R,
for no imaginable reason but that they nullify a base-
less
critical conjecture. Lot's name does not
occur in
xii.
10-20, because Abram was the principal party and
there
was nothing to record respecting Lot.
For the
same
reason he is not mentioned in vs. 6-9, nor Aner,
Eshcol,
and Mamre, in xiv. 14-23 (cf. vs. 13, 24); nor
Nahor
in xi. 31, whose migration to Haran can only be
inferred
from allusions subsequently made (xxiv. 10).
It
may
also be remarked that xvi. 1 lends an incidental
confirmation
to xii. 16; Pharaoh's gift to Abram ex-
plains
the presence of an Egyptian maid in his house-
hold.
Dillmann notes a few words and phrases in
this para-
graph
as indicative of J. These and others of
the same
sort
noted in other cases are of no account for two rea-
sons. Inasmuch as the bulk of the narrative is
given to
J or
E, and only scattered scraps to P, the great major-
ity
of words appropriate to narrative will, of course, be
SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH.
XIII.) 185
found
in J or E, and comparatively few in P.
Besides,
several
of the words adduced occur but rarely even in
J,
and cannot, therefore, with any propriety be held to
be
characteristic of his style. If their
absence from a
large
proportion of the paragraphs of J does not prove
these
to be from a different pen, how can their absence
from
the paragraphs of P be urged in proof of a diversity
of
documents, especially if there was no occasion to use
them?
MARKS OF J.
1. hvhy Jehovah, explained already.
2. l;
byFyhe treated
well,
ver. 16, only once besides in J
(Num.
x. 32), and twice in E (Ex. i. 20; Josh. xxiv. 20);
in
the same sense with a different preposition Gen.
xxxii.
10, 13, E. V., vs. 9, 12 J; without a preposition
Lev.
v.4 P.
3. xnA I pray thee
(ver. 13), often in J and E, but once
at least
in P (Gen. xxxiv. 8), perhaps also Num. xx. 10
(so
Noldeke and SchI'ader).
4. xnA-hn.ehi behold now (ver. 11; xvi. 2; xviii. 27, 31; xix.
2,
8, 19, 20; xxvii. 2 J).
5. rUbfEBa
for the sake of (vs. 13, 16), always
referred to
J,
E, or R. See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of J,
No.6.
6. rUbfEBa
because of
(ver. 13), only twice besides in J (xxx.
27 ;
xxxix. 5); in D (Deut. i. 37; xv. 10; xviii. 12); all in the
Hexateuch.
7. tAyWifA
txz.o-hma what
is this that thou hast done
(ver. 18;
Gen.
iii.13; xxvi. 10; Ex. xiv. 11 J; Gen. xxix. 25; xlii.
28;
Ex. xiv. 5 E); once without a verb (Ex. xiii. 14 J).
SEPARATION FROM LOT (CR. XIII.).
The critics divide this chapter thus:
J, vs. 1-5., 7-11a, 12b-18; P, vs. 6, 11b, 12a.
186 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
Knobel assigns to P, vs. 3a,6, 10a,c, 12.
18a. \
Schrader parcels the portion of J between
J and E
thus:
J, vs. 1, 4, 7b, l0b, 13-17, 18b; E, vs.
2, 3, 5, 7a, 8-
10a,
11a, 12b, 18a.
Wellhausen gives to R vs. 1, 3, 4, and
regards vs. 14-
17
as a later addition to J.
Dillmann gives R the words, "and Lot
with him," in
ver.
1, together with vs. 3, 4.
GROUNDS OF PARTITION.
The manipulation of the text attributed to
R by Well-
hausen
and Dillmann simply means that it is incompatible
with
their notions respecting xi. 10-20.
Verses 1, 3, 4 de-
scribe
Abram's return from Egypt with his wife and Lot,
and
his proceeding by successive stages to the point
from
which he had set out. This shows
conclusively that
he
had visited Egypt, and had visited it at that time,
as
recorded in the preceding chapter.
Wellhausen, to
whom
the Egyptian episode is a later fabrication, is
obliged
to rid himself of vs. 1, 3, 4, altogether.
Dill-
mann,
in whose view it occurred after Abram's separa-
tion
from Lot, is also compelled to reject vs. 3, 4, but he
allows
ver. 1 to stand as the conclusion of the narrative
in
its original position, only without the words "and Lot
with
him," which would wreck his whole assumption. It
is
then claimed that vs. 2, 5, connect directly with xii. 8.
That such a factitious connection is
possible proves
nothing
as to the original constitution of the text.
It
warrants
no suspicion that the omitted portions do not
properly
belong in their present position.
Paragraphs
and
sections can be dropped from any narrative or from
any
piece of composition that ever was written without
destroying
its apparent continuity. This is
particularly
SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 187
the
case with an episode like the present, which, though it
has
its importance and appropriateness in its place, might
be
thrown out without disturbing the general current of
the
history.
The fact is that the connection is perfect
as it stands,
and
there is not the slightest reason for calling in the
aid
of R except to patch up an unfounded critical con-
jecture. Abram returns (ver. 1) with his wife and pos-
sessions
from Egypt to the southern district of Palestine
through
which he had passed on his way to Egypt (xii.
9). The presence of Lot with him, to which there
was
no
occasion to allude before, is now mentioned as pre-
paratory
to the separation which was shortly to take
place,
and to which the whole narrative is now tending.
The
riches of Abram (ver. 2), who advances to his former
position
in the land by stated marches (vs. 3, 4:), (the ex-
pression
is suggestive of the progress of a large company
or
caravan), and the flocks and herds of Lot (ver. 5),
picture
the situation. Then follows in ver. 6
precisely
what
might be expected--the land was incapable of sup-
porting
them together. The result was strife
between
their
respective herdmen (ver. 7a), and the difficulty was
aggravated
(ver. 7b) by the presence of the native in-
habitants
who tenanted the region.
The exigencies of the divisive hypothesis
make it nec-
essary
to find material for P as well as J in this chapter.
In
xix. 29, which is referred to P, it appears that Lot
had
parted from Abram, and the reader must have been
made
aware of the fact. In order to find such
a state-
ment
in P the critics propose to rend ver. 6 from the
closely
concatenated paragraph just reviewed. In
justi-
fication
of this it is urged.
1.
Verse 6 is superfluous beside the detailed account
of
the separation (vs. 7 sqq.) and is somewhat inconsis-
tent
with it in tracing the separation to the general rea-
188 THE GENERARTIONS OF TERAH
son
of the greatness of their possessions instead of its
special
occasion the strife of the herdmen; and its last
clause
goes beyond what immediately follows and extends
to
the separation itself (ver. 12). But--
a.
This disregards the frequent usage of Hebrew
writers
to state first in a summary manner what is subse-
quently
unfolded in detail. Thus, Judg. xx. 35,
36a, pre-
cedes
the more particular recital, vs. 36b-46; 1 Kin. v. 9
is
expanded in vs. 10-14 (E. V., iv. 29 in vs.30-34); vi.
14
in vs. 15-36; xi. 3b in vs.4-8; 2 Kin. xxi. 2 in vs. 3-9.
See
other examples of a like nature given above under
xii.
5.
b.
Verse 6 is neither superfluous beside ver. 7, nor in-
consistent
with it. It explains the occasion of the
strife
that
followed. And it is important as showing
that a
peaceful
separation was the only available remedy.
The
strife
did not spring from petty or accidental causes,
which
were capable of adjustment. It was
inherent in
the
situation. The land could not furnish
pasture and
wells
enough for their superabundant flocks.
Collision
was
inevitable if they remained together. By
erasing
ver.
6 this real and pressing necessity disappears.
It is
to
this that the statements respecting the largeness of
the
possessions of both Abram and Lot were meant to
lead
up (vs. 2, 5). It is this which is
emphasized by the
reference
to the Canaanite and the Perizzite (ver. 7),
which
has no meaning otherwise. Ver. 6 is thus
essen-
tial
in the connection, and cannot have belonged to an-
other
document.
2.
Its close correspondence with xxxvi. 7.
The expressions in the two passages are
almost identi-
cal,
which speaks strongly for their common authorship.
And
this cannot be too strongly affirmed and insisted
upon
in the interest of the unity of the book.
This is
no
argument for diversity of documents, and no proof
SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH.
XIII.) 189
that
ver. 6 belongs to any other than its present context.
By
an arbitrary dictum of the critics the four principal
passages
recording the migrations of the patriarchs (xii.
5;
xxxi. 18; xxxvi. 6, 7; xlvi. 6), which are all of one
stamp
and evidence themselves to be from the same
hand,
are referred to a document distinct from the con-
text
in which they stand, and their prominent words are
classed
as criteria of that document. This is
then made
a
base of operations for forcing other passages out of
their
proper connection, and thus building up this sup-
posititious
document. But the argument partakes too
much
of the character of a vicious circle to be convinc-
ing.
The remainder of the chapter is bound as
closely to-
gether
as is that portion already considered.
Recogniz-
ing
the real occasion of the strife, and the only practicable
mode
of terminating or avoiding it, Abram (vs. 8, 9)
proposes
a separation and generously offers his younger
kinsman
his choice of any part of the land. Lot
chose
in
consequence the fertile plain of the Jordan (vs. 10, 11).
Thus
they separated, Abram dwelling in the land
of
Canaan, and Lot in the cities of the plain, moving his
tent
as far as Sodom (ver. 12). The
wickedness of this
city
is then remarked upon (ver. 13), to give an intima-
tion
of its approaching doom and of the issue of Lot's
unwise
choice.
Under the same pressure as before, the
critics here pro-
pose
to sunder vs. 11b, 12a from its context and give it
to
P. In favor of this it is urged--
1.
Verse 11b is unnecessary after 11a; and 12a repre-
sents
Lot as having a fixed abode, while according to 11a
and
12b he led the wandering life of a nomad in tents.
But--a. After the mention of Lot's removal eastward
it
was
still important to state distinctly that this effected a
separation
between him and Abram. This is the very
190 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
point
of the narrative, as is indicated by the triple repe-
tition
of the word; in ver. 9, "separate thyself," ver. 14,
"after
that Lot was separated," ver. 11, "and they sepa-
rated." This last cannot be severed from the other
two.
With
all the emphasis thrown upon the fact of separation
the
critics would have us suppose that while it was pro-
posed
by Abram (ver. 9), and mention is made of what
occurred
after it had taken place (ver. 14), the act of sep-
arating
was not itself noted; and that the record of sep-
aration
in the text, with its evident allusion to Abram's
proposal,
is a fragment from a different document.
b.
The structure of the sentences forbids the partition
made
by the critics. The repetition of Lot,
as the sub-
ject
of the second verb in ver. 11, can only be explained
by
its being contrasted with Abram's remaining behind
in
Canaan; ver. 12a is, therefore, necessary to complete
the
construction. Kautzsch and Socin concede
as much
when
they say that J must have had such a clause but
R
omitted it in order to adopt that of P.
Still further,
in
ver. 14 Jehovah precedes the verb of which it is the
subject. This is also due to contrast with ver. 12,
where
the
same phenomenon twice appears. What
Abram did,
and
Lot did, and Jehovah did, stand in manifest rela-
tion;
and ver. 12 cannot accordingly be separated from
ver.
14 as an interjected fragment from a different docu-
ment.
c.
As to the alleged diversity in Lot's mode of life, it
is
plain that R, or whoever gave the text its present form,
saw
none, or he would not have joined mutually incon-
sistent
clauses without explanation. And such
diversity,
if
it existed, would prove inconvenient to the critics; for
in
ch. xix. (J) Lot is not leading a tent
life, but dwelling
in
one of the cities of the plain, in accordance with what
they
here assign to P, but conflicting with what they as-
sign
to J. And in ver. 18 the same two verbs
are com-
SEPARATION FROM LOT 191
bined
in relation to Abram, which are used of Lot in
ver.
12a and b, and are here set in opposition by the
critics. Where is the difficulty in assuming, as both
xiii.
6, 12a (P), and xiii. 12b, ch. xix. (J) require, that Lot
took
up his quarters in one of the cities, while those in
charge
of his flocks lived in tents on the plain?
2.
"Cities of the plain" (xiii. 12) corresponds with
the
expression in xix. 29 P, as against xiii. 10, 11, "the
plain
of Jordan," and 12b, "Sodom," expressions of J.
But a purely factitious difference is
created here by
arbitrarily
dividing a sentence, and giving part to one
document
and part to another. "The plain of
Jordan"
differs
from "Sodom" as much as the latter differs from
the
"cities of the plain;" so that if the latter can be
urged
in proof of diversity of authorship, the former may
likewise;
and it would follow that what the critics here
assign
to J should be partitioned between different writ-
ers. "The plain of Jordan" only occurs
xiii. 10, 11;
elsewhere
it is simply "the plain," alike in xix. 17, 25,
28,
assigned to J, and in xiii. 12, xix. 29, assigned to P.
Moreover,
according to J (xiii. 10; xix. 24, 25, 28; cf. x.
19),
there was more than one city in the plain, so that P's
phrase
is completely justified.l
3.
The verses assigned to P (vs. 6, 11b, 12a) have
words
and phrases peculiar to that document.
But the
futility
of this plea is obvious on the slightest examina-
tion.
1"It is alleged that one
narrator calls the cities about the Jordan 'the
cities
of the plain,' and the other 'all the plain of Jordan.' But the
latter
cannot of itself denote those cities, but only the great plain by
the
Jordan. Therefore it stands (xiii.
10,1.1) quite properly of the land
which
Lot chose as well watered, whilst with equal propriety Lot dwells
in
the cities of the plain (xiii. 12), and these cities are destroyed by God
(xix.
29)."--Ewald, Komposition d. Genesis, pp. 118, 119.
192 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
MARKS OF P
Dillmann specifies the following:
1. wUkr; substance.
See word No.2, under xii. 5.
2. xWAnA to bear (ver. 6), is claimed for P, by which can
only
be meant that it occurs once, though only once, in
a
precisely similar connection-xxxvi. 7--a verse arbitra-
rily
ascribed to P. The verb itself occurs
repeatedly
in J
and E. It is used in the sense of
"bearing" in J
(Gen.
iv. 13; vii. 17; Num. xi. 14; xiv. 33), and in E (Ex.
xviii.
22).
3. bwayA to dwell (vs. 6, 12), is also claimed for P,
whereas
it occurs repeatedly in J and E, not only in
other
applications, but with express reference to the
patriarchs
in Canaan: J, xiii. 18; xix. 30 (Lot);
xxv.
11b;
xxvi. 6, 17; E, xx. 1, 15; xxii. 19;
xxxv. 1.
4. NfanaK; Cr,x, land of Canaan (ver. 12). See word No.4,
under
xii. 5.
5. rKAKiha
yrefA cities
of the plain
only occurs xiii. 12; xix.
29;
cf. ver. 25. See above.
The assertion that xix. 29 has been
transposed from its
proper
position, and that it was originally attached to
xiii.
12a, is altogether groundless, and merely betrays the
embarrassment
created by sundering it from the connec-
tion
in which it stands, and to which, as we shall see
hereafter,
it is firmly bound both by its matter and form,
the
change in the divine name being for a sufficient rea-
son
and not suggestive of a different writer.
The significance of Lot's separating from
Abram ap-
pears
from the enlarged promise, of which it furnishes
the
occasion, of all the land to him and to his seed forever,
and
the multiplication of his seed as the dust of the earth
(vs.14-17). The thoroughly arbitrary manner in which
the
critics deal with the text, rejecting from it whatever
SEPARATION FROM LOT (CH. XIII.) 193
does
not correspond with their preconceived notions, may
be
illustrated by Wellhausen's treatment of this passage.
He
says:1 "Grounds of a general nature, which will con-
vince
few, move me to regard xiii. 14-17 as a later addi-
tion. It is not the habit of J to let God speak so
without
ceremony
to the patriarchs; he is always particular to nar-
rate
a theophany in a place precisely indicated, which is
then
hallowed by this appearing for all time."
To this
Dillmann
very properly replies that xii. 1 is of itself suf-
ficient
to show that God does not always speak to Abram
in
theophanies in the passages assigned to J; besides
the
place in which the present communication was made
is
designated (xiii. 3, 4). It may be added
further, that
the
notion of Wellhausen and other critics that the stories
of
divine manifestations to the patriarchs originated in
the
local sanctuaries of later times, inverts the order of
cause
and effect. It was not the sanctity
attached to
certain
spots by the Israelites which gave rise to the
stories
of the theophanies; but it was the fact of these
theophanies
and the sacred associations thence resulting
which
led to the establishment of illegitimate worship in
these
places in after-ages.
MARKS OF J
This chapter, exclusive of the verses
referred to P and
R,
is claimed for J on two grounds, viz.:
(1) Its allusions to other J passages,
e.g., "garden of
the
LORD," ver. 10 to chs. ii., iii.; the wickedness of
Sodom,
ver. 13 to ch. xix.
But apart from the fact that these J
passages did not
themselves
belong to an independent document, the chap-
ter
is likewise linked to so-called P passages; to xix. 29
P,
which implies Lot's separation from Abram and his re-
1Composition d. Hexateuchs, p. 23.
194 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
moval
to the cities of the plain here recorded.
The attempt
is
indeed made to evade this by slicing vs. 6, 11 b, 12a, from
the
rest of the narrative; but this has been shown to be
impracticable. Also to xxiii. 2, 19; xxxv. 27 P, which
imply
the record in xiii. 18, that Abram made his home
in "Mamre
which is in Hebron."
(2) The occurrence in vs. 8, 9, 14-17, of
words and ex-
pressions
which are used in J elsewhere.
1. xnA I pray thee (vs. 8, 9, 14). See under ch. xii. 10-
20,
Marks of J, No.3.
2. Nymiyhe go to the right, lyxim;W;hi
go to the left (ver. 9);
these
verbs occur nowhere else in the Pentateuch; the con-
trast
of right and left occurs Gen. xxiv. 49; Num. xxii.
26
J; Num. xx. 17 E; Ex. xiv. 22, 29 P; and repeatedly in
Deuteronomy;
also in Josh. i. 7; xxiii. 6, which Dill-
mann
refers to D.
3.
Vs. 14-17 belong to the progressive series of prom-
ises
given by Jehovah to Abram, and naturally deal in
the
same or equivalent phrases. Thus the
four points of
the
compass, N., S., E., W., as in a like connection, xxviii.
14,
where, however, Wellhausen suspects a different
writer
because the order is W., E., N., S.; "thy seed
as
the dust of the earth," as xxviii. 14; "not to be count-
ed,"
as xv. 5; xxxii. 13 (E. V., 12); Num. xxiii. 10.
But words and phrases reckoned peculiar to
P are also
found
in the J portion of this chapter.
vyfAs.Amal; on his journeys (ver. 3); both the word and the
form
are said to be characteristic of P; this form of the
word
occurs exclusively in P (Ex. xvii. 1; xl. 36, 38;
Num.
x. 6, 12; xxxiii. 2); a like use of the same prepo-
sition
and a suffix with other nouns is held to be a mark
of P
in Gen. viii. 19; x. 5, 20, 31, 32; fs.Ama
is found be-
sides
in P, in other constructions, in Num. x. 2, 28; xxxiii.
1;
but nowhere else in the Old Testament except Deut.
x.
11.
ABRAM S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.) 195
drap;ni to be separated (vs. 9, 14), was claimed as a mark
of P
in distinction from J in Gen. x. 5, 32.
"The land is before thee" (ver.
9) has its only paral-
lels
in xxxiv. 10; xlvii. 6 (P), and xx. 15 (E).
"The Canaanite was then in the
land" (xii. 6), and
"The
Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the
land"
(xiii. 7), are not later glosses, since they are closely
connected
with the paragraphs in which they stand, as
has
been already shown; nor are they indications of the
post-Mosaic
origin of the narrative. They contain no
implication
that the Canaanites and Perizzites had passed
away. It is quite as natural to say, "The Canaanites
were
then in the land as they still are," as to say, "The
Canaanites
were then in the land, but are there no
longer."
The proof already given of the unity and
continuity of
this
chapter renders it unnecessary to examine in detail
Knobel's
enlargement of P or Schrader's subdivision of
J. These are of interest only as showing the
facility
with
which documents can be subdivided or the lines of
partition
changed.
ABRAM'S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.)
Astruc set the example of referring ch.
xiv. to another
source
than the principal documents of Genesis, as he
did
every passage which concerned foreign tribes or
nations. The critics complain that it is disconnected
and
out of harmony with what precedes and follows
in
its representation of Abram, but without good rea-
son. The dignity of his position corresponds with
the
statements
elsewhere made. The greatness of Abram's
retinue
is remarked (xii. 5, 16; xiii. 6, 7).
The children
of
Heth treat him as a mighty prince or a prince of God
(xxiii.
6). The king of the Philistines and the
general
196 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
of
his army court his alliance (xxi. 22 sqq.).
It is in per-
fect
accord with this that he is here said to have mus-
tered
three hundred and eighteen trained men (ver. 14;
cf.
xx:xiii.l); that he was confederate with native princes
(ver.
13); that as the head of a clan, in contrast with
other
tribes or nations, he is called Abram the Hebrew
(ver.
13; of. 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7; xiv. 21).
This appellation
is
justified by the situation and does not require Ewald's
assumption
that the narrative is from a Canaanitish orig-
inal. His generous regard for Lot (ver. 14), his
magna-
nimity
and disinterestedness (vs. 21-24), agree with xiii.
8,
9. His life had been peaceful hitherto,
but he adapts
himself
to this new emergency. The land had been
given
him with new emphasis in all its length and
breadth
(xiii. 15, 17), and it is quite in place that he
should
act as its champion and defender from invasion
and
pillage. The exhortation and the
military emblem
(xv.
1) seem to be suggested by his late conflict.
The critics find their chief perplexity,
however, in the
fact
that this chapter is related to all the documents, and
cannot
be brought into harmony with any one. It
has
the
diffuseness and particularity of P in vs. 8, 9, the P
words
wUkr; goods
(vs. 11, 12, 16, 21), wp,n,
soul for per-
sons
(ver. 21), OtyBe
ydeyliy; born
in the house
(ver. 14), as
xvii.
12, 13, 23, 27; Lev. xxii. 11; calls Lot Abram's
brother's
son (ver. 12), as xi. 27,31; xii. 5. At
the same
time
it has the J words hvhy Jehovah (ver 22), txraq;li
to
meet (ver. 17), j`UrBA blessed (vs. 19, 20); brings Abram
into
connection with Salem or Jerusalem, the future site
of
the temple, to whose priest he pays tithes (vs. 18-20),
(which
is held to be indicative of J, who is reputed to be-
long
to Judah); calls Lot Abram's brother (ver. 14),
as
xiii. 8; speaks of him as dwelling in Sodom (ver. 12),
as
xiii. 12b; and Abram as dwelling by the oaks of
Mamre
(ver.13), as xiii. 18; connects Admah and Zeboiim
ABRAM'S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.) 197
with
Sodom and Gomorrah (vs. 2, 8), as x. 19, and Zoar,
as
xix. 23, while yet Sodom and Gomorrah are accorded
the
precedence (vs. 10, 11), and particularly Sodom (vs.
17,
21, 22), as xiii. 10; xviii. 20, 26; ch. xix.
With all
this
it has several words which occur nowhere else in the
Pentateuch;
NOyl;f,
lxe God
Most High
(vs. 18-20, 22); NGemi
to
deliver
(vel~. 20); ryW.if<h, to make rich
(ver. 23); or in
the
Old Testament Cr,xAvA MyimawA hneqo possessor of heaven and earth (vs. 19, 22); tyrib;
ylefEBa confederate (ver. 13);
j`yniHA trained (ver. 14); qyrihe drew out said of men (ver. 14);
also
several antique or peculiar names of places: Bela
for
Zoar (vs. 2, 8), vale of Siddim (vs. 3, 8, 10), Ashte-
roth-karnaim
(ver. 5), Zuzim, probably for Zamzummim
(ver.
5), El Paran (ver. 6), En-mishpat for Kadesh (ver. 7),
Hazazon-tamar
for Engedi (ver. 7), vale of Shaveh for
the
King's Vale (ver. 17), Salem for Jerusalem (ver. 18).
Such
unusual words and names are thought to point to
E;
so the alliance with native princes (ver. 13), as xxi.
32,
and the warlike achievement (ver.15), as xlviii. 22, as
well
as the E words ydafAl;Bi nothing for me
(ver. 24), the
Amorite instead of Canaanite (vs. 7, 13), as Num.
xxi.
21;
Josh. xxiv. 8, 12; likewise FyliPA escaped.
(ver. 13), and
dramA rebelled (ver. 4), which Schrader reckons peculiar
to
E,
but Dillmann does not.
Noldeke undertakes to prove the narrative
to be alto-
gether
fictitious, and several of the names to be the in-
vention
of the writer. He adopts the Rabbinical
conceit
that
Bera, king of Sodom, is from fra evil; and Birsha,
king
of Gomorrah, from fwar, wickedness; and he appears
to
approve the Samaritan conversion of Shemeber, king
of
Zeboiim, into Shemebed, whose name has perished,
though
he shrinks from resolving Shinab, king of Admah,
with
the Jerusalem Targum into bxA xneW
father-hater.
The
object of the story he conceives to be to glorify
Abram
as a conqueror. From the allusions to it
in Ps.
198 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
lxxvi.
3, E. V. 2 (Salem), cx. (Melchizedek), Hos. xi. 8 (NGemi
deliver, Admah, Zeboiim), he infers that it could
not have
been
written later than 800 B.C. Kuenen
("Hexateuch,"
p.
324) also makes it absolutely unhistorical, intended in
vs.
18-20 "to glorify the priesthood of Jerusalem and to
justify
their claiming tithes," and borrowed by the final
redactor
of the Pentateuch from "a postexilian version
of
Abram's life, a midrash."
Monumental evidence has,
however,
established the historical character of the names
Arioch,
Ellasar, Chedorlaomer,l and, perhaps, Amraphel,2
as
well as of invasions and conquests stretching westward
at
that early date. To evade this, E. Meyer
propounded
the
extraordinary hypothesis that a writer in the exile
became
acquainted with the names of these ancient
kings,
and invented this story which brought Abram
into
contact with them.
It is thus settled beyond reasonable
contradiction that
this
chapter stands on historic ground. Its
postexilic
origin
is accordingly impossible. This is an
effectual
bar
to Wellhausen's proposed solution of its eclectic rela-
tion
to the several documents, and especially its use of
the
diction of P, by assuming that "it must have been
produced
not by J, E, or P, but by a redactor subse-
quent
to them all; and in his view P is itself postexilic.
The
definiteness and precision of its statements, coupled
with
the unusual number of ancient names requiring ex-
planation,
which are here grouped together, compel to
the
assumption that this belongs to a very early date.
Dillmann
attributes it to E, the explanatory glosses hav-
ing
been added by a later hand. This obliges
him to
explain
away the marks of P and J as interpolations, or
as
of no significance, and to reject vs. 17-20 as no part
of
the original narrative. Knobel refers it
to an ancient
1 Schrader: Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament.
2 Hommel, quoted by Delitzsch.
ABRAM'S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.) 199
source,
of which J availed himself, and to which he added
the
necessary explanations by introducing modern names
where
the older ones had become unintelligible.
To this
Delitzsch
gives his assent. This accounts for the
ar-
chaic
names and expressions and for the marks of J, which
the
chapter contains; but it leaves without explanation
the
marks of P, which, though emphasized elsewhere, must
here
be treated as of no account or set aside as later ad-
ditions
to the text. The natural and obvious
explanation
of
the whole matter, to which the critics determinedly shut
their
eyes, is that these alleged criteria of distinct docu-
ments
are not such, after all, but are freely used as occa-
sion
requires by one and the same Writer, and in the
same
piece of composition.
Dillmann rejects for no other reason than
that they
contravene
his hypothesis vs. 17-20, Jehovah in ver.
22,
and "Admah and Zeboiim" in x. 19, as later, addi-
tions
to the text, and claims that the allusions to ch. xiii.
imply
acquaintance with that chapter,1 but not that ch.
xiv.
is by the same author; whereas the use of the
phrase
"the vale of Siddim" (vs. 3, 8, 10), instead of
"the
plain of Jordan," as xiii. 10, 11, shows them to be
by
different writers. But the vale of
Siddim is not iden-
tical
with the plain of the Jordan; it is (ver. 3) expressly
declared
to be only that part of it which was subse-
quently
covered by the "Salt Sea," that is, the Dead
Sea. The expression used is different because the
object
to
be denoted was different. No inference
can be drawn
from
it, consequently, against the presumption of iden-
tity
of authorship created by the connection of the nar-
rative,
the agreement as to the situation and the charac-
1As he holds that E is older
than J, E could not in his opinion have
referred
to J. He is obliged, therefore, to
assume that the allusions to
ch.
xiii. were no part of ch. xiv. originally, but are later additions to
its
text.
200 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
ter
of Abram, the correspondence of diction, and the
direct
allusions.
The P words are waived aside in a similar
manner.
"Born
in his house" (ver. 14) is pronounced a later ad-
dition. Such fulness of detail in any but ritual and
legal
matters
is said not to accord with P's usage elsewhere,
and
the style of the chapter is not his; which simply
means
that the critics have arbitrarily partitioned the
text
of the Pentateuch between what is ritual and legal
on
the one hand and narrative on the other, as though
no
writer could produce more than one species of com-
position,
and the diversity of style due to a difference of
matter
were proof of distinct authors. wUkr;
goods, and
wp,n, soul, in the sense of "person,"
which are elsewhere
declared
to be such evident marks of P as to stamp a
verse
as his, though in a J connection, are here passed
over
lightly, as though they had no such significance.
Thus
Delitzsch says that "wUkr; is
no specific criterion;
it
is found in xv. 14, a promise recorded by J or E (DilI-
mann
says R), and at any rate not by P, and it expresses
an
idea for which the Biblical language has no other
word." And Dillmann says: "One could hardly help
using
wp,n,
for persons of
both sexes, free and slave." If,
then,
these are the proper words and the only words to
express
a given meaning, such as any ordinary speaker
or
writer might upon occasion have to employ, how can
they
possibly be classed as characteristic of one docu-
ment
rather than another? And if not here, neither
can
they be elsewhere. But it is said that
ver. 13 says.
"the
oaks of Mamre," as xiii. 18; xviii. 1; while P inva-
riably
says simply, "Mamre." So he
does (xxiii. 17, 19;
xxv.9;
xlix. 30; 1. 13) when speaking, not of the residence
of
Abram, but of the location of the cave of Machpelah
"before
Mamre," and (xxxv. 27) when speaking of Jacob's
coming
"to Mamre, to Kiriath-arba (the same is He-
ABRAM'S RESCUE OF LOT (CH. XIV.) 201
bron),
where Abraham and Isaac sojourned."
The exact
spot
where Abram dwelt was "by the oaks of Mamre;"
but
when the district so named is referred to in general,
as a
matter of course the oaks are not spoken of.
This
surely
is no indication of different writers.
In recording this very significant event
in the life of
the
great patriarch the writer has taken pains to preserve
the
names of localities, and, as it would appear, to some
extent,
the use of terms as they were at the time referred
to,
introducing in a supplementary way the more modern
names
by which they had been superseded, or some ex-
planatory
phrase when necessary for the sake of clear-
ness,
as vs. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17. In one
instance he uses
a
name current in his own time proleptically, perhaps for
the
reason that no other expressed his meaning so exactly.
Thus
he says (vs. 5-7) that the invaders smote the Re-
phaim,
and Zuzim, and Emim, and Horites, and Amorites,
and
"the country of the Amalekites."
His meaning is here
carefully
guarded by the altered form of expression.
They
smote
not the Amalekites, who derived their name from
the
grandson of Esau (xxxvi. 12), and accordingly were
not
in existence in the time of Abram, but the region
subsequently
occupied by them.
At first sight it might appear as though
"Dan" (ver.
14)
was to be similarly explained. It is
natural to think
of
the Dan so frequently mentioned in the later Script-
ures,
which first received this name .after the occupation
of
Canaan (Judg. xviii. 29; Josh. xix. 47), having pre-
viously
been called Laish. And on this ground it
has
been
urged that this could not have been written by Mo-
ses. But--
1.
It seems extremely improbable that the analogy of
the
entire chapter, which on this interpretation would re-
quire
"Laish, the same is Dan," should be violated in
this
one instance without any intimation of it, the origi-
202 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
nal
name being discarded, and the recent one not added
to
it by way of explanation, but substituted for it. It is
more
in keeping with the general tenor of the chapter to
suppose
that it was not the Dan-Laish of later times,
which
was intended, but a place so called in the time of
Abram,
perhaps named from this very event, in which
God
maintained the righteous cause of his servant (Dan
=
judge; see xv. 14), and possibly perpetuated in the
Dan-jaan
of 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, cf. also Deut. xxxiv. 1.
2.
If the Dan of later times is here meant, the strong
probability
is that the older name was in the original
text,
and in the course of transcription one more familiar
was
substituted for it. The proofs of Mosaic
authorship
are
too numerous and strong to be outweighed by a triv-
ialty
like this. Critics whose hypothesis requires
the
assumption
of textual changes of the most serious nature
cannot
consistently deny that there may be occasion for
a
slight correction here.
PROMISE AND COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH.
XV.)
Most of the earlier critics refer the
whole of this chap-
ter
to J. Knobel attributed both ch. xiv. and xv. to what
he
called the Kriegsbuch, or Book of Wars, one of the
sources
from which he imagined that J drew his materials.
Wellhausen,
and others since, undertake the partition of the
chapter,
and base it on certain alleged incongruities
which
have no real existence. It is charged
that--
1.
There is a discrepancy in respect to time. Accord-
ing
to ver. 5, it is in the night and the stars are visible;
but
vs. 7-11 imply that it is in the day; in ver. 12a, the
sun
is setting, and ver. 17, it has gone down.
But it is not easy to see how anyone can
imagine a
difficulty
here. The transaction described required
time.
The
vision (ver. 1) occurred in the night or in the early
THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 203
morning,
when the stars still appeared in the sky (ver.5).
A
fresh communication was made to Abram (vs. 7 sqq.),
which,
whether it followed the preceding immediately or
after
an interval, contained directions that could only be
executed
in the daytime. Five animals were to be
taken
and
slain, properly prepared and divided, and the parts
suitably
adjusted. This would occupy a portion of
the
day,
and during the remainder of it he guarded the pieces
from
the birds of prey. Then came sunset with
the pro-
phetic
disclosure (vs. 12-16), and finally darkness with
the
symbolic ratification of the covenant.
The narrative is
consistent
throughout and develops regularly from
first
to last.
2.
A vision is announced in ver. 1, but it cannot pos-
sibly
be continued through the chapter.
Knobel thinks that the vision does not
begin till ver.
12,
and ends with ver. 16. This is plainly a
mistake;
the
communication in ver. 1 is expressly said to have
been
made in a vision. Whether all the
communications
in
the chapter were similarly made, and only vs. 10, 11
belong
to Abram's ordinary state, or whether the vision
is
limited to vs. 1-6, as Wellhausen supposes, it may be
difficult
to determine, and it is of no account as nothing
is
dependent on the mode in which the revelation was
given.
3.
Ver. 8 is inconsistent with ver. 6.
In the latter
Abram
is said to have believed the LORD; and yet he
asks
in the former for a visible token of the truth of
God's
word.
But this request does not indicate doubt
or distrust,
but
rather a desire for a more complete assurance and a
fresh
confirmation of his faith in the fulfilment of prom-
ises
so far transcending all natural expectation.
On the grounds above stated Wellhausen
assigns vs.
1-6
to E; and vs. 7-12,17,18, to J, ver. 7 having been
204 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
modified,
a clause inserted in ver. 12, and vs. 13-16 be-
ing
no part of the original text, but added in the first in-
stance
after vs. 17, 18, and then transposed to its present
position;
vs. 19-21 being also a later addition.
He
urges
that the clause, "a deep sleep fell upon Abram,"
does
not belong to ver. 12, for, though congruous to vs.
13-16,
it is not so to vs. 17, 18, a consideration which
might
have led him to see that those verses are in their
proper
place, and the only incongruity is one of his own
creating.
The revelation by "vision (ver. 1)
is, on critical princi-
ples,
referred to E (though hz,HEma vision, occurs besides in
the
Pentateuch only in Num. xxiv. 4, 16 J); and this is
supposed
to be confirmed by the naming of Eliezer (ver.
2),
whereas J does not give his name (xxiv. 2 sqq.-the
identity
of the persons being commonly assumed); also
by
the phrase, "after these things" (ver. 1), which occurs
in
E, xxii. 1 ; xl. 1 ; xlviii. 1, but also in J, xxii. 20, xxxix.
7,
and even in P, Josh. xxiv. 29, unless it is confessed that
P is
not alone in stating ages. The only
escape from this
dilemma
is by the absurd division of Schrader, who in the
verse
last named assigns "and it came to pass after these
things"
to E, and all the rest to P. Jehovah
occurs four
times
in the first six verses, though by critical rules E
ought
always to say Elohim, never Jehovah. It
is neces-
sary,
therefore, to assume that R has changed those names.
There
are also some of P's expressions ynixE (not
ykinoxA J);
MyDiW;Ka rUx Ur of the Ohaldees (ver. 7), wkur; goods (ver.14),
hbAOf hbAyWeB; in a good old age (ver. 15; see xxv. 8), not to
speak
of the chronological statement, ver. 13.
Hence it
is
again necessary to assume that the verses that contain
them
have been either altered or inserted by R, whose
office
it is to rectify whatever is at variance with the hy-
pothesis.
"Come forth out of thy bowels," Myfime (ver.4),
sounds
like a variation upon "come forth out of thy
THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 205
loins,"
a phrase which P uses in two forms (xxxv. 11,
MycilAHE;
xlvi. 26; Ex. i. 5, j`reyA),
and he might easily be sup-
posed
to add a third. At any rate no phrase at
all ap-
proaching
it is elsewhere referred to E; xxv. 23 is as-
signed
to J. The animals (ver. 9) are precisely
those
admissible
for sacrifice under the ritual law (P), and not
dividing
the birds accords with Lev. i. 17.
"The word
of
Jehovah came" (vs. 1, 4) is a phrase familiar in the
prophets,
but occurring nowhere else in the Pentateuch;
it
certainly cannot be claimed, therefore, as character-
istic
of E. The inhabitants of the land are
called Amor-
ites
(ver. 16), while J calls them Canaanites and Periz-
rites
(xii. 6, xiii. 7); but if this is the mark of a different
writer,
how could R, who designates them as in ver. 16,
have
likewise written vs. 19-21?
Dillmann in his 1st edition (Knobel's 3d)
ascribed the
entire
chapter to R, who had introduced expressions of
P as
well as of J, and based his narrative partly on E, a
combination
which could not well be disposed of from
the
critical point of view in any other way.
In his 2d
edition
(Knobel's 4th) he rids himself of most of the P
elements
by assigning vs. 7, 12-16, to R, and then gives
vs.
3, 5, 6, to J, and vs. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9-11, 17, 18, to E, and
vs.
19-21 either to E or R. By the portion
given to J
his
partition has an advantage over that of Wellhausen.
Abram's
childlessness and the promise of offspring with-
out
naming the mother (vs. 3, 5) prepares the way for
the
affair of Hagar (ch. xvi.), in which E is supposed to
have
no share. And according to Ex. xxxii.
13, J, God
had
promised Abraham to multiply his seed as the stars of
heaven. This emblem occurs three times in Genesis
(xv.
5; xxii. 17; xxvi. 4). By common
critical consent
the
last two are by R, who ,vas posterior to J.
On critical
grounds,
therefore, the reference could only be to xv. 5,
so
that this must have belonged to J and not to E. This
206 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
partition
is, however, impracticable, for it is at variance
with
the divine names; it assigns vs. 17, 18, to E in spite
of
xxiv. 7, J, which directly refers to it; it sunders ver.
4
from ver. 3, to which it is the immediate response; it
connects
ver. 8 with ver. 4, though they relate to mat-
ters
as distinct as the birth of his child and the posses-
sion
of Canaan. In order to link them
together he al-
ters
the text of ver. 8 without the slightest authority from
hn.Aw,rAyxi I shall inherit it, to yniwerAyyi he shall be my heir, thus
changing
its subject entirely. But his own
comment on
ver.
18 refutes his emendation and with it his critical
division
of the chapter. Ver. 18 remarks
expressly that
by
the transaction from ver. 9 onward God concluded a
covenant
with Abram in relation to the future possession
of
the land. This, then, is what the sign for
which he
asked
in ver. 8 was to certify, and not that Abram's own
child
should be his heir. Ver. 8 cannot
therefore con-
nect
with ver. 4, but relates to a different subject. Ac-
cordingly
it is not surprising that in his 3d edition
(Knobel's
5th) Dillmann abandons his previous scheme,
and
after reviewing what others have attempted in the
same
line with no better success, pronounces it imprac-
ticable
to separate E and J in this chapter. He
im-
agines
that J made use of a narrative of E, in drawing
up
this account of a covenant with Abram, which was
subsequently
modified by R, and enlarged by him or by
others
at a still later time. All this rather
than confess,
what
this confusion of documents really shows, that the
alleged
criteria of J, E, and P are not marks of distinct
writers,
but are employed by one and the same writer as
he
has occasion.
Budde undertook to make a partition in
accordance
with
the divine names; and regarding, as his predeces-
sors
had done, vs. 12-16, 19-21, as later additions, he
gave
to J vs. 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 6-11, 17, 18, and to E vs. 3a, 2b,
THE COVENANT OF JEHOVAH (CH. XV.) 207
5. He thus admits that "after these
things" (ver. 1) is
not
a criterion of E, that Ur of the Chaldees is Abram's
original
home in J (ver. 7) as well as in P, that there is
no
contrariety between ver. 6 and ver. 8; but because of
the
imaginary conflict in time between ver. 17 and ver. 5
he
gives the latter to E in spite of Ex. xxxii. 13, and he
makes
a singular medley of vs. 2, 3. Each
verse is split
in
two, the first clause of ver. 2 is linked with the last of
ver.
3, and the intervening clauses are referred in an in-
verted
order to a distinct document.
Kautzsch and Socin follow Budde for the
most part,
but
are not prepared to accept his juggling with vs. 1-3,
which
they refer to JE without attempting to indicate
what
belongs to each. Kittel tries to help
the matter by
giving
ver. 2 to E and ver. 3 to J, but it is in defiance of
Jehovah
in ver. 2. So that there is no resource
but to
adopt
the explanation of Dillmann in his first edition
that
the author himself interprets in ver. 3 the somewhat
antiquated
and obscure expressions of ver. 2. The
repe-
tition
of the thought has not arisen from the blending of
two
documents, but from the writer's desire to render an
ancient
and remarkable phrase here employed more in-
telligible
to his readers.
Delitzsch very properly contends that vs.
12-16 cannot
be
an addition by R, because it is intimately related to
vs.
9-11, of which it gives a symbolic explanation; and
it
is besides preliminary to a proper understanding of the
promise
in ver. 18. Kittel also asserts the
unity and
continuity
of vs. 7-18, but needlessly assumes that it
originally
stood in a different connection.
The enumeration of ten nations in Canaan
is peculiar
to
vs. 19-21, other passages naming seven, six, or fewer
still. But as Delitzsch rightly maintains, this is
no rea-
son
for disputing its originality here.
There is, after all, no break in this
chapter. Two dis-
208 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
tinct
promises are made in it; but they are closely
related,
and are in fact interwoven throughout the patri-
archal
history. And the conspicuous failure of
the
critics
to effect an analysis makes the evidence of its
unity
more signal and complete. Driver only
ventures
the
vague remark: "Ch. xv. shows signs
of composition;
but
the criteria are indecisive, and no generally accepted
analysis
has been offered." It is plain
enough that no
partition
of the chapter has been found possible.
The
signs
of its composite character are hard to discover.
Its
lack of conformity to anyone of the so-called docu-
ments
discredits those documents, not the unity of the
chapter.
BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.)
The motive by which the critics are
influenced in
giving
a fraction of this chapter to P is thus frankly ac-
knowledged
by Dillmann, who says: "Inasmuch as
the
existence
of Ishmael is presupposed by P in xvii 18 sqq.,
he
must previously have mentioned his birth."
The con-
sistency
of the hypothesis demands it. And yet,
though
Ilgen
(1798) had anticipated the division of the chapter
now
currently adopted, Tuch (1838) and Stahelin (1843)
still
gave the whole to J. In P, according to
the former
(p.
lxiv.), "we only learn incidentally
in xxi. 9 (which he
gave
to P, but recent critics to E), that Ishmael was the
son
of an Egyptian maid." And all that
the latter can
say1
is, "It is possible that P may have related some-
thing
about the barrenness of Sarah, about Hagar, and
the
birth of Ishmael, which was dropped because J's
fuller
narrative was put in its place."
Hupfeld's anal-
ysis,
adopted from Ilgen, is now commonly followed, viz.:
P xvi. 1 (?), 3, 15, 16; J, vs. 2, 4-14.
The critics are puzzled as to the
disposition to be made
1 Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 46.
BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 209
of
ver. 1. Knobel and Dillmann (3d) give it
to P;
Kautzsch
follows Schrader in giving la to P, and 1b to
J;
Dillmann (1st and 2d) agrees with Wellhausen that
the
whole verse is J's; Hupfeld seems uncertain.
On
the
one hand it is urged that "Sarai, Abram's wife,"
"Abram
her husband," "Hagar the Egyptian, her hand-
maid"
(ver. 3), needlessly repeat what is contained in
ver.
1; and that these verses must, therefore, be from
different
sources. But, on the other hand, ver. 3
neces-
sarily
presupposes a previous mention of Hagar and of
Sarai's
childlessness, such as is found in ver. 1, and the
identity
of expressions favors sameness of authorship
rather
than the reverse, so that they must belong to-
gether. Sarai's relation to Abram is not here
mentioned
for
the first time in either document, as the critics divide
them
(P, xi. 31; xii. 5; J, xi. 29; xii. 11, 17).
It is not
stated,
then, for the sake of acquainting the reader with
a
fact not before known. But it is
reiterated and dwelt
upon
at this juncture, that it may be kept before the
mind
in order to a proper understanding of the situation.
That
Hagar was an handmaid of Sarai and an Egyptian
is
also important for the correct comprehension of the
subsequent
history. Hence it is not only repeated
here
but
elsewhere in all the documents, as the critics regard
them
(J, xvi. 8; E, xxi. 9; P, xxv. 12).
There is, accord-
ingly,
no escape from the admission of repetitions by the
same
writer but by the indefinite multiplication of doc-
uments. The triple statement (xvi. 15, 16) that Hagar
bare
Ishmael is not due to some supposed diffuseness of
style
on the part of P, but emphasizes the fact that he
was
not Sarai's child.
But if ver. 1 is accorded to P, because
presupposed in
ver.
3 then the narrative in J evidently lacks its begin-
ning. It has no suitable introduction, and the
references
to
Sarai's handmaid (ver. 2), and to Hagar (ver. 4), imply ,
210 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
that
she had been spoken of before. Even
splitting ver.
1
between the documents will not mend the matter for,
as
Kautzch admits, "By the reception of ver. la from P,
the
beginning of J's text is cut away."
Wellhausen tries
to
evade this difficulty by assuming that xi. 30 originally
stood
at the beginning of this chapter, and belonged to
P. But such a transposition is unwarranted, a
statement
of
Sarai's childlessness, such as is found in xi. 30, is ap-
propriate
at the beginning of Abram's history, is needed
to
set the initial promise (xii. 2) in its proper light, is a
necessary
antecedent to xv. 2, and would not at any rate
be a
sufficient introduction to xvi. 3, where Hagar, her
nationality,
and her relation to Sarai are presupposed as
already
known. That xvi. la repeats xi. 30 is
not sug-
gestive
of distinct documents any more than similar rep-
etitions
which abound elsewhere.1 The
trial of Abram's
faith
lay largely in this that notwithstanding the repeated
promises
of a numerous offspring, Sarai continued child-
less. It was this which led to the expedient here
de-
tailed. It was proper, therefore, that this fact,
though
mentioned
before, should be repeated in this place.
And ver. 3 is not superfluous after ver.
2. Sarai first
proposed
the thing to Abram, and obtained his con-
sent;
she then took measures to give effect to her scheme.
By
sundering these verses P is made to say that Sarai
1 Compare 1 Sam. i. 3 and iv. 4; ii. 11,
18, iii. 1; ii. 21b, 26, iii. 19;
xiii.
15b, xiv. 2b; xvi. 6-11, xvii. 13, 14; xvii. 2, 19; xxv. 1,
xxviii.
3: 2 Sam. ii. 11, v. 5 ; iii. 21c, 22c; xiv. 24, 28; 1 Kin. xiv.
21c,
31b ; xv. 16, 32; 2 Kin. i. 1, iii. 5; viii. 29, ix. 15, 16. These
examples,
as well as many of those previously given are adopted from an
early
publication of Ewald, his Komposition der Genesis, 1823, which is
still
worthy of attentive perusal, and in which he argues more wisely than
in
his later speculations. There is much
truth in his suggestion that
many
of the critical objections to the unity of Genesis arise from apply-
ing
to it modern and occidental standards, and disregarding the usages
of
Hebrew historiography and that of the ancient Orient generally.
BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 211
imposed
her maid upon Abram without having spoken
to
him on the subject or gained this consent.
Neither is
verse
3 superfluous before ve se 4. Sarai
first surren-
ders
her maid to Abram, he then treats her as his wife.
All
proceeds in regular order as stated in the text. This
is
not overloaded, and there is nothing to suggest the
intrusion
of foreign matter in the narrative.
The dates (vs. 3, 16) do not indicate
another writer
than
the author of the rest of the chapter, except on the
arbitrary
assumption that the latter could not mention
dates. Nor is there any significance in the
circumstance
that
in ver. 15 it is the father, whereas in ver. 11 it is
the
mother, who gives name to the child. It
has been
alleged
that the former is characteristic of P, the latter
of
J. But this rule does not, hold. J makes Seth (iv.
26),
Judah (xxxviii. 3), and Moses (Ex. ii. 22), name their
children. And of so little account is it to which
parent
this
act is referred, that in iv.1 25, 26, J, they alternate
in
successive verses, and in xxxv. 18, E, both occur in
the
same verse and in respect to the same child, while in
xxv.
25, 26; xxix. 34; xxxviii. 29, 30 (all J), the naming
is
ascribed to neither, but spoken of indefinitely.
The closing verses are, moreover,
essential to the in-
tegrity
of the chapter. If they be sundered from
it and
given
to P, the result will be that while J records Sarai's
anxiety
to have children by her maid, Abram's assent to
her
wishes, Hagar's pregnancy, and the angel's promise
of a
son, whom he names and characterizes, yet the point
of
the whole narrative is never reached. J
makes no
mention
of the birth of Hagar's child. So that
his story,
as
the critics furnish it to us, has neither beginning nor
end. We are left to presume that it once had these
missing
parts, corresponding to what the critics have
cut
away, but that R removed them to make room for
statements
to the same effect from P. But this pre-
212 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
sumption
is only an inference from the hypothesis, and
cannot
consequently' be adduced in support of the hy-
pothesis,
which, if it is to stand, must rest on other
ground
than conjecture. The natural inference
from the
facts,
as they lie before us, is that the beginning and the
ending,
which we possess in the text, are the proper
complements
of the narrative, in which they are found,
and
are component and inseparable portions of it.
There
is not the shadow of a proof that other equivalents
ever
existed, for which those now existing were substi-
tuted. And why R should have made such a substi-
tution,
as the critics allege, does not appear, especially
as
at other times he is represented to be so careful to
preserve
every scrap from his sources, as to insert what is
deemed
superfluous, interrupts the connection and adds
nothing
to what had been said before.
Wellhausen, followed by Kautzsch, regards
vs. 8-10,
and
Kuenen and Kittel, vs. 9, 10, as an insertion by R.
If
these verses were ejected a seeming conflict can be
created
with P (vs. 15, 16; xvii. 23 sqq.) and E (xxi.
9
sqq.), and it can be made to appear as though Ishmael
was
born in the desert and not in Abram's house. Well-
hausen
urges the triple address of the angel to Hagar in
proof
of the composite character of the passage; but
even
on his view of the matter R introduces the angel as
speaking
to her twice with nothing intervening.
The
formula
of address is repeated thrice in order to mark
the
distinctness of the three communications which he
makes
to her. Dillmann very appropriately
cites as par-
allels
xvii. 3, 9, 15; xxxv. 10, 11; and he argues that it
would
be a strange hearing of her affliction if the angel
had
left her helpless in the wilderness; a1so that the
verses
assigned to R are identical in style and diction
with
the context in which they stand. Besides
the
promise
of numberless offspring, ver. 10 is linked with
BIRTH OF ISRMAEL (CH. XVI.) 213
xv.
5, of which it is a partial fulfilment.
And the allega-
tion
that J differed from E and P as to the place of
Ishmael's
birth would be improbable in itself, even on
the
divisive hypothesis, unless sustained by positive
statements,
which are not pretended in the present in-
stance. It is, moreover, expressly contradicted by
xxv.
6 J
(Dillmann, 1st and 2d), tough referred to R on
frivolous
grounds in. Dillmann 3d; if Abram sent
Ish-
mael
away, his mother did not finally leave Abram's
house
before Ishmael's birth.
The flight of Hagar in this chapter has
been said to
be
only a variant of her dismissal (ch. xxi.), and both but
legends
based on the signification of her name (rgAHA per-
haps
= flight; cf. hegira), which are altogether unfounded
assumptions.
MARKS OF P
The following are noted by Dillmann as
marks of P:
1.
Exact statements of time, viz.:
Abram ten years in
Canaan
(ver. 3); eighty-six years old (ver. 16).
But--
a.
Such statements are not confined to P, as the crit-
ics
themselves divide the documents. Thus J,
periods
of
seven and forty days in the flood (vii. 4, 10, 12;
viii.
6, 10, 12); four hundred years' affliction (xv. 13;
Del.,
Kit.); forty years in the Wilderness (Num. xiv. 33,
xxxii.
13). E, twelve years' service,
thirteenth year rebel-
lion,
fourteenth year invasion (xiv. 4, 5, Dill.); Jacob
serving
twice seven years (xxix. 20, 30); twenty years of
service,
fourteen and six (xxxi. 38, 41); Joseph seven-
teen
years old (xxxvii. 2); at the end of two years (xli. 1)
the
same phrase as xvi. 3; seven years of plenty,
seven
of famine (xli. 29, 30, 47, 48, 53, 54) ; two years
and
five (xlv. 6, 11); Joseph, one hundred and ten years
old
(1. 22, 26) ; Caleb forty years old at sending of spies,
214 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
eighty-five
years old forty-five years later (Josh. xiv. 7,
10);
Joshua one hundred and ten years old (xxiv. 29).
b.
This repeated mention of ages and of definite
periods
of time in passages attributed to JE shows that
these
cannot be made a criterion of P; and that they
afford
no justification for severing verses in which they
occur
from their proper connection on the plea that they
are
thereby proved to be insertions from P.
Such pas-
sages
as xii. 4; xvi. 3, 16 ; xxv. 20 ; xli. 46; xlvii. 28, must
accordingly
be held to belong to the context in which
they
are found, and from which they are sundered by
the
arbitrary test which has now been shown to be in-
valid. It is contended that these verses form part
of a
chronological
scheme traceable throughout the Penta-
teuch,
all the parts of which must of necessity be as-
signed
to the same writer. This is readily
admitted;
but
the conclusion to be drawn from it is the reverse of
that
deduced by the critics. It is not that
these pas-
sages
are to be rent from the context to which they
naturally
and properly belong, and attributed to P; but
that
the sections in which they are found have a common
author
with all those other sections in which the same
scheme
appears. And as this scheme runs through
P, J,
and
E sections alike, it binds all indissolubly together as
the
product of one mind.
2. HqalA
took,
3. bwayA dwelt, and 4. NfanaK; Cr,x, land of
Canaan (ver. 3) are not peculiar to P, as was
shown under
ch.
xii. 5, Nos. 1. and 4; ch. xiii., Marks of P, No.3.
5. hw.Axi wife, applied to a concubine, is adduced by
Dillmann
as indicative of P, with a reference in his 1st
edition
to xxv. 1, in which Keturah is so called, and
which
is there referred to P, but in both his subsequent
editions
to E. In xxx. 4.a, 9b, the same term is
applied to
Bilhah
and Zilpah; Dillmann says that these clauses
"could
possibly have been originally derived" from P.
BIRTH OF ISHMAEL (CH. XVI.) 215
But
if so they are entirely isolated in a JE context. On
such
a showing the proof that tills is characteristic of P
is
rather meagre.
It will be observed that of the words
said to be indic-
ative
of P in the scraps attributed to him in ch. xii.-xvi.
not
one occurs in any preceding P section, and but one
occurs
exclusively in P, viz., "cities of the plain," which is
found
in but two places and each time in a verse rent
from
its proper connection.
MARKS OF J
The following are said to be indications
of J:
1.
The angel (ver. 7 sqq.).
There are two reasons why
"angel" does not occur in
P. a.
This is used as a criterion in determining the doc-
uments. The presence of this word in an Elohim pas-
sage
is of itself held to indicate that it belongs not to P
but
to E. b.
The bulk of the history is divided between
J
and E, and only such a residuum assigned to P as
affords
no occasion for an angel to appear.
2.
The notion in ver. 13 that it was dangerous to see
God. But--
a.
This is based on a wrong interpretation of the
verse. Hagar does not speak of her seeing God, but
of
his
seeing her; not of her continuing to live after this
divine
vision, but of the ever-living One who had watched
over
her in her distress. It stands in no
relation, there-
fore,
to the truth taught in Ex. xxxiii. 20, "No man shall
see
me and live."
b.
Even if this verse had the meaning attributed to it,
the
absence of this idea from sections ascribed to P is
as
readily explained as its absence from other J sections
in
which God appears to men or speaks with them with-
out
allusion being made to danger thus incurred.
216 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
3.
The unfavorable representation of Hagar and Ish-
mael. That this is found in J and not in P is
simply the
result
of the partition. Nothing is conceded to
P but
the
bare statement of Hagar's union with Abram and
Ishmael's
birth. Everything indicative of
character is
assigned
to J or E. There is no variant
representation
in
P. Abram's affection for Ishmael (xvii.
18 P) agrees
with
xxi. 11 E.
4.
The etymologies in vs. 11, 13, 14.
But the like are found in P xvii. 5, 17,
19, 20.
5.
The difference between ver. 11 and 15 in respect to
the
person naming the child.
It has already been shown (p. 211) that
this affords no
criterion
for distinguishing different documents.
6. hvhy Jehovah;
already explained, see page 151.
7. xnA-hnehi behold now (ver. 2); see ch. xii. 10-20, Marks
of
J, No.4.
8. lOpl; fmawA hearkened to the voice (ver. 2), occurs in
but
two passages besides in J (Gen. iii. 17; Ex. iv. 8, 9).
It
is found likewise in E (Ex. iii. 18; xv. 26; xviii. 24).
Commonly
this verb has a different construction in J, as
it
has in P.
9. rcafA restrained (ver. 2), occurs but once besides in
the
Pentateuch in a similar connection (xx. 18), which
the
critics refer to R. The word is found
three times in
P
(Num. xvii. 13, 15, E. V., xvi. 48, 50; xxv. 8), but,
nowhere
else in J.
10.
hB,r;xa hBAr;ha I will greatly multiply (ver. 10), and
but
twice besides in the Hexateuch (iii.16 J, and xxii.
17
R, who according to Dillmann has made a free addi-
tion
of his own). In Ex. xxxii. 13 J, hB,r;xa is without the
infinitive,
though based upon Gen. xxii. 16, 17. How
J
could
quote R, who by the hypothesis was subsequent to
his
time, it is not easy to say. But if J
uses this com-
bination
in two places, and failed to employ it when
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 217
there
was such an obvious reason for his doing so, what
is
there surprising in its absence from P, who, moreover,
does
use the infinitive absolute with the finite verb in
other
cases? e.g. Ex. xxxi. 14, 15 ; Lev. vii.
24; x. 18; xx.
2,
27; xxiv. 16, 17; xxvii. 29; Num. xv. 35; xxvi. 65;
xxxv.
16-18, 21, 31.
11.
brome rpes.Ayi xlo shall not bel numbered
for multitude
(ver.
10). This phrase occurs [but once
besides in the
Hexateuch
(xxxii. 13, E. V., 12).
12.
ylaUx it
may be
(ver. 2), besides in J (xviii. 24, 28,
29,
32; xxiv. 5, 39; Ex. xxxii. 30; Num. xxii. 33; Josh.
ix.
7); in E (Gen. xxvii. 12; xxxii. 21, E. V. ver. 20;
Num.
xxii. 6, 11; xxiii. 27; Josh. xiv. 12).
It would not
be surprising
if this word did not chance to occur in the
very
limited amount of narrative accorded to P; still it
is
found in Josh. xxii. 24, which Hollenberg and Well-
hausen
refer to that document.
COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.)
This chapter cannot be sundered from
what precedes
and
follows as an extract from an entirely independent
document,
as is done by the critics, who assign it to P.
It
is most intimately related to the whole narrative of
which
it is a part. Its explicit allusion to
antecedent
events
obliges the critics to link it with statements of
their
occurrence, and thus by means of scattered and
disjointed
sentences to make out for P a show of continu-
ity. With how little reason and success this is
done, we
have
already seen. But even if the analysis
which they
propose
were better supported, it does not meet the case.
It
is not sufficient that there should be a bald mention
of
Abram's arrival in Canaan and of the birth of Ishmael.
The
significance of these facts in the life of Abram, and
the
entire course of training to which be had been sub-
218 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
jected,
as this is set forth, in the whole antecedent nar-
rative,
are necessary preliminaries to this chapter.
Its form
cannot
be accounted for nor its contents be under-
stood
without it.
The one leading idea in the life of Abram
is the trial
of
his faith, that it might be perfected and exhibited,
and
that he might become the father of the faithful.
Jehovah
bade him leave his country and his father's
house,
promising to give him possession of a land and to
make
of him a great nation; and this though the land
was
already occupied by Canaanites and his wife was
childless. His faith was soon tried by a grievous famine
which
obliged him to leave the land and go down to
Egypt,
where a new trial awaited him in the peril of los-
ing
Sarai. She was rescued by divine
interference and
he
was restored to Canaan enriched, but the promised
seed
was not born. In the long waiting he
began to ap-
prehend
that his steward, Eliezer, would be his heir.
But
the promise was made more definite that he should
have
a child of his own body, not merely a son by adop-
tion,
and that his offspring should be as numerous as the
stars. And to confirm his faith in his future
possession
of
the land, Jehovah entered into a formal covenant with
him,
sealing the engagement by a visible symbol of the
divine
presence. Ten weary years had "Torn
away, and
still
Sarai had no child. At her suggestion he
took
Hagar,
thinking thus to obtain the promised son.
Ish-
mael
was born and had reached his thirteenth year when
the
promise was made more definite still, and the an-
nouncement
was given that his long-deferred hope was
now
to be fulfilled. Not his handmaid but
his wife, not
Hagar
but Sarai, should be the mother of the promised
seed. The covenant, which had already been ratified
on
one
side, must now be ratified on the other.
Abraham
is
required to signify his faith in the divine announce-
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 219
ment,
and to bind himself and his household in covenant
with
God by the seal of circumcision, and this in antici-
pation
of Isaac's birth. This final
ratification of the
covenant
is followed by Jehovah's condescending to the
usages
of men, and celebrating the completion of this
transaction
by coming in human form to feast with
Abraham
at the door of his tent, where the promise is
repeated
in the hearing of Sarah. Jehovah also
makes
a
confidential communication of his purpose to Abraham,
and
admits him on the footing of this newly confirmed
friendship
to the intimacy of persistent and prevalent
intercession.
If ever a narrative bore in itself the
evidence of invio-
lable
unity, in which every part fits precisely in its place
in
the plan of the whole, and is indissolubly linked with
every
other, all breathing one spirit, contributing to one
end,
working out one common design, to which each and
every
item is indispensable, and defying all attempts to
rend
it asunder, this is the case with the life of Abraham
as
recorded in the book of Genesis. Though
it is told
with
a charming simplicity and apparent artlessness,
the
divine purpose rules in the whole, and rivets all
together
with hooks of steel which no critical art can
sever.
We are asked to believe that all this
close correspond-
ence
and evident adjustment of the several parts is but
the
result of a lucky accident. Two, or
rather three,
documents,
written quite independently of each other,
with
entirely distinct aims and frequently at variance in
their
details, have happened to be so constructed that
extracts
taken from them could be dovetailed together
and
yield all the evidence of a consistently constructed,
regularly
developing scheme, which reaches its most
pathetic
climax when the faithful patriarch proves his
obedience
in the last and sharpest trial of all by taking
220 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
the
knife to slay his son, and the approving voice from
heaven
stays his hand, and confirms the promises previ-
ously
given by the unheard-of solemnity of the oath of
Jehovah
swearing by himself.
Is it a supposable thing that ch. xvii.
has been ex-
tracted
from a document, which, as the critics tell us,
knows
nothing of any previous divine communication
made
to Abraham? which, on the contrary, represents
him
as having migrated to Canaan of his own motion,
and
from no divine impulse, no promises having been
made
to him, and no measures taken to discipline his
faith? So viewed it no longer has the emphasis of
being
preceded
by a series of promises of growing definiteness
and
clearness, which gradually lead up to it, but is abso-
lutely
not only the first, but the only revelation which
God
makes to Abraham his whole life long.
The chap-
ter
is then an enigma, and its most significant features
lose
their point.
Why is it stated (ver. 1) that Abram was
ninety-nine
years
old? In itself that is an altogether
unimportant
detail. And so are the facts which P is supposed to
have
registered (xii. 5), that Abram was seventy-five years
old
when he departed out of Haran, and (xvi. 16) that
he
was eighty-six years old when Ishmael was born,
provided
all the intervening years were, as the critics
suppose
them to have been in this document, absolutely
blank,
with no promise from God, no expectancy, no
event
of any kind-mere empty years devoid of all signif-
icance. But if these have been years of anxious
waiting
for
the fulfilment of a promise yet unaccomplished, of
hope
long deferred yet not abandoned, and the affair of
Hagar
was the rash expedient of despondency from long
delay,
then we see the significance of these long terms of
years. They are no longer barren, but play an impor-
tant
part in the discipline of Abram, and the develop-
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 221
ment
of his character. They are full of
meaning in the
history
of his life, which would not stand out before us
in
the light that it does if they had not been recorded.
And why does Jehovah reveal himself (ver.
1) as God
Almighty? The critics rob this of all its significance
by
making
it merely the customary patriarchal denomina-
tion
of the Most High. But why does this name
appear
here
for the first time? And why in the
subsequent em-
ployment
of it in Genesis is there an almost invariable
reference
to this occasion and to the promises here
made? Why this appeal to the divine omnipotence,
en-
hancing
the sense of the magnitude of the promise, and
of
the might involved in bringing it to pass?
Consid-
ered
as the first utterance of the promise to Abram, the
simple
word of the Most High should be sufficient to
awaken
faith in a believing soul, as in xii. 1-4.
And it
would
seem superfluous to precede it by an affirmation
of
his almighty power. But if the promise
had been
made
long years before, and repeated from time to time,
while
yet no sign of its accomplishment appeared, and
every
natural prospect had vanished, and there was
danger
that faith so long vainly expectant might weaken
or
utterly die, unless attention was explicitly directed to
the
limitless strength of him by whom the promise was
given,
then there was a gracious and most important end
to
be answered by this form of the divine communica-
tion,
and we can see why Jehovah's first word to Abram
on
this occasion should be, "I am God Almighty."
And why is the divine name
"Elohim," (God), thence-
forward
used throughout the chapter? The critics
strip
this
of all its meaning by referring it to the habit of a
writer,
who with unvarying uniformity made use of
Elohim
as far as Ex. vi. 2, while chs. xii.-xvi., with
their
constant use of "Jehovah" (LORD), are traced to a
different
source. But this brings them into
collision
222 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
If
with the first verse of ch. xvii., where it is said that
"Jehovah
appeared to Abram." Here they aver
that R
has
meddled with the text, and substituted "Jehovah ",
for
"Elohim," which upon their hypothesis this writer
must
have said. And this in spite of the
identity of the
expression
with xii. 7 and xviii. 1, which vouch for its
originality
in xvii. 1; and that there is no variant in
MSS.
or versions to afford even a seeming pretext for
this
purely conjectural change of text.
Meanwhile the
real
and obvious significance of the name Elohim in this
connection
is overlooked, by which the reader is re-
minded
throughout the interview of the character in
which
the LORD here announced himself. Nature
has
failed
and is incompetent. But Jehovah the God
of
Abram
is also Elohim, the omnipotent Creator, pledging
that
which transcends the powers of nature.
And why is there such iteration and
reiteration in the
promise
of offspring to Abram (vs. 2-8), with such em-
phatic
expressions and such enlargement of its scope be-
yond
any preceding instance? I "will
multiply thee
exceedingly"
(ver. 2); "thou shalt be a father of many
nations"
(ver. 4), (not merely "a great nation," as xii. 2);
and
this emphasized (ver. 5) by a change of name from
Abram
to Abraham, "for a father of many nations have
made
thee. And I will make thee exceeding
fruitful,
and
I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come
out
of thee" (ver. 6) ; and "thee and thy seed after thee"
is
thrice repeated (vs. 7, 8). Here the
critics see nothing
but
verbose diffuseness of the writer of this chapter, who
is
thus supposed to be distinguished from the author of
ch.
xii.-xvi. This is all that can be said,
on the critical
hypothesis
that this is the first and only occasion on
which
this promise is made to Abram. But this
is to
miss
the very point and meaning of the entire passage.
By
this emphatic reiteration God would reassure Abram
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 223
after
the vain expectation of four and twenty weary years,
lift
him out of his despondency, and give him to under-
stand
that God had by no means forgotten his promise,
but
it should be most certainly fulfilled and on a most
liberal
scale.
And why is this subject recurred to again
(vs. 15, 16,
19,
21), with explicit and repeated mention of Sarai as
the
mother of the promised child, and her name, too,
changed
in pledge of the event to Sarah, indicating that
she
was to be the mother of nations and that kings
should
be of her? This is mere superfluous
verbiage on
the
critical hypothesis. But it is full of
meaning, if
these
words are uttered at the end of a long series of dis-
appointments,
by which Abram had been tempted to
misconstrue
the promise which had been made him, and
to
think first of Eliezer as his heir, and then of Hagar as
the
mother of his child. Now to put an end
to all pos-
sible
misconception, and to remove all doubts arising
from
Sarah's advanced age and long-continued barren-
ness,
he is emphatically assured that she and no other
shall
be the mother of the promised seed.
And why in the midst of these assurances
does Abra-
ham
interject the petition (ver. 18),
"O that Ishmael
might
live before thee"? The critics see
simply an ex-
pression
of concern for Ishmael. But the
connection
plainly
shows that after the fruitless expectation of years
Abraham
had at length resigned himself to, the belief
that
Ishmael was the only child that he could ever have,
that
Sarah's age and his own made any further hope im-
possible,
and all that he could reasonably anticipate was
that
his race should be perpetuated in Ishmael.
Hence
the
emphasis with which the declaration is made, that
not
Ishmael, but Sarah's son Isaac, to be born at this
set
time in the next year, was the child contemplated in
the
promise.
224 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
And why is circumcision introduced just
here as the
sign
of God's covenant with Abraham? The
critics say
that
this covenant is here spoken of as a new thing, with
the
implication that the writer knew nothing of the pre-
vious
ratification of the covenant in xv. 17, 18.
But this
is a
wholly unwarranted inference. The
covenant was in
the
first instance ratified by the LORD as one of the con-
tracting
parties, a visible symbol of the divine presence
passing
between the pieces of the slaughtered animals.
The
time has now arrived for it to be ratified by Abra-
ham
as the other party to the covenant. And
it is highly
significant
as a final test of the patriarch's faith, which
had
been so sorely tried before, that, antecedent to the
accomplishment
of the promise, he is required by this rite
to
signify his confidence in that for which he had so
long
and so vainly waited, and which now seemed to be
counter
to every natural expectation.
The entire chapter in every part thus
presupposes and
is
shaped by the antecedent experience of Abraham as
recorded
in chs. xii.-xvi. Severed from that its
details
have
no significance, and merely reflect the extraordi-
nary
diffuseness and peculiar verbal preferences of the
writer. And by sheer accident his fondness for
numeri-
cal
statements, his employment of an antiquated title for
the
Supreme Being, his habit of using Elohim, his verbose
diffuseness,
and his disposition to dwell upon ritual mat-
ters
yield precisely the emphasis and the form needed to
crown
the whole series of promises of ever-growing ful-
ness
and precision, recorded by another writer, of whom
P
knew nothing, and whose views he did not share; they
are
precisely what was needed in a last reassuring utter-
ance
to one, whom hope deferred had tempted to misin-
terpret
former declarations, or to grow despondent in re-
spect
to their fulfilment. It requires all the
credulity of
an
antisupernatural critic to accept such a conclusion.
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 225
And further, ch. xviii. is just as
unintelligible without
ch.
xvii., as the latter is apart from the chapters that pre-
cede
it. The transaction there recorded is
without a par-
allel
in Scripture. It cannot be dismissed as
only another
instance
of J's extraordinary anthropomorphisms, or put
on a
parallel with heathen myths. There is
nothing like
it
elsewhere in J. Its remarkable and
solitary character
implies
a very unusual occasion. The occasion
was in
fact
absolutely unique. It was the final
solemnization of
the
covenant transacted between God and Abraham as
the
father of the chosen race, and which had now been
separately
ratified by each of the parties. It was
the
starting-point
of that scheme of grace by which a people
was
separated from the rest of the world to be for the
time
the depositary of God's truth and ordinances with
a
view to the ultimate salvation of the world.
The near-
est
Scripture parallel is that in which Jehovah, who here
covenanted
with Abraham, renewed his covenant with his
descendants,
increased to a nation, at Mount Sinai (Ex.
xxiv.
7, 8), which was followed by a sacred meal in which
the
representatives of the people ate and drank in the
immediate
presence of the God of Israel visibly mani-
fested
before them (vs. 9-11). So here Jehovah
in hu-
man
form, came to the tent of Abraham, and ate of his
food
in token of the friendly intimacy established, as
men
who had covenanted were in the habit of eating to-
gether
in recognition of their oneness and their amicable
relations
(xxxi. 44, 46). Put this unique act of
conde-
scension
in connection with the unique relation between
God
and man just consummated, and all is plain.
Sun-
der
it with the critics from the immediately preceding
transaction,
and the peculiarity of this visit to Abra-
ham
has no meaning and is without an object.
The
section
next preceding in J is the story of Hagar,
which
suggests no explanation of this extraordinary
226 THE GENERATI0NS OF TERAH
visit.1 This is another instance from the critics'
point of
view
of the combination of unrelated writings chancing
to
impart a profound significance to what in its original
position
was unmeaning, not to say grotesque. The
evi-
dently
inseparable connection of this whole narrative sup-
plies
an argument of unity, which every one who reads it
can
appreciate, and which cannot be set aside by any
amount
of critical reasoning from microscopic details.
STYLE OF P
It is claimed by the critics that this
chapter affords a
striking
illustration of the difference between P and J in
the
treatment of their respective themes.
Thus Dr.
Harper2
says that P is "systematic. Just as
the story
of
creation led up to the announcement of the Sabbath,
and
the story of the deluge culminated in a covenant
with
Noah and the law of bloodshed, so this section
brings
us to the covenant with Abraham and the institu-
tion
of circumcision." On the other
hand, he affirms3
that
J has "no particular system; while the covenant
between
Yahweh and Abram is recorded, it is neither
the
climax nor the all-important fact of the narrative.
It
is connected with no institution; and the promise
made
then is only one of many repeatedly made by
Yahweh
in his familiar intercourse with the patriarchs."
But in actual fact there is as clear and
abundant evi-
1Nor is it explained by the
covenant in ch. xv., which De Wette
(Beitrage,
ii. p. 77) affirms to be another form of the "myth" in ch. xvii.
An
interval of years is presupposed by ch. xvi., which must necessarily
follow
ch xv. and precede ch xviii. In ch. xv.
God gives to Abraham
a
pledge and assurance of his own engagement It is only when, as the
counterpart
to this, Abram, in ch. xvii., testifies his faith in God and adds
his
seal to the covenant that the way is prepared for the covenant meal in ch.
xviii.
2 Hebraica, v., 4, p. 244. 3Ibid., p. 247.
COVENANT SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 227
dence
of "system" in that portion of the record which
is
attributed to J, as in that which is ascribed to P, as
the
most cursory examination is sufficient to show.
The call of Abraham opens the third period
of the
world's
history, for which, as it appears in J, the way
was
prepared, and the necessity demonstrated (if God's
plan
of grace was not to be suffered to fail), by the dis-
astrous
issue of both the preceding periods.
Mankind
descending
from Adam became hopelessly corrupt, and
was
swept away by the deluge, from which righteous
Noah
was spared to be the head of a new race.
Impiety
prevailed
again after the flood, and mankind were scat-
tered
over the face of the earth. But God's purpose
of
mercy
was not abandoned. He selected Abraham
to be
the
head of a chosen nation within which true religion
might
be perpetuated for the ultimate benefit of the
world. We are thus brought by successive steps to
the
base
on which the entire body of Old-Testament institu-
tions
repose.
The antecedent history moves on toward
this divine
scheme
of restriction in order to a safe and final diffusion
in
various distinct though related lines.
Thus the suc-
cessive
stages of iniquity depicted by J converge upon
this
issue. The fall of our first parents;
the crime of
Cain;
the ungodliness of his descendants--reaching its
acme
in Lamech; the degeneracy of the pious race of
Seth,
induced by intermarriage with the race of Cain--
the
sons of God with the daughters of men--thus point-
ing
a lesson of which Genesis and the Pentateuch are
full,
viz., the criminality and the peril of the chosen seed
allying
themselves with the ungodly around them, the
need
and the duty of keeping themselves distinct.
And
after
the world had been purged by the flood, the impious
and
arrogant combination at Babel, frustrated by imme-
diate
divine interference, revealed the continuance of the
228 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
old
leaven, and pointed the argument for some new expe-
dient
to prevent the extinction of all goodness.
Add to this the gradual unfolding of the
promise in J
as
set forth in each of these great periods.
The seed
of
the woman shall bruise the serpent's head.
Jehovah,
the
God of Shem, in whose tents Japheth shall dwell.
Abraham
and his seed a blessing to all the families of
the
earth.
Also the regular dropping of side lines
in J, and follow-
ing
the main line so as to converge upon Abraham, thus
indicating
the distinctness of the chosen race and at the
same
time their relationship to the whole body of man-
kind. Thus the line of descent from Cain is traced
and
then
laid aside in order to pursue that of Seth, which the
critics
tell us J must have continued down to Noah,
though
only fragments remain (iv. 25, 26; v. 29).
Then
the
sons of Noah are traced and dropped in J's portion of
ch.
x., and only that of Shem continued in the direction
of
Terah. Then in Terah's family Lot's
descendants are
named
(xix. 37, 38), and Nahor's (xxii. 20 sqq.), so in like
manner
the child of Hagar, and the children of Keturah,
and
the twin brother of Jacob. These are
successively
set
aside, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob left in sole
possession
of the promise.
Again, the promises to the patriarchs in J
are not idle
repetitions
of the same identical substance. They
rise
by
regular gradations in respect to both the matters to
which
they relate-the promised land and the promised
seed. Jehovah first (xii. 1), bade Abram go to a
land
that
he would show him. After he reached
Canaan it
was
made specific (ver. 7), "Unto thy seed will I give
this
land." After Lot had parted from
him the terms
are
made universal; "All the land that thou seest, north,
south,
east, and west, to thee will I give it and to thy
seed
forever" (xiii. 14, 15). Then in
Jehovah's covenant
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 229
with
Abram (ch.xv.), this promise reaches its climax. Its
certainty
is confirmed by the divine pledge symbolically
given. The time of the gift is defined (vs. 13-16),
and
the
limits of the territory are particularly specified (vs.
18-21). The promise has become a formal engagement
of
the utmost solemnity; what was at first vague and
indefinite
has attained to the utmost precision, both as to
the
extent of the grant and the time of its bestowment.
Nevertheless it is true that the covenant
transaction
in
ch. xv. is not in every point of view the climax. It
rather
marks an important stage in an advancing series
traced
by J. Jehovah spake to Abram
before he left his
father's
house (xii. 1), as he had 1 done to Noah (vii. 1), to
Adam
(iii. 17), and to Cain (iv. 6). But when
Abram en-
tered
Canaan an advance was made upon all antecedent
revelations. Jehovah appeared to him (xii. 7). A step
was
taken beyond this in ch. xv., when Jehovah ratified
a
covenant with Abram by a visible token of his presence.
Then,
when Abram (ch. xvii.),1 obedient to divine
direction,
ratified the covenant on his part by the seal of
circumcision,
the climax was reached (ch. xviii.) in the
unequalled
condescension of a manifestation unique in
the
whole Old Testament. Jehovah in human
form par-
takes
of a covenant meal as Abraham's guest, acquaints
him
with the divine counsels, and admits him to the
greatest
intimacy. And so far from this being
"con-
nected
with no institution," it is the basis of the whole
future
constitution of Israel as the people of God (xviii.
19),
and the foundation of its national counterpart en-
acted
at Sinai.
The successive trials of Abraham's faith
in J again
form
a graduated series, culminating in the sacrifice of
Isaac;
see pp. 149, 150.
And the promises to Abraham respecting his
offspring
1This P chapter is thus a
necessary link in this J series.
230 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
exhibit
a corresponding progression. The LORD first en-
gaged
(xii. 2) to make of him a great nation, and (xiii. 16) to
make
his seed as the dust of the earth. After
years of vain
expectation
.Abraham begins to suspect that he shall have
no
offspring of his own, but that an inmate of his house
shall
be his heir; whereupon the LORD assures him he
shall
have a child of his own body (xv. 3, 4).
But Sarah
was
barren; so at her instance he forms an intimacy with
Hagar,
and hopes that Ishmael may prove to be the ex-
pected
seed (xvi. 2). He is then informed that
the child
of
the bondwoman is not the promised heir, but that
Sarah
his wife shall have a son (xviii. 10).
After Isaac is
born
he is tried once more by being bidden to offer him
up
as a sacrifice; and when his faith endured this final
test
the promise of a numerous and victorious seed that
shall
bless the world was renewed in ampler terms than
before
and is confirmed by the new sanction of an oath
(xxii.
15-18).1
With all this evidence of a developing plan
and of
methodical
arrangement it surely cannot be said that J
has
"no particular system."
The style of P in this chapter and
elsewhere is said to
be
distinguished from that of J in being " stereotyped,"2
and
marked by the recurrence of the same unvarying
phrases. The repetition charged is largely for the
sake
of
emphasis. And it is characteristic of
Hebrew writers
generally
that they take little pains to vary their ex-
pressions. If the same thought is to be conveyed, it is
mostly
done in the same or like terms. It is not difficult
1This is an embarrassing
chapter for the critics as we shall see. The
great
majority have assumed that an account by J and another by E are
here
blended. The present tendency is, with
Dillman, to substitute for
J
free additions by R; in which case an independent production by a
different
writer, with an appendix by another still fits as admirably
into
J's scheme as though it had been prepared with special reference
to
it. 2
Ibid., p. 245.
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (XVII.) 231
to
produce an equal number of identical phrases in J.
Thus,
"lift up the eyes" (xiii. 10, 14); "unto thy seed
will
I give this land" (xii. 7 ; xv. 18) ; "there he builded
till
altar unto Jehovah" (xii. 7, 8, xiii. 18) ; "he called on
the
name of Jehovah" (xii. 8; xiii. 4); "the Canaanite
then
in the land" (xii. 6; xiii. 7); "between me and
thee"
(xiii. 8 ; xvi. 5).
P is said to be "verbose and
repetitious." But the
repetitions
adduced are all for the sake of emphasizing
what
was of great consequence in the view of the writer.
So
"the land of Canaan," twice (xii. 5b), as Abram's ob-
jective
point, and to mark the contrast with a former un-
filled
project (xi. 31); Ishmael born of the handmaid not
the
wife, thrice (xvi. 15, 16); and particularly in ch. xvii.
Like
repetitions can be pointed out in J, e.g., "Jehovah
appeared
to him," twice (xii. 7); "Bethel on the west" (ver.
8)
repeats what had just been said; "famine in the land,"
twice
(ver. 10); the last clause of ver. 14 adds nothing to
that
which immediately precedes; xiii. 3b, 4a repeats xii.
8
with great minuteness; "to thee will I give it," twice
(xiii.
15, 17); "and the angel of Jehovah said," thrice
(xvi.
9, 10, 11).
MARKS OF P
Dillmann finds the following criteria of
P in this
chapter.
1.
Back references to it in later P passages (xxi. 2, 4;
xxviii.
4; xxxv. 12; Ex. ii. 24; vi. 3, 4; Lev. xii. 3).
But--
a.
The most of these occur in brief paragraphs, which
are
ascribed to P mainly because of these very refer-
ences,
and are enclosed in sections attributed to other
documents.
b.
Its relation to other P passages and common author-
ship
with them is not only admitted but insisted on as
232 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
involved
in the unity of the entire Pentateuch.
It is
only
denied that these are by a different author from the
J
passages, of which these references afford no proof.
c.
It has already been shown that ch. xvii. is insepar-
ably
connected with the so-called J section, ch. xii.-xvi.;
xviii.
14 J refers back to xvii. 21 (dfeOm.la at
the set time);
"Abraham"
(xviii. 6 J), "Sarah" (ver.9 J), and so thence-
forward
regularly, in both J and E passages, is with ex-
plicit
reference to the change of name (xvii. 5,15 P).
The
critics
seek to evade this plain indication of unity by
gratuitously
assuming that R has systematically altered
the
text throughout to conform to this passage.1
2.
The promise of nations (vs. 4, 5, 16), of kings (vs.6,
16),
and princes (ver. 20).
a.
This is an advance upon the promise (xii. 2) to make
of
Abram a great nation; and its form is determined by
the
new names given to Abraham (father of multitude)
find
Sarah (princess). Other promises which
speak of
nations
(xxviii. 3; xlviii. 4) and kings (xxxv. 11) descended
from
the patriarchs borrow their expressions from this
passage,
and are uttered with evident allusion to it.
In
like
manner in xlviii. 19 J, the future superiority of
Ephraim
over Manasseh is expressed by saying that the
latter
should become a people and be great, but the
former
should become nations, what is here said of Abra-
ham
being applied to one of his descendants.
b.
The promise of princes to spring from Ishmael is
only
found in this one place (ver. 20), and it answers
precisely
to its fulfilment (xxv. 16).
3.
The statements of time (vs. 1, 17, 24, 25).
These are arbitrarily referred to P by
rule even in the
1Hupfeld (Quellen, p. 198)
thinks that R changed the names to con-
form
with P, not in the following, but in the preceding chapters, the
forms
"Abram" and "Sarai," which were peculiar to P, being intro-
duced
by R likewise into J in ch. xi. 29-xvi.
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 233
midst
of sections or paragraphs ascribed to other docu-
ments. Nevertheless in repeated instances the
critics
find
themselves compelled to admit that such statements
are
not peculiar to P. And this is
equivalent to an ad-
mission
that they cannot be made a criterion of this
document. See Chapter xvi., Marks of P, No.1.
4.
The similarity of the covenant with that described
in
ix. 9 sqq.
The resemblance is in phrases indicating
its perpetuity,
"establish
my covenant," "thee and thy seed after thee;"
and
in appointing a token of the covenant, the rainbow
and
circumcision. This identity of terms
results from
the
like nature of the transactions.
5.
The great redundancy of the style.
It has already been shown that what the
critics con-
sider
an idle multiplication of words is in fact such a re-
peated
asseveration as was appropriate in the situation and
demanded
by it.
6.
El Shaddai (ver. 1), Elohim (ver. 3 sqq.).
The significance of these names in the
connection has
been
pointed out. The divine omnipotence is
here
pledged
to accomplish what was beyond the powers of
nature. El Shaddai also occurs in E xliii. 14, and
Shaddai
in J xlix. 25; Num. xxiv. 4, 16.
7. hz.AHuxE possession (ver. 8).
This is the only word used
in
this sense in the first four books of the Pentateuch,
except
hwArAOm
(Ex. vi. 8, P),
and hlAHEna inheritance, which
is
also given to P whenever reference is made to the oc-
cupation
of Canaan, with the single exception of Ex. xv.
17
in the Song of Moses. Another synonym, hw.Aruy;
pos-
session, nowhere occurs in the books above named,
but is
limited
to Deut. ii. and iii. and three verses in Joshua.
If
now hz.AHuxE
is the proper
word to express the idea in-
tended,
and all the passages from Genesis to Numbers
in
which this idea is found, are given to P, never to J or
234 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
E,
how can it be otherwise than that it should be found
exclusively in P? And yet the critics
are not unanimous
in
making it altogether peculiar to P; it occurs repeat-
edly
in Lev. xxv. (not P, Well,); also in Num. xxxii. 5,
22
(J, Schrad., Kays. ; JE, Well.; ver. 5 J, Dill.); Josh.
xxi.
12 (not P, Dill.); xxii 4 (Jt Schrad., Kays.; D,Well.,
Dill.). Dillmann accounts for the presence of this
word
in
Josh. xxii. 4 by the magisterial assertion, "Mk,t;z.aHuxE
Cr,x,
a
phrase of P has been substituted by Rd or some later
hand
for Mk,t;w.aruy;
Cr,x, .
8. Myrigum;
sojournings (ver. 8).
The phrase "land of
sojournings"
occurs four times besides with explicit ref-
erence
to this passage (xxviii. 1; xxx.vi. 7; xxxvii. 1; Ex.
vi.
4); and "sojournings" without "land" in Gen. xlvii. 9.
All
these passages are referred to P. The
corresponding
verb
rUG
is, however,
used of the sojournings of the pa-
triarchs
alike in each of the so-called documents (P, xxxv.
27;
Ex. vi. 4; J, Gen. xxi. 34; ~xvi. 3; E, xx. 1; xri. 23).
9. hnAq;mi purchase (vs. 12, 13,1 23, 27). The expression
"purchase
of silver," or "bought with money," occurs but
once
outside of this chapter, viz.: Ex. xii. 44.
The word
itself
also occurs Gen. xxiii. 18; Lev. xxv. 16, 51; xxvii.
22. These are all referred to P. But as this was the only
word
to express the idea, its employment was a matter of
necessity
and not peculiar to a particular document.
10. dyliOh beget (ver. 20). This is distinguished from
dlayA in
the same sense, not by the usage of distinct doc-
uments,
but the employment of the former as the more
dignified
and formal in the direct line of descent from
Adam
to Israel, and the latter in the divergent line. See
on
ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 20. The
present instance
is
only a seeming exception; the use of dyliOh is due to the
fact
that Ishmael is here contemplated in his relation to
Abraham,
and the promise to Ishmael here made is in-
cluded
in the promise to Abraham.
COVENANT
SEALED BY ABRAHAM (CH. XVII.) 235
11. xyWinA prince
(ver. 20). This word is referred by
Dillmann
to P, except in Ex. xxii. 27 (E. V., 28) E.
This
is
made a criterion of P, and verses and clauses contain-
ing
it are persistently attributed to this document even
at
the expense of dividing sentences, as is done Gen.
xxxiv.
2a (but Schrad., J; Well., not P, J nor E; Kuen., R),
Num.
xvi. 2; xxxii. 2b (but Well., JE, Kuen., R); Josh.
ix.
15 is split into three parts, and assigned to as many
different
sources.
12.
rkAne-NB, stranger
(vs. 12, 27), but twice in the Hexa-
teuch
outside of this chapter, viz.: Ex. xii. 43 P; Lev.
xxii.
25, not P (Well.); rkAne
elsewhere in the
Hexateuch
only
in J, Deut. xxxi. 16; xxxii. 12; or E, Gen. xxxv. 2,
4;
Josh. xxiv. 20, 23.
13.
Mc,f, self-same (vs. 23,26). See Gen. vi.-ix., Marks
of
P, No. 24.
14. rkAzA-lKA every male (vs. 10,12, 23). See Gen. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No. 12.
15. hbArAv; hrAPA be
fruitful and multiply (ver. 20). See
Gen.
vi.-ix., Marks of P, No. 15.
16. tyriB;
NtanA and Myqihe establish or ordain a covenant
(vs.
2, 7, 19, 21), do., No.16.
17.
Expressions compounded with MlAOf eternity, per-
petuity.
Such expressions are found in each of the
so-called doc-
uments,
whenever perpetuity or indefinite duration is to be
affirmed
of any subject. Thus, "everlasting
God" (Gen.
xxi.
33 J); "everlasting hills" (Gen. xlix. 26 J; Deut.
xxxiii.
15 E); "heap for ever" (Deut. xiii. 16 D; Josh.
viii.
28 Rd); "servant for ever" (Deut. xv. 17 D);
"days
of old" (Deut. xxxii. 7 J); "everlasting arms"
(Deut.
xxxiii. 27 E). Such combinations are
most fre-
quent
in the ritual law, all of which is assigned to P;
legal
phrases are therefore to be expected in this doc-
ument
and in no other. Thus, "statute for
ever"
236 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
(MlAOf
tq.aHu)
twenty-one times, (MlAOf qHo)
eleven times;
"everlasting
priesthood" twice; "perpetual covenant"
(Ex.
xxxi. 16; Lev. xxiv. 8; Num. xviii. 19); "perpetual
possession"
(Lev. xxv. 34). Exclusive of the ritual
law
the
only expressions of the kind in P are those which
declare
the perpetuity of God's covenant with Noah
(Gen.
n. 12, 16), and Abraham (xvii. 7, 13, 19), and
of
the possession of Canaan (xvii. 8; xlviii. 4).
There is
nothing
in this surely to indicate diversity of authorship.
18.
Thou and thy seed after thee.
See Gen. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No. 17.
19. Mtrodol; throughout their generations (vs. 7, 9, 12).
This
phrase, with the pronoun "their" or "your," is
used
exclusively in ritual connections to denote the per-
petuity
of the institutions referred to. Since
ritual mat-
ters
are regularly ascribed to P, this phrase is neces-
sarily
found only in that document.
20.
xvhiha wp,n.,ha htAr;k;niv; That soul shall be cut off (ver.
14),
a technical legal phrase, not to be expected except in
legal
sections.
21. NfanaK; Cr,x, land of Canaan (ver. 8).
See ch. xii.,
Marks
of P, No. 4.
22. dmom; dxom; exceedingly (vs. 2, 6, 20). See ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No. 27.
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM AND DESTRUCTION OF SODOM
(CH. XVIII. 1-XIX. 28).
This narrative of Jehovah's visit to
Abraham, and of
J
the subsequent destruction of Sodom, is by the critics
referred
to J. Wellhausen and Kuenen regard
xviii. 17-
19,
and vs. 22b-33a, as late additions by another hand.
The
intimate relation of ch. xviii. to the preceding has
already
been exhibited. It is the final
solemnity con-
nected
with the concluding of the covenant to which
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (XVIII. I-XIX. 28)
237
Abraham
gave his adhesion in ch. xvii., which acceptance
by
him is accordingly here presupposed. The
reason for
the
change in the divine names as also been stated, the
thought
of God's Almighty power ruling in ch. xvii., as
his
gracious condescension does in ch. xviii., see p. 152.
The from of expression in xviii. 1 further shows that
it
connects with what immediatelly precedes; "unto him"
finds
its explanation in "Abraham," who is distinctly
mentioned
xvii. 26, and who is the prominent subject
throughout
the whole of ch. xvii. But there is
nothing
with
which to link it in xvi. 7-14, the paragraph which
it
immediately follows in J, as the text is partitioned by
the
critics.
The critics allege that xviii. 9-15 is a
different account
of
the promise of Isaac's birth already given (xvii. 15-21).
But
this is obviously not the case. The
latter was made
to
Abraham, the former was for the benefit of Sarah.
That
they alike receive the announcement with a measure
of
incredulity, based on the advanced age of both; that
each
laughs at what to the natural reason seemed so pre-
posterous,
which the writer notes with allusion to the
meaning
of the name of Isaac; that the interval before
the
birth is stated in almost identical terms, but little
time
having elapsed between the two promises, is alto-
gether
natural and suggestive of one writer and one con-
tinuous
narrative, not of two separate stories relative to
the
same event. The LORD promises to return
to Sarah
(xviii.
14) not after the birth of her child in a visit which
J is
imagined to have recorded, and R has not preserved,
but
he visited her in giving her Isaac (xxi. 1).
Kuenen reaches his conclusion that xviii.
17-19, 22b-
33a,
are interpolations of a late date in the following
manner:1
"Ch. xii. 3, where 'the families of the land'
are
mentioned, is certainly more primitive than xviii. 18,
1 Hexateuch, p. 246.
238 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
where
'the peoples of the earth' are substituted.
The
latter
formula stands (Gen. xviii. 17-19), in a context
that
sounds almost Deuteronomic, and may therefore be
brought
down with high probability to the seventh cen-
tury
(cf. Jer. iii. 17; iv. 2; xii. 15-17; xxxiii. 9). In the
immediate
neighborhood of these verses stands the peri-
cope
(vs. 22b-33a), the these of which, viz., the righteous-
ness
of Yahwe in connection with the lot of individuals,
appears
again to point to the seventh century, in which,
at
all events, it was dealt with by the Deuteronomist (vii.
9,10;
xxiv. 16); Jeremiah (xvii. 14-18; xviii. 19-23; xxxi.
29,
30), and Habakkuk (i. 12 sqq.). While
the passage
testifies
to continued theological reflection, its soteriology
finds
an echo in Gen. xv. 5, 6, which is parallel not with
Isaiah
vii. 9b, but with Hab. ii. 4b."
The
allegation that these ideas savor of a later age is
pure
assumption. Gen. xii. 3 speaks not of
"the families
of
the land" of Canaan, but of "all the families of the
earth,"
which is precisely identical with "all the nations
of
the earth" in xviii. 18. The
doctrine of a world-wide
redemption
is rooted in that of the unity of the human
race,
and the relationship established between all nations
by
their descent from a common stock (ch. x.), and in the
primal
promise of a victory by the seed of the woman
over
the destroyer (iii. 15). It is a simple
unfolding of
what
is involved in these earliest disclosures, when the
temporary
limitation of God's special blessing to Abra-
ham
and his descendants is in the very first announce-
ment
made to him declared to be in order to pave the
way
for a blessing to all the families of mankind.
This
was
not a doctrine reserved for the age of Jeremiah.
Moreover,
as Dillmann suggests: "Men had reflected on
the
righteousness and mercy of God before Jeremiah, e.g.,
Gen.
xx. 4, and on the possibility of intercession for the
guilty,
e.g., xx. 7, 17; Ex. xxxii. 11 sqq.; besides, God's
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (XVIII. 1-XIX. 28)
239
disclosure
to Abraham (xviii. 2p, 21) is altogether aimless
and
disconnected without vs. 17-19 and 23 sqq." And the
supreme
importance of faith and obedience was well
understood
before it was formulated by Habakkuk, e.g.,
Ex.
iv. 5, 31; xiv. 31; Num. xiv. 11.
This is but a specimen of the attempt that
is made to
impose
an arbitrary scheme of the development of relig-
ious
thought upon the writings of the Old Testament.
Such
a scheme is devised at the pleasure of the critic. It
is
then used as a standard for the determination of the
age
of books or of paragraphs and sections, which are
distributed
irrespective of their true position according
as
they correspond with one period or another of this
imaginary
scheme.
Wellhausen tries to prove the existence
of interpola-
tions
by a different process. He says
that ynixE (ver. 17),
and rw,xE Nfamal; vyTif;day; I have known him to the end that
(ver.
19), are suspicious, and vs. 17-19 are allied in con-
tents
to xiii. 14-17 and xxii. 15-18, which he likewise
pronounces
spurious. But ynixE occurs, besides, in J xxiv.
45;
xxvii. 8, 32; xxviii. 13; xxxiii. 14; xxxiv. 30; xlv.
4;
and an unusual construction cannot for that sole rea-
son
be summarily ejected from the text, unless no writer
can
use a phrase which he does not employ more than
once. The resemblance of this passage to others,
whose
genuineness
there is no good reason for suspecting, in-
stead
of discrediting it, tends rather to their mutual con-
firmation.
In regard to vs. 22b-33a, there is not
even the pretext
of a
diversity of diction or style. It is
claimed that ver.
22a
connects well with 33b; "the men went toward
Sodom,
. . . and Abraham returned unto his place."
But
the fact that the omission of the intervening verses
would
create no evident break in the connection is no
proof
of interpolation, as other critics here confess.
240 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
Abraham's
awe (vs. 27, 30-3 ) is not inconsistent with
the
attentions shown to his divine guest (vs. 2 sqq.). It
is
true that the men include Jehovah (vs. 2, 16); but
this
is not the case (ver. 22) where he is expressly dis-
tinguished
from them. The genuineness of the
passage is
besides
vouched for by vs. 20 21, which are designed to
prepare
the way for the interview that follows; by the
explicit
allusion, xix. 27 to xiii. 22b, and the scene that
follows;
by the number "two" (xix. 1), which implies
that
one had remained behind (xviii. 2); by "angels"
(xix.
1, 15), indicating that they were Jehovah's messen-
gers
(see ver. 13), not Jehovah himself; and by the use
of
the singular alternating with the plural (xviii. 3, 4, 9,
10),
showing that one of the three was the superior, was,
in
fact, Jehovah (vs. 13, 17, 20, 22), and this feature does
not
reappear after xviii. 22 until xix. 17-22, at which
point
it is thus intimated that Jehovah rejoins them.
The
assertion that J never uses the plural "angels " is
disproved
by this very passage.
MARKS OF J
The following grounds are alleged for
assigning this
section
to J :
1.
"The same. beauty and transparency of description,
the
same vividness of portraiture, the same depth and
fulness
of thought, the same naive and popular anthro-
pomorphism
as in ii. 4-iii. 24; xi. 1-9, shows the writer
to
be the same."
The correspondence in style and character
is freely
admitted,
and the identity of authorship affirmed.
Like
qualities
are to be expected in compositions by the same
author
when the subject admits of similar treatment.
But
a different style befits majestic scenes such as the
creation,
in ch. i., or those of awful grandeur, as the flood
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (XVIII. 1-XIX. 28)
241
(ch.
vi.-ix.), or the monotonous recital of a genealogy, as
ch.
v., or the technical enactments of ritual, or when the
omnipotence
of God is to be emphasized (ch. xvii.)
rather,
than his condescension. Unless it is
contended
that
the author of these chapters could not write upon
themes
of a different description, his productions may
be
expected to exhibit a diversity of style corresponding
to
the variety of matters with which he deals.
2. The back reference, xviii. 18 to xii.
2, 3.
The reference is obvious, but no more so
than the use
of
"Abraham" and "Sarah" throughout ch. xviii. to
xvii.
5, 15; or xviii. 14 to xvii. 21; or xviii. 11, 12, to
xvii.
17; or the transaction in ch. xviii. to the ratifica-
tion
of the covenant on the part of Abraham in ch. xvii.,
which
it presupposes.
3.
Jehovah. See page 152.
4. ynAdoxE my Lord,
xviii. 3, 27, 30-32; xix. 18.
Apart from these chapters this word occurs in J, Ex.
iv.
10, 13; xxxiv. 9; Josh. vii. 7, 8; E, Gen. xx. 4; Ex.
xv.
17; JE, Gen. xv. 2, 8; disputed, Ex. v. 22 J (Well.),
E
(Dill.); R, Num. xiv. 17; D, Deut. iii. 24; ix. 26. All
in
Hex.
5. FyBihi look, xix. 17, 26. Not referred to J in any
other
place; JE, Gen. xv. 5 ; E, Ex. iii. 6 ; xxxiii. 8 ; Num.
xii.
8; xxi. 9; xxiii. 21. All in Hex.
6. JqawA look
forth xviii. 16; xix. 28; once besides in J,
xxvi.
8; JE, Ex. xiv. 24; doubtful, Num. xxi. 20; R, Num.
xxiii.
28. All in Hex.
7. hqAfAc; cry, xviii. 21; xix. 13; besides in J, Ex. xi. 6;
xii.
30; E, Gen. xxvii. 34; Ex. iii. 7, 9; xxii. 23 (Well.,
R). All in Hex.
8. hlAliHA far be it,
xviii. 25; besides in J, xliv. 7, 17; E,
Josh.
xxiv. 16; R, Josh. xxii. 29. All in Hex.
9. MfaPaha this time, xviii. 32. This word occurs repeat-
edly
in passages assigned to J. in the singular denoting
242 THE GENERATI0NS OF TERAH
this
time or this once; !in the dual meaning twice; and
in
the plural with different numerals, e.g., viz., three times,
Ex.
xxxiv. 23, 24; Num. xxiv. 10; seven times, Gen.
xxxiii.
3; Josh. vi. 4, 15. In passages assigned
to P
once,
twice, and three times do not chance to occur, but
only
seven times, Lev. iv. 6, 17, and repeatedly; and ten
times,
Num. xiv. 22; the very same word being employed
as
in J passages. If, then, this, word is
to be classed as a
criterion
of J, it can only be on the assumption that while
P
knew how to say seven times and ten times, he did
not
know how to say this time or this once.
10.
xnA-hn.ehi
behold now, xviii. 27, 31; xix. 2, 8, 19, 20.
See
ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No.4.
11. rUbfEBa for the sake of, xviii. 26, 29, 31, 32. See ch.
xii.
10-20, Marks of J, No.5.
12.
rcaPA urge,
press,
xix. 3, 9; but once besides in Hex.
xxxiii.
11 J.
13. Mr,F, before, xix. 4; besides in J, ii. 5; xxiv.
15, 45;
Ex.
ix. 30; x. 7; xii. 34; Josh. ii. 8; JE Josh. iii. 1. With
the
prep. B; it
occurs in J, Gen. xxxvii. 18; xiv. 28; Deut.
xxxi.
21; but also in E, Gen. xxvii. 4, 33; xli. 50; Ex. i.
19;
and in P, Lev. xiv. 36.
14. yTil;bil; not to, xix. 21; besides in J,
iii. 11; iv. 15;
xxxviii.
9;. Ex. viii. 18, 25 (E. V., vs. 22, 29); ix. 17;
Lev.
xviii. 30; xxvi. 15; Num. xxxii. 9; but also E, Ex.
xx.
20; Josh. xxii. 25; D, Deut. iv. 21; viii. 11; xvii.
12,
20; Josh. xxiii. 6; and P, Lev. xx. 4 (so Noldeke;
R,
Dill.), Num. ix. 7 (Dill. worked over, and this word
alleged
in proof).
15. ylaUx
peradventure, xviii. 24, 28-32. See ch. xvi.,
Marks
of J, No. 12.
16. txraq;li to meet, xviii. 2; xix. 1; repeatedly in J, E,
and
D; Num. xxxi. 13, according to Dillmann, consists of
"genuine
phrases" of P, with the sole exception of this
one
word.
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (XVIII. l-XIX. 28)
243
17. hz., hm.AlA wherefore, xviii. 13; besides in J, xxv. 22,
32;
xxxii. 30 (E. V., ver. 29); xxxiii. 15; Num. xi. 20;
Josh.
vii. 10; JE, Num. xiv. 41; Ex. v. 22 is referred P
by
Dillmann to E, and by Wellhausen to J.
All in Hex.
18. NKe-lfa yKi for therefore, xviii. 5; xix. 8; but four times
besides
in Hex., all of which are referred to J, viz., xxxiii.
10;
xxxviii. 26; Num. x. 31; xiv. 43.
19.
Jxa also, xviii. 13, 23, 24; but once besides in
J,
viz.,
iii. 1; Dillmann also refers to this document, Lev.
xxvi.,
in which this word occurs several times (vs. 16, 24,
28,
39-44), but in this he differs from other critics; it is
besides
found in JE, Num. xvi. 14; E, Deut. xxxiii. 3, 20;
and
D, Deut. ii. 11; xv. 17; xxxi. 27.
20.
qra only, xix. 8; repeatedly in J, E, and D. See
ch.
vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No.7.
21.
xnA I pray, xviii. 3, 4, 21, 30, 32; xix.
2, 7, 18, 20,
etc. See ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No.3.
22.
Forms in NU. These occur repeatedly in J, E, and
D;
but emphatic forms suited to earnest address or
vigorous
assertion are scarcely to be expected in the class
of
passages that are assigned to P.
Nevertheless we find
NUfG;p;yi (Josh.
xvii. 10 P) in a simple statement of tribal
boundaries. This is in a P context, and the verb is
reckoned
a P word.
23.
lxe for
hl.,xe these, xix. 8, 25;
six times besides in
Hex.;
Rd, xxvi. 3, 4; D, Deut. iv. 42; vii. 22; xix. 11;
also
in Lev. xviii. 27, which Dillmann supposes to have
been
extracted from J, but other critics refer it to a dif-
ferent
source.
24. Thy servant for I,
xviii. 3, 5.; xix. 2, 19; several
times
in J, but also in E, xxxii. 21 (E. V., ver. 20); xxxiii.
5;
and D, Deut. iii. 24; not in P for the reason that no
passages
are assigned to this document in which this con-
struction
would be possible.
25. cr,xAhA yyeOG lKo all the nations of the earth (xviii. 18).
244 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
This
expression is found in but three other passages in
the
Hexateuch, no one of which is referred to J, viz., in
xxii.
18; xxvi. 4 R; and Deut. xxviii. 1 D.
The same
idea
of the universality of the blessing through the patri-
archs
and their seed occurs xii. 3; xxviii. 14 J, where it
is
expressed by the phrase; hmAdAxEhA tHoP;w;mi lKo all the fam-
ilies
of the ground. The promise to Abraham is in three
instances
extended to three particulars--the land of Ca-
naan,
a numerous seed, and a blessing to all nations (xii.
3;
xviii. 18; xxii. 18); and in three instances limited to
the
first two (xiii. 14-17; ch. xv.; ch. xvii.).
This promise
to
Abraham is repeated to his successors, both in its full,
xxvi.
4 (to Isaac), xxviii. 13, 14 (to Jacob), and in its re-
stricted
form, xxviii. 3, 4 (Isaac to Jacob), xxxv. 11, 12
(God
to Jacob), xlviii. 3, 4 (Jacob to Joseph), the lan-
guage
of these last three passages being borrowed from
ch.
xvii., with explicit reference to the culminating and
emphatic
utterance there made. There is no
suggestion
in
this of two separate documents or sources, since the
promise
is uttered in its restricted form alike by Jehovah
(J)
and by God Almighty (P). And the simple
reason
why
the bill form is only found in J is that whenever
the
name God Almighty is linked with this promise it
is
with a definite reference to ch. xvii., and it is accord-
ingly
shaped into conformity with this model; see No
Discrepancies,
No.3, page 163.
26. rq,BoBa MyKiw;hi rise
up early in the morning (xix. 2, 27).
This
verb, which is almost always prolonged into the full
phrase,
occUrs eight times in J, and eleven times in E,
not
reckoning Josh. iii. 1 JE,which it has been found
impracticable
to separate. It does not occur in P, be-
cause
the passages assigned to this document offer no
occasion
for its use.
27. hcAr;xa hvAHETaw;hi bowed himself to the earth, (xviii. 2,
xix.
1). The only other passages in the
Hexateuch in
VISIT
TO ABRAHAM, ETC. (XVIII. 1-XIX. 28)
245
which
this phrase occurs are xxiv. 52; xxxiii. 3; xlii. 6;
xliii.
26 J; xxxvii. 10; xlviii. 12 E; but the verb occurs
repeatedly
in both J and E without being followed by
hcAr;xa to
the earth. The absence of hcAr;xa in the two in-
stances
in which this verb is found in a section assigned
to P
(xxiii. 7, 12) is therefore not peculiar, and is not
suggestive
of a different source, especially as its omis-
sion
is plainly due to the presence of Cr,xAhA in the same
clause. Comp. Ex. xxxiv. 8; Josh. v. 14 J, where it
is
omitted
because of hcAr;xa
in the preceding
clause.
28. NHe xcAmA find favor (xviii. 3; xix. 19) always in
J;
not
in any paragraph of P. See ch. vi. 1-8, No. 10.
29. dx,H, hWAfA show kindness (xix. 19); besides in the
Hex.
xxiv.12, 14, 49; xxxii. 11 (E. V., ver. 10); xlvii. 29;
Josh.
ii. 12, 14 J; Gen. xx. 13; ro. 23; xl. 14; Ex. xx.
6 E;
Dt. V. 10 D. Not in P.
30.
hrAHA burn, without
Jxa anger, meaning to be angry (xviii. 30,
32); besides in J only, iv. 5, 6; xxxiv. 7; but
also
in E, xxxi. 35, 36; xxxiv. 7; xlv. 5; Num. xvi. 15.
More
frequently with Jxa
both in J and E; thus Gen.
xxxix.
19; xliv. 18; Ex. iv. 14; xxxii. 10, 11, 19, 22; Num.
xxii.
22, 27; xxiv. 10; xxxii. 10, 13; Dt. xxxi. 17 J; Gen.
xxx.
2; Ex. xxii. 23; Num. xi. 1, 10, 33; xii. 9; xxv. 3 E.
It
can, therefore, be no mark of diversity of authorship
that
hrAHA
in Josh. vii. 1,
the single instance in which it
occurs
in a paragraph assigned to P, is accompanied by
Jxa.
31.
The disjunctive question (xviii. 21); but disjunc-
tive
questions are not peculiar to J. They
are found in
P as
well, e.g., xvii. 17.
32. Mymiy.ABa xBA advanced in days (xviii. 11); this expres-
sion
occurs but once besides in J (xxiv. 1).
It is found,
also,
Josh. xiii. 1 bis; xxiii. 1, 2, where it is referred to D.
33. "The relation of this narrative to
P's account in
xix.
29.
246 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
But xix. 29 is not another account of the
overthrow of
the
cities of the plain, which is to be referred to another
writer. It simply reverts to the subject of the
overthrow
as
previously related, in order to introduce further state-
ments
respecting Lot.
34. "The difference between xviii. 12
and xvii 17."
These
are not variant explanations of the origin of the
name
of Isaac, as though one writer derived it from the
laughter
of Abraham, another from that of Sarah before
Isaac's
birth, and still a third from the laughter of Sarah
after
his birth (xxi. 6). These allusions to
the signifi-
cance
of the name on different occasions are quite con-
sistent
with one another, and with a common authorship.
LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX. 29-38)
The critics generally attribute vs. 30-38
to J, and ver.
29
to P, alleging that this verse is not connected either
with
what precedes or follows, but is a separate and in-
dependent
account of the destruction of the cities of the
plain. Kayser, however, substantially concedes the
whole
case when he says that ver. 29 "seems like a con-
densation
of an account by P of Sodom's overthrow,
which
has been omitted by the redactor."
Plainly this
is
not a recital, but the summary of a recital elsewhere
given. And the narrative, which Kayser misses, is
just
that
which is to be found in the previous part of the
chapter,
but which the critics assign to a different docu-
ment. Nevertheless this verse is tied to what
precedes,
not
only by its subject-matter, but by its language.
Dillmann
claims that it contains five of P's "character-
istic
expressions," viz. Elohim, remembered (as viii. 1),
tHW
destroyed (as vi. 17; ix. 11, 15), cities of the plain (as
xiii.
12), in which Lot dwelt (not "in one of which;" this
sense
is, however, justified by the passage to which he
LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX. 29-38) 247
himself
refers, viii. 4, as well as by similar examples,
xxi.
7; Judg. xii. 7; 1 Sam. xvii. 43; 2 Chron. xvi. 14;
Job
xxi. 32). But in fact the diction of
this verse is too
closely
allied to the antecedent narrative to admit of
being
sundered from it: tHw
destroy, as xix. 13 ; xiii. 10;
jph
overthrow, as vs. 21, 25; cities of the plain, see ver.
25; in
which Lot dwelt is a plain allusion to xiii. 12,
which
the critics for this reason cut out of its connec-
tion
and assign to P. But, as has been
previously shown,
it
is indissolubly attached to the context in which it
stands. That Abram continued to dwell in Canaan,
while
Lot dwelt elsewhere, is the very point of the whole
narrative,
which is further emphasized in the promise
which
immediately follows (xiii. 14-17).
"God remem-
bered" affords a good illustration of
critical methods; xxx.
22
is parcelled between P, E, and J, though the words
"and
God remembered Rachel" are the only ones in the
entire
chapter which are attributed to P. God's
remem-
bering
Abraham plainly refers back, not to his covenant
with
Abraham in ch. xvii. (P), but to Abraham's interces-
sion
(xviii. 23-32, J). That no variant
representation is
made,
whether of the reason of Lot's deliverance or of
the
circumstances attending it, was shown, p. 165, No
Discrepancies,
No.7.
Moreover, it is impossible to find a
suitable connection
for
ver. 29 in P. It is manifestly
incongruous to attach
it
to the end of ch. xvii., which on the partition hypothe-
sis
it immediately follows. It is customary
to adopt
Hupfeld's
gratuitous assumption that it has been trans-
posed
from its original position after xiii. 12.
But
apart
from the fact that this is building hypothesis upon
hypothesis,
this verse could never have stood there.
It
is
not a declaration that God destroyed the cities of the
plain,
but that when he destroyed them he did what is
here
stated. This implies a previous account
of the de-
248 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
struction,
or at least a mention of it. But no such
mention
is to be found anywhere in P. The verse
con-
sequently
belongs where it stands.
While ver. 29 is thus a recapitulation of
the preceding
narrative,
it is not added to it for the sake of rounding it
up
to a conclusion, as Delitzsch1 formerly maintained.
Astruc
and Eichhorn correctly regarded it as an intro-
duction
to the following paragraph (vs. 30-38), after the
brief
digression (vs. 27, 28). And this
accounts for the
use
of Elohim. Lot had thus far been
considered as
under
the sheltering protection of Abraham, and so of
the
God of Abraham. The last link of
connection is
now
severed. Lot passes quite beyond the
limits of the
holy
land, and henceforth stands in no relation whatever
to
Abraham or to Abraham's God. He is
reduced to the
footing
of an alien, and God is Elohim to him as to other
Gentiles.
(See pp. 152, 153.)
Noldeke claims for P, in addition to ver.
29, the
clause
in ver. 30, "he dwelt in the mountain," and ap-
peals
to xiii. 12 (see Marks of J, No.3, under ch. xiii.);
xxxvi.
8. Other critics, however, decline in
this instance
to
abide by a test which they apply elsewhere.
Ilgen referred vs. 30-38 to the Second
Elohist, and
Boehmer
to the redactor, on the ground that the author
of
the preceding narrative, in which Lot is represented
as a
righteous person, could not have related this shame-
ful
story. But the sacred writers do not
conceal the
weaknesses
or the sins of even the best of men; not
Abraham's
prevarication, nor Jacob's duplicity, nor
Noah's
intoxication. The peril in which Lot was
in-
volving
himself by his inconsiderate choice of a resi-
dence
is estimated at the outset (xiii. 12, 13); that he
did
not wholly escape the infection of Sodom is shown
(xix.
8); preparation is thus made for the infamy here
1In the second and third editions of his Genesis.
LOT'S INCEST (CH. XIX.
29-38) 249
disclosed. That this paragraph is a continuation of the
preceding
narrative is further apparent from the points
of
connection between them. Lot's being in
Zoar (ver.
30)
corresponds with ver. 23; his going to dwell in the
mountain
with ver. 17; the mention of the two daugh-
ters
(vs. 5, 16) implies that something further was to
be
related respecting them; the absence of his wife is
accounted
for by her having perished (ver. 26). In
fact,
the
only imaginable reason why Lot is mentioned in the
history
at all is that he was the ancestor of Moab and
Ammon. This concluding paragraph of the chapter is
accordingly
indispensable to both documents, is equally
linked
with both, and binds both together in a common
unity.
The critical division renders P's mention
of Lot alto-
gether
nugatory. P particularly records his
parentage
and
his relation to Abram (xi. 27); his accompanying
Terah
and Abram from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran
(ver.
31); his going thence with Abram to Canaan (xii.
5);
his large property and retinue (xiii. 6); his parting
from
Abram and dwelling in the cities of the plain (vs.
11,
12); the deliverance granted him for Abram's sake
when
God destroyed these cities (xix. 29).
And there
he
disappears. The very point and purpose
of the whole
narrative
is not reached,1 viz.: That
from Lot sprang the
tribes
of Moab and Ammon, which are thus, in accord-
ance
with the uniform plan of Genesis, removed like Ish-
mael,
the descendants of Keturah, and Esau, beyond the
limits
of the promised land, that it may remain in the
undisturbed
possession of the chosen race, The missing
paragraph
containing the key to the significance of Lot
1
Wellhausen remarks (Composition des Hexateuchs. p. 15): "Nol-
deke
calls attention to a break in Q (P); he must without doubt have
connected
the two nations of Moab and Ammon with Lot, who in and
of
himself has no significance."
250 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
(xix.
30-38) is ascribed to J; but his account, too, is
mutilated,
if not at the end, at the beginning. Lot
is
suddenly
introduced (xii. 4a), with no intimation who he
was,
and no previous mention of him.
MARKS OF J
The following alleged marks of J
evidently afford no
indication
of the existence of distinct documents.
1. hrAykiB; first-born (vs. 31, 33, 34, 37), occurs but once
besides
in Hex., viz.: Gen. xxix. 26, which is cut out of
an E
context and assigned to J purely on account of this
and
the following word.
2. hrAyfic; younger (vs. 31, 34, 35, 38), occurs besides in
J,
xxv. 23; xliii. 33; in xxix. 26, xl viii. 14, Josh. vi.
26
it occurs in mixed contexts, and is referred to J
purely
on account of this word.
3. fraz, hy.AHi preserve seed (vs. 32,34). See ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of J, No. 12.
The charge that this story is a product
of national an-
tipathy,
and originated in the conflicts of a later period,
will
only be credited by those who for other reasons dis-
trust
the truth of the narratives of Genesis.
That a na-
tion
sprung from such a source should practise debasing
orgies
(N um. xxv. 1-3) is not surprising.
ABRAHAM
WITH ABIMELECH, KING OF GERAR
(CH. XX.)
CRITICAL EMBARRASSMENT
The divisive hypothesis encountered an
obstacle in
this
chapter by which it was seriously embarrassed, and
which
finally led to the overthrow of its earlier forms.
The
more minute and thorough the analysis was made,
the
more apparent it became that neither the document
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 251
hypothesis,
as at first proposed, nor the supplement
hypothesis,
was capable of being applied to this chapter
or
to the subsequent portion of Genesis.
The alterna-
tion
of the divine names, Elohim and Jehovah, in suc-
cessive
sections, had been the starting-point of the hy-
pothesis,
and was relied upon as the palpable evidence
of
its reality. Two writers, the Elohist
and the Jeho-
vist,
were supposed to be thus clearly indicated.
The
characteristic
diction and style of each was made out
by a
diligent comparison of the sections respectively at-
tributed
to them. All went on swimmingly at the
be-
ginning,
fresh criteria being gathered as the work pro-
ceeded.
But unfortunately neither this chapter nor
those that
follow
can be brought into harmony with the conclusions
thus
far reached. The words associated with
Elohim in
the
account of the creation (Gen. i.) and of the flood (vi.-
ix.),
have disappeared entirely, or only reappear in Gen-
esis
for the most part in Jehovah sections; and Elohim
in
ch. xx. and henceforth is associated with the diction
and
the style held to be characteristic of the Jehovist.
The
natural inference is that the critics have been too
hasty
in their conclusions. They have made
deductions
from
premises which do not warrant them, and which
are
nullified by a more extended examination of the
facts. They have mistaken the lofty style used in
de-
scribing
grand creative acts or the vocabulary employed
in
setting forth the universal catastrophe of the deluge
for
the fixed habit of an Elohist writer, and set it over
against
the graceful style of ordinary narrative in the
early
Jehovist sections. But in this chapter
and in the
rest
of Genesis whenever Elohim occurs in narrative
sections,
the stately periods of the account of the crea-
tion
and the vocabulary of the creation and the flood are
dropped,
and terms appropriate to the common affairs of
252 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
life
and the ordinary course of human events are em-
ployed
by the Elohist precisely as they are by the Je-
hovist.
Elohim occurs throughout this chapter (vs.
3, 6, 11,
13,
17), except in the last verse (ver. 18) where Jehovah
is
used. But the words and phrases are
those which are
held
to be characteristic of the Jehovist.
DICTION OF CHAPTER XX.
1. fsanA to journey (ver. 1), is the standing expression in
J
for .the journeying of the patriarchs (xii. 9; xiii. 11;
xxxiii.
12, 17).
2. bg,n.,ha Cr,x, the land of the south (ver. 1), occurs three
times
in the Hexateuch, and but once besides in the
whole
Old Testament, viz.: Gen. xxiv. 62; Josh. xv. 19
J;
Num. xiii. 29, in a context where J and E are, in the
opinion
of the critics, confusedly mingled, and this verse,
or a
part of it, is assigned to E simply and avowedly be-
cause
of this one expression. bg,n.,ha, the south, whether as a
part
of the country or as a point of the compass, is men-
tioned
nowhere else in Genesis except in J (xii. 9; xiii.
1,
3, 14; xxiv. 62; xxviii. 14).
3. Kadesh
and Shur (ver. 1) are mentioned by J (xvi.
7,
14); so is Gerar subsequently as the abode of Isaac
(xxvi.
1), who habitually repeated what his father had
done.
4. ynAdoxE Lord (ver. 4), as xviii. 3, 27, 30-32 J. See
ch.
xviii., xix., Marks of J, No.4.
5. xybinA prophet
(ver. 7). This term is nowhere else
applied
to Abraham in the Hexateuch, but the same
thought
is expressed in xviii. 17 sqq. J, where Jehovah
makes
him his confidant.
6. tUmTA tOm thou shalt surely die (ver. 7), as ii. 17; iii.
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 253
7. rq,BoBa rise early in the morning (ver. 8), as
xix.
2, 27; xxvi. 31 J. See ch. xviii., xix.,
Marks of J,
No.
26.
8. tAyWifA what
hast thou done (ver. 9), as iii. 13; iv.
10;
xii. 18; xxvi. 10 J. See ch. xii. 10-20,
Marks of J,
No.7.
9. hW,fAye xlo ought not to be done (ver. 9), as
xxxiv. 7 J.
10.
qra only,
surely
(ver. 11), as vi. 5; xix. 8; xxiv. 8,
etc.,
J. See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7.
11. rbaD;-lfa for the sake of (ver, 11), as xii. 17 J.
12.
hnAm;xA indeed (ver. 12), only besides in the Old Tes-
tament
Josh. vii. 20 J.
13.
ds,H, hWAfA show kindness
(ver. 13), as xix. 19 ; xxiv.
12,
14, 49 J. See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of
J, No. 29.
14. hHAp;wi maid-servant (ver. 14), as xii. 16; xvi. 2;
xxiv.
35 J.
15.
j~yn,pAl; ycir;xa my land is before thee (ver. 15), as xiii.
9;
xxxiv. 10; comp. xxiv. 51 J.
16. HaykiOh to set right (ver.
16), as xxiv. 14, 44; Lev.
xix.
17 J (so Dillmann). See ch. xxi. 22-34,
Marks of E,
No.7.
Knobel sought to adapt the supplement
hypothesis
to
this state of facts by assuming that J, to whom he as-
signs
this chapter, here and in other like passages drew
his
materials from a written source, which was in the
habit
of using the divine name Elohim; and that ver.
18
was independently added by J himself.
Hupfeld
abandoned
the supplement hypothesis altogether, and
claimed
that this and all similar passages belonged to
a
third document, E, distinct from P and J, but which
resembled
P in making use of Elohim, and resembled J
in
style and diction. This is now the
popular method
among
the critics of getting over the difficulty, ver. 18
being
commonly attributed to the redactor. It
is, how-
ever,
only an evasion, and an impossible evasion; for
254 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
this
chapter cannot belong to a document distinct from
the
preceding narrative, to which it is indissolubly linked.
NOT REFERABLE TO A DISTINCT DOCUMENT
Dillmann, indeed, maintains that "it
must originally
have
stood in a different connection, and have been put
here
by R." And the reason urged is that
the narrative
is
inconsistent with the age ascribed to Sarah.
"Accord-
ing
to xvii. 17 P, Sarah is ninety years old, according
to
xviii. 11, 12 J, she is advanced in years and past child-
bearing
in the course of nature; so that she cannot pos-
sibly
have still been attractive to strangers."
This has
already
been fully answered in the preliminary remarks
to
this general section, under the head of No Discrep-
ancies,
No.9. In the longevity of the patriarchs
Sa-
rah
may not have been devoid of personal charms even
at
the age of ninety; or Abimelech may have been
prompted
by the desire to form a connection with Abra-
ham,
who was the head of a powerful clan.
And, at any
rate,
no arg1lffient can thence be drawn for a diversity of
documents. Why may not the original writer have be-
lieved
what, on the critics' own hypothesis, it is manifest
that
R believed?
He further argues that this chapter can
neither be
from
P nor from J. Not from P, according to
whom
Abraham
dwelt in Hebron (xxiii. 2, 19; xxv. 9; xxxv. 27),
and
there is no trace of his dwelling in Gerar or Beersheba;
and
not from J, since he has the parallel narrative, xii.
10-20. But there is no inconsistency between this
chap-
ter
and the passages referred by the critics to P and to
J;
and no reason why it could not have been written by
the
common author of those passages. That
Abraham
was
at Hebron at the time of Sarah's death creates no
presumption
that he had not been at Gerar at the time
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 255
of
this occurrence thirty-seven years before.
And accord-
ing
to the critical partition of the text, Abraham's abode
in
Hebron is spoken of not by P only, but by J as well
(xiii.
18).
The incident related in this chapter bears
a striking re-
semblance
to that in xii. 10-20. The critics
assume that
such
an affair could occur but once, and hence conclude
that
these can only be variant accounts of the same oc-
currence
by two different writers. It is obvious,
however,
that
upon the critical hypothesis R regarded them as dis-
tinct
events, differing in time, place, and several particu-
lars. And it is difficult to see why the original
writer
may
not have been of the same mind, and inseryed both
in
his narrative. There aloe numerous
indications that
this
was really the case. It is distinctly
declared (ver.
13)
that Abraham had concerted with Sarah to have her
pass
as his sister in more than one place; and the men-
tion
of such an arrangement would be unmeaning if it
had
not been actually carried into effect.
The brevity of
the
statement in ver. 2 leaves the conduct of both Abra-
ham
and Abimelech unexplained, and is an implied ref-
erence
to a previous narrative of the same sort in which
the
motives of the actors are more fully stated.
The
writer
assumes that his readers will understand the situ-
tion
from the like instance before related, and so thinks
it
unnecessary to go into particulars. "From thence"
(ver.
1) is an explicit reference to a locality mentioned
before,
which can only be "the oaks of Mamre" (xviii. 1
J), i.e.,
Hebron (xiii. 18 J, xxiii. 19 P). In
xxi. 32,
which
is universally confessed to be a continuation of
the
narrative in ch. xx., and by the same hand, Abraham
is
in Beersheba, just as he is in the following verse (xxi.
33
J), and his presence there is nowhere else explained.
And
in ver. 34 J speaks of his sojourn in the land of the
Philistines,
where he was sojourning in ch. xx., for Gerar
256 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
(vs.
1, 2) was the capital the Philistine territory; the
king
of Gerar was the king of the Philistines (xxvi. 1).
The
nocturnal revelation (vs. 3, 6) has its parallels in
J
(xxvi. 24; xxviii. 16), and in a section marked by
"Jehovah,"
though its reference to J' is arbitrarily dis-
puted
(xv. 1, 12, seq.). The language of
Abimelech (vs.
9,
10) recalls that of Pharaoh (xii. 18); and Abraham's
reply,
ver. 11, resembles i. 12. The
representation of
the
moral character of the people (ver. 11) corresponds
with
xv. 16. There is no discrepancy between
ver. 12
and
xi. 29 (J) or 31 (P). As Abraham's wife,
Sarah was
Terah's
daughter-in-law; the mention of the fact that she
was
also his daughter was purposely reserved for this
place,
that the difficulty might not be solved before it
had
arisen. "God caused me to
wander" (ver. 13) cor-
responds
precisely with xii. 1, the injunction to go to a
land
not yet disclosed. Abraham's
intercession (ver.17)
for
Abimelech is like that for Sodom (xviii. 23 sqq.).
The transaction here recored also falls
precisely into
line
with both the antecedent and subsequent history
of
Abraham, which is just 4 continued succession of tri-
als
for testing and enhancing his faith in the promise of
God,
increasing in intensity until the climax is reached,
and
a period put to them all in ch. xxii.
And it fits ex-
actly
into the situation, coming as it does after the defi-
nite
promise of xvii. 19, 21 and its gracious renewal at
that
visit of unequalled condescension (xviii. 10), but be-
fore
the conception and birth of the promised child (xxi.
2). All is now put in peril by the threatened
loss of Sarah,
which
yet was averted by immediate divine interference.
This
was one more step in that discipline with which the
patriarch's
life was filled, and that experience of almighty
guardianship
by which he was trained to implicit confi-
dence
in, and obedience to, the word of a covenant-keep-
ing
God, and thus fitted for the unique position of the
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH XX.) 257
father
of the faithful and the head of the chosen race
(xviii.
18, 19).
The contention that ch. xx. requires more
time than
can
be allowed in the interval between ch. xviii. and xxi.
rests
upon a misinterpretation of vs. 17, 18, as though
the
infliction there spoken of was sterility, which could
only
become apparent after the lapse of a considerable pe-
riod. But Abimelech needed to be healed as well as
his
wife
and maid-servants, and he had thus been hindered
from
approaching Sarah (ver. 6). The
affection accord-
ingly
was one that prevented sexual intercourse, and so
was
an obstacle to conception and birth.1
1 Ilgen (Urkunden, p. 413) infers that
Sarah must have remained in
Abimelech's
palace at least two years. And Vater
adds that room can-
not
be found before ch. xxi. for all that took place in ch. xviii.-xx. To
this
latter suggestion Ewald very properly replies "that the author no-
where
says that the affair of Lot's daughters (xix. 29-38) took place at
this
time; he merely attaches it to the story of Sodom, as that was a
convenient
place." His treatment of the
occurrence at Gerar in the
same
connection is so admirable that it may be repeated here. I quote
from
his maiden publication (Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch un-
tersucht.
1823, p. 228 sqq.). "Abraham is
still (i.e., in ch. xix.) at the
oaks
of Mamre, as the writer had first stated (xiii. 18), and then referred
back
to this statement (xiv. 13, and xviii. 1).
Now he removes to Ge-
rar,
and although the expression from thence' (xx. 1) does not de-
fine
the starting-point of his journey, it refers to what preceded, and the
direction
from Mamre to Gerar is so plainly indicated by the added
word
'the south,' that it is an adequate substitute for the name 'oaks
of
Mamre.' Abraham says of his wife at the
outset 'she is my sister'
(ver.
2). In and of itself this is quite
unintelligible; and a Hebrew
narrator
would certainly have told this more plainly, if he had not on
a
like occasion stated in more detail what moved Abraham to it (xii. 11-
13). Was it necessary now to repeat this
here? The rapidity with
which
he hastens on to the fact itself shows what he presupposes in
the
reader. But while in the first event of
the kind (ch. xii.), in Egypt,
the
narrator briefly mentions Pharaoh's gifts and plagues, he sets forth
in
more detail the cause of Abraham's conduct.
The reader might cer-
tainly
be surprised that the same thing could happen twice to Abraham
The
narrator is conscious of this; and in order to remove every doubt
of
this sort, which might so easily arise, he lets Abraham clear up the
258 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
The identity of language, the intimate
connection of
this
passage with the context in which it stands, and the
direct
allusions to previous portions of the narrative
demonstrate
that this chapter cannot belong to a distinct
and
independent document, but is a continuation of the
preceding. And the fact that Elohim in an ordinary
historical
narrative is associated with precisely the same
style
and diction that is found in Jehovah passages an-
nuls
the alleged marks of discrimination urged by critics
in
previous portions of Genesis, which are thus shown
to
be due to a difference, not of writer but of theme.
This
chapter not only affords no argument for a third
document
E, but renders decisive testimony against it,
and
against the hypothesis of documents in general.
Elohim is used throughout this chapter because Abim-
elech,
who is prominent in it is a Gentile. It
is no
objection
to this that Abimelech uses the name "Je-
hovah"
in speaking to Isaac (xxvi. 28, 29); for he there
means
specifically Isaac's God, who had so signally
blessed
him; just as in Ex. xviii., although Elohim is
prevailingly
used in describing Jethro's visit to Moses,
puzzle
in what he says to Abimelech (vs. 11-13).
Thus the narrator
himself
meets every objection that could be made, and by the words
'when
God caused me to wander from my father's house' (ver. 13),
he
looks back so plainly over all thus far related, and at the same time
indicates
so exactly the time when he first thought of passing his wife
off
as his sister everywhere in foreign lands, that this can only be ex-
plained
from the previous narrative in ch. xii.
Moreover, the circum-
stances
are different in the two narratives. Here Abimelech makes
Abraham
a variety of presents after he understood the affair; there
Pharaoh
before he understood it. Here God himself appears, there he
simply
punishes. Here Abraham is called a
prophet (ver. 7), as he
could
not have been at once denominated when God had but just called
him. The circumstances, the issue, and the
description differ in many
respects,
and thus attest that this story is quite distinct from the former
one." In a foot-note Ewald makes light of the
objection from Sarah's
age,
and appeals to similar instances, which I have no means of verifying.
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 259
Jehovah
is employed in vs. 911, where Jethro refers
specifically
to the God of Israel in distinction from all
other
gods. And in the book of Jonah the
mariners,
who
had vainly cried each to his god to quell the
storm
(i. 5), turned at length to the God of Jonah and
prayed
to and worshipped Jehovah (vs. 14, 16).
Elohim
is
construed as a plural in xx. 3, in accommodation to
pagan
ideas and forms of speech and not as a character-
istic
of E; cf. Ex. xxxii. 4; 1 Sam. iv. 8; for in passages
assigned
to E the same construction ordinarily prevails
as
is usual elsewhere. The plural is used
in Gen. xxxv. 7
because
a vision of both God and angels is referred to;
Ex.
xxii. 8 (E. V., ver. 9) is in a code of laws, which in
the
opinion of the critics was not written by E, but copied
by
him into his document; Deut. v. 23 (E. V. ver. 26) is
referred
to D; and in Josh. xxiv. 19 the plural construc-
tion
of Elohim occurs in conjunction with the name Je-
hovah. The use of this construction warrants no
imputa-
tion
upon the strictness of the monotheism of E; for like
constructions
occur in the most rigorously monotheistic
contexts,
e.g., Deut. v. 23 (26); 12 Sam. vii. 22, 23; Jer.
xxiii.
36; cf. in P, Gen. i. 26, and in J, xi. 7.
"Jehovah" in xx. 18 is not
traceable to a different
writer,
whether J (Knobel, Kayser) or R, as Hupfeld and
most
critics assume. It is Jehovah's
interference on
behalf
of Abraham's wife that is there described.
The
name
is, therefore, strictly appropriate.
MARKS OF E
1.
hmAxA maid-servant ( ver. 17) occurs besides in pas-
sages
referred to E (xxi. 10, 1, 13; xxx. 3; xxxi. 33;
Ex.
ii. 5); in the fourth commandment (Ex. xx. 10) and
in
the Covenant Code, suppose by the critics not to
be
the work of E (Ex. xxi. 7, 2 , 26, 27, 32; xxiii. 12);
260 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
also
in P (Lev. xxv. 6, 44 bis); and several times in
Deuteronomy. Notwithstanding the fact that this word
is
by no means peculiar to E, it is claimed that E uses it
instead
of hHApwi which is employed by J and P. But
hhAp;wi occurs
in E (Gen. xx. 14; xxx. 18), and it is only
by
the questionable device of cutting a clause out of an
E
context and assigning it to P or J, that the admission
is
escaped that E uses it also in xxix. 24, 29; xxx. 4, 7.
Both
words occur in this chapter, and are discriminat-
ingly
used. hmAxA maid-servant, as a concubine of Abime-
lech
(ver. 17), is clearly distinguished from hhAp;wi woman-
servant, given for bond-service to Abraham (ver.
14).
That
the former is a less servile term than the latter
plainly
appears also from 1 Sam. xxv. 41. This distinc-
tion
is clearly stated by Ilgen (p. 399), who renders them
respectively
"maid" and "slave."
The assertion that
tHopAw; (ver.
14) is a textual error, or that the clause "men-
servants
and women-servants" is an addition by R, is
altogether
groundless.
2. bbAle (for ble) heart (vs. 5, 6); besides in E (xxxi. 26;
Ex.
xiv. 5; Josh. xiv. .7; xxiv. 23); in J (Lev. xix. 17,
xxvi.
36, 41, so Dill.; Num. xv. 39; Josh. vii. 5); D
(Josh.
v.1; ~xii. 5; xxiii. 14); Rd (Josh. ii.11).
3. ll.ePat;hi to
pray (vs. 7, 17); besides in Hexateuch,
only
Num. xi. 2; xxi. 7 E; Deut. ix. 20, 26 D.
4. MOlHE dream (vs. 3, 6); besides in E (xxxi. 10, 11,
24;
xxxvii. 5, 6, 8, 9 bis, 10, 19, 20 ; xl. 5 bis, 8, 9 bis,
16;
xli. 7, 8, 11 bis, 12, 15 bis, 17, 22, 25, 26, 32; xlii.
9) ;
in J (Num. xii. 6; so Dillmann). The
occurrence of
Elohim
in connection with the mention of dreams is due
not
to the peculiarity of a writer (E), but to the nature
of
the case. No dreams are mentioned in the
Hexa-
teuch,
but those which are prophetic. When God
re-
vealed
himself to those not of the chosen race, of course
Elohim
and not Jehovah would be used, and the method
ABRAHAM IN GERAR (CH. XX.) 261
was
uniformly by dreams, as the lowest form of divine
communication;
thus to Abimelech (xx. 3, 6); Laban
(xxxi.
24); the butler and bake of Pharaoh (xl. 5 sqq.);
and
Pharaoh himself (xli. 1 sq.). So also to
Jacob,
when
on the point of leaving Canaan for Paddan-aram
(xxviii.
12); or for Egypt (xlvi.); and in Paddan-aram
(xxxi.
11); and to Joseph in his childhood (xxxvii. 5
sqq.). Elohim does not occur in the narrative of Jo-
seph's
dreams; nevertheless these are by the critics re-
ferred
to E under the rule that all dreams must be given
to
E, a rule which sufficiently explains why no dreams
are
to be found in J. But J likewise speaks
of Jehovah
revealing
himself to Isaac at night (xxvi. 24); to Jacob
in
his sleep (xxviii. 16); and similarly to Abram (xv. 1,
12,
13). The futility of the critical
attempts to refer
these
communications made to Abram to E and R, has
already
been shown. The revelation to Abram (xv.
1) is
called
a vision, a higher form of divine communication
than
a dream, just as that to Jacob (xlvi. 2) is called by
E. That no divine dreams are granted to Gentiles
in J
paragraphs
is for the sufficient reason that Elohim is
necessarily
used in such a connection. If God speaks
directly
to men in J, so he does in E to Abraham (xxi.
12;
xxii. 1); and to Jacob (xxxv. 1), without its being
said
that it was in a dream. In P, according
to the di-
vision
made by the critics, God reveals himself but twice
in
the entire patriarchal period--once to Abraham (ch.
xvii.),
and once to Jacob (xxxv. 9), in spite of the explicit
mention
made (Ex. ii. 24; vi. 3 P) that he had appeared
to
Isaac and covenanted with him; which is a positive
proof
that their division is at fault. It has
been said
that
according to E God appears neither formally nor
visibly,
but only in dreams. And yet, if we may
believe
Dillmann,
it is E who records God's wrestling with Jacob
(xxxii.
24-31). And he adds that. Wellhausen's "argu-
262 THE GENERATIONS 0F TERAH
ments
to the contrary prove nothing or rest on mere
postulates."
5. lx, rmaxA (ver. 2), or l;
rmaxA (ver.
13) say concerning. No
other
example is adduced from the Hexateuch.
In Num.
xxiii.
23, referred to in Ewald's "Hebrew Grammar," §
217,
c, the expression has not this sense, and is besides
attributed
by Wellhausen to J.
6. NOyq.Ani
innocency (ver. 5); nowhere else in the Hexa-
teuch.
BIRTH
OF ISAAC AND DISMISSAL OF ISHMAEL
(CH. XXI. 1-21)
CRITICAL PERPLEXITY
The opening verses of this chapter have
given some
trouble
to the critics, and have been very variously ap-
portioned. Astruc and Eichhorn were content to follow
the
indications of the divine names throughout, and so
assigned
the first verse and the last two verses of the
chapter
to J, and all the rest to P. As,
however, ver. 1
is
intimately related to ver. 2, Gramberg assigned it also
to
P, assuming that "Jehovah" in each clause had orig-
inally
been "Elohim," and that the verse was an apt
specimen
of P's diffuseness. Knobel separated the
two
clauses
of ver. 1, and gave the first to J, being thus able
to
retain the Jehovah of that clause, while contending
that
in the second clause it had been substituted for
Elohim;
P's portion of the chapter was limited by him
to
vs. 1b-5, all the remainder being transferred to J,
who
here, as in ch. xx., was supposed to have made use
of
an earlier source characterized by its employment of
Elohim. Hupfeld converted this earlier source into an
independent
document E, assigning to it vs. 6, 9-32, and
giving
vs. 7, 8, to J. Noldeke pointed out that
vynAquz;li in
his
old age,
ver. 2 (P) was identical with the expression
in
ver. 7 (J), and that consequently it must have been
BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 263
inserted
there by R. But neither is hrAhA
conceived re-
garded
as a word belonging to P; hence Wellhausen in-
sisted
on limiting P's portion of the chapter to vs. 2b-5,
and
giving ver. 1 to R, who thus effected the transition
from
the subject of the preceding chapter to the account
of
the birth of Isaac. The consequence of
this is that
the
paragraph referred to P begins in the middle of a
sentence,
and that J does not record the birth of Isaac
at
all. Dillmann, in the last edition of
his Genesis, seeks
to
remedy these incongruities b the artificial process of
splitting
the first and second verses in two, and uniting
their
alternate clauses, thus giving to J vs. la, 2a, 7; to
P
1b, 2b-5; and to E vs. 6, 8- 21. Budde 1
carries the
splitting
process still further by dividing ver. 6 in two,
and
transposing its second clause to the end of ver. 7.
But
even thus he lags behind Ilgen in the work of dis-
integration,
who long ago divided ver. 7 as well as ver. 6
between
J and E. But in no one of these methods
of
partition
does E make mention of the birth of Isaac.
Boehmer
endeavors to relieve this difficulty, and to allow
each
document a share in this announcement 2 by assign-
ing
to J vs. 1, 2b, 7; to P vs. 2a, c, 4, 5; and to E vs. 3,
6,
8.
But all this critical toil is as fruitless
as it is unneces-
sary. The whole passage is so closely bound
together as
neither
to require nor to permit partition.
"Jehovah"
in
each clause of ver. 1 forbids the assignment of both or
either
to an Elohist writer without an arbitrary change
of
text, which, instead of contributing to the support of
the
hypothesis, is an inference from the hypothesis.
Moreover,
this verse is not a doublet, as the critics claim,
suggestive
of two distinct sources. It is no
unmeaning
1Urgeschichte, pp. 215, 224.
2Ilgen accomplished the same
thing after a fashion by giving E ver.
la,
J 1b, and P ver. 2.
264 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
repetition,
but an emphatic asseveration, in which the
second
clause is an advance upon the first. It
is first
stated
that Jehovah visited Sarah as he had said (see
xviii.
10); then the purpose for which he visited her is
added,
viz., to fulfil the promise previously given. The
mention
of a divine visitation is usually followed by an
explicit
statement of its design; so Gen. 1. 24; Ex. iii.
16,
17; xxxii. 34; and in these cases no one suspects dif-
ferent
writers. Delitzsch remarks that the
structure of
ver.
1 is identical with that of ii. 5a.
Wellhausen denies that the author of ch.
xviii. could
have
had any share in this account of Isaac's birth, be-
cause
according to xviii. 10, 14, Jehovah promised to re-
visit
Sarah in Hebron; but the fact is that no locality
is
mentioned there. Dillmann insists that
according to
both
J and P Isaac must have been born in Hebron, as
they
knew nothing of the journey to the south in ch.
xx.
(E); a discrepancy which, like most of those discov-
ered
by the critics, is of their own manufacture, and does
not
exist in the text as it lies before us.
The critics are here in a dilemma which
has perplexed
them
not a little. If ver. 2a is given to P
as by Dillmann
(2nd),
J makes no mention of Isaac's birth, which is the
event
to which every promise from ch. xii. onward had
pointed,
and for which all the history of Abraham up to
this
time had been preparatory. If it is
given to J as by
Dillmann
(3rd), P goes on to speak of the naming of the
child
and his circumcision without having told of his birth.
And
even if "Jehovah" in ver. 1b be changed to "Elohim"
to
accommodate the critics, and this be given to P, he
still
merely says that God fulfilled his promise to Sarah
without
saying what that promise was. It is easy
to say
that
Isaac's birth was mentioned in both documents, but
R
has only preserved one account of it.
But there is no
proof
that such a duplicate statement ever existed. The
THE
BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 265
critics'
assertion that it did brings no support to their
hypothesis,
for it is itself unsupported, and is a mere in-
ference
from the hypothesis which it is adduced to sus-
tain. And it is an inference which imputes the most
extraordinary
and unaccountable inconsistency to the re-
dactor. In ver. 1 he is supposed to have brought
together
two clauses identical in signification, one or the
other
of which is therefore quite superfluous, because he
found
them in different documents and felt bound to re-
tain
them. He retains xix. 29 from P, though
in the
opinion
of the critics it adds nothing to what he had al-
ready
related in full from J. He records
Noah's entry
into
the ark twice, once from J and then from P, thus
overloading
his narrative in these and other conspicuous
instances
with identical repetitions for no other reason
than
because the same thing was recorded in each of his
sources. Why does he not do the same in this matter
which
is evidently regarded in both documents as of the
greatest
moment?
"Sarah bore a son at the set time of
which God had
spoken
to him" (ver. 2) is a plain allusion to xvii. 19a,
21;
the name Isaac (ver. 3) to xvii. 19; his being circum-
cised
the eighth day (ver. 4) to xvii. 12; the age of Abra-
ham
(ver. 5) to xvii. 1, 24. The repetition of "Sarah"
four
times in vs. 1-3, and the reiteration of the statement
that
she was the mother of the child are not due to
the
diffuse style of the writer, but to the emphasis laid
upon
the fact, as in ch. xvii. The name
"Elohim" (vs.
2,
4, 6) is adopted from ch. xvii., which is so prominently
referred
to. The promise was made and was now
ful-
filled
by Jehovah in the character of God Almighty (xvii.
1);
the event was, and was understood by both Abraham
and
Sarah to be, not the product of natural causes, but
of
divine omnipotent intervention.
The contention that ver. 6 contains a new
explanation
266 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
of
the name of Isaac, or as Ilgen and Budde will have it,
two
separate explanations of it, differing from those in
xvii.
17 P and xviii. 12 J, and that it must on this ac-
count
be referred to a third writer, E, is unfounded.
These
several allusions to he significance of the name
are
entirely harmonious and are not suggestive of a di-
versity
of writers. Abraham's and Sarah's laugh
of in-
credulity
is exchanged for a laugh of joy. Nor
does the
additional
utterance of Sarah (ver. 7), though distinct
from
the preceding (ver. 6), and separately introduced by
the
words "And she said," require or justify the as-
sumption
that this is from a other document any more
than
the three utterances of the angel of Jehovah to
Hagar
(xvi. 9-11), which few of the critics think of sun-
dering.
DIVISION
IMPOSSIBLE
Hupfeld claims that the narrative of the
expulsion of
Hagar
and Ishmael (vs. 9-21), which is assigned to E,
stands
in no relation to the account of Isaac's birth,
which
he divides between J an P. But besides
the ob-
vious
intimate connection between the two events, the
narratives
are bound together by ver. 8, which Hupfeld
correctly
attaches to what precedes as its proper se-
quence,
and other critics with equal propriety attach to
what
follows as indicating its occasion. It
was at the
feast
to celebrate the weaning of Isaac that Ishmael
made
himself so obnoxious as t be sent away.
The critics allege that vs. 8-2 is a
variant of xvi. 4-14
by a
different writer, but without the slightest reason.
The
two events are quite distinct, and each is appropriate
in
its place. In ch. xvi. Hagar I was
treated harshly be-
cause
of her contemptuous behavior toward her mistress
before
the birth of Ishmael, and ran away of her own
accord,
but was sent back by an angel. In this
place
THE
BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 267
Hagar
and Ishmael were finally dismissed by Abraham,
and
an angel appeared to succor them in their distress.
That
"Jehovah" is used throughout the former passage,
and
"Elohim" in this, is due not to a difference of
writers
but of situation. There Hagar was
regarded as a
member
of Abraham's household, and as such still under
Jehovah's
protection. Here she and Ishmael are
finally
separated
from the patriarch and his family, and are
henceforth
disconnected from the chosen race.
Elohim
is,
therefore, used with Ishmael as with Lot after he was
finally
cut off from proximity to, and all connection
with,
Abraham
(xix. 29 sq q. ).
The attempt to create a discrepancy in
respect to the
age
of Ishmael is not successful. It is
claimed that
while
Ishmael, according to xvi. 16; xxi. 5, was at least
sixteen
years old, he is in this narrative represented as
a young
child needing to be carried. Dillmann
effects
this
result by accepting the erroneous rendering of ver.
14
by the LXX. in place of the Hebrew text, as Ilgen
had
done before him, and reading "put the child on her
shoulder,"
which, according to the text as it stands, was
not
done. This, as Jerome long since
remarked, would
bring
this verse into variance with ver. 18, where Hagar
is
bidden to lift up the sick boy and hold him with her
hand. Ex quo manifestum est, eum qui tenetur non
oneri
matri
fuisse, sed comitem. To hold him by the hand is
a
very different thing from carrying him.
It is also inconsistent with vet. 9, where
qHecam;
cannot
denote
the innocent laughter of a young child.
It is in-
conceivable
that the writer could have intended to charge
Sarah
with being so seriously provoked by such a cause.
It
must mean "mocking," and was so understood (Gal.
iv.
29); but this is the act of a boy of some age.
See
above,
No Discrepancies, No.8, page 166.
Vater remarks upon this passage, "We
have no reason
268 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
indeed
to presuppose a connection in the accounts of dif-
ferent
fragments, but neither have we any reason to seek
contradictions
where there are none." The fragment
hypothesis,
in the interest of which Vater wrote, is now
universally
abandoned in consequence of the abundant
proofs
of a close connection between all parts of the
Pentateuch,
which it persistently denied. But the
preva-
lent
disposition of the divisive critics" to seek contradic-
tions
where there are none," in order to justify their as-
sumption
of different documents is really destructive of
their
own hypothesis; for it imputes an incredible blind-
ness
to the redactor who could combine such glaring
contradictions
in what he offers to his readers as a con-
sistent
and credible history.
In ver. 16 Hagar is said to have lifted up
her voice and
wept. Whereupon it is immediately added (ver. 17),
And
God heard the voice of the lad. This has
been re-
garded
as an incongruity, implying a diversity of writers
(Knobel),
or an error in the text (LXX., the child lifted
up
his voice and wept). But every writer
can presume
upon
the intelligence of his readers to supply what is so
evident
as not to require mention. The cries of
the child
were
natural under the circumstances, and are here im-
plied,
though not expressly stated. And as
Dillmann
suggests,
the repetition of the words, "she sat over against
him"
(ver. 16b), can only be, for the purpose of intro-
ducing
a clause of which Hagar is the subject.
Dillmann observes that the name of the
child is not
mentioned
throughout the paragraph (vs. 9-21), and con-
jectures
that E must have said after vs. 17, 18, that the
child
was called Ishmael God hears, because God had
then
heard his voice; and that R omitted it.
It is re-
markable
how often the divisive hypothesis leads the
critics
to the belief that something ought to be in the
text
which is not there. There has been no
omission
THE BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 269
here. The name does not occur in vs. 19-21 any more
than
in the preceding verses. The naming of
the child
and
the reason of it had already been stated (xvi. 11, 15);
and
the allusion to its significat on (xxi. 17), like that in
xvii.
20, is suggestive not of different writers but rather
of
all emanating from one common source.
MARKS OF P
Dillmann assigns to P, vs. 1b, 2b-5,
"on account of the
back
reference of vs. 2b and 4 to ch. xvii.," which is freely
admitted;
"the statement of age, ver. 4," but see ch. xii.
1-9, Marks of P No. (5); "the diffuseness,
ver. 3, "there
is
here, however, no needless superfluity of words, but
only
emphatic repetition, as above explained, and but
one
instance of alleged characteristic diction, viz.:
1. "The form txam;
ver. 5, "
the construct state of hxAme
a
hundred. The fact is that both forms of this numeral
occur
repeatedly in passages assigned to P, to which, as
a
rule, statements of age and enumerations are attributed.
This
number occurs in J but twice, vi. 3 (120 years), xxvi.
12
(100 measures), and in E of but three things, Joseph's
age,
I. 22, 26 (110 years), Joshua's age, Josh. xxiv. 29
(110
years), and the price of a field at Shechem, Gen.
xxxiii.
19; Josh. xxiv. 32 (100 kesitas); in each of these
cases
the absolute form hxAme chances
to be used. But
the
same form is also found in like cases in P, e.g., Gen.
xvii.
17 (100 years); xxiii. 1 (12 years); Deut. xxxiv. 7
(120
years), and in a large proportion of those instances
in
which the numeral is attached to weights or measures.
There
is not the slightest reason, therefore, for assuming
a
diversity of usage in respect to this word.
MARKS OF J
Dillmann says, "J, too, as is
natural, narrated the birth
of
Isaac in what he wrote, but R has adopted nothing
270 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
from
his account, except vs. la, 2a, 7; at least it is quite
inconceivable
that ver. 1a could have been added along-
side
of 1b by R of his own motion and without finding it
in
J; in vs, 2b and 7 vynAquz;li in his old age,
points to J,
and
ver. 7 is a doublet of ver. 6." He
also urges the
back
reference in ver. 1a to xviii. 10 sqq. (which is not
disputed),
and that dqaPA visited
is decisive against the au-
thorship
of P, who says instead rkazA remembered.
But it has been shown above that there is
no super-
fluous
repetition in ver. 1; and that there is no reason
for
assuming that vs. 6 and 7 are by different writers.
And
the words here adduced supply no argument for
critical
partition.
1. dqaPA visited
(ver., 1), occurs in this sense besides in
E
(1. 24, 25; Ex, iii, 16; iv. 31; xiii. 19; xx. 5; Num.
xvi.
29); in R (Num. xiv, 18); in J (Ex, xxxii. 34; xxxiv.
7;
and, according to Dillmann, Lev. xviii, 25).
It is
not
easy to see on what grounds this last verse is denied
to
P. It stands in what he considers a
mixed passage of
J
and P, and between two verses which he gives to P,
and
why it is separated from them does not appear.
And rkazA remembered (said of God), is not
an expression
peculiar
to P. It occurs in verses attributed to
P (Gen.
viii.
1 ; ix. 15, 16 ; xix. 29 ; xxx. 22; Ex, n. 24; vi. 5); but
also
in J (Ex, xxxii. 13; Lev. xxvi. 42, 45, so Dillmann).
And
in Gen, xxx, 22 the clause containing it is cut out of
a J
and E connection on account of this word alone.
2. Myniquz; old age (vs. 2, 7), occurs but twice besides,
viz.,
xliv. 20 J, and xxxvii. 3, about which critics are di-
vided: Knobel gives it to P; Kuenen and Wellhausen
to
E; and Dillmann to J.
MARKS OF E
To E is assigned vs. 6, 8-21, and it is
contended that
"in
spite of Elohim this is not from P, whom the ap-
THE BIRTH OF ISAAC, ETC. (CH. XXI. 1-21) 271
appearance
of the divine angel (ver. 17) does not suit." The
reason
of the absence of angels from P is that the critical
lines
of partition exclude this document from the body of
the
narrative, and the occurrence of the word 'angel' in a
paragraph
is held to be sufficient to prove that it is not
from
P. "Nor the explanation of the name
of Isaac;"
but
this has already been shown to be consistent with
that
of ch. xvii. "Nor the sending away
of Hagar and
Ishmael;"
it is alleged that this is inconsistent with the
presence
of Ishmael at his father's burial (xxv. 9 P).
But
it is manifest that he might easily return on such an
occasion
and for such a purpose. It is besides
expressly
stated
in that immediate connection (xxv. 6) that all the
sons
of Abraham's concubines were thus dismissed dur-
ing
his lifetime. And whatever disposition
the critics
may
choose to make of this verse, the redactor must
have
thought it to be in harmony with the statement im-
mediately
after, that "his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried
him." "Nor the age of Ishmael at the
time;" but it
has
been shown that there is no discrepancy in regard
to
it. "Expressions like God was
with him (ver. 20),
hearken
unto the voice of (ver.
12), rose up early in the
morning (ver. 14), it was grievous in his eyes
(vs. 11, 12),
wreGe
cast out (ver. 10), dl,y,
child (vs. 8, 14 sqq.), are for-
eign
to P." The simple explanation of
the absence of
these
and other familiar words and phrases from P is
that
only the most stinted share in the narrative por-
tion
of the Pentateuch is accorded to P, while the great
bulk
of it is divided between J and E. And
these
expressions
are as freely used in J as in E. They
are
not the peculiar characteristic of anyone writer, but
are
the common possession of all who use the lan-
guage.
1. God was with him (ver. 20); in J
(xxvi. 24, 28;
xxviii.
15; xxxix. 2, 21).
272 THE
GENERATIONS OF TERAH
2. lOqB; fmawA hearken unto the voice of (ver. 12); in J
(xxvii.
8, 43; Ex. iv. 1 ; Num. xxi. 3).
3. rq,BoBa Mykiw;hi rose up early in the morning (ver. 14).
See
ch. xviii. 1-xix. 28, Marks of J, No. 26.
4. yneyfeB; ffarA to be grievous in the eyes (vs. 11, 12); in
J
(xxxviii. 7, 10; xlviii. 17; Num. xxii. 34; xxxii. 13);
and
once in P (Gen. xxviii. 8).
5. wreGe cast
out (ver. 10); in J (iii. 24; iv. 14; Ex. ii.
17;
xii. 39; xxxiv. 11; Lev. xxi. 7, 14 (so Dillmann);
Num.
xxii. 11).
6. dl,y, child (vs. 8, 14 sqq.); in J (iv. 23; xxxii.
23,
E.
V. ver. 22; xxxiii. 1 sqq.; xliv. 20).
It is noticeable
that
dl,y,
child, and
rfana lad, are here used interchangea-
bly
of Ishmael; the former, vs. 14, 15, 16; the latter, vs.
12,
17 bis, 18, 19, 20. Knobel regarded the
former as
the
language of J, and the latter as that of the older
source
from which he supposed him to have drawn this
narrative.
On the assumption of this double
authorship
he
likewise explained the twofold mention of Ishmael's
abode
in vs. 20 and 21. Other critics refer
the whole of
vs.
8-21 to E, and thus admit that the use of two differ-
ent
terms to express the same thing is not necessarily an
indication
of different writers. The doublet in vs.
20,
21,
is also passed over in silence as void of significance.1
It
is argued that this paragraph must be referred to an
author
distinct from J on account of "the divine name;"
but
it has been shown that the employment of Elohim
here
accords with biblical usage. "The variant explana-
tion
of the name of Isaac, ver. 6;" but this has been
shown
to be in harmony with xviii. 12, 1.3, as well as
xvii.
17, 19. "And above all, that vs. 9-21 is a variant
of
the story about Hagar and Ishmael told by J in ch.
1 Hupfeld (Quellen, p. 30) doubtfully
conjectures that ver. 21 belongs
to
P, and has been transferred by R from its original position after xxv.
12. I am not aware that any other critic has
adopted this view.
ABRAHAM
AT BEERSHEBA (CH. XXI. 22-34) 273
xvi.;"
but this is not the case; they are distinct occur-
rences. The additional proofs offered for its
reference
to a
writer E, distinct from J an I P, are equally nugatory.
These
are:
7. "The locality in the Neghebh
(South), cf. xx. 1;"
but
ver. 33 J, Abraham is in that region, of which the
paragraphs
assigned to E afford the only explanation.
8. tm,He bottle vs. 14, 15, 19; nowhere else in the
Hexa-
teuch;
but once besides in the Old Testament.
9. hHAFA to shoot
(ver.16); nowhere else in the Old Tes-
tament.
10.
tw,q, hbero archer (ver. 20); nowhere else in the
Old
Testament. This is, moreover, a needless departure both
from
the Massoretic points and the usual meaning of the
words. The text has tw.Aqa hb,ro as he grew up, an archer.
11. hmAxA maid-servant (vs. 10, 12, 13). See ch. xx.,
Marks
of E, No.1. Hagar, who had been Sarah's
bond-
maid,
hHap;wi, is now, as Abraham's concubine, regarded
as
in a
less servile position, and is hence called an hmAxA.
See
Diction of ch. xx., No. 14.
12. yOgl; MUW, make a nation (vs. 13, 18) ; only
besides in
the
Hexateuch xlvi. 3, referred by Dillmann to E, but by
Kautzsch
to R; the same construction occurs in J xlvii.
26, qHol;
MUW make
a statute.
13. qHer;ha afar off (ver. 16); also in J (Ex. viii.. 24, E.
V.
ver. 28).
14.
hdoOx lfa on account of
(ver. 11); also in J (xxvi.
32);
in Josh. xiv. 6 it occurs in the same clause with an
expression
of P; apart from Gen. xxi. it occurs in but
three
passages that are referred to E (Ex. xviii. 8; Num.
xii.
1; xiii. 24).
ABRAHAM AT BEERSHEBA (CR. XXI. 22-34)
This paragraph records the covenant
between Abime-
lech
and Abraham at Beersheba. Hupfeld here
gives vs.
274 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
22-32
to E, and vs. 33, 34 t J, because of Elohim in vs.
22,
23, and Jehovah in ver. 33. But ver. 33
cannot be
separated
from what precedes; for the subject of the
verbs
in this verse is not expressed and must be derived
from
the foregoing verses, and Abraham's presence in
Beersheba
is not explained by anything that has pre-
ceded
in J, but only by the antecedent narrative, which
is
attributed to a different document.
Kayser seeks to
evade
these difficulties by assuming that E's narrative
was
inserted by J in his document, to which he then at-
taches
vs. 33, 34. But this has found no favor
with other
critics,
because it annuls their chief argument for a writer
E in
this passage distinct from J, viz., that derived from
the
alleged J parallel in xxvi. 26-33.
Wellhausen tries
to
compass the same end in a different way, but one
equally
ineffectual. He gives ver. 33 to E; but
this
makes
it necessary for him to alter the text by expunging
the
name "Jehovah," and even then the phrase "call on
the
name" of God remains, which is a stereotype J ex-
pression. Hupfeld insists that ver. 34 contradicts ver.
32,
and cannot, therefore, be assigned to the same author.
In
ver. 34 Beersheba was in the land of the Philistines;
in
ver. 32 it was not. He struggles to
overcome the
difficulties
of the situation by still another method, that
of
transposing the text. He transfers xxii.
19b, "And
Abraham
dwelt," or, as he renders it, "settled in Beer-
sheba,"
to this place, thus according for J's speaking
of
him as in this locality. He then
transposes ver. 33
with
ver. 34, and so finds a subject for the verbs in
the
former. The arbitrary character of these
changes of
the
text, for which no reason can be given except the ex-
igencies
of the hypothesis, sufficiently condemns them.
Wellhausen fancies that he discovers a
discrepancy
between
ver. 22 and ver. 32b, in virtue of which he
claims
that the latter cannot be by the author of the pre-
ABRAHAM
AT BEERSHEEA (CH. XXI. 22-34) 275
ceding
narrative, but must be attributed to R.
In ver.
32b
Abimelech dwelt at some distance from Abraham;
in
ver. 22 they lived presumably in the same place, for
they
held an interview without anything being said of
Abimelech's
having come away from home for this pur-
pose. As if the reader had not already been
informed
(xx.
2) that the royal residence was at Gerar, while this
transaction
is expressly said to have taken place at Beer-
sheba
(ver. 31). And in numberless instances
facts are
implied
without being expressly mentioned. God
healed
Abimelech
and his wife and his maid-servants (xx. 17),
though
it had not been previously stated that they were
sick. God heard the voice of Ishmael (xxi. 17),
though
it
had not been before said that he had made a sound.
It
is implied (ver. 25), though not explicitly declared,
that
Abimelech restored the well to Abraham which his
servants
had violently taken away.
Dillmann gives both ver. 32b and ver. 34
to R, thus
disregarding
Hupfeld's notion that they are mutually in-
consistent
and must be referred to distinct sources.
The
occurrence
of the expression "land of the Philistines"
in
these verses, which is not found before in ch. xx. or
xxi.,
is no reason for sundering them from the preceding
narrative;
for Gerar, where Abimelech resided, and of
which
he was king (xx. 2), was a Philistine city (xxvi. 1).
It
was quite natural, therefore, to speak of Abimelech's
return
to Gerar as a return to the land of the Philistines.
And
as Beersheba lay in the same region it could also
be
described as in the land of the Philistines.
Dillmann had a more controlling reason,
however, than
these
superficial trifles, for referring ver. 34 to R. It
is
evidently preparatory for ch. xxii.
Abraham's long
sojourn
there explains how Isaac, whose birth is recorded
xxi.
2, could be spoken of as he is in xxii. 6.
But it
would
conflict with the hypothesis to allow a verse of
276 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
J to
be introductory to a narrative of E.
Hence it is
cut
out of its connection and attributed to R.
But the
actual
and obvious fact is that this verse is a link of con-
nection,
binding together what precedes and what follows
as the
product of the same pen.
The divine names in this paragraph are in
strict ac-
cordance
with ordinary Bible usage, and supply no rea-
son
for suspecting a diversity of documents.
Thus we
find
Elohim in the interview with the Gentile king,
Abimelech;
but when Abraham offers worship he calls
on
the name of Jehovah.
MARKS
OF E
It is alleged that the diction is not that
of P, which,
considering
the slight amount of narrative given to that
document,
is not surprising. But the words adduced in
proof
are all found in J.
1. ds,H, hWAfA show kindness (ver. 23). See ch. xviii., xix.,
Marks
of J, No. 29.
2. tyriB; traKA make a covenant (vs. 27, 32). See ch. vi.-
ix.,
Marks of P, No. 16.
3. rUbfEBa in order that (ver. 30); in J (iii. 17; viii. 21;
xii.
13, 16; xviii. 26, 29, 31, 32; xxvi. 24; xlvi. 34; Ex. xiii.
8);
in E (Ex. xix. 9); JE (Gen. xxvii. 4,10, 19, 31; Ex. xx.
20
bis); R (Ex. ix. 14, 16 bis). See ch.
vi.-ix., Marks of
J,
No.6; ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J; No.5.
4. yTil;Bi except (ver. 26). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J,
No.
14.
5. hn.Ahe here (ver. 23); in J (xlv. 5, 13; Josh. viii.
20);
in E
(Gen. xlii. 15; xlv. 8; Josh. xviii. 6); JE (Josh. ii.
2;
ill. 9; R (Gen. xv. 16).
6. Elohim (vs. 22, 23); explained above.
7. HaykiOh reproved
(ver. 25); in J (xxiv. 14, 44; Lev.
xix.
17, so Dillmann); in E (Gen. xx. 16; xxxi. 37, 42 ).
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 277
8. God is with thee (ver. 22). See
ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks
of
E, No.1.
9.
tdoOx lfa because of
(ver. 5). See ch. xxi. 1-21,
Marks
of E, No. 14.
10.
dk,n,vA Nyni o offspring and posterity (ver. 23); neither
word
occurs again in the Hexateuch; they are found but
twice
besides in the Old Testament, viz., Job xviii. 19;
Isa.
xiv. 22.
"The connection" of this
paragraph" with ch. xx. in
respect
of place and persons" is freely admitted; but
there
is in this no argument for critical partition.
Nor
does
the similar occurrence in the life of Isaac (xxvi.
26-33)
warrant the inference that these are variant ac-
counts
of the same transaction recorded by different
writers.
The statement "they made a
covenant" (ver. 27b), is
repeated
(ver. 32a), but no critic suspects a doublet or
assigns
them to distinct documents.
SACRIFICE
OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19)
The narrative of the offering up of Isaac
is closely
linked
together in every part. It is identical
throughout
in
style and language; it is an appropriate sequel to all
that
has gone before. There is not the
slightest reason for
partitioning
this passage between different writers except
the
occurrence in it of both Elohim and Jehovah.
This is
accordingly
made the ground of critical severance; and
yet
these divine names interpose an obstacle to division
which
it has been found impossible to remove.
The
names,
which are "the only pretext for division, must first
be
altered into conformity with the critical scheme be-
fore
any division is practicable. The
mechanical theory,
which
undertakes to account for the alternation of these
names
by the peculiar habit of different writers, and
278 THE GENERATJONS OF TERAH
which
loses sight of the distinctive meaning and usage of
the
names themselves, is here completely baffled.
THE CRITICAL PARTITION
The first attempt at division was that of
Astruc and
Eichhorn,
who assigned vs. 1-10 to the Elohist, and vs.
11-19
to the Jehovist; which made it necessary to as-
sume
that Elohim (ver. 12) had been altered from Je-
hovah.
But the Elohist account cannot end with
vera 10,
where
Abraham takes the knife to slay his son.
The ac-
tion
is thus broken off in the midst, and the verses that
follow
are needed to complete it. These
following verses
are
also linked to what precedes by the expressions used:
"Now
I know that thou fearest God" (ver. 12) states
the
result of the trial (ver. 1). "Thy
son, thine only
son"
(ver. 12), repeats the identical language or ver. 2.
And
ver. 19, "Abraham returned to his young men," is
an
express allusion to his promise made to them (ver. 5).
Accordingly Tuch proposed to give the
Elohist vs. 1-
13,
19, and to the Jehovist vs. 14-18.
Hupfeld (Quel-
len,
p. 55) adopts the same division; only he insists that
the
Elohist of this chapter, as of ch. xx., xxi., is to be dis-
tinguished
from the Elohist or the earlier chapters of
Genesis. In this he is followed by subsequent critics
who
agree that it is E and not P. Elohim is
here found
in
connection with the diction and style of J, with the
lEwald, Komposition d. Genesis,
pp. 74, 75, shows in detail that the
divine
names are in each instance appropriately chosen, and remarks
that
the adherents of the divisive hypothesis have a much more diffi-
cult
task to perform in rending asunder what is so closely knit together.
He
then proceeds to say, "Nevertheless two different writers are assumed
for
no other reason than the constraint of the divine names. And as even
thus
the word Elohim (ver. 12) still makes difficulty, it must fall
under
the rigor of consistent criticism to make way for another name."
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (XXII. 1-19) 279
mention
of sacrifice, and with "refined and profound"
religious
ideas, "like the profound theological passage on
the
origin of sin and evil ch. ii., iii."
Thus it threat-
ened
to annihilate every distinction between P and J,
which
the critics have been at such pains to establish, and
to
destroy the very foundations of the divisive hypothe-
sis. The suggestion of a second Elohist was
therefore
eagerly
welcomed as the only ode of averting so dire a
catastrophe.
But whether it be P or E, the divine
names still prove
refractory,
and will not fit into the improved division.
Jehovah
(ver. 11) must, in spite of the exact parallel in
ver.
15, be converted into Elohim. It is also
necessary
to
get rid of "Moriah," the manifestation or appearing
of
Jehovah (ver.
2), a proper name, of which Jehovah is
one
of the constituents. Tuch proposes to
substitute for
it
"the land of Moreh," in the neighborhood of Shechem
(xii.
6). Wellhausen objects that
"Moreh" was not a
land,
but a place, and conjectures instead "land of the
Hamorites"
(a designation of his own manufacture),
"where
Shechem lay" (see xxxiii. 18, 19), and pleads the
Samaritan
tradition that Mount Gerizim was the scene of
the
sacrifice of Isaac.1 Dillmann
shows that Shechem was
too
remote,2 and offers another equally unfounded con-
jectural
emendation, "land of the Amorite."
But the
text
is in no need of correction. It is only
the perplex-
ity
of the critics which demands it, in order to bring it
into
conformity with their hypothesis.
1 Stade calls the sacrifice of
Isaac "a Shechemite saga," Geschichte
Israel,
page 583.
2
According to Robinson's itinerary Shechem was thirty-six hours
forty-five
minutes distant from Bee rsheb a, and could not have been
reached
on the third day (ver. 4), as Abraham had all his preparations
to
make before starting. The distance to Mount
Moriah was twenty- two
hours
fifteen minutes, which corresponds to the requirements of the
narrative.
280 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
"Moriah"
in all probability took its name from this
incident
in the life of Abraham. In later times
David
selected
it to be the site of the future temple, because of
a
divine manifestation made to him upon this same spot
(2
Chron. iii. 1). There is a congruity in
this coinci-
dence
that was no doubt in the divine intention when
Abraham
was directed to this particular summit, which
was
in after ages to be the appointed place of sacrifice,
and
which was in close proximity to the place where, in
the
fulness of time, the one effectual sacrifice here prefig-
ured
of God's own and only Son was to be offered.
But
this
chapter gives us no reason to suppose that its au-
thor
was aware that the mountain thus hallowed by the
angelic
appearance was to gather additional sacredness
whether
from the erection of the temple or from the sub-
lime
transaction on Calvary. Much less is there
the
slightest
ground for assuming that after the temple had
been
built the word "Moriah" was inserted into the
text
of this chapter in order to connect the sacrifice of
Isaac
with the temple mountain. This is
certified to be
the
true original reading by ver. 8, where "God will pro-
vide"
is a plain allusion to the name. It is
used by
prolepsis
in ver. 2, as Horeb is called "the mountain of
God
" (Ex. iii. 1), because of the divine descent upon it
at
the subsequent giving of the law. If a
later writer
had
meant to identify the scene of Abraham's trial with
the
location of the temple, he would doubtless have used
the
word "Zion," in which it was comprehended, and
which
was its ordinary name. The
indefiniteness of the
language
in ver. 2 is also observable. The
mountain was
not
known to Abraham, but would be pointed out to him.
And
the name "Moriah" is applied not only to the sum-
mit,
but to the region in which it stood.
There is no
subsequent
trace of such a usage.
"Moriah " (ver. 2) and "God
will provide" (ver. 8) in-
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 281
evitably
carry with them ver. 14, whose last clause, "in
the
mount where Jehovah appears," gives the explana-
tion
of the name, and to whose allusive "Jehovah-jireh,"
Jehovah
will provide,
ver. 8 is reparatory. This verse
must
accordingly be attached to the preceding.
Dr.
Driver
admits this by assigning to E vs. 1-14, 19, in
spite
of the twice repeated "Jehovah "in ver. 14. "Je-
hovah"
occurs six times in this chapter, either separate-
ly
or in composition. If with Dr. Driver's
assent four of
these
are given to E, how can the other two supply an
argument
for separating vs. 15-18 from the rest of the
chapter
and giving them to a different document?
Moreover, vs. 15-18 are inseparable from
what pre-
cedes. "The second time" (vet. 15), which
the critics
arbitrarily
erase, is an explicit reference to ver. 11.
"The
angel
of Jehovah" is introduced in both verses in identi-
cal
terms." Thou hast not withheld thy
son, thine only
son"
(ver. 12), recurs again ver. 16 (see also ver. 2).
And
these closing verses are essential" to the narrative
and
an indispensable part of it, since without them it is
not
brought to a fitting termination. At
every crisis in
his
life, and especially after every marked exercise of
faith,
a blessing is freshly pronounced upon Abraham.
When
in obedience to the divine command he left his
home
and kindred and came to Canaan, Jehovah ap-
peared
to him and promised him this land (xii. 7).
After
he
had shown his generosity in parting from Lot, the
same
promise was renewed in fuller form (xiii. 14-17).
After
his brave rescue of Lot from a pillaging foe, he
was
blessed of Melchizedek (xiv. 19, 20).
His faith in
Jehovah's
promise of seed, made to him in his despond-
ency
(xv. 6), is rewarded by a covenant engagement (vs.
18-21). When confiding in God's assurance that the
long-delayed
promise should be fulfilled at the set time
in
the next year, he accepted the rite of circumcision (ch.
282 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
xvii.),
Jehovah visited him in his tent on the roost confi-
dential
terms (ch. xviii.). And it would be most
extraor-
dinary
if the most conspicuous manifestation of his faith
and
obedience, put to the severest test, and this trium-
phantly
borne, were to pass without signal recognition
and
reward. The situation calls for just
what we actu-
ally
find in vs. 15-18, a renewal of the promises in then
amplest
form, Jehovah by a voice from heaven confirm-
ing
them by the added solemnity of an oath.
The question here arises how and by whom
the differ-
ent
constituents, which in the opinion of the critics are
here
combined, have been put together in their present
form. According to the fundamental assumptions of
the
critical hypothesis E could not have used the name
"Jehovah." It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that
the
portion assigned to him is not now as he must have
written
it, but has been altered by another.
Noldeke
infers
that E has both here and elsewhere been worked
over
by J. But this would annul one of the
chief argu-
ments
for the existence of E distinct from J, based upon
alleged
discrepancies between their respective narratives;
and
Wellhausen interposes an objection on this ground.
Dillmann
adds that if J had made these alterations in E,
he
would not have suffered Elohim to remain.
In the ear-
liest
edition of his "Commentary" Dillmann maintained
that
there were two independent accounts of this trans-
action
by E and by J, and that R incorporated into E's
account
from that of J the mention of Moriah, the name
Jehovah,
and the added verses at the end. But the
author
of these closing verses must have bad those that
precede
before him, for there are identical expressions in
both. In subsequent editions Dillmann receded from
this
position and insisted that the changes and additions
are
to be ascribed to R, and were made by him of his
own
motion and not borrowed from an antecedent source.
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC ( CH. XXII. 1-19) 283
But
then what R has inserted is indistinguishable from
J in
matter and style; and the same is true of what E
has
written, with the sole exception of the divine names.
So
that it might appear as though the agnostic position
long
ago taken by Gramberg ,as the safest one for the
critics
in dealing with this chapter, viz. : that the docu-
ments
are so blended that it is impossible to effect a par-
tition,
and "no one can tell what belongs to the Elohist,
what
to the Jehovist, and what to the redactor."
In fact some of the critics 1ean strongly
toward the
admission
of the unity of t is narrative. Hupfeld
("Quellen,"
p. 178) speaks of it as "a complete and ar-
ticulated
whole," that would, every case be the loser
by
any omission; and he adds, "I cannot conceal the fact
that
the entire narrative seems to me to bear the stamp
of
the Jehovist; and certainly one would never think of the Elohist, but for the
name Elohim (prop., ha-Elohim),
which
here (as in part in the historyof Joseph) is not
supported
by the internal phenomena and embarrasses
criticism." Knobel gives the entire passage to J, and
opens
the way to a correct understanding of it by calling
attention
to the fact, remarked upon before by Hengsten-
berg
and others, that the change of divine names occurs
at
the crisis of the narrative. It is
Elohim who tries the
faith
of Abraham (vs. 1-10); it is Jehovah who stays the
patriarch's
hand and blesses him (vs. 11-18). Knobel
says,
"Apart from Elohim nothing in this narrative re-
minds
us of the Elohist; on the contrary everything
speaks
for the Jehovist . . . . On account of the
divine
name Elohim (vs. 1, 3, 8, 9), one might suppose
1Ilgen splinters this passage
in a very remarkable way, splitting
verses,
duplicating phrases, giving some particulars to E, and others to
J,
and thus tries to make out two separate narratives of the transaction.
No
one, even of those who are most prone to adopt similar methods
elsewhere,
has thought fit to follow him here.
284 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
that
the author was here giving a story taken from an
older
source, as in ch. xx., xxi. But the
passage contains
no
other traces of it; and we, therefore, have to assume
that
the Jehovist here uses Elohim so long as there is
reference
to a human sacrifice, and only introduces Je-
hovah
(ver. 11) after setting aside such a sacrifice,
which
was foreign to the religion of Jehovah."
And he
refers
to. iii. 1, 3, 5 as an illustrative passage, where in J
Elohim
is used in the conversation of Eve and the ser-
pent.
The real significance of the divine names
as here used
is
stated in a more satisfactory manner by Delitzsch.
He
accepts Hupfeld's critical division, but destroys the
basis
on which it rests by showing that Elohim and Je-
hovah
are here used with a strict regard to their proper
meaning,
so that they do not afford the slightest ground
for
assuming a diversity of writers.
Delitzsch says,
"The
God who bids Abraham sacrifice Isaac is called
(ha-)
Elohim, and the divine manifestation, which pre-
vents
the sacrifice, the angel of Jehovah. He
who de-
mands
from Abraham the surrender of Isaac is God the
creator,
who has power over life and death, and therefore
the
power to take back what he has given.
But Jehovah
in
his angel prevents the execution of it at the last ex-
treme;
for the son of the promise cannot perish without
the
promise of God perishing also, and with it his truth-
fulness
and the realization of his purpose of salvation."
The
Creator is the sovereign Lord of all. He
has the
right
to demand that the dearest and the best shall be
surrendered
to him. It was not that he from nothing
is
or
can be hid, might ascertain the strength of Abraham's
faith,
that this test was imposed upon him, but for Abra-
ham's
own sake, that his faith might be confirmed and
strengthened
by this heroic exercise of it, and that the
latent
power of it might be exhibited to himself and
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 285
others. Would Abraham give up his beloved Isaac at
God's
bidding, the child for whom he had so long hoped
and
waited, the child of promise, and on whom all the
other
promises made to him were suspended?
Would
he
yield him up to God with the same submission with
which
the heathen around him sacrificed their children
to
their cruel deities? But Abraham's God
abhorred
the
bloody sacrifice of the first-born. It
was the spir-
itual
surrender alone that he required. But
that must
be
unambiguously expressed in an outward act, that ad-
mitted
of no pretence and no evasion. It was a
terrible
test,
safe only in a divine hand, capable of intervening,
as
he did intervene, and as it was his purpose from the
first
to intervene, as soon as the spiritual end of the trial
was
accomplished.
And herein lay, as Delitzsch further
observes, "an
eternally
valid divine protest against human sacrifice,"
while
"the ram in the thorn bush, which Abraham offered
instead
of Isaac, is the prototype of the animal sacrifices,
which
are here sanctioned on the same mountain, on
which
the blood of the typical animal sacrifices was to
flow
during the entire period of the Old Testament."
Dillmann's
suggestion, that "the reminiscence here still
plainly
glimmers through that the Hebrews once stood
in
respect to child-sacrifice on a like plane with the other
Shemites
and Canaanites," is a gross and utterly un-
founded
misrepresentation. The lesson of the
narrative
is
precisely the reverse, that while God put Abraham's
faith
and obedience to the severest test, he did not re-
quire
the sacrifice of his child. It was only
in later and
degenerate
ages that such sacrifices were known among
the
Hebrews, being borrowed from the surrounding
heathen
like other idolatrous abominations.
The Elohim of ver. 12 does not invalidate
the explana-
tion
above given of the divine names occurring in this
286 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
passage. As was long since shown by Ewald, Elohim is
here
the proper word. "Both names of God
can be used
with
the word 'fear,' but with the distinction that 'the
fear
of Jehovah' respects Jehovah as opposed to strange
gods
(1 Sam. xii.,24; Ps. cxv. 10,11; cxxxv. 20); while
'the
fear of God' only expresses submission to God or
piety
in general, as 2 Sam. xxiii. 3; Gen. xx. 11.
The
latter
is evidently demanded here, when the angel says
to
Abraham that he is God-fearing and submissive to the
divine
will. The 'fear of Jehovah' would have
implied
that
Abraham had been tempted to idolatry; but it was
only
his steadfast submission to God that was tested."
MARK
S OF E
Dillmann claims that this narrative was not
originally
drawn
up by J, "although in the language there are va-
rious
things (allerlei) that remind of him," but by E, as
shown
by--
1.
"The prevailing use of Elohim or ha-Elohim";
this
is explained above.
2. "The revelation in a vision at
night (ver. 1)"; but
so
also in J. See ch. xx., Marks of E,
No.4.
3. "The call and answer (vs. 1, 7,
11)"; twice besides
in E
(xxxi. 11; xlvi. 2). In all other passages
there is a
great
diversity of critical opinion; xxvii. 1, 18, is by most
critics
referred to J, but by Wellhausen and Dillmann to
E,
simply and solely on account of this very form of
speech,
while the context is assigned to JE as incapable
of separation;
xxxvii. 13 stands in a mixed JE context,
which
Kautzsch cannot unravel, while Wellhausen and
Cornill
cut out the clause containing this "phrase and as-
sign
it to E on this account; Ex. iii. 4b is cut out of a J
context
by Wellhausen on account of this phrase and
given
to E; it is also assigned to E by Dillmann, who
gives
ver. 4a to J.
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 287
4. "The angel calling out of heaven
(ver. 11)." In
one
instance and one only "the angel of Elohim" is said
to
have called out of heaven (xxi. 17)."
The angel of Je-
hovah"
does the same (xxii. 11, 15), which but for criti-
cal
legerdemain belong to J. Angels come
down to earth
in E
(xxviii. 12) and meet Jacob on his way (xxxii. 2, E.
V.
ver. 1); one spoke to him in a dream (xxxi. 11) with-
out
any suggestion of the voice coming out of heaven. It
cannot
be reckoned a peculiarity of E, therefore, that
angels
callout of heaven.
5. " hKo in a local sense (ver. 5)"; so in E
(xxxi. 37;
Num.
xxiii. 15). It occurs besides in this
Sense in two
other
places in the Hexateuch, one of which (Ex. ii. 12) is
referred
to J by Wellhausen, and the other (Num. xi. 31)
by
Kuenen. hKo dfa the same combination as in Gen. xxii.
5,
occurs twice besides in the Hexateuch, in both in-
stances
in a temporal sense; of these Ex. Vii. 16 is re-
ferred
to J by Cornill, and Josh. xvii. 14 by Kuenen.
6. "dyHiyA only, vs. 2, 12"; also ver. 16 R (other
critics
J);
nowhere else in the Hexateuch.
That Isaac is here called Abraham's
"only" son im-
plies
the previous narrative of the dismissal of Ishmael
(xxi.
14 sqq.); the providential disclosure of the ram to
Abraham
(ver. 13) resembles that of the well to Hagar
(xxi.
19); and the return to Beersheba (ver. 19) is based
upon
xxi. 31, 32 (but also ver. 33 J). But
while this nar-
rative
is thus linked with passages ascribed by the critics
to
E, it is no less indissolubly tied to those which are
attributed
to J. This final trial of Abraham's
faith is a
fitting
climax to the series of trials previously recorded
by
J. And vs. 15-18, whose necessary
connection with
the
previous part of the chapter, both in matter and in the
form
of its expressions, has already been exhibited, re-
peats
with special emphasis promises elsewhere ascribed
to
J, preserving both their language and their figurative
288 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
form. "I will bless thee," as xii. 2;
"multiply thy seed
as
the stars of the heaven," as xv. 5; xxvi. 4; "and the
sand
which is upon the sea-shore," as xiii. 16; xxxii. 13
(E.
V. ver. 12); "thy seed shall possess the gate of his
enemies
" as xxiv. 60; "in thy seed shall all the nations
of
the earth be blessed," as xii. 3; "xviii. 18; xxvi. 4;
"because
thou hast obeyed my voice," as xviii. 19;
xxvi.
5.
MARKS OF R
Dillmann repeats Hitzig's objection that
vs. 15-18
cannot
be by E, the reputed author of the previous part
of
the chapter, because this second communication by
the
angel instead of being a continuation of ver. 12 is
added
afterward in a supplementary manner. But
this
carping
criticism betrays a lack of appreciation of a feat-
ure
of the narrative which adds to its beauty and im-
pressiveness
regarded merely from a rhetorical point of
view. There is no reason why the angel might not
speak
twice,
as well as once. It was enough at first
to arrest
the
patriarch's hand and approve his obedience.
The
promise
of Jehovah, attested by a solemn oath, most fitly
concludes
the scene after Abraham had completed his
act
of worship by offering the ram. If this
order had
been
reversed, and the action continued after the angel
had
spoken, attention would have been diverted from
that
which now crowns the whole, and upon which chief
stress
is laid.
It is further charged that--
1. yTif;Baw;ni yBi by myself have I sworn (ver. 16), is a
formula
that belongs to a later time, e.g., Isa. xIv. 23;
Jer.
xxii. 5; xlix. 13. But that God did thus
confirm
his
promise to Abraham by an oath is abundantly at-
tested
(Gen. xxiv. 7; xxvi. 3; 1. 24; Ex. xxxiii. 1;
Num.
SACRIFICE OF ISAAC (CH. XXII. 1-19) 289
xx:xii.
11; Deut. i. 8, etc.). And that this was
an oath
by
himself is expressly affirmed (Ex. xxxii. .13).
An
equivalent
asseveration by his own life is also attributed
to
Jehovah in the Pentateuch (Num. xiv. 21, 28; Deut.
xxxi.
40).
2.
hvhy Mxun; saith Jehovah
(ver. 16), is also said to be a
prophetic
formula of a later period. But the
phrase oc-
curs
again (Num. xiv. 28). And Mxun;
occurs besides
in
the
prophecies of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 3, 4, 15, 16), where
its
antiquity is vouched for by the obvious imitations in
2
Sam. xxiii. 1; Prov. xxx. 1.
3. rw,xE Nfaya because (ver. 16); besides in the Hexateuch
Deut.
i. 36; Josh. xiv. 14. Nfaya occurs also Num. xi. 20 J;
Lev.
xxvi. 43 J worked over (so Dillmann); and Num.
xx.
12, which Wellhausen assigns to P, and Dillmann also
to
P, except only the clause containing this word, which
he
refers to R.
4. rw,xE bq,fe because (ver. 18); but once besides in the
Hexateuch
xxvi. 5. bq,fe occurs also Num. xiv. 24; Deut.
vii.
12; viii. 20. The employment of these
unusual con-
junctions,
as of the emphatic absolute infinitives in
ver.
17, is due, as Dillmann correctly observes, to the
solemn
and impressive character of this angelic utter-
ance.
5. j`reBAt;hi bless one's self, i. e., seek and obtain a blessing
(ver.
18). This reflexive form of the verb
occur's twice
in
the promise of a blessing upon all nations through
Abraham
and his seed, viz., here and xxvi. 4; the passive
form
j`rab;ni
be blessed, is used instead three times, viz.,
xii.
3; xviii. 18; xxviii. 14. The sense is
substantially
the
same. j`rab;ni is found nowhere else in
the Old Testa-
ment. j`reBAt;hi occurs besides, Deut. xxix. 18 (E. V. ver.
19);
Ps. lxxii. 17; Isa. lxv. 16; Jer. iv.2.
There is noth-
ing
to indicate that one form is of later origin than the
other.
290 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
NO PROOF OF SEPARATE DOCUMENTS
The diction of these verses cannot prove
them to be of
later
date than the rest of the chapter. There
is no oc-
casion,
therefore, to call in the aid of R in their produc-
tion. And neither in this chapter nor in those that
pre-
cede
is there any just ground for assuming the existence
of a
writer E, distinct from J. Their diction
is indistin-
guishable. The divine names are used discriminatingly
throughout,
and afford no criterion of diverse authorship.
And the attempt to establish a
distinctive diction for
P
cannot be called successful. Of all the
so-called char-
acteristic
P words and phrases of the creation and flood
Elohim
is almost the only one that occurs henceforth in
P
paragraphs in Genesis. There is not a
word in the
entire
section of the Generations of Terah, which the
critics
regard as peculiar to P, that is found in antece-
dent
chapters with the exception of a very few expressions
in
ch. xvii., and these are chiefly due to the fact that
God's
covenant with Abraham naturally calls for the use
of
the same terms as his covenant with Noah.
And those
which
are ascribed to P in this section either do not re-
appear
in Genesis, or are found as well in J and E with
rare
exceptions, which contain their explanation in them-
selves. It has been previously shown that the
differences
existing
between the Elohist and Jehovist paragraphs in
the
ante-patriarchal portion of Genesis are not such as to
imply
distinct authors, but are readily explicable from the
1 In addition to the proofs already given
that the alleged diversities
are
not really such, note the following coincidences between what is
ascribed
to E in this chapter and what is referred to J elsewhere.
hsn
(ver. 1) as Ex. xvi. 4; xn (ver. 2) as xii. 13; xviii. 30; jl jl (ver.
2)
as xii. 1; jylx
rmx rwx
(ver. 2) as xxvi 2, cf. xii. 1; rqbb
Mykwh
(ver.
3) as xix. 27.
FAMILY OF NAHOR (CH. XXII. 20-24)
291
matter
of these paragraphs respectively, and from the spe-
cial
meaning and usage of the divine names Elohim and
Jehovah. The same thing is yet more emphatically true
of
that portion of Genesis which we are now considering.
The
difference of diction that is here alleged between P
and
J is wholly factitious, being created by two features
of
the critical partition, viz. the scanty fragments of the
narrative
attributed to P, and the peculiar character of
the
only two paragraphs of any length (chs. xvii. and
xxiii.)
which are accorded to him. As only
diminutive
portions
of the narrative are awarded to P, it is not to
be
expected that these will contain the full vocabulary
of
the bulk of the narratives, which is shared between
the
other documents. That numerous words and
phrases
occur
in J and E, which are not to be found in P, thus
arises
out of the inequality in the apportionment.
And
when
to the difference in quantity is added the difference
in
the nature of the material assigned to P on the one
hand,
and to J and E on the other, all the diversity of
diction
is fully accounted for. And the entire
critical
superstructure
of separate documents which has been
built
upon it crumbles into nothing.
It may at least be safely affirmed that
no evidence of
the
existence of such documents has been brought to
light
in that part of Genesis which has thus far been
considered. And this is the portion of the book in which
the
divisive hypothesis has been supposed to be most
strongly
entrenched. It must find its
justification here,
if
it can do so anywhere.
FAMILY OF NAHOR (CH. XXII. 20-24)
Tuch, Noldeke, and Knobel refer these
verses, which
contain
a list of the children of Nahor, to P; Wellhausen
gives
them to E; Hupfeld and Dillmann to J, which last
292 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
is
now the current critical opinion. The
determining
consideration
is that the mention of Rebekah, the
only
daughter named of any of the twelve sons (ver. 23),
is
evidently designed to prepare the way for the narra-
tive
of Isaac's marriage in ch. xxiv., which is assigned to
J. Only those women have a place in the
genealogies,
of
whom there is occasion to speak in the subsequent his-
tory. And xxii. 23 is distinctly referred to in
xxiv. 15,
24. Accordingly, the E phrase at the beginning,
"and it
came
to pass after these things," as xxii. 1 ; xl. 1; xlviii.
1,
is either quietly ignored, as by Dillmann, or attributed
to
R,_as by Kautzsch. The diffuseness shown
in the
repetition
(ver. 23b) of what had already been stated
(ver.
20b), which is elsewhere reckoned a characteristic
of
P, is also ignored. The assertion that P
would have
prefixed
the title, "These are the generations of Nahor,"
overlooks
the fact that Nahor, like Abraham, belonged to
the
family of Terah, and all that appertained to both fell
properly
under the "Generations of Terah."
The men-
tion
of Milcah (ver. 20), refers back to xi. 29, where her
marriage
to Nahor is stated in preparation for this very
passage. It is this which compelled the critics to
claim
xi.
29 for J, thus sundering it from xi. 27 P, to which it
is
indissolubly bound.
MARKS
OF J
1. dlayA begat (ver. 23). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P, No.
20.
2. wb,l,yPi concubine (ver. 24) ; besides in the Hexateuch
xxv.
6; xxxv. 22a; xxxvi. 12; and in each instance at-
ttributed
to R.
3. xvhi MGa she also (vs. 20, 24); in J, besides, iv. 4, 26;
x.
21; xxvii. 31; xxxviii. 10, 11; xlviii. 19; in E xxxii.
19
(E. V. ver. 18). MGa
does not chance
to occur with this
DEATH
AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 293
particular
pronoun in the passages assigned to P, but it
is
used in the same manner with: other personal pronouns
(Ex.
vi. 5; vii. 11 ; Num. xviii. 3, 28 P).
See under ch.
x.,
page 137.
4. h.mAw;U
and her name, i.e., whose name was (ver. 24),
claimed
by Wellhausen, but not by Dillmann, as a crite-
rion
of J; besides, in J, xvi. 1b; xxiv. 29; xxv. 1;
xxxviii.
1, 2, 6; in JE, Josh. ii. 1. This is the
uniform
way
throughout the historical books of the Old Testa-
ment
of introducing the name of a person who has just
been
mentioned, and cannot be regarded as peculiar to
anyone
writer.
That precisely twelve sons of Nahor are
here enumer-
ated,
''as of Ishmael, Israel, and Edom," as is correctly
explained
by Dillmann, "does not rest upon a transfer of
Israelitish
relations to those of kindred stock (so Knobel),
nor
upon the mere systematizing of the writer (so Nol-
deke),
but upon the usages of these peoples," which were
in
point of fact severally divided into just twelve tribes.
In regard to the alleged variant descent
of Aram and
Uz
(ver. 21, cf. x. 22, 23), see under ch. x. pp. 137-139.
DEATH AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.)
The land of Canaan had been promised. to
Abraham
and
his seed for their permanent possession, xii. 7; xiii.
15 ;
xv. 18; xvii. 8; but he had now for more than sixty
years
been a wanderer and a sojourner, with no absolute
ownership
of any portion of the soil. Hence the
stress
laid
in this chapter upon the purchase of the field and
cave
of Machpelah, the first spot of ground to which he
obtained
a legal title. The transaction was
conducted
with
punctilious regard to all the necessary formalities,
and
these are recited in detail; all which evidences not
the
diffuse style of a particular writer P, but the impor-
294 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
tance
which was attached to the rights thus conveyed.
The
securing of this burial-place was properly regarded
as a
first instalment and a pledge of the final fulfilment
of
the divine promise, and as indicative of Abraham's
implicit
faith in that promise. The subsequent
refer-
ences
to it are also made with a formality and a studied
repetition
of the language here employed, which show
how
significant it was held ~o be, and how it both nur-
tured
and served to give expression to the faith of the
patriarchs,
and particularly of Jacob, after he had re-
moved
to Egypt (xxv. 9, 10; xlix. 29-32; 1. 13).
For
the
same reason it is twice emphatically repeated in ch.
xxiii.
that this was "in the land of Canaan" (vs. 2, 19).
And,
as Havernick suggests, the consequence attributed
in
these various passages to the possession of a burial-
place
implies that the record was made prior to the ac-
tual
occupation of Canaan by the Israelites, after which
it
ceased to be of special interest, and is never again re-
ferred
to.
Noldeke imagines a discrepancy with Gen.
xxxiii. 19,
Josh.
xxiv. 32 E, according to which passages "Jacob
makes
the first acquisition of land at Shechem by pur-
chase." The discrepancy is a sheer creation of the
critic.
Although
Jacob's purchase was sufficiently memorable
to
be deemed worthy of special record, there is no inti-
mation
that it was the first territorial acquisition of the
patriarchs.
Eichhorn1 remarks upon this
transaction: "In Meso-
potamia,
where no Canaanites traded, gold and silver
were
still rare in Jacob's time; everything was acquired
by
exchange, and Jacob gives twenty years of service as
a
herdsman in exchange for two wives, servants, maid-
servants,
and flocks. On the other hand, in
Canaan, in
the
neighborhood of the Phoenicians, who had in their
1 Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, 3d edit., 1803, vol. ii., p. 373.
DEATH
AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 295
hands
the trade of the world, barter was no longer in
vogue
in the time of Abraham, but silver was
used as
pretium
eminens,
not, however, in coins of different de-
nominations,
but by weight (ver. 16). Yet in Jacob's
time
the Phoenicians probably had rude coins (xxxiii. 19).
. .
. Abraham buys the cave of Machpelah in the
presence
of witnesses, and counts upon remaining in un-
disturbed
possession of the field, just as in Homer the
Greeks
and Trojans count assuredly upon the fulfilment
of
the treaty which has been concluded, because both
armies
were present at the oral agreement."
"Abraham came to mourn for
Sarah" (ver. 2), should
perhaps
be rendered "went in" to her tent (cf. xviii.
6). Some, however, understand it to mean that he
came
from
Beersheba, and find here a link of connection with
xxii.
19, and suppose in ver. 4, "a sojourner," an allu-
sion
to xxi. 34, "he sojourned in the land of the Phil-
istines."
The single occurrence of Elohim in ch.
xxiii. (ver. 6),
in
the mouth of the children of Heth is so entirely in
accordance
with Hebrew usage that no individual pecu-
liarity
of a particular writer can be inferred from it.
Chs. xvii. and xxiii. severally relate to
the two chief
promises
made to Abraham, and from time to time re-
peated,
viz., his future seed and the land of Canaan.
One
records
the ordaining of circumcision; the other the ac-
quisition
of the first possession in the land.
Both are
thoroughly
germane to the entire history, and give no
indication
of being interpolated additions. The stress
laid
upon each, and the legal precision natural in insti-
tuting
the rite and in describing the deed of purchase
give
to these chapters an appearance of formal repetition,
which
does not belong to such portions of ordinary nar-
rative
as are ascribed to P. This peculiar
material re-
quires,
of course, a fitting style and diction, and sufficiently
296 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
accounts
for any divergence in this respect from other
paragraphs.l
MARKS OF P
1.
"The chronological statement" (ver. 1). See ch.
xvi.,
Marks of P, No.1.
2.
"The aim of the narrative, the juristic punctilious-
ness
and formality of the record." It
has been shown
that
the narrative is closely related to the antecedent his-
tory,
and is precisely in line with the promises to Abra-
ham,
which are the burden of the whole; also that the
minute
exactness of the record corresponds with the
character
of the transaction. It does not appear
why
the
same historian, who describes other events in the life
of
Abraham, cannot include this likewise in his narra-
tive,
and in doing so cannot adapt his style to the nature
of
the subject.
3.
"Children of Heth" (vs. 3, etc.). This is an obvi-
ous
reference to x. 15 J, where the tribe or tribal ances-
tor
is called Heth.
4. "Machpelah" (vs. 9, 17, 19),
only mentioned else-
where
as the burial-place of patriarchs and with explicit
reference
to this passage (xxv. 9; xlix. 30; 1. 13).
Since
all
the passages in which this cave is spoken of are re-
ferred
to P, there is no opportunity for this world to oc-
cur
in J or E.
5. yy.eH ynew; years of the life of (ver. 1); as this phrase
is
only used when stating the age of a person, and such
passages
are by rule referred to P, it cannot be expected
in J
or E.
1
Observe how even Wellhausen (Compo d. Hex., p. 168), in con-
tending
that Lev. xxvi. is by the author of chs. xvii.-xxv., insists that
"the
differences of language are sufficiently explained by the distinct
character
of the material; hitherto laws in dry style suited to the sub-
ject,
now prophecy in poetic and impassioned discourse."
DEATH
AND BURIAL OF SARAH (CH. XXIII.) 297
6. hz.AHuxE possession (vs. 4, 9, 20). See ch. xvii., Marks
of
P, No.7.
7. bwAOT
sojourner (ver. 4); nowhere else in Genesis.
Only
besides in legal sections (Ex. rii. 45 ; Lev. xxii. 10 ;
xxv.
6, 23, 35, 40, 45, 47; Num. xxxv. 15), and, therefore,
necessarily
limited to the document to which such sec-
tions
are given.
8. xyWinA
prince (ver. 6). See ch. xvii., Marks of P, No.
11.
9. MUq
be made sure (vs. 17, 20~; so in P (Lev. xxv. 30;
xxvii.
14, 17, 19; Num. xxx. 5-13, E. V., ys.4-12).
The
word
is here used in the legal sense of a contract, deci-
sion,
or vow, standing, i.e., enduring or being valid. This
particular
application of the word can only be expected
where
the legal validity of such arrangements is spoken
of. It is, however, substantially the same sense
as in
Josh.
ii. 11 JE, remain; vii. 12, 13 J, stand firm; and in
the
causative form, ratify or establish (Gen. xxvi. 3 R
(Dillmann)
or J (other critics); Lev. xxvi. 9 J (so Dill-
mann);
Num. xxiii. 19 E).
10.
lx, fmaWA hearken unto (ver. 16) ; so in J (xvi. 11;
xxxix.
10; xlix. 2) ; in E(xxi. 17; xxx. 17).
11.
hnAq;mi possession (ver. 18). See ch. xvii., Marks of
P,
No.9.
12.
NfanaK; Cr,x, land of Canaan
(vs. 2, 19). See ch. xii. 5,
Marks
of P, No.4. Great stress is laid upon
the fact
that
it was in the land of Canaan that Sarah died and
was
buried, and that the spot purchased by Abraham and
formally
deeded to him was in that land.
13. "Back references to what is
related here in xxv. 9,
10;
xlix. 29 sqq.; 1. 13." These are
freely admitted and
are
proofs of a close relation between those passages and
this
chapter, but do not imply that they belong to a dif-
ferent
document from other intervening passages.
It will be observed how little there is
that is distinc-
298 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
tive
in the diction of ch. xxiii. to connect it with other P
sections
in Genesis.
MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.)
In xxv. 20 P alludes to Isaac's marriage
to Rebekah,
daughter
of Bethuel and sister of Laban, in a manner im-
plying
previous mention of these parties and of this
event. Precisely the account thus called for is to
be
found
in ch. xxiv. and the preliminary genealogy (xxii.
20-24),
both which, however, the critics assign to J.
This
makes it necessary for them to assume that a similar
narrative
was contained in P, but R has thought proper
to
omit it. It is easy to make conjectural
assumptions
with
the view of evading or explaining away facts at va-
riance'
with the divisive hypothesis; only it should be
borne
in mind that these assumptions lend no support to
the
hypothesis. They are simply inferences
based upon
the
hypothesis. And the necessity of
multiplying such
assumptions
betrays the weakness of the cause that re-
quires
them.
J has Aram-naharaim once only (x:riv.
10), while P
has
Paddan-aram (xxv. 20 and elsewhere); but apart
from
the fact that these names may not be precise
equivalents,
as Dillmann admits, this is no more a rea-
son
for suspecting diversity of authorship than when J
uses
two different designations of the same place:1 xxiv.
1 It would argue no diversity of writers
if, in an account of the land-
ing
of the pilgrims, we should read upon one page that they reached
the
coast of America, and on the next that they disembarked in New
England. In the first mention of the region the more
general term
Aram-naharaim
is employed, but ever after Paddan-aram, as indicating
more
precisely where Haran lay; and Haran Occurs in P (xi. 31; xii. 5)
as
well as in J and E. "Haran is a
town situated in Paddan-aram;
but
a nomad rarely lives shut up in a town.
The whole land is his,
and
he and his flocks traverse it far and wide.
The names of the town
MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 299
10,
"city of Nahor," and xxvii. 43, "Haran;" or uses
hfAUbw; for
oath,
xxiv. 8, but hlAxA, ver. 41.
Nor can any
significance
be attached to the circumstance that J says
"daughters
of the Canaanites" (xxiv. 3, 37), and P,
"daughters
of Canaan" (xxviii. 1, 6, 8; xxxvi. 2), inas-
much
as J himself varies the expression again (xxxiv. 1)
to
"daughters of the land." And
according to Well-
hausen
P calls the same persons "daughters of Hittites"
(xxvi.
34), and "daughters of Heth" (xxvii. 46). On the
other
hand, it is observable as one of the numberless in-
dications
of unity that the same care to avoid intermar-
riages
with the Canaanites is shown in ch. xxiv. as in
xxviii.
1-9, which the critics on this very ground assign
to a
different document.
Verse 67 alludes to Sarah's death, recorded
in ch. xxiii.
P. But as on critical principles one document
cannot
refer
to what is contained in another, Dillmann erases
the
mention of Sarah here as a later gloss.
The allega-
tion
that the words "his mother Sarah," in the first
clause
of this verse, are inadmissible in Hebrew con-
struction
is refuted by numerous examples of the same
sort,
e.g., Gen. xrn. 13 ; Josh. iii. 11; J udg. viii. 11; xvi.
14;
and if they were, this would not affect the reading
in
the last clause of the verse.
Wellhausen, more bravely
still,
proposes to substitute "father" for "mother," as
and
of the land can accordingly be interchanged without indicating a
difference
of style'. But Genesis itself distinguishes yet more narrowly
between
these names. When Jacob goes from home,
he always goes to
Haran,
because he expects to find the family residing in the town
(xxvii
43; xxviii. 10). And when he comes
before the gates of the
town
(xxix. 4), and asks those who come out, is he not compelled to ask
for
Haran? It is true that the name of the
laud to which Jacob is go-
ing
also occurs (xxviii. 2, 5, 6, 7), but only in contrast with the land of
Ishmael
(ver. 9). But when Jacob journeys back
again to Canaan he
always
leaves, not Haran, but Paddan-aram; for he takes his flight, not
from
the town, but from the land, where he was pasturing the flocks
far
and wide."--Ewald, Komp. d. Gen., pp. 109, 110.
300 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
the
last word of ver. 67. He tells us that Abraham must
have
died before the servant's return, only R has omitted
the
account of his death. And thus by the
clever device
of
reconstructing the text a twofold advantage is gained.
A
troublesome allusion is escaped and a flat contradic-
tion
created between J and P, for according to the latter
(xxv.
7, 20) Abraham lived thirty-five years after Isaac's
marriage. Kautzsch is not content with this simple
emendation,
but undertakes to correct the narrative
more
at large upon the basis suggested by Wellhausen.
He
tells us that after ver. 61a there followed the an-
nouncement
that the servant on his return found Abra-
ham
dead; and consequently, ver. 61a, "the servant took
Rebekah
and went his way (ver. 62), in the land of the
South,
and came to Isaac; for he dwelt in the wilderness
of
Beer-lahai-roi." There is, he
assures us, but one other
possibility,
viz., that ver. 62 may have read, "Isaac
was
come" from the wilderness of Beer-lahai-roi to the
burial
of Abraham." One thing is evident,
if the critics
are
right the text is wrong; but if the text is right, how
is
it with the critics?
In ver. 61 Knobel fancies that the second
clause does
not
naturally follow the first, and that this indicates two
blended
accounts. And as the servant brings
Rebekah,
not
to Abraham, who had sent him, but to Isaac, and calls
Isaac
his master (ver. 65), instead of his master's son, as
vs.
44, 48, 51, the inference is drawn that in the older
narrative,
of which there is a fragment in vs. 61-6.7, it
was
Isaac, not Abraham, who deputed the servant upon
his
errand. And in his opinion this
discovery is cor-
roborated
by some "very peculiar expressions" in these
verses,
of which other critics who have no end to be
answered
by them take no note. It surely is not
strange
that
a bride should be taken at once to her husband;
nor
that the servant should call Isaac his master, since
MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 301
he
was Abraham's heir, now in mature age, and in
charge
of all his father's possessions, especially when
speaking
to Rebekah. It was equally natural,
when,
treating
with her father and brother in the name of
Isaac's
father, that he should speak, of Isaac as his mas-
ter's
son.
In his first edition Dillmann accepted
Knobel's dis-
covery
of a variant account of the mission of the servant,
and
attributed vs. 62-67 to E. But in
subsequent edi-
tions
he discarded it in favor of Hupfeld's ("Quellen," p.
145)
and Wellhausen's version of the story, that Abra-
ham
was at the point of death when he sent the servant,
and
actually died before the servant's return.
In con-
formity
with this it, is assumed that in J xxv. 1-6, l1b
preceded
ch. xxiv.; in defence of which it is urged that
the
statement by the servant (ver. 36), that Abraham had
given
all that he had unto Isaac is based upon xxv. 5,
and
Isaac's dwelling at Beer-lahai-roi (xxv. l1b) is pre-
supposed
in xxiv. 62. But the servant might state
a
fact
from his own knowledge, which there had been no
suitable
occasion to mention as yet in the course of the
history. And the sacred historian makes no formal
mention
of the dwelling-place of Isaac until he has re-
corded
the death of Abraham (xxv. 8, 11), precisely as
he
records the death of Isaac (xxxv. 29) before the like
formal
mention of the abode of Esau (xxxvi. 6) and of
Jacob
(xxxvii. 1). The critics say that R
transposed
xxv.
1-6, l1b, from its original position in order to re-
move
the conflict between J and P as to the time of
Abraham's
death. The fact is that the critics
arbitrarily,
assume
this transposition, and fix the time of Abraham's
death
at their own liking for the mere purpose of creat-
ing
a variance between ch. xxiv. and ch. xxv. which does
not
really exist, and thence deducing an argument for dis-
tinct
documents. It certainly does not
prepossess one
302 THE GENERATIONS 0F TERAH
in
favor of a cause that it should be necessary to resort
to
such measures in its support.
Knobel imagines that he detects a
discrepancy of
another
sort between J and P, in relation, not to the
time
of Abraham's death, but that of Sarah.
According
to
J, or the older narrative which he here follows, Isaac
was
comforted after his mother's death by his marriage
with
Rebekah (ver. 67). But "according
to P he was,
thirty-six
or thirty-seven years old when Sarah died (xvii.
17;
xxi. 5; xxiii. 1), and forty when he was married (xxv.
20). He must, therefore, have mourned about four
years. But thirty and seventy days were prolonged
terms
of mourning (1. 3; Num. xx. 29; Deut. xxi. 13;
xxxiv.
8). J, therefore, put Sarah's death
later, or
Isaac's
marriage earlier than P." As if the
duration of
the
grief of a loving son for the loss of his mother was
to
be measured by customary social formalities.
Dillmann scents a doublet in ver. 29b, cf.
30b, but as
he
can make no use of it, he lets it pass, only insisting
that
29b has been transposed from its original position
after
30a. But there is no textual error, and
there has
been
no transposition. These verses simply
illustrate
the
in artificial style of Hebrew narrative.
The general
statement
is made first, 29b, that Laban ran out unto
the
man unto the well; further particulars are added
afterward
(ver. 30), it was when he saw the ring and
bracelets
that had been given his sister and heard her
words
that he came out and found the man standing by
the
well. Or one aspect of a transaction is
stated first,
and
then followed by another; first (61a) what Rebekah
did,
she and her damsels followed the man; then (61b)
what
the servant did, he took Rebekah and went his
way. Such seeming repetitions abound in the
historical
writings
of the Old Testament.1 And
they afford an op-
1
See xxii. 3b, 4; xxvi. 1b 6; xxviii. 5, 10, xxix. 1; Ex. iv. 20, gen.
MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.) 303
portunity,
of which the critics avail themselves in nu-
merous
instances in constructing their imaginary dupli-
cate
narratives. The general statement is set
over
against
the detailed particulars, or one partial statement
over
against the other, as though each had an indepen-
dent
origin.
The repetitions of the chapter should
also be noted;
vs.
37-41 repeat vs. 3-8 almost verbatim; compare also
vs.
42-44 with vs. 12-14; vs. 45, 46, with vs. 15-20; vs.
47,
48, with vs. 23-27. J here exceeds the
repetitious-
ness
elsewhere reckoned a peculiarity of P.
Such repe-
titions
are also seized upon, where they can be made
available,
as evidences of duplicate narratives.
Thus,
when
Moses reports to the people (Ex. ch. xii., xiii.) the
directions
given him respecting the passover, the feast of
unleavened
bread, and the hallowing of the first-born, as
the
servant here repeats to Bethuel and Laban the charge
received
from Abraham, and the incidents which had
been
before related, the critics find material for two doc-
uments
by giving to one what the LORD says to Moses,
and
to the other what Moses in consequence says to the
people.
As it is the God of Abraham that is
throughout spo-
ken
of, Jehovah is appropriately used in this chapter.
It
is by Jehovah that Abraham requires his servant to
swear
that he will not take a Canaanitish wife for Isaac
(ver.
3). It is to the guidance of Jehovah
that he com-
mits
his servant on his important errand (ver. 7).
It is
Jehovah,
the God of his master Abraham, whom the ser-
vant
invokes (ver. 12), and whom he recognizes as hav-
ing
made his journey prosperous (vs. 21, 26, 27, etc.), so
eral
statement; 21-29, particulars of the journey; 2 Sam. vi. 12b, 13-
17;
1 Kin. vi. 14, general statement; vs. 15-36, details pf the construc-
tion;
2 Chron; xxiv. 10, 11; similar illustrations may be found in the
New
Testament, e.g., Acts vii. 58a, 59.
304 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
that
Laban, to whom Rebekah had made report, at once
addressed
him as "the blessed of Jehovah;" and when
the
servant had given his account of the whole matter,
Laban
and Bethuel1 acknowledged "the thing proceedeth
from
Jehovah" (vs. 50, 51). In
recognition of Jehovah's
supreme
control Abraham adds the epithet (vs. 3, 7),
"the
God of heaven," an expression only found besides
in
postexilic writings (2 Chron. xxxvi. 23; Ezr. i. 2; Neh.
i.
4, 5; ii. 4, 20), with the single exception of Jon. i. 9,
which
some critics would not count an exception.
If
this
had chanced to occur in P, it would have been
urged
in proof of the late origin of that document.
But
as
it is in J it is quietly ignored, which is an indication
of
the little weight that critics themselves attribute to
considerations
of this nature, unless they have some end
to
answer by them.
MARKS OF J
It is said that J is here distinguished
from E by his
not
naming Abraham's chief servant, whom E calls Eli-
ezer
(xv. 2), nor Rebekah's nurse (ver. 59), whom E calls
Deborah
(xxxv. 8), and makes her come to Canaan with
Jacob
at a much later time. But this mark of
distinc-
tion
is precisely reversed in the case of Ishmael, whom J
names
(xvi. 11), and E does not (xxi. 9-21).
It is also
nullified
by the fact that neither J nor E act uniformly
in
this respect in relation to the same persons.
J gives
the
names of Moses's wife and son (Ex. ii. 21, 22), but in
1 Kautzsch proposes to expunge "Bethuel" from the text in
ver. 50,
because
he is not also mentioned in ver. 53. But
upon this Knobel
remarks: "Rebekah's brother Laban takes part in
the decision (Dill-
mann
adds; 'and even the first part'). He was
entitled to do so by the
custom
of brothers assuming the charge of their sister (xxxiv. 5, 11, 25;
Judg.
xxi. 22; 2 Sam. xiii. 22)."
MARRIAGE OF ISAAC (CH. XXIV.)
305
iv.
20 does not. E does not name Moses's
sister, ii. 4,
but
does, Num. xii. 1; he gives the name of Moses's wife
and
sons (xviii. 2-4), but does not name the son (iv. 25),
nor
the wife (Num. xii. 1), provided Zipporah is there
meant. And Gen. xxxv. 8 speaks of the death of Debo-
rah,
but gives no intimation how or when she came to
Canaan. This cannot, therefore, be accepted as a cri-
terion
of distinct documents.
When it is said that the high art shown in
the recital
points
to the narrator of ch. xviii., xix., and the lofty con-
ception
of marriage to the author of ii. 23 sqq., no objec-
tion
need be made, unless it is implied that this narra-
tor
could not adapt his style to subjects requiring legal
precision,
nor record genealogies, dates, and the like; or
that
lower views of marriage are expressed elsewhere in
this
book.
The following words and expressions are
adduced as ! indicative of J:
1. The angel of Jehovah (vs. 7,
40). See ch. xvi.,
Marks
of J, No.1.
2. The servant of Jehovah (ver.
14). This expression,
wherever
it occurs in the Hexateuch, is by Dillmann re-
ferred
to J, D, or Rd, even where the verse in which it
occurs
is attributed to E, as Num. xii. 7,8; xiv. 24; Josh.
xiv.
7; xxiv. 29. It occurs in P Lev. xxv.
42, 55.
3. Aram-naharaim
(ver. 10). Explained above, p. 298.
4. Daughters
of the Canaanites (ver. 3).
Explained
above,
p. 299.
5. Mymiy.Aba
xBA advanced
in days
(ver. 1). See ch. xviii.,
xix.,
Marks of J, No. 32.
6. tm,xEv,
ds,H, kindness
and truth
(vs.. 27, 49); occurs be-
sides
in the Hexateuch xxxii. 11 (E. V., ver. 10); xlvii.
29;
Ex. xxxiv. 6; Josh. ii. 14 J.
7. ds,H,
hWAfA show
kindness
(vs. 12, 14, 49). See ch.
xviii.,
xix., Marks of J, No. 29.
306 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
8. ylaUx
peradventure (vs. 5, 39). See ch. xvi., Marks
of
J, No. 12.
9. qra
only (ver.
8). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 7.
10.
xnA I
pray thee (vs. 2, 12, 14, 17, 23, 42, 43, 45).
See
ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No.3.
11.
wye with
a suffix (vs. 42, 49). This particle
occurs
with
a suffix but three times besides in the Hexateuch,
viz.,
xliii. 4 J; and twice in Deuteronomy, Deut. xiii. 4;
xxix.
14.
12.
txraq;li CUr run to meet
(ver. 17). See ch. xviii., xix.,
Marks
of J, No. 16, ch. xxix., xxx., No.2.
13.
hx,r;ma tbaFo fair to look upon (ver. 16); but once be-
sides
in the Hexateuch, xxvi. 7 J. See ch. vi.
1-8, Marks
of
J, No.5. In xii. 11 a different
phrase hx,r;ma tpay; is
used
to express the same idea; but no critic thinks of
referring
it to a different document in consequence.
14.
fdayA know (euphemism) (ver. 16). In J iv. 1,17, 25;
xix.
8; xxxviii. 26; in P Num. xxxi. 17, 18, 35; all in
the
Hexateuch.
15.
hrAq;hi send
good speed
(ver. 12); only twice besides
in
the Hexateuch, viz., in J xxvii. 20; in P Num. xxxv. 11.
16.
Haylic;hi make prosperous (vs. 21, 40, 42, 56); be-
sides
in the Hexateuch xxxix. 2, 3, 23 J (E and R
Kautzsch);
Josh. i. 8 D.
17.
OBli-lx, rB,Di speak in his heart (ver. 45); but once be-
sides
in the Hexateuch in this sense, viii. 21 J; with a
different
preposition B; xxvii~
41, referred to J solely on
account
of this phrase; xvii. 17 P; Deut. vii. 17; viii.
17;
ix. 4; xviii. 21 D. :! ,:'
18.
xneW hating (for byexo enemy) (ver. 60); besides in E
Ex.
i. 10; xXiii. 5; several times in D; but not in J ex-
cept
Lev. xxvi. 17, which Dillmann is alone in referring,
to
that document.
19. rfawa-tx, wrayA possess the gatge (ver. 60); but once be-
sides
in the Hexateuch xxii. 17 R
CONCLUSION
OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (XXV. 1-11) 307
20. hvAHETaw;hiv; bow the head and worship (vs. 26, 48);
five
times besides in the Hexateuch; all referred to J.
21. hcAr;xa hvAHETaw;hi bow himself to the earth (ver. 52).
See
ch. xviii., xix., Marks ofJ, No. 27.
Here, as elsewhere, such words as occur
with any fre-
quency
are found in E as well as in J; several of them
likewise
in P, notwithstanding the small amount of nar-
rative
which is assigned to this document.
CONCLUSION OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (CH. xxv. 1-11)
The divisive critics unanimously refer vs.
7-11a to P
but
there is no unanimity among them in regard to the
disposition
to be made of the other verses of this section.
They
are not agreed whether vs. 1-4, which record the
sons
of Keturah, belong to P, J, or E. Astruc
was at
least
consistent in referring all genealogies of nations and
tribes
outside of the chosen race to a document or docu-
ments
distinct from P and J. Noldeke is
equally con-
sistent
in ascribing all the genealogies in Genesis to P,
and
finding some remarkable numerical correspondences,
which
tend to confirm his view. But there is
no consist-
ency
in referring Keturah's descendants to one document
(J
or E) and Ishmael's to another (P), though they are
combined
together and a common disposition made of
both
in ver. 6. The various genealogies of
this book are
inserted
upon a uniform plan, which binds them all to-
gether,
and shows that they must all be attributed to the
same
source. In addition to the direct line
which is
traced
from Adam to the twelve sons of Jacob, the heads
respectively
of the several tribes of Israel, all the lateral
lines
of descent are introduced, each in its proper place,
and
then dropped, thus indicating at once their relation
to,
and their separateness from, the chosen race.
"And Abraham took another wife"
(lit., added and
308 THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH
took
a wife, ver. 1) contains an implied
reference to
Sarah's
death, alluded to in the immediate]y preceding
verse
(xxiv. 67), and recorded in ch. xxiii. P.
Dillmann
would
be inclined to refer this verse to the author of ch.
xxiii.,
were it not that P nowhere else uses the word
"added."
But as that is the customary way of
saying
in
Hebrew that a person did again what he had done be-
fore,
it is difficult to see why any Hebrew writer might
not
use the word if he had occasion.
As Abraham reached the age of one hundred
and sev-
enty-five
(ver. 7), there is no difficulty in his marriage
with
Keturah standing where it does, after the death of
Sarah
and the marriage of Isaac. The critics,
who Sun-
der
P from J and E, and insist that the narratives of the
latter
have no connection with the chronology of the
former,
seek a discrepancy here, and claim that in JE
the
marriage with Keturah must have preceded the birth
of
Isaac. But the advanced age of Abraham
and Sarah,
in
consequence of which offspring could not be expected
in the
ordinary course of nature, is as plain in P (xvii.
17)
as in JE (xviii. 11-14; xxi. 7). But the
promise
(xvii.
4-6) that Abraham should be exceedingly fruitful
and
the father of many nations, looks beyond the birth
of
Isaac, and finds its fulfilment in other descendants as
well. This, like most other alleged discrepancies,
is
found
not in the text itself, but in arbitrary critical as-
sumptions.
The supplementary critics, who conceived
of J as en-
larging
P by additions of his own, had no difficulty in
letting
P have xxv. 5, though xxiv.36b was J's.
But if
J is
an independent document, the identity of the verses
makes
it necessary to attribute both to the same source,
and
xxv. 5 must belong to J. This statement
that
"Abraham
gave all that he had unto Isaac," would seem
to
carry with it the counter-statement of what became of
CONCLUSION
OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (XXV. 1-11) 309
his
other children. So Dillmann argued in
the first and
second
editions of his "Genesis," and referred ver. 6 to
J
likewise. And if J spoke in this verse
of Abraham's
"concubines,"
he must have given an account of Keturah
as
well as of Hagar, and accordingly have been the
author
of vs. 1-4. But on the other hand, ver.
1 calls her
a
"wife," and ver. 6 a " concubine;" to prevent this im-
aginary
conflict he first assumed that vs. 1-4 was from P,
but
worked over by R into conformity with J; then that
it
was impossible to decide from which source vs. 1-4
was
taken; and finally, in his third edition, he gives ver.
6 to
R, and vs. 1-4 to E, though why E should be so
interested
in this particular genealogy, when he gives no
other,
is not clear. This looks like a shift to
get rid of
a
troublesome paragraph, which is assigned to E, not be-
cause
of any particular affinity with that document, but
it
must go somewhere, and there seems to be no other pla-
ce
to put it. Keturah is called a wife just
as Hagar
is
(xvi. 3), without at all designing to put either of them
on a
par with Sarah; so that there is no inconsistency in
their
being likewise called concubines, and no need of
assuming
a different writer on this account. Ver.
11 is
of
necessity assigned to P; but its last clause speaks of
Isaac's
dwelling by Beer-lahai-roi, which is a plain allu-
sion
to xvi. 14; xxiv. 62 J; hence the offending clause
must
be exscinded or transferred to another context and
attached
to J. Thus the whole section is chopped
into
bits,
and parcelled among the several documents and the
redactor,
though it is consistent and continuous through-
out
and linked to what precedes as a fulfilment of the
promise
made to Abraham (xvii. 4, 5, P). But if
P were
allowed
to have ver. 6, an opportunity would be missed
of
creating an apparent divergence by inferring from ver.
9 what
is not in it, that Ishmael continued to live with his
father
to the time of his death, contrary to xxi. 14-21 E.
310 THE GENERATIONS 0F TERAH
In ver. 11 it is stated that "after
the death of Abraham
Elohim
blessed Isaac, his son." Jehovah as
the guar-
dian
and benefactor of the chosen race would certainly
have
been appropriate here. And yet Elohim is
appro-
priate
likewise as suggestive of the general divine benef-
icence,
which bestowed upon Isaac abundant external
prosperity. There is no reason accordingly for assum-
ing
that the word is suggestive of the peculiarity of a
particular
writer.
MARKS OF P (IN vs. 7-11a)
1.
Age of Abraham, ver. 7. See ch.
vi.-ix., Marks of
P,
No.2, ch. xvi., No.1.
2.
"The statement that Ishmael was still with Abra-
ham
(ver. 9)." No such statement is
here made or im-
plied. Ishmael's presence at Abraham's burial is not
inconsistent
with his residence elsewhere (xxi. 21); so
that
this affords no ground for assuming a diversity of
documents.
3.
"The cave of Machpelah (ver. 9), the diffuseness of,
the
style (vs. 9, 10), the children of Heth (ver. 10)."
The
expressions in these verses are borrowed from ch.
xxiii.,
the formality and precision of the language indi-
cating
the stress laid upon this first acquisition of prop-
erty
in Canaan.
4.
fvaGA give
up the ghost. See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.
18.
5.
vym.Afa-lx, Jsax<n, was gathered unto his people, a phrase
used
only of the death of the following venerated men,
viz.:
Abraham (xxv. 8); Ishmael (ver. 17); Isaac (xxxv.
29);
Jacob (xlix. 29, 33); Aaron (Num. xx. 24, 26, ellip-
sis),
and Moses (Num. xxvii. 13; xxxi. 2; Deut. xxxii.
50). These are all referred to P for the reason
that the
records
of the deaths of patriarchs are as a rule referred
CONCLUSION
OF ABRAHAM'S LIFE (XXV. 1-11) 311
to
him. The formula henceforth used of the
death of
patriarchs
is in the full form adopted here, "gave up
the
ghost and died, and was gathered to his people" (xxv.
8,
17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33). This formula is
not used in
the
case of any other whose death is recorded by P;
yet
no critic infers a difference of writers on this ac-
count. The same thought is expressed in words spoken
by
the LORD to Abraham (xv. 15), "go to thy fathers,"
assigned
by the critics to JE, but joined as here with the
phrase,
"in a good old age," which speaks for the iden-
tity
of the writers. Dillmann can only
account for the
coincidence
by the interference of R in ch. xv.
6. yy.eHa
ynew; ymey; days
of the years of the life
(ver. 7). See
ch.
xxiii., Marks of P, No.5. .
7.
"The back reference of xlix. 31 P to ver. 10; " this
is
freely admitted to be from the same writer; but this
implies
no admission that other parts of Genesis are
from
a different hand.
The descent attributed to Sheba and Dedan
(ver. 3),
involves
no discrepancy either with x. 7 P, or x. 28 J.
See
under ch. x., pp. 137-139.
For the use of ,,~ beget, in lateral
genealogies, see ch.
vi.-ix.,
Marks of P, No. 20. The critics make
this a
mark
of J, yet here it occurs with yneb;U and
the sons of
(vs.
3, 4), which in ch. x. they make a mark of P.
"All these were the children of
Keturah " (ver. 4; cf. x.
29b;
ix. 19), has been urged in proof of the authorship
of
J; but the same formula occurs in P xlvi. 15, 18, 22,
25.
VII
THE
GENERATIONS OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXV. 12-18)
THIS section is related alike to passages
assigned by
the
critics to P, J, and E; hence the diversity of opinion
among
them as to its origin. It is generally
agreed that
the
title (ver. 12a), ver. 16b "twelve princes" descended
from
Ishmael in fulfilment of xvii. 20 P, and ver. 17
with
the phrases of ver. 8, must be from P.
But ver.
12b
repeats xxi. 9 E (Dillmann compares xvi. 3, 15 P);
the
mention of the territory occupied by the tribes de-
scended
from Ishmael (ver. 18), is after the analogy of x.
19,
30, J; "he abode in the presence of all his brethren"
(ver.
18b), is in fulfilment of xvi. 12 J, and adopts its lan-
guage. Accordingly Hupfeld gives vs. 13-16a, 18, to
J.
Kayser
gives ver. 16b likewise to J, and seems inclined
to
follow Boehmer in ascribing ver. 12 to him also, in-
asmuch
as the title, "These are the generations of Ish-
mael,"
could hardly have been used to introduce ver. 17,
which
is all that remains for P. "It is
not so well made
out,"
he says, ''as is commonly assumed, that this title
belongs
to P and not to J." Dillmann, on
the other
hand,
feels the difficulty of having a separate P title
prefixed
to but one or two verses, and claims the entire
section
for P except ver. 18. The first clause
of this
verse
he attributes to J, and attaches to ver. 6; the last
clause
he regards as a gloss based upon xvi. 12, because
the
singular number is used, while the preceding clause
has
the plural. But no such conclusion is
warranted by
this
change of number, the reason for which is obvious.
ISHMAEL'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXV. 12-18) 313
To
make the reference perfectly distinct, the fulfilment
is
stated in the very terms of the prediction.
The
region
occupied by Ishmael's descendants is stated in
the
first clause; thus, as had been foretold, Ishmael
abode
in the presence of all his brethren.
There is no
need
of assuming a gloss and no need of transposing the
verse;
no one would ever have thought of doing either,
except
in the interest of the divisive hypothesis.
All is
appropriate
and harmonious as it stands.
MARKS OF P
1.
The title (ver.12). See ch.
vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.1,
ch. xvi. No.1.
2.
The statement of age (ver. 17).
See ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No.2.
3.
The formulas of ver. 17. See ch.
xxv. 1-11, Marks
of
P, No.5.
4.
The mention of the first-born (ver. 13, as xxxv. 23
P). This is no discriminating test, for it occurs
(x. 15,
xxii.
21) in genealogies attributed to J.
5.
The "twelve princes" (ver. 16; cf. xvii. 20). This
and
other correspondences point to the common author-
ship
of related passages, but afford no ground for the
belief
that other passages are from a different source.
The territory described in ver. 18 as the
home of the
Ishmaelites,
"from Havilah unto Shur, that is before
Egypt,"
is that in which Saul found the Amalekites (1
Sam.
xv. 7). This is a fresh indication of
the blending
of
these roving tribes, of which we have already seen
evidence
in the occurrence of the same tribal name in
different
genealogies, e.g. "Sheba and Dedan (xxv. 3 and
x.
7, 28), and which is further evidenced by the inter-
change
of different tribal names in application to, the
same
parties (Gen. xxxvii. 28; Judg. viii. 1, 12, 24).
VIII
THE
GENERATIONS OF ISAAC (CH. XXV. 19-XXXV.)
This section contains the history of Isaac
and his
family
from his marriage until his death.
ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34)
VATER, though an advocate of the fragment
hypothesis,
notes
("Pentateuch," i., p. 244) the precise correspond-
ence
in the arrangement of ch. xxv. and ch. xxxv.-xxxvii.,
which
is certainly indicative of unity of plan.
1, Abra-
ham's
sons by Keturah (xxv. 1-6); 2, his death
and
burial
by his sons Isaac and Ishmael (vs. 7-11);
3, the
descendants
of Ishmael (vs. 12-18); 4, the history
of
Isaac's
family (vs. 19 sqq.). In like manner: 1,
Jacob's
sons
by his several wives (xxxv. 23-26); 2,
Isaac's death
and
burial by his sons Esau and Jacob (vs. 27-29);
3,
the
descendants of Esau (ch. xxxvi.); 4, the
history of
Jacob's
family (ch. xxxvii. sqq.).
It should be observed also how closely
this portion of
the
history is knit to what precedes as well as to what
follows. The life of Abraham repeats itself in that of
Isaac,
in the renewal of the same divine promises, in the
trial
of faith by a long waiting for the expected child on
whom
the fulfilment of every other promise hinged; in the
divine
intervention manifest in the birth; in the dis-
tinction
between the child of divine choice and the re-
jected
first-born; in the care taken that the marriage of
the
former should be, not with one of the surrounding
ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 315
Canaanites,
but with one of an allied race; in Isaac's be-
traying
the same sinful weakness under temptation as his
father;
and in the divine protection and blessing which
compelled
the recognition even of monarchs. The
same
ideas
are made prominent, the same leading principles
rule
throughout the whole.
It was twenty-five years after Abraham
entered Ca-
naan
before Isaac was born (xii. 4; xxi. 5).
It was
twenty
years after Isaac's marriage before the birth of
Jacob
and Esau (xxv. 20, 26). Their birth is
traced to
an
immediate divine bestowment of what was beyond all
natural
expectation. It had been promised to
Abraham
that
he should be the father of many nations; two na-
tions
were to spring from Rebekah. As Isaac
was pre-
ferred
to Ishmael, so Jacob to, Esau. And
though these
latter
were from the same mother, the divine choice was
made
apparent from the first, was independent of per-
sonal
worth, and was finally ratified, not through the un-
worthy
means taken to secure it, but in spite of them.
It
was thus plainly shown to be of divine grace, not of
human
merit. And at length, by providential
discipline,
supplanting
Jacob was changed into prevailing Israel.
Tuch, in defending the supplement
hypothesis, attrib-
uted
the whole of this paragraph (vs. 19-34) to P,
save
only vs. 21 (except the last clause), 22, 23, where
the
repeated occurrence of Jehovah betrayed the hand of
J,
who inserted in the work of P, which lay before him
and
which he was supplementing, this forecast of the fut-
ure
history of Rebekah's descendants before the chil-
dren
were born. It was inconceivable, he
urged, that a
history
of the ancestry of Israel should say nothing of
the
birth of Jacob, the progenitor of the nation, and of
his
twin brother Esau, by whom the course of Jacob's
life
was so largely influenced.
This difficulty presses the current
divisive hypothesis
316 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
in
an aggravated form, which attempts to make out three independent documents,
without being able to maintain the show of continuity for any one of them. To P are assigned only vs. 19, 20, and the
last clause of ver. 26. He accordingly
tells how old Isaac was when he was married, though no previous account had
been given by P of his marriage; also how old he was when “they were born,”
presumably his children, though this is not said, and there is no direct
mention of their birth such as, it is here implied, had been made. The critics tell us that P must have told
about Isaac’s marriage and the birth of his sons, but R has not seen fit to
preserve that part of his record. P then
springs at once to Esau’s marriage at forty years of age (xxvi. 34, 35), and
Jacob’s being sent to Paddan-aram for a wife (xxviii. 1 sqq.), whereupon Esau
marries again. Three disconnected
clauses follow, relating to persons abruptly introduced with no intimation that
they were in any way connected with Jacob: (xxix.. 24) “And Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid unto his
daughter Leah for her handmaid;” (ver. 29)
“And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bil- hah his handmaid to be her
handmaid;” (xxx. 22a) “And God remembered Rachel.” Then (xxxi. 18)
“He,”
presumably Jacob, though his name is not men-
tioned, “carried away all his cattle and all his
substance
which
he had gathered, the cattle of his getting, which
he
had gathered in Paddan-aram, for to go to Isaac his
father
unto the land of Canaan.” And this is
absolutely
all
that P has to say about Jacob from the time that he
left
his father’s house until his return to Canaan.
There
is
no mention of his arrival in Paddan-aram, or of any-
thing
that occurred there, only that he left it possessed
of
property and cattle with no previous allusion to his
having
acquired them. He went to Paddan-aram to
seek
a
wife; but there is no intimation whether his search
ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 317
was
successful until several years after he had been again settled in Canaan, when
a bald list is given of his wives and children in connection with the mention
of Isaac’s death (xxxv. 22b-29).
Wellhausen may well call this a “skeleton
account.”
And
it is suitably characterized by Dr. Harper1 as “cold
and
lifeless, nothing but a register of deaths, births and
marriages;”
and he might have added with the princi-
pal
births and marriages left out. Is this
P’s fault or
that
of the critics? Can such scattered
snatches be re-
garded
as constituting a separate document, or even ac-
cepted
as proof that they are the remains of a separate
document,
especially when these fragments are essential
in
the context in which they are now found, and their
removal
leaves unfilled gaps behind them? And is
the
title,
“The generations of Isaac,” intended to introduce
these
disconnected fragments, or the body of the narra-
tive
to which it is prefixed? If the latter,
we have here
one
more proof that these titles to sections of the book
of
Genesis do not belong to what the critics are pleased
to
call the document P.
But after P’s portion of vs. 19-34 is
subtracted, the
critics
still find the remainder not a unit, and yet very
difficult
to disentangle. Wellhausen says that J
and E
are
here and in ch. xxvii. so involved “that a clear sep-
aration
is not to be thought of.” “Only where
the di-
vine
names supply a criterion can the double stream be
distinctly
recognized.” As in vs. 29-34 Esau sells
his
birthright
of his own accord, while in ch. xxvii. his fa-
ther’s
blessing is wrested from him by fraud, it has been
proposed
to assign these to separate documents.
But,
as
Wellhausen contends, it will neither answer to give
the
former to E and the latter to J, nor to reverse this
by
giving the former to J and the latter to E.
For
1 The Hebraica for July, 1889, p. 267.
318 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
Esau’s
voluntary surrender of his birthright would not account for Jacob’s flight from
home (xxviii. 10 sqq.). Both J and E
presuppose a hostility on the part of Esau such as can only be explained by
what is related in ch.
xxvii. Moreover, xxvii. 36 refers back to the matter
of
the
birthright. Hence, though Wellhausen
claims that
in
the oral tradition the obtaining of the birthright
(hrkb) and of the blessing (hkrb) are mere variants, of
which
he offers no proof, he nevertheless admits that in
their
written form one is no mere substitute for the
other,
but the first is a prelude to the second.
Wellhausen proposes to give vs. 29-34 the
sale of the
birthright
to J. The contrast drawn between Esau
and
Jacob
(vs. 27, 28), and the preferences of their parents
for
them respectively, are preparatory for ch. xxvii., and
presupposed
in both J and E, and must have been in
substance
in both documents. Vs. 21-23 is given to
J
because
of “Jehovah;” vs. 24-26a to E, because the
allusion
in Hos. xii. 3 to Jacob taking his brother by the
heel
proves that this tradition was current in the north-
ern
kingdom of Israel, to which E is imagined to have
belonged,
and because ver. 25 suggests a different ex-
planation
of Edom from that given in ver. 30, and in ver.
26
Jacob is explained differently from xxvii. 36 J. But
thus
J records the conception of the children and the
prediction
respecting them, but does not speak of their
birth. It thus becomes necessary to suppose that
each
document
had originally what is contained in the other,
only
R has not seen fit to preserve it.
A continuous and closely connected
paragraph is thus
splintered
into bits to find material for three documents,
each
of which proves to be incoherent and fragmentary.
The
different allusions to the significance of the names
Edom
and Jacob afford no justification for the partition.
since
they are not variant etymologies implying different
ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 319
conceptions
of the origin of the names and requiring the
assumption
of distinct writers.
In his second edition Dillmann adopts
substantially
the
partition of Wellhausen, though in his first he had
referred
the entire paragraph (P excepted) to E, worked
over
by R, and in his third he refers it to J, only the
word
“red” (ver. 25), and a few words in ver. 27, having
been
taken from E. From all this it may be
inferred
that
the critical machinery does not work very smoothly
in
this instance.
It has been alleged that Rebekah’s going
to inquire
of
Jehovah (ver. 22) implies that there were then places
where
oracular responses were given, or seers through
whom,
the deity could be consulted. Wellhausen
pro-
poses
to transpose this paragraph after ch. xxvi., where
he
finds in vs. 23-33 the founding of a sanctuary at
Beersheba;
and he jumps to the conclusion that Rebekah
went
to it to inquire of Jehovah. Stade1
regards the in-
cident
here recorded of Rebekah as “probably a saga
respecting
the origin of the oracle at Beersheba.”
But
there
is no suggestion here or elsewhere in the patri-
archal
period of an oracle or a seer. And there
is not
the
slightest reason for supposing that either is referred
to in
the present instance, much less of assuming that
this
passage lends approval to the separatist sanctuary,
which
was in later ages established at Beersheba. Ha-
vernick
appeals to 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, which shows that
those
who “inquired of Jehovah” might be answered by
dreams
as well as by Urim and by prophets. From
the
frequency
with which prophetic dreams are mentioned
in
Genesis, and from the fact that the answer of Jehovah
was
given to Rebekah herself, it is natural to infer that
the
revelation was made to her in a dream.
They who
dispute
the reality of predictive prophecy find here a
1
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 474, note.
320 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
vaticinium post eventum, and an indication of post-Mosaic
origin. But those who do not accept the premises will
not
share the conclusion.
It is argued that Isaac could not have
passed Rebekah
off
as his sister (xxvi. 7) after her children were born
and
had grown up (xxv. 27). This does not
necessarily
follow. Still, even if xxvi. 1-33 preceded xxv. 21-34
in
point of time, it would not be necessary to suppose
that
the narratives have been transposed. The
histo-
rian
is not an annalist. He may depart from
the chron-
ological
arrangement when he has good reasons for
grouping
events differently. Whatever motive the
re-
dactor
may be thought to have had for transposing these
incidents
may equally have influenced the original writer
to
place them in their present order.
The divine name is properly and discriminatingly
em-
ployed
in vs. 21-23. Jehovah was the God of
Isaac no
less
than of Abraham. It is to Jehovah that
he directs
his
prayer; it is to Jehovah that his wife applies in her
perplexity. It is Jehovah who gives to each a gracious
answer.
MARKS OF P (VS. 19, 20, 26b)
1.
The title (ver. 19). See ch.
vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.1.
2.
Age (vs. 20, 26). See ch.
vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.2.
3. dyliOh beget (ver. 19). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.
20.
4.
Paddan-aram (ver. 20); occurs besides in P xxviii.
2,
5-7; xxxv. 9, 26; in xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18, it is as-
signed
to P in a JE connection; in xlvi: 15 the critics
are
not agreed whether it belongs to P. See
ch. xxiv.,
Marks
of J, No.3.
5.
Bethuel, the Aramaean (ver. 20).
Bethuel the father
ESAU AND JACOB (CH. XXV. 19-34) 321
and
Laban the brother of Rebekah are here called Ara-
maeans,
in contrast with the Canaanites, with whom
Isaac
was not to ally himself; so for a like reason in
xxviii.
5 P, though not in ver. 2 P, where the same end
is
accomplished by calling Bethuel the father and Laban
the
brother of Jacob’s mother. Laban is also
called the
Aramraean
in E (xxxi. 20, 24); and he is spoken of with-
out
this epithet in P (xlvi. 18, 2p). Moreover,
Bethuel and
Laban
were Aramreans according to J, since they
lived
in Aram-naharaim (xxiv. 10 J). The
employment
or
non-employment of the epithet Aramraean in connection
with
their names is dependent, therefore, not upon the
usage
of particular documents, but upon the sense to be
conveyed.
MARKS OF J
1. rtafA entreat (ver. 21); nowhere else in Genesis; only
besides
in the Hexateuch, Ex. viii. 4, 5, 24, 25; 26 (E.
V.,
vs. 8, 9, 28, 29, 30); x. 18, all which are referred
to
J.
2. ryf,cA younger (ver. 23). See ch. xix. 29-38, Mal’ks of
J, No.2.
3.
“The similarity of vs. 24-26 to xxxviii. 27 sqq.” May
be
an indication of the common authorship of these pas-
sages,
but gives no proof that other passages are from a
different
author.
Dillmann claims that vs. 25 and 27 are
“overloaded”
by
the insertion of words from an assumed parallel ac-
count
by E. In proof of this he points to
“red” (ver.25),
as
an explanation of Edom, conflicting with that in ver.
30,
and the duplicate characterization of both Edom and
Jacob,
ver. 27. But this “overloading” never
seems to
have
dawned upon Dillmann himself until he hit upon
this
expedient for providing at least a semblance of ma-
terial
for E in a paragraph which, as he now confesses,
322 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
“coheres
well together,” but the contents of which are
presupposed
alike in E and in J.
Dillmann remarks upon the indefinite
singular, “one
called”
(ver. 26), contrasted with the plural,
“they called”
(ver.
25), as suggestive of a different document; but Hup-
feld
points to the frequent use of the indefinite singular
in
passages attributed to J, e.g., xi. 9; xvi. 14; xxvii. 36;
xxxiii.
17; xxxviii. 29, 30.
ISAAC IN GERAR AND BEERSHEBA (CH. XXVI. 1-33)
This chapter (except vs. 34, 35, P), is in
the main as-
signed
to J, but unfilled gaps are thus created in both
the
other documents. We look in vain in P
for a divine
grant
of the land to Isaac, such as is referred to in xxxv.
12
P, or for a covenant of God with him mentioned Ex.
ii.
24 P, or for God appearing to him as he is declared
to
have done, Ex. vi. 3 1 P. These are all
to be found in
the
chapter before us, but nowhere else.
These passages
in P
must, therefore, refer to what is contained in J,
which
is contrary to the hypothesis, or it must be as-
signed
here again that P had just such an account as we
find
in J, but R has omitted it. So when E
(xlvi. 1)
speaks
of Jacob coming to Beersheba and there offering
sacrifices
to the God of his father Isaac, there is a plain
allusion
to the altar which Isaac had built there (xxvi.
25). When Jacob left his father’s house for Haran,
he
went
out from Beersheba (xxviii.-10 E), implying Isaac’s
residence
there, as stated xxvi. 23, 25, but nowhere in
E. Either E alludes to J, or he must have
related the
same
that is in J, and R has not preserved it.
When we thus find throughout the book of
Genesis the
1 Jehovah’s revelation of himself (xxvi. 24) as the God of Abraham
contains a specific allusion to xvii. 1,
and was so understood by Isaac
(xxviii. 3, 4).
ISAAC IN GERAR (CH. XXVI. 1-33) 323
different
documents tied together by cross-references,
does
not the divisive hypothesis require too many auxil-
iary
hypotheses for its support? It asks us
in every in-
stance
to assume that the reference is not to the passage
which
is plainly written before us, and to which it ex-
actly
corresponds, but to certain hypothetical passages
which
may once have existed, but of which there is no
other
evidence than that the exigencies of the hypothe-
sis
demand it.
A doublet is suspected in vs. 1-6. It is
said that 2b is
incompatible
with 1c and 3a. Isaac is already in the
land
to which the LORD is to tell him to go.
Accordingly
la,
2b, 6, are assigned to E, thus: “And
there was a fam-
ine
in the land; and (God) said to (Isaac), Go not down
into
Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee; and
Isaac
dwelt in Gerar.” Then 1c, 2a, 3a, are
given to J,
thus: “And Isaac went unto Abimelech, king of the
Philistines,
unto Gerar. And Jehovah appeared unto
him
and said, Sojourn in this land, and I will be with
thee,
and will bless thee.” But the fact that
by ingenious
slicing
and piecing two seemingly complete paragraphs
can
be constructed out of one does not prove that the
latter
is of duplicate origin. The apparent
lack of continu-
ity
which gives offence to the critics in these verses is of
precisely
the same nature as that in xxiv. 29, 30, which
has
been before explained. In xxvi. 1 the
mention of
the
famine is immediately followed by the statement that
Isaac
went to Gerar to escape it. It is then
added with
more
particularity how he came to make his abode in
Gerar,
instead of passing on to Egypt after the example
of
his lather in similar circumstances (xii. 10), and accord-
ing
to his own original intention. Jehovah
directed him
to
dwell in the land that he should tell him of, which was
immediately
explained to be the land in which he then
was. The explicit allusion to the “first famine
that was
324 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
in
the days of Abraham” (1b), is stricken from the text
and
referred to R, because E had not spoken of that
famine;
whereas it simply proves the falsity of the criti-
cal
partition which assigns ver. 1a to a different docu-
ment
from xii. 10.
Vs. 3b-5 is also expunged as a later
addition to the
text
for two reasons:
1st.
In order to get rid of its testimony in favor of xxii.
15-18,
which the critics attribute to R; because if here re-
ferred
to and cited by J it must be genuine and original.
2d.
Because the legal phrases in ver. 5 are inappropri-
ate
to the times of the patriarchs.
But (1) this verse is in exact accord
with others which
show
great solicitude to make it clear that Abraham and
his
seed were chosen of Jehovah, not to be his favorites
irrespective
of character, but to found a pious, God-fear-
ing,
obedient race (xvii. 1, 2; xviii. 19).
(2) Mention is made of several divine
injunctions given
to
Abraham. He was commanded to leave his
country,
to
perform specified rites in the transaction of the cove-
nant,
to institute circumcision, to offer up Isaac.
He
was
required to exercise faith in God’s promises in spite
of
long delays and discouraging circumstances.
He ob-
served
sacrificial worship and called on the name of the
LORD. He recognized the sanctity of an oath (xiv.
22),
and
dealt generously with Lot, uprightly with the chil-
dren
of Heth and Abimelech, and in the strictest honesty
with
the king of Sodom. The direction to walk
before
God
and be perfect (xvii. 1; xxiv. 40), and his confidence
that
God the judge of all the earth would do right in re-
spect
to the righteous and the wicked (xviii. 25), imply
his
possession of a standard of rectitude.
So, although
no
formal code may have been given to Abraham, it is
not
inappropriate to speak of “commandments, statutes,
and
laws,” which he had obeyed.
ISAAC IN GERAR (CH. XXVI. 1-33) 325
(3) The heaping together of these various
terms is cer-
tainly
suggestive of the Mosaic legislation (cf. Ex. xv.
26;
xvi. 28, etc.). And what is whole
natural than that
the
great legislator, who in recording the history of their
ancestors
had prominent regard to the instruction of his
contemporaries,
should commend the obedience of Abra-
ham
in terms which would make it a fit model for them-
selves?
Isaac’s life was to such an extent an
imitation of his
father’s
that no surprise need be felt at his even copying
his
faults and pretending that his wife was his sister (vs.
7-11). A stratagem that has proved successful once
is very
likely
to be tried again.
Nor does it create any special difficulty
in respect to
the
recorded visit of Abimelech and Phicol to Isaac at
Beersheba
(vs. 26-31) that a king and general of the
same
name had covenanted at the same place with Abra-
ham
(xxi. 22-32). That successive Philistine
kings
should
bear the name Abimelech is no more strange
than
the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the Caesars of Rome, or
two
Napoleons emperors of France, or two presidents of
the
United States named John Adams. Phicol
may for
aught
that anyone knows have been an official title, or
he
may have been the namesake of his predecessor.
That
the name Beersheba should be reimposed on this
occasion
(ver. 33) is not strange. That the
writer re-
garded
it not as a new appellation, but as fresh sanction
given
to one already in existence, is plain from his use
of
it (ver. 23), and it is in precise accordance with the
general
statements (vs. 15, 18) that Isaac had renewed
the
names previously given to wells by his father.
These
verses are interpolations by R in the opinion of
the
critics, for the reason (which others may not deem
conclusive)
that J cannot be supposed to have referred
to
what is recorded in E.
326 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
The name Jehovah is evidently in place in
this chapter.
Jehovah
appears to Isaac (vs. 2, 24); and Isaac called on
the
name of Jehovah (ver. 25). Jehovah
blessed him
(ver.
12) and made room for him (ver. 22); so that even
Abimelech
recognized the fact that Isaac’s God Jehovah
was
with him (ver. 28), and blessed him (ver.29).
In
xxv.
11 it had been said that Elohim blessed him.
This
is
suggestive of the two aspects under which his out-
ward
prosperity could be regarded as the gift of his
covenant
God, or of the God of nature and of providence.
This
is no more surprising than when the Psalmist makes
his
appeal in successive clauses to the God of Israel and
the
God of the universe: (Ps. x. 12) “Arise, O Jehovah;
O
Elohim, lift up thine hand.” (Ps. xvii. 1, 6)
“O Je-
hovah,
attend unto my cry; . . . thou wilt hear me,
O
Elohim.”
MARKS
OF J
1. hx,r;ma tbaOF fair to look (ver. 7).
See ch. xxiv.,
Marks
of J, No. 13.
2. Jyqiw;hi look out (ver. 8).
See ch. xviii., xix., Marks
of
J, No.6.
3. hlAxA oath (ver. 28). Besides in J xxiv. 41 bis; in P
Lev.
v. 1; Num. v. 21 bis, 23, 27; in D Deut. xxix. 11,13,
18,
19, 20 (E. V., vs. 12, 14, 19, 20, 21); xxx. 7; all in
the Hexateuch.
4. hvhy j`UrB; blessed of
Jehovah
(ver. 29); in the Hexa-
teuch
besides only xxiv. 31 J; a similar phrase, “blessed
of
God Most High“ xiv. 19, which is not refe17ed to J.
5. hvhy Mweb; xrAq;y.iva called upon the
name of Jehovah
(ver.
25). Prayer and worship were addressed to Jehovah,
the
God of revelation and of grace. This
divine name
is
the appropriate one in such connections, and is not
traceable
to the usage of a particular document.
6.
“The peril of Rebekah (vs. 7-11), and the origin of
ISAAC IN GERAR (CH. XXVI. 1-33) 327
the
name Beersheba” (vs. 25-33) are not variant accounts
of
the transactions recorded in ch. xx. and xxi. 22-32 but
are
distinct events occurring at different times and under
other
circumstances. Even on the hypothesis of
the
critics
they were so regarded by the redactor.
If they
either
were, or were supposed to be, distinct events, there
is
no reason why they may not have been related by the
same
writer. They afford no ground,
consequently, for
the
assumption of separate documents.
Dillmann remarks that in this chapter
“much in the
form
of expression reminds of E, cf. ver. 10 and xx. 9;
ver.
28 and xxi. 22; ver. 29 and xxi. 23; tOdxo-lf con-
cerning (ver. 32 and xxi. 11, 25); the names
(ver. 26).”
He
undertakes to account for this by assuming that J had
the
document E before him and borrowed expressions
from
it. The divisive hypothesis must thus be
supported
by a
fresh hypothesis, for which there is no foundation
but
the very hypothesis which it is adduced to support.
It
will be observed that the admitted points of similarity
belong
to the narrative of Rebekah’s peril and the affair
at
Beersheba. If now the author of ch.
xxvi. had the cor-
responding
narrative in chs. xx., x:xi., before him as he
wrote,
he was aware that Abraham had had experiences
similar
to those which he was recording of Isaac.
And
thus
the argument of the critics for a diversity of docu-
ments
is completely nullified by their own confession.
And
the only remaining alternative is to accept the sim-
ple
and natural inference, from the correspondences “be-
tween
the narratives, that both are from the pen of the
same
writer.
It is also worth noting that “digged,” in
vs. 15, 18,
32,
is in Hebrew rpaHA, but in ver. 25 it is hrAKA a
word
which
occurs nowhere else in J, and is only found in the
Hexateuch
in E, viz., Gen. 1. 5; Ex. xxi. 33; Num. xxi.
18. It thus appears that the same writer can use
two
328 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
different
words to express the same thing with no appar-
ent
reason for making the change; and this even though
in
the opinion of the critics one of the words is nowhere
else
used by him.
JACOB’S BLESSING AND DEPARTURE
(CH. XXVI. 34-XXVIII.
9)
The narrative in ch. xxvii. is
indispensable to both J
and
E, as shown alike by its connection with what pre-
cedes
and what follows. It has already been
seen that
the
critics find it necessary to assume that xxv. 21-34
belonged
alike to both of these documents, and that the
portions
extracted from one had their equivalents also in
the
other. But this paragraph was directly
preparatory
to
ch. xxvii. The pre-announcement of the
precedence of
the
younger child (ver. 23), the hairy skin of Esau (ver.
25),
Esau’s skill in hunting and Jacob’s domestic habits
(ver.
27), Isaac’s partiality for Esau, and relish for his
venison,
and Rebekah’s preference for Jacob (ver. 28), are
mentioned
with a view to this chapter, and the sale of
the
birthright (vs. 29-34) is explicitly referred to, xxvii.
36.
In like manner, as is stated by
Wellhausen, “we have
in
xxviii. 10-22 a piece from E almost complete, together
with
a large fragment from J, which proves that J con-
tained
the same narrative and in the same place (cf. ver.
15
and vs. 20, 21). It hence follows by
concluding back-
ward
that both E and J related the occasion of Jacob’s
flight,
without which it would be without a motive and
unintelligible. There must necessarily have been a his-
tory
like that in ch. xxvii. in both sources, as appears also
from
ch. xxxii.;” and, as Dillmann adds, xxxv. 3,
7,
E.
While, however, it is essential to find
both J and E in
this
chapter, the critics are obliged to acknowledge that
ISAAC
BLESSES JACOB (CH. XXVI. 34-XXVIIL 9)
329
they
cannot disentangle them so as to separate the two
accounts,
or even to discover an points of difference be-
tween
them. The utmost that they can do is to
point
out
several instances of what they consider doublets, and
claim
on this account that the text is composite, though
they
are unable to resolve it into its original constitu-
ents.
It is claimed that vs. 24-27a repeats vs., 21-23; that
ver.
24, instead of progressing from ver. 23, goes back to
ver.
21, and ver. 23 is as far advanced as ver. 27a, each
ending,
“and he blessed him.” But this is
precisely
like
other alleged doublets before reviewed.
The ulti-
mate
result is first summarily stated (ver. 23b); then
further
particulars are added (vs. 24-27a), which led up
to
this result. The paragraphs in question
are mutually
supplementary;
they are certainly not mutually exclu-
sive. The blind old patriarch, doubtful of his
son’s
identity,
first insists upon feeling him (vs. 21-23), and
obliges
him to say whether he is really Esau (ver. 24).
Then,
after partaking of what had been brought him, he
asks,
as a final test, to kiss him, that he may smell the
odor
of his raiment (ver. 27). There is in
all this no
repetition,
but a steady, onward progress to the final
issue.
It is further said that ver. 30b repeats
30a, which it
does
not; it more exactly defines the time intended.
Isaac
had ended his blessing, and Jacob had just gone
out
when Esau came in. Also that vs. 35-38
repeat vs.
33,
34; but the only repetition is that of Esau’s impor-
tunate
entreaty, which is as natural as it is touching.
Ver.
44b is repeated in ver. 45a, because this was the
thing
uppermost in Rebekah’s thoughts. She
repeats
and
amplifies what she had said about Esau’s fury sub-
siding,
in order to impress upon Jacob her own convic-
tion
that his brother’s rage was only temporary.
If
330 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
Jacob
would but absent himself for a few days it would
Be
over, and she would send and fetch him home again.
She
is concerned to present her project to him in the
Most
persuasive way, that he may be induced to do what
She
feels to be necessary to save his life.
In their eagerness to find material for
separate docu-
ments,
or evidence of duplicate accounts, the critics seem
to
be ever ready to sacrifice the force and beauty of the
narratives
with which they deal. They dissect them
to
the
quick, rending them into feeble or incoherent frag-
ments,
or they pare them down by the assumption of
doublets
to the baldest forms of intelligible statement,
and
thus strip them of those affecting details, which lend
them
such a charm, because so true to nature.
This in-
volves
the absurdity of assuming that two jejune or frag-
mentary
accounts, pieced mechanically together, have
produced
narratives which are not only consistent and
complete,
but full of animation and dramatic power.
An attempt is made to establish a difference
between
J
and E on the one hand, and P on the other, as to the
Reason
why Jacob went to Paddan-aram. According
to
The
former (ch. Xxvii. 1-45), it is to flee from his brother,
Whom
he has enraged by defrauding him of his father’s
Blessing. According to the latter (xxvi. 34, 25;
xxviii.
1-9),
that he may not marry among the Canaanites, as
Esau
had done, to the great grief of his parents, but ob-
Tain
a wife from among his kindred. P, we are
told,
Knows
of no hostility between the brothers. But
all
This
is spoiled by the statement in xxviii. 7, that “Jacob
Obeyed
his father and his mother, and was gone to Paddan-
aram.” His father sent him to get a wife (xxviii.
1-9);
but
his mother (xxvii. 42-45) to escape Esau’s fury; and
there
is no incompatibility between these two objects.
In
order to gain Isaac over t her plan without acquaint-
ing
him with Esau’s murderous designs, Rebekah simply
ISAAC
BLESSES JACOB (XXVI. 34-XXVII. 9) 331
urges
her dissatisfaction with the wives of Esau, and her
apprehension
lest Jacob might contract a similar mar-
riage
with some one of the daughters of the land.
Isaac
had
one object in mind, Rebekah another.
There is
nothing
for the critics to do, therefore, but to pronounce
the
unwelcome words, "and his mother," an interpola-
tion. In order to prove their point they must first
ad-
just
the text to suit it.
But tinkering the text in a single passage
will not re-
lieve
them in the present instance. The
hostility of
Esau
is embedded in the entire narrative, and cannot be
sundered
from it. Why did Jacob go alone and
unat-
tended
in quest of a wife, without the retinue or the
costly
presents for his bride, befitting his rank and
wealth? When Abraham desired a wife for Isaac he
sent
a princely embassy to woo Rebekah, and conduct
her
to her future home. Why was Jacob's suit
so dif-
ferently
managed, although Isaac imitated Abraham in
everything
else? And why did Jacob remain away
from
his parents and his home, and from the land sacred
as
the gift of God, for so many long years till his twelve
sons
were born (xxxv. 26 P)? This is wholly
unac-
counted
for except by the deadly hostility of Esau.
Even
the
fragmentary notices accorded to P of the sojourn in
Paddan-aram
thus imply that Jacob had grievously of-
fended
Esau; so that here again P either refers to what
J
and E alone recorded, or else had given a similar ac-
count
of the fraud perpetrated by Jacob, which R has
not
retained.
The name Jehovah occurs appropriately (xxvii.
7, 20)
as
the God of Isaac, in whose name and by whose au-
thority
the blessing was to be pronounced. Only
in the
blessing
itself Jehovah alternates with Elohim in the
parallelisms
of poetry (vs. 27, 28). On this ground Dill-
mann
assigns vs. 27b, 29b, to J, and vs. 28, 29a, to E.
332 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
The
consequence of which is that in J a curse is pro-
nounced
upon those who curse Jacob, and a blessing upon
those
who bless him, but not al single blessing bestowed
directly
upon Jacob himself. Kautzsch tries to
mend the
matter
by a different distribution; but in doing so he
separates
the last clause of ver. 28 from the sentence to
which
it belongs, so that "plenty of corn and wine" stands
wholly
unconnected, and, of course, unmeaning.
No criti-
cal
severance of this closely connected blessing is either
admissible
or necessary. Elohim, in ver. 28, does
not re-
quire
the assumption of a different document from the
Jehovah
of ver. 27 any more than such an assumption is
demanded
by the change of divine names in Ps. xlvii. 2,
3
(E. V., vs. 1, 2). The Jehovah of the
blessing is at the
same
time the God of universal nature, Elohim, who
from
his general beneficence will bestow "the dew of
heaven,
and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn
and
wine." In taking leave of Jacob
Isaac pronounces
upon
him the blessing of Abraham (xxviii. 4); he is thus
led
to borrow the language of that signal revelation to
Abraham
when Jehovah made himself known as God
Almighty
(xvii. 1), and gave him promises with a special
emphasis,
which are here repeated. Hence the EI
Shad-
dai
(ver. 3) and Elohim (ver. 4).
MARKS OF P (XXVI. 34, 35;
XXVIII. 1-9)
1. "The unadorned character of the
narration." But
in
what respect is the statement of Esau's marriage
(xxvi.
34, 35) more "unadorned" than that of Abram
and
Nahor (xi. 29 J), or Nahor's family table (xxii. 20-24
J)?
or Isaac's charge and commission to Jacob (xxviii.
1-5),
than the precisely similar one of Abraham in re-
spect
to Isaac (xxiv. 1-10)?
2. "The chronological statement
(xxvi. 34)." See ch.
vi.-
ix., Marks of P, No.2; ch. xvi., Marks of P, No.1.
ISAAC
BLESSES JACOB (CR. XXVI. 34-XXVilI. 9)
333
3. NfanaK;
tOnB; daughters
of Canaan
(xxviii. 1, 6, 8). See
ch.
XXIV., Marks of J, No.4.
4. MrAxE
NDaPa Paddan-aram (vs. 2, 5-7). See ch. xxv. 19-
34,
Marks of P, No.4.
5. YDawa
lxe God Almighty (ver. 3). Explained above;
see
also ch. xvii., p. 221, and Marks of P, No. 6.
6. Mym.ifa
lhaq; company
of peoples
(ver. 3). See ch. xvii.,
Marks
of P, No.2.
7. Myrifum; sojournings (ver. 4).
See ch. xvii., Marks of
P,
No. 8.
8.
ym.iraxEhA the Aramaean
(ver. 5). See ch. xxv. 19-34,
Marks
of P, No.5.
MARKS OF J (XXVII. 1-45)
1. hrAq;hi send good speed (ver. 20). See ch. xxiv.,
Marks
of J, No..~15.
2. hl.AKi rw,xEKa when he made an end (ver. 30); besides in
J,
xviii. 33; xxiv. 22 ; xliii. 2; the same construction of hl.AKi,
not
introduced by rw,xEKa (which
is purely incidental), in
J,
xxiv. 15, 19, 45; Num. xvi. 31; Josh. viii. 24; in E,
Josh.
x. 20; in P, Gen. xvii. 22; xlix. 33; Ex. xci. 18;
xxxiv.
33; Lev. xvi. 20; Num. vii. 1; Josh. xix., 49, 51;
alleged
later stratum of P, Num. iv. 15; in Rd, Deut.
xxxi.
24; in D, Deut. xxxii. 45; all in the Hexateuch.
3. OBliB;
rmaxA said in his heart (ver. 41). See ch. xxiv.
Marks
of J, No. 17.
4.
"The house" (ver. 15).
"J speaks of a house (not
tent)
of Isaac, as he also lets Lot live in one in Sodom
(xix.
2 sqq.), and Jacob build one at Succoth (xxxiii. 17)."
But
E also speaks of Jacob coming back to his father's
house
(xxviii. 21).
MARKS OF E
1. j`xa only (VS. 13, 30) as against qra
only (xix. 8;
xxiv.
8
J). j`xa occurs besides in Genesis in E, xx. 12 ;
in J, vii.
334 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
23;
xviii. 32; xxvi. 9; xxix. 14; xli v. 28; in P, ix. 4, 5;
xxiii.
13; xxxiv. 15, 22, 23. qra
occurs
repeatedly in J as
well
as E. See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No.7.
2. Mr,F,B; before (vs. 4, 33) as against ynep;li (vs. 7, 10).
This
particle occurs in J and P as well as E.
See chs.
xviii.,
xix., Marks of J, No. 13.
3. "The form of address (vs. 1b,
18)," as in E, xxii. 1,
7,
11; xxxi. 11; xxxvii. 13; xlvi. 2; Ex. iii. 4.
But
xxii.
11 is referred to E in spite of the name Jehovah;
and
there is no propriety in sundering xxvii. 1b, 18, from
the
connection in which they stand.
4. dxom;-dfe
exceedingly (vs. 33, 34) ; nowhere else in the
Hexateuch.
It is apparent that the grounds adduced
for the parti-
tion
of ch. xxvii. between J and E are flimsy enough.
The
alleged doublets are no doublets at all; the verbal
criteria
amount to nothing. But the necessity
remains.
Both
the preceding and the subsequent history, as as-
signed
respectively to J and E, presuppose what is nar-
rated
in this chapter. The only conclusion
consistent
with
the divisive hypothesis is that it must in substance
have
been contained in both these documents.
And as
the
critics find it impossible to partition the narrative,
they
are compelled to content themselves with the at-
tempt
to discover traces of both J and E; and these
traces
seem to be hard to find. They are
repeatedly
pressed
by the same difficulty in their endeavor to carry
the
hypothesis through the intractable material that yet
remains;
and they are obliged to resort to the most
questionable
expedients to compass their end.
The last verse of ch. xxvii. links it
closely to ch.
xxviii. Rebekah, impressed with Jacob's peril from
his
enraged
brother, induces Isaac to send him away to ob-
tain
a wife. It is necessary; therefore, to get rid of this
verse
with its evidence of unity, and it is accordingly at-
JACOB'S
DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 335
tributed
to the redactor; and the rather as it tends still
farther
to combine J and P by explicit reference to P
(xxvi.
34, 35), and borrowing its expressions, "daughters
of
Heth," "daughters of the land," as xxiii. 3, xxxiv. 1,
on
the one hand, and by similarity to J on the other. Cf.
"what
good shall my life do me," with xxv. 22, "where-
fore
do I live?"
JACOB'S DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22)
In xxviii. 5, 7 the general statement is
made that
Jacob
had set out for Paddan-aram; in vs. 10-22 a
more
particular account is given of what befell him on
the
way. Jehovah appeared to him as he was
leaving
the
promised land, to assure him of divine protection
wherever
he should go, and of a safe return and especially
to
renew to him the promises made to his fathers of the
possession
of the land in all its length and breadth, and
a
blessing to all nations through his seed.
Like prom-
ises
were made in similar circumstances to Isaac (xxvi.
2-4),
and to Jacob himself, when at a later period he
was
about to go down into Egypt (xlvi. 3, 4).
Cf. a like
promise
made to Abraham, when the future sojourn of
his
seed in a foreign land was shown to him (xv. 13-18).
The general statement above mentioned is
by the critics
given
to P, and the particUlars included under it to JE.
It
hence results that though P relates (xxviii. 1-9) that
Jacob
was sent to Paddan-aram to obtain a wife, and that
he
actually set out for the purpose, he makes no mention
of
anything that occurred upon his journey thither, or of
his
arrival there, or finding his mother's relatives, or his
marriage,
or anything regarding his long residence there.
And
yet these things must have been mentioned, for they
are
presupposed in what is said elsewhere.
In xxxv. 9
P,
God is said to have appeared to Jacob again at Bethel,
336 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
implying
the previous appearance (xxviii. 12 sqq:); xxxi.
18
P, Jacob leaves Paddan-aram with goods and cattle
acquired
there, implying a previous narrative of how he
had
obtained them; and xxxv. 23-26 P gives the names
of
his wives and the children born to him in Paddan-
aram,
implying a previous account of his marriage and
his
family. The matters thus alluded to are
fully re-
corded
in the sacred narrative, but are by the critics as-
signed
to J and E; not a syllable respecting them is to
be
found in P, though they are indispensable to the in-
tegrity
of this document. Just that is missing
from P
which
the critics have sundered from it, and transferred
to
other supposititious documents. There is
here a glar-
ing
lack of continuity in P, as well as repeated references
in P
to the contents of J and E; both of which are in-
consistent
with the hypothesis of separate and indepen-
dent
documents.
Constrained by the occurrence in this
passage of both
Elohim
(vs. 12, 17 sqq.) and Jehovah" (vs. 13-16) the
critics
undertake to parcel vs. 10-22 between E and J.
Wellhausen,
followed by Kautzsch (lest edition) and
Stade,l
gives vs. 10-12, 17, 18, 20, 21a, 22, to E, and the
rest
to J, except 19b, 21b, which are assigned to R.
Ac-
cordingly
E speaks of a dream, in which Jacob saw a
ladder
and angels, but received no accompanying revela-
tion. J makes no mention of any ladder or angels,
but
only
of the appearance of Jehovah, who stood beside
Jacob
and gave him promises for the present and the
future. Thus divided, the vision which was granted to
Jacob,
according to E, had no special adaptation to his
existing
circumstances, but is supposed to be a legend
here
recorded with the view of enhancing the sacredness
of
the sanctuary that existed at Bethel in later times.
And
the point of it is that on that spot communication
1 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 60.
JACOB'S DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 337
was
opened between earth and heaven by a ladder on
which
celestial beings ascended and descended.
But while
in
the opinion of the critics the whole intent of E was to
glorify
the sanctuary at Bethel, he does not once men-
tion
Bethel, nor give any intimation where it was that
this
vision occurred. The name of the place
is only to
be
found in ver. 19a, which is attributed to J.l
Moreover, the vision of the ladder and the
angels (ver.
12)
cannot be separated from the revelation of Jehovah
which
follows (ver. 13) and interprets it (ver. 15), or rather
which
is the most essential part of the whole supernat-
ural
manifestation. In vs. 11, 12, Jacob goes
to sleep
and
dreams; in ver. 16 he awakes; this is evidently a
continuation
of the preceding and cannot be referred to
a
separate document.2 In its
present connection vylAf
upon
it or above
it (ver. 13) plainly refers to the ladder
(ver.
12). To sunder it from the preceding and
insist
that
it should be rendered beside him, is gratuitously to
charge
the redactor with having falsified its meaning.
A
ladder reaching to the skies, on which angels were
ascending
and descending, might entitle the place to be
called
"the gate of heaven," but not "the house of God"
(ver.
17); nor could it be said that God there appeared
unto
Jacob (xxxv. 1, 7, E). In his vow (vs.
20, 21a)
Jacob
adopts the very terms of the promise which Je-
1 Dillmann says, "It may be doubted
from which source ver. 19 has
been
derived; it probably belongs to both, as it cannot be dispensed
with
in either; E in particular presupposes the name Bethel as already
existing"
(xxxi 13; xxxv. 3).
2 In order to escape this difficulty Stade
ventures the suggestion: "It
may
very well be supposed that in the original connection of J the
manifestation
did not take place in a dream, so that 'And Jacob
awaked
out of his sleep,' in ver. 16, has been inserted from E. This is
a
mode of evasion to which the critics frequently resort with the view
of
ridding themselves of unwelcome clauses or words. Here it leaves
the
following verb 'said' without a subject."
338 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
hovah
had just made (ver. 15); so that these cannot be
from
distinct documents. And ver. 21b, of
which the
critics
try to rid themselves because of its "Jehovah," is
most
appropriate where it stands, whether it continues
the
preamble,l or introduces Jacob's own pledge. Jeho-
vah
had announced himself as the God of Abraham and
of
Isaac (ver. 13), would he likewise be, as was implied
in
his promise, Jacob's God? But if this
clause be, as
the
critics will have it, an insertion from J or an addi-
tion
by R, it remains to be explained how either J or
R
should have fallen upon a characteristic phrase of P
(xvii.
7; Ex. vi. 7; xxix. 45).
Verses 10-12 are absolutely necessary to
explain the
situation
in vs. 13-16 J; without them there is no sug-
gestion
how Jacob came to be at Bethel. But they
are
equally
necessary to vs. 17, 18, E. If, however,
under
the
pressure of this latter necessity vs. 10-12 are given
to
E, another incongruity will result. The
mention of
Beersheba
as Jacob's point of departure (ver. 10) im-
plies
Isaac's residence there, as recorded by J (xxvi. 33)
but
not by E. And Haran, to which he was
going, also
points
to J (xxvii. 43; x:xix. 4); it does not occur in E.
Hence
Hupfeld, Dillmann, and Kautzsch (2d edition)
give
ver. 10 to J; but then E lacks any proper beginning.
Hupfeld
made the attempt to split ver. 11 by assigning
1 Hengstenberg (Beitrage, ii., p. 370),
followed by Tuch and Baumgar.
ten,
extends the preamble to the end of ver. 21, as in the margin of the
Revised
Version, "and Jehovah will be my God, then this stone," etc.
This
corresponds with the change of tenses from preterite to future at
that
point in the sentence, and with the common meaning of the
phrase,
"to be the God of anyone," e.g., ver. 13, which is elsewhere
suggestive
of the divine regard rather than of the human obligation of
worship. Delitzsch, Knobel, and Dillmann prefer the
rendering of the
A.
V. and the text of the R. V., which is also that of the LXX. and the
Vulgate. But it is questionable whether they are not
influenced in
their
decision by the critical partition which sunders vs. 20, 21, from
ver.
13.
JACOB'S DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 339
"he
lighted upon a certain place and took one of the
stones
of the place and put it under his head," to E, and
"he
tarried there (where?) all night because the sun was
set,
and lay down in that place to sleep," to J; but he
gave
it up as impracticable. Any division of
the pas-
sage
creates a gap in both documents, neither of which
can
be filled but by trenching upon the other.
The
whole
passage is, moreover, closely linked with ch.
xxvii.,
where we have found that a critical division is
equally
impracticable.
In order to make out the composite
character of the
passage
a doublet is claimed in vs. 16, 17.
"With the
best
endeavor to do so I have not been able to compre-
hend
the point of view from which ver. 17 can be con-
sidered
indicative of a different writer from ver. 16, un-
less
it be on the sole ground of the change of divine
names. It is surely the most natural and appropriate
exclamation
under the circumstances. Ver. 17 does
not
duplicate
ver. 16, but is its suitable sequel.
Neither is
ver.
22 a duplicate of ver. 19. The relation
is not that
of
equivalence but of dependence. Because
God had
here
manifested his presence Jacob named the place
Bethel,
"a house of God." And if God
would verify
the
promise there given (ver. 15), Jacob pledges himself
to
regard this spot as in reality what this name denoted:
it
should be to him a house of God, and here he would
consecrate
a tenth of all to him.
Wellhausen finds indications of a
diversity of writers
in
the order in which the points of the compass are
named,
J (xxviii. 14) W., E., N., S., but R (xiii. 14) N.,
S.,
E., W.; in "all the families of the earth" tHoP;w;mi
hmAdAxEhA (xii.
3; xxviii. 14 J), compared with "all the na-
tions
of the earth " Cr,xAhA yyeOG (xviii. 18 R); and in "thee
and
thy seed" (xiii. 15 R), and an implied reference to
"seed"
(xviii. 18 R) compared with "in thee" (xii. 3 J),
340 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
whence
he infers that "in thy seed"
(xxviii. 14 J) is an
addition
by R. But Dillmann and others have no diffi-
culty
in attributing all these passages alike to J, and see
no
occasion for assuming any insertion or manipulation
by
R. The fact is that where distinct
writers are as-
sumed
on independent grounds there is no difficulty in
gathering
up arguments from varying words and phrases
to
sustain a predetermined conclusion; but these will be
set
aside without ceremony by the critics themselves
when
they have no end to be answered by them.
In Jacob's dream Jehovah, the God of the
chosen
race,
appeared to him (xxviii. 13, 16), in order to assure
him
that though temporarily exiled from his father's
house
he would not on that account be severed from the
God
of his father, as Ishmael had been when sent away
from
Abraham's household, and Lot when his connec-
tion
with Abraham was finally cut off by his passing be-
yond
the limit of the promised land. God was
thence-
forward
Elohim to them as to all who were aliens to the
chosen
race. But Jacob was still under the
guardianship
of
Jehovah, who would continue with him wherever he
might
go. The angels (ver. 12), however, are
not called
"angels
of Jehovah," which never occurs in the Penta-
teuch,
but "angels of Elohim," as xxxii. 2 (E. V. ver. 1),
who
are thus distinguished from messengers of men--the
Hebrew
word for "angel" properly meaning "messen-
ger." This does not mark a distinction between the
docu-
ments,
as though J knew of but one angel, "the angel of
Jehovah,"
the divine angel, while E speaks of "angels;"
for
J has "angels" in the plural (xix. 1, 15). The place
where
Jehovah had thus revealed himself Jacob calls
"the
house of God" and "the gate of heaven," God in
contrast
with man, as heaven with earth. It was a
spot
marked
by a divine manifestation. The critical
sever-
ance
will not answer here, for, as already stated, if vs.13-
JACOB'S DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 341
16
be exscinded as belonging to J, the vision of angels
(ver.
12) alone would not entitle it to be called the house
of
God (ver. 17). The scene of Jehovah's
appearing is
called
"Beth-El," precisely as Hannah called her child
"Samu-El,
because I have asked him of Jehovah" (1
Sam.
i. 20). In Jacob's vow (vs. 20, 22) the
specifica-
tions
respect God's general providential care, and hence
he
uses Elohim, while nevertheless in a manner perplex-
ing
to the critics, who find themselves obliged to erase
the
offending clause, he recognizes Jehovah as the God
(ver.
21) to whom he makes his appeal and gives his
pledge.
MARKS
OF J (VS. 10, 13-16, 19a)
1.
"The contents and form of the promises (vs. 13-
16)";
cf. xiii. 14, 16; xii. 3; xviii. 18., See chs. xviii.,
xix.,
Marks of J, No. 25.
2. lfa bc.ani stand on or over (ver. 14); elsewhere in J,
xviii.
2; xxiv. 13, 43; xlv. 1; Ex. xxxiii. 21; xxxiv. 2;
in
E, Ex. vii. 15; xvii. 9; xviii. 14; Num. xxiii. 6, 17.
3. CraPA break forth, spread abroad (ver. 14); elsewhere
in
J, xxx. 30, 43; xxxviii. 29; Ex. xix. 22, 24; in E, Ex. i. 12.
4.
hmAdAxE ground,
earth, land
(vs. 14, 15). This word is
reckoned
a criterion of J, and whenever it is practicable,
paragraphs
or clauses that contain it are for that reason
referred
to J. Nevertheless in repeated instances
it can-
not
be excluded from P and E. It is used to
denote (1)
Earth
as a material, so in J, Gen. ii. 7, 19; iii. 19; in E,
Ex.
xx. 24. (2) The soil as tilled and
productive, thirty
times,
mostly in J; as no passage relating to tillage is
assigned
to P, of course there is no occasion for the use
of
the word in this sense; it is found in E, Ex. xxiii.
19. (3) The surface of the earlh, the ground, not
only in
J,
but also in P (Gen. i. 25; vi. 20; ix. 2); and in E, Ex.
342 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
iii.
5; Num. xvi. 30, 31 (with hmAdAxE)
is given to J, and
ver.
32a (with Cr,x,)
to E, though a continuous sentence
is
thus cut in two, and ver. 32 corresponds to ver. 30,
and
records Its fulfilment. (4) The land of
Canaan, five
times;
four of these are referred to J (Gen. xxviii. 15;
Lev.
xx. 24, so Dillmann; Num. xi. 12; xxxii. 11); and
one
to E (Ex. xx. 12); Cr,x, is
mostly used in this sense
by J
as well as by P and E. (5) The whole
earth, twice;
in J
"all the families of the earth" (Gen. xii. 3; xxviii.
14);
but the parallel passages have Cr,x, (xviii.
18 J, and
xxii.
18; xxvi. 4 referred to R in a J connection).
See
ch.
vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No.3.
MARKS OF E (VS. 11, 12; 17, 18, 20, 21a, 22)
1. "These verses have Elohim, but P
cannot be re-
garded
as the author on account of xxxv. 9-15."
But
that
is not a variant account of the same transaction, and
as
such implying a different author. It is
expressly
stated
(xxxv. 9) to be a second divine manifestation in
this
place, thus presupposing the narrative in the passage
before
us.
2. "The back references (xxxi. 13;
xxxv. 3, 7) prove
that
it belongs to E." These tend to
establish an iden-
tity
of authorship with those passages, but do not imply
that
they belong to a separate document from the rest of
the
text in which they are found. The same
may be said
of
the back reference from xxxii. 13 (E. V., ver. 12) J.
3.
B; fgaPA to
light upon
(ver. 11); elsewhere in E, xxxii.
2
(E. Y. ver. 1); in JE, Josh. ii. 16; xvii. 10; in P, Gen.
xxiii.
8; Num. xxxv. 19, 21; Josh. xvi. 7; xix. 11, 22, 26,
27,
34.
4. rq,BoBa MyKiw;hi rose up early in the morning (ver. 18).
See
chs. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 26.
5. "The tithe (ver. 22)." Tithes are spoken of besides
JACOB'S DREAM (CH. XXVIII. 10-22) 343
in
the priest code (Lev. xxvii., Num. xviii.), and the Deu-
teronomic
law, and but once elsewhere in the Pentateuch
viz.,
Gen. xiv. 20, which Dillmann doubtfully refers to E,
while
at the same time he holds1 with other critics that
the
first certain trace of E is in Gen. xx.
The ascription
of
the passage before us to E on this ground rests thus
on a
very slender basis. It is far more
natural to believe
that
as the patriarchal institutions supply the germs
from
which the ritual law was subsequently developed,
they
are recorded for that reason, and by the same hand
as
the law itself. The notion, which the
critics seek
to
fasten on P, that the Mosaic ritual had not even
a
germinal existence in the days of the patriarchs, is
without
the slightest foundation in the sacred record,
or
in the nature of things. It is one of
the absurdi-
ties
that grow out of sundering what properly belongs
together.
6. "The dream (ver. 12)." See ch. xx., Marks of E,
No.4.
In commenting on :xii. 8, Dillmann remarks
that there
and
xiii. 4 the sacredness of Bethel is traced to Abra-
ham,
while elsewhere (xxviii. 22; xxxv. 7 sqq.) it is traced
to
Jacob. In his prefatory remarks upon the
section
now
before us, with the view apparently of removing this
fancied
divergence, he observes that in xii. 8 it was a
place
near Bethel, and not Bethel itself, that was conse-
crated
by Abraham. But the sacred writer makes
no
reference
whatever to the idolatrous sanctuary subse-
quently
established at Bethel; least of all is he giving an
account
of its origin. There is no discrepancy
in differ-
ent
patriarchs successively visiting the same place and
building
altars there. These descriptions of
patriarchal
worship
are not legends to gain credit for the sanctuary;
but
the superstition of later ages founded sanctuaries in
1 Die Bucher-Num.-Jos., p. 615.
344 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
venerated
spots, where the patriarchs had worshipped,
and
where God had revealed himself to them.
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.)
The critics here find themselves in a
serious muddle
According
to Hupfeld ("Quellen,"p. 65) ch. xxix. bears so
evidently
the stamp of J that the opposite view, which
is
perfectly arbitrary, needs no refutation.
Wellhausen
is
just as confident that xxix. 1-30 is, with trifling excep-
tions,
from E, while Dillmann compromises the matter
by
making nearly an equal division, and giving vs. 2-15a
to
J, and the rest almost entirely to E.
Hupfeld ("Quel-
len,"
p. 43) maintains that xxx. 1-24 continues J's history
without
the trace of a seam, with the same basis and
presuppositions,
the same manner and language; while
in
the judgment of Wellhausen and Dillmann it is "a
very
remarkable piece of mosaic from J and E."
The
trouble
in xxix. 1-30 is that there are no divine names;
the
trouble is increased in xxix. 31-xxx. 24 by the fact
that
there are divine names.
Dillmann claims that there is a break in
the former of
these
paragraphs at xxix. 15, inasmuch as Laban here
asks
Jacob what wages he shall pay him, though there
had
been no previous mention that Jacob had entered
Laban's
service as a shepherd, or had any thought of
doing
so. There is, of course, a transition to
a new sub-
ject,
as must be the case whenever a fresh topic is intro-
duced;
but it is by no means a violent one, since ver. 14
speaks
of Jacob's abode with Laban, and it is not a re-
mote
supposition that he made himself serviceable during
his
stay (cf. ver. 10). At any rate it fails
to justify Dill-
mann's
own division after ver. 15a, in which the subject
of a
recompense for service is already broached.
Nor is
there
any implication in vs. 16, 17, that Rachel had not
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.)
been
previously spoken of, from which it might be in-
ferred
that vs. 6, 9-12 are from a different document.
It
had not been before mentioned that Laban had two
daughters,
that Rachel was the younger, and that she was
more
attractive than her sister. These facts
are intro-
duced
here, since they are necessary to explain Jacob's
answer
(ver. 18) to Laban's proposal.
The arguments urged to establish the
duplicate char-
acter
of the latter paragraph (xxix. 31-xxx. 24) are
chiefly--
1.
The repeated occurrence of Elohim.
2.
The different explanations given of the names Is-
sachar,
Zebulun, and Joseph.
To the first of these Hupfeld replies that
Elohim in
xxx.
2, 8 is no criterion, because the predominant, if not
exclusive,
biblical usage requires it rather than Jehovah
in
such expressions as are there employed.
And that in
the
etymologies of the names, e.g., in vs. 6, 8, 18, 20, 23,
the
general term Elohim, as more poetic, would naturally be
preferred,
as it is in Proverbs.
Where there are two explanations of the
same name
he
concedes that something has been inserted from an-
other
source. But there seems to be little
cogency in
this
consideration. Issachar (sachar,
hire) is associated
with
Leah's hiring by mandrakes and hiring by the gift
of
her maid; Zebulun, with zabad, "endow," and zabal,
"dwell;"
Joseph, with asaph, "take away," and yasaph,
"add." These are not to be regarded as discrepant
ex-
planations
of these names, implying different views of
their
origin or of the occasion of their being given, but
simply
different allusions to the meaning or the sound of
the
names, which by no means exclude each other.
Such
allusions
are multiplied in the case of Isaac. The
name
means
"laughter;" and we are told how Abraham laughed
and
Sarah laughed incredulously when his birth was pre-
346 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
dicted,
and how God made her laugh for joy, and all her
friends
laugh with her when he was actually born.
There
is
no inconsistency in these statements, and no need of
parcelling
them among different writers. It is the
same
writer
playfully dwelling upon different aspects of a
theme
which interests him.
Dillmann thus apportions the record of the
birth of
Jacob's
children: J, xxix. 31-35 ; E, xxx. 1-3a (including
bear
upon my knees, as
1. 23 E); J, 3b (that I may be build-
ed
by her),
as xvi. 2; J, or rather P, 4a; J, 4b, 5; E, 6;
J,
7; E, 8; J, 9a; P, 9b; J, 10-16; E, 17-20a; J, 20b;
J or
R, 21;1 P, 22a; E, 22b; J, 22c; E, 23; J, 24.
And
this in a paragraph which bears the most abundant
and
positive evidences of unity from first to last in con-
tinuity
of theme, consistent method of treatment, cross-
references,
style, and language.
"Leah was hated" (xxix. 31), see
vs. 18, 20, 25, 30.
"Opened
her womb" (xxix. 31; xxx. 22), opposed to
"shut"
(xx. 18; xvi. 2); cf. xxx. 2. "Rachel was bar-
1 The birth of a daughter is never
mentioned unless she is to appear
in
the subsequent history (cf. xxii. 23).
Dinah (xxix. 21) is prepara-
tory
to ch. xxxiv.; and as no part of that chapter is given to E, xxx.
21
is necessarily referred to either J or R.
So the numerous allusions
in
xxix. 5,10, ,12, 13, to ch. xxiv. J, make it necessary to refer the para-
graph
containing those verses to J. The
frequent references, both for-
ward
and backward, in Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch, bind the
whole
together in inseparable unity, and oppose a formidable obstacle
to
any divisive scheme. They put an end to
the fragment hypothe-
sis,
and they compel the advocates of the document hypothesis to use
great
adroitness in so adjusting their lines of partition that it may ap-
pear
as though each document only presupposed or alluded to what is
contained
in itself. By using the utmost ingenuity
and making a per-
fectly
arbitrary partition, severing what properly belongs together and
splintering
the text ad infinitum, if need be, they manage to cover a
considerable
number of these cross-references. But in
spite of every
effort
to prevent it, the matter referred to is often in the wrong docu-
ment,
and the hypothesis can only be saved by assuming that it was
originally
in the other document likewise, but R has omitted it.
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 347
ren"
(xxix. 31); see xxx. 1, 2, 22, 23.
"Conceived and
bare
a son," "called his name," "and said" (xxix. 32), the
same
formulas with very slight variations recurring
throughout. The language of the mothers refers in
every
case to the jealousy between the wives on account
of
Jacob's preference for Rachel and Leah's fertility.
MfaPaha this time, now
(xxix. 34; xxx. 20). "My husband
will-because
I have borne him-sons" (xxix. 34; xxx.
20). "She left bearing" (xxix. 35; xxx.
9). "Again"
(xxix.
33, 34,35; xxx. 7, 19). Bilhah (xxx. 4),
Zilpah (ver.
9),
cf. xxix. 24, 29. "Fifth" (xxx. 17), "sixth" (ver.
19)
son of Leah, referring to the preceding four (xxix.
32-35). "God hearkened unto" (xxx. 17, 22);
with the
whole
paragraph cf. xxii. 22; xxxv. 23-26. In
formal-
ity
of set phrases and in repetitions it is equal to any
paragraph
attributed to P.
The critics may well infer that this
portion of the story
must
have been very strikingly alike in J and in E, if R
could
thus pass back and forth from one to the other
with
no perceptible effect upon his narrative.
The fact
is
that the paragraph is without seam, woven from the
top
throughout, and the critics have mistaken the figures
deftly
wrought into the material for patches slightly
stitched
together, and they try to rend it accordingly,
but
it will not tear. There is really
nothing for them to
do
but to cast lots for it, which of the documents shall
have
it. If the paragraph had been purposely
con-
structed
with this view, it could not more effectively
demonstrate
the futility of using the dime names and
alleged
doublets for parcelling the text of Genesis.
The critical disposition of xxx. 25-43 J
is based on the
unfounded
assumption of discrepancies between it and
xxxi.
7 sqq., 41 E, both in respect to the chronology and
the
contract between Laban and Jacob.
According to xxxi. 41, Jacob served Laban
twenty years,
348 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
fourteen
for his two daughters and six for his cattle.
But
(xxx. 25 sqq.) the bargain about the cattle was made
after
the birth of Joseph, and (xxix. 20-28) Jacob was
married
to Leah and Rachel after he had already served
seven
years. Now it is alleged that he could
not have
had
eleven children in the next seven years.
The fallacy
lies
in failing to observe that there were four mothers. The
narrative
is linked throughout by Vav Consecutive;
but
this does not prove that each several clause follows
its
predecessor in regular succession.l
The children are
grouped
by their mothers, and thus the order of thought
deviates
from the order of time. Rachel's
jealousy was
aroused,
and Bilhah introduced to Jacob (xxx. 1 sqq.)
before
Leah ceased bearing (xxix. 35). Leah's
four sons
were
born in rapid succession, and as soon as she found
that
she was not at once to have another (xxx. 9) she
substituted
Zilpah, and before Zilpah had her second
son
she had herself conceived her fifth (ver. 17).
Thus
her
sixth son could be born within the seven years, and
Joseph's
birth have taken place about the same time.
Dinah
(ver. 21) was born afterward, and is not to be in-
cluded
within the period in question. The
alleged dis-
crepancy,
accordingly, is not proved.
How is it with the bargaining between
Laban and
Jacob? The latter charges that Laban had sought to
defraud
him by changing his wages ten times (xxxi. 7,
41),
but by God's interference this had been turned to
Jacob's
profit. On the other hand, in xxx. 31
sqq., La-
ban
assented to an arrangement which Jacob himself
proposed,
and which Jacob by a trick turned to his own
advantage. The two statements are not in conflict, but
1 Hengstenberg (Authentie des Pentateuchs,
ii., p.351) appeals to Ex.
ii.
1 where though Moses was born after Pharaoh's cruel edict (i. 22),
the
marriage of his parents and the birth of his brother Aaron (Ex.
vii.
7) must have preceded it.
JACOB
IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 349
supplemental
to each other. Chapter xxx. describes
the
original
arrangement and Jacob's device. Chapter
xxxi.
tells
how Laban modified it from time to time with a
view
to his own interest, but his selfish plans were di-
vinely
thwarted.
The comparison of chs. xxx. and xxxi.
accordingly sup-
plies
no basis for the assumption of discrepant accounts
from
different writers. But Wellhausen
fancies a dis-
crepancy
in ch. xxx. itself, alleging that vs. 32-34 are in-
consistent
with their context. He understands these
verses
to mean that the spotted and brown cattle at that
time
in the flocks were to constitute Jacob's hire;
whereas
(vs. 35, 36) they were separated from the flocks
and
given not to Jacob but to Laban's sons.
The diffi-
culty
is altogether imaginary, and is simply due to a
misinterpretation
of the brief and elliptical statement in
ver.
32. The real meaning is, as is plain
from Jacob's
opening
words in ver. 31, and as it is correctly under-
stood
by Dillmann, that the speckled and brown cattle
to
be born thereafter were to be Jacob's; and as a pre-
liminary
measure those of this description that were
then
in the flocks were set apart as Laban's.
The doublets alleged are quite trivial,
and appear at
once
upon examination to be unreal. Ver. 26a
does not
repeat
25b, but supplements it; Jacob first asks in gen-
eral
terms to be dismissed that he may return to his home,
and
then adds, as included in his request, "Give me my
wives
and my children and let me go."
Ver. 26b is re-
peated
in ver. 29, but it is for the sake of adding ver. 30,
in
which Jacob enlarges upon what he had already said,
in
order that he may impress upon Laban the obligation
under
which he had already laid him. In ver.
31a La-
ban
repeats the offer made in ver. 28, which Jacob had
declined
to answer in the first instance, preferring to
state
the service which he had rendered, and thus give
350 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
Laban
an idea of what he was entitled to, before he
made
any demand. Dillmann himself sets aside
Well-
hausen's
suggestion that 39a is a doublet of 38b.
The
central
clause of ver. 40 is magisterially declared to be a
later
insertion, but as no reason is given, and none is
apparent,
no answer is necessary. These can
scarcely
be
regarded as establishing the existence of a composite
text
derived from distinct sources.
THE
DIVINE NAMES
Two things are here observable in relation
to the di-
vine
names, and have often been remarked: that in this
portion
of Genesis, and on to the end of the book, they
occur
less frequently than before; and that Elohim largely
predominates
over Jehovah. Several considera-
tions
should be noted as bearing upon the explanation
of
these facts:
1.
Jacob was on a lower plane, religiously, than Abra-
ham
and Isaac.
2.
His life was henceforth largely spent away from the
holy
land and among those not of the chosen race.
3.
Since the relation of Jehovah to the patriarchs had
been
sufficiently established by the previous use of that
name,
it seemed less important to continue to repeat it,
and
of more consequence to guard against the notion that
the
God of the patriarchs was a mere tribal deity by re-
curring
to the general term Elohim, suggestive of his re-
lation
to the world at large.
4.
The fuller revelation of God as Jehovah in the
Mosaic
age threw that made to the patriarchs compara-
tively
into the shade; so that while in the beginning, in
contrast
with the times before Abraham, the patriarchal
age
was marked by new manifestations of Jehovah, those
granted
toward its close seemed of inferior grade in com-
parison
with the more resplendent revelations that were
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 351
to
come after, and so more fitly associated with the gen-
eral
term Elohim than the personal name Jehovah.
The solution offered by the critics is
that the materials
are
henceforth largely drawn from the document E.
But
the
hypothesis of different documents will not meet the
case. It has already been seen what confusion it
intro-
duces
in the chapters now before us. It
encounters like
perplexities
in the chapters that follow. If the
alterna-
tion
of Elohim and Jehovah is not in every instance reg-
ulated
in as marked and conspicuous a manner as hereto-
fore
by the meanings of the names, there is, nevertheless,
nothing
counter to the general usage of the rest of Script-
ure
in their employment, or that suggests the idea that
it
was, mechanically determined by the particular docu-
ment
from which any given extract chanced to be drawn.
In
many cases either name would be appropriate, and it
is
at the option of the writer to use one or the other.
And
it is no valid ground of objection to the unity of
Genesis
if a like freedom prevails there as in other
books
of the Bible, where it might often be difficult to
assign
a definite reason for the occurrence of Elohim
rather
than Jehovah, or vice versa.
The birth of Jacob's children is capable
of being
viewed
in a twofold light, as the gracious gift of Jeho-
vah,
the God of the chosen race, who watched over and
directed
its enlargement, or as blessings bestowed in the
ordinary
providence of God. Leah's first
children,
granted
to her notwithstanding the disfavor of her hus-
band,
are viewed under the former aspect (xxix. 31-35).
Those
that follow, in. ch. xxx., are regarded under the lat-
ter
aspect, viz., the children of the handmaids, sprung
from
the jealous strife of Jacob's wives; those of Leah1
1 Note Leah's lingering heathenism in her
allusions to "fortune"
(Gad)
and "good luck" (Ashera) (vs. 11-13); and Rachel's theft of
her
father's images (xxxi. 30, 34).
352 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
after
she had bargained, for her husband's presence; and
Rachel's
son, born after her long envy and impatience.
Upon
his birth she gives utterance to her hope that her
husband's
God, Jehovah, would add to her yet another.
Thus
both Elohim and Jehovah are associated with chil-
dren
of both Leah and Rachel; and Jehovah begins and
ends
the series, encircling the whole and enclosing the
providential
favors granted between these limits.
If any object that this appears to be
an artificial ar-
rangement
it can at least be said that the critics have
nothing
better to propose. The narrative of
these suc-
cessive
births is plainly one and indivisible, and cannot
be
rent asunder and convened into such a piece of patch-
work
as they are obliged to make of it. The
style and
method
are the same, the language and phrases are the
same,
the narrative is continuous, each part being bound
to
and implying the others. So that even
Vater,l with
all
his predilection for the fragment hypothesis, en-
ters
his protest against subdivision here, and against the
assumption
on which it rests, that the same writer could
not
use both Elohim and Jehovah; an assumption that
is
falsified by nearly every book in the Bible.
Delitzsch
holds
that "the interchange of divine names is based
upon
the interchange of sources from which extracts are
taken,"
and then annuls the ground upon which this
opinion
rests by the admission that "the author of Gen-
esis
has intentionally woven both divine names into the
origin
of Israel, and it is probably also not accidental
that
the name Jehovah is impressed on the first four
births,
and the name Elohim on the remaining seven.
On
the whole, we are to get the impression that in laying
the
foundation of Israel Jehovah's fidelity to his prom-
ises
and Elohim's miracle-working power wrought in
combination."
1 Pentateuch, ii., p. 724.
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX., XXX.) 353
It remains to be added that in xxx. 2,
where Jacob
says,
"Am I in God's stead," Elohim is evidently in
place
from the suggested contrast of God and man.
So
ver.
8, where Rachel says, "with wrestlings of God have
I
wrestled," whether the genitive is that of the object,
i.e., wrestlings after God, after a token of
the divine
favor
in giving me a child, or that of the subject, i.e., di-
vine
or superhuman wrestlings. In either case
Elohim
is
the proper word. But in vs. 27, 30,
Jehovah is appro-
priate
because Laban, though not of the chosen race,
recognizes
that it was Jacob's God who had blessed him
for
Jacob's sake.
MARKS OF J
1. l;
rw,xE which belong to (xxix. 9);
besides repeated in
J,
but also in E (xxxi. 21; xxxii. 24 (E. V. ver. 23); xli.
43;
xlv. 10, 11); xl. 5b, and xlvi. 1 are cut out of E con-
texts
and assigned to J.
2.
txraq;li CUr run to meet (ver.
13). This particular
expression
occurs three times besides in the Hexateuch,
and
is each time referred to J, viz., xviii. 2; xxiv. 17;
xxxiii.
4; but both the words occur in E, and there is no
reason
why any Hebrew writer might not have used them
if
he had occasion to do so. See chs.
xviii., xix., Marks
of
J, No. 16.
3.
yriWAb;U ymic;fa my bone and my flesh (ver. 14). A like
expression
occurs in ii. 23 J, but nowhere else in the
Hexateuch. It is used, however, by other writers also
(Judg.
ix. 2; 2 Sam. v. 1; xix. 13, 14, E. V., vs. 12, 13).
4.
hHAp;wi bondmaid (xxix. 24, 29; xxx. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12,
18,
43). This word is said to be
characteristic of P and
J,
as opposed to E, who uses hmAxA maid, as xxx. 3. It oc-
curs,
however, several times in these chapters in what
the
critics consider wrong connections, and the corrective
is
unhesitatingly applied by exscinding the offending
354 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
clause. Thus in xxix. 24, 29; it is found in an E
connec-
tion,
and these isolated verses are cut out and given to P,
where
they are quite unmeaning, and there is nothing
with
which to connect them. They evidently
belong
where
they stand as preparatory for xxx. 4, 9.
It is a
mere
evasion to sunder these verses from their proper
context
because of the manifest reference to them and
their
repetition in identical terms in xlvi. 18, 25 P, which
is
at variance with the critics' hypothesis.
Wellhausen
erases
the word, "Rachel's handmaid" from xxxi. 7, as
an
insertion by R, because he gives the verse to E; Dill-
mann
suffers the words to stand because he assigns the
verse
to J. But both these critics agree that
R must
have
substituted hhAp;wi for
hmAxA in
xxxi. 18, which they
refer
to E. The occurrence of hmAxA maid, in xxx. 3, is not
indicative
of a particular document E; Rachel, in offer-
ing
her bondmaid hhAp;wi to Jacob as a concubine, uses
the
less servile term. See ch. xx., Marks of
E, No.1;
xxi.
1-21, Marks of E, No. 11.
5. NHe ytixcAmA xnA-Mxi if now I have found favor (xxx. 27).
See
ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No.3; ch. vi. 1-8, No. 10.
6.
llag;Bi for
the sake of
(ver. 27). See ch. xii. 10-20,
Marks
bf J, No.6.
7.
CraPA break
forth, increase
(vs. 30, 43). See ch.
xxviii.
10-22, Marks of J, No.3.
MARKS OF E
1. tr,Kow;ma wages (xxix. 15). This is reckoned an E
word,
though in the Hexateuch it only occurs besides in
xxxi.
7, 41 E. It is here used interchangeably
with its
equivalent
from the same root, rcAWA, which is found alike
in E
(xxx. 18; xxxi. 8 bis; Ex. ii. 9; xxii. 14; E. V., 15);
in J
(xxx. 28, 32, 33); in JE (xv. 1); in P (Num. xviii.
31);
and in D (Deut. xv. 18; xxiv. 15).
JACOB IN HARAN (CHS. XXIX.. XXX.) 350
2. hlAdog; hnA.Faq; in respect to age, elder, younger (xxix. 16,
18). These words are here attributed to E in
contrast
with
hrAykiB;, hrAyfic;,
which are supposed to belong to J.
But
as these latter words occur (ver. 26) in an E context,
it
is necessary to cut this verse out of its connection and
give
it to J for this reason alone. But these
alleged E
words
are nowhere else regarded as such. lOdGA
elder, is
assigned
to J (x. 21; xxvii. 15; xliv. 12); to JE (xxvii.
1,
42). NFoqA younger, occurs in J (ix. 24; xxvii. 15; xliv.
12,
20); in JE (xxvii. 42). If, now, upon
the critics' own
partition
of the text, J uses both pairs of words, how
can
either pair be regarded as an indication of a different
document? See ch. xix. 29-38, Marks of J, No.1, 2.
3. hx,r;ma tpayvi rxaTo tpay; fair of form and fair to look
upon (xxix. 17). The entire expression occurs but once
besides,
viz., xxxix. 6, which is referred to J; "fair to
look
upon" occurs in J (xii. 11); in E (xli. 2,4, 18); "fair
of
form" occurs but once more in the Hexateuch, viz.,
Deut.
xxi. 11D. See ch. xxiv., Marks of J, No.
13.
It will be observed that not one of these
so-called E
words
or phrases is peculiar to that document; and such
as
they are, they are all taken from xxix. 15-18.
The
only
other words adduced from the entire two chapters
as
belonging to E, and suggestive of E paragraphs, are
Elohim, hmAxA maid (xxx. 3; see above, Marks of J, No.4),
and
two expressions in xxix. 1, which occur nowhere else
in
the Hexateuch, either in J or E, viz., "lifted up his
feet " (E. V., went on his journey),
"land of the children of
the
east." It is said that this region is called Paddan-
aram
by P, and Aram-naharaim (xxiv. 10) by J, conse-
quently
this third designation must be that of E.
But
if J
can call the same place Haran (xxix. 4) and the city
of
Nahor (xxiv. 10), why may he not use more than one
designation
for the region in which it stood? See
under
ch.
xxiv., p. 298.
356 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
Dillmann points out three E words, as he
considers
them,
in the midst of a paragraph assigned to J, viz.,
MyFihAr; gutters (xxx. 38, 41), as Ex. ii. 16
E; wyiTa he-goat
(xxx.
35), as xxxii. 15 (E. V., 14) E; dqofA
ring-streaked
(xxx.
35, 39,40), as xxxi. 8, 10, 12 E. The
adoption of E
words
and phrases by J here and frequently elsewhere,
together
with the close correspondence J between J and E
in
matter and form, which must be assumed in this chap-
ter,
and in many other passages of like character, makes
it
necessary, so Dillmann infers, to suppose that J was
in
possession of the document E, and made use of it in
preparing
his own work. Knobel and Kayser go far-
ther,
and find it unnecessary to assume the existence of
a
redactor to combine the separate documents of J and
E,
preferring to regard the combined work JE as the
production
of J who had E (or a similar source differently
named
by Knobel) before him, and incorporated such por-
tions
of it as he saw fit. Wellhausen objects
that J must
have
been entirely independent of E; for, if he drew from
E,
he would not have varied from it and contradicted it
in
so many instances. There is a measure of
truth in the
position
taken by each of these critics. If such
docu-
ments
as are attributed to J and E ever existed, there
are
abundant indications that J must have been ac-
quainted
with E. And if so, Wellhausen is right
in
holding
that he could not have been guilty of introduc-
ing
such glaring discrepancies into his own work as the
critics
profess to find there. Whether the
combination
was
effected by J or by a redactor, neither the one nor
the
other could have been so senseless as to insert palpa-
ble
contradictions in what he put forth as credible his-
tory. And in fact these alleged discrepancies and
con-
tradictions
prove upon examination not to be such, but
to
be capable of ready reconciliation. And as these sup-
ply
the principal argument for the separate existence of
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.- XXXII. 3) 357
J
and E, the main prop of this portion of the hypothesis
collapses
with their disappearance; and it becomes easy
to
see how J can use E words, and show familiarity with
the
contents of E sections, if J and E are identical.
JACOB
S RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXll. 3;
E. V., VER. 2)
Chapter xxxi. 1-43 is by the critics
mainly assigned to
E on
account of the repeated occurrence of Elohim,
its
alleged contrariety to ch. xxx., and the revelations in
dreams
to Jacob (vs. 11 sqq.) and Laban (ver. 24); also
the
reference in ver. 13 to xxviii. 20 sqq., which we have
no
disposition to dispute. While this
passage is as-
signed
by the critics to E, it has already been shown to
be
intimately connected with xxx. 31 sqq., with which it
is
entirely consistent, and from which the attempt is
vainly
made to sunder it.
It is claimed that while this paragraph
is for the most
part
from E, vs. 1, 3, 21b, 25, 27 are insertions from J.
But
ver. 2 is not an idle repetition of ver. 1; it is addi-
tional
to it. Laban as well as his sons had
become dis-
affected
toward Jacob. In speaking to his wives
(ver. 5)
he
only mentions their father's disfavor, because this was
of
supreme consequence to himself, and made it plainly
undesirable
for him to remain longer in his service.
Both
vs. 1 and 2 prepare the way for Jehovah's direction
to
Jacob to return to the land of his fathers (ver. 3),
which
stands in no special relation to ver. 1, as the
scheme
of the critics implies. Nor does ver. 3
interrupt
the
connection. It supplies the occasion of
Jacob's sum-
moning
Rachel and Leah (ver. 4); and ver. 5 explicitly
refers
to and repeats the language of both ver. 2 and ver.
3. It is true that ver. 3 has
"Jehovah," which is unwel-
come
to the critics here, but it cannot be helped.
It is
358 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
precisely
equivalent to "the God of my father" (ver. 5).
The
verse is appropriate and required where it stands,
and
Jacob adopts its very words (ver. 13) in reciting at
length
to his wives what is briefly and summarily stated
in
this verse.
The middle clause of ver. 21 is no
superfluous repeti-
tion. The account of Jacob's leaving (vs. 17, 18)
is in-
terrupted
by a necessary digression (vs. 19, 20) explain-
ing
that it was without Laban's knowledge.
Verse 21a
resumes
the notice of this departure; 21b repeats the
opening
words of ver. 17 to add that he crossed the
Euphrates;
21c states the direction of his flight.
All
proceeds
regularly and naturally. On the ground
that
it
would have been impossible to reach Gilead from Ha-
ran
in seven days 1 (ver. 23), Dillmann infers that La-
ban's
residence must, in E's account, have been much
nearer
to Gilead than Haran, and that he must either
have
meant some other river than the Euphrates in ver.
21,
or else "he rose up and passed over the river" must
have
been taken from J. To which Delitzsch
replies that
Laban's
home was in Haran, according to both J and E;
so
that in any event this affords no argument for critical
partition. As to the accuracy of the statement the
histo-
rian
is responsible. It should not, however,
be forgotten
that
there is some indefiniteness in the localities.
Laban
may
have been with his sheep at some distance from
Haran
(ver. 19); and the limits of Gilead are not clearly
defined.
That Laban's pursuit was successful is
summarily
stated
(ver. 23b). Then further details are
given: La-
ban's
dream before he came up with Jacob (ver. 24); La-
ban's
overtaking Jacob, and the respective location of the
two
parties (ver. 25). There is no doublet
here any more
1 In his first edition Dillmann did not
seem to think this impossible,
but
simply that it would require "very vigorous" marching.
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.- XXXII. 8) 359
than
there is in the various instances of a like nature
which
have been reviewed before. Nor is ver.
27 a doub-
let
of ver. 26. If the repetition of a
thought so prom-
inent
in Laban's mind offends the critics, how is it that
they
can refer ver. 27, with its triple repetition, to a sin-
gle
writer?
According to Wellhausen vs. 10, 12 is an
interpola-
tion
of uncertain origin. Dillmann, who deals
largely
in
transpositions to accomplish critical ends or to relieve
fancied
difficulties, thinks that R took them from a nar-
rative
of E, which he had omitted in its proper place,
and
inserted them here rather inappropriately in this
address
of Jacob to his wives. What motive he
could
have
had for such a piece of stupidity we are not in-
formed. The genuineness of the verses is saved, but
it
is
at the expense of R's good sense. It may
be, how-
ever,
that the writer thought these verses appropriate,
whether
the critics do or not.
There is no discrepancy between the
revelation as re-
corded
in ver. 3 and as subsequently related by Jacob
(vs.
11-13). When a writer has occasion to
speak of
the
same matter in different connections three courses
are
open to him. He may narrate it both
times in all its
details,
he may narrate it fully in the first instance and
refer
to it more briefly afterward, or he may content
himself
with a brief statement at first and reserve the de-
tails
until he recurs to it again. In the
directions to
build
the tabernacle minute specifications are given
(Ex.
xxv. 10-ch. xxx.); in its actual construction all the
details
are stated afresh (xxxvi. 8-ch. xxxix.), the sa-
credness
of the edifice making it essential to note the ex-
actness
with which the divine directions were carried into
effect
in every particular. Detailed directions
are given
for
building the ark (Gen. vi. 14 sqq.), but in recording
its
construction the general statement is deemed suffi-
360 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
cient
that Noah did as he was commanded (ver. 22).
Pharaoh's
dreams, because of their importance in the
history,
are twice narrated in full and almost identical
language
(Gen. xli. 1-7, 17-24). So the dream of
Laban
(xxxi.
24, 29), the story of Abraham's servant (xxiv. 3
sqq.,
37 sqq.), the fiats of creation (Gen. ch. i.).
But the
dreams
of Joseph (xxxvii. 5 sqq.) and of Pharaoh's ser-
vants
(xl. 5, 9 sqq.) are simply mentioned as facts and
the
details reserved until they come to be narrated by
the
dreamers.
In the instance at present before us
instead of twice
recording
the divine communication made to Jacob in all
its
details, the writer simply states at first that Jehovah
directed
Jacob to return to the land of his fathers (xxxi.
3),
leaving a more minute account of the whole matter
to
be introduced subsequently in a recital by Jacob. It
is
entirely appropriate in the connection that the revela-
tion
here made to Jacob should concern both his rela-
tion
to Laban and his return to Canaan. The
only
seeming
difficulty is created by the needless assumption
that
things are combined in it which belong to different
periods
of time; that what is said respecting the cattle
must
belong to the early period of Laban's dealings with
Jacob,1
while it is united in the same dream with the
command
to return to Canaan. The dream is
retrospec-
tive
and was intended to teach Jacob that while he had
been
relying upon his own arts to increase his compensa-
tion,
the true cause of his prosperity was to be found in
the
favor of God. And this shows why the
arts of
Jacob
are detailed in ch. xxx. without allusion to the di-
1Nxc.oHa
MHeya tfe (ver. 10) denotes a season of the year, the
time of
copulation
of flocks, and should be rendered "the time when flocks
conceive,"
as a usual thing, rather than "conceived," as though the
reference
were to a definite event in the past. It is as applicable,
therefore,
to the last year of Jacob's abode with Laban as to any that
had
preceded.
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXil. 3) 361
vine
agency, the latter being alone insisted on in ch. xxxi.
It
is not that these have proceeded from distinct writers
who
had different conceptions of the transaction.
It is
simply
that the writer designed to lead his readers to the
true
result by the same route through which Jacob him-
self
passed, without any premature explanation.1 Well-
hausen
alleges that the words of the divine angel must
have
begun with the words "I am the God," etc. (ver.
13);
but this is disposed of by a reference to Ex. iii. 4-
6. Dillmann remarks that E uses droBA
grisled (xxxi. 10,
12),
where J has xUlFA
speckled (xxx. 32, 33), which sim-
ply
shows, not that there are two writers, in which case
the
identical expressions in these verses could be less
easily
accounted for, but that the writer was not aiming
at a
nice precision in regard to terms so closely akin.
Dillmann
also calls attention to the fact that in J (xxx.
-35) dqofA ring-streaked, and
dqonA speckled, are used inter-
changeably,
while in E (xxxi. 8~10, 12) they are distin-
guished;
but that this is no ground for critical partition
is
plain, since they are similarly distinguished in J (xxx.
39).
Verse 18 (except the first clause) is
assigned to P. It
1 Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 235, remarks upon
these passages: "Gen.
xxx.
28-43 and XXXI. 4-13 explain Jacobs great wealth by his own
cunning
and by the care of Elohim respectively. The
former is in per-
fect
harmony with the uniform representation of Jacob's character.
Can
the latter be anything but an ethico-religious improvement upon
it? For observe that the mutual agreement of the
two passages forbids
us
to regard them as independent, so that one must in any case be a
transformation
of the other." Kuenen's conclusion
that the E passage
is a
later improvement upon that of J is in direct conflict with Dill-
mann's
contention that E is the earlier document, from which J re-
peatedly
borrows. The intimate mutual relation of
the passages re-
spectively
assigned to J and E is confessed by both these critics.
Kuenen
has here mistaken a later stage in Jacob's own understanding
of
the secret of his success for a second and modified form of the trans-
action
itself.
362 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
has
the usual phrases of patriarchal removals (cf. xii. 5;
xiii.
6 ; xxxvi. 6, 7; xlvi. 6). The
resemblance between
these
verses is certainly such as to suggest their common
origin;
and the critics refer them uniformly to P, but
upon
what ground it is difficult to see. It
is at variance
with
the connection in every individual case; xii. 5,
xiii.
6 are torn from a J context; xxxi. 18, xlvi. 6 from an
E
context,1 and the context of xxxvi. 6, 7, is disputed.
The
minute specification of particulars, alleged to be
characteristic
of P, is no greater than in xxxii. 6, 23 (E.
V.
vs. 5, 22) J, xxxiv. 28, 29 R, taken perhaps from E, xlv.
10 E
or J. Of the words and phrases in these
verses said
to
be indicative of P, not one is peculiar to him.
"To go
to
his father" (ver. 18) links it with xxxv. 27 P indeed,
but
equally with xxviii. 31 E. No good
reason can be
given
why these verses should not be reckoned an integral
part
of the context in which they are found.
This is
particularly
so in this instance, in which the presence of
E
words2 at the beginning makes it necessary to divide
the
sentence, leaving only an incomplete fragment for P,
in
which nevertheless one of these very words (hn,q;mi)
recurs,
as it does also in a like connection, xxxvi. 6.
HIATUS IN THE DOCUMENT P
But accepting the partition on the sole
dictum of the
critics,
the result is an enormous gap in P. He
makes
1The supplement hypothesis,
which identified E and P, had a basis
here
for the reference of these verses to the "Grundschrift," which the
present
critical hypothesis has not.
2 hn,q;mi
cattle, is claimed for J or JE; ghanA carried away, which re-
curs
in E, ver. 26, with explicit reference to this passage, and is found
besides
in the Hexateuch (except twice in Deut.), Ex. in. 1. ; xiv. 25 E;
Ex.
x. 13 J. If to avoid mutilating the
sentence the whole verse is given
to
P, the argument from the JE use of these words elsewhere is con-
fessed
to be worthless.
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 3) 363
no
mention of Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram, or of his
residence
there, or anything that occurred during his stay
in
that region, not even of his marriage,the one sole pur-
pose
for which he went, as the critics understand P, or
of
the birth of his children, or of his accumulation of
property. There are only the disconnected and conse-
quently
unmeaning statements (xxix. 24, 29) that Laban
gave
maids to his two daughters, and (xxx. 22) that God
remembered
Rachel. But what either the daughters or
their
maids had to do with the life of Jacob does not
appear. And now Jacob is returning with cattle and
property
to which there has been no previous allusion,
and no
suggestion of how they were obtained, but no
hint
that he had a family.1 J and E supply what is lack-
ing,
though a marriage was no part of the purpose with
which,
according to them, Jacob left his home.
And
further,
P at a later time (xxxv. 22b-26) recites the names
of
Jacob's children in the order of their birth, and refers
them
to their different mothers in exact accordance with
the
detailed account in JE, which is thus presupposed.
What
the critics sunder from P is thus an essential part
of
his narrative. And it is necessary for
them to resort
again
to the assumption that P did write just such an
account
as we find in J and E, but R has not preserved
it. Nevertheless R, who has here dropped P's
entire
story
at a most important epoch, that which laid the
foundation
for the tribal division of Israel, and thus re-
duced
his narrative to incoherent fragments, elsewhere
introduces
clauses and sentences which in the judgment
of
the critics are quite superfluous repetitions of what
1 Noldeke endeavored to account for this
vast chasm in P by the
wholly
gratuitous assumption that the narrative of P was inconsistent
with
that of J and E, and R omitted it for that reason. The supple-
ment
hypothesis, which made E and P one document, here again es-
caped
this incongruity.
364 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
had
been more fully stated before, for the mere sake of
preserving
everything contained in his sources.1
But the strangest feature of P's account,
as conceived
by
the critics, is thus clearly and succinctly stated by
Dr.
Harper: "The absence of the
theological element
is
quite conspicuous: (1) The daily life of
the patriarchs
(with
the exception of a few special and formal the-
ophanies)
is barren of all religious worship. (2)
This is
especially
noticeable in the case of Jacob; he leaves
home
to seek for the wife who is to be the mother of
Israel;
he sojourns many years in the land from which
Abram
was by special command sent away; he marries
according
to the instruction of his parents, and begets the
children
who are to become the tribes of Israel--still no
sacrifice
or offering is made to God for his providen-
tial
care, not even a prayer is addressed to the Deity.
(3)
Nor does God, on his part, descend to take part or
interest
in human affairs; He gives no encouragement to
Jacob
as he leaves home, nor does he send any word to
him
to return."2
This comes near enough to the"
unthinkable" to be a
refutation
of that critical analysis which is responsible
for
such a result. P is the priestly
narrator, to whom
the
ordinances of worship are supremely sacred, and they
absorb
his whole interest; whose history of the patri-
archs
is only preliminary and subsidiary to the law regu-
lating
the services of the sanctuary. The
patriarchs are
to
him the heroes and the models of Israel, whom, we
are
told, he is so intent upon glorifying that he reports
none
of their weaknesses, no strifes, no act of disingenu-
ousness,
no strange gods in their households, nothing
1 E.g., vii. 13-15, 17, 22, 23
: viii. 2b, 3a; xiii. 6 : xix. 29, not to speak
of
the innumerable doublets which the critics fancy that they have dis-
covered.
2Hebraica, v. 4, p. 276.
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.- XXXII. 3) 365
low
or degrading. He singles out for
prominent mention
the
sabbath (ii. 2, 3); the prohibition of eating blood (ix.
4);
the ordinance of circumcision (xvii. 10 sqq.).
God
appears
to Abraham and establishes his covenant with
him
and with his seed, with the express condition of his
walking
before him and being perfect, i.e., whole-hearted
in
his service (xvii. 1 sqq.). And yet P's
account of the
patriarchs,
as the critics furnish it to us, is almost abso-
lutely
denuded of any religious character. Is P
really so
absurd
and self-contradictory, or have the critics made a
mistake
in their partition?
THE COVENANT OF LABAN AND JACOB
The account of the covenant between Laban
and Jacob
(vs.
44-54) is, in the opinion of the critics, a mass of
doublets
and glosses. There are two monuments, a
pil-
lar
(ver. 45) and a heap of stones (ver. 46); two covenant
meals
(vs. 46b, 54); two names with their respective ety-
mologies
(vs. 48, 49); two (or rather three) appeals to
God
to watch, witness, and judge between them (vs. 49,
50,
53); and the substance of the contract is stated
twice,
and in different terms (vs. 50, 52). The
symmetry
of
this statement is somewhat spoiled by the triplicity of
one
of the items. But the passage would seem
to afford
ample
scope for critical acumen. There has,
however,
been
great divergence in the results that have been
reached,
and no partition that has been devised has
proved
generally satisfactory.1
Dillmann, who in the
1 Astruc, followed by Schrader, gives vs.
48-50 to the Jehovist, and
the
remainder to the Elohist. Eichhorn, and
after him Tuch, limits
the
Jehovist to ver. 49. Ilgen gives the
whole passage to the second
Elohist,
except vs. 48, 49, which he throws out of the text as a later
gloss,
and makes several transpositions in order to obtain what he con-
siders
a more suitable arrangement.
Other critics divide as follows: Knobel (Commentary): Ancient
366 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
main
here adopts the division of Wellhausen, assigns vs.
46,
48-50 to J, who accordingly tells of the heap of
stones
in pledge that Jacob would treat his
wives as he
should,
with some dislocations, to be sure, which Dill-
mann
corrects as usual by the necessary transpositions;
the
covenant meal (ver. 46b), and the naming of the heap
(ver.
48b), ought in his opinion to come after the engage-
ment
(ver. 50). Of course R is charged with
having re-
moved
these clauses from their proper place, and no
very
good reason is given for his having done so.
E (vs.
45,
47, 51-54) records the election of a pillar as a boun-
dary
between the Hebrews on the one side and the Ara-
mreans
on the other.
But Delitzsch mars this arrangement by
calling atten-
tion
to Jehovah in ver. 49, and Elohim in ver. 50, show-
ing
that both J and E related Jacob's pledge in relation
to
his wives; also to the triple combination of the heap
and
the pillar in vs. 51, 52, showing that J and E also
united
in fixing the boundary between Laban and Jacob.
So
that it appears after all that there were not two cove-
nants,
but two stipulations in the same covenant.
Dill-
mann
is further constrained to confess that E speaks of a
Source,
vs. 45, 46, 48-50, 53b. J, vs. 47, 51, 52, 53a. (Appendix):
First
Source, vs. 44, 48-50, 53, 54. Second
Source, vs. 45-47, 51, 52.
Hupfeld: E, vs. 46b, 48a, 50. J, vs. 45,
46a, 47, 51-54, 48b, 49.
Boehmer: E, vs. 44, 46, 47, 51, 52
(expunging the "pillar" twice),
53b,
54a. J, vs. 45, 48 (And Laban said), 53a, 54b. R, vs. 48 (after
the
opening words), 49, 50.
Kittel: E, vs. 45 (substitute
"Laban" for "Jacob "), 46, 48a, 50, 53,
54. J, vs. 51, 52 (expunge the "pillar"
twice). R, vs. 48b, 49.
Vatke: E, vs. 45, 47, 48a, 50, 54. J, vs.
46, 48b, 49, 51-53.
Delitzsch: E, vs. 45, 47, 50, 53b, 54. J, vs. 46, 48,
49. JE, inex-
tricably
combined, vs. 51-53a. R, in ver.49, the words, "And Miz-
pah;
for."
Kayser gives up the partition as
impracticable, and says, "The sepa-
ration
of the two elements cannot be effected without tearing asunder the
well-ordered
connection."
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.- XXXII. 3) 367
lGa "heap"
as well as a "pillar" in ver. 52, inasmuch as
ver.
47b is on critical principles a doublet of ver. 48b,
and
E as well as J located this scene in Mt. Gilead, and
was
concerned to find an allusion to its name in the
transaction. He clogs his admission with the assertion
that
E uses lGa in
a different sense from J, meaning a
mountain
ridge and not a heap thrown up by hand.
But
after
all the critical erasures made for the purpose this
is
still unproved. He has merely
demonstrated his de-
sire
to create a variance which does not exist.
And ver.
47,
which he assigns to E, is indissolubly linked to ver.
48
J.
We
thus have good critical authority for saying that
one
and the same writer has spoken of both the monu-
ments
and of both the contracts, involving, of course, the
double
appeal to God to watch over their fulfilment.
And
from this there is no escape but by the critical
knife,
of which Wellhausen makes free use here, as he
never
fails to do in an extremity. Verse 471
is thrown
out
of the text as a piece of "superfluous learning;" but
Dillmann
replies that E calls Laban "the Aramaean"
(vs.
20, 24), that he likewise speaks of the "heap," in
ver.
52, and may have given an explanation of the name
"Gilead;"2
and that the location of the place on the
1 Tuch, on the contrary, finds
in the Aramaean name in this verse an
apt
parallel to the Aramrean MrAxE
NDaPa (for which Hosea xii. 13 (E. V.
ver.
12) substitutes the Hebrew equivalent MrAxE hdeW;), and he refers
both
alike to the same writer.
2 It is alleged that a false
explanation is given (ver. 48) of the name
"Gilead,"
which means hard or rough, not "heap of witness." It is
not
necessary, however, to suppose that it was the intention of the sa-
cred
writer to affirm that Gilead derived its name from the transaction
here
recorded. It bears that name in his
narrative before this transac-
tion
took place (vs. 21, 23, 25). His meaning
rather is that the name
which
it had long borne was particularly appropriate by reason of this
new
association, which was naturally suggested by its sound to a He-
brew
ear (cf. xxvii. 36).
368 THE
GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
boundary
between the Aramaeans and the Hebrews may
account
for the twofold denomination.
"Jehovah watch
between
me and thee when we are absent one from an-
other"
(ver. 49), is also expunged; and "Mizpah," at
the
beginning of the verse, which is a clear voucher for
the
genuineness of the doomed clause, and a name which
the
historian was at pains to link with this transaction,
as
well as Gilead and Mahanaim (xxxii. 3, E. V., ver. 2),
is
by a stroke of the pen converted into Mazzebah, and
then
ejected from the text." No man is
with us; see,
Elohim
is witness betwixt me and thee" (ver. 50), is in
like
manner declared to be an insertion by the redactor,
on
the ground that it conflicts with ver. 48, which makes
the
heap the witness; but, as Delitzsch observes, there
is
obviously no collision between these statements.
"This
heap" with its adjuncts is twice erased (vs. 51,
52a),
and "this pillar" (ver. 52b), so as to read, "Be-
hold,
the pillar, which I have set, is a witness betwixt
me
and thee, that I will not pass over this wall (not a
heap
newly cast up, but a boundary of long standing) to
thee,
and that thou shalt not pass over this wall unto
me." With the text thus cleared of obstructions,
and
altered
to suit his purpose, he has a comparatively clear
course.
It is obvious to observe further that the
two covenant
meals
are a fiction. Upon the erection of the
heap pre-
liminary
mention is made (ver. 46) of the feast held be-
side
it, which is then recorded more fully, after other de-
tails
have been given, in ver. 54. We have
already met
repeated
examples of the same kind. Delitzsch
refers
to
such parallels as xxvii. 23; xxviii. 5.
Dil1mann him-
self
said (in his first edition) of the eating together in ver.
46: "This was the covenant meal, which is
related ver.
54. It is here only referred to proleptically (as
ii. 8 and
15;
xxiv. 29, 30), and it is not necessary, therefore, to as-
RETURN
FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII. 3)
369
sign
the verse to a different author from vs. 53, 54, espe-
cially
as 'his brethren' corresponds with vs. 32, 37."
With the doublets thus disposed of, the
analysis,
which
has no further basis, collapses entirely.
The carp-
ing
objection that acts in which both participated are (vs.
45,
46) attributed to Jacob, and (ver. 51), claimed by La-
ban,
gives no aid nor comfort to the critics, for the dis-
crepancy,
such as it is, is between contiguous verses of the
same
document. Wellhausen on this ground
eliminates
"Jacob"
from the text of vs. 45, 46, and substitutes
"Laban." Dillmann (in his first edition) quoted with
ap-
proval
Knobel's statement, "It is self-evident that all
this
was done in common by both the leaders and their
adherents;"
and again, on ver. 51, "Laban, as the one
who
proposed the covenant, rightly prescribes to Jacob the
words
to be sworn, and attributes to himself, as the orig-
inator
of it (ver.44), the erection of the two witnesses."
The
suspicion cast upon "the God (or gods) of their
father"
(ver. 53), because the verb is interposed between
it
and" the God of Nahor," with which it is in apposition,
is a
pure question of textual criticism without further
consequences. Here again Dillmann comes to the res-
cue
in his first edition. "The God of
Abraham and the
God
of Nahor are then both designated by the apposi-
tion
'the gods of their father,' as once worshipped by
Terah,
as if Terah's two sons had divided in the worship
of
the gods of Terah.
THE DIVINE NAMES
The
divine names are used discriminatingly through-
out. It was Jehovah (ver. 3) who bade Jacob return
to
the
land of his fathers; but in repeating this to his wives,
who
were but partially reclaimed from idolatry (xxx. 11;
xxxi.
34; xxxv. 2, 4), he constantly uses Elohim (xxxi. 4-
370 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
13)
(once, more definitely, the God of my father, ver. 5),
as
they also do in reply (ver. 16). In like
manner it is
Elohim,
who speaks to Laban the Aramaean (ver. 24),
and
of whom Jacob speaks to Laban (ver. 42), though
both
of them recognize his identity with the God of Abra-
ham
and of Isaac (vs. 29, 42). When they
covenant, ap-
peal
is made both to Jehovah and to Elohim (vs. 49, 50)
as
the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor (ver. 53).
Jacob
swears by the Fear of his father Isaac (ver. 53),
the
Being whom his father reverently worshipped, and
whose
gracious care he had himself experienced (ver. 42).
In
xxxii. 2, 3 (E. V., vs. 1, 2), "angels of Elohim," "the
host
of Elohim," are so called in distinction from mes-
sengers
of men and armies under human command; it
is a
detachment divinely sent to welcome and escort
him
as he returns to the holy land.
MARKS OF P (VER. 18)
1. wkur;
substance, and
wkarA to
gather. See ch. xii. 5,
Marks
of P, No.2.
2. NyAn;qi
getting; besides in the Hexateuch,
xxxiv. 23;
Josh.
xlv. 4 P; Lev. xxii. 11, which, according to Well-
hausen,
is not in P; and. Gen. xxxvi. 6, which is cut out
of a
disputed context and given to P.
3. Paddan-aram. See ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks of P,
No.4.
4. NyanaK;
Cr,x, land of Canaan. See ch. xii. 5, Marks of
P,
No.4.
5.
The diffuseness; but this is no greater than in vs.
1, 3
J, and vs. 26, 27, 43 E. See ch. xvii.,
Marks of P,
No.5.
MARKS OF E
1.
The back reference (ver. 13) to xxviii. 20 sqq., which
is
readily admitted.
RETURN FROM HARAN (CHS. XXXI.-XXXII.
3) 371
2.
The revelations in dreams (vs. 10. 11, 24). See ch.
xx.,
Marks of E, No.4.
3. Teraphim (vs.19, 34, 35);
nowhere else in the Hexateuch.
4.
Laban, the Aramaean. See ch. xxv.
19-34, Marks of
P,
No.5.
5.
hmAxA maid-servant (ver. 33); here used rather than
hHAp;wi because
they are spoken of not as bondmaids, but
as
wives of Jacob. See ch. xx., Marks of E,
No.1.
6. bbAle heart (ver.
26). See ch. xx., Marks of E,
No.2.
7.
hKo here (ver. 37). See ch. xxii. 1-19, Marks of E,
No.5.
8.
fgaPA met (xxxii. 2, E. V., ver. 1). See ch. xxviii. 10-
22,
Marks of E, No.3.
9.
qHAc;yi dhaPa the Fear of Isaac (xxxi. 42, 53); nowhere
else;
and even dhaPa besides,
in the Hexateuch, only in
Deut.
and Ex. xv. 16, a passage supposed to have been
borrowed
from an older document, but not written by E.
10.
Mynimo times (xxxi. 7, 41); nowhere else.
MOwlowi lOmT; before time (xxxi. 2; 5), is reckoned an E
phrase;
it occurs besides, Ex. v. 7, 8, 14; xxi. 29, 36 E;
but
also Ex. iv. 10 J; Josh. xx. 5 P. OWfE (ver. 28), a like
form
of the infinitive, occurs xlviii. 11; 1. 20; Ex. xviii.
18
E; but also Gen. xxvi. 28; Ex. xxxii. 6 J.
WPeHi
search (ver. 35) ; only besides in the Hexateuch
xliv. 12 J.
yneyfeB; rHayi burn in the eyes of, be displeasing to (ver. 35),
besides
in xlv. 5, where it is included between two J ex-
pressions
in the same clause. l;
rHayiva was
wroth
(ver.
36),
as iv. 5 J. The use of hqalA by E (vs. 45, 46) re-
sembles
what Dillmann affirms to be characteristic of
P,
xii. 5, and elsewhere. The various words
and
phrases
alleged as marks of E, in this section as else-
where,
are for the most part either limited to a single
passage,
or are also found in J. Consequently they do
372 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
not
in fact supply any argument for a document E dis-
tinct
from J.
It may further be noted that by the
confession of the
critics
the same writer may use different terms to express
the
same thought. Thus ver. 2 speaks of the
counte-
nance
of Laban being with Jacob, but ver. 5 of its be-
ing
toward him; to "set up" (a pillar) is, in ver. 45,
Myrihe,
but in xxviii. 18, 22, MyWi
and in xxxv. 20, byc.ihi;
and
"collecting stones" is expressed differently in suc-
cessive
clauses of ver. 46. Yet all these forms
of ex-
pression
are attributed alike to E.
MEETING OF JACOB AND ESAU (CH. XXXII. 41
-
XXXIII. 17)
Hupfeld is commonly acute enough in
detecting
grounds
of division, but here for once he is completely
at
fault. This entire section seemed to him2
to bear the
most
conclusive marks of unity in language, in the con-
tinuity
of the narrative, and in the close connection of
the
several parts, which mutually presuppose and are
indispensable
to each other. The interchange of divine
names,
Jehovah (xxxii. 10) and Elohim, gives him no
trouble,
since the latter occurs only where, according to
general
Hebrew usage, "Jehovah would not be appro-
priate"
(xxxii. 29, 31; xxxiii. 10), or
"Elohim is prefer-
able"
(xxxiii. 5, 11). He accordingly
attributed the
whole
of this section to J. Schrader, on the contrary,
assigns
it all to E, with the exception of vs.10-13 J, and
ver.
33, about which he is in doubt whether it belongs to
J or
is a later gloss. In his first edition
Dillmann re-
1The last verse of ch. xxxi. in
the English version is the first verse of
ch.
xxxii. in the Hebrew, and the consequent difference in numeration is
continued
through ch. xxxii. The numbers given in
the text are those
of
the Hebrew, from which one must be deducted for the correspond-
ing
verse in the English Bible.
2 Quellen, p. 45.
JACOB
AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIlI. 17) 373
ferred
xxxii. 8 -13 to J, and vs. 23-32 to E, while the
remainder
(xxxii. 4-7, 14-22; xxxiii. 1-16) contained
so
many indications of both E and J that he felt obliged
to
assume that J had taken the substance of it from E,
and
remodelled it after his own fashion.
Such mingled
texts,
in which aloe confusedly blended what the critics
regard
as the characteristics of different documents,
simply
show how mistaken is every attempt to apportion
among
distinct writers expressions which are thus seen
to
flow freely from the same pen.
Wellhausen admits that this whole section
is closely
connected
throughout, and that it gives the impression
of
having been drawn from but a single source. "One
will
surely wonder," he adds, "at the idle acuteness
which
nevertheless succeeds here in sundering J and E."
He
has discovered a doublet, which had previously es-
caped
all eyes, and by its aid he undertakes to rend the
passage
in twain. Verse 14a is repeated ver.
22b. He
infers
that vs. 14b-22a only carries the narrative to the
point
already reached by vs. 4-13; and that conse-
quently
these two paragraphs are not consecutive as
they
appear to be, and as the nature of their contents
would
seem to imply, but are parallel accounts of the
same
transaction, drawn respectively from J and E.
In
his
first edition Dillmann was so far from agreeing with
this
position as to maintain that the night spoken of in
ver.
22 is not the same as that in ver. 14, but is the next
ensuing. In subsequent editions, however, he follows,
as
he has unfortunately so often done, in the wake of
Wellhausen,
as though the latter had made a veritable
discovery. But even though the night is the same, the
paragraphs,
which these verses respectively conclude, are
plainly
not identical in their contents, nor can they by
possibility
be variant accounts of the same transaction.
Jacob had taken the precaution to notify
Esau of his
374 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
return,
and was informed that Esau was on his way to
meet
him with four hundred men (vs. 4-7). He
was in
consequence
greatly alarmed, not, as Tuch imagined, by
the
vague apprehension of what a horde of robber Bed-
ouins
might possibly do. This notion was
advocated
by
him in the interest of the supplement hypothesis,
which
admitted but one Elohist, and supposed that he
knew
nothing of any strife between the brothers.
But it
is
quite inadmissible in the present form of the divisive
hypothesis,
according to which E and J alike record
Jacob's
fraud in obtaining his father's blessing, and
Esau's
murderous wrath in consequence. Jacob
well
knew
that he had an enraged brother to deal with, and
he
feared the worst. He shaped his measures
accord-
ingly. He first divides his flocks and herds,
together
with
his retinue, into two separate companies, that if one
should
be attacked the other might escape (vs. 8, 9).
He
then makes his earnest appeal to Jehovah, the God
of
his fathers, who had bidden him return, acknowledg-
ing
his unworthiness of past mercies, pleading the
promises
divinely made to him, and praying for deliver-
ance
from this impending peril (vs. 10-13).
Upon this
he
selects a valuable present of goats and sheep and
camels
and asses, and sends them forward in successive
droves
to placate Esau1 and announce his own coming
(vs.
14-22). These are evidently distinct
measures,
wisely
planned to avert the danger which he had so
much
reason to apprehend.
The repeated mention of the night, then
coming on,
which
was the most eventful in. Jacob's life, upon which
1 The assertion that there are two
variant conceptions of the present to Esau, that in ver. 14 E it is simply a
token of respect, while in ver.
21b
(which Dillmann cuts out of its connection and assigns to J) it is de-
signed
to appease Esau's anger, is at variance with the uniform tenor of
the
entire passage.
JACOB
AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXilI. 17)
375
so
much depended, and in which so much was done, is
by
no means surprising. Preliminary mention
is made
(ver.
14) of Jacob's lodging that night himself, while he
sent
forward the present to his brother, which is then
described
in detail with the accompanying arrangements
(vs.
14b-22a). At the close of this
description the nar-
rative,
thus interrupted, is once more resumed by repeat-
ing
the statement that Jacob "lodged that night in the
company"
(ver. 22b). This clause, as Dillmann
cor-
rectly
remarked in his first edition, is a "connecting
link"
with the following account of what further took
place
that same night, which was so momentous a crisis
not
only in respect to the peril encountered, but as the
turning-point
in the spiritual history and character of
Jacob. The repetition of this clause tends in no way
to
create the suspicion that the narrative is a composite
one;
on the contrary, it proceeds by regular and closely
related
steps, everyone of which has a direct and mani-
fest
bearing upon the final issue.
An additional evidence of duplication is
sought in the
double
allusion to the name Mahanaim, which, we are
told,
E and J understand and explain differently.
Only
it
is unfortunate for the effect of this argument that
Wellhausen
and Dilhnann cannot agree how E did un-
derstand
it. They are clear, however, that J
regarded it
as a
dual, and meant to explain it by the "two com-
panies,"
or camps, into which Jacob divided his train (vs.
8,
9, 11); whereupon, they tell us, he must have added,
Therefore
the place was called Mahanaim." R
pru-
dently
omitted this statement because of its conflict with
ver.
3, where the origin of the name is accounted for in
another
way. But such a mention of the name of
the
place
by J. is thought to be implied in ver. 14a, "he
lodged
there." Undoubtedly"
there" refers to a place
before
spoken of, either one actually found in the text
376 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
(xxxii.
3 E, the wrong document for the critics), or one
that
they tell us ought to be there, though it is not.
About
E's view of the matter there is not the same agree-
ment. Wellhausen alleges that he took Mahanaim for
a
singular,
and was correct in so doing, aim being a modi-
fied
form of the local ending am, and hence in ver. 22
he
writes it as a singular, Mahane, the name being sug-
gested
by his meeting a host of angels.
Dillmann re-
gards
it as a dual in E also, suggested by the two com-
panies
or camps, that of the angels and that of Jacob.
But
however this question may be settled, different al-
lusions
to the signification of the name Mahanaim in the
same
connection are not an indication of distinct writers,
as
we have already seen repeatedly in other instances.
It
is further said that ver. 22 speaks of Jacob's com-
pany
as a unit; the writer knows nothing of its division
into
two companies as in vs. 8, 9. But in
precisely
the
same way Esau speaks (xxxiii. 8) of the five suc-
cessive
droves which he had met, being the present
which
Jacob designed for him (xxxii. 1~17) as a single
company.
Further, according to the division of the
critics, E ,
(ver.
18) presupposes the coming of Esau announced in J
(ver.
7), and all the arrangements made in E imply ap-
prehensions
which are only stated in J (vs. 8, 9). They
are
in fact so interwoven that they cannot be separated.
And
Dillmann finds it necessary to assume that vs. 4-7.
are
preliminary alike to E and J, though his only ground
for
suspecting their composite character is the twofold
designation
of the region (ver. 4) as "the land of Seir,
the
field of Edom." Certainly no one
but a critic intent
on
doublets could have suspected one here.
Mount Seir
had
been spoken of (xiv. 6) as the country of the Horites.
Esau
had now taken up his quarters, provisionally at
least
in what was to be his future abode and that of his
JACOB AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII.
17) 377
descendants. This is here intimated by calling Seir by
anticipation
"the field of Edom."
But Dillmann has found another doublet,
which even
Wellhausen
had failed to see; ver. 23 is J's, and ver. 24
E's
account of crossing the Jabbok. In the
former
Jacob
crosses with his family; in the latter he sends his
family
before him and himself remains behind.
And
this
is paraded as a variance, requiring two distinct
writers. Is it not as plain as day that ver. 23 is a
gen-
eral
statement of the fact that they all alike crossed the
stream,
while in ver. 24 it is stated more particularly
that
he first sent over his family, and then his goods, and
that
a very remarkable incident occurred to himself after
he
was thus left alone? Dillmann himself so
explained
it
in his first edition, his only doubt being whether Jacob
crossed
with the rest to the south bank of the Jabbok,
and
was there left behind while they moved on, or
whether
he continued for a while on the north bank
after
all had been sent over. The latter is
the common
opinion,
though the former might be consistent with the
language
used. As Penuel has not been identified,
it
may
be uncertain on which side of the stream the mys-
terious
conflict described in the following verses took
place.
JACOB'S WRESTLING WITH THE ANGEL
Here again the critics diverge. Are vs. 24-33 by J, the
author
of xxxii. 4-14a and xxxiii. 1-17? or by
E, the
author
of xxxii. 14b-22? Wellhausen says J most
de-
cidedly;
Kuenen and Driver agree with him; Dillmann
says
E with equal positiveness. Other critics
follow
their
liking one way or the other. There is a
conflict of
criteria. The literary tests point one way, the matter
of
the
passage the other. Thus Wellhausen: "The whole
character
of the narrative points to J. E, who has
God
378 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
appear
in dreams, and call from heaven, and then, too,
sometimes
introduces the angel or angels as a medium,
cannot
have related such a corporeal theophany; on the
other
hand we are reminded of xv .17 seq., and of ch. xviii.,
xix.
J." Kuenen ("Hexateuch,"
p. 250) claims on the same
ground
that "it falls in far better with J's than with E's
tone
of thought." Dillmann points to
Elohim (vs. 29,
31)
as decisive for E, and claims that "Wellhausen's op-
posing
grounds prove nothing or rest on bare postu-
lates." Delitzsch says, "The name Elohim is by
itself
alone
no decisive criterion against J," thus dislodging
the
very foundation-stone of the divisive hypothesis, and
adds,
"The answer to the question whether J or E is the
narrator
remains uncertain and purely subjective."
The readiness with which the critics can
upon occa-
sion
set aside their own tests, whether derived from the
matter
or the literary form, tends to confirm the belief
that
they are of a precarious nature generally, and that
the
verdict of Delitzsch as to the subjective character of
critical
conclusions is applicable to other instances be-
sides
the present. Dr. Harper uses the
following lan-
guage
in relation to this and the preceding chapters: 1
"The
individual variations of critics, touching this sec-
tion
(xxviii. 10-xxxiii. 17), many and arbitrary as they
may
be, are due to special considerations.
They are
unanimous
as to the existence of an analysis. This
sec-
tion,
it is universally admitted, is very unsatisfactory;
the
duplicates and differences relate wholly to details,
not
to general narratives, while the omissions are many
and
important. If it were necessary to rely
wholly on
this
section, no critic would claim an analysis." All crit-
ical
differences are thus sunk in one grand consensus.
"They
are unanimous as to the existence of an analysis,"
whether
they can agree upon any particular analysis or
1 Hebraica, V. iv., p. 284.
JACOB AND ESAU (CRS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII.
17) 379
not. And we have had abundant exemplification or
the
fact
that where there is a determination to effect the
partition
of a passage, notwithstanding the clearest evi-
dences
of its unity, it can always be done with reason or
without
it.
In his first edition Dillmann ventured the
suggestion
that "in E this narrative (of Jacob's
wrestling with the
angel)
did not necessarily stand in any intimate connec-
tion
with the meeting of the two brothers; and at all
events
its peculiar significance as preparatory to the
meeting
with Esau, and as supplementary to the prayer
(vs.
10-13), was first acquired by its being fitted into its
present
place by R." By thus isolating the
passage from
the
connection, from which its whole significance is de-
rived,
in a manner better suited to the fragment than
the
document hypothesis, it is easy to pervert its whole
meaning
and character, as though it stood on a level
with
the stories of heathen mythology, just as the same
thing
is done with vi. 1-4, by sundering it from all
that
goes before and that comes after. In
subsequent
editions
Dillmann regards the wrestling with the angel
as
parallel to the prayer (vs. 10-13), only he apportions
them
to different documents, and thus impairs the unity
of
the narrative.
Jacob has hitherto been relying upon his
own strength
and
skill, and has sought success by artifices of his own.
He
is now taught that his own strength is of no avail in
wrestling
with God. Disabled by the touch of his
di-
vine
antagonist he is obliged to resort to importunate
petition
for the blessing which he craved, and which he
could
not do without.
The verb "abak," wrestled
(vs. 25, 26), which occurs
nowhere
else, is here used with allusion to the name of
the
stream, Jabbok, on the bank of which it occurred,
without,
however, implying that it received this name
380 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
from
this occurrence. The double allusion to
the sig-
nificance
of the name Penuel (xxxii. 31; xxxiii. 10 1) is
adduced
as evidencing two distinct documents, which it
manifestly
does not.
NO PROOF OF A PARALLEL NARRATIVE
While xxxiii. 1-17 is referred to J,
Dillmann seeks to
show
that E must have had a similar account by point-
ing
out what he considers indications of fragments from
E,
which have been inserted by R, viz., Elohim, which
occurs
inconveniently in a J paragraph (vs. 5, 11) (but
not
ver. 10, where he says Jehovah could not be used),
the
repetition (ver. 11) of the request (ver. 10) that
Esau
would accept the present offered him (which sim-
ply
indicates Jacob's urgency), and ver. 4, where "fell
on
his neck" follows "embraced him," whereas the re-
verse
would be the natural order (the same hypercritical
argument
might be applied to Acts v. 30, "whom ye slew
and
hanged on a tree"). It can scarcely
be said that
such
proofs are of even the slightest weight.
THE DIVINE NAMES
The divine names are appropriately
used. Jacob ad-
dresses
his prayer to Jehovah (xxxii. 10).
Elohim occurs
(xxxii.
29; 31; xxxiii. 10) because of the contrast with
men,
expressed or implied, and xxxiii. 5, 11, because the
reference
is to the providential benefits of the Most
High,
as well as for the additional reason that Esau is
addressed,
who is outside of the line of the covenant.
1 The absurdities to which critical
partition, aided by a lively imag-
ination,
can lead is wel1 illustrated by Wel1hausen's discovery, based on
these
verses, that "the God in J, who
meets Jacob in Penuel, is Esau in
E,"
an identification which he thinks of some importance in the his-
tory
of religion, as adding another to the list of deities.
JACOB AND ESAU (CHS. XXXII. 4-XXXIII. 17) 381
MARKS OF J
1.
The back reference in xxxii. 10 to xxviii. 13; xxxi.
3;
and in ver. 13 to xxviii. 14, the expressions being in
part
conformed to xxii. 17 (of which by the hypothesis J
could
know nothing), xvi. 10. This is not only
readily
conceded,
but affirmed.
2. tm,c<v,
ds,H, hWAfA show
mercy and truth
(xxxii. 11).
See
ch. xviii., xix., Marks of J, No. 29, ch. xxiv., Marks
of
J, No.6.
3. hHAp;wi
bondmaid (xxxii. 6), where this is the only
proper
word; and xxxiii. 1, 2, 6, where the reference is
to
Zilpah and Bilhah, and either hHAp;wi or hmAxA would be
appropriate. See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks of E, No. 11, ch.
xxix.,
xxx., Marks of J, No.4.
4. txraq;li CUr run to meet (xxxiii. 4). See ch. xxix., xxx.,
Marks
of J, No.2.
5. hcAHA divided
(xxxiii. 1; xxxii. 8); nowhere else in
J;
it occurs besides in the Hexateuch only, Ex. xxii. 35
bis
E; Num. xxxi. 27, 42 a later stratum of P.
6. yneyreB;
NHe ytixcAmA xnA-Mxi if now I have found favor
in
the sight of
(xxxii. 6; xxxiii. 8, 16). See ch. xii.
10-
20,
Marks of J, No.3; ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 10.
No words or expressions are claimed for E
in this sec-
tion. Alleged doublets and variant conceptions are
the
only
indications of this document here adduced, and
these
have all been considered above. dl,y, child, which
is
claimed as an E word in xxi. 1-21 (see Marks of E,
No.6)
occurs here, xxxii., 23; xxxiii. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14,
all
which are referred to J. This word is
used through-
out
this narrative because the children were quite young,
only
from six to thirteen years of age.
382 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
THE RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.)
This passage is a fresh puzzle for the
critics, which
they
labor to resolve in various ways, and hence there is
no
little divergence among them. The
difficulty here is
not
the chronic one of disentangling J and E, but of re-
leasing
P from the meshes in which it is involved.
It is
a
notable refutation of the common assertion that what-
ever
difficulty may attend the separation of J and E, it
is
always easy to distinguish P from them both.
And it
is a
clear illustration of the fact that, wherever part of a
narrative
is conceded to P it is interlocked with the
other
documents as closely as they are with one another.
This
passage is so linked with what precedes and follows
in
the history, there are so many references to other
passages
in it and from other passages to it, it is so allied
by
forms of expression and ideas contained in it to pas-
sages
elsewhere, and all this runs counter in so many
ways
to the prepossessions and conclusions of the critics,
as
to form a veritable labyrinth through which it requires
all
their adroitness to thread their way.
The name of God occurs but once in the
entire pas-
sage
(xxxiii. 20), so that all pretext is cut off for division
on
that ground.
"EI-Elohe-Israel," the Mighty God, the
God
of Israel, to whom Jacob dedicates the altar, is the
distinctive
name of him whom he adores. The God of
Abraham
and of Isaac has been with him, and kept him,
and
provided for him, and brought him back to the land
of
his fathers in peace, and has thus shown himself to be
the
God of Jacob (xxviii. 13, 15, 20, 21); or adopting the
new
name, indicative of the changed character of the
patriarch
(xxxii. 29), he is the God of Israel.
THE RAPE OF DINAH (CBS. XXXIII.
18-XXXIV.) 383
JACOB'S ARRIVAL IN SHECHEM
Ch. xxxiii. 18-20 completes an important
stage of Ja-
cob's
journey, begun xxxi. 17, and continued ch. xxxv.,
while
it is immediately preliminary to the incident re-
corded
in ch. xxxiv. The simple statements
contained
in
these verses, naturally as they belong together, give
no
small trouble to the critics, who are obliged to parcel
them
among the different documents.
"And Jacob came in peace to the city
of Shechem,
which
is in the land of Canaan, when he came from
Paddan-aram"
(ver. 18a), is given to P because of the
italicized
expressions; and yet it explicitly alludes to
Jacob's
vow (xxviii. 21 E), whose condition is declared
to
have been fulfilled, and hence (xxxv. 1 E) the per-
formance
of what he then stipulated is demanded.
There
is no escape from this manifest reference in one
document
to the contents of another but by striking "in
peace"
out of the text. Again, P here records
the ter-
mination
of an expedition on which he had laid great
stress
at Jacob's setting out (xxviii. 1-5), but all be-
tween
these limits is almost an absolute blank.
P has
not
said one word to indicate whether Jacob had accom-
plished
the purpose for which he went to Paddan-aram.
Still
further, Jacob's route, it is said, is purposely laid
through
the holy places, Shechem and Bethel (xxxv. 6,
15). The fact is just the reverse or what is
alleged.
The
hallowing of certain localities in later times did not
give
rise to the stories of their having been visited by
patriarchs
and being the scene of divine manifestations.
But
their association with the history of the patriarchs
imparted
a sacredness, which led to their selection as
places
of idolatrous worship. Admitting,
however, the
explanation
of the critics, why should P and J (see also
384 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
xii.
6, 8), who belonged to "Judah, be concerned to put
honor
on the schismatical sanctuaries of northern Is-
rael?
"Shechem, which is in the land of
Canaan;" the rela-
tive
clause is not a needless expletive, due to P's cus-
tomary
verbosity. It emphasizes the fact that
Jacob has
now
at length reached the holy land, from which he had
been
so long absent. And "Luz, which is
in the land of
Canaan"
(xxxv. 6), has the same significance; the im-
plied
contrast is not with another Luz; but with another
land
in which Jacob had been ever since he was at Luz
before.
Verse 19 is repeated in Josh. xxiv. 32,
which records the
burial
of the bones of Joseph in the plot of ground here
purchased,
and by critical rules is assigned to E, who as
a
North-Israelite would be interested in this event as P
and
J would not. Jacob's ownership of land
near She-
chem
is confirmed by his flocks subsequently feeding
there
(xxxvii. 12 in J, who thus seems to be aware of a
fact
only stated in E). This peaceable
purchase, how-
ever,
is alleged by Kuenen and others to be at variance
with
the violent seizure related xxxiv. 25-27, as though
this
were a conflicting account from another source of the
way
in which Jacob came into the possession of property
in
that quarter. And yet ver. 19 is plainly
preparatory
for
ch. xxxiv. Hamor is called
"Shechem's father" for
no
other reason than to introduce the reader to the prom-
inent
actor in the narrative that follows (xxxiv. 2); this
can
only be evaded by pronouncing "Shechem's father"
a
spurious addition by R. E, too (xlviii. 22), refers to a
conquest
by force of arms, which must have been addi-
tional
to the purchase; a conclusion which Wellhausen
seeks
to escape by giving ver. 19 to J (Judean though he
is),
and ascribing xxxiv. 27 not to J, but to some unknown
source. Jacob's purchase recalls that of Abraham (ch.
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.)
385
xxiii.
P), and is based on the same principle of acquiring
a
permanent and a legal right to a properly in the holy
land. There is certainly as good reason to claim
that
they
are by the same author as the critics are able to
advance
in many instances in which they assume iden-
tity
of authorship as undoubted,
"El-Elohe-Israel" (ver. 20)
clearly refers back to
xxxii.
29, the change of the patriarch's name, thus
clinching
Dillmann's conclusion that the wrestling on
the
banks of the Jabbok must on critical grounds be as-
signed
to E, whose anthropomorphism here equals that
of
J. But this name (xxxiii. 20), which
points to E, is
linked
with the erection of an altar, which is commonly
distinctive
of J (xii. 7, 8, etc.). E for the most
part sets
up
pillars instead (xxviii. 18; xxxv. 14, 20).
The text
must
accordingly be adjusted to the hypothesis.
The
only
question about which there is a difference of opin-
ion
is, shall "altar" be erased and "pillar" substituted?
Or
shall R be supposed to have had two texts before
him,
"built an altar" (J), and "set up a pillar" (E),
which
he has mixed by taking the verb from E and the
noun
from J.
Dillmann suspects that ver. 18b is from J,
because of
NHay.va encamped, which occurs but once besides in Genesis
(xxvi.
17 J), though in subsequent books repeatedly
both
in P and E, and yneP;-tx,
before (xix. 13, 27; Ex.
xxxiv.
23, 24 J; but also Lev. iv. 6, 17; x. 4 P; and
Gen.
xxvii. 30; Ex. x. 11 E). If J relates
what oc-
curred
at Shechem (ch. xxxiv.), it is certainly to be ex-
pected
that he would mention Jacob's arrival there;
hence
the eagerness of the critics to find some indica-
tions
of J in these verses. So that P, J, E,
and R are
all
represented in fragments of these three verses; and
one
scarcely knows which to admire most, the ingenuity
of a
redactor who could construct a continuous narra-
386 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
tive
in this piecemeal fashion, or that of the modern
critic
who can unravel such a tangled web.
CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES
The stress laid upon circumcision in ch.
xxxiv. by the
sons
of Jacob, recalls its institution in the family of
Abraham
(ch. xvii.), and the transactions in the public
meeting
of citizens resemble those in ch. xxiii., and there
is a
striking similarity of expressions in these chapters;
e.g.: rkAzA-lKA Mk,lA lOm.hi every male of you be circumcised
(vs.
15, 22; cf. the identical expression, xvii. 10, 12);
rkAzA-lKA every male
(vs. 24, 25 ; cf. xvii. 23); hlAr;fA foreskin, uncircumcised (ver. 14; cf. xvii.
11, 14, 23 sqq.); xyWinA
prince (ver. 2; cf. xvii. 20; xxiii 6); UzHExAhe get you pos-
sessions (ver. 10); cf. hz.AHxE possession (xvii. 8; xxiii. 4, 9,
20);
rHasA
trade (vs. 10,. 21), cf. rHeso trader
(xxiii. 16);
Oryfi rfawa yxec;yo-lKA all that went out of the gate of his city
(ver.
24 bis), cf. Oryfi
rfawa yxeBA lKo all
that went in at the
gate
of his city
(xxiii. 10, 18); xm.eFi defile (vs. 5, 13, 27) is
a
technical term of the ritual law, and is found nowhere
else
in the Pentateuch. Knobel adds, as
characteristic
of P
from the critical stand-point: Cr,xAhA
tOnB; daughters
of
the land
(ver. 1); -lx, fmawA hearken unto (vs. 17, 24);
NyAn;qi substance; hmAheB; beast (ver. 23). Dillmann further
adds
j`xa
only (vs. 15, 22, 23).
All this points to P as the author of the
chapter. But
according
to the current critical analysis P knows noth-
ing
of the various characters here introduced, nor of the
chain
of events with which this narrative is concate-
nated;
and in fact the narrative itself is altogether out of
harmony
with the spirit and tone of this document as
the
critics conceive it. It is E (xxx. 21)
that records
the
birth of Dinah,l evidently with a view to what is
1 Von Bohlen imagines a chronological
contradiction between xxx. 21
and
ch. xxxiv. He calculates that Dinah
could be "scarcely six or
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.)
387
here
related of her; just as xxix. 24, 29 is preparatory
for
xxx. 4, 9; xxii. 23 for xxiv. 15 sqq.; xix. 15 for vs. 30
sqq. Otherwise it would not have been mentioned
(cf.
xxrii.
23; xxxvii. 35; xlvi. 7). It is J and E
that tell
or
the sons of Jacob (xxxiv. 7, 27; cf. xxix. 32 sqq.), and
particularly
of Simeon and Levi, own brothers of Dinah
(xxxiv.
25). It is E that tells of the change of
Jacob's
name
to Israel (xxxiv. 7; cf. xxxii. 29), and introduces
the
reader to Shechem and his father Hamor (xxxiv. 2;
cf.
xxxlli. 19). It is J and E that detail
the various
trials
with which the life of Jacob was filled in one con-
tinuous
series from the time of the fraud which he prac-
tised
upon his aged father and his brother Esau, viz., his
compulsory
flight, Laban's deceiving him in his mar-
riage,
attempting to defraud him in his wages and pur-
suing
him with hostile intent on his way to Canaan, his
alarm
at the approach of Esau, and last and sorest of all,
the
loss of his favorite, Joseph. According
to the crit-
ical
partition, P makes no allusion to any of these troub-
les. They are all of one tenor and evidently
belong to-
gether,
and this disgrace of Jacob's daughter fits into its
place
among them. And we are told that it is
alien to
P to
record anything derogatory to any of the patriarchs.
seven
years old" at the time referred to in ch. xxxiv., inasmuch as she
was
Leah's seventh child, Jacob married Leah after seven years of ser-
vice,
and he remained in all twenty years with Laban.
But he over-
looks
the fact that Jacob had meanwhile resided for a considerable
time
both at Succoth (xxxiii. 17), where "he built him a house," and at
Shechem,
where (ver. 19) "he bought a parcel of ground." The length
of
his stay in these two places is not particularly stated. But as Joseph
was
born (xxx. 25) when Jacob had served Laban fourteen years, he was
six
years old when they left Paddan-aram.
Eleven years consequently
elapsed
between the departure from Paddan-aram and what is recorded
in
ch. xxxvii. (see ver. 2). We are at
entire liberty to assume that ten
of
these had passed before ch. xxxiv, in which case Dinah would be
sixteen
or seventeen. Her youth is implied ver.
4, where she is called
hDAl;ya.
388 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
There
are subsequent allusions also to this history in J
(xlix.
5, 6) and in E (xxxv. 5; xlviii. 22).
DIVERGENCE OF THE CRITICS
Thus this chapter is ,strongly bound to P
on the one
hand,
and to J and E on the other, in a manner that is
not
compatible with the original separateness of these
so-called
documents. The early critics, Astruc and
Eichhorn,
accepted the unity of ch. xxxiv. without ques-
tion. Ilgen did the same, notwithstanding his
disposi-
tion
to splinter whatever seemed capable of separation.
Tuch,
who recognized no distinction between P and E,
unhesitatingly
assigned the whole of the chapter to P;
so
did Ewald, Gram berg, and Stahelin.
Hupfeld, un-
able
to dispute the unity of the chapter, gave it in the
first
instance to E, in spite of its admitted relationship to
P
("Quellen," p. 46); but on second thought he assigned
it
to J ("Quellen," pp. 186 sqq.), in which Kayser and
Schrader
follow him.1
On the ground of language and the
comparison of
xlix.
5-7, from which the inference was drawn that in the
original
form of the story Simeon and Levi were the
only
actors and no plunder was taken, Knobel supposed
that
the groundwork of the story was by P, but this was
1 In how serious a. quandary
Hupfeld found himself in regard to the
disposition
of this chapter is apparent from the manner of his argument
in
reversing his former decision. He says
that the grounds for refer-
ring
it to P are "weighty and difficult to be set aside;" on his original
assumption
that xxxiii. 19 and xxxv. 5 belong to E, he cannot conclude
otherwise
in regard to ch. xxxiv.; nevertheless xlix. 5-7 compels him
to
assign it to J, while xlviii. 22 makes it necessary to maintain that E
had
here a similar narrative which R has not preserved. He then frees
himself
from the embarrassment created by xxxiii. 19 and xxxv. 5 by
transferring
these verses to J. In a note he offers
the conjecture, of
which
others have since availed themselves, that vs. 27-29 may be an
interpolation
or inserted from another source.
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.)
389
supplemented
and enlarged by J with matter taken from
another
source.1
Dillmann made a different partition and
maintained
that
the want of agreement and coherence between the
parts
is such as to show that two separate narratives
have
been fused together by a redactor. In
his first
1The
different critical analyses of ch. xxxiv.
Knobel: Grundschrift, vs. 1-4, 6, 15-18,
20-26. Kriegsbuch, VS. 5, 7-14, 19, 27-31.
Dillmann (1st): P, vs. 1, 2a, 4, 6, 8-10,
15-18a, 20-24 (25, 26 in
part). J, vs. 2b, 3, 5, 7, 11-14, 18b, 19 (25, 26 in
part), 27-31.
Dillmann (3d): P, vs. la, 2a, 4, 6, 8-10,
15, (14)-17, 20-24. J, vs.
2b,
3, 5, 7, 11-13 (14), 19, 25*, 26, 30, 31.
R, vs. 27-29.
Kittell follows Dillmann (3d).
Wellhausen: J, vs. 3, 7*, 11, 12, 19,
25*, 26, 30, 31. Unknown
Source,
vs. 1*, 2*, 4-6, 8-10, 13*, 14*, 15-17, 20-24, 25*, 27-29.
Oort:
Interpolation, "deceitfully," ver. 13, vs. 27, 28.
Boehmer: J, vs. 1*, 2*, 3, 4, 6, 8-12,
13*, 14-22, 24-26a, 28-30.
R,
vs. lb, 2b, 5,7, 13*J 23, 26b, 27, 31.
Delitzsch: P, vs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10,
14-18, 20-24. J, vs. 3, 5, 7, 11,
12,
19, 25, 26, 30, 31. E, vs. 13, 27-29.
Colenso (Pentateuch, Part VII. Appendix,
p. 149): J, vs. 1, 2a, 3a,
4,
6, 7a, 8-13a, 14-24. D, vs. 2b, 3b, 5,
7b, 13b, 25-31.
Driver: J, vs. 2b, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 19,
25*, 26, 30, 31. P, vs. 1, 2a,
4,
6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 25*, 27-29.
Dr. Driver, while confessing that
"the analysis is not throughout
equally
certain," adopts substantially Wellhausen's division. Only (1)
he
attributes to P, on the ground of unmistakable marks of P's style,
what
Wellhausen and Kuenen positively declare could not be his, thus
annulling
(as he has frequent occasion besides to do in the middle
books
of the Pentateuch) his often-repeated statement that P is clearly
distinguishable
from J, and even his more carefully guarded assertion
that
"in Genesis as regards the limits of P there is practically no differ-
ence
of opinion among critics."--Literature of Old Testament, p. 9.
And
(2) he somewhat inconsistently transfers ver. 5 to J, though he
thinks
it to be at variance with ver. 30:
"In ver. 30 Jacob expresses
dissatisfaction
at what his sons have done, while from ver. 5 it would
be
inferred that they had merely given effect to their father's resent-
ment." If this discrepancy is no bar to the
reference of vs. 5 and 30
to
the same document, why should the other discrepancies "inferred"
by
the critics, but which are also purely imaginary, hinder our belief in
the
common authorship of the entire chapter?
390 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
edition
he held that, according to the earlier form of the
story
given by P, Shechem, a native prince, asks the
hand
of Dinah in marriage, whereupon Jacob and his
sons
promise to consent to intermarriages between them-
selves
and the Shechemites on condition of the circum-
cision
of the latter. And the house of Jacob
was on the
point
of affiliating with the citizens of Shechem when
Simeon
and Levi, whose zeal was aroused for the purity
of
their race and to prevent its contamination by inter-
mingling
with Gentiles, frustrated the plan by assault-
ing
the city and putting Shechem and his father to
death. In a later form of the story given by J,
Jacob's
sons
were angered not at the prospect of their sister's
marriage
with a foreigner, but at her actual dishonor.
They
propose the circumcision of the Shechemites, not
sincerely
as in P, but craftily, with the design of aveng-
ing
their sister's betrayal. And the credit
of punishing
the
crime of Shechem is assigned, not to Simeon and
Levi
alone, but to all the sons of Jacob.
In later editions Dillrnann modifies his
view materi-
ally
by rejecting vs. 27-29 as a later interpolation, and
transferring
vs. 25, 26 from P to J, thus no longer mak-
ing
P prior to J, and relieving P from recording a vari-
ance
in the patriarchal family. P's account
is then sim-
ply
concerned with the legal question as to the proper
procedure
in giving a daughter in marriage to a foreigner.
The
answer given is, that in order to intermarriage with
the
Shechemites they must first be circumcised.
To this
they
assent in the persuasion that the advantage will be
greatly
on their side, and that the house of Jacob, losing
its
distinctive character, will become a part of themselves
(vs.
21-24). Here the narrative breaks off
unfinished
without
disclosing the final issue. If P
approved of this
arrangement
he must, as Kuenen1 argues, "have been
1 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 263.
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. IS-XXXIV.)
391
more
of a Hamorite than an Israelite, or at least neutral
in
respect to the two clans." And he
positively refuses
"to
admit the existence of such a species until another
specimen
of it is discovered." J's account
on this
scheme
is that the most honored man in Shechem (ver.
19)
carried off Dinah and dishonored her.
But as his
love
to her grew, he desired her in marriage from Jacob
and
his sons, and offers any compensation in the way of
bridal
gift. The brothers, exasperated at the
disgrace of
their
sister, deceitfully make the condition the circumci-
sion
of Shechem (whether that of the other citizens of
the
place also is uncertain), and when he is disabled by
the
resulting sickness, Simeon and Levi kill him and re-
cover
their sister. Jacob blames them severely
for hav-
ing
placed him and his family in peril by their rash
deed. The redactor is responsible for confusing the
ac-
counts
to some extent, and especially for inserting the cir-
cumcision
and massacre of the Shechemites in J's ac-
count
in ver. 25; and he betrays his later stand-point by
the
strong expression, "defile their sister" (vs. 27, 13b,
5;
see also ver. 14b).
Wellhausen makes a different disposition
of several
verses
and brings out quite a different result.
He takes
his
point of departure from an alleged discrepancy be-
tween
vs. 26 and 27. In vs. 25, 26, and again
ver. 30, the
deed
is imputed to Simeon and Levi, but in ver. 27 to
the
sons of Jacob, i.e., the children of Israel.
One ac-
count,
J's, represented in the former of these passages,
but
only preserved in a fragmentary way, makes of it a
family
affair. Simeon and Levi avenge the wrong
done
their
sister by entering Hamor's house and killing
Shechem,
when he was off his guard, to the great offence
of
Jacob. There was no circumcision in the
case.
Shechem
had offered any dowry, however large, in order
to
obtain Dinah in marriage. We have no
means of
392 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
knowing
how much was demanded; but, whatever it was,
Shechem
had promptly paid it. The other, which
is the
principal
account, deals with international relations, out
of
which perhaps the story grew. It cannot
therefore
belong
to either P or E, but is of unknown origin.
It is
an
affair between the Bne Israel and the Bne Hamor,
whose
capital was Shechem. The latter
submitted to
circumcision
with a view to a friendly alliance, and when
disabled
in consequence were treacherously massacred.
Though
E is excluded from this chapter by Wellhausen,
the
evident allusions to this history in E oblige him to
confess
that he must have had a similar narrative in this
place
as the motive for Jacob's removal from Shechem
(see
xxxv. 5). It is also unfortunate for his
analysis that
ver.
25 has to be reconstructed; for in its present form
it
implies the circumcision and affirms the assault upon
the
city and the massacre of its citizens, showing that
Simeon
and Levi had assistance. And this is
confirmed
by
ver. 30, where Jacob apprehends reprisals, not from
the
Shechemites, but from the inhabitants of the land
generally,
and also by xlix. 5, 6, which speaks of vio-
lence
done to oxen as well as men.
Oort1 held that this chapter
(freed from the interpola-
tions
vs. 27, 28, and "deceitfully," ver. 13) dates from
the
period of the judges, and is explanatory of the situa-
tion
described in Judg. ix. (see ver. 28.)2 "In the form of
1 Oort's Bible for Learners,
English Translation, vol, i., p. 398.
2 This passage, by which Oort
seeks to discredit the narrative in
Gen.
xxxiv., is, on the contrary, urged by Havernick in confirmation of
its
historical accuracy. Gaal's appeal to
the Shechemites, to "serve
the
men of Hamor, the father of Shechem," implies that the descend-
ants
of Hamor were the prominent ruling family of the place. The
title., "father of the city of Shechem,"
suggests that Hamor was its
founder,
naming it after his son. When Abram
passed through the
place
(Gen. xii. 6) there is no intimation that there was as yet any
city. This is first mentioned in the time of Jacob;
and its recent
THE RAPE OF DINAH (CHS. XXXIII. l8-XXXIV.) 393
a
family history of the patriarchal period the narrator
has
here given us a fragment of the history of the Israel-
ite
people, or at any rate of some of the tribes. . . .
The
legend deals with one of the burning questions of
the
period of the Judges--the question whether Israelites
and
Canaanites might intermarry. The
practice was
very
advantageous to both parties, and especially to the
conquered
race; but to the Israelite of pure blood, who
looked
down with contempt upon the old inhabitants of
the
place, it was an abomination. The
Canaanites are
represented
in the legend under the person of Shechem,
the
son of Hamor, which shows that this question was
debated
in the city of Shechem, where the Hamorites, a
Hivite
tribe, were settled. This fact enables
us to bring
the
legend into connection with the history of Abimelech,
and
to find the counterparts of the zealots, Simeon and
Levi,
in Gaal and his brothers."
Kuenen, in his "Religion of
Israel," i., pp. 311, 409,
accepted
this view of Oort, though differing from him as
to
the date and analysis of the chapter and its specific
reference
to the particular occasion spoken of in Judg.
ix. Nevertheless he "fully assented to
Oort's main idea,"
that
Gen. xxxiv. "gives us historical
reminiscences from
the
period of the Judges in the form of a narrative about
the
patriarchal age." "Shechem and his father Hamor
represent
in this narrative the Canaanites, who are in-
clined
to intermarry with Israel, and who submit to the
conditions
attached to this step. Simeon and Levi
con-
sider
such a contract an abomination and feign satisfac-
tion
with it only to hinder it the more effectually.
This
narrative
already discloses the idea that the violent
measures
to which the adherents of the strictly national
tendency
were obliged to resort in order to attain their
origin
and consequent insignificance accounts for the successful attack
upon
it by Simeon and Levi and their adherents.
394 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
purpose,
were looked upon by many as questionable and
dangerous
" (ver. 30).
In an article1 published in
1880, Kuenen accepts the
analysis
of Wellhausen, and agrees with him that in J's
account
Jacob and his sons impose a heavy money for-
feit
upon Shechem and assent to his marriage with Di-
nah,
which would have taken place if Simeon and Levi,
less
yielding than the rest, had not interfered and killed
Shechem. He differs from Wellhausen in regard to the
rest
of the chapter, which in his esteem is not a sepa-
rate
account, that once existed by itself and was subse-
quently
combined with that of J by a redactor.
J's
account
was distasteful to post-exilic readers, and was
in
consequence remodelled into the form in which we
possess
it now. The Philistines are the only
ones
spoken
of in pre-exlic writings as uncircumcised,2 and
they
did not belong to the original inhabitants of Ca-
naan. The idea that the Bne Hamor, or any other Ca-
naanitish
tribe, were distinguished from the family of J a-
cob
by being uncircumcised, and that they must be cir-
cumcised
prior to intermarriage with them, could not
have
arisen before the exile. The deed of
Shechem is
judged
with such extreme severity, and no punishment
however
treacherous and cruel, is esteemed too great be-
cause
he had "defiled" Dinah (vs. 5, 13, 27), which is
much
worse than robbing her of her honor. The
word
conjures
up that frightful phantom of post-exilic Judaism,
alliance
with foreigners (see Ezra ix., x).
Shechem's
deed,
and no less his effort to make it good, was a crime
against
the people of God to be prevented by fire and
sword. On these grounds he concludes that this
chapter
has
been remodelled, not indeed by P, who could not
1 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, pp.
255-276.
2 Judg. xiv. 3; xv. 18; 1 Sam.
xiv. 6; :xvii. 26, 36; xxxi. 4; 2 Sam.
i.20.
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18- XXXIV.)
395
depart
so far from his usage as to introduce this tale of
treachery
and plunder, but by a post-exilic diaskeuast of
the
school of P, who has borrowed his style and his
ideas.
All this reasoning, as Dillmann suggests,
is of no force
to
those who do not accept Kuenen's assertion that cir-
cumcision
was regarded with indifference in pre-exilic
times. In fact he overturns it himself in his
"Hexateuch,"
p.
326, by leaving it "an open question" whether J's ac-
count
"had itself represented the circumcision of She-
chem
(not of all the citizens) as a condition laid down
in
good faith by the sons of Jacob."
Merx1 follows Boehmer in
eliminating from the narra-
tive
all that relates to the dishonor of Dinah, the deceit
of
her brothers, and the plunder of the city as interpo-
lations. What is left is regarded as the original
story as
told
by a writer in North Israel. It is to
the effect that
Shechem
asked the hand of Dinah in honorable marriage,
giving
the required dowry and submitting likewise to the
condition
of being circumcised, together with his people.
But
Simeon and Levi treacherously fell upon them in
their
sickness and murdered them, to Jacob's great alarm.
The
rest of his sons did not participate in the deed. He
thus
saves the honor of Dinah, but takes away all motive
for
the conduct of Simeon and Levi. The
design of the
original
narrator was to affix a stigma upon Simeon and
Levi,
as these tribes adhered to the southern kingdom
and
the worship of Jerusalem. The interpolations
of the
Judaic
redactor were apologetic. They represent
Si-
meon
and Levi as avenging the honor of their house,
while
the other tribes are also involved in the transaction
and
are solely responsible for the plunder that fol-
lowed.
In his first edition Delitzsch assigned
the entire chap-
1Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon,
Art., Dina. I,
396 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
ter
to P; he did the same in the third and fourth edi-
tions,
only excepting vs. 27-29 as inserted from another
source,
the sons of Jacob there spoken of being identical
with
Simeon and Levi of ver. 25. In his last edition
however,
he partitions the chapter somewhat differently
from
his predecessors, and finds two accounts by P and
by J1
essentially agreeing. In both Dinah is
seduced
by
the young prince, who then earnestly desires her in
marriage;
the circumcision of the Shechemites is made
the
condition in both; in both Dinah is taken off and
brought
back again. There is, besides, a brief
passage
from
E, recording the capture and sack of Shechem sim-
ply
as an exploit of the sons of Jacob.
The critics have thus demonstrated that it
is possi-
ble
to sunder this chapter into parts, ea.ch of which taken
separately
shall yield a different narrative; and that this
can,
be done very variously, and with the most remarka-
ble
divergence in the results. Now which are
we to be-
lieve,
Dillmann, Wellhausen, Oort, Kuenen, Merx, or De-
litzsch? They each profess to give us the original
form
or
forms of the story, and no two agree. Is
it not appar-
ent
that the critical process of each is purely subjective?
The
critic makes out of the narrative just what he pleases,
selecting
such portions as suit him and discarding the
rest. The result is a mere speculative fancy,
without
the
slightest historical value. Delitzsch
correctly says,
1In defending his analysis
Delitzsch remarks that rfn=hrfn,
in each
of
the twenty-one times in which it occurs, belongs to J or D. To note
this
as characteristic of a particular writer is to affirm that It belonged
to
the text as originally written. This is
equivalent, therefore, to a re-
traction
of his opinion expressed in Luthardt's Zeitschrift for 1880, Art.
No.8,
that the use of this word as a feminine as well as xvh=xyh
is traceable
to the manipulation of the text by later diaskeuasts, instead
of
being, as it has commonly been regarded, an archaic form properly
belonging
to the original text of the passages in which it occurs and
characteristic
of the Pentateuch.
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18- XXXIV.)
397
"Evidence
and agreement are here scarcely attainable."
And
what is so obvious here in this discord of the crit-
ics
attaches equally to their methods and results where
they
follow in each others tracks. The text
is decom-
posed
ad libitum into fragments of documents, and emen- dations or additions
by various editors and redactors.
The
whole thing is regulated by the will or the precon-
ceived
ideas of the critic, and is a mere subjective crea-
tion,
with only basis enough in the literary phenomena to
give
it a faint savor of plausibility.
The abruptness of this narrative in P, who
has made
no
previous mention of any of the parties concerned, has
already
been referred to. Its incompleteness, as
made
out
by Dillmann, is suggested by the question to which
no
answer can be given, what became of Dinah? It is
insupposable
that negotiations of such a character should
be
carried on to the extent indicated and no mention
made
of the issue. It seems that Dinah could
not have
married
Shechem since P speaks of her as a member of
Jacob's
family, when he went down into Egypt (xlvi. 15).
If
not, why not, since the condition on which it was de-
pendent
was fulfilled? Why is nothing further
heard of
this
circumcised community at Shechem, and of the in-
tercourse
and intermarriages here anticipated? Is
there
any
explanation of this silence, except that given in the
verses
which Dillmann has so carefully exscinded, and
of
which Kuenen justly says (" Hexateuch," p. 326), "I
cannot
see any possibility of separating these verses (27-
29)
and the corresponding expressions in vs. 5, 13 from
P's
account."
It is said in explanation of the
incompleteness of this
story
in P that it has a legal rather than a historical pur-
pose. But it is surely very inconsistent in P to
enact
such
a law as is here supposed. He informs us
that
Esau's
marriage with Canaanites was a great grief to his
398 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
parents
(xxvi. 35; xxviii. 8), and that they would not
consent
to such a marriage on the part of Jacob (xxvii.
46;
xxviii. 1, 6). And yet here he is
supposed by Dill-
mann
to favor a general regulation for intermarriage with
Canaanites
on condition of their being circumcised.
J's
estimate
of the Canaanites and of the peril of contam-
ination
from alliances with them agrees with P's (xxiv.
3;
xiii. 13; xv. 16; xviii. 20 seq.; ch. xix.; cf. ver. 29
P). Even on the principles of the critics
themselves it
cannot
be imagined that P here sanctions what is in di-
rect
antagonism to the positive injunctions of every code
of
laws in the Pentateuch, viz.: E, Ex. xxiii. 32, 33; J,
Ex.
xxxiv. 12, 15, 16; Num. xxxiii. 52, 55, 56; Holiness
Laws,
Lev. xviii. 24, 25; xx. 22, 23; D, Deut. vii. 3; as
well
as the unanimous voice of tradition (Josh. xxiii. 12,
13;
Judg. iii. 6; 1 Kin. xi. 1, 4). And if P
be thought
to
be post-exilic, it would be more inconceivable still
(Ezra
ix., x.; Neh. x. 30). And if he
formulated such a
law,
what is to be thought of the honesty or the loyalty
of R
in perverting it to its opposite, as is done in this
narrative?
NOT COMPOSITE
But though the critics differ so widely
in their parti-
tion
of this chapter, and though each partition that has
been
proposed is unsatisfactory, it may still be said that
there
are positive proofs of its composite character, even
though
it has not yet been successfully resolved into its
proper
component parts. The bare recital of the
proofs
offered
is, however, sufficient to show how inconclusive
and
trivial they are.
Thus it is argued that, according to vs.
4, 6, 8, Hamor
conducted
the negotiation on behalf of his son, whereas
in
vs. 11, 12, Shechem is represented as himself suing for
the
hand of Dinah. Kuenen here admits the
possibility
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV.)
399
of
the very natural explanation that
"Shechem, in vs. 11,
12,
undertakes to speak after his father; his love for Di-
nah
does not permit him to be silent; he must also on
his
own part further apply every possible pressure." His
objection
that we would not infer from vs. 4, 8, that She-
chem
was present at the interview is of no force; for his
request
that his father would intercede on his behalf, and
the
prominent part taken by Hamor in the matter are
not
inconsistent with Shechem's accompanying him on
an
errand in which he was so deeply interested.
That
Hamor
and Shechem were together at the interview is
distinctly
stated (vs. 13, 18), where the critics are obliged
to
assume that R has mixed the two accounts.
It is said that in ver. 6 P the
conference is held with
Jacob,
but in ver. 11 J with Jacob and his sons; which
only
shows that the entry of Jacob's sons (ver. 7) cannot
be
sundered from ver. 6, as is done by the critics. While
Hamor
was on the way to see Jacob, the sons of the lat-
ter
came in from the field, so that they were all together
at
the interview. Accordingly (ver. 8),
Hamor communed
with
them, not with him, as if he spoke to Jacob alone;
and
(ver. 14) "they said unto them," not he unto him;
and
"our sister," instead of "my daughter," as if Jacob
was
the sole speaker. As this does not
correspond with
the
assumption of the critics, they tell us that R must
have
altered the text here again.
It is claimed that there is a duplicate
account. Ha-
mor
makes his application (vs. 8-10), receives his answer
(vs.
15 (14)-17), and lays this (vs. 20-24) before a meet-
ing
of the citizens; again (vs. 11,12), Shechem makes the
application,
and after receiving the answer at once sub-
jects
himself (ver. 19) to the condition imposed.
But
nothing
is duplicated. There is no variant
account and
no
repetition. All proceeds regularly. Shechem (ver.
11)
seconds his father's application; the answer is made
400 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
to
them both (vs. 13-17) and pleases both (ver. 18).
Shechem
is eager to have the condition fulfilled without
delay
(ver. 19), and he and his father at once bring it to
the
attention of their townsmen (vs. 20-23), who consent
and
comply with the condition (ver. 24).
It is alleged that the answer in vs.
13-17 is made to
J
Hamor's proposal in vs. 8-10 of trade and intermarriage
between
the two clans, and not to Shechem's offer (vs.
11,
12) of a large dowry in return for the hand of Dinah.
But,
in fact, one common answer is given to both pro-
posals,
each of which is distinctly referred to.
And it is
perfectly
true to nature that Shechem should have but
one
thought, his love for Dinah, while his father pro-
poses
general amicable relations, under which the accept-
ance
of his son's suit would follow by legitimate conse-
quence.
It is charged that vs. 2b, 26b, conflict
with ver. 17b.
According
to the former, Shechem had carried off Dinah
to
his own house, from whence she was rescued by her
brothers;
but, according to the latter, she was in the pos-
session
of Jacob's family. This is a
mistake. Her
brothers
declare their intention (ver. 17) to take her
away
if their demand was not complied with; to take
her,
that is, from the place where she then was, wherever
that
might be. The verb is identical with
that in ver.
26,
where they took her out of Shechem's house.
"After vs. 2b, 3, one expects the
father to be asked to
apologize
to Jacob for the offence committed; but in-
stead
of this the marriage negotiations are introduced, as
though
all were still intact and the girl was with her
parents;
not a word is said of what had taken place."
What reparation could be made but
marriage? and this
is
the thing proposed.
It is further charged as an
inconsistency that the deed
of
violence is in ver. 30 attributed to Simeon and Levi,
THE
RAPE OF DINAH (CH. XXXIII. IS-XXXIV.)
401
as
vs. 25, 26, not to the sons of Jacob generally, as vs.
27-29. Simeon and Levi were the leaders and instiga-
tors,
and as such were chiefly responsible.
The massacre
is
attributed to them; to the others only a participation
in
the subsequent plunder of the city. Why
Simeon
Levi
in particular were so prominent in the affair
is
intimated in ver. 25, where they are spoken of as
"Dinah's
brothers." As sons of Leah they
were her
own
brothers; and next to Reuben, whose weak and vac-
illating
character incapacitated him for resolute action,
they
were her oldest brothers, to whom the protection of
their
sister and the redress of her wrongs naturally de-
volved
(cf. xxiv. 50, 55, 59). Hence Jacob,
after hearing
of
the outrage (ver. 5), waits for the return of his sons
before
any steps are taken, and then he leaves the whole
matter
in their hands. The treacherous and
murderous
scheme
concocted and executed by Simeon and Levi,
with
the concurrence of the other sons (ver. 13), was
without
Jacob's knowledge and privity, and incurred his
severe
reprobation (xlix. 5-7).
Knobel remarks that in xxxiv. 30
"Jacob blames not
the
immorality of the action, but the inconsiderateness of
his
sons, which has plunged him into trouble."
But as
Hengstenberg1
observes, we see from xxxv. 5 why pre-
1 Authentie des
Pentateuches, ii., p. 535.
Hengstenberg further
points
to the fact that it is the habit of the sacred historian simply to
report
the actions of the patriarchs, without commenting upon their
moral
qua1ity, leaving this to be suggested by the providential retribu-
tion
which followed in the results of their misdeeds. No censure is
formally
passed upon Abram's connection with Hagar; but the unhap- piness which sprang
from it constrained him to dismiss her.
Jacob
deceived
his father and defrauded his brother, and was in his turn de-
ceived
and defrauded by Laban; twenty years of toil and enforced
absence
from home and his alarm at meeting Esau, were the fruit of
that
act of sin. Rebekah's participation in
the fraud was punished by
lifelong
separation from her favorite son.
Reuben's crime is simply
related
(xxxv. 22); judgment upon it is reserved until Jacob's dying
402 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
cisely
these words of Jacob are recorded here.
Atten-
tion
is drawn to the peril of the situation in order to
bring
to view the divine protection which warded off all
dangerous
consequences.
That there is no inconsistency in the
narrative in its
present
form is substantially admitted by Kuenen, who
finds
no evidence of separate and variant documents, but
only
that the chapter has been remodelled so as to give
it a
different complexion from that which it originally
had. There may be different opinions as to the
remod-
elling,
whether it was the work of ancient diaskeuasts
or
of modern critics; but we can at least agree with
Kuenen
that the text tells a uniform story as it now
stands.
MARKS OF P
1. Diffuseness, e.g., the daughter
of Leah, which she
bore
unto Jacob (ver. 1). In what respect is
there a
greater
redundancy here than in the almost identical
repetition
xxii. 20b, 23b J?
2. xyWinA prince (ver. 2).
See ch. xvii., Marks of P, No. 11.
3. qWaHA
to long for (ver. 8); nowhere else in the Hexa-
teuch,
except in Deuteronomy. The occurrence
of qbaDA,
to
cleave unto
(ver. 3), as an equivalent is no proof of a
diversity
of writers. See ch. xxxi.-xxxii. 3,
Marks of E,
at
the end.
4. zHaxno to get possessions (ver. 10); besides in P (xlvii.
27;
Num. xxxii. 30; Josh. xxii. 9, 19); in E (Gen. xxii.
13)
in a different sense.
5.
rcAzA-lKA Mk,lA lOm.hi every male of you be circumcised
(vs.15,
22), as xvii. 10, 12.
6.
rkAzA-lKA every male
(ver. 24). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks
of
P, No. 12.
words
in respect to it are recorded (xlix. 3, 4).
It is precisely the same
with
the deed of Simeon and Levi.
THE RAPE 0F DINAH (CH. XXXIII. 18-XXXIV) 403
7. lx,
fmawA hearken
unto
(vs. 17, 24). See ch. xxiii.,
Marks
of P, No. 10.
8. NyAn;qi
substance (ver. 23). See ch. xxxi.-xxxii. 3,
Marks
of P, No.2.
9.
hmAheB; beast (ver. 23); often besides in P; but also
in J
(ii. 20; iii. 14; vii. 2, 8; viii. 20, etc.).
It is associ-
ated
with hn,q;mi cattle
as here, also in P (xxxvi. 6); in a so-
called
secondary stratum in P (Num. xxxi. 9); in J (Gen.
xlvii.
18; Ex. ix. 19; Num. xxxii. 26); nowhere else in
the
Hexateuch.
10.
j`xa only (vs. 15, 23). See ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9,
Marks
of E, No.1.
11.
ryfi rfawa yxec;yo-lKA all that went out of the
gate of the city (ver. 24), as xxiii. 10, 18.
MARKS OF J
1. qbaDA to cleave unto
(ver. 3); besides in J (ii. 24; xix.
19);
in E (xxxi. 23); in P (Num. xxxvi. 7, 9); in D (Josh.
xxii.
5 ; xxiii. 8, 12) and several times in Dent.
2. rfn damsel (vs. 3, 12), young man (ver. 19);
the oc-
currence
of hDAl;ya (ver.4) as a feminine equivalent is no
indication
of a difference of writers. See ch. xxi.
1-21,
Marks
of E, No.6.
3. bc.efat;hi to be grieved (ver. 7). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks
of
J, No.8.
4. Ol
hrAHA to
be wroth
(ver. 7). See ch. xviii., xix., Marks
of
J, No. 30.
5. hW,fAye
xlo NKe which ought not to be done (ver. 7);
as-
signed
besides to J (xxix. 26), but this is cut out of an E
connection;
in E (xx. 9); in P (Lev. iv. 2, 13, 22, 27;
v.
17).
6. yneyfeB; NHe xcAmA to find grace in the eyes of (ver. 11).
See
ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J, No. 10.
7. br,H,
ypil; with the edge of the sword (ver. 26);
besides
404 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
in J
(Josh. viii. 24 bis); In E (Ex. xvii. 13; Num. xxi.
24);
in JE (Josh. vi. 21; xix. 47, in a P connection); in
D
(Josh. x. 28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; xi. 11, 12, 14) and sev-
eral
times in Deut.
8. rkafA to trouble
(ver. 30); besides in the Hexateuch
only
Josh. vi. 18 E; vii. 25 bis JE.
"Wrought folly in Israel" is
claimed as a D phrase
(Deut.
xxii. 21). Knobel says: "The author
here naively
applies
this later expression to patriarchal times, when
there
was as yet no people of Israel."
The patriarch had
already
received the name of Israel, and he was the
leader
of a powerful clan, which subsequently developed
into
the nation. There is no
inappropriateness in the of
great
legislator employing here the legal phrase current
in
his own day.
JACOB
AT BETHEL, AND ISAAC'S DEATH (CH. XXXV.)
The divine names afford no ground for the
division of
this
chapter, since El and Elohim alone occur.
The rea-
son
is evident. The prominence here given to
the names
Bethel
(vs. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15) and Israel (ver. 10), leads to
the
quadruple repetition of El (vs. 1, 3, 7, 11), with
which
Elohim is most naturally associated (see particu-
larly
vs. 7, 15, also vs. 1, 9, 10, 11, 13).
Elohim is appro-
priately
used in ver. 5 to indicate that the terror was
divinely
inspired, and did not proceed from any human
source. Eichhorn had no difficulty in admitting the
unity
of the chapter. Tuch did the same, only
except-
ing
the last clause of both vs. 1 and 7, which speak of
the
flight from Esau, of which, on his hypothesis, the
Elohist
knew nothing. Ilgen1
parcelled it between the
two
Elohists, and this is at present the prevalent fash-
1 Ilgen's division is almost
identical with that of Dillman; he gives
to E
vs. 1-8, 16a, c, 17, 18, 20-22; to P vs. 9-15, 16b, 19, 23-29.
JACOB AT BETHEL (CH. XXXV.)
405
ion. Dillmann gives vs. 1-8 to E (except ver. 5 R,
ver.
6a
P), vs. 9-15 to P, vs. 16-22a to R, and vs. 22b-29
to
P.
JACOB AT BETHEL
Vs. 1-15 plainly form one continuous
narrative. Jacob
goes
by divine direction to Bethel and builds an altar
there,
whereupon God appears to him and blesses him.
According
to the partition proposed above, however, E
(vs.
1, 4, 7) speaks of God having appeared to Jacob in
Bethel
and answered him in his distress, plainly refer-
ring
to xxviii. 12 sqq. But as the critics
divide that
passage,
E tells of the vision of a ladder with angels; it
is
only J who tells of God appealing to Jacob and speak-
ing
with him. Hence Dillmann finds it
necessary to as-
sume
that R has here meddled with the text and adapted
it
to J. In ver. 5 the danger of pursuit,
from which they
were
protected by a terror divinely sent upon the cities
round
about, points to the deed of blood in ch. xxxiv.,
and
to the apprehension which this awakened in Jacob
(ver.
30). But as that was recorded by J, not
by E, this
verse
is cut out of its connection and assigned by Hup-
feld
to J (in spite of Elohim), and by others to R.
Ver.
6a
is given to P, because E calls the place Bethel (vs.
1,
3). That, however, was the sacred name
given to it
by
Jacob; its popular name was Luz, and its introduc-
tion
here is with allusion to xxviii. 19. The
added clause,
"which
is in the land of Canaan," is not a superfluous
appendage
due to P's diffuseness; but like the same
words
in xxxiii. 18, it calls attention to the fact that
Jacob,
after his long absence, is now again in the land to
which
the Lord had promised to bring him (xxviii. 15).
That
promise, on which Jacob's vow to revisit Bethel
was
conditioned, was now fulfilled. Why R
should find it
necessary
here to insert a clause from P in order to state
406 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
so
simple a fact as Jacob's arrival at the place, to which,
accordmg
to E, he had been directed to go, is not very
obvious. Nevertheless the consequence is that P speaks
of
Jacob's coming to Bethel, but E does not; and
"there"
(ver. 7) has nothing to refer to. The
burial of
Deborah
(ver. 8) is said to be abruptly introduced and
out
of connection with what precedes. But it
only in-
terrupts
the narrative, as the event itself interrupted the
sacred
transaction in the midst of which it occurred.
Moreover,
the mention of Rebekah's nurse in E is once
more
a reference to J (xxiv. 59), by whom alone she had
been
spoken of before, and that merely to prepare the
way
for what is here recorded. The question
how she
came
to be with Jacob at this time cannot be answered
for
lack of information. The writer is not
giving her
biography,
and we have no right to expect an account
of
all her movements. After Rebekah's death
it was
quite
natural that she should go to be with Rebekah's
favorite
son. The "strange gods" in
Jacob's family
(vs.
2, 4) find their explanation in xxxi. 19, 30 sqq. E.
The
name El-bethel (ver. 7) is identical with that by
which
God announced himself to Jacob (xxxi.13 E).
P (ver. 9) speaks of God appearing to
Jacob again,
when
be came out of Paddan-aram, with definite reference
to
his having appeared to him the first time on his way
to
Paddan-aram (ver. 1 E), as related neither by P nor
by
E, but by J (xxviii. 13). The word
"again" is there-
fore
unceremoniously stricken from the text to make it
correspond
with the hypothesis. Reference is made
(ver.
12) to God's giving the land to Isaac; no such fact
is
recorded by P, only by J or R (xxvi. 3, 4).
God ap-
pears
to Jacob (ver. 9), as in xvii. 1 P (cf. xii. 7; xviii.
1;
xxvi. 2, 24 J), speaks to him in condescending terms
(vs.
10-12) and goes up from him (ver.13), from which it
is
plain that a descent of the LORD, as in xi. 5, 7, is not
JACOB AT BETHEL (CH. XXXV.)
407
peculiar
to J. The reimposition of the names
"Israel"
(ver.
10) and "Bethel" (ver. 15) is judged to be incredi-
ble
by the critics, and claimed as evidence of two discrep-
ant
accounts. But it gave no trouble to R,
and need not
to
us. There are other like instances in
the sacred narra-
tive. It is quite as likely that the original
writer thought
such
repetitions possible and reported them accordingly,
as
that the redactor could do so. That no
explanation of
Israel
is here given is, as Dillmann confesses, because
xxxii.
29 made it unnecessary, and so it is an implied ref-
erence
to that passage in E Dillm. (or J Well., Kuen.).
Only
his critical stand-point obliges him to assume that
P
must have given an explanation, which R has omitted,
the
only evidence of which is that the hypothesis requires
it. In vs. 11, 12, God pronounces upon Jacob the
identi-
cal
blessing granted to Abraham in terms corresponding
with
ch. xvii., thus fulfilling the desire of Isaac (xxviii.
3,
4) on his behalf. In ver. 14 (P) Jacob
sets up a pillar,
which
is esteemed a characteristic of E, as in ver. 20 E,
and
pours oil upon it, as xxviii. 18 E, and a drink-offer-
ing,
in evident contradiction to the critical notion that
according
to P offerings had no existence prior to the
Mosaic
period. Hence Kuenen
("Hexateuch," p. 327)
thinks
it necessary to attribute ver. 14 to R.
The manifold references to P, J, and E,
scattered
throughout
this closely connected paragraph (vs. 1-15),
are
not accounted for by the division proposed; and it is
impossible
to make a division that will account for them.
The
common relation of this paragraph to all the docu-
ments
cannot be explained by tearing it to shreds to
conform
with the partition elsewhere made. That
par-
tition,
which is irreconcilable with this paragraph, must
be
itself at fault in sundering what, as is here shown, be-
longs
together.
408 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
THE DEATH OF RACHEL
The next paragraph (vs. 16-20) is tied to
different
documents
in a like embarrassing manner. Ch.
xlviii. 7
(P)
speaks of the death and burial of Rachel at Ephrath,
in
terms nearly identical with vs. 16, 19.
Ch. xxix. 32-
xxx.
24 (J and E) records the birth of eleven of Jacob's
sons,
and finds its complement in this account of the
birth
of Benjamin. This final paragraph, which
com-
pletes
the number of his sons, is preparatory to the re-
capitulation
(vs. 22b-26 P), in which they are arranged
according
to their respective mothers, and in the order of
their
birth, in exact correspondence with the detailed
narrative
previously given. That the child now
born is
Rachel's,
agrees with xxx. 24b J. That she loses
her
life
in giving him birth is an evident reminder of xxx. 1
E. The birth scene recalls xxv. 24-26; xxxviii.
27 sqq.
J. In ver. 18 the name is given both by the
mother as
in J
and E (see ch. xxx.), and by the father as in P (see
xvi.
15; xxi. 3). It is alleged that P could
not have
connected
the birth of Benjamin with his mother's death
at
Ephrath, since this is in conflict with vs. 24, 26, P,
where
Jacob's twelve sons are said to have been born in
Paddan-aram. But in like manner, it is said (xlvi. 15),
that
Leah bare thirty-three sons and daughters to Jacob
in
Paddan-aram, and (ver. 18) Zilpah bare unto Jacob
sixteen. In Ex. i. 5, seventy souls are said to have
come
out
of the loins of Jacob, including Jacob himself (cf.
Gen.
xlvi. 26, 27). 1 Cor. xv. 5 speaks of
Christ being
"seen
of the twelve" after his resurrection, although
Judas
had gone to his own place. R had no
difficulty in
understanding
that Jacob's sons could be spoken of in
the
general as born in Paddan-aram, though Benjamin's
birth
in Canaan had just been mentioned. Is
R's inter-
THE
DEATH OF RACHEL (CH. XXXV.) 409
pretation
less rational than that of the critics?
May not
the
writer have meant it as the redactor understood it?
Dillmann further urges that! E could not
have men-
tioned
Rachel's death at this time, since that is in con-
flict
with xxxvii. 10 E. But instead of contrariety there
is
perfect accord. As the eleven stars
denoted Joseph's
brethren,
Benjamin must have been one of them. Ra-
chel's
death is likewise implied, for had she been living,
as
well as Leah, there would have been two moons to
make
obeisance instead of one.
The reference of this paragraph to R, who
is supposed
to
have written it with reference to P, J, and E, is equiv-
alent
to a confession that it is an indivisible unit as it
now
stands, and that it was written by one cognizant of
matter
to be found in each of the documents; by one,
that
is, who gave Genesis its present form, of which the
so-called
documents are component parts, a view which
is
quite consistent with their never having had a separate
existence.
There is a difficulty in respect to the
location of Ra-
chel's
sepulchre. According to vs. 16, 19;
xlviii. 7, it
lay
upon the road from Bethel, where "there was still
some
way to come to Ephrath" or Bethlehem; this
corresponds
with its traditional site, a short distance
north
of Bethlehem. But according to 1 Sam. x.
2, Saul
in
returning to Gibeah from Samuel, whose home was in
Ramah,
passed by Rachel's sepulchre; from which it
might
be inferred that it lay considerably further north.
Thenius,
Dillmann, and others cut the knot by rejecting
the
clause "the same is Bethlehem" (xxxv. 19; xlviii. 7),
as
an erroneous gloss, and assuming that there was a
another
Ephrath, not otherwise known, much nearer to
Bethel. But the correctness of its identification
with
Bethlehem
is confirmed by Ruth iv. 11; Mic. v. 1 (E. V.,
ver.
2). Delitzsch, in the fourth edition of
his "Gene-
410 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
sis,"
adhered to the traditional site and assumed that
Samuel
directed Saul to take" an unreasonably circuit-
ous
route" on his way homeward. In his
last edition he
conceives
that variant traditions as to the place of Ra-
chel's
burial are represented in these passages.
Kurtz1
seeks
a solution in the indefiniteness of the term trab;Ki
some
way,
which is of doubtful meaning, and only occurs
once
besides (2 Kin. v. 19). He supposes it
to mean
quite
a long distance, so that the place described might
be
remote from Bethlehem, and in the neighborhood of
Ramah.
Possibly, however, Dr. Robinson uncovers
the real
source
of the difficulty by suggesting that we do not
know
where it was that Saul met with Samuel.
Ramah,
the
home of Samuel, is in his opinion not the Ramah of
Benjamin,
north of Jerusalem, and has not yet been cer-
tainly
identified. And he adds,2
"After all, there is
perhaps
a question lying back of this whole discussion,
viz.,
whether the city where Saul and the servant came
to
Samuel was his own city, Ramah? The name
of the
city
is nowhere given; and the answer of the maidens
(1
Sam. ix. 11,12) would perhaps rather imply that
Samuel
had just arrived, possibly on one of his yearly
circuits,
in which he judged Israel in various cities (1
Sam.
vii. 15-17)." If now, in the
absence of definite in-
formation
on the subject, it is permissible with Keil to
conjecture
that Saul found Samuel in some city south-
west
of Bethlehem, Rachel's sepulchre might easily be
on
his way back to Gibeah. Samuel's
statement that he
would
"find two men by Rachel's sepulchre, in the bor-
der
of Benjamin, at Zelzah," need create no embarrass-
ment,
for Benjamin's southern boundary ran through the
valley
of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem to En-rogel (Josh.
1 Geschichte des Alten Bundes, i., p. 270.
2 Biblical Researches,
ii., p. 10 (Edition of 1856).
THE
DEATH OF RACHEL (CH. XXXV.) 411
xviii.
16), about three miles from Rachel's sepulchre,
which
is sufficiently near to justify the form of expression
used.
If, however, Samuel was at Ramah, and
this is the
same
with the Ramah north of Jerusalem, Rachel's sep-
ulchre
of 1 Sam. x. 2 cannot well be that of Genesis.
But
as the bones of Joseph were transported to the in-
heritance
of the tribes descended from him (Josh. xxiv.
32),
why may not the Benjamites have erected a ceno-
taph
in their territory in honor of the mother of their
tribe?
The repetition of the word fs.ay.iva
journeyed (xxxv. 21),
marks
this as a continuation of the narrative of vs. 5 and
16;
but the critics complete the patchwork of the chap-
ter
by giving ver. 22a to J, because of the reference to it
in
xlix. 4, and ver. 21 must necessarily go with it. And
this
though "Israel" in these verses is a plain allusion
to
ver. 10 P, or xxxii. 29 E (so Dillmann); and "the
tower
of Eder" was at Bethlehem, the objective point of
vs.
16, 19, R or P.
GROUNDS
OF PARTITION IRRELEVANT
While the entire chapter is thus closely
linked together
in
all its parts, it is observable that the critical severance
is
based not upon the contents of the chapter, whether
matter
or diction, but upon its numerous points of con-
nection
with other passages, which the critics have seen
fit
to parcel among the so-called documents.
It is an at-
tempt
to force the hypothesis through this chapter for
reasons
which lie wholly outside of itself. And
it is
still
further observable that the critics have not suc-
ceeded
in adjusting this chapter into conformity with the
partition
elsewhere. In spite of the attempt to
prevent
it,
its several sections are in repeated instances related
412 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
to
other documents than those to which the critics assign
them. These intimate bonds of relationship with
other
passages
accordingly constrain to precisely the opposite
conclusion
from that which has been claimed. They
do
not
justify the reduction of the chapter to a series of
fragments
of diverse origin in spite of its manifest unity;
but
this unity shows the falsity of that partition in other
parts
of Genesis which is irreconcilable with it.
CONCLUSION OF THE SECTION
Jacob's family is now complete, and he is
settled in
Canaan. His subordinate position as a member of the
family
of Isaac terminates here, and he is henceforth re-
garded
as the head of the chosen race, which is to bear
his
name, Israel. That division of the
history entitled
the
Generations of Isaac is accordingly concluded at
this
point, and is followed, according to the usage of the
book,
first, by the divergent line, the Generations of
Esau;
and then by the direct line, the Generations of
Jacob.
Isaac's death is mentioned at the close
of this chapter,
not
because this is its exact chronological place, but in
order
to bring this section of the history to a close be-
fore
entering upon Jacob's family life in Canaan; just
as
the death of Terah (xi. 32), and that of Abraham (xxv.
8),
are recorded in order to prepare the way for the his-
tory
of their successors. But as Terah
survived the call
of
Abraham (xii. 1, 4), and even the birth of Isaac (xxi.
5;
cf. xi. 26), and as Abraham survived the birth of Ja-
cob
and Esau (xxv. 26; cf. ver. 7), so Isaac continued to
live
until Joseph had reached his thirtieth year, and was
advanced
to be the second ruler in Egypt. Jacob
was
one
hundred and thirty years old when presented before
Pharaoh
(xlvii. 9), in the second year of the famine (xlv,
THE DEATH OF ISAAC (CH. XXXV.) 413
11). In the year preceding the first of plenty he
was,
therefore,
one hundred and twenty, and Joseph was
thirty
(xli. 46); this was the year of Isaac's death (xxxv.
28;
xxv. 26). It thus appears that Jacob was
ninety
years
old when Joseph was born; he had then been with
Laban
fourteen years (xxx. 25 sqq.; xxxi. 41).
He was
consequently
seventy-six when he left home for Paddan-
aram. Isaac was at that time one hundred and
thirty-
six,
and was old and blind, and might well say that he
"knew
not the day of his death" (xxvii. 1, 2); but it is
not
said, as has sometimes been alleged, that he was on
his
deathbed and near his end. He lived
forty-four
years
longer; and there is no statement or implication
in
the text inconsistent with this.
Dillmann infers from xxvi. 34, 35; xxvii.
46; and
xxviii.
1-9, that Jacob could only have been between
forty
and fifty when he went to Paddan-aram.
But the
facts
that Esau married at forty, that his Canaanitish
wives
gave great offence to Isaac and Rebekah, and that
this
is made a reason for Jacob's going elsewhere for a
wife,
do not warrant a conclusion as to Jacob's age at
variance
with definite data elsewhere supplied.
Esau
had
been married thirty-five years when Jacob left home.
Judged
by the present standard of human life, Jacob's
marriage
took place at a very advanced age. But
this
must
be considered in connection with patriarchal lon-
gevity. Jacob reached the age of one hundred and
forty-seven
(xlvii. 28); Isaac, one hundred and eighty
(xxxv.
28); Abraham, one hundred and seventy-five (xxv.
7). Abraham was eighty-six years old when his
first son
Ishmael
was born (xvi. 16), and one hundred at the birth
of
Isaac (xxi. 5).
No argument for critical partition is
drawn by Dill-
mann
from the diction of this chapter. The
words com-
monly
classed as belonging to P, in vs. 11, 12, are bor-
414 THE GENERATIONS OF ISAAC
rowed
from ch. xvii., where they have already been
considered;
and those of vs. 28, 29, are identical with
xxv.
7, 8. It should be noted that for UpyliHEhav;
UrhEF.Ahi
Mk,ytelom;Wi purify yourselves and change your garments (ver.
2),
Ex. xix. 10 substitutes Mylom;Wi
UsB;kiv; MTAw;Daqiv; sanctify
them
and let them wash their garments, though both are
referred
to E. Also in the phrase come forth
from the
loins, ver. 11 has MyicalAHE while xlvi. 26; Ex. i. 5, have
though
all are referred to P. The same writer
may
thus,
by the confession of the critics, use different ex-
pressions
for the same idea. Accordingly, such
differ-
ences
are not always nor necessarily an indication of dis-
tinct
documents.
IX
THE
GENERATIONS OF ESAU (CH. XXXVI.; XXXVII. 1)
OPINIONS OF CRITICS
EICHHORN1 attributed ch.
xxxvi. to an independent
source,
different from both P and J, and sought thus to
account
for its divergence from other passages in Gene-
sis,
particularly in certain proper names; he did not,
however,
dispute its unity.
Vater2 considered it a mass of
fragments. He says:
"No
reader of ch. xxxvi. can fail to see that it is made
up
of many pieces. There are six titles in
it, viz., vs. 1,
9,
15, 20, 31, 40. With each of the first
three titles
there
begins a special family-tree of Esau, and the repe-
tition
of all the identical names strikes the eye at once.
The
same concluding words occur in ver.19 as those
with
which another fragment closes (ver. 8).
The piece
that
begins with ver. 31, as well as that which begins
with
ver. 40, is a list of the kings of Edom; and that
from
ver. 31 is expressly a list of the kings who reigned
in
the land of Edom before the Israelites had a king."
After the masterly refutation of Vater
by F. H.
Rankes
it became customary to refer the entire chapter
to
P. Thus Knobel: "The Horite-Edomite
tribal list,
though
not preserved altogether unaltered (see ver. 2), is
a
work of the Elohist, who composed all the regularly
1 Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, 4th Edition, iii., p. 135.
2 Commentar uber den
Pentateuch, iii., p. 435.
3 Untersuchungen uber den
Pentateuch, i., pp. 243 sqq.
416 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
drawn
up genealogical tables of Genesis, and could not
omit
the Edomites, since they stood nearer to the Israel-
ites
than the other peoples descended from Terah the
father
of Abraham."
The assault upon the unity of the chapter
was, how-
ever,
renewed by Hupfeld,l who declared that "its het-
erogeneous
genealogical lists were only held together by
a
geographical conception, their relation to the land of
Edom
and its inhabitants;" that "the primitive inhab-
itants
of the country, the Horites, and the earliest Edom-
ite
kings, do not stand in the remotest relation to the
theocratic
history of the patriarchs, as traced by P; and
that
even the lines of descent from Esau cannot be from
P in
their present form." He ascribed to
P only vs. 1-
8;
and even here he maintained that the last clause in
both
ver. 1 and ver. 8 is a later gloss, and that the names
of
Esau's wives (vs. 2, 3) have been corrupted into con-
formity
with the other sources, from which the rest of the
chapter
was taken by J or R. Kayser assigns vs. 1-8 to
P,
the rest to J. Wellhausen attributes vs.
6-8, 40-43
to
P; vs. 31-39 are preserved unaltered from JE, and
the
remainder is derived from other sources, principally
JE,
and remodelled after the style of P.
Schrader gives
the
whole, chapter to P, except vs. 40-43.
Kuenen2
adopts
the division of Wellhausen, but adds:
"The re-
sult
is not quite satisfactory, for one would have expected
more
ample information concerning the Edomites than is
contained
in vs. 40-43. Perhaps a list of Esau's
descend-
ants,
which was given at this point in P, has been super-
seded
by vs. 1-5, 9-:19." So that after
removing part of
the
chapter, the critics feel the need of it or its equiva-
lent. Dillmann, followed by Delitzsch and Vatke,
re-
gards
the whole chapter as belonging to P, though modi-
fied
in some particulars by R.
1 Quelle, p. 61. 2
Hexateuch, p. 68.
ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 417
It would appear, therefore, that here is
another in-
stance
in which the critics' affirmation does not hold
good,
that "whatever difficulty may attend the separation
of J
and E, the writer P, as opposed to both of them, is
always
distinct and decisive."
UNITY OF THE CHAPTER
As no name of God occurs in this chapter,
no plea for
division
can arise from this quarter. We have the
au-
thority
of Dillmann for saying that the style is uniform
throughout,
and there is nothing in the language that
militates
against the unity of the chapter. In his
second
edition
he says expressly: "The fine
adjustment and ar-
rangement
of the piece speaks for the unity of the com-
position
and for P. This piece is rather a model
of
the
way and manner in which he was accustomed to
present
the material that lay before him."
To the ob-
jections
that the Horites (vs. 20 sqq.), and the kings of
Edom
(vs. 31 sqq.), do not fall within the author's plan
he
very properly attributes no weight whatever.
The
scheme
upon which the book of Genesis is constructed
made
it essential that an account should be given of the
descendants
of Esau; and the greater nearness of his re-
lation
to Jacob made it natural that a larger space
should
be given to them than to the descendants of Ish-
mael
and of Keturah (ch. xxv.): It had been
revealed to
Rebekah
that two nations would spring from her twin
children
(xxv. 23). This must be verified in the
case of
Esau
as well as of Jacob. If the princes
sprung from
Ishmael
were enumerated, why not the chiefs and kings
of
the race of Esau? The Horites were the
primitive in-
habitants
of Mount Seir. These were subjugated and
in
part
destroyed by Esau and his descendants (Deut. ii.
12,
22), who amalgamated with the remnant, as appears
418 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
from
the chapter before us (ver. 2 cf. ver. 24, ver. 12 cf.
ver.
22). In order to a correct and
comprehensive view
of
the Edomites it was consequently necessary to include
the
Horites, as is here done.
The materials embraced in the chapter are,
therefore,
the
proper ones to be introduced in this place.
They
are,
in addition, clearly and systematically arranged.
There
is first a statement of Esau's immediate family (vs.
1-5),
which is summed up (ver. 5b) in the words: "These
are
the sons of Esau, which were born unto him in the
land
of Canaan," precisely corresponding to the summary
of
Jacob's family (xxxv. 26b): "These
are the sons of
Jacob,
which were born to him in Paddan-aram."
This
naturally
leads to the mention of Esau's removal from
Canaan
to Mount Seir (vs. 6-8). The paragraph
relating
to
his immediate family (vs. 1-8) is preliminary to the
section
which follows concerning the nation descended
from
him. This is indicated by the title
prefixed to
them
respectively (ver. 1): "These are
the generations
of
Esau; the same is Edom," where, as in ver. 8b, Edom
is
his personal name (cf. xxv. 30); but in ver. 9:
"These
are the
generations of Esau, the father of Edom, in
Mount
Seir," as in ver. 43b, Edom is the national name.
In
tracing the unfolding of Esau's family to a nation pre-
cisely
the same method is pursued as in the like develop-
ment
of Jacob's family in ch. xlvi., whose sons give name
to
the tribes, and their sons to the tribal divisions or fam-
ilies
(cf. N um. xxvi. 5 sqq.). So here the
sons are again
named,
no longer as individuals as in vs. 4, 5, but as
progenitors
of the nation, and their sons are given (vs.
10-14),
who, it is immediately added, were chieftains of
their
respective clans (vs. 15-19). The same
method is
next
followed with the Horites by first naming the sons
or
principal divisions, then their sons-or the subdivisions,
the
national purport of the list being again indicated by
ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 419
enumerating
the sons as chieftains of their respective
clans
(vs. 20-30). Since these various clans
were com-
bined
into one national organization, with a monarch at
its
head, a list is next given of the kings who had reigned
in
the land of Edom (vs. 31-39). And to
this is added
finally
(vs. 40-43) a list of those who presided over the
various
districts or territorial divisions of the country,
"the
chiefs of Edom, according to their habitations in
the
land of their possession," as distinguished from the
families
or genealogical divisions before given (vs. 15-19).
The
lack of correspondence between the names in these
two
divisions, made on an entirely different principle, in-
volves
no contradiction, as is assumed by Wellhausen
and
Schrader, and is the basis of their disintegrating
analysis,
in which they reach such opposite conclusions.
And the dislocations and erasures proposed
by Brus-
ton1
are not only arbitrary, but mar the symmetry of the
chapter
as now exhibited. The omission of ver.
1, so as
to
attach vs. 2-8 to the previous section of the history,
the
Generations of Isaac, disregards the fact that it had
been
brought to a formal close by the death and burial
of
Isaac (xxxv. 29; cf. xxv. 8-10, ix. 29), and sunder's the
record
of Esau's family from that of the nation sprung
from
him, both of which properly belong to the Genera-
tions
of Esau. And the transfer of xxxvii. 1,
so as imme-
diately
to follow xxxvi. 8, needlessly interrupts the state
-ments
concerning Esau; the verse is in its proper place
after
those statements are concluded, and just preceding
the
next section (xxxvii. 2 sqq.), to which it is prepara-
tory. Nor are vs. 20-28 to be dropped on the plea
that
vs.
20, 21 are a doublet to vs. 29, 30; they sustain pre-
cisely
the same relation to one another as vs. 15-18 to vs.
10-14,
a relation not of mutual exclusion but of co-exist-
ence,
as indicated in ver. 19. And the
correspondence of
1 As quoted by Dillmann.
420 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
vs.
24, 25 to ver. 2, and of ver. 22 to ver. 12, instead of
discrediting
the paragraph in which they are found, tends
to
confirm its right to a place in this chapter.
The unity and the self-consistency of the
chapter have
now
been sufficiently vindicated. We are not
concerned
to
establish its correspondence with P or anyone of the
so-called
documents, which exist only in the fancy of the
critics. And when Wellhausen objects that a remark in-
terjected
in the midst of a genealogy like that in ver. 24,
"this
is Anah who found, the hot springs in the wilder-
ness,
as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father," is without
analogy
in P, though frequent in JE, and Dillmann con-
tends,
on the other hand, that the peculiar style of P runs
through
the entire chapter; or when Wellhausen affirms
that
the allusion to kings in Israel (ver. 31) cannot pos-
sibly
be from P, and Dillmann maintains, per contra, that
P
and P alone of all the documents makes such allusions,
we
must leave the critics to settle these domestic differ-
ences
between themselves. It only remains for
us to
consider
the alleged discrepancies between this chapter
and
other parts of Genesis and alleged anachronisms
which
are supposed to be inconsistent with the author-
ship
of Moses.
NO DISCREPANCIES
It is claimed that xxxvi. 2, 3 conflicts
with xxvi. 34,
xxviii.
9, in respect to the wives of Esau. In
the opin-
ion
of Wellhausen1 "this is the most open contradiction
in
the whole of Genesis;" and he adds, "either the en-
tire
literary criticism of the biblical historical books is
baseless
and nugatory, or these passages are from different
sources." We thank him for the word. If the divisive
criticism
stakes its all on finding a discrepancy here, its
prospects
are not very brilliant.
1 Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 49.
ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 421
Esau's
wives, according to chs. xxvi., xxviii., were Ju-
dith,
the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, Basemath, the
daughter
of Elon the Hittite, and Mahalath, the daughter
of
Ishmael and the sister of Nebaioth.
According to ch.
xxxvi.,
they were Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite,
Aholibamah,
the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zib-
eon
the Hivite, and Basemath, Ishmael's daughter, sister
of
Nebaioth.
There is a difference here in the names of
the women
and
of their fathers. Nevertheless, Noldeke
finds no
difficulty
in referring all to P, and assuming that he de-
rived
his materials from discrepant authorities.
And it
is
not easy to see why the original author, be he P or
who
he may, may not have done this as well as R.
But
the
discrepancy is, after all, imaginary. It
is quite in-
supposable
that R or P, or any sensible writer, could
have
inserted without comment or explanation the bald
contradiction
here alleged. That the passages in ques-
tion
are not unrelated is plain from the back reference
in
xxxvi. 2a, "Esau took his wives of the daughters of
Canaan,"
to xxviii. 1, 8; and that they are not altogether
at
variance is apparent from the fact that according to
both
statements Esau had three wives; two were Canaan-
ites,
one of these being the daughter of Elon the Hittite,
and
the third was a daughter of Ishmael and sister of
Nebaioth. The other Canaanitess is said (xxvi. 34) to
have
been the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and (xxxvi.
2)
the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hi-
vite. Ranke understands this to mean that Beeri was
her
father and Anah her mother, so that there is no vari-
ance
between the statements, which are mutually supple-
mentary,
as when Dinah is called (xxxiv. 1) the daughter
of
Leah, and (ver. 3) the daughter of Jacob.
But this is
incorrect,
since Anah, the parent of Aholibamah, was the
son,
and not the daughter, of Zibeon (xxxvi. 24, 25). Two
422 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
solutions
here offer themselves of the apparent discrep-
ancy. It is exceedingly probable that Beeri was
another
name
of Anah, given to him, as Hengstenberg suggests,
in
consequence of his discovery of warm springs (ver. 24)
(Beer,
spring; Beeri, spring-man).
Or Beeri may have
been
the son of Anah; Aholibamah is said (ver.2) to be
the
daughter of Anah and also the daughter of Zibeon,
as Basemath
(ver. 3) is the daughter of Ishmael and the
sister
of Nebaioth); here it is plain that "daughter" in
the
second clause cannot be taken in the strict sense of
an
immediate offspring, but must have the wider mean-
ing
of descendant (cf. also ver. 39). Why
not in the
preceding
clause likewise? Why may she not have
been
the
daughter of Beeri, the granddaughter of Anah, and
the
great-granddaughter of Zibeon (6f. Matt. i. 1, and
compare
Ezra v. 1 with Zech. i. 1)? the writer preferring
to
link her name in this genealogy with her distinguished
ancestors
rather than with her own father, who may have
been
of less note. We may not have the data
for deter-
mining
with certainty which is the true solution.
But
so
long as any reasonable solution can be shown to exist,
the
difficulty cannot be pronounced insoluble.
And as her parentage is thus readily
explicable, so are
the
seemingly variant statements respecting her nation-
ality. That she is said (xxvi. 34) to be of Hittite
and
(xxxvi.
2) of Hivite descent is not more strange than that
Zibeon
is called a Hivite (ver. 2) and a Horite (ver. 20).
The
critics commonly insist that the former is a textual
error,
and that Hivite should here be changed to Horite,
which
involves only a slight alteration in a single letter
(yfH
to yrH).
Then if (ver. 2) Esau's wife can be a daugh-
ter
of Canaan, and at the same time descended from a
Horite,
what is there in her being a Hittite to conflict
with
her Horite descent? The fact is that the
names of
the
Canaanitish tribes are not always used with rigorous
ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 423
precision. Hittite (Josh. i. 4:), like Canaanite and
Amor-
ite
(Gen. xv. 16), may be used in a narrower or a wider
sense,
either of the particular tribe so designated or of
the
population of Palestine generally. And
the term
Horite
is not properly indicative of race or descent but
of a
particular style of habitation; it is equivalent to
cave-dweller. There is no evidence that the Horites
might
not be allied in whole or in part to the Hivites;
and
Hittite might be applied in a general sense to a Hi-
vite.l
The only remaining ground of objection is
that Esau's
wives
bear different names in the two passages.
If but
one
was changed, it might be thought an error of tran-
scription. But as all three are altered, it must be due
to
some common cause. Nothing, however, is
more
common
than this duplication of names (cf. Gen. xvii. 5,
15;
xxv. 30; xxxv. 10, 18; xli. 45 ; Ex. ii. 18, cf. iii. 1;
Num.
xiii. 16; Judg. vii. 1; 2 Kin. xxiii. 34; xxi v. 17;
Dan.
i. 7, etc.), especially at some important crisis or
change
of life. So Tabitha was also called
Dorcas (Acts
ix.
36), and Peter Cephas, and Thomas Didymus, and
Joses
Barnabas, and Saul Paul. If a former
emperor of
the
French were called Napoleon on one page and Buo-
naparte
on another, or a late prime minister of England
were
spoken of at one time as Disraeli and at another as
Beaconsfield,
it would create no surprise. Harmer2
ob-
serves
that "the Eastern people are oftentimes known
several
names; this might arise from their having more
names
than one given them at first; or it might arise
from
their assuming a new and different name upon par-
ticular
occurrences in life. This last is most
probable,
since
such a custom continues in the East to this day;
1In like manner Amorite used
(xlviii. 22) in a general sense of the
Hivites
(xxxiv. 2).
2Observations on Divers
Passages of Scripture, vol. ii., p. 501.
424 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
and
it evidently was sometimes done anciently." And
he
cites in the same connection the following from Sir
John
Chardin: "The reason why the
Israelites and
other
Eastern people are called by different names is be-
cause
they frequently change them, as they change in
point
of age, condition, or religion. This
custom has con-
tinued
to our times in the East, and is generally prac-
tised
upon changing religions; and it is pretty common
upon
changing condition. The Persians have
preserved
this
custom more than any other nation. I
have seen
many
governors of provinces among them assume new
names
with their new dignity. But the example
of the
reigning
king of Persia (he began his reign in 1667, and
died
in 1694) is more remarkable: the first
years of the
reign
of this prince having been unhappy, on account of
wars
and famine in many provinces, his counsellors per-
suaded
him that the name he had till then borne was
fatal,
and that the fortune of the empire would not be
changed
till he changed that name. This was
done; the
prince
was crowned again under the name of Soliman;
all
the seals, all the coins, that had the name of Sefi were
broken,
the same as if the king had been dead, and an-
other
had taken possession. The women more
frequently
change
their names than the men. . . . Women that
marry
again, or
let themselves out anew, and slaves,
commonly
alter their names upon these changes." Esau's
wives
at their marriage left their own tribes to become
the
heads of a new race; is it strange that they should
adopt
new names?
Another alleged inconsistency relates to
the separation
of
Esau and Jacob. According to xxxii. 4
(E. V., ver. 3)
Esau
was already in Seir before Jacob's return from Pad-
dan-aram. But xxxvi. 6, 7 states that he removed from
Canaan
from the face of Jacob, because there was not
room
for both of them to dwell together.
There is no
ESAU'S
DESOENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 425
real
discrepancy here, however. Esau with a
band of
men
had a provisional residence in Mount Seir before
Jacob's
return home; but it is nowhere said that he had
entirely
abandoned Canaan and removed his family and
effects
from it. Though he had fixed his
head-quarters
for
a season in. Seir, he had no disposition
to yield
Canaan
or to surrender his right to the paternal inherit-
ance
to Jacob, who had defrauded him of his father's
blessing. Hence he came out with an armed force to
obstruct
his return to the land of his fathers.
It was
only
after Jacob's fervent supplication (xxxii. 10 sqq., E.
V.,
vs. 9 sqq.), and his importunate wrestling for a bless-
ing
on the bank of the Jabbok (vs. 25 sqq.), that Esau's
deadly
hate (xxvii. 41) was by divine influence changed
to
fraternal love (xxxiii. 4). He
thenceforth abandoned
his
claim to the possession of Canaan, and peaceably
withdrew
with all that he had from the land. He
re-
turned
again at the interment of his father (xxxv. 29), as
Ishmael
had done at the burying of Abraham (xxv. 9);
and
then the final separation of the brothers took place.
NO ANACHRONISM
An alleged anachronism yet remains to be
considered.
It
is confidently affirmed that Moses could not possibly
have
written vs. 31-39. Verse 31 reads, "And these are
the
kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there
reigned
any king over the children of Israel."
The first impression upon a cursory
reading of this
verse
might naturally be that it was written after the es-
tablishment
of the monarchy in Israel. Wellhausen
con-
tends
that vs. 31-39 could not possibly have been writ-
ten
by P, "since this document keeps much too strictly
to
its archaistic stand-point for us to attribute to it the
unconcealed
reference to the period of the Israelitish
426 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
kings
in ver. 31." We so far agree with
him as to think
it
incredible that the writer of the Pentateuch should in
this
one instance have departed so far from the Mosaic
stand-point,
which he elsewhere steadfastly maintains
throughout,
as to have introduced here a passage which
must
be dated as late as the time of Saul or David.
And
in
fact a careful examination of the passage reveals sev-
eral
particulars calculated to modify the first cursory
impression. Eight kings of Edom are named in these
verses
who are nowhere else mentioned in the history;
and
we have no data for determining just when they
reigned. No king is succeeded by his own son. It
would
seem, therefore, to have been an elective, not an
hereditary,
monarchy. The death of the first seven
kings
is
mentioned, but not that of the eighth, whence it is
probable
that he was still reigning when this passage
was
written. This probability is enhanced by
the con-
sideration
that the writer seems to be better acquainted
with
the domestic relations of this king than of his pre-
decessors;
at least he mentions the name and lineage of
his
wife, which is not done in the case of any other.
There was a kingdom in Edom in the time
of David (1
Kin.
xi. 14-17), and reference is made to Hadad "of the
king's
seed in Edom." He cannot be identified
with
Hadad
(ver. 36), or with Hadar (ver. 39) of the passage
before
us, as he seems never to have reached the throne;
or
if he did, it must have been after the beginning of Sol-
omon's
reign, so that he was not one who reigned before
there
was any king in Israel. Moreover, the
expression
used
shows that the succession to the throne was then
hereditary. The kingdom consequently is not that which
is
described in the verses now under discussion; it was
on a
different basis.
There was also a king in Edom in the time
of Moses
(Num.
xx. 14; cf. Judg. xi. 17), as well as in the kindred
ESAU'S DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 427
nations
of Moab (Num. xxii. 4), Midian (xxxi. 8), and
Amalek
(xxiv. 7; cf. 1 Sam. xv. 20). We read
also at
that
time of dukes in Edom (Ex. xv. 15), showing that the
kingdom
was superinduced upon and coexisted with the
dukedoms
that are likewise spoken of in Gen. xxxvi.;
this
is a coincidence worth noting. From the
death of
Moses
to the choice of Saul as king were three hundred
and
fifty-seven years (1 Kin. vi. 1; 2 Sam. v. 4; Acts
xiii.
21; Num. xiv. 33). Now, even supposing
the king
in
the Mosaic age to have been the first that ruled in
Edom,
we must assign to each of his successors a reign
of
fifty-one years to fill up the interval to the time of
Saul,
which is quite insupposable; and the more so as
elective
monarchs would in all probability be chosen in
mature
age, and their reigns be on the average briefer in
consequence. This list of kings does not, therefore, ex-
tend
to the reign of Saul. It cannot,
consequently, have
been
written after the establishment of the kingdom in
Israel,
and intended to enumerate all the kings that had
reigned
in Edom up to that time.
Furthermore, the fourth of these kings,
it is said (ver.
35),
"smote Midian in the field of Moab."
Midian was
in
alliance with Moab in the time of Moses (Num. xxii.
4,
7); we are not informed that they were so subse-
quently. Israel occupied the plains of Moab before
crossing
the Jordan (Num. xxxi. 12), and were thence-
forward
adjacent to its territory. This event
was in all
probability
pre-Mosaic.
Edom was so powerful and warlike a people
in the
Mosaic
age that Israel did not venture to force a passage
through
their territory (Num. xx. 20,21). This
seems to
imply
that the kingdom had not been recently estab-
lished. The same thing may be inferred from the men-
tion
of "the king's highway'" (xx.
17).
These various considerations conspire to
make it ex-
428 THE GENERATIONS OF ESAU
tremely
probable that several of these kings, at least,
were
pre-Mosaic; why not all? Why may not the
last
of
the series be the one with whom Moses had dealings,
and
this be the explanation of the fact that the series is
carried
no further? Esau's final settlement in
Seir took
place
before the death of Isaac. And Isaac
died ten
years
before Jacob went down to Egypt (Gen. xxxv. 28;
xxv.
26; xlvii. 9), and hence four hundred and forty
years
before the exodus of the children of Israel (Ex. xii.
41),
or four hundred and eighty before the death of
Moses. This affords ample time for the establishment
of
the kingdom in Edom, and the reign of eight kings.
There
is absolutely no reason in the nature of the case,
or
in any known fact, for affirming that anyone of these
kings
was post-Mosaic.
But could Moses have used the expressions
in ver.
31?1 Why not?
It had been explicitly promised to
Abraham
(xvii. 6) and to Jacob (xxxv. 11) that kings
should
arise from their seed. Balaam foretells
the
exalted
dignity of the kingdom in Israel (Num. xxiv. 7).
Moses
anticipates that when the people were settled in
Canaan
they would wish to set a king over them like all
the
nations around them; and though he did not enjoin
the
establishment of a kingdom, he gave regulations re-
specting
it (Deut. xvii. 14 sqq.). That was the
common
usage
of the nations. It was the prevalent
conception of
a
well-ordered and properly administered government.
Now
Jacob inherited the blessing, and Esau did not.
It
had
been foretold that Esau, the elder, should serve Jacob,
1Astruc urges substantially the
same arguments that are presented
above
to prove that the kings of Edom here spoken of were pre-Mosaic,
but
he supposes that the king in Israel referred to was God, who be-
came
their king by formal covenant with them at Sinai (Ex. xix.), and
is
so called Deut. xxxiii. 5 (cf. Judg. viii. 22, 23; 1 Sam. viii. 7, xii
12)
; or else Moses or Joshua, who, though they are not called kings,
were
yet invested with supreme authority under God himself.
ESAU'S
DESCENDANTS (CH. XXXVI.) 429
the
younger; that the people descended from the latter
should
be stronger than the people descended from the
former
(xxv. 23); that Jacob should be lord over Esau
(xxvii.
29). Yet Esau had been a compact,
thoroughly
organized
kingdom for eight successive reigns, while Is-
rael
had just escaped from bondage, had attained to no
such
organization, had not yet had a single king.
How
could
Moses fail to note so remarkable an occurrence?
And
why was it not perfectly natural for him to have
made
precisely the statement which we here find?
Dillmann says that if the last of these
kings was a
contemporary
of Moses, the writer could not have said,
"These
are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before
there reigned any king over the children of Is-
rael;"
he could only have said, "before the children of
Israel
went up out of Egypt," or "before they conquered
Canaan." This is of weight only against Dillmann's own
position. If this line of kings simply extended to
Moses's
time,
as we have seen that there is every reason to be-
lieve,
no post-Mosaic writer, and especially no one living
in
or after the time of Saul, could have made the reign
of
kings in Israel the terminus ad quem.
No one but
Moses
himself, or a writer in the Mosaic age, contrasting
the
facts thus far developed in the line of Esau and" Ja-
cob
with what had been predicted respecting them, could
have
used the language here employed. Instead
of in-
dicating
an anachronism, the form of expression thus
points
directly to Moses as its authol'.
While the critics disagree respecting the
authorship of
this
chapter in general, they are unanimous in assigning
vs.
6-8 to P, and in claiming that the characteristic ex-
pressions
of those verses, which are the ones commonly
used
of patriarchal migrations, are those of P.
How lit-
tle
reason they have for this has already been shown un-
der
ch. xii. 4b, 5, Marks of P (3), No.2 and 5.
X
THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB (XXXVII. 2-L.)
THE first thirty-six chapters of Genesis
have now been examined, and no justification has yet been found for the
critical
hypothesis that the book is compounded from
pre-existing
documents. We proceed to inquire whether
this
hypothesis has any better support in the next and
only
remaining section of this book.
THE UNITY OF PLAN
The divisive hypothesis encounters here in
full meas-
ure
the same insuperable difficulty which meets it
throughout
the book of Genesis, and particularly in the
life
of Abraham, and the early history of Jacob.
The
unity
of plan and purpose which pervades the whole, so
that
every constituent part has its place and its function,
and
nothing can be severed from it without evident mu-
tilation,
positively forbids its being rent asunder in the
manner
proposed by the critics. If ever a
literary prod-
uct
bore upon its face the evidence of its oneness, this
is
true of the exquisite and touching story of Joseph,
which
is told with such admirable simplicity and a pathos
that
is unsurpassed, all the incidents being grouped with
the
most telling effect, until in the supreme crisis the
final
disclosure is made. No such high work of art was
ever
produced by piecing together selected fragments of
diverse
origin.
The critics tell us that the apparent
unity is due to
THE UNITY OF PLAN (CH. XXXVII. 2-L.) 431
the
skill of the redactor. But the
suggestion is alto-
gether
impracticable. A writer who gathers his
mate-
rials
from various sources may elaborate them in his own
mind,
and so give unity to his composition.
But a re-
dactor
who limits himself to piecing together extracts
culled
from different works by distinct authors, varying
in
conceptions, method, and design, can by no possibility
produce
anything but patchwork, which will betray itself
by
evident seams, mutilated figures, and want of harmony
in
the pattern. No such incongruities can
be detected
the
section before us by the most searching examina-
tion. All that the critics affect to discover
vanish upon
a
fair and candid inspection.
Moreover, the story of Joseph, complete
as it is in it-
self,
is but one link in a uniform and connected chain,
and
is of the same general pattern with those that pre-
cede
it. With striking individual
diversities, both of
character
and experience, the lives of the several patri-
archs
are, nevertheless, cast in the same general mould.
Divine
revelations are made to Joseph at the outset, fore-
casting
his future (xxxvii. 5 sqq.), as to Abraham (xii. 1
sqq.),
and to Jacob (xxviii. 11 sqq.). Each was
sent away
from
his paternal home and subjected to a series of trials,
issuing
both in discipline of character and in ultimate
prosperity
and exaltation. And the story of Joseph
fits
precisely
into its place in the general scheme, which it is
the
purpose of Genesis to trace, by which God was pre-
paring
and training a people for himself. By a
series of
marvellous
providences, as the writer does not fail to
point
out (xlv. 5, 7; 1.20), the chosen seed was preserved
from
extinction and located within the great empire of
Egypt,
as had been already foreshown to Abraham
(xv.
13 sqq.), that they might unfold into a nation ready,
when
the proper time should arrive, to be transplanted
into
Canaan.
432 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
These broad and general features, in which
the same
constructive
mind is discernible throughout, are lost
sight
of by critics who occupy themselves with petty de-
tails,
spying out doublets in every emphatic repetition or
in
the similar features of distinct events, finding occa-
sions
of offence in every transition or digression, however
natural
and appropriate, and creating variance by setting
separate
parts of the same transaction in antagonism, as
though
each were exclusive of the other, when in fact
they
belong together and are perfectly consistent; or by
dislocating
phrases and paragraphs from their true con-
nection
and imposing upon them senses foreign to their
obvious
intent. These artifices are perpetually
resorted
to
by the critics, and constitute, in fact, their stock argu-
ments,
just because they refuse to apprehend the author's
plan,
and to judge of the fitness of every particular from
his
point of view, but insist instead upon estimating
everything
from some self-devised standard of their own.
Vater, to whom the Pentateuch was a
collection of
heterogeneous
fragments, and who was ready to go to
any
length in the work of disintegration, nevertheless
says1
that the history of Joseph is "a connected whole, to
rend
it asunder would be to do violence to the narrative."
And
Tuch, who finds a double narrative throughout the
rest
of Genesis, declares that it is impossible to do so
here. "Several wrong courses have been
ventured upon,"
he
says,2 "in respect to
the narrator of the life of Joseph.
Some
relying upon insecure or misunderstood criteria
have
sought to extort two divergent accounts.
Others
have
held that the documents have been so worked over
that
it is impracticable to separate them with any degree
of
certainty. But we must insist upon the
close connec-
tion
of the whole recital, in which one thing carries an-
1 Commentar uber den Pentateuch, i., p. 290 ; iii., p. 435.
2 Commentar libel die Genesis, 2d edit., p. 417.
THE
UNITY OF PLAN (CH. XXXVII. 2-L) 433
other
along with it, and recognize in that which is con-
tinuously
written the work of one author."
And he adds1 respecting ch. xxxvii.: "This section in particular has
been
remarkably maltreated by the divisive document
and
redactor hypotheses of Ilgen and Gramberg without
bringing
forth anything but an arbitrary piece of mosaic
work,
which is shattered by the inner consistency and
connection
of the passage itself." The
posthumous edi-
tor
of Tuch's "Commentary" interposes the caveat that
"since
Hupfeld and Boehmer the unity of the history
of
Joseph can no longer be maintained."
But the fact
is
that no inconsistencies have since been pretended in
this
narrative which were not already pointed out by
Ilgen
and Gramberg. Whether the later attempts
to es-
tablish
duplicate accounts have been more successful
than
those which Tuch so pointedly condemns, we shall
inquire
presently.
The urgent motive which impels the most
recent crit-
ics
to split the history of Joseph asunder at all hazards
is
thus frankly stated by Wellhausen:2 "The principal
source
for this last section of Genesis is JE.
It is to be
presumed
that this work is here as elsewhere com-
pounded
of J and E. Our previous results urge to
this
conclusion,
and would be seriously shaken if this were
not
demonstrable. I hold, therefore, that
the attempt
'to
dismember the flowing narrative of Joseph into
sources'
is not a failure,3
but is as necessary as the de-
composition
of Genesis in general."
1 Commentar uber die Genesis,
2d edit., p. 424.
2 Composition des Hexateuch's,
p. 52.
3 The allusion is to Noldeke
(Untersuchungen, p. 32), who says "the
attempt
to dismember this flowing narrative into sources is a veritable
failure."
434 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
LACK OF CONTINUITY IN THE DOCUMENTS
If distinct documents have been combined
in this
portion
of Genesis, the critical analysis which disen-
tangles
them and restores each to its original separate-
ness
might be expected to bring forth orderly narratives,
purged
of interpolations and dislocations, with the true
connection
restored and a consequent gain to each in
significance,
harmony, and clearness. Instead of this
there
is nothing to show for P, J, or E but mutilated
fragments,
which yield no continuous or intelligible nar-
rative,
but require for their explanation and to fill their
lacunae
precisely those passages which the critical pro-
cess
has rent from them. We are expected to
assume,
with
no other evidence than that the exigencies of the
hypothesis
require it, that these P, J, and E fragments
represent
what were originally three complete docu-
ments,
but that the missing parts were removed by R.
"We now come," as Noldeke says,
"to the most dis-
tressing
gap in the whole of P." And he
undertakes to
account
for it by the gratuitous assumption that P's
account
was so decidedly contradictory to that of the
other
documents that R was obliged to omit it alto-
gether. In fact P is almost as absolute a blank in
what
follows
as it was in regard to Jacob's abode in Paddan-
aram.
THE DIVINE NAMES
The divine names here give no aid in the
matter of
critical
division. Jehovah occurs in but three of
these
fourteen
chapters, and in only eight verses, each time
with
evident appropriateness. It is found in
connec-
tion
with God's dealings with the chosen race, on the
one
hand his punitive righteousness toward offenders
DICTION AND STYLE (CH. XXXVII. 2-L.) 435
(xxxviii.
7, 10), and on the other his gracious care of
Joseph,
assurances of which are heaped together at the
beginning
of his servitude in Egypt (xxxix. 2, 3, 5, 21,
23);
after this it appears but once, viz., in a pious ejacu-
lation
of the dying patriarch Jacob (xlix. 18).
Elohim
occurs
repeatedly in these chapters, and in a manner
which
Hupfeld ("Quellen," p. 178) confesses to be em-
barrassing
to the critics as contravening the requirements
of
their hypothesis. The predominance of
this name in
this
section cannot be traced to the habit of a particular
writer,
since it is supposed to be about equally shared
between
J and E. It is regulated by the
proprieties of
the
situation, with which it is always in accord.
There
are
three considerations which explain the matter.
Elo-
him
is used--
1.
When Egyptians speak or are spoken to, as xli. 16,
38;
and Joseph is classed as an Egyptian while he was
unknown
to his brethren (xlii. 18; xliv. 16).
2.
Where God's general providential orderings aloe re-
ferred
to (xli. 51, 52); and especially where they are
explicitly
or implicitly contrasted with the purposes of
men
(xIv. 5-9; 1. 19, 20).
3.
Where there is an appeal to God's almighty power
(xlvi.
2-4); in this case El Shaddai may be substituted
(xliii.
14; xlviii. 3, 4).
DICTION AND STYLE
Neither is the partition conducted on the
basis of such
literary
criteria as diction and style. Only a
few scat-
tered
scraps, amounting in all to about twenty-five
verses,l
are assigned to P, such as can be severed from
1Viz.. xxxvii. 2a; xli. 46a; xl
vi. 6. 7; xlvii. 5-11, 27b. 28; xlviii. 3-6
(7?);
xlix. la, 28b-33; 1. 12, 13, with a possible addition of xlvi. 8-27,
the
enumeration of Jacob's descendants, about which the critics are
not
agreed.
436 OF JACOB
the
main body of the narrative as entering least into its
general
flow and texture. The mass of the
matter, as
has
uniformly been the case since ch. xxiii., is divided
between
J and E, which by confession of the critics
can
only be distinguished with the greatest difficulty.
Whenever
it is impossible to effect a partition it is
claimed
that R must have blended the documents inex-
tricably
together. In other places a few
disconnected
clauses
are sundered from a J section and given to E, or
from
an E section and given to J; and these are claimed
as
evidence of two separate narratives. At
other times
arbitrary
grounds of distinction are invented, such as
assigning
to E all dreams ,that are mentioned, or differ-
ent
incidents of the narrative are parcelled between
them,
as though they were varying accounts of the same
thing,
whereas they are distinct items in a complete and
harmonious
whole. Genealogical tables, dates,
removals,
deaths,
and legal transactions or ritual enactments are as
a
rule given to P. Historical narratives
are attributed
to J
and E, and are divided between them not by any
definite
criteria of style, but by the artifice of imaginary
doublets
or arbitrary distinctions, leaving numerous
breaks
and unfilled gaps in their train. And in
this
halting
manner the attempt is made to establish the
1 Thus Kayser says (Das Vorexilische Buch,
p. 28): "The little frag-
ments
of the Elohist (P) inserted in Genesis from ch. xxiii. onward all
refer
to keeping the race elected in Abraham pure from admixture
with
the Canaanitish tribes, and its exclusive right to the possession of
Canaan,
which is confirmed both by narratives of acquisition of the soil
and
of the departure of the side lines of Ishmael and Esau. Sparse as
they
have thus far been found, they become still more rare in what
follows. The attempt of Tuch and Knobel, based on the
supplement
hypothesis,
to find in the history of Jacob's descendants, especially of
Joseph,
a radical portion of the so-called primary document P, has been
shown
to be untenable, since Hufeld has given the proof that the pas-
sages
referred to the first Elohist by those scholars belong to the second
Elohist,
worked over by, and inseparable from, the Jehovist."
JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 437
existence
of what the critics would have us regard as
separate
and continuous documents. The method itself
is
sufficient to condemn the whole process and to show
that
the results are altogether factitious.
It could be
applied
with equal plausibility to any composition, what-
ever
the evidence of its unity.
JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYPT--(CH. XXXVII. 2-36)
VARIANCE AMONG CRITICS
No pretext for division is here afforded
by Elohim or
Jehovah,
since no name of God occurs in this chapter.
Astruc,
Eichhorn, and Tuch regard it as a unit, and re-
fer
it without abatement to P. It has,
however, been va-
riously
divided, and it affords a good illustration of the
ease
with which a narrative embracing several incidents
can
be partitioned at the pleasure of the critic.1 Ilgen
1This chapter is partitioned by
different critics in the following man-
ner:
Ilgen: P, VB. 2, 14 (omit "and he
came to Shechem "), 18b, c, 21-
23a,
b, 24, 25a, 28a, b, d, 29-31, 32b, c, 34, 36. E, vs. 3-13, 14 (last
clause). 15-18a, 19, 20, 25b-27 , 23, 28c, 32, 33, 35
; xxxix. 1.
Gramberg: P, vs. 2, 18, 21 (for
"Reuben" read " Judah"), 25-27,
28c,
d ; xxxix. 1. J, vs. 5-11, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28a, b, 29, 30, 36. Com-
mon
to both, vs. 3, 4, 12-17, 23, 31-35.
Knobel: P, vs. 2-4, 23-27, 28c, d, 31,
32a. Rechtsbuch, vs. 5-22a,
28a,
b, 32b-36. J, vs. 22b, 29, 30.
Boehmer: J, VB. 2a, 3, 4, 11a, 18c,
25b-27, 28b, 32a, c, d, 33a, d,
34,
35a, b. E, vs. 5-10, 11b, 12 (omit
"in Shechem "), 14a, b, 17c,
18a,
b, 19-21, 22a, 23-25a, 28a, 29-31, 32b, 33b, c, 35c, 36. R, vs. 2b,
5b,
8b, 12 (in Shechem), 13, 14c, 15-17a, b, d, 22b, 23c, 28c, 36 (Poti-
phar).
Hupfeld: J, vs. 25b-27, 28c. E, vs. 2-25a,
28a, b, d-36.
Schrader:
J, vs. 23-27, 28c, d, 31-35. E,
vs. 2b-22, 28a, b, 29, 30,
36.
Wellhausen: J, vs. 12, 13a, b, 14-17,
19-21 (for" Reuben" read
"Judah
"), 23, 24, 25-27, 28c, 31-36. E, vs.
2b-11, 13c, 18, 22, 28a,
b,
d-30.
438 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
partitions
it between the two Elohists with the following
result:
P uses the name Jacob (vs. 1, 34), represents
Joseph
as habitually with the flocks (ver. 2), wearing an
ordinary
coat (vs. 23a, 32 , 33), incurring the hatred of
his
brothers by bringing an evil report of them to his
father
(ver. 2). Reuben as the first-born takes a promi-
nent
part, counsels not to kill Joseph, and is afterward
inconsolable
(vs. 21, 22, 29 30). Midianites take
Joseph
from
the pit without the knowledge of his brothers (ver.
28),
and sell him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of
Pharaoh
(ver. 36). E, on the contrary, uses the
name
Israel
(vs,. 3, 13) and reprrsents Joseph as the son of
his
fathers old age (ver. 3) unacquainted with the flocks
(vs.
15, 16), wearing a coat of many colors (or rather a
long
garment with sleeves) (vs. 3, 23b, 32a), hated by his
brothers
because of his distinguished dress and his fa-
ther's
partiality for him (ver. 4), and hated still more for
his
dreams (vs. 5-11). Judah acts the part
of the first-
born
(ver. 26); his brothers on his advice sell Joseph to
Dillmann, 1st edition: J, vs. 3, 4, 23c,
25-27, 28c, some expressions
in
32-35. J and E mixed, vs. 23, .12, 34,
35. E, the remainder.
Dillmann, 3d edition: J, vs. 2b, 3, 4,
18b, 21 (for "Reuben" read
"Judah"),
23*-27, 28c, 31*-35*. J and E mixed, vs.
23, 31,32 ("coat"
and
"long tunic" in combination), vs. 34, 35 (34b and 35b doublets).
R,
vs. 5b, 8b, Israel, Shechem, and Hebron in 14, slight change in 18.
In
ver. 9, "and told it to his brethren," is an interpolation. E, rest
of
the chapter.
Kittell: J, vs. 2b, 3, 4a, 11a, 12, 113a,
14-18, 21 (for "Reuben" read
"Judah
"), 23c, 25b-27, 28c, 32, 33 (in great part), 35 (except the last
part). E, vs. 2a, c, 4b-10, l1b, 13b, 19, 20 (except
"and cast him into
one
of the pits "), 22, 23a, b, 24, 25a., 28a, b, d, 29-31, parts of 32 and
33,
34, the last three words of 35, 36.
Kautzsch: J, vs. 3,4, 21 (for
"Reuben" read "Judah "), 23c, 25b-
27,
28c, 32, 33, 35. E, vs. 2c, 5a, 6-11,
19, 20, 22, 28a, b, d-31, 32
(first
verb), 34, 36. JE, vs. 2a, 12-18, 23a,
b, 24, 25a. R, vs. 2b, 5b,
8b,
10a.
Driver: J, vs. 12-21, 25-27, 28c,
31-35. E, vs. 2b-11, 22-24, 28a,
b,
d-80, 36.
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT ( XXXVH. 2-36) 439
the
Ishmaelites (vs. 27, 28b). His father
says that he
will
go down to Sheol mourning for his son (ver. 35).
Joseph
is sold to some Egyptian whose name is not
given
(xxxix. 1; "Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, cap-
tain
of the guard," is ejected from this verse as an intel-
polation).
De Wette1 charges Ilgen with
being arbitrary and go-
ing
too far, but agrees with him to a certain extent. He
fancies
that there are inconsistencies in the narrative,
which
can only be relieved by the assumption that two
variant
accounts have been blended. After the
adoption
of
Reuben's proposal (ver. 23) to cast Joseph into a
pit
instead of killing him, Judah says (ver. 26), "What
profit
is it if we slay our brother?" as if they still in-
tended
to kill him. Reuben makes no objection
to Ju-
dah's
proposal to sell Joseph; and yet he is afterward
distressed
at not finding Joseph in the pit, though there
had
been no mention of his absence when the sale was
effected. This indicates that' different stories are
here
confused
together. According to one, Joseph was
cast
at
Reuben's suggestion into a pit, and subsequently
drawn
out and carried off by Midianite merchants who
were
passing. According to the other,
Joseph's brother's
had
conspired to kill him, but sold him instead to Ish-
maelites.
Gramberg distributes the chapter between P
and J,
certain
paragraphs being common to both. Both
tell
that
Joseph was his father's favorite, and had been pre-
sented
by him with a long robe, which excited his broth-
ers'
hostility. Both tell that Joseph was
sent by his
father
from Hebron to Shechem to find his brothers, who
were
with the flocks. And both describe the
deception
practised
upon Jacob, and his inconsolable grief at the
loss
of Joseph. P tells of Judah and the sale
to the
1 Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, ii., pp. 142 sqq.
440 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Ishmaelites,
and J of Reub~. and Joseph being carried
off
by the Midianites; which is the reverse of Ilgen's as-
signment,
who makes P tell of the latter and E of the
former.
Knobel, the latest and most minutely
elaborate of the
supplementary
critics, recognizes in Genesis only an
Elohist
Primary Document, P, which gives a compara-
tively
trustworthy statement of facts; and a Jehovist
Reviser,
J, who incorporates with the preceding the leg-
endary
embellishments of later times. P's
account is
that
Joseph's reporting his brothers' misdeeds and his
father's
partiality for him so exasperated his brothers,
with
whom he was feeding the flocks, that they threw
him
into a pit, and then at Judah's instance sold him to
Ishmaelites,
who took him to Egypt; after this they dip
Joseph's
coat in blood and send it to their father.
J
adds
from some other authority the prophetic dreams,
Joseph's
being sent by his father in quest of his broth-
ers,
their conspiring against him as they saw him ap-
proaching,
Reuben's proposal not to shed his blood but
to
put him in a pit (meaning, in the intent of the author-
ity
from which this was drawn, to let him perish there;
but,
by inserting ver. 22b, J converts this into a purpose
to
restore him to his father; and he further introduces
in
the same vein (vs. 29, 30) Reuben's subsequent dis-
tress
at not finding Joseph in the pit). J
makes no men-
tion
of the adoption of Reuben's proposal; but this is to
be
presumed, as Midianites pass, who draw Joseph out
of
the pit and sell him to Potiphar.
Finally, Jacob's
grief
is depicted at the sight of his son's coat, which was
sent
to him.
Bohmer divides the chapter between J, E,
and R, as-
signing
nothing whatever to P. Even the title of
the
section
(ver. 2a), "These are the generations of Jacob,"
which
the critics commonly claim for P, though most un-
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36)
441
reasonably,
is given by him to J. A large share is
imputed
to
R, in order to cover the halting-places of the analysis, or
to
carry the principle of subdivision consistently through.
As
three reasons are assigned to the hostility of Joseph's
brothers,
viz., his evil report of their conduct, his father's
partiality,
and his dreams, and he last two are divided
between
J and E, the first (ve .2b) is given to R.
As
each
document is supposed to peak of but one ground
of
hostility, this could not be represented as augmenting
what
had not been before alluded to; hence, vs. 5b, 8b,
must
have been introduced by, R. As E never
speaks of
Shechem,l
and J would not I have the sons of Jacob
feed
their flocks where they had committed such a deed
of
violence2 (xxxiv. 25-27); moreover, as Hebron was
the
abode of the patriarchs in P (xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27), but
not
in J or E, vs. 13, 14c and the words "in Shechem"
(ver.
12) must belong to R. For a like reason
the de-
signation
of Dothan as the scene of the transaction that
follows
is not referable to J or E, hence vs. 15-17 are
given
to R, except the single clause in ver. 17c, "and Jo-
seph
went after his brethren." R
inserted ver. 22b to
1 Bohmer assigns xxxiii. 18 to
J, and xxxv. 4 to R.
2 Matthew Poole remarked upon
this: "One may rather wonder that
he
durst venture his sons and his cattle there, where that barbarous
massacre
had been committed. But those pastures
being his own (xxxiii.
19)
and convenient for his use, he did commit himself and them to that
same
good Providence which watched over him then and ever since,
and
still kept up that terror which then he sent upon them. Besides,
Jacob's
sons and servants made a considerable company, and the men
of
Shechem being universally slain, others were not very forward to
revenge
their quarrel, where there was any hazard to themselves in
such
an enterprise." It may be added
that in the time which had
since
elapsed Jacob had had opportunity to acquaint himself with the
temper
of the surrounding population and to re-establish peaceful rela-
tions
with them. It is not even necessary to
suppose with Astruc (Con-
jectures,
p. 401) that the affair of Dinah took place after Joseph had
been
sold into Egypt.
442 GENERATIONS OF JACOB
make
it appear that Reuben inended to restore Joseph
to
his father, which was not his intention in the original
story. Ver. 23c must also be referred to him, since
E
could
not mention "the long robe," of which only J had
spoken
(ver. 3); also ver. 28c, because it duplicates xxxix.
1. Finally, the name "Potiphar" is
struck out of ver. 36
as
an insertion by R. This is with the view
of creating
a
discrepancy between this verse and xxxix. 1.
"Poti-
phar"
is erased from the former, and "an officer of Pha-
raoh,
captain of the guard," is erased from the latter, and
then
it is claimed that these verses contain variant rep-
resentations
of the person to which Joseph was sold.
Other
critics accomplish the same end by retaining
"Potiphar,"
in ver. 36, and erasing it in xxxix. 1.
All
which
shows how easy it is to reverse a writer's positive
statements,
and create divergences where there are none
by
simply making free with the text.
Hupfeld ("Quellen," pp. 67 sqq.)
reproduces the view
of
De Wette by giving the entire chapter to E, except vs.
25b-27,
28c. The narrative is thus resolved into
two
accounts
differing in three points, viz., the name of the
brother
who saved Joseph's life, how he came to Egypt,
and
the person who bought him. According to
E Reu-
ben
proposed to put him in a pit, whence he was se-
cretly
drawn out by passing Midianites, who sold him to
Potiphar,
captain of the guard. According to J, at
Ju-
dah's
suggestion Joseph's brothers sell him to a caravan
of
Ishmaelites, of whom he was bought by an unnamed
Egyptian
(xxxix. 1). It is claimed that each
account is
complete
and separable; only in ver. 28 they are so com-
bined
that the verbs are referred to wrong subjects.
The
clause,
"and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty
pieces
of silver," is to be sundered from the rest of the
verse
and attached to ver. 27. Verse 28 will
then read.
"and
there passed, by Midianites, merchantmen; and
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36)
443
they
(the Midianites) drew and lifted up Joseph out of
the
pit. And they brought Joseph into
Egypt." This
connects
back with ver. 25a; it occurred while Joseph's
brothers
were sitting together taking bread. It
does not
appear
from J that Joseph was put into a pit at all.
Schrader
enlarges J's portion by adding to it (vs. 23, 24,
31-35),
with the effect of transferring the statement of
Joseph's
being put in the pit, and of his father's grief,
from
E to J. This still leaves the whole of
the narra-
tive
prior to ver. 23 with E, and nothing in J respecting
the
relation of Joseph to his brothers, until suddenly,
without
a word of explanation, they are found deliberat-
ing
whether to kill him or to sell him as a slave.
Wellhausen is too acute a critic and too
ingenious in
discovering
doublets to suffer this state of things to
continue. He remarks: 1 "Verses 12-24
are preparatory
to
vs. 25 sqq., and are indispensable for both E and J.
To
be sure, no certain conclusion can be drawn from this
alone
as to its composite character, but a presumption is
created
in its favor which is confirmed by actual traces
of
its being double." Acting upon this
presumption he
sets
himself to discover the traces. It seems
to him that
"Here
am I," is not the proper answer to what Israel
says
to Joseph (ver. 13); and that ver. 18 does not fit in
between
vs. 17 and 19. "They saw him afar
off" im-
plies
that he had not yet "found them;" and "they con-
spired
against him to slay him," is a parallel to ver. 20.
Verses
21 and 22 are also doublets, only instead of "Reu-
ben,"
in ver. 21 (an old suggestion of Gramberg's) we
should
read "Judah," whose proposal is to cast him into
the
pit (ver. 20), to perish, without killing him them-
selves,
while Reuben (ver. 22) has the secret purpose of
rescuing
him. From these premises he concludes
that
while
J is the principal narrator in this paragraph, as
1 Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 53.
444 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
shown
by Israel (ver. 13), Hebron (ver. 14), and verbal
suffixes
passim, nevertheless vs. 13c, 14a, 18, 22, and parts
of
vs. 23, 24, in which Otxo repeatedly occurs instead of a
suffix
attached to the verb, belong to E and represent his
parallel
narrative, which has only been preserved in this
fragmentary
way.
In vs. 2b-11 he is less successful in
discovering traces
of
twofold authorship. These verses are
attributed to
E,
who deals more largely with dreams than J, and who,
moreover,
has Myniquz;
NBe son
of his old age
(ver. 3 as xxi. 2)
against
Myniquz;
dl,y, child
of his old age
(xliv. 20 J); tn,toK;
Mys.iPa long
tunic
(ver. 3 as VB. 23, 32) against tn,ToKu
coat, J,
and
especially has Otxo constantly
(vs. 4, 5, 8, 9) instead
of a
verbal suffix, in marked contrast with vs. 12 sqq.
"With
the sons of Bilhah," etc. (ver. 2) does not accord
accurately
with the preceding clause, and "he told it to
his
father and to his brethren" (J ver. 10) deviates from
the
statement in ver. 9; but he thinks these to be addi-
tions
by a later hand and not from J. He has,
however,
one
resource; vs. 19, 20, J, speak of Joseph's dreams,
consequently
J must have given some account of them,
though
it has not been preserved.
Dillmann proves in this instance to have
had sharper
eyes
than Wellhausen, and has found the desired doub-
lets
where the latter could discover none. To
be sure,
he
unceremoniously sets aside Wellhausen's criteria.
He
gives vs. 19, 20, to E (not J) in spite of repeated ver-
bal
suffixes which he will not recognize here as a dis-
criminating
mark, in spite, too, of hz,l.Aha
which occurs
xxiv.
65 J and nowhere else in the Old Testament; and
accordingly
he does not allow the inference that J gave a
parallel
account of the dreams. But taking the
hint
from
Bohmer he finds the coveted parallel by setting
vs.
3, 4, as J's explanation of the hatred of Joseph, over
against
that of E in vs. 5-11. According to J,
his broth-
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT. (CH. XXXVII. 2-36)
440
ers
hated him because he was is father's favorite; ac-
cording
to E, because of his ambitious dreams.1 J says
"they
hated him" (ver. 4) Uxn;W;y.iva; E "they envied him"
(ver.
11) Uxn;qay;va.2 To be sure xneWA hated occurs twice over
in
the E paragraph (vs. 5, 8), and with explicit reference
to
ver. 4, clearly indicating the identity of the writer. But
if
anyone imagines that such a trifle as this can disturb
a
critic's conclusions he is much mistaken.
Dillmann
blandly
says that the unwelcome clauses were inserted
by
R, and lo! they disappear at once. The
word of a
critic
is equal to the wand of a magician. When
he says
that
ver. 5b is inappropriate where it stands because the
actual
recital of the dream follows (vs. 6, 7), Delitzsch
reminds
him that such anticipatory announcements are
quite
usual, and cites ii. 8; he might have cited ver. 28d
from
this very chapter. He sats the same of
ver. 8b,
because
only one dream had yet been told, forgetting the
numerous
examples of the generic use of the plural.3
Myniquz;-NB, and Mys.iPa
tn,toK; (ver.
3) which Wellhausen ad-
duces
as characteristic of E, become with DilImann in-
dicative
of J. Knobel remarks that ver. 7 and xxvi. 12
are
the only two passages in the Pentateuch in which
the
patriarchs are spoken of as cultivating the soil, or
1 Dillmann explains the allusion to Joseph's
mother (xxxvii. 10),
whose
death is mentioned xxxv. 19, by his favorite method of trans-
position,
assuming that the statement of her death in E really occurred
after
this time; but R, for the sake of harmonizing with P, inserted it
sooner. But it remains to be shown that Leah could
not be referred to
in
this manner after Rachel's death.
2 Kittell reverses this by connecting
ver. 4b with 2c, and ver. 11a
with
4a, and so making E speak of Joseph's brothers hating him for his
talebearing
and his dreams, and J of their envying him on account of
his
father's partiality. This shows how easy
it is for a critic by adroitly
shifting
the lines of partition to alter the connection of clauses and
modify
their meaning.
3 Cf. Gen. viii. 4; xiii. 12; xxi. 7; Num. xxvi. 8; Judg. xii. 7 ; 1
Sam.
xvii. 43; Job xvii. 1.
446 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
otherwise
than nomads; they should, therefore, be as-
cribed
to the same hand. The critics lay stress
upon a
point
like this when it suits them; otherwise they qui-
etly
ignore it. Dillmann gives ver. 7 to E;
xxvi. 12
to
J.
Dillmann further finds a foothold for J in
ver. 2, by
insisting
that ver. 2a and 2b are mutually exclusive, and
that
the former should be given to P or E, and the latter
to
J. Delitzsch cannot see why, in point of
matter, they
may
not have proceeded from the same pen, while in
grammatical
construction i. 2, 3 offers a precise parallel.
Critics are divided in opinion as to the
share which is
to
be allowed P in xxxvii. 2. By common
consent they
assign
him the initial words, "These are the generations
of
Jacob," i.e., an account of Jacob's family from the time
that
he was recognized as the independent head of the
chosen
race; and thus we have a P title to a J and E
section. The majority also refer to him the following
clause,
"Joseph was seventeen years old," with or with-
out
the rest of the sentence, which then becomes utterly
unmeaning,
and is out of connection with anything what-
ever. The only reason for thus destroying its sense
by
severing
it from the narrative to which it belongs is the,
critical
assumption that all dates must be attributed to P.
But
Noldeke revolts at the rigorous enforcement of this
rule. He says," The mention of the youthful
age of
Joseph
suits very well in the whole connection as well as
that
of his manly age (xli. 46), and of the advanced age
which
he attained (1. 26). These numbers also
have no
connection
whatever with the chronological system of
the
Primary Document (P) any more than the twenty
years'
abode in Mesopotamia (xxxi. 38, 41)."
Well-
hausen
gives no positive opinion on the subject.
Dill-
mann
assigned this clause to E in his first edition, but
in
his second and third hesitates between P and E.
JOSEPH SOLD INTO EGYP (CH. XXXVII.
2-36) 447
In the first four editions " his
Genesis Delitzsch
could
find no evidence of a duplicate narrative in ch.
xxxvii. In his last edition he hanged his mind,
though
he
was still unable to accept Dillmann's keen analysis,
which
seemed to him to go "beyond the limits of the
knowable." He ventures no further than to assign vs.
28a,
b, 29, 30, to E, and ver. 28c, d to J, and to claim
that
thenceforward the narrative of E and J are in agree-
ment,
while the text has prevailingly the coloring of J,
only
"the Midianites" in ver. 36 are a sure indication
of
E.
It will not be necessary to proceed with
the recital of
other
proposed partitions, which are sufficiently indicated
in a
previous note. The critics have shown
how vari-
ously
the same narrative may be divided. And
it must
be a
very intractable material indeed that can resist the
persistent
application of such methods as they freely
employ. The fact that different versions of a story
can
be
constructed out of a narrative by an ingenious parti-
tion
of its constituent elements by no means proves its
composite
character. They may be purely
subjective,
destitute
of any historical basis, and of no more value
than
any clever trick at cross-reading.
GROUNDS OF PARTITION
Wellhausen admits that "the
connection of the matter
in
ch. xxxvii. is certainly such that it would scarcely give
occasion
for separating it into two threads, were it not
for
the conclusion (vs. 25-36)." Here
it is alleged that
there
are certain glaring inconsistencies, which cannot
be
otherwise accounted for than as the fusing together of
discordant
narratives. Four discrepancies are
charged,
which
lie at the basis of every attempt to partition the
chapter.
448 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
1.
Verses 21, 22, it was Reuben, but ver. 26 it was
Judah,
who persuaded the brothers not to put Joseph to
death.
2.
Verses 25, 27, 28, xxxix. 1, Ishmaelites, but vs.
28,
36, Midianites, took Joseph and brought him to
Egypt.
3. According to different clauses
of ver. 28, Joseph was
carried
off secretly without the knowledge of his brothers,
or
was sold by them.
4.
Verse 36, he was sold to Potiphar, but xxxix. 1
(purged
of interpolations), to an unnamed Egyptian.
These imaginary difficnlties are of easy
solution.
As
to the first. It surely is not
surprising that two of
the
brothers should have taken an active part in the con-
sultations
respecting Joseph, nor that the same two
should
be prominent in the subsequent course of the
transactions. Reuben, as the eldest, had special respon-
sibilities
and would naturally be forward to express his
mind;
while Judah's superior force of character, like
that
of Peter among the apostle, made him prompt to
take
the lead, and there is no inconsistency in what is
attributed
to them. Reuben persuaded them not to
kill
Joseph,
but to cast him alive into a pit, cherishing the
purpose,
which he did not divulge to them, to restore
him
to his father. They accede to his
proposal intend-
ing
to let Joseph die in the I pit, or to kill him at some
future
time. To this state of mind Judah
addresses him-
self
(ver. 26). The absence of Reuben, when
Joseph was
sold,
is not expressly stated, but is plainly enough im-
plied
in his despair and grief at his brother's disappear-
ance. The reply which his brother's made is not re-
corded;
but there is no implication that they were as
ignorant
as he of what had become of Joseph. That
they
had a guilt in the matter which he did not share is
distinctly
intimated (xlii. 22); he must, therefore, have
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT. (CH. XXXVII. 2-36)
449
been
fully aware that they did something more than put
Joseph
in the pit at his suggest
As to the second point. Ishmaelites in the strict and
proper
sense were a distinct tribe from the Midianites,
and
were of different though related origin.
It is, how-
ever,
a familiar fact, which we have had occasion to observe
before,
that tribal names are no always used with defi-
nite
exactness (cf. xxxvi. 2 ; see p 422).
And there is ex-
plicit
evidence that Ishmaelites as used in a wide sense
to
include Midianites (Judg. viii. 24; cf. vii. 1 sqq. ; viii.
1
sqq.). Dillmann's objection hat this
belonged to a
later
period comes with a bad grace from one who places
the
earliest Pentateuchal documents centuries after Gid-
eon. If the invading army referred to in the
passages
above
cited could be called indifferently Midianites and
Ishmaelites,
why not this caravan of merchants? The
British
troops at the battle of Trenton in the American
revolution
were Hessians, and might be properly spoken
of
under either designation. If a historian
were to use
these
terms interchangeably in describing the engage-
ment,
would it follow that variant accounts had been con-
fusedly
mingled? The absence of the article
before
Midianites
(ver. 28) does not imply that they were dis-
tinct
from the Ishmaelites before perceived (vs. 25, 27).
They
were recognized in the distance as an Ishmaelite
caravan,
but it was not till they actually came up to them
that
the Ishmaelites were perceived to be specifically or
largely
Midianites.
As to the third point. If the first half of ver. 28 were
severed
from its connection, the words might mean that
Midianites
drew Joseph, out of the pit. But in the
con-
nection
in which it stands such a sense is simply im-
possible. And the suggestion that R had two statements
before
him: one, that Midianites drew Joseph out of the
pit
without his brothers' knowledge and carried him off
400 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
to
Egypt; the other, that his brothers drew him from
the
pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites; and that he
combined
them as we have them now, is to charge him
with
inconceivable stupidity or reckless falsification.
There
can be no manner of doubt how the author of the
book
in its present for understood the transaction.
There
is no possible suggestion of more than one mean-
ing
in the words before us. The invention of
another
sense
may illustrate the critic's wit, but it has no more
merit
than any other perversion of an author's obvious
meaning. And it derives no warrant from xl. 15; Joseph
was
"stolen away," even though his captors bought him
from
those who had no right to dispose of him.
The fourth point can be best considered
when we come
to
ch. xxxix.
MARKS OF J
Dillmann does not pretend to base the
partition of this
chapter
upon peculiarities of diction. But in
the course
of
his exposition he notes the following words as though
they
were confirmatory of it :
1.
Israel (ver. 3 J; 13 E, modified by R); Jacob (ver.
34a),
referred to E solely on account of this word.
Dillmann
undertakes to carry consistently through the
rule
laid down by Wellhausen,1 but which through the
fault
of R he admits has not been strictly observed,2 viz.,
that
after xxxv. 10 J calls the patriarch Israel, E calls him
Jacob,
but his sons the sons of Israel, while P continues
to
speak of Jacob and the sons of Jacob.
Whence re-
sults
this curious circumstance: P (xxxv. 10) and E (xxxii.
29;
so Dillmann) record the, change of name to Israel,
but
never use it; J alone makes use of it, and, according
to
Dillmann, he does not record the change at all.
There is
a
singular inconsistency likewise in the conduct of R.
1 Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 59. 2 Ibid., p. 60.
JOSEPH
SOLD INTO EGYPT (CH. XXXVII. 2-36) 451
P
alone mentions the change in the names of Abraham
and
Sarah (xvii. 5, 15), but R is so concerned to have the
documents
uniform in this respect that from this point
onward
he alters these names in J and E to correspond
with
P; why does he not here in me manner bring P
and
E into correspondence with J? And it is
only by
palpable
forcing, that Dillmann succeeds in uniformly as-
signing
Israel to J (see e.g., xlv. 2, 28, xlvi. 1, 2, xlvii.
27;
xlviii. 2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 21). Kuenen
admits that "nu-
merous
exceptions to the rule occur." At
this period of
transition
when the family is branching out into the na-
tion
these two names seem to be used interchangeably.
If
any distinction whatever is intei:1ded, it is purely in
the
writer's point of view, who may have used the per-
sonal
name Jacob when he regarded the patriarch strictly
as
an individual, and the name Israel when he thought
of
him as the head and represen 'ative of the chosen
race.
2. Myd.iPa
tn,toK; long tunic (vs.3, 23, 32). The expression
occurs
nowhere in the Hexateuch but in this chapter.
It
is
alleged that, according to J, Joseph wore a "long
tunic,"
the special gift of his father, but according to E
only
an ordinary" tunic " tn,ToKu. But these expressions
are
combined or used interchangeably in vs. 23, 31, 32;
and
they can only be referred to distinct documents by
partitioning
closely connected clauses in an arbitrary
manner.
3. dyriOh bring down
(into Egypt) (ver. 25); besides in
J
xxxix. 1; xliii. 11, 22; xliv. 21; for which E has xybihe
bring
(ver. 28); but no difference of conception is im-
plied
by this varied phrase, since E has repeatedly
drayA
go
down
(into Egypt) (xlii. 2b, 3; xlv. 9; xlvi. 3, 4), as
J
(xliii. 15, 20; xliv. 23, 26); xlii. 38 is sundered from
its
proper connection in E and ascribed to J; J also has
xOB come
(xlvi. 31; xlvii. 1, 4; cf. xliii. 2).
452 THE GENERATIONS OF J ACOB
That varied forms of expression are
consistent with
sameness
of authorship by confession of the critics ap-
pears
from the phrase "rent his clothes," in which ver.
29
has dg,B,
and ver. 34a
has hlAm;Wi yet both are referred
to
E.
It is also worth not that hBADi
report (ver. 2) is re-
ferred
by Dillmann to J, though it only occurs
besides in
the
Hexateuch in Num. xiii. 32; xiv. 36, 37 P; also rB,Di
speak (ver. 4), which only occurs besides in
the Hexateuch,
with
"the accusative of the person, in Num. xxvi. 3 P; and
lKenat;hi conspire against (ve .18b). This verb
occurs but
once
besides in the Hexateuch (Num. xxv. 18 P), where
it
is in the Piel form. And Myz.ifi ryfiW; he-goat (ver. 31) is ascribed to E, though it is
only found besides in the
Hexateuch
in the ritual law, where it occurs repeatedly
and
is uniformly ascribed to P.
THE
NARRATIVE OF JUDAH AND TAMAR(CH. XXXVIII.)
NO LACK OF ORDER
Because the narrative concerning Joseph is
interrupted
by
ch. xxxviii., De Wette1
inferred that "we have here
a
compilation, not a continuous history by one narrator."
The
charge of displacement has been regularly repeated
ever
since, though obviously unfounded. This
chapter
is
entirely germane to the subject treated, and it belongs
precisely
where it is in the author's plan. He is
pro-
fessedly
giving an account of the generations of Jacob"
(xxxvii.
2), not the life of Joseph simply, but the history
of
Jacob's family. Joseph is necessarily
thrown into
prominence,
since the events which brought about the
removal
of the chosen race to Egypt 1vere so largely con-
nected
with him. But the incidents of this
chapter have
their
importance in the constitution of Jacob's family at
1 Beitrage, ii., p. 146.
JUDAH AND TAMAR (CH. XXXVIII.) 453
the
time of the migration to Egypt (xlvi. 12), and in the
permanent
tribal arrangements of Israel (Num. xxvi. 19
sqq.),
as explanatory of the origin of the tribal families of
Judah. The writer conducts Joseph to Egypt, where he
is
sold as a slave. There he leaves him for
a while until
these
facts in Judah's family are related, when he re-
sumes
the thread of Joseph's narrative precisely where
he
left off, and proceeds as before. It is
just the method
that
the best writers pursue in similar circumstances. So
far
from suggesting confusion or disarrangement, it ar-
gues
an orderly well-considered plan.
Judah is said (ver. 1) to have separated
himself from
his
brethren "at that time," that is to say, shortly after
Joseph
was sold into Egypt. It is not at all
unlikely, as
Kurtz1
suggests, that the connection here is much more
intimate
than that of a simple conjunction in time.
Un-
able
to endure the sight of his father's grief (xxxvii. 35),
and
goaded by Reuben's reproaches (cf. xxxvii. 29, 30;
xlii.
22), and the upbraidings of his own conscience, he
left
his father's house, and was thus led into a marriage
with
a Canaanitess. And the providential
retribution
followed
of successive afflictions in the loss of his sons,
in
return for the grievous loss which he had inflicted upon
his
father, and of the deterioration of his character by
contact
with impurity, and, as it would also appear, with
idolatry. The "kedesha " (vs. 21, 22) was one
who sur-
rendered
herself in the service of the goddess Astarte.
The chronological objection which has been
made to
this
narrative is as futile as that which is directed against
its
continuity. If Judah's marriage took
place soon after
Joseph
was sold, as is expressly stated, Judah was then
twenty
years old, and there is no reason why all that is
recorded
in this chapter may not have taken place within
the
twenty-two years which preceded the migration into
1 Geschichte des Alten Bundes, i., p. 277.
454 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Egypt. It implies early marriages on the part of his
sons,
but not incredibly early.
NO ANACHRONISM.
It has still further seen objected that the
Deutero-
nomic
law of levirate marriages (Deut. xxv. 5 sqq.) is
here
represented as in force in the time of the patriarchs.
But
there is no anachronism in this. Genesis
shows that
in
several respects the 1aws of Moses embodied, or were
based
upon, patriarchal usages; while, nevertheless, the
modifications
show that there has been no transference
to a
primitive period of the customs of a later time. Un-
der
the Mosaic law one who was disinclined to marry his
brother's
widow might be formally released from the
obligation
by certain ceremonies; this is a relaxation of
the
imperative requirement set forth in this chapter.
And
the penalty of being burned, with which Tamar was
threatened,
was not that of the Mosaic law, which was
being
put to death by stoning (Deut. xxii. 21-24); in
this
Dillmann admits that there is a reminiscence of
antelegal
times. The critics claim that the
Deutero-
nomic
law belongs to the reign of Josiah, yet the levi-
rate
was an established institution in the days of the
Judges
(Ruth iv. 10). How much the argument
from
silence,
of which the critics make so frequent use, amounts
to
in this case, may be inferred from the fact that such
marriages,
though their existence is thus trebly vouched
for,
are nowhere alluded to in the other Pentateuchal
codes
nor in the later history, until the times of the New
Testament
(Mat. XXII. 24).
As Perez (ver. 29) was the ancestor of
king David
(Ruth
iv. 18-22), the late date of this chapter has been
argued
on the assumption that it was written to indicate
the
origin of the house of David. But if
this were so,
JUDAH AND TAMAR (CH. XXXVIII.) 455
the
writer must have adopted very unusual method of
flattering
the pride of a royal house. Nor can the Ju-
daic
writer J, to whom it is attributed, have composed it
in
honor of his tribe. How displeasing it
was to na-
tional
vanity appears from the fact that the Targum con-
verts
Judah's wife from the daughter of a Canaanite into
is
that of a merchant, and later legends make Tamar a
daughter
of Melchizedek. These serious faults of
Judah
are
doubtless related with the same design as other re-
corded
blemishes of the patriarchs. They show
that the
distinction
granted to him among his brethren by mak-
ing
him the father of the royal tribe (xlix. 8), was due
not
to his personal merit, but to the gracious choice of
God. And that the discipline to which he was
subjected
corrected
and reclaimed him, a the providential dealings
of
with Jacob had a like effect upon him, may be inferred
from
ver. 26, and from his noble conduct subsequently
(xliv.
16 sqq.).
Jehovah occurs three times in this
chapter (vs. 7, 10),
and
it is for this reason ascribed to J. But
the name is
of
here used not in compliance with the unmeaning habit of
the
writer, but the requirements of the passage.
Jeho-
vah
as the ruler and judge of his people is especially of-
fended
by their misdeeds. It is Jehovah
accordingly
who
punished these transgressors.
MARKS OF J
1.
Etymologies. See ch. xvi., Marks
of J, No.4.
2.
yneyfeB; fra evil in the eyes of (vs. 7, 10).1
See ch.
xxi.
1-21; Marks of E, No.4.
1 "Evil in the eyes of Jehovah"
(vs. 7, 10) is a standing phrase, and
is
found sixty times besides in the Old Testament.
"Evil in the eyes
of
Elohim" occurs but once (1 Chron. xxi. 7), and there it is ha-Elohim
with
the article. "The eyes of
Jehovah" occurs, in addition, thirty-
456 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
3. fdayA know (euphemistic) (ver. 26). See ch. xxiv.,
Marks
of J, No. 14.
4. ryKihi
recognize (vs 25, 26); besides in J (xx:x:vji. 32,
33);
in E (xxvii. 23; xxi. 32; Deut. xxxiii. 9.
In Gen. xlii.
7, 8
bis--the critic give ver. 7 to J, and ver. 8 to E).
5.
fare friend (vs. 12, 20); besides in J (xi. 3, 7; xv.
10;
xxxi.
49; xliii. 33); in E (Ex. ii. 13; xi. 2; xviii. 7, 16;
xxi.
14, 18, 35; xxii. 6-10, 13, 25, E. V. vs. 7-11, 14, 26;
xxxii.
27; xxxiii. 11); in JE (Ex. xx. 16, 17); in Holi-
ness
Laws (Lev. xix. 13, 16, 18; xx. 10); in Deuteron-
omy
twenty-one times; Josh. xx. 5 is in a P connection,
but
attributed to D.
6. hbAhA come
(particle of incitement) (ver. 16); besides
in J
(xi. 3, 4, 7, xlvii. 15, 16, Deut. xxxii. 3); in E
(Gen.
xxix. 21; xxx. 1 ; Ex. i. 10; Josh. xviii. 4); in Rd
(Deut.
i. 13).
7. yTil;bil; not (ver. 9). See ch. xviii.,
xix., Marks of J,
No.
14.
8. NKe-lfa-yKi forasmuch as (ver. 26). See ch. xviii.,
xix.,
Marks of J, No. 18.
9.
xnA I pray thee (vs. 16, 25). See ch. xii. 10-20,
Marks
of J, No.3.
It may be noted that hz,BA
here (vs. 21, 22) is referred
to
J, though everywhere else in the Pentateuch it is
ascribed
to E (xlviii. 9a; Ex. xxiv. 14; Num. xxii. 19;
xxiii.
1); or to R (Num. xxiii. 29); so Nton;
to give (ver. 9)
is
assigned to J, though this form of the infinitive occurs
but
once besides (Num. xx. 21 E). In ver. 3
Judah
names
his child, contrary to the rule of the critics that
in J
the name is given by the mother, and in P by the
father;
but see under ch. xvi., p. 211.
one
times in different connections "the eyes of Elohim " but twice
--Num.
xxiii. 27, in the words of the heathen king Balak (who says
ha-Elohim
for he means the God of Israel); and Prov. iii. 4, where it
is
occasioned by the contrast of God and man.
LIFE OF JOSEPH CONTINUED (CH. XXXIX.) 457
JOSEPH IS CAST INTO PRISON (CH. XXXIX.)
NO DISCREPANCIES
The critical partition is here rested
partly on the
ground
of alleged discrepancies, partly on that of dic-
tion. It is said that there are varying
representations of
the
purchaser of Joseph. Was he (xxxvii. 36
E) Poti-
phar,
the eunuch or officer of Pharaoh, captain of the
guard?
or was he, as in J (ch. xxxix.), simply an Egyp-
tian,
whose name and official position, if he had any, are
unknown? He is nowhere called Potiphar in this chap-
ter
except in ver. 1, but only Joseph's master (ver. 3),
his
Egyptian master (ver. 2), or the Egyptian (ver. 5).
And
nothing is said outside of ver. 1 of his standing in
any
special relation to Pharaoh or holding any office
under
the king; but mention is made of "all that he had
in
the house and in the field" (ver. 5), implying that he
was
the owner of a landed estate. It is
hence inferred
that
the words "Potiphar, the eunuch of Pharaoh, cap-
tain
of the guard," do not properly belong to ver. 1, but
were
inserted by R to make it correspond with xxxvii.
36;
and that originally it simply read "an Egyptian,"
words
which, it is alleged, would be superfluous if his
name
and title had previously been given. But
the ar-
gument
for this erasure is destitute of force.
The name
"Potiphar"
does not occur in ch. xl., where the critics
admit
that he is intended by Joseph's master (ver. 7; see
also
vs. 3, 4). Royal body-guards are not
always com-
posed
of native troops, so that it may not have been a
matter
of course that their captain was an Egyptian, nor
superfluous
to mention it. Knobel thinks that this
statement
is made in contrast with the Hyksos origin
of
the monarch. Or as Delitzsch suggests,
it may em-
458 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
phasize
the fact that Joseph was not only a slave, but a
slave
of a foreigner; the Hebrew servant (vs. 14, 17) had
an
Egyptian master. But no special reason
is needed to
justify
the expression. Goliath, "from
Gath, from the
ranks
of the Philistines" is further called "the Philis-
tine"
(1 Sam. xvii. 23), throughout the chapter is
always
denominated "the Philistine," without repeating
his
name. That Potiphar had landed
possessions is
surely
not inconsistent with his being the captain of the
guard. That he was married creates no real
difficulty.
It
is a disputed point whether MyrisA is
invariably to be
taken
in its strict and primary sense of eunuch; there
are
strong reasons for believing with Delitzsch, Kurtz,
and
others, that it sometimes has simply the general
meaning
of officer or courtier. However this may
be,
Winer1
refers to Chardin, Niebuhr, and Burckhardt in
proof
of the statement that "even in the modern Orient
eunuchs
have sometimes kept a harem of their own."
There
is positively no ground, therefore, for assuming an
interpolation
in ver. 1. And the explicit statement of
that
verse annuls the critical allegation of variant stories
respecting
the person of Joseph's master. Moreover,
if
he
was a private gentleman and not an officer of the king,
how
came it to pass that his slave was put in the same
prison
with the king's prisoners, and that for an offence
usually
punished in slaves with death?
It is further said that Joseph's master is
in xxxix. 20,
21
distinguished from the keeper of the prison into
which
Joseph was put; whereas in xl. 3, 4, 7 they are
identical. But the confusion here charged upon the text
lies
solely in the mind of the interpreters.
The narra-
tive
is perfectly clear and consistent. The
prison was in
the
house of Joseph's master (xI. 7), the captain of the
guard
(ver. 3), who had Supreme control over it (ver. 4);
1 Biblisches Realworterbuch, Art., Verschittene.
JOSEPH CAST INTO PRISON (CH. XXXIX.) 459
and
this corresponds exactly with the representation
xxxix.
20. Under him there was a subordinate
keeper
charged
with its immediate oversight (xxxix. 21), who
was
so favorably disposed toward Joseph that he com-
mitted
all the prisoners into his hands and let him man-
age
everything in the prison (vs. 22, 23).
This is neither
identical
with, nor contradictory to, the statement (xl. 4)
that
the captain of the guard (who is uniformly distin-
guished
from his subordinate the keeper of the prison)
appointed
Joseph to attend upon two prisoners of rank
from
the royal household. It has been said
indeed that
he
waited upon them simply as Potiphar's servant, and
that
(ch. xl.) E knows nothing of Joseph's imprisonment
related
by J (ch. xxxix.); and, moreover, uses the term
rmAw;mi ward (xl. 3, 4, as well as xli. 10, E),
instead of
rhas.oha tyBe prison (xxxix.
20-23). But this result is only
reached
by expunging from the text without the slightest
warrant
every clause which directly declares the oppo-
site
(xl. 3b, 5b, 15b; xli. 14; cf. xxxix. 20).
Of course,
if
the critics are allowed t doctor the text to suit them-
selves,
they can make it s whatever they please.
THE DIVINE NAMES
Wellhausen parcels the chapter between J
and E,
giving
vs. 1-5, 20-23 to the former on account of the
repeated
occurrence of Jehovah, and vs. 6-19 to the
latter
because of Elohim (ver. 9), and certain other ex-
pressions
alleged to be characteristic of E. The
result
is
that Joseph is in E falsely accused of a gross crime,
but
there is no intimation how the matter issues; and in
J
his master, who had the greatest confidence in him
and
was richly blessed for his sake, puts him in prison
for
no cause whatever. And the partition is
in disre-
gard
of the correspondence and manifest allusion in
460 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
OdyAB; NtanA Ol-wy,-rw,xE lkov; ver. to vs. 4, 5, also of the like
construction
of rw,xEB; because, in vs. .9 and 23.
Well-
hausen,
moreover, finds traces of E in the J sections, and
of J
in the E section. Dillmann admits the
indivisible
character
of the chapter and refers the whole of it to J;
but,
as the two following chapters are given to E, the
consequence
is that, according to J, Joseph is put in
prison
and no information given how or why he was
subsequently
released; the next that we hear of him he
is
viceroy of Egypt, with no explanation how it came to
pass. The expressions commonly attributed to E,
which
are
found in this chapter, aloe accounted for by Dillmann
as
insertions by R. This repeated
occurrence of traces
of
one document in the limits of the other, and the alle-
gation
that the documents hare in various particulars
been
modified by R, are simply confessions that the text
is
not what by the hypothesis of the critics it ought to
be. Words and phrases held to be characteristic
of J or
E in
one place are perversely found in the wrong docu-
ment
in another place. So without revising
and correct-
ing
their own previous conclusions and adjusting their
hypothesis
to the phenomena as they find them, the
critics
insist that the document itself is wrong, and that
R is
to blame for it, the only proof of which is that it is
impossible
to carry their hypothesis through otherwise.
It
is obvious that any hypothesis, however at war with
the
facts of the case, could be bolstered up by similar
expedients.
Jehovah occurs eight times in this
chapter (vs. 2, 3, 5,
21,
23), and Elohim once (ver. 9). Ilgen
gave the whole
chapter
to E, and claimed that the original reading was
Elohim
in every case, and that Jehovah had been intro-
duced
by the error of R or of subsequent transcribers.
Gramberg
maintained that the divine names are here no
sure
test of the writer, but that the, repetitiousness, par-
JOSEPH CAST INTO PRISON (CH. XXXIX.) 461
ticularly
of vs. 2-6, 12, 13, 20-23, proves the chapter to be
the
work of P. Kuenen1
speaks of "the wordy style and
constant
repetitions by which this chapter is unfavor-
ably
distinguished from the other J pericopes."
Dill-
mann
gives it all to J in spite of Elohim (ver. 9), which
J
could use in such a case as this (why not then in ch.
xx.
and in other similar instances?); in spite also of the
repetitiousness,
which is held to be a mark of P, but
which
here, and wherever else it suits the purposes of
the
critics, is explained by R's insertion of equivalent
statements
from a supposed parallel account by E; and
yet
no reason is suggested why R should so overload
these
passages with what are reckoned unmeaning addi-
tions
while omitting most important portions of each
document
in turn. The fact is that the divine
names
are
appropriately used, and the emphatic repetitions are
precisely
in place. Here at the very outset--first
of
Joseph's
bondage and then of his imprisonment--the
writer
takes pains to impress upon his readers, by
marked
iteration, that the presence and favor of Jeho-
vah,
the guardian of the chosen race, was with Joseph,
and
gave him success in his apparently forsaken and
helpless
condition. The unseen hand, which was
guid-
ing
all in the interest of his scheme of grace, is thus dis-
tinctly
disclosed; and this is the key to all that follows.
In
ver. 9 Elohim is the proper word. Joseph
is speak-
ing
to a Gentile, to whom the name of Jehovah is un-
known;
and he refuses to commit a crime, which would
be
not only an offence against Jehovah considered in the
light
of his special relation to the chosen race, but,
against
God in that general sense in which he was known
to
all mankind.
1
Hexateuch, p. 147.
462 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
MARKS OF J
1. Haylic;hi made to prosper (vs. 2, 3, 23). See ch. xxiv.,
Marks
of J, No. 16. I
2. llag;Bi for the sake of (ver. 5).
See ch. xii. 10-20,
Marks
of J, No.6.
3. zxAme from the time
that
(ver. 5); besides in J Ex. iv.
10;
v. 23 (in E connection worked over by R after J);
ix.
24 (a verse divided between J and E); also in Josh.
xiv.
10 E, worked over by Rd after D; all in the Hexa-
teuch.
4. dyriOh bring down (ver. 1).
See ch. xxxvii., Marks
of
J, No.3.
5. hl.,xehA MyribAD;Ka according
to these words
(vs. 17, 19);
in J
besides, xxiv. 28, xliv. 7; all in the Hexateuch.
The following expressions, regarded as
characteristic of
E,
occur in the J text of this chapter:
Ver. 4, Otxo tr,wAy;va
he ministered unto him, as xl. 4; Ex. xxiv. 13; xxxiii. 11 E;
repeatedly
also in P; ver. 6, hx,r;ma hpeyvi rxato-hpey; comely
and well favored, as xxix. 17 E. ver. 7, MyribAD;ha rHaxa yhiy;va
hl.,xehA
and it came to pass after these things, as xv.1; xxii.
1;
xl. 1; xlviii. 1; Josh. xxiv. 29 E (but
Gen. xxii. 20 R);
ver.
21, yneyfeB; OnHi NTey.iva gave him favor
in the eyes of, as
Ex.
iii.
21; xi. 3 E (but xii. 36 J).
There are also expressions which by
critical rules be-
long
to P, e.g., lx, fmawA hearken unto (ver. 10), which is
claimed
as a P phrase in ch. xxiii (see ch. xxiii., Marks of
P,
No. 10); and lc,xe
by, beside
(vs. 10, 15, 16, 18), which
apart
from this chapter and xli. 3 E only occurs in the
Hexateuch
Lev. i. 16; vi. 3 (E. V., ver. 10); x. 12 P, and
twice
in Deuteronomy.
Varying constructions, as OtyBe-lfa Uhdeqip;y.ava (ver. 4) and
OtybaB;
Otxo dyqip;hi (ver.
5), and of Hylch intransitive (ver.
2),
but transitive (vs. 3, 23) would be held to indicate du-
DREAMS
OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER (CH. XL.) 463
ferent
writers, if it suited the pleasure of the critics to do
so;
as it is they are quietly ignored.
DREAMS OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER (CH. XL.)
Tuch calls attention to the intimate
connection between
this
chapter and those that precede and follow.
Joseph
is
here in prison, to which the foregoing narrative brought
him. And ver. 3, where the officers who had offended
the
king were put "into the prison, the place where Jo-
seph
was bound," points directly to xxxix. 20, where
Joseph
was put "into the prison, the place where the
king's
prisoners were bound." The
statement that he
"was
stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews" (ver.
15)
is only explicable from xxxvii. 28 sqq., that he was
carried
off by the Midianite-Ishmaelites, to whom his un-
natural
brothers had sold him. His assertion
(ver. 15),
"here
also have I done nothing that they should put me;
into
the dungeon," is only intelligible from the nar-
rative
in ch. xxxix. This chapter is not only
thus tied
to
that which goes before, but also prepares the way for
ch.
xli., where (ver. 10) the imprisonment of the chief
butler
and baker in the house of the captain of the guard
refers
back to xl. 1-3; xli. 1~-13, Joseph's interpreta-
tion
of their dreams, and their fulfilment is a brief sum-
mary
of xl. 4-22; xli. 14, bringing Joseph out of the
dungeon,
corresponds to his statement (xl.15) that he was
put
into the dungeon. The chief butler s
memory of his
fault
(xli. 9) recalls the fact that Joseph had asked to be
remembered
by him when he was restored to his former
position
(xl. 14), but the chief butler had forgotten him
(ver.
23). The significant dreams of the
butler and
baker
(ch. xl.), and those of Pharaoh (ch. xli.), in connec-
tion
with which Joseph figures so prominently, recall
those
of his own early childhood (xxxvii. 5-10), and
464 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
plainly
belong to the same gradually unfolding scheme.
And
Joseph's modest disclaimer of the power of inter-
pretation,
and his ascription of it solely to God (xli. 16),
simply
repeats xl. 8.
NO DISCREPANCY
Yet, notwithstanding this close
relationship of this
chapter
in all its parts with the surrounding narrative,
we
are told that the principal ground of the partition
here,
by which this chapter is given to E, is a glaring
discrepancy
between the account given by J and that by
E. According to J (ch. xxxix. as
expurgated) Joseph
was
sold to an unnamed Egyptian, and by him put in
prison
on a false charge preferred by his wife.
How he
came
to be released and to reach the high station which
he
subsequently occupied in Egypt does not appear.
According
to E (ch. xl. as expurgated) Joseph was sold
to
Potiphar, captain of the guard; Pharaoh's chief but-
ler
and baker were committed to Potiphar's custody, and
kept
under arrest, not in prison but in his house.
And
Joseph,
who was not himself under arrest, but was act-
ing
simply in the capacity of Potiphar's servant, was ap-
pointed
to wait upon them. While doing so he
inter-
preted
their dreams, which were fulfilled accordingly.
It is unnecessary to say that these
variant accounts
are
not in the text, but are; purely the product of the
critics
themselves. The text must be remodelled
in or-
der
to produce them. We have already seen
how xxxix.
1
has to be transformed in older to make it say that
Joseph
was sold, not to Potiphar but to some nameless
Egyptian. It requires even more serious tampering with
ch.
xl. to eliminate the repeated references to Joseph's
imprisonment,
and the statement that the chief butler
and
baker were put in the same prison with him.
Vs.
DREAMS
OF THE BUTLER AND BAKER (CH. XL.) 465
3b,
5b, 15b, and a clause of xxxix. 20 (the place where
the
king's prisoners were bound), as well as of xli. 14
(and
they brought him hastily out of the dungeon), must
all
be erased by the critics before they can get rid of the
explicit
statements which directly contradict that view of
the
affair which they undertake to obtrude upon this
chapter. It is not surprising that Gramberg, in
propos-
ing
these erasures, expected his readers to be surprised
by
such a free handling of the text and perversion of its
meaning.
The charge that the clauses in question
were insertions
by R
has no other foundation than the desire to create
a
discrepancy, which is impossible without removing
them. That the prison was in the house of the captain
of
the guard (ver. 3) is in accordance with modern orien-
tal
usage. Thus Chardin says: "The Eastern prisons
are
not public buildings erected for that purpose, but a
part
of the house in which their criminal judges dwell.
As
the governor and provost of a town, or the captain of
the
watch, imprison such as are accused in their own
houses,
they set apart a canton of them for that purpose,
when
they are put into these offices, and choose for the
jailer
the most proper person they can find of their do-
mestics."1
That vs. 1, 5 have "the butler and the baker
of
the king of Egypt," while the rest of the chapter has
"chief
butler," "chief baker," and "Pharaoh," is no good
reason
for attributing the former to R, unless on the as-
sumption
that a writer cannot occasionally vary his ex-
pressions,
especially as ver. 1 is indispensable as supply-
ing
the reason for ver. 2, .and the chief butler is likewise
simply
called" butler (ver. 13), and his office simply
"butlership"
(ver. 23).
In addition to the alleged variance
between this chap-
ter
and the preceding, which has already been consid-
1
Harmer's Observations, ii., p. 273.
466
THE GENERATIONS OF
JACOB
ered,
the following reasons are adduced for referring it
to
E: “The dreams,” singe it is arbitrarily
assumed that
all
dreams must belong to E;1 “I
was stolen away” (ver.
15),
but this is not inconsistent with his being sold by
his
brothers, who had no right to dispose of him; “the
connection
of ch. xli. with xl.,” which is freely conceded,
but
involves no discrepancy with, or separation from, ch.
xxxix. No argument is offered from language but “the
avoidance
of the verbal suffix which distinguishes E
from
J” (vs. 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19); Dillmann here
quietly
ignores the fact that he refused to admit this as a
criterion
in ch. xxxvii. “And it came to pass
after these
things,”
which is allowed to remain in ver. 1, after the
rest
of the verse is erased as an insertion by R, cannot
be
a decisive mark of E in this place after having been
found
in a J section (xxxix. 7). It can
scarcely be
thought
that such arguments are of any weight in favor
of
critical partition.
NO ANACHRONISM
Nor is there an anachronism in the phrase
“land of the Hebrews” (ver. 15). “Abram
the Hebrew” was the
head
of a powerful clan (xiv. 13, 14), recognized as such
by
native tribes of Canaan (xxiii. 6), and his friendship
sought
by the king of the Philistines (xx;i. 22, sqq.).
Isaac’s
greatness is similarly described (xxvi. 13 seq., 26
sqq.). The prince and people of Shechem were will-
ing
to submit to circumcision for the sake of friendly in-
tercourse
and trade with Jacob, and Jacob’s sons avenged
the
wrong done their sister by the destruction of the city
(ch.
xxxiv.). The Hebrews had been in Canaan
for two
centuries,
and their presence was influential and widely
known. There is nothing strange, therefore, in the
fact
1 See ch. xx., Marks of E,
No.4.
PHARAOH’S DREAMS
(CH. XLI.) 467
that
Potiphar’s wife calls Joseph a Hebrew (xxxix. 14, 17), or that he could speak
of the country whence he came as the land of the Hebrews.
DICTION
The one divine name in this chapter,
Elohim (ver. 8), is doubly appropriate.
It is in an address to Gentiles, in and there is an obvious contrast
between man and God; interpretations belong to the latter, not to the former.
Knobel, who gave chs. xl., xli. to P,
notes the follow-
ing
words as characteristic of P: JcaqA
was wroth (xl. 2;
xli.
10), besides in the Hexateuch Ex. xvi. 20; Lev. x. 6,
16;
Num. xvi. 22, xxxi. 14 P; Josh. xxii. 18 R; also Deut.
i.
34; ix. 7, 8, 19, 22; the corresponding noun, Jc,q, wrath,
occurs
in the Hexateuch Num. i. 53; xvii. 11 (E. V., xvi.
46);
xviii. 5; Josh. ix. 20 P; Josh. xxii. 20 R; Deut. xxix.
27
(E. V., ver. 28). lsae basket (xl. 16-18) occurs besides
in
the Hexateuch Ex. xxix. 3, 23, 32; Lev. viii. 2, 26, 31;
Num.
vi. 15, 17, 19 P. NKe
station (xl. 13; xli.
13) occurs
besides
in the Hexateuch only in application to the base
of
the laver (Ex. xxx. 18, and repeatedly, P).
Dillmann
passes
these quietly by without remark.
PHARAOH’S DREAMS (CH. XLI.)
Tuch shows that as ch. xl. was both in
general and in
particular
preparatory for ch. xli., so this latter is indis-
pensable
for all that follows. It is here related
how Jo-
seph,
who was chosen of God for high ends, was raised
from
the prison to the office of vizier; and the rest of
the
book (ch. xlii.-xlvii.) turns upon Joseph’s services
to
the people and the king, and upon the predicted fam-
ine
which brought about the migration of Jacob and his
family
to Egypt. All this is quite
unintelligible without
468
THE GENERATION OF JACOB
the
narrative which lies, ere before us. Add
the specific references to ch. xl. previously pointed out, the etymolo-
gies
of the names Manasseh and Ephraim (vs. 51,52), af-
ter
the manner of ch. xxx., and the birth of these sons of
Joseph
to prepare the way for their adoption by Jacob
(ch.
xlviii.) where xlviii 5,” born before I came unto
thee
into Egypt,” plainly points back to xli. 50.
GROUNDS OF PARTITION
The following reasons are assigned by
Dillmann for
assigning
this chapter to E; The significant dreams and
the
power of interpreting them, which are of no more
weight
here than in ch. xl.; that Joseph is called “ser-
vant
to the captain of the guard “ (ver. 12), but he was
also
a prisoner (ver. 14), which is evaded after the usual
critical
fashion by erasing from the text the words “and
they
brought him hastily out of the dungeon,” as an in-
sertion
from a hypothetic parallel of J; but even then
his
shaving himself and changing his raiment are an al-
lusion
to his prison attire, or why are not the same things
mentioned
when others are presented before the king?
The
references to ch. xl. (xli. 10-,-13, cf. xl. 1 sqq.; xli
16,
cf. xl. 8), and unusual words common to both chap-
ters
(rtaPA interpret, NOrt;Pi interpretation,
NKe
station, qcaqA was
wroth), point to the
same author, but in no way imply
that
he was not the author of ch. xxxix. and xliii. as well.
Elohim
in vs. 16, 25, 32, 38, 39 is in language addressed
to
Pharaoh or used by him; vs. 51, 52 are the only in-
stances
in which Jehovah would with any propriety be
substituted
for it, and even there Elohim is equally ap-
propriate,
for the reference is to God’s providential bless-
ings,
such as men in general may share, rather than to
specific
favor granted to one of the chosen race.
ydefEl;Bi
apart from (vs. 16, 44),
but once besides in Genesis (xiv.
PHARAOH’S DREAMS
(CH. XLI.) 469
24,
which is referred by Dillmann to E, but by the ma-
jority
of critics to an independent source); and occurring
twice
more in the Hexateuch (Num. v. 20; Josh. xxii. 19
P). The arguments for considering this chapter a
part
of
the document E are accordingly lame and impotent
enough.
We are further informed that this chapter
is not a unit
as
it stands. It is essential for the
critics to establish, if
possible,
the existence of a parallel narrative by J, which
may
have filled the gap in that document between Jo-
seph’s
imprisonment and his elevation.
Accordingly
stress
is laid upon some slight verbal changes in repeat-
ing
Pharaoh’s dreams, especially the words added to the
description
of the lean kine ( er. 19), “such as I never
saw
in all the land of Egypt for badness,” and (ver. 21),
“when
they had eaten up the fat kine it could not be
known
that they had eaten them; but they were still ill-
favored
as at the beginning.” But if this is to
show that
J
gave a parallel account of the dreams, it annuls the
criterion,
upon which the critics steadfastly insist, that E
alone
records dreams. A vigorous search is
also made
for
so-called doublets. Wherever the writer
does not con-
tent
himself with a bald and meagre statement of what he
is
recording, but feels impelled to enlarge and dwell upon
it
in order to give his thought more adequate expression,
the
amplifications or repetitions which he employs are
seized
upon as though they; were extraneous additions
imported
into E’s original narrative by R from an im-
aginary
parallel account by J, just as a like fulness of
expression
in other passages is at the pleasure of the
critics
declared to be indicative of the verbose and rep-
etitious
style of P.
The dreams (vs. 2-7) are repeated (vs.
18-24) in al-
most
identical terms, only in a very few instances equiv-
lent
expressions are employed, viz. rxaTo
form
(vs. 18,
470 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
19),
for hx,r;ma appearance (vs. 2, 3), but see xxix. 17 E;
xxxix.6
J; qra lean (ver. 19), for qDa thin (ver. 3); xlemA
full
(ver.
22), for xyriBA fat (ver. 5), but see ver. 7.
The al-
leged
doublets are ver. 31 parallel to ver. 30b; ver. 34
hW,fEya make,
parallel to dqep;ya
appoint; ver. 35b to 35a;
vs:
41, 43b, 44, to ver. 40 (Joseph's rule is stated four
times,
so that repetition cannot be escaped by parcelling
it
between E and J); ver. 49 to 48; vs. 55, 56a, to 54b
(the
universality of the famine is repeated three times, in-
cluding
ver. 57b). It is also affirmed that the
following
expressions
are indicative of J: hxer;
see (ver. 41) as xxvii.
27;
xxxi. 50; xxxix. 14; rPAs;mi
Nyxe yKi . .
. My.AH lyHoK;
as
the sand of the sea,
for it was without number (ver 49),
as
xxii. 17 R; xxxii. 13 (E. V. ver. 12) J.
While it is
claimed
that these indicate two narrators, Dillmann ad-
mits
that in several instances there are no criteria by
which
to distinguish which is E and which J.
The fur-
ther
occurrence of words in this chapter, which according
to
critical rules should belong to P, e. g., MFor;Ha magician
(vs.
8, 24), in the Pentateuch besides only Ex. vii. 11, 22;
viii.
3, 14, 15 (E. V., vs. 7, 18, 19); ix. 11, all P; NOdq.APi
store (ver. 36), besides in the Old Testament
only Lev.
v.
21, 23 (E. V., vi. 2, 4) P; Cm,qo
handful (ver. 47), be-
sides
in the Old Testament only Lev. ii. 2; v. 12; vi. 8
(E.
V., ver. 15), and the corresponding verb only Lev. ii.
2;
v. 12; Num. v. 26, all P, leads one to distrust crite-
ria
in other cases, which the critics can thus disregard
at
pleasure.
On the whole, then, the critical partition
of chs.
xxxvii.-xli.
rests upon alleged inconsistencies in the nar-
rative,
which plainly do not exist as the text now stands,
but
which the critics themselves create by arbitrary era-
sures
and forced interpretations. The literary
proof of-
fered
of the existence of different documents is of the
scantiest
kind. There are no indications of
varying dic-
PHARAOH’S DREAMS (CH. XLI.) 471
tion
of any account. And the attempt to
bridge the
chasms
in the documents by mans of a supposed paral-
lel
narrative, from which snatches have been preserved
by
R, attributes an unaccountable procedure to him, and
falls
to pieces at once upon examination.
There are three staple arguments by which
the critics
attempt
to show that there was, in the sources from which
R
is conjectured to have drawn a second narrative par-
allel
to that in the existing text. Each of
these is built
upon
a state of facts antagonistic to the hypothesis,
which
they ingeniously seek to wrest in its favor by as-
suming
the truth of the very thing to be proved.
1.
Facts which are essential to the narrative could
not,
it is said, have failed to appear in either document;
it
must be presumed, therefore that each narrator re-
corded
them.
But the perpetual recurrence of such
serious gaps in
the
so-called documents, which the critics are by every
device
laboring to construct, tends rather to show that no
such
documents ever really ha any separate existence.
That
these gaps are due to omissions by R is pure as-
sumption,
with no foundation but the unproved hypothesis
which
it is adduced to support; an assumption, moreover,
at
variance with the conduct repeatedly attributed to R in
other
places, where to relieve other complications of the
hypothesis
he is supposed to have scrupulously preserved
unimportant
details from one of his sources, even though
they
were superfluous repetitions of what had already
been
extracted from another.
2.
When words and phrase~ which the critics regard
as
characteristic of one document are found; as they fre-
quently
are, in sections which they assign to the other,
it
is claimed that R has mixed the texts of the different
documents.
But
the obvious and natural conclusion from the fact
472
THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
referred
to is, that what are affirmed to be characteristic
words
of different documents are freely used by the same
writer. The allegation that R had anything to do with
the
matter is an assumption which has no other basis
than
the hypothesis which it is brought to support.
It
is
plain that any conceit whatever could be carried
through
successfully if every deviation from its require-
ments
was sufficiently explained by referring it to R.
3. Whenever a thought is repeated or dwelt
upon for
the
sake of giving it more emphatic expression, the
critics
scent a doublet, affirming that R has appended to
the
statement in one document the corresponding state-
ment
contained in the other.
But here again the a agency of R is pure
assumption,
based
on the hypothesis in whose interest it is alleged.
That
a writer should us more amplitude and fulness
in
describing matters of special moment is quite intelli-
gible. But why a compiler like R should encumber the
narrative
by reduplicating what he has already drawn
from
one source by the equivalent language of another,
or
why, if this is his method in the instances adduced, he
does
not consistently pursue it in others, does not appear.
Why
should he leave serious gaps in matters of real mo-
ment,
while so solicitous of preserving petty details,
which
add nothing to what has been said already?
What are so confidently paraded as traces
or indica-
tions
of some missing portion of a critical document are
accordingly
rather to be esteemed indications that the
documents
of the critics are a chimera.
On the assumption that it is peculiar to
P to record
ages
Kautzsch assigns to this document ver, 46a, “And
Joseph
was thirty years old when he stood before Pha-
raoh
king of Egypt.” Dillmann gives it the
entire verse,
as
also, though with some hesitation, the statement of
Joseph’s
age at an earlier period, in xxxvii. 2.
Isolated
JACOB’S
SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.) 473
clauses
are thus rent from their connection, though there
is
nothing in P to which to a attach them, and though their
entire
significance lies in the light which they shed upon
the
intervening narrative from which they are arbitrarily
separated,
whose duration it is their province to indicate.
Dillmann
himself in his first edition contended that the
numbers
in these verses did not belong to P. And
the
critical
assumption on which his assignment rests is set
aside
by Dillmann as well as others in Gen. 1. 26; Josh.
xiv.
7, 10 ; xxiv. 29, where the record of the ages of Joseph,
Caleb,
and Joshua is attribute to E. Noldeke,
followed
by
Schrader, Kayser, Kuenen, and others, denies that
either
of the verses in question belong to P, and finds in
xlvi.
6, 7 the first extract fro that document in this sec-
tion
of Genesis. Dillmann’s suggestion that
the full
phrase,
“Pharaoh king of Egypt” (ver. 46), occurs again
(Ex.
vi. 11, 13, 27, 29; xiv. 8) is of little force, because
“Pharaoh”
alone is uniformly used in all the passages
ascribed
to P except the verses just named, where the
full
phrase is emphatically employed, as is evident from
the
iteration in Ex. vi.
JOURNEYS
OF JACOB’S SONS TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-
XLIV.)
The critics tell us that ch. xlii., which
records the first
journey
of Jacob’s sons to Egypt, is by E, and chs. xliii.,
xliv.,
their second journey, is by J. Yet the
second jour-
ney
implies the first, and is filled throughout with nu-
merous
and explicit allusions to it. It was
(xliii. 2) after
they
had eaten up the corn already brought that their
father
urged them to go again. All then turns
upon
Joseph’s
having required them to bring Benjamin (xliii.
3-11;
cf. xlii. 15, 16, 20, 34). Jacob’s
solicitude for Ben-
jamin
is the same, xlii. 4 as ver. 38; xliv. 29.
Repeated
reference
is made to the money returned in their sacks
474
THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
(xlili.12,
15, 18-23; xliv. 8.; cf. xlii. 25, 28, 35), and to
Simeon’s
detention (xliii. 14, 23; cf. xlii. 19, 24).
Ja-
cob’s
sense of bereavement (xliii. 14) corresponds with
previous
statements (xlii. 36; xxxvii. 34, 35).
Joseph
speaks
of their father an youngest brother, of whom
they
had previously told him (xliii. 27-29; cf. xlii. 13,
32). They bow before him fulfilment of his dreams
(xliii.
26, 28; xliv. 14; cf. xxvii. 10, xlii. 6, 9).
Joseph
orders
their money to be replaced in their sacks (xliv. 1),
as
before (xlii. 25). And Judah’s touching
address to
Joseph
(xliv. 18-34) recite anew the circumstances of
their
former visit, together with their father’s grief at the
loss
of Joseph (cf. xliv. 28 with xxxvii. 33).
It is difficult
to
see how two parts of the same narrative could be more
closely
bound together.
Nevertheless it is maintained that all
these allusions
to
what took place in the former journey are not to the
record
given of it in ch. xlii., but to a quite different nar-
rative;
that a careful consideration of chs. xliii., xliv. Will
show
that they are not .the sequel of ch. xlii., but of a
parallel
account by J, which no longer exists indeed, in-
asmuch
as R did not think fit to preserve it, but which
can
be substantially reconstructed from the hints and in-
timations
in these chapters themselves, and must have
varied
from that of E in several particulars. R
is here,
as
always, the scapegoat on those head these incongrui-
ties
are laid, though no very intelligible reason can be
given
why he should have constructed this inimitable
history
in such a disjointed manner. And it is
likewise
strange
that the discrepancies between the two narratives,
so
strenuously urged by Wellhausen and Dillmann, seem
to
have escaped the usually observant eye of Hupfeld, who
makes
no mention of them. As Ilgen, DeWette,
and
Gramberg
had raised the same difficulties before, Hup-
feld’s
silence can only mean hat he did not deem them
JACOB’S
SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.) 475
worth
repeating. Knobel, though ready enough
to under-
take
a critical division elsewhere, insists on the unity of
chs.
xlii.-xlv., and maintains that the charge of inconsist-
encies
is unfounded. The same judgment, one
would
think,
must be formed by any candid person.
NO DISCREPANCY
The alleged inconsistencies are the
following:
1.
In E Reuben is the speaker (xlii. 22), and it is he
who
becomes surety for Benjamin’s safe return (ver. 37).
In
J Judah is the surety for Benjamin, and takes the
lead
throughout (xliii. 3-5, 8-10; xliv. 14 sqq.).
But
these acts and offices do not exclude one another.
Why
should not more than one of Jacob’s sons have
sought
to influence him in a case of such
extreme im-
portance
to them all? If Reuben had pleaded
without
effect,
why should not Judah renew the importunity, as
the
necessity became more urgent? It is here
precisely
as
with the separate proposal of Reuben and Judah
(xxxvii.
22, 26), which, as we have seen, the critics like-
wise
seek without reason to array against each other.
Reuben’s allusion (xlii. 22) to his
interference in that in-
stance
implies that his remonstrance was not heeded, and
that
his brothers were responsible for Joseph’s death,
which
he sought to prevent. As the critics
represent the
matter,
this was not the case. At Reuben’s
instance they
put
Joseph in a pit instead of shedding his blood.
Now
if,
as the critics will have it, Midianite merchants found
him
there and carried him off in the absence of all the
brothers,
the others had no more to do with his disap-
pearance
than Reuben had. Reuben’s unresisted
charge
that
the rest were guilty of Joseph's death, in which he
himself
was not implicated, finds no explanation upon
the
critics’ version of the story. It is
only when the
476
THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
sundered
parts of the narrative are brought together, and
it
is allowed to stand in its complete and proper form,
that
Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites at the suggestion
of
Judah, while Reuben supposed him to be still in the
pit
and hoped to return him to his father, that his words
have
any meaning. No difficulty is created by
Reuben’s
speaking
of his blood as required. The brothers
im-
agined
him to be no longer living. Judah, who
coun-
selled
the sale, speaks of him as dead (xliv. 20 cf. xlii.
32). By selling him into bondage they had, as they
thought,
procured his death.
Judah’s prominence in ch. xliv. is due
entirely to his
suretyship
for Benjamin, solicited and granted in ch.
xliii. As Benjamin was endangered by the discovery of
the
cup, it was incumbent upon him to seek to obtain
his
release.
Wellhausen contends that xlii. 38 is not
the reply to
Reuben’s
offer to be a surety (ver. 37), inasmuch as this
latter
is E’s parallel to xlii. 8-10 J, and instead of being
refused
it must in E’s account have been accepted.
He
insists
that E’s narrative is abruptly broken off at xlii.
37,
and left incomplete. The response made
to Reuben
is
not recorded; it was doubtless the same in substance
that
J reports as made to Judah (xliii. 11 sqq.).
Instead
of
this R introduces an irrelevant verse (xlii. 88), a dis-
located
fragment of J, which in its original connection
was
a reply to something quite distinct from the worlds
by
which it is here preceded. It must have
come after
the
equivalent of xliv. 26, and have stood between xliii.
2
and 3. This is simply to manufacture
facts in the face
of
the plain declarations of the text itself which leave no
doubt
as to the answers respectively given to Reuben
and
to Judah. All this confusion, where in
reality no
confusion
exists, results from the abortive attempt to
create
a parallel narrative out of nonentity.
The critics
JACOB’S
SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.)
477
are
under the necessity of signing xlii, 38 to J, since
the
words “if mischief befall him ye shall bring down
my
gray hairs with sorrow to the grave “are identical
with
xliv. 29, 31, and must obviously be from the same
writer. This, however, does not demonstrate that the
verse
is out of place, but simply that chs. xlii, and xliv,
are
from one pen.
In fact the agency attributed to Reuben
and Judah
affords
a plea, not for the critical partition of these chap-
ters
but for their unity. The position
accorded to each
is
consistent throughout, and corresponds with the rep-
resentation
made of them in the blessing of Jacob in ch.
xlix. Reuben, as the first-born was charged with a
special
responsibility,
which led him to come forward at each
crisis,
while the weakness of his character rendered his
interference
ineffectual. He did not accomplish his
purpose
of rescuing Joseph. His father, whom he
had
grievously
wronged, would not trust him with Benjamin.
Judah's
bold and energetic nature fitted him to grasp the
reins
which Reuben was incompetent to hold. He
led
the
brothers in their passionate determination to rid
themselves
of Joseph and nullify his ambitious dreams.
Sobered
by the discipline of years he rose to the occa-
sion,
when a new peril threatened his father in the loss
of
his favorite Benjamin, and he assumed the leader-
ship
with an unselfish courage and a tenderness of heart
which
marked him out as one fitted to rule, and which
deservedly
won for him the position among his brothers
indicated
by his dying father. Plainly we have here
not
two
separate sagas, each glorifying a favorite son of
Jacob
but one self-consistent historical account, in which
both
appear in their proper characters.
It is further claimed that:
2.
J knows nothing of Simeon’s detention related by
E
(xlii. 19, 24). Judah nowhere alludes to
it in arguing
478
THE GENERATIONS 0F JACOB
with
his father (xliii. 3-10), when he might have urged
the
prospect of releasing Simeon as an additional reason
for
their speedy return; nor does he refer to it in his
address
to Joseph (xliv. 18-34).
But the supreme interest on both these
occasions cen-
tred
about Benjamin. Would his father consent
to let
him
go? Would Joseph allow him to return to
his
father? These were the questions quite apart from the
case
of Simeon, so that in dealing with them there was
no
occasion to allude to him. But Simeon is
directly
spoken
of twice in ch. xliii. When Jacob is
starting
them
on their return he prays (ver. 14) “God Almighty
give
you mercy before the man, that he may release unto
you
your other brother and Benjamin.” And
(ver. 23)
when
they reach the house of Joseph the steward
“brought
Simeon out unto them.” These explicit
allu-
sions
to Simeon’s imprisonment are evaded by declar-
ing
them to be interpolations from E. The
argument for
suppressing
them may be fairly stated thus: Because
Simeon
is not referred to where there is no occasion for
speaking
of him, therefore the mention which is made of
him
in the proper place cannot be an integral part of
the
text. In other words, whatever the
critics desire to
eliminate
from a passage is eliminated without further
ceremony
by declaring it spurious. If it does not
accord
with
their theory, that is enough; no other proof is nec-
essary.
Dillmann’s contention that xlii. 38 is not
the direct
reply
to ver. 37, because Simeon is not spoken of in it,
is
futile on its face; for as Reuben makes no allusion
to
him in his proposal there is no reason why Jacob
should
do so in his answer. Simeon was kept a
pris-
oner
to insure the return of the rest, having been se-
lected
doubtless because he was second in age.
Joseph
may
naturally have passed over Reuben because of the
JACOB'S
SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.)
479
kindly
disposition which he had manifested toward him-
self.
3. “In ch. xlii. Joseph will, by
detaining Simeon, com-
pel
the brothers at all events to come back again with or
without
Benjamin; in chs. xliii., xliv., on the contrary,
he
forbids them to come back if Benjamin is not with
them. In ch. xlii. they are treated as spies; at
first they
are
all put into prison together, and then only set free
on
bail to bring Benjamin, an thus confirm the truth of
their
declarations. But in chs. xliii., xliv.
they do not
go
back to Egypt from the moral obligation of clearing
themselves
and releasing Simeon, but wait till the corn
is
all gone an the famine constrains them.
The charge
that
they were spies was not brought against the broth-
ers
at all according to xliii. 5-7; xliv.18 sqq.; it was not
this
which induced them, as ch. xlii.; to explain to Jo-
seph
who and whence they really were, and thus involun-
tarily
to make mention of Benjamin, but Joseph directly
asked
them, Is your father yet alive? have ye
another
brother?
and then commanded them not to come into
his
presence again without him.”
All this is only an attempt to create a
conflict where
there
is none. One part of a transaction is
set in oppo-
sition
to another equally belonging to it. One
motive is
arrayed
against another, as though they were incompati-
ble,
when both were alike operative. When
Joseph told
his
brothers that they must verify their words by Benja-
min’s
coming to be considered spies (xlii. 15, 16, 20, 34),
he
in effect told them that they should not see his face
again
unless Benjamin was with them. They
delay their
return
until the corn was till used up, because nothing
less
than imminent starvation will induce Jacob, who has
already
lost two sons, to risk the loss of his darling.
That
Joseph directly interrogated them about their father
1 Wellhausen,
Comp. d. Hexateuchs, p. 55.
480 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
and
brother is not expressly said in ch. xlii.; but as the
entire
interview is not narrated in detail, there is nothing
to
forbid it. The critics do not themselves
insist on the
absolute
conformity of related passages, unless they have
some
end to answer by it. The words of
Reuben, as re-
ported
xlii. 22, are not identical with those ascribed to
him
xxxvii. 22; and nothing is said in ch. xxxvii. of
Joseph's
beseeching his brothers in the anguish of his
soul,
as in xlii. 21. Jacob's sons, in
rehearsing their ex-
perience
to their father (xlii. 29-34) omit his first propo-
sition
to keep all of them but one, and their three days'
imprisonment,
and add that if they prove true they might
traffic
in the land. Judah, in relating the
words of his
father
(xliv. 27-29), does not limit himself to language
which,
according to xliii. 2 sqq., he uttered on the occa-
sion
referred to. In these instances the
critics find no
discrepancies
within the limits of the same document,
but
count it sufficient that the general sense is preserved.
If
they would interpret with equal candor elsewhere
their
imaginary difficulties would all melt away.
4.
A discrepancy is alleged regarding the money found
in
the sacks. According to xliii. 21 J the
discovery was
made
at the lodging on their way home, but according
to
xlii. 35 E, after their arrival home, and in the presence
of their
father.
But there is no necessary variance
here. The state-
ment
in xlii. 27, 28 is that one of the brothers, on open-
ing
his sack at the lodging, found his money, and reported
the
fact to the rest, whereat they were greatly alarmed.
Now,
the critics argue if one opened his sack to give his
ass
provender, must not the rest have done the same,
and
made the same discovery? and especially
as they
were
so agitated by the fact that one had found his money
in
his sack, would not the rest have made instant search
in
theirs? Dillmann further pleads that dHAx,hA
the one, in
JACOB'S
SONS GO T0 EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.)
481
ver.
27, properly means the first in order, implying that
the
others subsequently did the same. And
Wellhausen
tells
us that R has omitted a clause, which must origi-
nally
have stood in these verses, "then the others also
opened
their sacks, and behold, every man's money was
in
his sack, their money in full weight."
These verses,
it
is claimed, are in exact correspondence with xliii. 21,
and
belong not to E's, but to J's, account.
This con-
jectural
reasoning and this hypothetical change of text
are
of course of no account. But if the
critics are cor-
rect
in the interpretation which they put upon these
verses,
as implying, even though they do not expressly
state,
that the discovery of his money by one led to its
discovery
by all the rest at the inn, there is not the
shadow
of a discrepancy in the entire record.
This is
in
fact the explanation adopted by Matthew Poole in
order
to harmonize the whole account. He thus
com-
ments
upon the words in ver. 27, "one of them opened
his
sack:" "And after him the rest, by his example and
information
did so, as is affirmed xliii. 21, and not de-
nied
here." And then, when they reached
home and
emptied
their sacks in the presence of their father, and
they
and he saw the bundles of money, "their fear re-
turned
upon them with more violence."
If, however, xlii. 27 is to be understood
as meaning
that
only one happened upon the discovery of his money
at
the inn, and that the others, having no occasion to
open
their sacks, since Joseph had ordered that provision
be
given them for the way (ver. 25), did not find that
theirs
had been restored till they were at their journey's
end,
it will still supply no argument for critical partition.
The
discrepancy, such as it is, lies between xlii. 27, 28,
and
xliii. 22, both of which are referred to J.
It amounts
simply
to this: in reporting their discovery of the money
to
Joseph's steward the brothers do not detail the suc-
482 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
cessive
steps by which they came to a full knowledge of
the
case. The one important fact was that
they all
found
their money in their sacks. That part
was found
at
one time, and part at another, was a subordinate mat-
ter
on which no stress need be laid. So in
speaking of
the
first discovery made at the inn they include in it all
that
they afterward learned. Their statement,
though
not
minutely accurate, was yet for their purpose sub-
stantially
true.
THE
DIVINE NAMES
The divine names afford no pretext for the
partition of
these
chapters. Elohim occurs once in E (xlii.
18), and
three
times in J (xlii. 28; xliii. 29; xliv. 16).
And EI
Shaddai,
God Almighty, which is regarded as a peculiar
characteristic
of P, occurs in xliii. 14 J. R is
invoked to
relieve
the difficulty in xlii. 28 and xliii. 14; while in
xliii.
29; xliv. 16, the critical principle is abandoned,
which
traces the occurrence of Elohim to the usage of
the
particular document in which it is found and it is
confessed
that its employment is due to the distinctive
usage
of the word itself. These names are in
every case
appropriately
used. Jacob commends his sons to the
omnipotent
care of him who alone could effectually aid
in
his helpless extremity (xliii. 14). As
Joseph was act-
ing
the part of an Egyptian, Elohim is the proper word
when
he is speaking (xlii. 18; xliii. 29), or is spoken to
(xliv.
16); even when he refers specifically to the God of
the
chosen race he uses a periphrasis instead of employ-
ing
the name Jehovah (xliii. 23). Contrast
with this the
critical
claim in xxvi. 28, 29, that J uses Jehovah even
when
Gentiles are the speakers. In xlii. 28
the brothers,
recognizing
in what has taken place the divine ordering
as
contrasted with merely human agency, say to one an-
other,
what is this that God (Elohim) hath done to us?
JACOB'S
SONS GO T0 EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.)
483
MARKS OF J AND E
1. xOPs;mi fodder, is attributed to J, though it is the
proper
word to express this idea, and cannot be regarded
as
characterizing any particular writer. It
is used four
times
in the Hexateuch, twice in this narrative (xlii. 27,
cut
out of an E connection and given to J; xliii. 24 J),
and
twice in the story of Abraham's servant (xxiv. 25,
32,
J).
2. NOlmA lodging-place, is claimed as belonging to J. It
occurs
twice in this narrative (xlii. 27, cut out of an E
context
and given to J; xliii. 21 J), and in two passages
besides
in the Hexateuch (Ex. iv. 24; Josh. iv. 3, 8).
3. tHaTam;xa
sack, a word peculiar to this narrative, is
claimed
for J, while E's word for the same is said to be qWa.
The
latter properly denotes the coarse material from
which
sacks and the dress of mourners were made, and is
then
applied to anything made of this material.
tHaTam;xa
from HtamA to expand, is the specific term for a bag or sack.
The
grain sacks are :first mentioned xlii. 25, where the
general
term yliK;
vessel, is used together with qWa; then in
vs.
27, 28, qWa together with tHaTam;xa; in ver. 35 qWa alone,
and
thenceforward tHaTam;xa, as the proper and specific
term,
is steadfastly adhered to in the rest of the narrative
throughout
chs. xliii. and xliv. That this affords
no
argument
for sundering vs. 27, 28 from then present
connection
and assigning them to another writer is ob-
vious,
since both qWa and tHaTm;x; occur there together;
moreover,
Elohim in the last clause of ver. 28 forbids it
being
assigned to J. Dillmann evades these
difficulties
by
assuming that these verses have been manipulated by
R,
who inserted qWa and
transposed the unwelcome clause
from
its original position after ver. 35.
What cannot a
critic
prove with the help of R?
484 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
4. rfana
lad, as Benjamin is called by J (xliii.
8; xliv.
22-34);
but E uses instead dl,y,;
child (xlii. 22 E, said of
Joseph
at the time when he was sold). J,
however, like-
wise
calls Benjamin kl,y, (xliv.
20), and uses the same
word
repeatedly elsewhere, e.g., xxxii. 23; xxxiii. 1-14
(9
times); while E uses rfana with
equal frequency (xiv. 24;
xxi.
12-20 (6 times)); ch. xxii. (5 times), etc.
See ch. xxi.
1-21,
Marks of E, No.6.
5.
Israel (xliii. 6, 8, 14 J) ; but Jacob, xlii. 1, 4, 29, 36,
E;
also sons of Israel, xlii. 5 E.
See ch. xxxvii., Marks
of
J, No.1.
6. wyxihA
the man, said of Joseph (xliii. 3, 5, 6, 7, 13,
14;
xliv. 26 J), while E says Cr,xAhA
ynedoxE wyxihA the
man,
the
lord of the land
(xlii. 30, 33). The full phrase was
necessary
at first in order to indicate the person intend-
ed;
its constant repetition afterward would be cum-
brous. In like manner "the man who was over
Joseph's
house"
(xliii. 16, 19) is simply called "the man" (ver.
17). The plural construct ynedoxE is used in a singular
sense
but once besides in the Pentateuch (xxxix. 20),
where
it is attributed to J.
7. rhas.oha
tyBe prison, is used by J (xxxix. 20-23), while
E
has rmAw;mi ward (xlii. 17, 19), as xl. 3, 4, 7; xli. 10;
but
the
former also occurs in an E context (xl. 3, 5), only the
clause
containing it is cut out and assigned to J because
of
this very phrase.
8. hnAl.AKu all of them, the prolonged form of the feminine
plural
suffix is used by E (xlii. 36), as xxi. 29; xxxi. 6; xli.
21;
but J has the same hn.Am,HEya for
NmAHEya
xxx. 41.
9. hdAce provision
(xlii. 25 E), as xlv. 21 ; Josh. ix. 11;
but
so J xxvii. 3; Ex. xii. 39; all in Hexateuch except
Josh.
i. 11 D.
10.
hrAcA distress (xlii. 21 bis E); but so J Deut. xxxi.
17,
21; all in Hexateuch.
11.
rkazA remember (xlii. 9 E), as xl. 14 bis, 23; xli. 9;
JACOB'S
SONS GO TO EGYPT (CH. XLII.-XLIV.) 485
Ex.
xx. 8 (?), 24; xxiii. 13; but so J Ex. xiii. 3; xxxii.
13;
Lev. xxvi. 42 (three times), 45 (?), Num. xi. 5; xv.
39,
40; P, Gen. viii. 1; ix. 15, 16; xix. 29; xxx. 22; Ex.
ii.
24; vi. 5; Num. v. 15 (?); x. 9 (?); all in Pentateuch
except
Deuteronomy.
12. lk,xo food,
is claimed for J (xliii. 2, 4, 20, 22; xliv.
1,
25) in distinction from rBA grain (E xli. 35, 49; xlii. 3,
25;
xlv. 23); but the former occurs in E xli. 35 bis, 36,
48
bis; xlii. 7, 10; xlvii. 24, unless the clauses contain-
ing
it are arbitrarily severed from their context.
13.
drayA go
down,
and dyriOh
bring down (into Egypt), are
said
to be used by J, while E has xybihe bring. See ch.
xxxvii.,
Marks of J, No.3.
14.
dbekA heavy (xliii. 1); mostly referred by rule to J,
even
when it has to be cut out of an E connection for
the
purpose, as Gen. xli. 31; Ex. xix. 16; Num. xx. 20;
yet
it is given to E Ex. xvii. 12; viii. 18.
So, too, the
corresponding
verb is mostly assigned to J, and is in
Ex.
v. 9 cut out of an E connection for the purpose; it
is,
however, given to E Num. xxii. 15, 17, 37; and to P
Ex.
xiv. 4, 17; 18; Lev. x. 3.
15. hl.AKi with
l; and
the infinitive made an end (xliii. 2 J).
See
ch. xxvi. 34-xxviii. 9, Marks of J, No. 2.
16.
Ffam; a
little
(xliii. 2, 11; xliv. 25 J); besides in J
xviii.
4; mv. 17, 43; xxvi: 10; xxx. 15, 30; Josh. vii.
3;
in JE Num. xvi. 13; in E Ex. xvii. 4; xxiii. 30;
Num.
xiii. 18; in P Gen. xlvii. 9; Lev. xxv. 52; Num.
xvi.
9 (worked over); xxvi. 54, 56; xxxiii. 54; xxxv. 8;
in
Deut. 5 times; R Josh. xxii. 17; all in Hexateuch.
17. wye with suffix and participle (xliii. 4 J). See ch.
xxiv.,
Marks of J, No. 11.
18.
h.mah;mat;hi linger
(xliii. 10 J); besides in J xix. 16;
Ex.
xii. 39; all in Hexateuch.
19.
ylaUx peradventure (ver. 12 J). See ch. xvi., Marks
of
J, No. 12.
486 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
20. HtaP,
door (ver. 19 J); besides in J iv. 7; xviii.
1,
2,
10; xix. 6, 11; xxxviii. 14; Ex. xii. 22, 23; Num. xi.
10;
in E Ex. xxxiii. 8, 9, 10; Num. xii. 5; in JE Num.
xvi.
27; in P Gen. vi. 16 and fifty-five times besides;
twice
in Deut., and once referred to Rd, viz., Josh. viii. 29.
21. hvAHETaw;hiv; bow the head and make obeisance (ver.
28
J). See ch. xxiv., Marks of J, No. 20.
22. yBi particle of entreaty (xliii. 20; xliv. 18 J); be-
sides
in J Ex. iv. 10, 13; Num. xii. 11; Josh. vii. 8; all
in
Hexateuch.
23.
hl.,xehA MyribAD;Ka according to these words (xliv. 7 J).
See
ch. xxxix., Marks of J, No.5.
24. l; hlAyliHA far be it, followed by Nmi with the infini-
tive
(xliv. 7, 17). See ch. xviii., xix.,
Marks of J, No.8.
25. The ending, NU (xliv. 1, 23 J). See ch.
xviii., xix.,
Marks
of J, No. 22.
The attempt to establish a parallel
narrative to ch.
xlii.
for J, and to chs. xliii., xliv. for E, rests on very slen-
der
grounds. Snatches. of the former are
suspected in
xlii.
2a, 4b, 6, 7, 10, 27, 28, 38, and of the latter in xliii.
14,
23b. It is alleged that xlii. 2a is
superfluous beside
ver.
la, which it is not; ver. 4b is sundered from its con-
nection
and given to J because of the phrase NOsxA Un.x,rAq;yi mischief befall him, though these words are found as well
in
E, and their recurrence (ver. 38; xliv. 29), instead of
being
a reason for partition, is indicative rather of the
unity
of the entire narrative; ver. 6 because of
Fyl.iwa
governor, which occurs nowhere else in the
Hexateuch,
and
is here used instead of MynidoxE lord, as vs. 30, 33, E, or
lwemo ruler, as xlv. 8, 26, E; but if the same writer
can
speak
of Joseph as MynidoxE
and lwemo, why not also as Fyl.iw,
especially
as Fyl.iwa in the opinion of Dillmann "may here
be a
technical word traditionally preserved, since it
agrees
remarkably with Salitis or Silitis, the name of the
JOSEPH
MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 487
first
ruler of the Hyksos in Egypt;" moreover, it is very
inconsistent
for the critics to refer ver. 6 to another than
E,
notwithstanding the plain allusion to Joseph's dreams
in
the last clause where his brothers bow themselves to
the
ground before him (cf. xxxvii. 10).
"He knew them,
but
made himself strange unto them," in ver. 7, is said to
be
an insertion from J because of the repetition in ver.
8,
which, however, is for the sake of adding a contrasted
thought,
and the removal of this clause leaves the follow-
ing
words, "spake roughly with them," unexplained, so
that
Dillmann finds it necessary to transpose them after
ver.
9a. So ver. 10 because of lk,xo food, though this is
equally
found in E. And vs. 27, 28, 38, for reasons
already
sufficiently discussed. Furthermore,
xliii. 14, 23b,
are
cut out of their connection and given to E, because
they
flatly contradict the critical allegation that J knows
nothing
of Simeon's imprisonment and that he never
says
El Shaddai.
It will be observed that the phrase
"land of Canaan,"
previously
claimed as characteristic of P, here appears
repeatedly
in E (xlii. 5, 7, 13, 29, 32) and J (xliv. 8).
See
ch. xii. 5, Marks of P, No.4.
JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.)
THE complications of the immediately
preceding chap-
ters,
as is correctly observed by Tuch, simply serve to
prepare
the way for the surprising denouement in ch.
xlv.,
which is a sufficient proof that this chapter must be
from
the narrator of the foregoing circumstances; and
in
like manner ch. xlv. leads directly to ch. xlvi. Never-
theless
the critics assign this chapter in the main to E,
on
the ground of alleged discrepancies with what precedes
and
follows. How, it is said, could Joseph ask
(ver. 3)
whether
his father was yet living after his own previous
488 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
inquiry
(xliii. 27, 28), and Judah's speech (xliv. 18-34), as
reported
by J? The suggestion only shows how
utterly
this
cold and captious criticism is out of sympathy with
the
writer, and with the whole situation.
Joseph's heart
is
bursting with long-suppressed emotion.
He had
asked
about the old man of whom they spake. He
can
maintain
this distance and reserve no longer.
With the
disclosure
"I am Joseph," his first utterance follows the
bent
of his affections, "How is my father?"
Again, it is objected that Pharaoh had
bidden Joseph
bring
his father with his household to Egypt, promising
him
the good of the 1and (vs. 17, 18), yet (xlvii. 1) Jo-
seph
announces their coming to Pharaoh, as though he
had
never heard of it before; they petition (ver. 4) to be
allowed
to dwell in Goshen, and Pharaoh grants it (ver.
6),
without any allusion to his previous invitation and
promise.
But there is no implication in this last
act that the
first
had not preceded it. All proceeds quite
naturally in
the
narrative. At the first intimation of
the presence of
Joseph's
brethren Pharaoh asks them to Egypt to share
the
good of the land, assigning them no residence, and
only
offering them subsistence in this time of scarcity.
Upon
their actual arrival with their father and all their
possessions
Joseph notifies Pharaoh of the fact, and pre-
sents
his brethren to him with the request that they may
dwell
in Goshen as best suited to their occupation.
And
when
this is granted he presents his aged father to the
king. All is as consistent and natural as possible.
It is further urged that there are back
references to
this
chapter and coincidences with it in other E passages
which
are indicative of their common origin.
Thus, xlvi.
5
makes mention of the wagons sent by Pharaoh
to
bring the wives of Joseph's brethren, and their little
ones,
and their father, agreeably to xlv. 19, 21.
Chs. xlvii.
JOSEPH
MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 489
12,
1. 21 allude to Joseph's promise (xlv. 11) to nourish
his
father and his household. The reference
of all that
had
befallen Joseph to the providence of God (xlv. 7, 8)
is
as 1. 20; and the exalted position assigned to Joseph
in
Egypt (xlv. 8) is as xli. 40-43.
The common authorship of these so-called
E passages
is
freely admitted. But this is no
concession to critical
partition. Precisely the same line of proof from allu-
sions
and coincidences links this chapter indissolubly to
J
passages likewise. The constitution of
the chapter is
clearly
at variance with the hypothesis of the critics,
since
what they allege to be criteria of distinct docu-
ments,
whether in language or in the contents of the
narrative,
are here inseparably blended. Their only
re-
source
here, as elsewhere, is to interpret these damaging
clauses
as insertions by R, which they accordingly cut
out
of their proper connection and assign to J as though
they
were scraps taken from a supposed parallel narra-
tive
of his.
Verse 1a is given to J because of qPexat;hi refrain himself ; only besides in the Hexateuch xliii. 31
J; but 1b,
closely
connected with it, is assigned to E because of
fDavat;hi made himself known; only besides in the Old Tes-
tament
Num. xii. 6 E.
Verse 2 is declared superfluous in its
connection be-
side
ver. 16. But it is not. The action progresses regu-
larly. Joseph's weeping was heard by those outside
(ver.
2),
but the occasion of it became known subsequently
(ver.
16).
Verse 4b, the sale of Joseph into Egypt is
in the wrong
document;
of course excision is necessary.
Verse 5 is a singular medley; no two
successive clauses
can
be assigned to the same document. The
first clause
has Ubc;fATe be grieved, J, as vi. 6; xxxiv. 7; the second
Mk,yneyfeB; rHayi (anger) burn in your eyes, only besides in the
490 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Old
Testament xxxi. 35, E; the third, the sale of Joseph,
J;
the fourth, Elohim, E.
Verse 7a repeats 5b, but Elohim occurs in
both, com-
pelling
the critics to give both to E, and so confess that
repetition
is not proof of a doublet, or else, as Kautzsch
proposes,
to change one Elohim to Jehovah, and throw
the
blame on R. Dillmann remarks upon the
construc-
tion
as unusual and difficult, which affords him a pre-
text
for the conjecture that it is a mutilated insertion
from
J. It is of little consequence how it is
accom-
plished,
so that a foothold is found in the verse for J.
Verse 10, Joseph's naming Goshen as their
place of
abode
is implied in xlvi. 28 J, where Jacob goes directly
thither. It is hence severed from its connection and
given
to J, in whole or in part, while its minute enumera-
tion
of particulars is such as is elsewhere held to charac-
terize
P in distinction from both J and E.
Verse 13 is assigned to J because of dyriOh bring down,
as
xxxix. 1, and because it repeats ver. 9; so ver.14, be-
cause
of yrexU;ca lfa lpanA fell upon the neck, as xxxiii. 4, xlvi.
29;
while ver. 15, a part of the same scene, is given to E.
Wellhausen
by comparison with xxxiii. 4 tries to estab-
lish
a diversity between J and E in the construction of
qw.eni kissed, a conclusion which Dillmann thinks
"weak in
Verse 19.
Mc,ywen;lev; Mk,P;Fal; for your little ones and for your wives,
is a J phrase.
Verse 20.
sHoTA-lxa Mk,n;yfe let not your eye spare (E. V.,
regard
not), is peculiar to D; "the good of all the land
of
Egypt is yours" duplicates ver. 18.
Verse 21.
"And the children of Israel did so," is
such
a preliminary statement of what is more fully de-
tailed
afterward as the critics are in the habit of reckon-
ing
a duplicate account.
Verse 28 is the response to ver. 27; but
one verse has
JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN (CH. XLV.) 491
"Jacob,"
and must be assigned to E, while the other has
"Israel,"
and is given to J.
It is apparent here, as in many other
cases, that the as-
signment
of verses and clauses is simply the enforcement,
nolens
volens, of
an arbitrary determination of the critics.
No
one would dream of sundering these mutually unre-
lated
scraps from the rest of the chapter, with which they
are
closely connected, but for the application of alleged
criteria
which the critics have devised in other places
in
framing their hypothesis. These are
carried rigor-
ously
through at whatever disturbance of the connec-
tion
or havoc of the sense, because to abandon them
would
be to give up the hypothesis. The very
least that
can
be said is that this mincing work, to which the critics
find
themselves compelled to resort to so great an extent
Genesis,
and increasingly so ill the books that follow,
lends
no support to the hypothesis, but is simply a dead
weight
upon it. The hypothesis is plainly not
an out-
growth
of this and similar chapters, but is obtruded upon
them;
and the only question is how much lumber of this
sort
it can carry without signally breaking down.
Elohim occurs four times in this chapter
(vs. 5, 7, 8, 9),
in
the address of Joseph to his brothers.
As he is no
longer
acting the part of an Egyptian, he might have
spoken
of Jehovah as consulting for the welfare of the
chosen
race. But Elohim is equally appropriate,
since
the
prominent thought here and throughout the history
of
Joseph is that it is God, and not man, who guided the
course
of events (ver. 8; 1. 20).
MARKS OF E
1. bqofEya Jacob
(ver. 25). See ch. xxxvii., Marks of J,
No.1;
ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E, No.5.
2.
vynAyreB; hrAHA (anger) burn in one's eyes.
Only besides
xxxi.
35 E.
492 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
3. NfaFA
lade (ver. 17); nowhere else in the Old Testa-
ment.
4. hdAce provision (ver. 21). See ch. xIii.-xliv., Marks
of
E, No. 9.
5.
rBA grain (ver. 23). See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E,
No.
12.
REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27)
Verses 1-5 are assigned to E on account of
the back J
reference
in ver. 5b to xlv. 19, 21 (but if these verses be-
long
to R, as Dillmann affirms, ver. 5b must be given to
R
likewise), and other criteria; only ver. 1a is given to J
or R
because of "Israel" and "took his journey" fs.ay..iva.
This
affords an opportunity for creating a discrepancy.
Jacob
starts in E (ver. 5) from Beersheba, in J from
some
other place, presumably from Hebron (xxxvii. 14),
and
takes Beersheba on his way. It scarcely
need be
stated
that the discrepancy is purely the result of the
critical
partition, and has no existence in the text itself.
In
ver. 2 "Elohim" and "visions of the night," which
are
held to be characteristics of E,l conflict with "Israel,"
a
mark of J. The difficulty is adjusted by
erasing the
unwelcome
name and tracing its insertion to R.
Verses 6, 7 are attributed to P on account
of words
and
phrases which are claimed as peculiar to P, but on
very
slight grounds as has been previously shown.
P's
last
generally acknowledged statement2 is that, in con-
trast
to Esau's removal to Mount Seir (xxxvi. 6-8), Jacob
dwelt
in the land of Canaan (xxxvii. 1). And
yet here
follows,
without a word of explanation, the removal of
1 The repetition of the name, and the
answer "Here I am," as Gen.
xxii.
11, Ex. iii. 4, is also claimed for E; but Gen. xxii. 11 can only
be
assigned to E by manipulating the text and expunging "Jehovah."
2 Two isolated and unexplained statements
of Joseph's age, when
tending
flocks (xxxvii. 2), and when standing before Pharaoh (xli. 46),
are
given to P by some critics, and denied to him by others.
REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 493
Jacob
and his family to Egypt; and it comes out in sub-
sequent
allusions that Joseph was already settled there
and
married into a priestly family (xlvi. 20, 27), that he
was
in high favor with Pharaoh, and it was he who gave
his
father and brethren a possession in the land of Egypt
(xlvii.
7, 11). But how all this came about P
does not
inform
us. The critics are greatly exercised to
account
for
so egregious a gap as this. Kayser suggests
that P
was
theoretical rather than historical; Noldeke that R
omitted
P's account because it was contradictory to E
and
J; others, because it agreed with theirs.
And yet
elsewhere
R is careful to preserve even the smallest
scraps
of P, though they are quite superfluous beside the
more
extended narratives of E or J, e.g., xix. 29, and if
we
may believe the critics he is not deterred by incon-
sistencies.
The list of Jacob's family (vs. 8-27) is
a critical puzzle.
It
is in the style of other genealogies attributed to P,
and
has expressions claimed as his, viz., "Paddan-aram"
(ver.
15), "souls" (vs. 15, 18, 22, 25-27), "came out of
his
loins" (ver. 26). And yet there are
duplicates of it
in P
(Ex. i. 1-5; vi. 14-25; Num. xxvi. 5 sqq.); Israel
(ver.
8) is a mark of J, and, as Kayser affirms, it has
too
many allusions to J and E to admit of their being
explained
as interpolations. Thus (ver. 12),"
Er and
Onan
died in the land of Canaan," refers to xxxviii. 7-10
J;
ver. 18, "Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah," and
ver.
25, "Bilhah, whom Laban gave unto Rachel," to xxix.
24,
291 E; vs. 20, 27, Joseph's marriage and sons to xli.
50-52
E.2 So Hupfeld attributes
this list to J, Well-
1 It is with the view of
quietly evading this difficulty that Wellhausen
and
Dillmann absurdly sunder these verses from the rest of ch. xxix.,
and
give them to P.
2 Also (ver. 15) "
Dinah" refers to xxx. 21, if Kayser and Schrader
are
correct in ascribing ch. xxxiv. entire to J.
494 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
hausen
to a later writer who derived his materials from
P,
or according to Kayser, from P and J, or in the opin-
ion
of Kuenen one who was acquainted with Genesis in
its
present form, and with Num. xxvi. ("Hexateuch,"p. 68),
while
Dillmann follows Noldeke in imputing it to P, but
worked
over by R, who supplied the additions from J
and
E. But such a linking together of J, E,
and P as
we
find in this passage, and repeatedly in others, occurs
too
frequently to be set aside by any critical device.
These
cannot be separate and independent documents,
since
their alleged criteria are indiscriminately mingled
in
the same continuous paragraphs, and are to all ap-
pearance
freely used by the same writer.
As (ver. 8) this list professes to give
"the names of the
children
of Israel who came into Egypt," Dillmann af-
firms
that the mention of Er and Onan (ver. 12) implies
that
they were living at that time (the clause which
speaks
of their death in Canaan being, as he contends, an
interpolation
from ch. xxxviii.), and that they are in fact
counted
in making up the number thirty-three in ver. 15.
He
hence concludes that the author of this list is here at
variance
with ch. xxxviii. This is a most
extraordinary
attempt
to create a discrepancy in defiance of the plain
language
of the verse, by throwing out of the text its ex-
plicit
statement on the subject. It only shows
what ex-
travagances
can be made to result from critical partition.
Er
and Onan are not included in the summation (ver. 15).
The
number is completed by adding Jacob, who in ver.
8 is
reckoned one of "the children of Israel" (in its na-
tional
sense), and Dinah, the total embracing, as is dis-
tinctly
declared in ver.15, "daughters" as well as "sons."
To
make out his case Dillmann is obliged here again to
expunge
"daughters" from the text.
A further discrepancy is alleged in the
chronology. It
is
said that the antecedent narratives of J and E do not
REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 495
allow
time enough for the birth of all the children named
in
this list of P. This is based on the
assumption, which
even
Wellhausen1 repels, that every individual person
named
in the list was born before the migration into Egypt.
Such
an inference might indeed be drawn from vs. 8, 26,
strictly
taken. But to press the letter of such
general state-
ments
into contradiction with the particulars embraced
under
them is in violation of the evident meaning of the
writer. So ver. 15 rigorously interpreted would make
Leah
to have
borne thirty-three children to Jacob in Paddan-
aram,
one of whom was Jacob himself. Zilpah
(ver. 18)
and
Bilhah (ver. 25) bare their grandsons as well as
their
sons. Benjamin is included (xxxv. 24,
26) among
Jacob's
sons born in Paddan-aram, though his birth near
Ephrath
is recorded but a few verses before. The
nu-
merical
correspondences of the table, a total of seventy,
the
descendants of each maid precisely half those of her
mistress
(Leah 32, Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7), sug-
gest
design and can scarcely be altogether accidental.
And
a comparison of Num. xxvi. leads to the belief that
regard
,vas had to the subsequent national organization in
constructing
this table, and that its design was to in-
clude
those descendants of Jacob from whom permanent
families
or tribal divisions sprang, even if in a few in-
stances
they did not chance to have been born before
the
descent into Egypt. As a rule Jacob's
sons gave
names
to the tribes, and his grandsons to the tribal di-
visions. To this, however, there were some exceptions.
Joseph's
sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, were adopted by
Jacob
as his own (xlviii. 5), and tribes were called after
them. In like manner (ver. 12), Hezron and Hamul,
1 Composition d. Hexateuchs, p.
51: "This list once and again bursts
through
the historic bounds of Genesis."
Critical consistency requires
this
admission from those who assign the numbers in xxxvii, 2 and xli,
46
to P or this document will be in conflict with itself,
496 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
grandsons
of Judah, are included in this list as substi-
tutes
for his two deceased sons; and (ver. 21) ten sons
of
Benjamin1 are enumerated, though some of those who
are
here spoken of as sons were really grandsons (Num.
xxvi.
40; 1 Chron. viii. 3, 4). And so no
difficulty is created
by
the circumstance that four sons are ascribed to Reu-
ben,
ver. 9, but only two, xlii. 37. A few
names are here
recorded
of those who were still in the loins of their
fathers
(Heb. vii. 9, 10) at the time of the migration.
It
is
no departure from the usages of Hebrew thought to
conceive
of unborn children as included in the persons
of
their parents (ver. 4b). The Septuagint
goes farther
in
this direction than the Hebrew text by inserting in
ver.
20 five sons and grandsons of Ephraim and Manas-
seh,
thus making the total in ver. 27 seventy-five instead
of
seventy; and so in the speech of Stephen, Acts vii. 14.
The statement in ver. 27, that seventy of
Jacob's fam-
ily
came into Egypt, is repeated Deut. x. 22, which can
only
be accounted for on the Wellhausen hypothesis,
which
makes this list postexilic and Deuteronomy a prod-
uct
of the age of Josiah, by assuming that these two
identical
statements were made independently of each
other.
The
divine names in this chapter are grouped together
in
the opening verses (vs. 1-3). These
verses, though
1 It has been paraded as an
absolute inconsistency that Benjamin is in
this
list spoken of as the father of ten sons, whereas in the narrative
(xliii.
8; xliv. 22 sqq,) he is called rfana lad; but Rehoboam is called rfana
young (2 Chron. xiii. 7) when he was upward of
forty years of age (xii.
13). The epithet NFoq.Aha the youngest, which is applied to Benjamin
(xlii.
13, 15, 20 sqq.), denates relative, not absolute age, and has no ref-
erence
to size. Though Benjamin was tenderly
treated as the youngest
of
the family, and Jacob's darling, the sole remaining son of his favor-
ite
wife, it must not be inferred that he was still in his boyhood. Of
the
ten named in this list as sprung from him, five at least were grand-
sons,
and some of the remainder may have been born in Egypt.
REMOVAL TO EGYPT (CH. XLVI. 1-27) 497
attributed
to E; are filled with references to former J
passages,
which is at variance with every form of the di-
visive
hypothesis. The name "Israel,"
not only in ver.
la,
which is given to J, but in ver. 2, is a mark of J.
Jacob's
coming to Beersheba, and offering sacrifices there
to
the God of his father Isaac, is in evident allusion to
the
altar built there by Isaac and the divine manifesta-
tion
and promise there made to him (xxvi. 23-25 J).
And
the language which God here addresses to Jacob in
the
night, "I am the God of thy father; fear not. . . .
I
will go down with thee," is a repetition of what he said
to
Isaac likewise in the night, "I am the God of Abraham
thy
father; fear not, for I am with thee." "I will make
of
thee a great nation" (ver. 3) is a repetition of the
promise
made to Abraham (xii. 2 J). "I will
go down
with
thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee
up
again" (ver. 4), is the renewal of the promise made
to
Jacob himself on a like occasion before, when he was
on
the point of leaving the land of Canaan:
"I am with
thee,
and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and
will
bring thee again into this land" (xxviii. 15 J). This
obvious
dependence upon J passages throughout is suf-
ficient
to assure us that there can be no variance in the
use
of the divine names. And in point of
fact there is
none. "The God of Isaac" is a designation
equivalent
to
Jehovah (xxviii. 13; xxxii. 10, E. V., ver. 9 J). And
there
are special reasons for joining with this name the
term
lxehA ha-El (ver. 3), from its association with the name
"Israel,"
here significantly employed, from its allusion
to
xxxv. 11, where the promises of a multiplied offspring
and
of the gift of Canaan were made to him on his return
to
this land, which are now emphatically repeated as he
is
again about to leave it, and from its meaning the
Mighty
One,
with its assurance, just then especially
needed,
of omnipotent protection and blessing; and a
498 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
like
assurance is involved in Elohim (ver. 2), the God of
creation
and of universal providence.
MARKS OF J (VER. la)
1. fsanA journeyed. See Diction of ch. xx., No.1.
2. Israel.
See ch. xxxvii., Marks of J, No.1; ch. xlii.-
xliv.,
No.5.
MARKS OF E (vs. lb-5a)
1.
Night Vision. See ch. xx., Marks
of E, No.4.
2. yOgl; MyWi make a nation.
See ch. xxi. 1-21, Marks
of
E, No. 12.
3.
hdAr; to
go down;
this form of the infinitive occurs
but
once besides in the Hexateuch, viz., hfADe
to know (Ex.
ii.
4 E). A form of so rare occurrence in
this document
cannot
be regarded as characteristic of it.
MARKS OF P
1. wUkr;
goods, wkarA
had gotten (ver. 6).
See ch. xii. 5,
Marks
of P, No.2.
2. OTxi
Ofr;za his
seed with him
(vs. 6, 7) ; while equiva-
lent
phrases occur repeatedly in all the documents, this
precise
form of speech is found but twice besides in the
Hexateuch
(Gen. xxviii. 4; Num. xviii. 19 P).
3.
bqofEya Jacob. See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks of E, No. 5.
4.
rOkB; first-born
(ver. 8). See ch. xxv. 12-18, Marks
of
P, No. 4.
5.
Paddan-aram (ver. 15). See
ch. xxv. 19-34, Marks
of
P, No.4.
6.
wp,n, souls (vs. 15, 18, 22, 25-27). See ch. xii. 5,
Marks
of P, No.3.
7. Okyey; yxec;yo came out of his thigh (ver. 26);
this pre-
cise
form of expression occurs in the Hexateuch but
SETTLEMENT
IN GOSHEN (XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 499
once
besides (Ex. i. 5 P), where it is borrowed from the
present
passage; an equivalent expression is found in
xxxv.
11 P, j~yc,lAHEme xcAyA come out of thy loins, and one
closely
related in xv. 4 J, j~yf,m.emi
xcAyA come
out of thy
bowels.
The same conception is involved when an oath
relating
to posterity (xxiv. 2 J), or to be fulfilled after the
death
of him who has imposed it (xlvii. 29 J), is taken
with
the hand under the thigh.
SETTLEMENT IN GOSHEN (CH. XLVI. 28-XLVII.
11)
Dillmann assigns xlvi. 28-xlvii. 5a, 6b,
to J; and xlvii.
5b,
6a, 7-11, to P.
It is argued that xlvi. 28 sqq. belongs to
a different
document
from the preceding, because in ver. 6 (P) Jacob
and
his family had already come into Egypt, whereas in
ver.
28 he is still on the way thither, and sends Judah
before
him to Joseph to obtain the necessary directions
about
admission to Goshen. This, it is said,
is J's ac-
count;
and according to Wellhausen it connects directly
with
ver. 5. But that belongs to E. According to the
usual
method of Hebrew writing, a summary statement of
the
journey is made at the outset (vs. 5, 6), and the de-
tails
are introduced afterward (vs. 28 sqq.).
These the
critics
erect into two separate accounts, as they are ac-
customed
to do elsewhere and with just as little reason.
Wellhausen finds a discrepancy between the
modest
request
(ver. 34 J) for the land of Goshen and the grand
offer
previously made by Pharaoh (xlv. 18 E) of the
best
portion of the land of Egypt. But, as
Dillmann ex-
plains,
this is not the meaning of Pharaoh's offer.
He
has
no thought of their taking up their abode in Egypt.
His
proposal is not to present them with a choice part
of
the country as their residence, but to supply their ne-
cessities
during the prevalence of the famine.
"The
500 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
good
of the land," which he says that he will give them,
denotes,
as is plain from vs. 20, 23; xxiv. 10; 2 Kin. viii.
9,
the good things, the best and choicest products of the
land. The sons of Jacob make an advance upon the
promise
given them by the king, when instructed by
Joseph
they ask that Goshen may be assigned to them
to
dwell in. And when in response to this
request the
king
assures them that they may dwell in Goshen, "in
the
best of the land" (xlvii. 6), he uses a different term
from
that contained in his original offer (not
bUUF,
but
bFAyme).
The critics allege that Pharaoh's
invitation to Joseph's
father
and brethren in ch. xlv. E is here
entirely ignored,
and
their coming is announced to the king (xlvi. 31;
xlvii.
1), as something altogether new and unexpected;
this
must, therefore, be a variant account of the matter
as given
by J. But this is by no means the
case. Pha-
raoh
had invited them to come, and now Joseph goes to
tell
him that they have arrived. The
invitation is ac-
cepted;
what occasion was there to say more?
The attempt is also made to produce two
divergent
accounts
of the reception by Pharaoh. The critics
em-
ploy
for this purpose their customary method of making
the
part stand for the whole, and arraying successive in-
cidents
against each other as though they were variant
reports
of the same transaction. Joseph first
presents
five
of his brethren to the king that they may tell him
their
occupation and have an appropriate residence as-
signed
them. He then presents his father, causa
honoris,
for
a formal interview. This is all natural
enough. The
complaint
is made that the father, as the head of the
clan,
ought to be have been presented first.
The objec-
tor
may settle that matter with the historian, or, if he
pleases,
with R. The sons were the active members
of
the family, and the reason given in the narrative itself
SETTLEMENT
IN GOSHEN (XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 501
for
the order of procedure is; sufficient.
How the sons
were
deferred to in matters of importance affecting the
family
is plain from other narratives likewise (cf. xxiv.
50,
53, 55, 59; xxxiv. 5, 11, 13). Moreover,
the critics will
have
it that there was but one presentation; according
to J
(vs. 2 sqq.) Joseph presented his
brothers unto
Pharaoh;
on the contrary, P states (vs. 7-11) that it was
his
father that Joseph presented. The simple
fact is
that
he presented both at different times, as the nar-
rative
declares; so there is no discrepancy whatever.
Hupfeld
evidently saw none, as he does not separate vs.
7-11
from the preceding verses; neither did Delitzsch in
the
first four editions of his "Commentary."
Kayser gives ver. 11 to E, on account of
its manifest
connection
with vs. 5, 6. Wellhausen, Dillmann, and
others
reverse the argument, and give vs. 5b, 6a, to P on
account
of their correspondence in thought and expres-
sion
with ver. 11. This gives an opportunity
to claim
that
J and P use different designations for the territory
assigned
to Israel; what the former calls Goshen (vs. 4,
6b),the
latter denominates the land of Rameses (ver.11).
Yet
"the land of Rameses" is found only in this single
passage;
it is called "Goshen" in ver. 27 P, where a
critical
process is necessary to eliminate it, and, as Kay-
ser
observes, Rameses occurs in Ex. i. 11 E; xii. 37 J, as
the
name of a city, from which the surrounding region
might
readily derive its appellation; and it is admitted
that
the land of Rameses and Goshen have precisely the
same
signification.
The authority of the LXX. is here adduced
to justify
the
critical severance of vs. 5, 6. The LXX.
have here,
as
so frequently elsewhere, rearranged the text for rea-
sons
of their own, which in this instance are quite appar-
ent. In order to bring Pharaoh's answer into more
ex-
act
correspondence with the request of Joseph's brothers,
502 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
they
limit it to ver. 6b, which they attach to the opening
words
of ver. 5; and then to prepare the way for the
clauses
which have been passed over, vs. 5b, 6a are intro-
duced
by the following insertion, "And Jacob and his sons
came
into Egypt to Joseph, and Pharaoh the king of
Egypt
heard it; and Pharaoh spake to Joseph, saying."
The
critics eagerly catch at this, and claim that it supplies
a
missing portion of the original text of P.
But surely no
unbiassed
person would think of substituting this for the
Masoretic
text of these verses.
MARKS OF P
1.
The statement of age (ver. 9).
See ch. vi.-ix.,
Marks
of P, No.2; ch. xvi., No.1.
2. ynew; yy.eHa ymey; the
days of the years of the life of (vs. 8,
9). See ch. xxiii., Marks of P, No.5. The same phrase
also
2 Sam. xix. 35 (E. V., ver. 34).
3. Myrigum; pilgrimage (ver. 9).
See ch. xvii., Marks of
P,
No.8.
4. hz.AHuxE possession (ver. 11). See ch. xvii., Marks of
P,
No.7.
MARKS OF J
1. vyrAxy.Aca-lfa lpanA fell
on his neck
(xlvi. 29); only besides
in J
xxxiii. 4; in xlv. 14 it is cut out of an E connection
on
account of this very phrase.
2.
Israel (xlvi. 29, 30). See ch.
xxxvii., Marks of J,
No.1;
ch. xlii.-xliv., No.5.
3. MfaPaha this time, E. V., now (ver. 30). See ch. xviii.,
xix.,
lVlarks of J,.No. 9.
4. yHa j~d;Of thou art yet
alive
(ver. 30). The repetition
of
this and equivalent expressions in this narrative is
due
on the one hand to Joseph's solicitude about his
father,
and on the other his father's long-continued ap-
SETTLEMENT
IN GOSHEN (XLVI. 28-XLVII. 11) 503
prehension
that Joseph was dead. It is the natural
way
of
expressing the thought, and cannot with any propriety
be
classed as the characteristic of any particular docu-
ment. It is found besides in J (xliii. 7, 27, 28),
in E
(xlv.
3, 26), and in ver. 28, which is cut out of an E con-
nection
and given to J; also in E (Ex. iv. 18); in D or
Rd. (Deut. xxxi. 27); in other books, 1 Sam. xx.
14; 2
Sam.
xii. 22; xviii. 14; 1 Kin. xx. 32.
5. MyriUfn.;mi from
youth
(ver. 34). The word "youth"
occurs
but once besides in the Hexateuch with this
preposition
(Gen. viii. 21 J), and but twice without it
(Lev.
xxii. 13 P; Num. xxx. 4 (E. V., ver. 3)) commonly
referred
to P, though Dillmann is disposed to assign it to
a
code of laws which he denominates S. In
other books
of
the Bible "from youth" occurs repeatedly; and it is
plainly
not the peculiar property of anyone writer.
6. hbAfeOT abomination (ver. 34); in the Hexateuch be-
sides,
xliii. 32; Ex. viii. 22 (E. V., ver. 26) J; Lev. xviii.
22,
26, 27, 29, 30; xx. 13, and repeatedly in Deuteron-
omy.
7. gyc.ihi presented (xlvii. 2); besides in
Hexateuch,
xxx.
38; xxxiii. 15; xliii. 9 J; Ex. x. 24 E; Deut.
xxviii.
56 D. That dymif<h, is used in ver. 7 P in the
same
sense is no indication of a different document,
since
it is used likewise in J (Num. xi. 24).
8. dbeKA heavy, sore (ver. 4).
See ch. xlii.-xliv., Marks
of
J, N 14.
9. rUbfEBa in order that (xlvi. 34). See xxi. 22-34,
Marks
of E, No.3.
10. MGa . . . MGa both . . . and (ver. 34); be-
sides
in J (xxiv. 25, 44; xliii. 8; xliv. 16; xlvii. 3; 1. 9);
in
J, based on E and worked over by R (xlvii. 19); an
ancient
writing inserted in J (Deut. xxxii. 25);
in E
(Gen.
xxxii. 20, E. V., ver. 19, Ex. xii. 32, xviii. 18), in
P
(Num. xviii. 3).
504 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Jacob
commissions J1;I-dah (xlvi. 28) rather than Reu- ben, because of the confidence
inspired by his character, which made him an acknowledged leader among his
brethren (xlix. 8), as Peter among the apostles. This is not the in,Tention of
a writer partial to Judah, and so a criterion of one document in distinction
from another.
JOSEPH'S
ARRANGEMENTS IN EGYPT (CH. XLVII. 12-27)
An account is here given of the measures
adopted by
Joseph
during the famine. The only source of
supply
was
the stores of grain, which as the chief officer of the
government
he had amassed from the over-production of
the
seven years of plenty (xli. 34-36, 47-49).
In pur-
chasing
their necessary food during the years of scarcity
that
followed, the people parted first with all their money,
then
with all their cattle and beasts of burden, and finally
with
their lands.l Thus the land became the
property
of
the king; and it became the established rule in Egypt
that
the people should pay to him, as the owner of the
land,
a rental of one-fifth of its produce.
Wellhausen says that this peculiar passage
(vs. 13-26)
has
no proper connection either in E or J; he assumes
that
it originally had its place in a parallel by J to ch.
xli. Dillmann thinks that it was written as the
continu-
ation
of ch. xli., since ver. 13 connects with xli. 55, 56.
The intimate connection between this
passage and ch.
1 The LXX., followed by the Samaritan and the Vulgate, read
(ver. 21):
"He enslaved them as servants to him," i.e., Pharaoh
MydibAfEla
Otxo dybif<h,, as though after disposing of their lands
the peo-
ple sold themselves. This variant text implies that Joseph took
the
people at their word when they offered
(ver. 19) to become bond-ser-
vants to Pharaoh for the sake of
bread. It agrees also with vs. 23, 25.
The Hebrew reads, "He removed them to
cities" MyrifAl, Otxo rybif<h,,
that they might be nearer the storehouses,
and their wants more easily
supplied.
JOSEPH’S ARRANGEMENTS (CH. XLVII. 12-27) 505
xli.
is obvious, and it may be said to continue the narra-
tive
of that chapter. Chapter xli. records
how Joseph
stored
up the grain during the years of plenty; and when
the
years of dearth began to come, the people went to him
to
buy their food. Then the passage before
us tells how
the
people were impoverished, as the famine continued
from
year to year, by the purchases that they were
obliged
to make. But it does not follow from
this that
it
originally formed a part of that chapter, and is now
out
of its proper place. The narrative of
Joseph's deal-
ings
with the Egyptians was interrupted in order to tell
of
the coming of his brothers, and to explain how this
resulted
in the removal of Jacob and his family to Egypt
and
their settlement there. This, in fact,
is the princi-
pal
reason why the famine was spoken of at all.
When
this
recital is ended, the unfinished subject of Joseph's
dealings
with the Egyptians is resumed and completed.
And the details here given upon this
subject are not so
much
designed to impart information about Egypt as to
exhibit
by contrast the providential care extended over
the
chosen race in this period of sore distress.
While
the
Egyptians were reduced to the greatest straits, "Jo-
seph
nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his
father's
household with bread" (ver. 12).
"And Israel
dwelt
in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and
they
gat them possessions therein, and were fruitful and
multiplied
exceedingly" (ver. 27). Verses 12
and 27,
from
which the critics propose to sunder this paragraph,
are
thus essential to a proper understanding of it; and
its
proper place is where it now stands between them.
This paragraph likewise prepares the way
for Ex. i. 8.
The
oppression of Israel by a king "who knew not Jo-
seph,"
is a manifest allusion to the service which he had
rendered
to the nation, and to the advantage which he
had
secured for the king, as here detailed.
506 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Kayser refers vs. 12-26 to J, Schrader to
E; Dillmann
thinks
that the original account was by E, this was re-
written
by J, and then worked over by R. Verse
27 he
gives
to P, except the words "the land of Goshen;"
Kayser
gives ver. 27a to J on account of this phrase, and
27b
to P. Knobel contends that ver. 27 must
belong to
the
preceding paragraph, to which it is attached with the
view
of contrasting the condition of Israel, with the Egyp-
tians,
and that it cannot, therefore, be assigned to P,
notwithstanding
its use of P expressions; especially as
it
also has the J phrase, "land of Goshen," and it dupli-
cates
the P verse (Ex. i. 7). This blending of
the al-
leged
characteristics of different documents simply shows
that
what the critics regard as criteria of distinct writers
are
freely used by the same writer.
MARKS
OF E
1. The accurate account of Egyptian
matters, and the
analogy
between vs. 25, 26; and xli. 34. But
these afford
no
indication of the existence of distinct documents.
2. lKel;Ki nourished (ver. 12). This verb is here used
with
evident reference to its occurrence in Joseph's
promise
(xlv. 11), which he now fulfils. That
these pas-
sages
are to be attributed to the same writer is readily ad-
mitted,
but not to a writer E, distinct from the author of
xlvi.
6-xlvii. 11 which the critics divide between P and
J. According to this partition, E here records
Joseph's
fulfilment
of his promise to nourish his father and his
family
in Egypt, without having mentioned the fact that
they
had arrived in Egypt, or even that they had accepted
the
invitation to come thither.
3. qzaHA prevailed (ver. 20), as over against dbeKA sore, se-
vere (ver. 13 J). See ch. xlii.-x1iv., No. 14. That two
different
words are used in different passages to describe
JOSEPH'S
ARRANGEMENTS (CH. XLVII. 12-27) 507
the
intensity of the famine is no indication of a diversity
of
writers, unless a writer can never vary his expressions.
MARKS OF J
1. dbeKA sore (ver. 13). See ch. Xlii.-xliv., No. 14.
2. xcAm;n.iha found (ver. 14). The participle chances to
occur
but twice besides in the Hexateuch (Gen. xix. 15
J;
Deut. xx. 11 D), but the verb is of frequent occur-
rence,
and is found in all the so-called documents.
3.
MTa fail,
be spent
(vs. 15, 18); besides in J Lev. xxvi.
20
(so Dillm.); Num. xxxii. 13; Josh. iv. 10, 11; E, Num.
xiv.
33; Josh. iv. 1; v. 8;
x. 20; JE, Josh. iii. 16, 17; viii.
24;
P, Lev. xxv. 29; Num. xiv. 35; xvii. 28 (E. V., ver.
13);
Deut. xxxiv. 8; D, Deut. ii. 14, 15, 16; Rd, Deut.
xxxi.
24, 30, Josh. v. 6.
4. Horses (ver. 17). It is alleged that J speaks of
horses
and horsemen in Egypt, but E does not.
This is
said
to indicate that E was better acquainted with Egyp-
tian
affairs, as the monuments give no evidence of the ex-
istence
of horses there until after the Hyksos period;
and
although Diodorus Siculus speaks of horsemen in
the
army of Sesostris, horses would seem to have been
used
only for chariots in the first instance, and cavalry
to
belong to a later period (Isa. xxxi. 1; xxxvi. 9). That
they
have not yet been found upon the monuments of so
early
a date is a negative testimony which is liable at
any
time to be set aside by some fresh discovery, and is
of
no force against the positive statements of the passage
J
under consideration and others like it.
Moreover, there
is
no variance between the passages attributed to J and to
E. It is observable that in the presents made by
Pha-
raoh
to Abram (xii. 16 J) mention is made of sheep and
oxen
and asses and camels, but not of horses.
J, how-
ever,
speaks (xlvi. 29) of Joseph making ready his chariot,
508 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
which
implies horses; and more explicitly (1. 9), of his
going
with chariots and horsemen to bury his father.
Dillmann
remarks that while according to E wagons
were
sent for Jacob by Pharaoh's direction (xlv. 19, 21,
27;
xlvi 5), they may have been drawn by other animals
than
horses; and at any rate he is disposed to think that
these
verses though in an E context may have been in-
serted
by R. E, however, speaks of Joseph's chariot (xli.
43). And Ex. xiv. is divided on the assumption
that vs.
6,
7, which speak of Pharaoh's chariots, are from E, but
vs.
9, 17, 18, 23, 26, 28, which mention horsemen as well
as
chariots, are from J. The latter is
supposed to have put
a
wrong interpretation upon the words "the horse and
his
rider," in the Song of Moses (Ex. xv. 1), which is al-
leged
to refer to charioteers, not to horsemen.
This
whole
theory is spoiled, however, by Josh. xxiv. 6 E,
which
expressly says that the horsemen as well as the
chariots
of the Egyptians pursued Israel into the Red
Sea. Dr. Dillmann tries to evade this result by
saying
that
"chariots and horsemen" cannot be from E, and
must
therefore have been inserted by R.
The case then stands thus: In vs. 6, 7, of Ex. xiv.,
chariots
are spoken of without separate mention of horse-
men,
though both are joined together throughout the
rest
of the chapter. This is made a pretext
for assigning
those
verses to E in distinction from J, and inferring
that
E never speaks of horsemen. But horsemen
are
spoken
of along with chariots in the E verse Josh. xxiv.
6;
this being contrary to the critic's assumption the
words
are stricken out and declared to be an interpola-
tion
by B. And this is all the ground there
is for the
alleged
variance between J and E in this particular.
5.
hc,qA end (ver. 21); besides in J, Gen. xix. 4;
xlvii.
2;
Josh. ix. 16; in E, Ex. xix. 12; Num. xx. 16; xxii. 36,
41;
xxiii. 13; in JE, Josh. iii. 2, 8, 15; iv. 19; in D, Dent.
JOSEPH'S
ARRANGEMENTS (CH. XLVII. 12-27) 509
xiii.
8 (E. V., ver. 7); xiv. 28; xxviii. 49, 64; xxx. 4; in
Rd,
Deut. iv. 32; Josh. xiii. 27; in P, Gen. viii. 3b; xxiii.
9;
Ex. xiii. 20; xvi. 35; xxvi. 5, 28; Num. xi. 1; xxxiii.
6,
37; xxxiv. 3; Josh. xv. 1, 2, 5, 8, 21; xviii. 15, 16, 19;
later
addition to P, Ex. xxxvi. 12, 33.
6. qra only (vs. 22, 26). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J,
No.7.
7. yneyfeB; NHe xcAmA find favor in the eyes of. See ch. vi.
1-8,
Marks of J, No. 10; ch. xviii., xix., No. 28.
8. Nxc.oha hnEq;mi possession
of flocks, rqABAha hneq;mi possession
of herds (ver. 17), hmAheB;ha hneq;mi possession of cattle (ver.
18);
only once besides in the Pentateuch (xxvi. 14 J).
9. tdoyA parts (ver. 24); only once besides in
the Penta-
teuch
in this sense (xliii. 34 J).
The occurrence of a few unusual words in
this para-
graph
need create no difficulty as to its authorship, un-
less
upon the assumption that no writer can use a word
in
one place which he has not used elsewhere.
The fol-
lowing
are noted by Dillmann: h.halA fainted (ver. 13), but
in
one besides in the Old Testament (Prov. xxvi. 18); spexA
fail
(vs. 15, 16), only besides, Ps. lxxvii. 9, Isa. xvi. 4,
xxix.
20; lhane fed (ver. 17), nowhere
else in the Old Testa-
ment
in precisely the same sense; it is found twice besides
in
the Hexateuch, where it means "to lead;" MmewA be
deso-
late (ver. 19), in the Kal form but once
besides in the
Hexateuch
(Lev. xxvi. 32); xhe lo! (ver. 23), nowhere else
in
the Hexateuch, and but once besides in the Old Testa-
ment.
MARKS OF P (VER. 27)
1. "Land of Egypt" with
"land of Goshen;" but
this
is no mere superfluous repetition, and as such indi-
cative
of the blending of two separate accounts.
Israel
was
settled in the country of Egypt and the province of
Goshen.
510 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
2. zHax<n, had possessions.
See ch. xxxiv., Marks of P.,
No.4.
3. hbrAv; hrAPA were fruitful and multiplied.
See ch.
vi.-ix.,
Marks of P, No. 15.
JACOB
CHARGES JOSEPH AND ADOPTS HIS SONS
(CH. XLVII. 28-XLVIII. 22)
The critics generally agree in giving
xlvii. 28; xlviii.
3-6,
to P, and xlvii. 29-31 to J. There is less
agree-
ment
in the partition of the remainder of ch. xlviii., viz.,
whether
vs.1, 2 belong to J (Schrader), E (Wellhausen),
or
2b to J and 1, 2a to E (Dillmann); ver. 7 to P (Hupfeld,
Wellhausen,
Dillmann), or a gloss (Schrader, Kayser);
vs.
8-22 to E (Hupfeld, Schrader, Wellhausen); or vs. 9a,
10b,
11, 12, 15, 16, 20 (in part), 21, 22, to E, and vs. 9b,
10a,
13, 14,17-19, 20b, to J (Dillmann); Kuenen1 regards
vs.
13, 14, 17-19 as a later interpolation, and gives the
rest
to E.
Hupfeld claims that there are most evident
signs of
the
diversity of the accounts at the close of Jacob's his-
tory
in respect to his final charges to his sons and his
burial. And Wellhausen adds that there is scarcely a
passage
in Genesis where the strata of the sources are so
palpable
as in the latter part of ch. xlvii. and the first of
ch.
xlviii. In xlvii. 28, he says, there is
a beginning by
P,
in ver. 29 another by J, and in xlviii. 1 a third begin-
ning
of the very same history by E. But the
fact is that
there
is no diversity of sources here whatever; all is
linked
together as one regularly unfolding and continu-
ous
narrative. The statement of the full age
of a patri-
arch
always immediately precedes the account of his
death;
so of Noah, ix. 29, Abraham, xxv. 7, and
Isaac
xxxv.
28. In conformity with this usage the
statement
1
Hexateuch, p. 146.
ADOPTION
OF JOSEPH'S SONS(XLVII.28-XLVIII.22) 511
of
Jacob's age (xlvii. 28) is followed by the mention of
his
approaching death, in view of which he sends for
Joseph
and gives him direction respecting his burial, just
as
the mention of Joseph's age (1. 22, 23) is followed by
a
similar charge to his brethren respecting the disposition
of
his body (vs. 24, 25). Ch. xl .i. 28 is
thus plainly pre-
liminary
to vs. 29-31, which letter is not a variant ac-
count
of the same transaction as xlix. 29-32; this be-
longs
to a subsequent occasion, and to an interview of
Jacob
with all his sons and not with Joseph only.
And
the
visit of Joseph to his father in xlviii. 1 is not identi-
cal
with that described in the preceding verses, but, as is
expressly
declared, occurred later; Joseph came, not as
before,
on his fathers invitation, but of his own motion
on
hearing of his father's increased illness; and the sub-
ject
of the interview is altogether different, concerning
not
Jacob's burial but the adoption and blessing of Jo-
seph's
sons.
Moreover, xlvii: 29-31 cannot be
sundered from ch.
xlviii. The opening words of xlviii. 1, "And It
came to
pass
after these things," is an explicit reference to what
immediately
precedes. The critics tell us that this
is a
formula
belonging to E; but there is nothing in E with
which
to connect it. Dillmann finds traces of
E in xlvii.
E
12-27, but derives this paragraph in its present form
from
J, and besides, he holds that it has been transposed
from
its original position at the end of ch. xli.
Accord-
ingly
the last statement in E is xlvi. 5a, "and Jacob rose
up
from Beersheba" to go to Egypt.
And
in addition to this formal reason there is a ma-
terial
one, which is still more decisive. The
effect of
separating
ch, xlviii. from the verses that immediately
precede
is that while P and E record Jacob's adoption
of
Manasseh and Ephraim, J makes no mention of it,
and
so does not explain how they came to be included
512 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
in
the number of the tribes, as they are over after in J
as
well as E and P. Wellhausen recognizes
this, and
admits
that the interview of Jacob with Joseph in xlvii.
29-31
is incomplete; and that J must likewise have con-
tained
a parallel to ch. xlviii., only R has not seen fit to
preserve
it. Dillmann seeks to escape the same
diffi-
culty
by an elaborate dissection of ch. xlviii., in order to
obtain
for J a share of its contents. These
expedients
for
relieving a difficulty of their own creation simply
show
that these chapters cannot be separated.
The sep-
aration
is no sooner effected than they must be brought
together
again.
The necessity of finding P, J, and E in
ch. xlviii. cre-
ates
a fresh difficulty in regard to the disposal of vs. 1,
2. These verses are essential to the following
narrative;
hence
they are variously assigned by different critics, with
the
effect of leaving the account in some of the docu-
ments
without any proper introduction.
Vs. 3-6 are assigned to P because of the
evident allu-
sion
to xxxv. 10-12, and are regarded as his account of
Jacob's
adoption of the two sons of Joseph. But
the
inverted
order, "Ephraim and Manasseh" (ver 5; see
xli.
50-52; xlvi. 20) requires for its explanation vs. 17-
19,
showing that these cannot be attributed to different;
documents. Dillmann has no resource but to assume that
R
has altered the text. The adoption and the
subse-
quent
blessing are consequently successive parts of the
transaction,
and cannot b set over against each other as
though
each was a complete and variant account of the
whole
affair.
Ver. 7 is a fresh source of perplexity to
the critics.
They
cannot imagine why Jacob should have spoken just
here
of Rachel's death and burial. Some
consider it a
later
gloss; but it is more unaccountable as an interpola-
tion
than as an original constituent of the text.
For
ADOPTION
OF JOSEPH'S SONS(XLVII.28-XLVIII.22) 513
what
conceivable motive could any one have for inserting
what
has no apparent connection with the subject of the
chapter? An additional perplexity arises from the fact
that
"Paddan" (abridged from Paddan-aram) is a P word,
while
the body of the verse is evidently based upon xxxv.
16,
19, E. This might be avoided by
referring the latter
passage
to P; but then the opportunity of creating an
apparent
discrepancy between it and xxxv. 22b-26 P
would
be lost. If P had just before said that
Benjamin
was
born at Ephrath, he could not have intended to in-
clude
him in the general statement that Jacob's sons,
were
born in Paddan-aram. In spite, however,
of its
manifest
dependence upon an E passage, Wellhausen and
Dillmann
follow Noldeke in ascribing ver. 7 to P, as well
as
in assuming that in the document P it was dlrectly-
connected
with xlix. 29 sqq., and was suggested by the
thought
that Rachel alone was buried elsewhere than in
the
family burying-ground which Abraham had pur-
chased. R is credited with having transposed vs. 3-7
to
its
present position, and thus converted what was said
by
Jacob in the presence of all his sons into an address
to
Joseph. Kuenen,1
with more critical consistency,
alleges
that the acquaintance with both P and E, which
is
presupposed in ver. 7, makes it necessary to attribute
it
to R; still, as he confesses, the question remains "how
R
could have inserted it in so inapposite a place." From
this
he seeks relief in the attempted solution of Budde,
who
never hesitates at any extravagance of conjecture to
accomplish
his purpose. According to Budde, in P's
nar-
rative,
xlviii. 3-6 was immediately followed by xlix. 29-
33,
and the last clause of ver. 31 read, "and there I bu-
ried
Leah and Rachel." As this flatly
contradicted xxxv.
16
sqq., R struck out the words "and Rachel," inserting
instead
the statement respecting her death and burial,
1
Hexateuch, p. 327.
514 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
which
is now found in xlviii. 7, and placed this whole
paragraph
thus modified directly after xlviii. 1, 2.
At a
later
time another redactor rearranged the text by trans-
ferring
xlix. 29-32 from the place where his predecessor
had
put it to its present position after the blessing of
Jacob
(xlix. 1-28); but "xlviii. 7 was left where it was,
and
thus came to occupy its present very singular posi-
tion." All this wonderful amount of conjectural
erasure,
interpolation,
transposition, and rearrangement1 is sum-
moned
to remove a difficulty which is no difficulty at
all,
except as it is created by the critical partition. What
was
more natural than that Jacob, in speaking to the son
of
his beloved Rachel, and recalling the divine manifes-
tation
granted to him at Luz (xxxv. 9-15), should be led
to
speak of the sorrow that befell him immediately after
in
the death of Joseph's mother (vs. 16 sqq.)?
By giving vs. 3-7 to P, on account of El
Shaddai and
other
alleged criteria, the critics make of it a discon-
nected
fragment, severed from its appropriate introduc-
tion
and from the rest of the scene in which it has its
proper
place. After this has been separated
from the
remainder
of the chapter, a further difficulty arises from
the
intermingling of heterogeneous criteria; Elohim, a
mark
of E, runs through the chapter (vs. 9,11, 15, 20, 21);
but
so does Israel, a mark of J (vs. 2b, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14,
(20),
21), these diverse criteria meeting at times in the
same
sentence. Wellhausen makes no attempt to
divide
them,
but gives the whole to E, affirming that it every-
where
shows his peculiarities, and that henceforward R
no
longer preserves the distinction between J and E in
1 Dillmann's comment upon this proposal of Budde is, "How super-
fluous, since the alleged contradiction
was already removed by erasing
‘and Rachel’! and what an injustice to P
to introduce into it by an
emendation a contradiction to universal
tradition, in order then to let it
be harmonized by R! Such criticism would scarcely be admissible
even
in the case of profane writers.
ADOPTION
OF JOSEPH'S SONS(XLVII.28-XLVIII.22) 515
their
respective use of Israel and Jacob. But
as there is
no
reason why he should discontinue it here, if he had
observed
it at all, the admission that it is inadmissible
as a
criterion in this and the following chapters, dis-
credits
its legitimacy in those that have gone before.
Dillmann, with sturdy consistency, makes a
bold at-
tempt
to preserve both these criteria, and to partition the
chapter
on this basis. As the natural result J
and E
receive
separate portions of the narrative, which when
sundered
can be made to appear to give variant rep-
resentations
of the affair. Thus in E nothing is said
of
Jacob's
blindness; he embraces and kisses Joseph's
sons,
but blesses Joseph, placing Ephraim before Ma-
nasseh,
and giving Shechem to Joseph. In J the
prefer-
ence
of Ephraim is the central point of the representa-
tion,
and the blessing is bestowed upon Joseph's sons.
Jacob,
who is blind, crosses his hands in order to place
his
right hand on the head of Ephraim, to which Joseph
objects,
but Jacob insists.
Notwithstanding its ingenuity, however,
this partition
is
not successful. Dillmann admits that in
vs. 8, 11, 21
Israel
occurs where he would have expected Jacob. In
ver.
8 "Israel beheld Joseph's
sons," showing that the
blindness
of ver. 10 J was not total, and hence not incon-
sistent
with ver. 11 E; in vs. 11, 21, "Israel said unto
Joseph"
is given to J, but as Elohim occurs in what he
says,
this is given to E. Kautzsch seeks to remedy the
matter
by assuming that R has in these instances sub-
stituted
"Israel" for" Jacob;" but why he should do
so
it is hard to see. In his last edition
Dillmann, while
retaining
his partition, admits that Israel" cannot here be
made
a criterion, since it is carried through the en-
tire
narrative. He attempts to explain it by
saying
that
in this instance "R made J the basis and only
worked
in E." A much simpler account of
the matter is
516 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
that
Jacob is used (vs. 24: 3) as the personal name; but
as
the prominent thought throughout the chapter is the
elevation
of Ephraim and Manasseh to be the heads of
separate
tribes in the national organization, the name
Israel
was especially appropriate.
And the attempt to create a distinction
between vs.
15,
16, 20, E, and ver. 19 J, as though the blessing was
given
to Joseph in the former, but to his sons in the lat-
ter,
is altogether futile; for Joseph is blessed by invok-
ing
a blessing upon "the lads;" and the allegation that
R
has substituted "blessed them" for "blessed him" in
ver.
20 is at variance with the contents of the verse. In
fact,
by this partition the whole of the blessing proper is
given
to E, and only the preliminary arrangements, put-
ting
the boys in position and placing the hands on their
heads
with Joseph's disapproval and Jacob's insistence,
are
reserved for J; but these manifestly belong together,
and
cannot form two separate narratives of the trans-
action.
A duplicate narrative is inferred from the
circumstance
that
Joseph is twice said to have brought his sons to his
father
(vs. 10b, 13b). But this is not a
twofold mention
of
the same act. They were first led to
Jacob, who affec-
tionately
embraced them; they were then placed in the
proper
position before him to receive his formal bless-
ing.
It is further claimed that vs.15, 16
interrupt the account
of
Jacob's crossing his hands, and that vs. 17-19 interrupt
the
continuity of the blessing; hence it is inferred that
something
has in each case been intruded from another
narrative. This simply means that the critic differs
from
the
writer m regard to the proper arrangement of the
material
which he has introduced into his narrative.
He
saw fit to continue Jacob's action as far as vs. 15, 16
before
proceeding to say in vs. 17-19 how Joseph inter-
ADOPTION
OF JOSEPH'S SONS(XLVII.28-XLVIII.22) 517
rupted
it. On the critics' hypothesis R thought
this to
be
the best disposition of the matter; why may not the
original
writer have been of this opinion?
There is no implication in ver. 11 that
this was the
first
time that Jacob had seen Joseph's sons, any more
than
that it was the first time that he had seen Joseph
himself
since his arrival in Egypt. There is no
ground,
therefore,
for assuming a discrepancy with xlvii. 28, and
hence
a diversity of writers.
Nor does ver. 22 conflict with statements
elsewhere.
The
portion or ridge (Heb., shechem), which Jacob gives
to
Joseph, and “which," he says, "I took out of the
hand
of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow,"
refers
to the capture and sack of Shechem by the sons of
Jacob
(xxxiv. 27-29), which. Jacob deprecated (ver. 30),
and
strongly condemned (xlix. 5-7), but which, neverthe-
less,
was the act of his house, or of the clan of which he
was
the responsible head; and the property acquired in
a
manner which he so sharply censures he bestows not
upon
those who participated in the deed, but upon
Joseph,
as a mark of special favor, and an earnest of his
future
inheritance in the land of promise.
Dillmann ad-
mits
the reference to, and correspondence with, the pas-
sage
named above, but claims that a diverse representa-
tion
of the transaction is given in other parts of ch.
xxxiv.,
which was shown to be unfounded when that
chapter
was under discussion. There is no need,
there-
fore,
of supposing that "took" is a prophetic preterite
(Tuch),
or that Shechem is not referred to, but some
other
district whose capture is not recorded (Kurtz), or
that
the allusion is to the land purchased at Shechem
by
Jacob (xxxiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32), which he may sub-
sequently
have had to defend by force of arms, or of al-
tering
the text, with Kuenen, into "not with my sword and
with
my bow," or imagining that "sword" and "bow"
518 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
are
figuratively used to d~note purchase-money as the
efficient
instrument of gaining possession.
The following divine names occur in this
section: El
Shaddai
(ver. 3), with allusion to xxxv. 11, and to the
almighty
power which pledged the fulfilment of the
promise;
Elohim (vs. 9, 11, 20), with reference to gen-
eral
providential blessings; ha-Elohim (ver. 15), "the
God
before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did
walk,
the God, who fed me all my life long," is but a
paraphrase
of Jehovah; Elohim (ver. 21) is demanded
by
the contrast of the human with the divine; Jacob
dies,
but God the creator and governor of all will be
with
his descendants.
MARKS OF P
1.
Statement of age (xlvii. 28). See
ch. vi.-ix., Marks
of
P, No.2, ch. xvi., No.1.
2. The
days of the years pf the life of (ver 28).
See
ch.
xxiii., Marks of P, No.5.
3.
The back reference to xxxv. 6, 9, 11; the common
authorship
of these passages is not at variance with, but
involved
in, the unity of Genesis, which we maintain.
4. yDaw
lxe God
Almighty
(:xlviii. 3). See ch. xxvi. 34-
xxviii.
9, Marks of P, No.5.
5. MlAof
tz.aHuxE everlasting
possession
(ver. 4). See ch.
xvii.,
Marks of.P, No.7 and 17.
6.
j~yr,HExa h~fEr;za thy seed after thee (ver. 4). See ch.
vi.-
ix., Marks of P. No, 17.
7.
dyliOh beget (ver. 6).
See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.
20, ch. xvii., No. 10.
8.
Paddan (ver. 7). See ch.
xxv. ~9-34, Marks of P,
No.4.
MARKS OF E
1.
The unusual form of the infinitive hxor;
(:xlviii. 11),
as OWfE (xxxi. 28), hWfE (l. 20), with suf. UhWfE (Ex. xviii.
JACOB'S
BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.) 519
18)
E; there are but two examples besides in the Old
Testament,
hnoq;
(Prov. xvi. 16),
an Otw; (Prov. xxxi. 4).
2.
j`xAl;m.aha the angel
(ver. 16). See ch. xvi., Marks of
J,
No.1.
3.
ymiw; Mh,bA xreq.Ayi my name shall be called on them (ver.
16);
this is compared to xxi. 12 E, "in Isaac shall thy
seed
be called."
4. ll.ePi
thought (ver. 11); nowhere else in this sense.
5. hgADA
grow, as fishes increase (ver. 16), occurs no-
where
else. .
Such rare forms and expressions are no
indication of a
writer's
habitual style.
MARKS OF J
1. ryficA
younger (ver. 14). See xix. 29-38, Marks of J,
No.2.
2. Nxeme
refused (ver. 19); besides in J
(xxxvii. 35;
xxxix.
8; Ex. iv. 23; vii. 14; x. 3; xvi. 28); in E (Ex.
xxii.
16 (E. V., ver. 17); Num. xx. 21; xxii. 13,14); in D
(Deut.
xxv. 7).
The majority of critics refer the verses
containing ,
these
words to E.
JACOB'S BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.)
Dillmann and Schrader follow Knobel in
assigning to
P
vs. la, 28b-33. But that Jacob's address
to his sons
(vs.
1b-28a) cannot belong to P, notwithstanding" Shad-
dai,"
Almighty (ver. 25), is argued from Jehovah (ver.
18),
from the depreciation of Levi (ver. 7), from the
usage
of this document, which nowhere else contains a
poetical
passage, and from the lack of correspondence
between
this address and ver. 28b, "he blessed them,
everyone
according to his blessing he blessed them;"
520 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
this,
it is alleged, is quite inapplicable to what is said to
Reuben,
Simeon, and Lev (vs. 3-7), which is the reverse
of a
blessing. Nor can it belong to E, since
vs. 5-7 are
inconsistent
with xlviii. 22, and ver. 4 with the prefer-
ence
shown to Reuben in xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 30; xlii. 22,
37;
and in xlviii. 8 sqq. Jacob blesses
Joseph, but not
his
other sons. It is accordingly referred
to J not as
composed
by him, and consequently not on grounds of
diction
and style, but as a pre-existing writing incorpo-
rated
in his work, which is thought to be corroborated by
previous
allusions to what is here said or Reuben (ver. 4,
cf.
xxxv. 22), and or Simeon and Levi (vs. 5-7, cf. xxxiv.
25,
26, 30), as well as by the prominence given to Judah
(vs.
8-12).
Arguments which are merely inferences
from the un-
proved
partition hypothesis amount to nothing, and
may
be dismissed without further remark. The
fact is
that
there is no warrant for attaching this address or the
dying
Jacob to any one of the so-called documents in
distinction
from the others. It has been inserted in
its
place
by the author or Genesis as a whole, and contains
nothing
inconsistent with any part of the book.
That
the
reproofs administered to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi
are
intimately related to the passages which record the
facts
here referred to is obvious and is freely admitted;
and
there is not a single passage which they antagonize.
The
general tenor of this final address or Jacob to his
sons
is that of blessing, and amply justifies the language
used
respecting it in ver. 28b. It should
also be ob-
served
that while Reuben is degraded from the dignity
of
the firstborn in consequence of his shameful conduct,
and
Simeon and Levi are severely censured for their
deed
of cruelty and violence, and a penalty affixed, they
are not
utterly disowned or prohibited from sharing in
the
blessings and privileges of the covenant people. It
JACOB'S BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.) 521
has
before been shown that there is no variance between
vs.
5-7 and xlviii. 22 (see p. 517); and that the passages
in
which Reuben is prominent do not clash with those
which
give the preference to Judah (see pp. 448, 475-
477);
there is no inconsistency in the representations
anywhere
made respecting them. The weakness and
inefficiency
of Reuben appear in perpetual contrast
with
Judah's manly vigor and strength of character;
and
the confidence which Jacob reposes in the latter,
together
with his distrust of the former, corresponds
with
his attitude toward them in this address.
NO VATICINIUM POST EVENTUM.
The critics try to fix the age of this
blessing of Jacob
on
the assumption that it is a vaticinium post eventum.
Tuch
refers it to the time of Samuel when the tribe of
Levi
was in ill-repute from the gross misconduct of the
sons
of Eli and the capture of the ark; Ewald refers it
to
the time of Samson, the famous judge from the tribe
of
Dan; Knobel to the reign of David; Reuss to the time
of
David and Solomon; Wellhausen to the period of the
schism
and the rival kingdoms of Judah and Joseph;
Stade
to the time of Ahab; Dillmann seeks to make it all
square
with the time of the Judges. But the
fact is that
it
is impracticable to find any one period when this
blessing
could have been composed with the view of
setting
forth the existing state of things. The
sceptre in
Judah
found no adequate fulfilment until the reign of
David;
and from that time forth the consideration en-
joyed
by the tribe of Levi was such that it could not
possibly
have been spoken of in the terms here em-
ployed. So that Kuenen, in despair of finding any one
date
for the entire blessing, supposes it to be made up of
brief
sayings which circulated separately in the tribes to
522 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
which
they severally related. But even this
will not solve
the
problem. For the censures passed upon
the first
three
cannot be separated from the blessing of Judah,
for
which they evidently prepare the way, as he succeeds
to
the right of primogeniture vacated by his predecessors.
The prominence
given to Judah and Joseph above their
brethren
is clearly intentional, not accidental; and sev-
eral
of the blessings would be insignificant or unmean-
ing,
if taken by themselves and disconnected from the
rest.
The structure and contents of this
blessing make it im-
possible
to explain it as a vaticinium post eventum. What
is
said respecting Levi compels to the conclusion that it
is
pre-Mosaic. A dispersion resulting from
their priestly
rank
could not after the time of Moses be spoken of as a
sentence
for the misdeed of their ancestor. The
sentence
was
fulfilled in that the Levites had no inheritance in
Canaan,
but special habitations were assigned to them in
the
territory of the other tribes, not, however, as a degra-
dation
but a distinction. Their were the
ministers of the
sanctuary,
and the Lord was their inheritance. The
curse
was turned into a blessing. The language
in
which
Moses speaks of Levi in his farewell utterance
(Deut.
xxxiii. 8-11) is as different as possible from that
before
us. The whole blessing of Jacob is only
compre-
hensible
as utterances of the dying patriarch, modified
by
personal reminiscences, by insight into the characters
of
his sons, and by their very names, with its ejaculation
of
pious faith, which looked forward to the fulfilment of
the
promises so long delayed (ver. 18); and as a forecast-
ing
of the future which met its accomplishment at sepa-
rate
epochs and in unexpected ways, and which, while
clear
and sharp in a few strongly drawn outlines, is vague
in
others, and has no such exactness in minute details as
suggests
actual historical experience. The only
instance,
JACOB'S BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.) 523
in
which the specific location of a tribe in the land of
promise
is hinted at, is in apparent disagreement with
the
subsequent allotment under Joshua.
"Zebulun shall
dwell
at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an
haven
of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon"
(ver.
13). And yet Zebulun was separated from
the Sea
of
Galilee by Naphtali, and Asher lay between Zebulun
and
the Mediterranean. Fortunately the
critics are here
precluded
by their own hypothesis from discrediting the
truth
of the prophecy. Dillmann explains that
"the
boundary
between Asher and Zebulun is not strictly de-
fined
(Josh. xix. 14, 15), and therefore the possibility that
Zebulun
bordered on the Mediterranean with a strip of
land
is not excluded;" and he appeals in confirmation to
Josephus
("Antiquities," 5, 8, 22, "Jewish Wars," 3,3, 1).
It
is observable, however, that the Song of Deborah (Judg.
v.
17), after the settlement in Canaan, in adopting expres-
sions
from the verse which we are considering, applies
them
to other tribes, whose territory lay more entirely
upon
the coast and thus speaks of Dan as abiding in
ships
and Asher as continuing on the seashore.
This
suggests
what might have been expected in Gen. xlix.,
if
it had been composed after Israel's occupation of
Canaan.
The same thing appears from the language
of ver. 1,
which
announces as the theme of the prophecy what
shall
take place "in the last days."
As this expression
is
found repeatedly in the prophets, it has been urged as
an
indication that this blessing was composed or ver. 1
prefixed
to it in the prophetic period. But
"the last
days
" always denotes the ultimate future.
Jacob could
look
forward to the time when the promises made to
himself
and his fathers would be fulfilled as the ultimate
bound
of his hopes and expectations. But no
one living
at
any time that the critics may fix upon as the date of
524 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
this
chapter could have imagined that the ultimate future
was
already reached, or could describe the state of things
then
existing as what was to befall Israel in "the last
days."
All this points to the genuineness of this
blessing as
really
the utterance of Jacob, which it claims to be and
is
declared to be. Its antiquity is further
evidenced, as
is
remarked by Dillmann, by the peculiar figures em-
ployed
in vs. 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21-26, and its
many
rare expressions that I were disused in later times,
zHaPa bubbling
over, yrtiOh excel (ver. 4), hrAkem; sword (ver 5),
qqeHom; ruler's
staff
(ver. 10), tUs
clothes (ver. 11), yliylik;Ha
red (ver. 12), MyitaP;wimi sheepfolds (ver. 14), NOpypiw; adder (ver.17),
HaUlwA slender (ver. 21), and much besides in
vs.
22-26. To which add the citations from it or
allusions
to
it in the Mosaic period; comp. ver. 9 and Num. xxiv.
9,
xxiii. 24; vs. 13, 14, Zebulun before Issachar and sub-
sisting
by the sea, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 18, 19; vs. 25, 26, cf.
Deut.
xxxiii. 13-16.
The words, "And Jacob called unto his
sons" (ver. la),
are
sundered from their connection, and linked with vs.
28b-33
P, because the name "Jacob "is regarded as a
mark
of P. But as this deprives the blessing
of its in-
troduction,
which is here indispensable, it is neces-
sary
to assume that it was originally prefaced by a like
statement
from the pen of J; though no reason can be
given
why R should have removed it in order to substi-
tute
words identical in signification, but belonging to a
different
place. Wellhausen avoids this senseless
trans-
position
by disregarding here, as in the preceding chap-
ter,
the alleged criterion from the name of the patri-
arch.
Jacob's charge to his sons to bury him
with his fathers
in
the cave of Machpelah (vs. 29, sqq.), is held to be a
variant
account by P of the transaction recorded by J in
JACOB'S
BLESSING AND DEATH (CH. XLIX.)
525
xlvii.
29-31, P representing that to be enjoined upon all
his
sons, which according to J was addressed to Joseph
alone. Identifying distinct events, as we have seen
from
the
begining of Genesis to the end, is a favorite artifice
of
the critics, of which they make abundant use in ef-
fecting
the partition of the text. It was
natural and ap-
propriate
that Jacob should in the first instance make
his
appeal in this matter to Joseph, who was invested
with
supreme authority, and without whose permission
it
could not be done; and when his concurrence had
been
secured, that he should further make his wish
known
to all his sons, by whom was to be carried into
effect. The emphatic iteration in vs. 29-32, as in
the
original
account of the transaction referred to (ch. xxiii.),
and
the repetition of the identical terms of the original
purchase,
shows the stress laid by the writer on this initial
acquisition
of a permanent possession in the land of Ca-
naan.
The middle clause of ver. 33, "he
gathered up his feet
into
his bed," contains a plain allusion to the previous
mention
of his bed in xlvii. 31; xlviii. 2. In
conse-
quence,
Dillmann is constrained to cut out this clause
and
assign it to J, though there is nothing in J with
which
to connect it. Budde proposes to find a
connec-
tion
for it by attributing the first clause of the verse like-
wise
to J; but in doing so it is necessary for him to
change
"commanding" into "blessing," so as to link it
with
vs. 1- 27, instead of the immediately preceding
verses. All this only shows the embarrassment which
the
critics create for themselves by partitioning among
different
documents what is one indivisible narrative.
The divine names, El, God, and
Shaddai, Almighty, both
suggestive
of omnipotence, occur in ver. 25, and Jeho-
vah
in ver. 18, where Jacob gives expression to his own
pious
trust.
526 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
MARKS OF P (VS. 29-33)
1.
The back reference to ch. xxiii.
This is readily ad-
mitted,
but no argument can be derived from it in favor
of
critical partition.
2. fvaGA
expired (ver. 33). See ch. vi.-ix., Marks of P,
No.
18.
3. hz.AHuxE
possession (ver. 30). See ch. xvii., Marks of
P,
No. 7.
4. vym.Afa-lx, Jsax<n, was gathered unto his people (ver. 33).
See
ch. xxv. 1-11, Marks of P, No.5.
5. NfanaK; Cr,x, land of Canaan (ver. 30). See ch. xii. 5,
Marks
of P, No.4.
6.
The connection with 1. 12, 13.
The connection is
obvious,
but yields no proof of critical partition.
THE
BURIAL OF JACOB AND DEATH OF JOSEPH (CH. L.)
The critics are unanimous in referring vs.
12, 13 to P;
Kayser
and Schrader agree with Knobel in assigning the
remainder
of the chapter to J on the basis of an earlier
source;
Wellhausen, followed by Dillmann, attributes
vs.
4-11, 14 to J; vs. 15-26 to E; Wellhausen does not
venture
to determine the source of vs. 1-3, together with
the
first words of ver. 4; Dillmann thinks that they are
probably
to be attributed to J, who may have written on
the
basis of a previous account by E. The
reason of the
hesitation
about these opening verses is that the refer-
ence
to embalming is indicative of the same author as
in
ver. 26 E, while "Israel" (ver. 2) and "fell upon his
father's
face" are esteemed marks of J.
Moreover, J
here
describes the preparations for the burial of J
without
having mentioned the fact of his death; this is
found
only in P (xlix. 33).
We are told that there are two distinct
and varying
accounts
of Jacob's interment. That, in vs. 4-11,
14, is
THE BURIAL OF JACOB (CH. L.) 527
assigned
to J, because of the explicit reference in ver. 5
to
Joseph’s solemn promise to bury his father in Ca-
naan
(xlvii. 29-31); accordingly in this account Joseph
conducts
the funeral with great pomp and an immense
retinue. The other account by P (vs. 12, 13) is con-
formed
to the charge given by Jacob to all his sons
(xlix.
29-32); in it no prominence is given to Joseph,
who
is not even separately mentioned; Jacob is carried
to
Canaan by his sons, and there buried in the spot
which
he had indicated to them. But it has
already
been
shown that the direction respecting his burial given
by
Jacob to Joseph, and that to all his sons, are not va-
riant
reports of the same transaction in different docu-
ments. Hence the reference to them both in this
chap-
ter
affords no argument for a diversity of sources here.
And
besides, the proposed partition is impracticable; it
simply
creates two fragments, neither of which is com-
plete
without the other. In J Joseph goes with
a great
company
to bury his father; he comes back after bury-
ing
his father; but of the actual burial nothing is said.
The
only account of that is in the verses which are cut
out
and assigned to P. Again, in P the sons
of Jacob
carry
him to Canaan and bury him, but nothing is said
of
their return to Egypt; that is only to be found in
ver.
14, which is given to J.
It is claimed, however, that there is a
discrepancy as
to
the place of interment; but the critics are not agreed
as
to what or where this discrepancy is.
Kayser, to
whom
Wellhausen gives his adherence, finds it in ver. 5,
which
he translates, "in my grave which I have bought
for
me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me."
From
this he infers that the place intended can be no
other
than the piece of ground at Shechem purchased
from
the sons of Hamor, as related by J (xxxiii. 18-20),
(other
critics refer these verses to E). And
he, goes on
528 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
to
say that this half-concealed contradiction in respect to
the
grave of Jacob at Shechem, or at Hebron, is the
token
of a profound difference between J and P.
J, a
native
of the northern kingdom of Israel,1 is interested
for
Shechem in Ephraim; P, who belonged to the
southern
kingdom, is strongly attached to Hebron in
Judah. As this interpretation of Kayser is
inconsistent
with
xlvii. 29, 30, to which ver. 5 expressly refers, he
is
obliged to assume that these verses have been altered
by R
into conformity with xlix. 29, 30; though why he
should
have altered them and allowed ver. 5 to remain
without
change does not appear. Noldeke and
others
find
the discrepancy in ver. 10; the burial, he says,
must
have taken place where the lamentation was made.
Kautzsch
finds a doublet in ver. 10b, and insists that
three
distinct places of interment are spoken of, repre-
senting
as many variant narratives, the threshing-floor
of
Atad, Abel-mizraim, and the cave of Machpelah.
But
the
difficulty with these attempts to discover a discrep-
ancy
is that the cave of Machpelah is the only place
at
which the burial is said to have been; and with this
xlvii.
30 agrees.
A difficulty has been found in the words
"beyond
Jordan"
(ver. 11), as though they implied a very circui-
tous
route for the funeral procession, and "were contra-
dicted
by "Canaanites" in the same verse, who dwelt
west
of the Jordan. Jerome, however,
identifies Abel-
mizraim
with Beth-hoglah, in the border of Judah, and
Benjamin
(Josh., xv. 6; xviii. 19). May not
"beyond
Jordan"
mean beyond Jordan, westward, as in Deut. xi. 30,
and
be an incidental confirmation of Mosaic authorship?
Verses 15-26 are assigned to E on account
of the re-
peated
occurrence of Elohim, notwithstanding the two-
fold
statement of age (vs. 22, 26), such as is regularly else-
1
Other critics make him a citizen of Judah.
THE BURIAL OF JACOB (CH. L.) 529
where
given to P,1 and two phrases which are regarded
as
characteristic of J, "spake to their heart" (ver. 21 as
xxxiv.
3), and "the land which he sware to Abraham, to
Isaac,
and to Jacob" (ver. 24); in the passages assigned
to E
no promise is given of the land of Canaan to any
one
of the patriarchs. The proof of unity
arising from
these
frequent cross-references from one document to
the
other can only be evaded by using the critical knife
and
invoking the agency of R.
P records the death and the interment; J
the embalm-
ing,
the funeral procession, and the return from the grave;
E
the subsequent apprehensions of Joseph's brothers
and
his generous treatment of them. And yet
these ex-
tracts
from separate works, as they are said to be, match
as
perfectly as though they had come from the same pen,
and the
continuity of the narrative is as accurately pre-
served.
Dillmann imagines that ver. 21 implies the
continuance
of
the famine, and hence infers a discrepancy between
E
and P (xlvii. 28) with respect to the time of Jacob's
death. This is built on the groundless assumption
that
Joseph
could not continue to support his brethren after
the
years of dearth were ended.
The divine names are "the God of thy
father" (ver.
17),
which is a paraphrase of Jehovah, and Elohim (vs.
19,
20, 24, 25), which is appropriate where the divine is
contrasted
with the human.
MARKS OF J
1.
Mk,yneyfeB; NHe ytixcAmA xnA Mxi if now I have
found favor
in your eyes (ver. 4).
See ch. xii. 10-20, Marks of J, No.
3;
ch. vi. 1-8, No. 10; ch. xviii, xix., No. 28. 1- 2.
2. ynez;xAB;
rB,Di speak in the ears of (ver. 4); besides in J,
xliv.
18; Deut. xxxii. 44; in J or R, Num. xiv. 28; in E,
1 Kayser and Schrader cut out ver.
22 and give it to P.
530 THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB
Gen.
xx. 8; Ex. xi. 2; in P, Gen. xxiii. 13, 16; in D, Deut.
v.
1; Josh. xx. 4; in Rd, Deut. xxxi. 28, 30.
3. qra
only
(ver. 8). See ch. vi. 1-8, Marks of J,
No.7.
4. bk,r,
chariots, MywirAPA horsemen (ver. 9).
See ch. xlvii.
12-27,
Marks of J, No.4.
5.
dbeKA great, grievous (vs. 9-11). See ch. xlii.-xliv.
Marks
of J, No. 14.
6.
xrAqA NKe-lfa therefore was called (ver. 11); besides in
J,
xi. 9; xvi. 14; xix. 22; xxv. 30; xxix. 34; xxxi. 48
(doublet
in E connection); xxxiii. 17; Josh. vii. 26 (JE);
but
also in E, Gen. xxi. 31; Ex. xv. 23.
This phrase is
contrasted
with and he called the name, Gen. xxxii. 3, 31
(E.
V., vs. 2, 30), as though the latter was indicative of a
different
document; yet it occurs repeatedly in J, e.g.,
Gen.
iii. 20; iv. 17, 26; xix. 37, 38; xxvi. 20, 21, 22, 33;
xxxviii.
3, 29, 30, Num. xi. 3.
MARKS OF E
1.
The connection of vs. 24-26 with Ex. xiii. 19; Josh.
xxiv.
32, which is entirely consistent with the unity of
the
Pentateuch.
2. lKel;Ki
nourish
(ver. 21); only twice besides in the
Pentateuch
(xlv. 11; xlvii. 12 E). It occurs
exclusively
with
reference to Joseph's promise to nourish his father
and
brethren in Egypt. Ch. xlvii. 12 is in a
context
which
is assigned to other documents; but this solitary
verse
is cut out of its connection and given to E because
of
this word and its manifest relation to xlv. 11.
See ch.
xlvii.
12-27, Marks of E, No.2.
3. hWfE
unusual form of the construct infinitive. See
ch.
xlvii. 28-xlviii. 22, Marks or E, No.1.
4. ynixA Myhilox< tHatAhE am
I in the place of God
(ver. 19);
but
once besides in the Pentateuch (xxx. 2 E).
5. yKerBi-lfa upon the knees
of
(ver. 23); besides in the
Pentateuch
only (xxx. 3 E).
CONCLUSION
WE have now completed the critical study
of the
Book
of Genesis, and it only remains to sum up the
result
of our investigations. The question
before us
is
whether Genesis is, as tradition unanimously affirms,
a
continuous production by a single writer, or, as the
divisive
critics declare, a compilation from different doc-
uments
by different authors and belonging to different
ages.
It is to be noted at the outset that there
is no proof
whatever,
outside of the book itself, that such documents
ever
existed. And there is no suggestion
anywhere that
the
existence of such documents was ever suspected un-
til
recent times. The whole case, then, lies
before us.
Genesis
is its own witness. What testimony does
it
give?
GROUNDS OF PARTITION
Kittel presents the argument for partition
in" the fol-
lowing
brief but comprehensive manner:1
"The entire
Hexateuchal
narrative falls apart in a series of strata,
whose
individual constituents are closely connected in
language,
style, and characteristic forms of speech, while
they
stand in the most decided contrast with other nar-
ratives,
which are possibly homogeneous with them or
related
to them in their contents.
1 Geschichte der Hebraer, pp. 30, 31.
This passage is abridged by
the omission of illustrative examples,
since a much more exhaustive
statement of them will be given from
another source.
532 CONCLUSION
"In connection with this phenomenon
the further fact
appears
that many diversities and contradictions are like-
wise
observable in the narrative material. Of
a great
number
of the Hexateuchal narratives we have two or
more
accounts. Some of these repetitions, the
number
of
which could easily be swelled ad
infinitum, might pos-
sibly
be explained as intentional on the part of the ~ij
writer. At least such an explanation might answer,
did
not
the above-mentioned diversity of language almost
always
go hand in hand with the repetition of the matter.
It
is thus already made quite improbable that the repe-
tition
is an addition by the writer himself, or is a
resumption
of the thread of the narrative previously
dropped
by him. But it becomes positively
impossible
by
perceiving, what is almost always connected with it,
that
the two or more accounts of the same thing also
diverge
in their substantive matter in a number of feat-
ures
that are sometimes quite important, sometimes
rather
subordinate."
REPETITIONS AND DISOREPANCIES
Numberless repetitions with more or less
serious dis-
crepancies
and a varied diction would seem indeed to be
inconsistent
with unity of authorship. And when these
alleged
repetitions and discrepancies are massed together
in a
formidable list, as they are by Dillmann,l it natu-
rally
makes the impression that such an accumulation of
arguments
must be strong indeed; and however weak
and
inconclusive particular examples may be when viewed
singly,
the combined force of the whole must be irresisti-
ble. But arguments must be weighed and not merely
counted. It only requires a patient examination of
these
cases
in detail to show how illusive they are.
The entire
1
Die Genesis, Vorbemerkungen, pp. ix., x.
REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 533
vast
array melts into nothingness as soon as their reality
is
tested.
In Dillmann's classification he adduces
wha the calls
1. "Idle repetitions." These are
either not repeti-
tions
at all, as Gen.xxi.la and 1b, where the first clause
states
the fact and the second the purpose of Jehovah's
visit
to Sarah; xlvii. 29 sqq. and xlix. 29 sqq., first Ja-
cob's
request of Joseph that he might be buried in Ca-
naan,
then his charge to all his sons to bury him there;
or
the repetition is for a sufficient reason (iv. 25, 26, and
v.
1-6),where the birth of Seth and Enosh are included.
In
the genealogy from Adam to Noah, and are likewise
mentioned
separately in order to introduce some facts
concerning
them which could not be inserted in the
genealogy
without marring its symmetry and the regu-
larity
of its structure.
2.
"Two or more accounts of the same thing, which-
might
possibly be explained by the writer's assuming
that
they were different events or wishing to note the
variation
in the traditions." These are in
every instance
distinct
events, which critics assume without reason to
be
identical, in spite of the fact that they are recorded as
distinct,
and are further shown to be distinct by differ-
ences
of time, place, and circumstances, which critics
arbitrarily
convert into the discrepancies of variant tra-
ditions. It is not different versions of the same
story
when
a like peril befalls Sarah in Egypt (xii. 10 sqq.),
and
in Gerar (xx. 1 sqq.), and at a still later time Rebekah
(xxvi.
7 sqq.); or when Hagar flees from her mistress
before
the birth of Ishmael (xvi: 6 sqq.), and she is sub-
sequently
sent away with Ishmael (xxi. 12 sqq.); or when
God
ratifies his covenant with Abraham by a visible
symbol
(ch. xv.), and it is afterward ratified by Abraham
by
the seal of circumcision (ch. xvii.) ; or when the promise
of a
son by Sarah is first made to Abraham (xvii. 15-17),
534 CONCLUSION
and
then in the hearing of Sa-rah (xviii. 9-12); or when
Jacob
obtains the blessing which his father intended for
Esau
(ch. xxvii.), and again receives a parting blessing
from
his father as he was leaving home for Paddan-aram
(xxviii.
1-5).
3.
"Variant explanations of the same name." These
are
simply allusive references to the signification of the
name
made on different occasions, which of course in-
volve
no discrepancy; or in some cases they are differ-
ent
suggestions awakened by the sound of the name,
where
there is no pretence of giving its actual derivation,
and,
of course, no ground for the charge that different
conceptions
of its etymology are involved. Thus,
with
allusion
to the name Isaac, which means laughter,
it is
related
that when his birth was predicted Abraham (xvii.
17)
and Sarah also laughed incredulously (xviii. 12), and
when
he was born Sarah said that God had made her to
laugh
for joy, and all that hear would laugh with her
(xxi.
6). So Edom, red, is associated with the
red color
of
Esau at his birth (xxv. 25), and the red pottage for
which
he sold his birthright (ver.30). So the
twofold
hire
linked with the name Issachar (xxx. 16, 18), and the
double
suggestion of Zebulun (ver. 20) and of Joseph (vs.
23,
24); Mahanaim connected with the host of angels
xxxii.
3 (E. V., ver. 2), and with Jacob's two bands, ver.
8
(E. V., 7); Ishmael with God's hearing Hagar in her
affliction
(xvi. 11), and hearing the voice of the lad in his
distress
(xxi. 17); and Ferner, where Jacob saw the face
of
God (xxxii. 31 (E. V., ver. 30) and the face of Esau
(xxxiii.
10) as one seeth the face of God.
4. "Repetitions which are mutually
exclusive, since
the
thing can only have happened once or in one way."
Thus
the creation (ch. i. and ii.); but, as has been abun-
dantly
shown (pp, 9 sqq., 20 sqq.), there is here no dupli-
cate
account and no discrepancy, The number of the
REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 535
animals
in the ark and the duration of the flood (ch. vi;
vii.);
but there is no inconsistency between the general
statement
that two of every species should be taken and
the
more particular direction to take seven of the clean
animals;
and the alleged diversity in reckoning the dura-
tion
of the flood is a pure figment of the critics with no
foundation
in the narrative itself. See p. 92. The disper-
sion
of the nations is not differently explained, as though;
that
was traced in ch. x. to the multiplication of Noah's
descendants,
which in xi. 1-9 (to which x. 25 alludes) is
ascribed
to immediate divine intervention, since neither
of
these excludes the other. There is no
discrepancy in
regard
to the origin of the name Beersheba, which was
first
given by Abraham (xxi. 31), and afterward renewed
by
Isaac (xxvi. 33), who is expressly said to have digged
again
the wells of his father, and called them by the
names
which his father had called them (ver. 18).
There
was
a like renewal of the name Israel divinely given to
Jacob
(XXXII. 29 E. V., ver. 28 and xxxv. 10), and of
Bethel
(xxviii. 19; xxxv. 15), which Jacob reconsecrated
by a
solemn rite upon his second visit, (xxxv. 1, 14), as he
had
engaged to do in memory of God’s fulfilment of the
promise
there graciously made (xxviii. 18-22).
The ref-
erence
to the conflict with the Shechemites (xlviii. 22)
differs
from the account in ch. xxxiv. simply in this, that
Jacob
as the head of the clan assumes the responsibility
of
the deed of his sons. The alleged
discrepancy in re-
gard
to the treatment of Joseph by his brothers and the
traders
who brought him to Egypt (xxxvii. 19-36) is a
sheer
invention of the critics, who have themselves created
it
by an unwarranted partition of the passage.
5.
"Other incompatible statements." The allegation
that
the reduction of human life to one hundred and
twenty
years (vi. 3) is inconsistent with chs. v.,1 xi., etc.,
1 The reference to ch. v. is a slip on the part of Dillmann, as the
lives
536 CONCLUSION
rests
upon a misinterpretation of the former passage,
which
states the limit allowed to the existing generation
before
it should be swept away by the flood, not that of
human
life in general. See pp. 59, 60. Abraham's many
sons
after Sarah's death (xxv. 1, 2) are said to be in con-
flict
with xviii. 11, 12; xvii. 17, but his previous child-
lessness
is uniformly attributed to the barrenness of
Sarah
(xi. 30; xvi. 1, 2); and Dillmann himself admits
("Genesis,"
p. 303) that if Abraham lived to be one hun-
dred
and seventy-five years old (xxv. 7), it would not be
surprising
if he had children after he was one hundred and
thirty-seven
(xxiii. 1; cf. xvii. 17). Esau settled
in Seir
when
Jacob returned from Paddan-aram (xxxii. 4 sqq.,
E.
V., vs. 3 sqq.) is represented to be at variance with
xxxvi.
6. But Esau's presence in Seir at that
time does
not
imply that he had already removed his family and
his
possessions from Canaan, and had abandoned his
claim
upon it in favor of Jacob. That he had
no such
intention
then is plain from the manner in which he
came
to meet Jacob (xxxiii. 1), implying a hostile pur-
pose,
and at the very least a determination to prevent,
or
forcibly intercept, his return to Canaan. Jacob so un-
derstood
it (xxxii. 12, E. Y., ver. 11); and the whole
narrative
shows that Esau's change of mind was due
to
Jacob's earnest wrestling for the divine blessing in
his
alarming situation (xxxii. 28). That
Rebekah's nurse
first
came with Jacob from Mesopotamia cannot be in-
ferred
from xxxv. 8, which therefore does not contra-
dict
xxiv. 59. The general statement that
Jacob's sons
were
born in Paddan-aram (xxxv. 26) is true of all but
Benjamin,
whose birth near Ephrath had just been re-
corded
(vs. 16-18); to insist upon this as a discrepancy is,
there recorded preceded the sentence in
vi. 3, and consequently would
not have been inconsistent with it, even
if it had had the meaning
which he wrongly attributes to it.
REPETITIONS AND DISCREPANCIES 537
on
the critics' own theory, to charge the redactor with a
negligence
as great as would be attributable to the original
writer
on the theory of the unity of the book.
If the lat-
ter is
not conceivable, neither is the former.
The appar-
ent
discrepancy between xxvi. 34; xxviii. 9; and xxxvi.
1 2,
3, as to the names of Esau's wives, is capable of ready
reconciliation,
as was shown in the discussion of ch. xxxvi.
(pp.
420 sqq.). The alleged discrepancy, in
regard to
Joseph's
Egyptian master, between xxxvii. 36 and xxxix.
1;
xl. 4, does not exist (pp. 457 sqq.). In
reporting to
the
steward their discovery of the money in their sacks
(xliii.
21), Joseph's brethren may perhaps combine with
their
partial discovery at the inn what they learned more
fully
on reaching home (xlii. 27, 35); but even this
is
not certain (pp. 479, 480). Cain's
apprehension that
he
might be slain for the murder of his brother (iv.
14,
15) is not "enigmatical," if the possible increase of
Adam's
family in one hundred and thirty years (v. 3) be
considered;
nor his building a "city" (iv. 17), if it be
remembered
that a fortified nomadic encampment would
be
so called in Hebrew (pp. 36, 37).
6.
"The chronology does not agree with the narra-
tives." It is thought incredible that Sarah should
have
attracted
Pharaoh (xii. 11 sqq.) when sixty-five years of
age
(xii. 4; xvii. 17), or Abimelech when she was ninety
(xx.
2); but this overlooks patriarchal longevity.
Ish-
mael
is not represented in xxi. 14 sqq. to be younger than
xvii.
24, 25; xxi. 5, 8 would make him. There
is no in-
consistency
between Isaac's apprehending that his end
was
near (xxvii. 1, 2, 7, 10, 41), and his actually living
many
years longer (xxxv. 28). It is not
Rachel but Leah
that
is meant in xxxvii. 10, so that there is no conflict
with
xxxv. 19, which records Rachel's death.
The time
allowed
for the birth of Jacob's children (xxx. 25 sqq.;
xxxi.
38, 41) is short, but not too short. See
p. 348. If
538 CONCLUSION
the
list of Jacob's descendants in xlvi. 8-27 contains as
is
probable, a few names of those born after the descent
into
Egypt, it is not inconsistent with the preceding his-
tory. There is no implication in 1. 21 that the
years of
famine
were still continuing, and accordingly no discrep-
ancy
with the previous account of their duration.
7. “Narratives in which certain parts do
not accord
with
the rest, e.g., xxxi. 48-50," where there is no discord
but
that created by critical manipulation; "or the end
does
not accord with the beginning, e.g., xxiv. 62-67,"
where
the discord is purely imaginary.
The contrarieties and discrepancies, of
which such
account
is made as indicative of a diversity of sources,
thus
disappear upon inspection, being mostly due to the
improper
identification of distinct events, or to a critical
partition
by which passages are severed from their con-
nection
and interpreted at variance with it.
THE DIVINE
NAMES
It is claimed, however, that the
narratives of Genesis
and
of the Pentateuch arrange themselves into continu-
ous
strata, each of which consistently preserves the same
style
and diction and general character, while differing
in a
marked degree from the others in these respects;
and
that the discrepancies which are alleged correspond
with,
and are corroborated by, these diversities of lan-
1
The ease with which narratives of unquestioned unity can be sun-
dered by the same methods that are
employed in the partition of Gene-
sis and the Pentateuch, and with the same
result of apparent discrep-
ancies between the sundered parts, is
illustrated in my Higher Criticism
of the Pentateuch, pp. 119~125. The same thing is shown in a very
effective manner, in application to an
entire book, in Romans Dissected,
by E. D. McRealsham, the pseudonym of Dr.
C. M. Mead, of Hartford
Theological Seminary.
THE DIVINE NAMES 539
guage
and ideas. It is hence inferred that Genesis must
be a
compilation from distinct documents, which can be
separated
from one another by appropriate tests, and
restored
in a good measure to their original form.
A prominent place is here given to the
criterion af-
forded
by the divine names. Certain paragraphs
and
sections
make exclusive use of Elohim, while others
characteristically
employ Jehovah, when speaking of the
Supreme
Being. These are called respectively
Elohist
and
Jehovist sections, and are attributed to writers hav-
ing
different proclivities in this respect.
But it has
been
found impossible to divide these sections so that
they
shall correspond with the alternation of the divine
names.
Thus, Elohim occurs in Jehovist sections,
viz.: iii. 1,
3,
5, in the conversation of Eve with the serpent; iv. 25,
where
Seth is substituted for murdered Abel; vii. 9,
in
the Jehovist's account of Noah's entry into the ark;
ix.
27, in the blessing upon Japheth in distinction from
Shem
(ver. 26); xxxi. 50, in Laban's covenanting with
Jacob;
xxxii. 29, 31 (E. V. vs. 28, 30), Jacob's wrestling
with
the angel (so Wellhausen, Kuenen, Kautzsch);
xxxiii.
5, 10, 11, in Jacob's interview with Esau; xxxix.
9,
Joseph's reply to the solicitations of Potiphar's wife;
xliii.
29, Joseph greeting Benjamin; xliv. 16, Judah's
confession. El Shaddai also occurs in a Jehovist section
(xliii.
14), and Shaddai (xlix. 25), which are reckoned
characteristics
oi the Elohist.
Jehovah also occurs in paragraphs
attributed to the
Elohist,
where it is necessary to assume that it, or the
clause
containing it, has been inserted by the redactor.
Thus
four times in xv. 1, 2, 7, 8, the vision granted to
Abraham;
once in xvii. 1, where Jehovah appears to
him;
again, xx. 18, where he interferes for the protection
of
Sarah; xxi. 1b, where he fulfils his promise to Sarah;
540 CONCLUSION
xxii.
2, Moriah, which is, compounded with an abbre-
viated
form of Jehovah, and ver. 11, the angel of Jeho-
vah;
also xxviii. 21, in Jacob's vow.
In other cases-the admission that the
divine names
occur
in the wrong document is only escaped by cutting
the
clauses that contain them out of their connection as
insertions
from another source, or by sundering passages
that
manifestly belong together. Thus the
last clause of
vii.
16 is sundered from the rest of the verse notwith-
standing
the manifest contrast between Jehovah, who
shut
Noah in the ark, and Elohim, who gave command
for
the preservation of the inferior creatures.
In xiv.
22,
Jehovah is held to be an insertion by the redactor,
though
it represents God as known to Abraham in dis-
tinction
from what he was to Melchizedek.
Abimelech
covenants
with Abraham at Beersheba, and speaks of
God
as Elohim (xxi. 22-32); Abraham worshipping there
calls
upon Jehovah (ver. 33); but the critics ignoring
the
real reason of the change of names, regard the latter
as
an insertion from J in a narrative of the Elohist. In
ch.
xxii. Elohim demands the sacrifice, Jehovah stays the
patriarch's
hand (pp. 284, 285); the critics attribute the
latter
to a different writer, though it is an essential part of
the
narrative. Isaac's blessing pronounced
upon Jacob
(xxvii.
27, 28) is rent asunder because Jehovah and Elo-
him
occur in successive clauses, as often elsewhere in the
parallelisms
of poetry. Jacob's dream (xxviii. 12-17)
is
partitioned
because Elohim alternates with Jehovah, so
that
he falls asleep in one document and wakes up in the
other. The continuous narrative of the birth of
Jacob's
children
(ch.. xxix., xxx.) is parcelled between the Jeho-
vist
and the Elohist in a very remarkable manner.
Ch.
xxxv.
5 is cut out of an Elohist connection solely and
avowedly
because it alludes to a preceding Jehovist nar-
rative. In xlviii. 8-11 Israel points to the Jehovist
and
THE DIVINE NAMES 541
Elohim
to the Elohist, so tHat a partition can only
be
made by confusing the entire passage.
Wellhau-
sen
gives it up; but Dillmann carries it unflinchingly
through.
In fact the partition hypothesis is based
upon a per-
sistent
disregard of the real reason which governs the
employment
of the divine names, that being attributed
to
the mechanical explanation of a diversity of writers
which
results from the difference of meaning and usage
of
these names themselves. The critics
themselves are
obliged
to admit that the Jehovist uses both names as he
has
occasion. This confession completely
undermines
the
hypothesis; for it is placing the use of these names
upon
another footing than the mere habit of different
writers,
and acknowledging that there is an appropriate-
ness
in employing one rather than the other in certain
connections.
The distinction between these names is
universally
admitted,
as certified by the usage of the entire Hebrew
Bible. It is stated by Kuenen in a manner which re-
quires
but slight correction in order to solve the whole
mystery,
and to show that they afford no ground what-
ever
for assuming the existence of an Elohist and a
Jehovist. He says ("Hexateuch," p. 56),
"The original
distinction
between Yahwe and Elohim very often ac-
counts
for the use of one of these appellations in prefer-
ence
to the other." Again (p. 58, note
19), 1. "When
the
God of Israel is placed over-against the gods of the
Gentiles,
the former is naturally described by the prop-
er
name Yahwe. 2. When Gentiles are
introduced as
speaking,
they use the word Elohim [unless they specifi-
cally
mean the God of the chosen race, when they call
him
by his proper name, Jehovah]. So, too,
the Israel-
ites,
when speaking to Gentiles. 3. Where a
contrast
between
the divine and the human is in the mind of the
542 CONCLUSION
author,
Elohim is, at any rate, the more suitable word."
[4. When God is spoken of in those general
aspects of
his
being in which he is related alike to the whole world
and
to all mankind, e.g., in creation and providence, Elo-
him
is the proper word; but when he is spoken of in his
special
relation to the chosen race as the God of revela-
tion
and of redemption, and the object of their worship,
Jehovah
is the appropriate term.]1
It has already been shown that the
critical partition of
Genesis,
though shaped with a view to adapt it to the
occurrence
of the divine names, does not in fact corre-
spond
with them, and consequently cannot afford an
adequate
explanation of them. And in the other
books
of
the Pentateuch the discrepancy is greater still.2 On
the
other hand, the simple principles above stated meet
the
case precisely. It has been shown in
detail in the
former
part of this volume that every instance in which
Elohim
or Jehovah is found in Genesis is capable of
ready
explanation. It will not be necessary
here to re-
peat
at length what was there said. It will
be sufficient
to
indicate briefly a few leading facts, which conclusively
demonstrate
that the partition hypothesis has no support
from
the divine names.
One thing which arrests attention at the
outset is the
great
predominance of the name Jehovah in three clearly
1 In the above quotation from
Kuenen "Gentiles" has been substi-
tuted
for "heathen" as better conformed to English usage. Correc-
tions
and additions are in brackets. Kuenen
says that the second
"rule
is often violated by an oversight, and the Gentiles are made to
speak
of Yahwe (Gen. xxvi. 28, 29; 1 Sam. xxix. 6; 1 Kin. v. 21, E.
V.,
ver. 7)." This is corrected in the
text. There is no "oversight"
in
the passages referred to, which simply suggest the proper limitation
of
the rule. Abimelech says
"Jehovah" because he means the God of
Isaac;
Achish does the same because he makes appeal to the God of
David,
and Hiram because he refers to the God of whom Solomon had
spoken
in the verses immediately preceding as "Jehovah my God."
2 See my Higher Criticism of
the Pentateuch, pp. 91-99.
THE DIVINE NAMES 543
marked
sections of the Pentateuch, viz., Gen. ii. 4-iv.;
xii.-xxvi.;
Ex. iii.-Deut. xxxiv. The explanation of
this
singular
fact lies upon the surface. These
sections
record
three successive stages in the self-revelation of
the
Most High to our first parents, to the patriarchs, to
Moses
and the children of Israel. They relate
to the
three
great epochs in the development of God's earthly
kingdom
and the unfolding of his scheme of grace.
There
is first God's manifestation of himself to man in
his
primitive estate, and again after his guilty trespass in
the
primal promise of mercy, the acceptance of Abel's
worship,
the ineffectual remonstrance with Cain, who is
finally
banished from the divine presence, while God is
acceptably
invoked in the family of Seth.
The next important step in the
establishment of God's
kingdom
among men was his special manifestation of
himself
to Abraham, who was called from the mass of
mankind
to be the head of a chosen race, among whom
true
religion might be nurtured with a view to the ulti-
mate
blessing of all the nations of the earth.
The third step in this divine plan of
salvation was
God's
manifestation of himself to Moses, and through
him
to Israel, in delivering them from the bondage of
Egypt
and organizing them as the people of God.
As Jehovah is the name appropriate to the
Most High
as
the God of revelation and of redemption, there is a
manifest
propriety in its employment, as in actual fact it
is
predominantly employed, at just these signal epochs
in
which this aspect of his being is most conspicuously
exhibited. It requires no assumption of a Jehovist
writer
to
account for what thus follows from the nature of the
case. That Jehovah should fall more into the back-
ground
in the intervals between these signal periods of
self-revelation
is also what might be expected. Yet it
does
not disappear entirely. It recurs with
sufficient
544 CONCLUSION
frequency
to remind the reader of the continuity of that
divine
purpose of salvation, which is never abandoned,
and
is never entirely merged in mere general providen-
tial
control.
As Elohim is the term by which God is
denoted in his
relation
to the world at large, in distinction from his
special
relation to his own people, it is a matter of
course
that the creation of heaven and earth and all that
they
contain is ascribed to him as Elohim (Gen. i.).
It
is
equally natural that when the world, which he had
made
very good, had become so corrupt as to frustrate
the
end of its creation, the Creator, Elohim, should in-
terfere
to arrest this degeneracy by a flood, and should
at
the same time devise measures to preserve the vari-
ous
species of living things in order to replenish the
earth
once more (vi. 11-ix. 17). Here, too,
was a case for
Jehovah's
interference likewise to preserve his plan of
grace
and salvation from utter failure by sweeping away
the
corrupt mass and preserving pious Noah and his
family
from its contamination and its ruin.
Hence,
while
in the description of this catastrophe Elohim pre-
dominates,
Jehovah is introduced whenever this special
feature
is particularly alluded to (vi. 1-8; vii. 1-5, 16b;
viii.
20-22). And Jehovah interferes again to
avert the
new
peril involved in the impious attempt at Babel (xi.
1-9);
and he is not unobservant of the ambitious designs
of
the kingdom erected there (x. 8-10).
The constancy with which the name Jehovah
appears
in the
life of Abraham, from ch. xii. onward, is first inter-
rupted
in ch. xvii., where Jehovah appears in the open-
ing
verse as God Almighty, and throughout the chap-
ter
is spoken of as Elohim, to indicate that the God
of
Abraham is likewise the God of the universe.
The
reason
is apparent. God had promised to make of
him
a
great nation, to give his posterity the land of Canaan,
THE DIVINE NAMES 545
and
through them to bless all the nations of the earth.
These
promises had been repeated from time to time.
Four
and twenty years had now passed of anxious wait-
ing. But the child, upon whom the fulfilment of
all
these
promises was conditioned, was not yet born.
Meanwhile
in Sarah's advancing age, and his own, all
natural
hope of offspring had vanished. Hence
this appeal
to
the divine omnipotence, which was able to accomplish
what
was above and beyond the powers of nature, in or-
der
to confirm the patriarch's faith in the promise, now
renewed
and made more specific than ever before, that
Isaac
should be born the next year. There is
no need
of
an Elohist writer to account for the unvarying repeti-
tion
of Elohim in this chapter, nor for its recurrence in
xxi.
2, 4, 6, where ch. xvii. is plainly referred to.
The next occurrence of Elohim is in xix.
29, and the
reason
is again apparent. Lot is now finally
severed
from
all further connection with Abraham, and God is
henceforth
Elohim to him as to all aliens. Elohim
is
also
used in dealing with Abimelech (ch. xx.; xxi. 22, 23),
though
it is still Jehovah who interferes for the protec-
tion
of Sarah in Gerar (xx. 18), as he had previously done
in
Egypt (w. 17), and Abraham continues to call on the
name
of Jehovah (xxi. 33), as in xii. 8. So
when Hagar
and
Ishmael are finally sent away from Abraham (xxi.
9-21),
and Hagar is no longer counted a member of his
household,
as she was in xvi. 7-14, God is Elohim also to
the
children of Heth (xxiii. 6). Elohim the
Creator might
rightfully
demand that the child which he had given
should
be sacrificed to him (xxii. 1-10); but Jehovah
stayed
the patriarch's hand (vs. 11 sqq.); the spiritual
surrender
was all that he required. Every instance
in
which
Elohim is used in the life of Abraham thus explains
itself;
and there is no need of having recourse to an Elo-
list
writer to account for its appearance.
546 CONCLUSION
The God of Abraham was also the God of
Isaac.
Hence
the constant recurrence of Jehovah in xxv. 19-
xxvii.,
with the single exception of Elohim as a poetic
parallel
in Isaac's blessing (xxvii. 28). For
Elohim, in
xxv.
11, xxviii. 4, see pp. 310, 332.
The name Jehovah is less prominent in the
chapters
that
follow for two reasons chiefly: 1. The manifestations
of
Jehovah and the gradual unfolding of his gracious
purposes,
which marked the early portion of the patri-
archal
period, were sufficient for that stage in the de-
velopment
of the divine plan. It was enough to
repeat
the
promises already made to Abraham and Isaac.
Rev-
elations
surpassing these were reserved for a later stage,
when
the time arrived to fulfil the promises now made
and
for Jehovah to make himself known to Israel by
manifestations
of his power and grace such as their
fathers
had never witnessed (Ex. vi. 3). 2. The lives of
Jacob
and Joseph, which occupy nearly all the rest of
Genesis,
were spent for the most part away from the
holy
land, amid Gentile surroundings, which made it
appropriate
to use the name Elohim.
And yet Jehovah recurs often enough to
show that his
special
relation to the chosen race is steadfastly main-
tained. Jehovah reveals himself to Jacob on his
flight
from
home (xxviii. 13 sqq.); is recognized in the first
children
born to Leah (xxix. 31-35), and in the promise
of
yet another son to Rachel (xxx. 24), to complete the
patriarch's
family; is acknowledged as the source of
blessing
even to Laban for Jacob's sake (xxx. 27, 30); and
at
length bids Jacob return to the land of his fathers
(xxxi.
3). It is Jehovah who punishes the
wicked sons
of
Judah (xxxviii. 7, 10); and who protects and blesses
Joseph
in servitude (xxxix. 2-5), and in prison (vs. 21,
23). It is Jehovah for whose salvation Jacob waits
to
the
last moment of his life (xlix. 18). The
appropriate-
THE DIVINE NAMES 547
ness
of Elohim throughout these chapters has been al-
ready
shown in the discussion of each passage in which
it
occurs.
The divisive hypothesis was invented to
account for
the
alternation of Elohim and Jehovah. We
have seen
that
notwithstanding all the ingenuity expended upon it
it
still fails to accord with the actual occurrence of these
names. It further appears that it is not needed to
ex-
plain
the alternation of these names, the real reason of
which
lies in the significance of these names themselves.
It
remains to be added that it cannot render, and does
not
even pretend to render, a rational account of the em-
ployment
of these names and their remarkable distribu-
tion
as this has now been exhibited. It has
nothing to
suggest
but the proclivities of different writers.
The
Elohist
is supposed to be governed by the theory that
the
name Jehovah was unknown until the time of Moses;
he
therefore makes no previous use of it.
The Jehovist
held
that it was in use from the earliest ages and employs
it
accordingly. Each is supposed to use
that name to
which
he is addicted habitually, and without reference
to
its peculiar signification; and yet we find these names
to
be discriminatingly used throughout. How
is this to
be
accounted for? How has it come to pass
that each
writer
has happened to limit himself to recording just
those
matters, which call for the use of that particular
divine
name which he is in the habit of employing,
and
this, though there is no sort of connection between
the
theories which govern their use of the divine names
and
these particular portions of the primeval or patri-
archal
history? The divisive hypothesis can
give no
reason
why the Elohist rather than the Jehovist should
have
given an account of the creation of the world
and
all that it contains; nor why the Jehovist rather than
the
Elohist should have described the beginnings of God's
548 CONCLUSION
earthly
kingdom in man's primeval condition and the mercy
shown
him after his fall; nor why the Elohist never speaks
of
an altar or sacrifice or invocation or any act of patri-
archal
worship;1 nor why Jehovah occurs without inter-
ruption
in the life of Abraham until in ch. xvii. the di-
vine
omnipotence is pledged to fulfil the oft-repeated
but
long-delayed promise; nor why Elohim regularly oc-
curs
when Gentiles are concerned, unless specific refer-
ence
is made to the God of the patriarchs.
All this is
purely
accidental on the divisive hypothesis.
But such
evident
adaptation is not the work of chance. It
can
only
result from the intelligent employment of the di-
vine
names in accordance with their proper meaning and
recognized
usage.
DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION
Kuenen2 tells us that "the
history of critical investi-
gation
has shown that far too much weight has often
been
laid on agreement in the use of the divine names.
It
is well, therefore, to utter a warning against laying an
exaggerated
stress on this one phenomenon."
"It is but
one
of the many marks which must be duly observed in
tracing
the origin and the mutual relations of the pas-
sages." It is claimed that each of these divine names
is
regularly
associated with a characteristic diction, mode
of
conception, and style of expression, which are clearly
1 The suggestion that in the
opinion of the Elohist worship was first in-
troduced
by Moses is absurd upon its face, see pp. 163 seq., 364 ; and it is
without
the slightest warrant in any Scriptural statement. Besides it
leaves
the difficulty unsolved. There is no
natural connection between
his
idea that God was exclusively called Elohim in the patriarchal age,
and
the notion that he was never worshipped then.
How did he happen
to
be possessed of just such a notion as kept him from an inappropriate
use
of Elohim ?
2 Hexateuch, p. 61, note 29,
and p. 58.
DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION
549
indicative
of distinct writers. But upon
examination this
proves
to be altogether fallacious.
There is evidently no significance in the
fact that a
given
series of sections or paragraphs contains words and
phrases
that are not found in another series in which
there
was no occasion to employ them. And that
the,
same
thought is differently expressed in two different
passages
does not necessarily prove that they are by dis-
tinct
writers. Long lists of words of this
description
are
paraded by critics as evidence of diversity of author-
ship,
which are of no force whatever; and which could
be
paralleled with perfect ease from the acknowledged
works
of well-known authors in ancient or in modern
times. Critics are never at a loss for arguments
from
diction
to sustain even the most extravagant positions.
The
plausible use that can be made of it where it is
plainly
of no account, and the frequency with which it is
disregarded
by critics themselves when it does not serve
their
purpose, shows how precarious this style of argu-
ment
is, and how important it is to guard against being
misled
by deceptive appearances.
The earlier forms of the divisive
hypothesis were
wrecked
by their inability to establish a diversity of dic-
tion
between the Elohist and the Jehovist.
All sorts of
subterfuges
were resorted to in the endeavor to account
for
the fact that in a multitude of passages they were
quite
indistinguishable. At length Hupfeld
came to the
rescue
with his suggestion, since accepted as a veritable
discovery,
that there were two Elohists, P and E, who
were
alike in their use of Elohim, but differed greatly in
every
other respect. P is supposed to contrast
strongly
with
J (the Jehovist), while it is exceeding difficult, if not
impossible,
to discriminate between E and J, except in
their
use of the divine names.
There are some things about this discovery
of Hup-
550 CONCLUSION
feld
which have a very suspicious look. In
the first
place,
so large a share of the Elohist passages is sur-
rendered
to E as to destroy all semblance of continuity
in
P. It was claimed by the advocates of
the supple-
ment
hypothesis that the Elohist, though he had little
to
say of Abraham and Isaac, nevertheless gave a full
account
of the patriarch Jacob, the real founder of the
nation
of Israel. But with the exception of two
events
in
the life of Abraham, recorded in chs. xvii. and xxiii.,
nothing
is assigned to P in the entire patriarchal period
but
a few disconnected sentences, scattered here and
there,
which are detached from the narrative to which
they
belong."
Another suspicious circumstance is that P
breaks off
so
near the point where E begins. While
sundry at-
tempts
have been made to discover fragments of E in
earlier
chapters of Genesis, it is generally confessed that
ch.
xx. is the first passage that can be confidently attrib-
uted
to this document. All Elohist passages
prior to ch.
xx.
are said to belong to P.; ch. xx. and all subsequent
Elohist
passages belong to E, with the sole exception of
ch.
xxiii. and a few meagre snatches found elsewhere.
This
certainly looks like rending asunder what belongs
together. And the natural conclusion would seem to be
that
the difference of diction and style between the Elo-
hist
and the Jehovist, supposed to be made out from a
comparison
of the early chapters of Genesis, is nullified
by
the later chapters in which no such difference is per-
ceptible. The critics have hastily drawn an inference
from
incomplete data, which a wider induction shows to
be
unfounded (p. 251).
Moreover, the alleged diversity of
diction and style
between
P and the other so-called documents is ade-
quately
explained by the character of the critical parti-
tion
without having recourse to the assumption of dis-
DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION 551
tinct
writers. The quantity and the quality of
what is
severally
attributed to the different documents solve the
whole
mystery. As a necessary sequence from
the scanty
portion
allotted to P compared with the amount assigned
to J
and E, and especially the peculiar character of the
matter
given to P in distinction from the others, P has
the
fewest words, and a different class of words, and a
style
adapted to the nature of its contents.
The entire
body
of ordinary narrative is shared between J and E,
while
P has only extraordinary events like the creation
and deluge,
and certain incidents which do not enter into
the
texture of the history, but constitute rather the frame-
work
within which it is adjusted, such as genealogies,
dates,
births, deaths, and migrations. This
being the
case,
the peculiarities of diction and style follow as a
matter
of course. The words and phrases and
mode of
expression
appropriate to one have no natural connection
with
the other. When the matter is similar,
as in J and
E,
the diction and style are alike. When
the matter is
different,
as in P compared with JE, the diction and
style
are altered. This is just what is to be
expected
under
the circumstances, and requires no diversity of
writers
to explain it, unless it be seriously contended
that
a historian cannot describe great catastrophes, nor
incorporate
in his work genealogies, dates, births, deaths,
migrations,
and legal enactments.
That the diversity of diction and style
observable in
P,
as compared with JE, is due to the difference in
matter,
both in amount and in character, and not to a
diversity
of writers, further appears from an inspection
of
the criteria by which they are professedly discrimi-
nated. These are specified in detail in the former
part
of
this volume under the head of Marks of P, J, and E.
The
words and phrases represented to be characteristic
of J
and E belong to the common stock of the language,
552 CONCLUSION
such
as any writer or speaker might employ upon occa-
sion,
and which are not found in P for the simple reason
that
no passage is assigned to P that calls for their em-
ployment. On the other hand, technical legal phrases
and
such
special terms as are suitable for the particular mat-
ters
attributed to P form the main stock of that docu-
ment. The formality, verboseness, and repetition
imputed
to
P, as contrasted with the easy and flowing style of J
and
E, find then' explanation in the precision due to legal
transactions
(pp. 293 seq.), the emphasis laid upon matters
of
intrinsic importance (pp.222, 230), or which the writer
would
impress upon the mind of his readers (pp. 18, 101,
209),
or the inevitable sameness of genealogies (p. 50),
compared
with the varied scenes, the changing incidents
and
the portraiture of life and character belonging to his-
torical
descriptions (pp. 240 seq.). And yet
like repeti-
tions,
detailed enumerations, stereotyped formulae, and
genealogical
tables are found upon occasion in J and E
(pp.
81, 141, 231, 292; ch. x. 8-19, 21, 24-30, and xxii.
20-24
J; xxv. 1-4 E).
It
is further to be observed that when for any reason
P is
allowed a share in ordinary narrative, it becomes as
difficult
to discriminate between P and J as it is else-
where
between J and E; and the separation has to be
made
on other grounds than diction and style.
A nota-
ble
instance is afforded in ch. xxxiv. (pp. 388 sqq.), where
the
wide divergence of the critics shows how baseless the
partition
is.
The total absence of any reason for
regarding P as a
separate
document is yet more strikingly apparent from
the
shifting character of the criteria upon which its rec-
ognition
is made to rest. Each separate portion
of the
document
stands in this respect by itself, and out of re-
lation
to the rest. The marks insisted upon in
any one
portion
are, with few exceptions, absent from every other
DICTION, STYLE, AND CONCEPTION 553
throughout
the Book of Genesis; so that different parts of
the
document are claimed for it on wholly dissimilar
grounds. The narratives of the creation and of the
flood
have
much in common, since what was made in the former
perished
in the latter, after which the earth was again re-
peopled
as at the beginning. But only two words
or
phrases
noted as characteristic of P in ch. i. recur again in
Genesis
after ch. ix. viz., rkAzA
male, in connection with circum~ision (chs.
xvii., xxxiv:), and hbArAv;
hrAPA be
fruitful
and
multiply in
the promises made to Abraham and his
descendants
(pp. 4, 5). After the covenant with
Abra-
ham
(ch. xvii.), which recalls that with Noah (ch. ix.), al-
most
every mark of P in the preceding part of Genesis ;
disappears
entirely (pp. 96 sqq., 141 seq.).
Scarcely a
word
or phrase that is reckoned characteristic of P in ch.
xvii.
or xxiii. is found in later chapters of Genesis, except
where
the transaction of the latter is explicitly referred
to,
or the promises of the former are repeated (pp. 231
sqq.,
296 seq.). The migrations of the
patriarchs (xii. 5;
xxxi.
18; xxxvi. 6; xlvi. 6) are evidently recorded by the
same
hand; but these are only arbitrarily referred to P
in
spite of their context (pp. 177 seq., 188 seq.). So with
other
snatches, by which the attempt is made to preserve
the
continuity of P and cover references made elsewhere
in
this document (pp. 175 seq., 180, 187 seq., 211 seq.).
J and E are confessedly indistinguishable
in diction
and
style (pp. 252 seq., 271 sqq., 276, etc.) apart from
the
use of Jehovah by the former and Elohim by the
latter. But it has already been shown that the divine
names
are regulated by their appropriateness in the con-
nection,
not by the mere habit of different writers.
The
only
remaining ground for assuming that these were dis-
tinct
documents is alleged contrarieties and contradictions
and
so-called doublets; and these have been proved to
be
imaginary in every individual instance.
554 CONCLUSION
Attempts
have been made, "but without success, to dis-
cover
a diversity of conception between the documents.
It
has been affirmed that the anthropomorphisms of J
imply
a less exalted notion of the Supreme Being than
that
of P (pp. 31 sqq., 63, 145, 225); that according to
P
sacrificial worship was first introduced by Moses while
J
speaks of offerings made by Cain and Abel (pp. 116
seq.,
163 seq.); that in J, but not in P, the blessing
through
Abraham was to extend to all the nations of the
earth
(pp. 163, 244); that it is peculiar to E to record
revelations
in dreams (pp. 260 seq.) and the ministry of
angels
(pp. 271, 340). The falsity of these positions
has
been
shown in the passages referred to.
It should be remembered in this discussion
that the
so-called
Pentateuchal documents do not exist in their
separate
state. We are not comparing fixed and
defi-
nite
entities, which have come down to us in their proper
form. They have been fashioned and their limits
deter-
mined
by the critics on the basis of certain alleged cri-
teria. Their correspondence with these criteria
simply
results
from the mode of their formation, and is no evi-
dence
of their reality. The argument moves in
a circle
and
returns upon itself. The documents
depend upon
the
criteria, and the criteria upon the documents; and
there
is no independent proof of either.
CONTINUITY OF GENESIS
The positive and irrefragable argument for
the unity
of
Genesis is that it is a continuous and connected
whole,
written with a definite design and upon an evi-
dent
plan which is steadfastly maintained throughout.
The
critics attribute this to the skill of the redactor.
But
they impose upon him an impossible task.
An
author
may draw his materials from a great variety of
CONTINUITY OF GENESIS 555
sources,
form his own conception of his subject, elabo-
rate
it after a method of his own, and thus give unity to
his
production. But a compiler, who simply
weaves to-
gether
extracts selected from separate authorities, has
not
the freedom of the author, and cannot do the same
kind
of work. He is trammelled by the nature
of his
undertaking. He cannot reconstruct his materials and
adapt
them to one another; he must accept them as he
finds
them. And now, if these authorities, as
is alleged,
were
prepared with different aims and from diverse
points
of view, if they are unlike in style and diction and
discordant
in their statements, he never could produce
the
semblance of unity in his work. The
difference of
texture
would show itself at the points of junction.
There
would inevitably be chasms, and abrupt transitions,
and
a want of harmony between the parts.
Such a work
as
Genesis could not have been produced in this way.
It is besides very plain from a
comparison of the
documents,
as the critics profess to reproduce them, that
they
must have been parallel throughout. The
same
events
are treated in each, and in the same order, and in
a
manner so nearly resembling one another that they
cannot
have been altogether independent in their origin,
as
the critics themselves admit (pp. 158 sqq.).l
The text, as we possess it, is
harmonious. It is only
1 Dillmann says (Genesis, Vorbemerkungen,
p. xiii.): "In the pri-
meval
history there is both in plan and material an unmistakable rela-
tionship
between J and P (creation, primitive state, Noah's genealogical
tree,
the flood, table of nations); also in the Abraham section and on-
ward
they have some narratives in common (separation from Lot, de-
struction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, the history of Dinah, also xlvii. 1-
11;
xlvii. 29 sqq., cf. xlix. 29 sqq.). But
elsewhere in the patriarchal
history,
especially that of Jacob and Joseph, J is most closely related
to
E, so much so that from ch. xxvii. onward the most of J's narratives
have
their complete parallels in E, and we must necessarily assume
the
dependence of one upon the other."
556 CONCLUSION
when
it is resolved into the so-called documents that in-
consistencies
appear. This makes it evident that these
documents
are not the originals and Genesis a compila-
tion
from them; but Genesis is the original, and the
documents
have been deduced from it. The combina-
tion
of two or three mutually inconsistent accounts will
not
produce a harmonious and symmetrical narrative.
But
severing
paragraphs and clauses from their proper
connection,
and interpreting them at variance with it
will
produce the appearance of discord and disagree-
ment.1
CHASMS IN THE DOCUMENTS
The real existence of documents in Genesis
is still
further
discredited by the numerous and serious gaps
that
occur in each of them. P records that in
the crea-
tion
all was made very good, and that at the flood the
earth
was so corrupt that God resolved to destroy it, but
says
nothing to account for the dreadful change; the
missing
explanation is only to be found in J (pp. 35, 78).
There
is a chasm in P, in the life of Abraham, between
chs.
xi. and xvii., which the critics vainly seek to bridge by
scattered
clauses torn from the connection to which they
evidently
belong (pp. 155, 171, 180, 189 seq., 209 sqq.,
217
sqq.), as they do with regard to J in the flood (pp.
75
sqq.). P's life of Isaac consists of the
merest scraps.
Jacob
goes to Paddan-aram to get a wife, but his entire
abode
there is a blank (pp. 316 seq., 362 sqq.) that can
only
be filled up from J and E. Joseph is
named by P
among
the children of Jacob born in Paddan-aram (xxxv.
24),
but not another word is said about him2 until we
are
suddenly informed (xli. 46) that he was thirty years
1 See my Higher Criticism of
the Pentateuch, pp. 119 sqq.
2 The critics are divided
about an isolated clause in xxxvii. 2, p. 446.
CHASMS IN THE DOCUMENTS 557
old
when he stood before Pharaoh. How he
came to be
in
Egypt, and what led to his elevation there can only
be
learned from other documents. The next
thing that
we
are told is that Jacob was removing to Egypt with
his
entire family (xlvi. 6, 7); here again we must look
elsewhere
for the circumstances by which this was
brought
about.
J is supposed to have traced the line of
descent from
Adam
to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, but only
disconnected
fragments remain (pp. 47, 135 seq.); also
to
have given an account of the descendants of Noah's
sons,
which is likewise in a fragmentary state pp. 134
seq.). His account of Abraham begins abruptly (pp.
169
seq.,
175), and is without any fitting termination; in
fact
he does not record the death of any of
the patriarchs
(p.
310). E's account of Abraham consists
merely of a
few
disconnected incidents (pp. 160 seq.). J
and E are
inseparably
blended in ch. xxvii. The narrative is
in-
capable
of division, and yet is indispensable in each
document,
so that it cannot be given to one without
creating
a chasm in the other (pp. 328 sqq.). The
par-
tition
of chs. xxix. and xxx. between J and E leaves both
very
incomplete (pp. 344 sqq., 352). And in
the life of
Joseph
every passage assigned to one of these documents
creates
a break in the other.
There are also numerous cross-references
from one
document
to the contents of another, showing that they
have
been improperly sundered (pp. 33 sqq., 72 seq.,
175,
322, 331, etc.). In other cases these
are only
evaded
by splintering closely connected passages into
bits
because of the references made to them from differ-
ent
documents (pp. 169, 309, 405 sqq.).
In all these instances of a Jack of
continuity in the
docmnents
and references in one to the contents of an-
other,
the critics assume that R is at fault.
The missing
508 CONCLUSION
matter
must have been in the document originally, but
was
omitted by R because he had given an equivalent
account
from another source, which he thought it un-
necessary
to duplicate. This assumption, it is to
be ob-
served,
is simply an inference from the hypothesis which
it
is adduced to support. There is nothing to
confirm it
apart
from the prior assumption of the truth of that
hypothesis,
which is the very thing to be proved.
The
hypothesis
requires it; that is all.
These numerous breaks in the documents are
created
by
the critical partition. Just what is
needed to fill the
gap
is in the text as it now stands. But the
critics insist
that
the lack must be supplied, not by these passages
which
are here before us, and which precisely answer
every
requirement, but by some hypothetical passage
which
may once have existed, but of which there is no
proof
whatever except that the hypothesis cannot be,
maintained
without it. These auxiliary assumptions
have
to be made so frequently that nothing but the clear-
est
independent proof of the truth of the hypothesis
could
enable it to carry them. And this is
utterly want-
ing. As it is, these unfilled chasms are just so
many
proofs
that the hypothesis is untenable.
This conclusion is yet more firmly riveted
by the in-
consistent
conduct which the divisive critics are obliged
to
impute to the redactor. While omitting
in turn mat-
ters
of the greatest consequence from each of the docu-
ments,
he is supposed at other times scrupulously to re-
tain
even the minutest portion of the sources which he is
using,
though it leads to superfluous repetitions in trivial
things. This is not to be evaded by assuming
different
redactors,
who adopt different methods in their compila-
tion. The redactor who combined J and E, at the
very
time
that he was sacrificing large and important portions
of
each document alternately, is supposed to have in-
CHASMS IN THE DOCUMENTS 559
corporated
clauses or sentences from the omitted sections
in
the text of the other document, which are betrayed as
such
by the redundancy thus occasioned.1
And the re-
dactor
who combined P with JE, and at times was par-
ticular
to preserve all that he found in P, even when it
added
nothing to what had already been extracted from
J2
(pp. 83 sqq., 175, 265), at other times did not hesitate
to
throwaway the bulk of his narrative and reduce the
document
to incoherent fragments. And each of
these
redactors
is supposed in a great number of cases to have
carefully
preserved the contents of his sources, notwith-
standing
their discrepancies and contradictions, while at
other
times, without any reason to account for this dif-
ference
of treatment, he freely modified them in order to
bring
them into harmony with each other.3
The redac-
tor
is made the scapegoat of the hypothesis: Every
thing
that does not square with the hypothesis is attrib-
uted
to him. And this lays upon him
incompatible de-
mands,
and imputes to him a degree of inconsistency in-
supposable
in any rational man.
1 Kuenen (Hexateuch, p. 164,
note 28) says: "The scrupulous con-
servatism
of the redaction is proclaimed loudly enough by the presence
of
so many doublets. The little additions
to E and J in Gen.
xl.
sqq. are evidently intended to smooth down the inequalities that
must
necessarily arise when fragments now of one, now of the other
narrative,
are successively taken up."
2 Kuenen (Ibid., p. 320):
"R scrupulously inserts even the minor
fragments
of P in the places that seem best to fit them when the more
detailed
notices of the older documents might have seemed to a less
zealous
disciple to have rendered them superfiuous."
3 Hence Kuenen (Hexateuch, p.
255) speaks of "the mingled rever-
ence
and freedom, so strange sometimes to our ideas, with which he
treats
his documents."
560 CONCLUSION
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED
In undertaking to determine the date and
origin of
the
supposititious Pentateuchal documents, the critics
begin
by denying the truth of the patriarchal history.
Kuenen
tells us:1 "The narratives of Genesis are
founded
upon a theory of the origin of nations, which
the
historical science of the present day rejects without
the
slightest hesitation. The Israelites
looked upon na-
tions
or tribes as families or large households.
The
further
they carried their thoughts back, the smaller to
their
ideas became the family, until at last they came
upon
the father of the tribe or of the whole nation, to
whom
very naturally they ascribed the same qualities as
they
had observed in the descendants. This theory
of
the
origin of nations is not the true one.
Families be-
come
tribes, and eventually nations, not only, nor even
chiefly,
by multiplying, but also, nay, principally, by
combining
with the inhabitants of some district, by the
subjection
of the weaker to the stronger, by the gradual
blending
together of sometimes very heterogeneous ele-
ments." So, too, Dillmann:2 "It is
well understood
nowadays
that all these narratives respecting the patri-
archs
belong not to strict history but to saga.
That the
proper
ancestor of no one people on earth can be histor-
ically
pointed out; that nations are not formed after the
manner
of a family, but grow together from all sorts of
materials;
that the division into twelve tribes of all the
Hebraic
peoples rests not on natural generation and
blood
relationship, but that art and design, geographical
and
political or even religious reasons, were controlling
1 Religion of Israel, vol. i.,
p. 110. The paragraph cited above is
slightly
abridged.
2 Genesis, p. 215.
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 561
in
it; that the personifications of peoples, tribes, regions,
and
periods, which are universally recognized in the rep-
resentations
of Genesis as far as ch. xi., do not cease at
once
with ch. xii., but continue further, and that not
merely
in the genealogies of peoples which still follow,
is
to be unconditionally admitted."
To all this Delitzsch,l while
admitting what is said
of
the growth of other nations, very properly replies:
"The
people destined to be the bearer and mediator of
revealed
religion is, as is emphasized throughout the
Scriptures
of the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. xxxii. 6), no
mere
formation of nature; and we can conceive that
there
was something unique in the very origination of
this
people, provided of course that we acknowledge a
realm
of grace above that of nature, and consequently a
realm
of the supernatural control of God above that of
natural
law. Besides, the migration of the
Terahids is
in
itself more than simply a fact of family history. And
a
shepherd prince like Abraham, who could, put in the
field
hundreds of servants, that must be regarded as in-
corporated
with his family, is already developing into a
tribe;
at least several prominent tribes among the South
African
Bantu people have arisen in this way from a
chief
and his adherents. And the family of
Jacob, which
emigrated
to Egypt, and only numbered seventy souls
as
blood-related kinsmen, grew into a nation, not merely
of
itself, but by the reception of all sorts of foreign ma-
terials."
To one who believes that God designed to
form a peo-
ple
for himself and for his own gracious purposes, there
is
little difficulty in believing that he selected Abraham
to
be the head of a chosen race, among whom true relig-
ion
should be preserved and perpetuated Until the time
should
arrive for its diffusion among all the nations of
1 Genesis, p. 248.
562 CONCLUSION
the
earth. Such an one can easily credit the
fact that,
the
people of Israel was .brought into being in a manner
different
from other nations, and better suited to fit them
for
the peculiar task that was to be committed to them.
Accordingly
he will see no reason to discredit the histor-
ical
character of the lives of the patriarchs as recorded
in
Genesis. The fact that the filiation of
nations is ex-
hibited
in ch. x. under the form of a genealogy does not
justify
the suspicion that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
whose
histories are related in detail, are the names not
of
individual men, but of tribal communities.
That they
were
the heads of considerable clans appears from the
narrative
itself, p. 466. The immediate object to
which
attention
is directed at present, however, is not the truth
of
the Scriptural declarations on this subject, but the
position
of the divisive critics and the process by which
they
undertake to determine the time and place in which
the
Pentateuchal documents were produced.
Apart from the wild conceits, which have
actually
found
advocates, that the patriarchs are nature myths,
or
that they represent tribal deities, the common concep-
tion
of those by whom the divisive hypothesis has been
shaped
is that they are personifications of the people of
Israel
in the earliest periods of their history, or of sepa-
rate
clans or tribes supposed to have been combined in
the
formation of that people. Thus Kuenen1
says: "Ja-
cob-Israel,
who appears in Genesis as the ancestor of
the
whole people, was originally the personification of
the tribes
which ranged themselves round Ephraim.
In
the
stories about him in Gen. xxvii.-l., Joseph, the father
of
Manasseh and Ephraim, is the chief personage."
"The
several sagas were probably of local origin.
For
example,
Isaac belongs originally to Beersheba, and
Jacob
to Bethel." "Hebron was Abrabam's territorial
1 Hexateuch, pp. 229, 227, 231, 235.
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 563
cradle." Both he and Wellhausen insist that
"Isaac, not
Abraham,
was the protagonist." Abraham was
the latest
creation
of the saga, and the resemblance of his life to
that
of Isaac is accounted for by" the transference to
Abraham
of sagas concerning Isaac."
Dillmann1 holds
that
"if Jacob can be understood as the personal con-
centration
of the twelve-tribe people of Israel, so also
Isaac
and Abraham as designations of historical ante-
cedent
stages of the twelve-tribe people or its related cir-
cle
. . . According to Genesis they are at the least
concentrations
of certain fragments of the Hebrew peo-
ple
out of which Israel was gradually formed."
"In the
remainder
of the Abrahamic immigration after the sunder-
ing
of the Lot-people, the Ishmaelites, and the Keturah-
ites,
later generations recognized that portion of the He-
brews
which preserved the Abrahamic character in the
greatest
purity and were their proper ancestors. . . .
Jacob-Israel
is along with Abraham the proper father of
the
people of Israel, the representative of a new Hebrew
immigration
from Mesopotamia, out of which, together
with
the Isaac-people, Israel was formed.
Quite a differ-
ent
part of Canaan is the scene of his actions, viz., the
middle
(Bethel, Shechem) and eastern portion of the land
(Mahanaim,
Peniel, Succoth).
According to Stade2 there is no
basis of truth what-
ever
in the narratives of Genesis. He says:
"We main-
tain
that the people of Israel possess no sort of certain
and
intelligible historical recollections about the events
prior
to the time of their settlement in the land west of
the
Jordan. All that subsequently existed of
recollec-
tions
about that earlier time is concentrated in the two
names,
Moses and Sinai. But what is narrated of
these
names
is simply concluded back from the relations of the
1 Genesis, pp. 215, 216, 311.
2 Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
pp. 55, 128, 129, 130.
564 CONCLUSION
present;
it is nothing but saga which takes its bearings
from
and is reconstructed by these latter." "A pre-
Egyptian
abode of Israelitish families in the land west of
the
Jordan is not to be spoken of . . . This concep-
tion
cannot be honestly held in view of discovered facts,"
as
he conceives them. "The people of
Israel never
resided
in Egypt. . . . If any Hebraic clan ever
resided
there, no one knows its name. . . . The
in-
vestigations
respecting the Pharaohs, under whom Israel
migrated
into and out of Egypt, are useless trifling with
numbers
and names." "We have not the
least knowl-
edge
of the pre-Mosaic worship of God in Israel; not a
single
tradition concerning it is in existence."
Kuenenl is not so utterly
destructive. He finds the
following
basis of fact in Genesis: "There
occurred a
Semitic
migration, which issued from Arrapachitis (Ar-
pachshad,
Ur Casdim), and moved on in a southwesterly
direction. The countries to the south and east of
Canaan
were gradually occupied by these intruders, the
former
inhabitants being either expelled or subjugated;
Ammon,
Moab, Ishmael, and Edom became the ruling
nations
in those districts. In Canaan the
situation was
different. The tribes which--at first closely connected
with
the Edomites, but afterward separated from them--
had
turned their steps toward Canaan, did not find them-
selves
strong enough either to drive out, or to exact
tribute
from, the original inhabitants; they continued
their
wandering life among them, and lived upon the
whole
at peace with them. But a real
settlement was
still
their aim. When, therefore, they had
become more
numerous
and powerful through the arrival of a number
of
kindred settlers from Mesopotamia-represented in
tradition
by the army with which Jacob returns to
Canaan--they
resumed their march in the same south-
1 Religion of Israel, vol. i., pp. 114, 115.
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 565
westerly
direction, until at length they took possession
of
fixed habitations in the land of Goshen on the borders
of
Egypt. It is not impossible that a
single tribe had
preceded
them thither and that they undertook the jour-
ney
to Goshen at the solicitation of that forerunner;
this
would then be the kernel of the narratives relating
to
Joseph and his exertions in favor of his brethren."1
Dillmann2 contends for a still
larger basis of truth.
In
fact he goes so far that it is surprising that he does
not
go farther, and admit with Delitzsch that the history
is
at least substantially reliable throughout.
He says:
"Is
there any reason to refuse to these patriarchal sagas
of
Israel all historical content, so much so that it has
even
been doubted or denied that their ancestors ever
were
in Canaan, and they have even been declared to be
1 This mode of manufacturing
history by substituting fanciful con-
jectures
for facts, in which the critics so freely indulge in the patri-
archal,
Mosaic, and even later periods, is well characterized in the fol-
lowing
passage from an unpublished lecture of my distinguished prede-
cessor,
Dr. Addison Alexander:
"Let ns suppose that a future critic
of our revolutionary history--
and
if a German so much the better-should insist upon the improba-
bilty
that such a revolution could have been occasioned by causes so
trifling
as the Stamp Act or the tax on tea, and should therefore repre-
sent
them as symbolical myths occasioned by the rivalry of England
and
America at a late period in the tea trade with China and by the
disputes
respecting an international copyright.
Such a writer would,
of
course, find no difficulty in going further and regarding Washington
as
an unnatural and impossible character, yet highly striking and ap-
propriate
as a genuine type of patriotic and republican virtues. It is
plain
that this ingenious child's play could be carried on ad infinitum;
and
this very facility deprives it of all force as proof that the imagi-
nary
process was a real one, or that the stream of history flows backward
from
its estuary to its source. In spite of
all sophistical refinements
the
common sense of mankind will still cleave to the lesson taught by
all
analogy, that primitive history must deal with individualities, and
that
philosophical myths can only be obtained from them by genera-
izing
combination."
2 Genesis, pp. 215, 216.
566 CONCLUSION
'tendency'
fictions of the period of the kings? . . .
Doubtless
the reflection of later persons, times, and rela-
tions
is thrown back on the saga forms of antiquity, and
the
latter become involuntarily types of the former, but
there
must first be a background for that which is more
recent
to mirror itself upon. . . . It is not
impossi-
ble
even that obscure reminiscences of actual historical
persons
may have attached themselves to them, though
naturally
no proof of it can be adduced, for extra-
biblical
testimonies are wanting. . . . A main
con-
sideration
here is that the religion founded by Moses
cannot
be historically explained without the previous
stage
of a purer faith respecting God (at least as com-
pared
with ordinary heathenism), such as according to
Genesis
was possessed by the patriarchs. . . .
And
such
a higher religious culture almost necessarily pre-
supposes
personal mediators or bearers. As the
forma-
tion
of states only takes place through leading spirits or
heroes,
so too the stadia of the development of religion
are
linked to prominent persons. The
patriarchal sagas
in
Genesis represent Abraham as the head of a purer
faith
respecting God in the midst of heathen darkness,
as a
man of a mind eminently disposed toward God and
faith,
who was accustomed to hear and obey the voice
and
instruction of God in all the junctures and events of
his
life, who made advances in the knowledge of the
being
and will of God, and who grounded his family and
his
neighborhood in this higher knowledge.
We must
almost
presuppose the existence of one or more such
men,
whether they were called Abraham or somethrng
else
if it be correct that Moses could link on to the God
of
his fathers. To be sure, if one denies,
as many now
do,
the work of Moses likewise, and makes the herds-
man
Amos or Elijah the opponent of Baal the founder
of
the higher God-consciousness of Israel, that linking is
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 567
no
longer needed. The whole patriarchal
saga must dis-
solve
in fog and mist on this way of regarding things."
Stade and Kuenen fix the age of the
patriarchal saga
on
the basis of their revolutionary conception of the his-
tory
of Israel. Thus Stade1
says: "Abraham as the
father
of Isaac and grandfather of Jacob presupposes the
government
of Judah over all Israel, and the complete
amalgamation
of the Edomite clan Caleb with Judah;
the
Jacob-Joseph saga presupposes the divided king-
dom." And Kuenen:2 "The sagas about
the patri-
archs
. . . presuppose the unity of the people
(which
only came into existence with and by means of
the
monarchy) as a long-accomplished fact which had
come
to dominate the whole conception of the past com-
pletely." "The welding process (i.e., of the sagas
relat-
ing
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) cannot have begun till
the
national unity was established; and it must have
reached
its ultimate completeness when the stories out
of
which Gen. xii. sqq. is worked up and compiled were
written." The conclusion is hence drawn that the Pen-
tateuchal
documents must be considerably later than the
time
of David, or even of Rehoboam. But it
rests upon
a theory
of the history of Israel, which is in the face of
the
clearest Scriptural statements, and has no real basis
in
the few passages which have been wrested to its sup-
port.
A more common argument of date is drawn
from the
localities
mentioned in the lives of the patriarchs, as
Bethel,
Shechem, Beersheba, Hebron, etc. Later
super-
stition
consecrated these places, where divine communi-
cations
were made to the patriarchs, or where they erected
altars
and worshipped God; and idolatrous sanctuaries
were
established there. By a complete
inversion of the
real
facts of the case it is alleged that the narratives of reve-
1 Geschichte, p, 128, 2 Hexateuch, pp. 226, 227.
568 CONCLUSION
lations
granted to the patriarchs and of worship offered by
them
are not records of real facts, but are stories which
grew
up at these sanctuaries to enhance their credit.
The
authors of these narratives as they appear in Gene-
sis,
it is claimed, intended thereby to give sanction to
these
sanctuaries and express their approval of them.
The
stern condemnation of the worship at these sanctu-
aries
by the prophets Hosea and Amos indicates, it is
said,
a change of mind toward them on the part of the
best
people of that period. This is thought to
fix the
limit,
below which narratives commendatory of these
sanctuaries
could not have been written. It is hence
inferred
that J and E, to which the great body of the
patriarchal
narratives are referred, must have been
written
shortly before the time of Hosea and Amos.
Two questions still remain to divide the
critics in re-
spect
to these documents. One is as to their
relative
age;
the other, the part of the country in which they
were
produced. On the one hand it is argued
by Well-
hausen
and Kuenen that J must be older than E, since
it
adheres more closely to primitive popular beliefs, as
shown
in its crude anthropomorphic representations of
the
Deity. To which Dillmann replies that
like an-
thropomorphisms
are found in the prophets and in other
writings
of the Old Testament along with the most ex-
alted
ideas of God, and he adduces what he considers
abundant
proofs that the author of J was in possession
of
E, and made use of it in preparing his own history.
Wellhausen and Kuenen maintain that both J
and E
belonged
to the northern kingdom of Israel because of
the
prominence given to Joseph, the connection of Jacob
with
Bethel and Shechem, Mahanaim and Penuel, as well
as
Beersheba, which was a sanctuary reverenced in north-
ern
Israel, as appears from Amos v. 5; viii. 14.
Dillmann
concedes
that E was a North-Israelite, but claims that
WHEN AND WHERE PRODUCED 569
belonged
to the kingdom of.. Judah, inasmuch as he
speaks
of Hebron as the abode of Abraham (xiii. .18;
xviii.
1) and of Jacob (xxxvii. 14), and gives prominence
to
Judah in the history of Joseph (xxxvii. 26 sqq.; xliii.
3
sqq. ; xliv. 16 sqq.; xlvi. 28), as well as in ch. xxxviii.
But
J also links Abraham with Bethel and Shechem (xii.
6,
8; xiii. 3, 4), and dwells as largely as E upon the life
and
dignity of Joseph; and his account of Judah in chs.
xxxvii.,
xxxviii. is not of the most creditable sort.
The
divergence
of the critics as well as the incompatibility of
the
facts of the narratives with either theory show that
these
narratives have not been warped by tribal partiali-
ties
or jealousies; so that the argument for the residence
of
their authors in either one of the kingdoms is abortive.
And
even the attempt of Wellhausen and Kuenen to
patch
up their theory by the assumption of a Judaean
edition
of both J and E only complicates their scheme
without
improving it.
One more alleged evidence of the date of
the docu-
ments
is sought in allusions to late historical events
which,
it is claimed, are found in them, and in the style
of
religious thought and teaching by which they are char-
acterized. Thus in Noah's prediction (ix. 25-27) of the
subjugation
of Canaan by Shem, it is said that the reign
of
Solomon is presupposed; in Isaac's blessing (xxvii.
29,
39 seq.), David's victories over the Edomites, their
rebellion
under Solomon, and revolt against Jehoram the
son
of Jehoshaphat; in the covenant of Jacob and Laban
(xxxi.
44 sqq.), the wars of the Aramaeans and Israelites
for
the possession of the trans-Jordanic district; in the
promise
of kings to spring from Abraham (xvii. .16) and
Jacob
(xxxv. 11), and the blessing upon Judah (xlix. 8-
10),
the reign of David is presupposed; and in xxxvi. 31
the
establishment of the kingdom in Israel.
The falsity
of
the inference de4uce4 from this last passage is shown
570 CONCLUSION
at
length in the discussion of it in the former part of this
volume,
pp. 425 sqq. The covenant of Jacob and
Laban
is
sufficiently explained by the circumstances of the time.
The
fulfilment of the predictions in Genesis does not
warrant
the assumption that they were written after the
event,
except to him who has no belief in the foreknowl-
edge
of God or in the possibility of his making disclos-
ures
of the future.
The correspondence between the religious
ideas which
find
expression in various passages of Genesis and the
teachings
of the prophets is urged in proof that the docu-
ments
J and E must belong to the period of the prophets.
The
true course of religious development in Israel must,
however,
be gathered from a full and careful induction
of
all the facts bearing upon the subject.
The critics re-
verse
the proper order of scientific investigation when
they
frame their own theory in advance on naturalistic
presuppositions,
and then attempt to force the facts into
agreement
with it. They determine what degree of
en-
lightenment
can upon their theory be attributed to a given
period,
and then systematically exclude from that period
everything
that does not fit into their theory. The
amount
and character of the religious teaching to be
found
in the writings of Moses is the only reliable source
from
which it can be ascertained what his teachings really
were. The genuineness of his writings must be inde-
pendently
investigated in the first instance; and then we
shall
be in a position to inquire with some confidence
into
the religion of Moses. But to determine
magisteri-
ally
the limits of his teaching, and then to declare that
the
writings attributed to him cannot be genuine, and
must
be referred to an age long posterior to that in which
he
lived, because they transcend these arbitrarily assumed
limitations,
is not a legitimate method of procedure.
THE END OF THE DISCUSSION 571
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The argument is now finished. May it not be truly
said
that the demonstration is complete? The
grounds,
upon
which the existence of documents in Genesis is
rested,
have been severally examined and shown to be
invalid. The alleged repetitions and discrepancies
van-
ish
upon examination, being created by the critics them-
selves,
and due either to misinterpretation or the identi-
fication
of distinct events. The divine names in
repeated
instances
fail to correspond with the requirements of the
divisive
hypothesis, which is not needed to explain their
alternation,
since this is most satisfactorily accounted for
from
their own proper signification and general biblical
usage;
moreover, It does not render, and does not even
pretend
to render, a rational account of their employ-
ment
and distribution. The alleged diversity
of diction,
style,
and conception is either altogether factitious or is
due
to differences in the subject matter and not to a di-
versity
of writers. The continuity and
self-consistency
of
Genesis, contrasted with the fragmentary character
and
mutual inconsistencies of the documents, prove that
Genesis
is the original, of which the so-called documents
are
but severed parts. The role attributed
to the re-
dactor
is an impossible one, and proves him to be an un-
real
personage. And the arguments for the
late date of
the
documents and for their origin in one or other of the
divided
kingdoms are built upon perversions of the his-
tory
or upon unproved assumptions. What more
is
needed
to demonstrate the utter futility of the claim that
such
documents ever existed?
In the legislative porlion of the
Pentateuch the ques-
tion
turns no longer upon literary criteria, but upon an
entirely
different principle: Are the
institutions and en-
572 CONCLUSION
actments
of the Pentateuch the growth of ages or the
product
of one age and of a single mind? It is
here
that
the battle of the Mosaic authorship must be fought.
Meanwhile,
the investigations thus far conducted justify
at
least a negative conclusion. The
so-called anach-
ronisms
of the Book of Genesis have been examined,
and
nothing has been found to militate against its being
the
work of Moses. It is plainly designed to
be intro-
ductory
to the law. And if that law was given by
Moses,
as
has always been believed, and as the Scripture abun-
dantly
declare, then Genesis, too, was his work.
INDEX
OF THE CRITERIA OF THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS
(The
numbers refer to the pages on which they are discnssed; numbers
enclosed in parentheses to numbers appearing on the page.)
I. THE DIVINE NAMES
EL,
404, 497, 525 JEHOVAH,
31,41, 51, 64, 89, 144,
El-Elohe-Israel,
382 151 sqq., 181, 259, 276, 284,
Elohim,
6, 41, 51, 64, 89, 151 303, 320, 326, 331, 340, 350,
sqq., 221, 258, 265, 276, 284, 369, 380,' 434, 455, 460, 525,
295, 310, 331, 340, 350, 369, 538 sqq.
380, 404, 435, 460, 467, 468,
482, 491, 497, 518, 538 sqq.
El
Shaddai, God Almighty, 221, SHADDAI,
Almighty, 525
233 (6), 332, 482, 518
II. STYLE, CONCEPTION, AND THE RELATION OF
PASSAGES
AGE,
statements of, P, 98 (2), CALL
and answer, E, 286 (3)
178 (5) Call,
the divine, J, 181 (1)
Altar
and sacrifice, J, 116 (1), Clean
and unclean beasts, J,
163 (4) 116 (1)
Angel,
J, 215 (1) Conception,
554
Angel
calling out of heaven, E, Covenant
and its sign, P, 100 (6)
287.(4) Covenant,
similarity of, P, 333 (4)
Anthropomorphisms,
J, 31 sqq. Cross
reference, J, 193 (1)
Anthropopathies,
J, 63 (11)
Dangerous to see God, J, 215 (2)
BACK
reference, E, 342 (2), Detailed
enumeration, P, 102 (10)
370 (1) Diction,
548 sqq.
Back
reference, J, 241 (2), 381 (1) Diffuseness,
P, 101 (7), 269, 402
Back
reference, P, 50 (1), 99 (5), Discrepancies,
532 sqq.
231 (1). 269, 297 (13), 311 (7), Disjunctive question, J, 245 (31)
518 (3), 526 (1)
Beauty
of description, J, 240 (1) ETYMOLOGY,
J, 145 (3), 216 (4)
574 INDEX
FIRST-BORN
mentioned, P, 313 (4) 376, 385, 405, 464 seq., 468,
Formality,
P, 50 (2), 296 (2) 506 (2), 511, 529
Formula,
concluding (of gene- From E to
P, 406
alogies), P, 141 (2) From J to E, 159,274,
318, 325,
Formulae,
constantly recurring, 327, 356, 373, 375, 450, 459
P, 101 (7) seq., 473 seq., 478
From J to P, 15, 33 sqq., 72
HUMAN
feelings attributed to seq., 77, 134, 169 seq., 175,
God, J, 63 (11) 209 sqq., 241 (2), 250, 299, 527
From P to JE, 35 seq., 78, 82,
IMAGE
of God, P, 102 (9) 158 sqq., 171 seq., 217 sqq.,
246 seq., 249, 298, 309, 316,
JEHOVAH
comes down from 322., 330 seq., 335 seq., 363,
heaven, J, 145 (2) 383, 386 seq., 406 seq., 493,
LAW
woven in P 99 (5) 513 seq., 527
Repetitions, 532 sqq.
MEASUREMENTS,
P, 99 (4)
SINFULNESS of men, inherent, J,
NIGHT
vision, E, 286 (2) 117(2)
No
sacrifice till Moses, P, 117,163 Style,
548 sqq.
PROMISE
of blessing to all na- TIME,
exact statements of, P,
tions, J, 163 (3), 243 (25) 98 (3), 213 (1), 232 (3)
Promise
of nations, kings, and Tithe,
E, 342 (5)
princes, P, 232 (2) .
UNADORNED character of the
RECKONING
by years of life, P, narrative, P, 332 (1)
98 (2) Unfavorable
representation, J,
Redundancy
of style, P, 233 (5) 216 (3)
References
expressed or implied
from one document to an- VERBOSITY, 141 (3) other:
From
E to J, 160seq., 255seq., WINDOWS
of heaven, P, 101 (8)
263, 322 sqq., 337 seq., 357, Worship, J, 181 (2)
III. CHARACTERISTIC WORDS AND PHRASES
(Niphal,
Hiphil, Hithpael, and future forms of verbs are arranged under their first
radical letter. Nouns preceded by the
article or an inseparable
preposition
are arranged in accordance with the initial letter of the noun.)
MdAxAhA J,
61 (4) ylaUx
J, 217 (12)
hmAdAxE J,
341 (4) MyDiW;Ka
RUx P, 161, 170, 204
ynAdoxE J,
241 (4) zHaxno
P, 402 (4)
INDEX 575
hz.AHuxE P,
233 (7) xybihe (to Egypt) E, 451 (3)
wyxihA J,
484 (6) yBi
J, 486 (22)
Cr,xAhA ynedoxE
wyxihA E,
484 (6) yTif;Baw;ni
yBi R, 288 (1)
OTwxiv; wyxi (of beasts) J, 117 rhas.oha
tyBe J, 484 (7)
j`xa E, 333 (1) hrAykiB; J, 250 (1)
lk,xo J,
485 (12) yTil;bil;,
yTil;Bi J,
242 (14)
hbAk;xA P,
112 (21) ynifEnaK;ha
tOnB; j,
299
lxe (for
hl.,xe) J, 243 (23) rkAne-NB, P,
235 (12)
hlAxA J,
326 (3) rUbfEBa
J, 118 (6); e,
276 (3)
OTxi Myhilox< E, 271 (1) rBA
E, 485 (12)
OBli-lx, J,
118 (5) xrABA
P, 29 (1)
hmAxA E,
259 (12) hvhy
j`UrB; J,
326 (4)
hnAm;xA E,
253 (12) j`reBAt;hi R, 289 (5)
OBliB; rmaxA J, 306 (17) B;
j`rab;ni J,
181 (5)
lx, or
l; rmaxA E, 262 (5)
tHaTam;xa J,
483 (3) hlAdoG;
(of age) E, 355
(2)
ynixE P,
204 fvaGA
P, 110 (18)
vym.Afa-lx, Jsax<n, P, 310 (5) MGa
. . . MGa
J, 503 (10)
Jxa J,
243 (19) xvh
MGa J, 137, 292 (3)
qPexat;hi J,
489 wreGe
E, 272 (5)
hTAxa rUrxA J, 40 (6)
ym.iraxEhA P,
320 (5) qbaDA J, 403 (1)
MyirahEna-MraxE J, 298 OBli-lx,
( B;) rB,Di
J, 306 (17)
bg,n.,ha Cr,x, E, 252 (2) ynez;xAB;
rB,Di J,
529 (2)
NfanaK; Cr,x, P, 177 (4) hl.,xehA
MyriBAD;Ka J,
462 (5)
j~yn,pAl; Cr,x, E, 253 (15) hgADA E, 519 (5)
hw.Axi (of
a concubine), P, 214 (3) tUmD;
P, 4
l; rw,xE J, 353 (1) MtArodol;
P, 236 (19)
B; (distributive)
P, 116 (28) Myhilox,hA-tx,
j`l.ehat;hi P,
51 (8)
Mymiy.Aba xBA J, 245 (32) hn.Ahe (adv.) E, 276 (5)
hkAxEBo J, 143 (2) xnA
hn.ehi J, 185 (4)
llag;Bi J,
185 (6) ynin.ahi E, 334 (3)
lyDib;hi P,
4, 5
hmAheB; P,
403 (9) NUe (ending) J, 243 (22)
576 INDEX
Myniquz; J, 270 (2) l; byFyhe J, 185 (2)
rkazA E, 484 (11) HaykiOh E, 276 (7)
rkazA (of God) P, 270 (1) dlayA
(beget) J, 111
(20), 133
hbAqen;U rkAzA P, 498 (2) dl,y,
E, 272,(6), 484
(4)
OTxi Ofr;za P,
109 (17) l;
dl.ayu J,
133
Mk,yreHExa Mk,fEr;za P, 109 (17) dyliOh
P, 111 (20), 234
(10)
Nymiyhe
J, 194 (2)
qzaHA E, 506 (3) yy.eHa
ynew; ymey; P,
311 (6)
hy.Aha (wild beast) P, 113 (22) JysiOh J, 40 (8)
hy.AH< P,
120 (12) rw,xE
Nfaya R, 289 (3)
(fraz,) hy.AHi J, 120 (12) bqofEya E,
450 (1)
Cr,xAhA ty.aHa P, 4 hx,r;ma
tpayvi rxaTo tpay; E,
355
hd,W.Aha ty.aHa J, 30 (2) (3)
MOlHE E,
260 (4) Okrey;
yxec;yo P,
498 (7)
NOl.Ha J, 119 (9) gyc.,hi (;gcayA)
J, 503 (7)
Lhehe J,
61 (2) rcayA
J, 29 (1)
hlAliHA J, 241 (8) rc,ye J,
62 (6)
tm,He ; E, 273 (8) MUqy; J, 119 (10)
tm,x<v, ds,H, J, 305 (6) dyriOh,
drayA (to
Egypt) J, 451 (3)
hcAHA J, 381 (5) hdAr; (inf. of drayA) E, 489 (3)
hrAHA J,
245 (30) rfawa-tx,
wrayA J,
306 (19)
vynAyfeb; hrAHA E, 491 (2) lxerAW;yi
J, 450 (1)
qwaHA P, 402 (3) wye (with suf.) J, 306 (11)
bwayA P, 192 (3)
hx,r;ma tbaFo J, 306 (13)
bOF (physical)
J, 61 (5) dbeKA
J, 485 (14)
hHAFA E, 273 (9) wbaKA
P, 4
NfaFA E, 492 (3) hKo (local) E, 287 (5)
Mr,F, J,
242 (13) NKe-lfaa
yKi J, 243 (18)
Mr,F,B; E, 334 (2) rWABA-lKA P, 103 (11)
Cr,xAhA
yyeOG-lKA J,
243 (25)
fdayA J(euphemism)
J, 306 (14) hl.Aki
J, 333 (2)
fDavat;hi J, 489 yHaha-lKA
P, 118 (7)
tdoyA J, 509 (9) rkAzA-lKA P, 235 (14)
hbAhA (bhayA) J, 456 (6) yHa-lKA J, 118 (7)
dyHiyA E, 287 (6) ryfi rfawa yxec;yo-lKA P, 403 (11)
INDEX 577
lKel;Ki E,
506 (2), 530 (2) xOPs;mi
J, 483 (1)
hmAdAxEhA tOHP;w;mi-lKA J, 181 (4) Ffam;
J, 485 (16)
hnAl.AKu E,
484 (8) xcAm;n.iha
J, 507 (2)
hW,fAye xlo NKe J, 403 (5) NHe
xcAmA J,
62 (10)
tyriB; traKA J, 107 (16), 276 (2) hv,q;mi
P, 4, 5
xvhiha wp,n.,ha htAr;k;niv; P, 236 hmAheB;ha
hneq;mi J,
509 (8)
(20)
rqABaha
hneq;m; J,
509 (8)
Mys.iPa tn,toK; J, 451 (2) Nxco.ha
hneq;mi J,
509 (8)
Tr,KoW;ma
E, 354 (1)
L; at
J, 118 (4) rmAw;mi
E, 484 (7)
brome rpes.Ayi xlo J, 217 (11) MTOHP;w;mil;
P, 142 (4)
bbAle E,
260 (2) Mh,yteHop;w;mil;
P, 104 (13)
hz., hm.AlA J,
243 (17)
HqalA P, 176 (1) xnA J, 185 (3)
NOwlA P,
145 (1) hvhy
Mxun; R,
289 (2)
FyBihi
(FbanA) J, 241 (5)
Dxom; dxom; P,
116 (27) xybinA
E, 252 (5)
zxAme J, 462 (3) bg,n,
E,
252 (2), 273 (2)
lkAxEma J, 112 (21) dk,n,vA Nyni E, 277 (10)
Nxeme J,
519 (2) ryKihi
(rkanA
) J, 456 (4)
txam; P, 269 (1) fsanA
E, 252 (2), 273
(2)
Myrigum; P, 234 (8) MyrUfn.;mi
J, 503 (5)
h.mah;mat;hi J, 485 (18) rfana
J, 484 (4), see
272 (6)
tAyWifA txz.o-hma J, 185 (7) vyrAxUAca-lfa
lpanA J,
502 (1)
rkAzA-lKA Mk,lA lOm.hi P, 402 (5) wp,n,
P, 177 (3)
tUm J,
110 (18) lfa
bc.ani J,
341 (2)
tUmTA tOm E,
252 (6) NOyq.Ani
J, 341 (2)
hHAmA J,
111 (19) xWAnA
P, 192 (2)
lUBm.aha yme J, 120 (13) xyWinA
P, 235 (11)
Nymi P,
114 (23) tyriB;
NtanA P,
107 (16)
hlAPek;ma P,
310 (3)
j`xAl;ma J, 215 (1) sUs
J, 507 (4)
NOlmA J,
483 (2)
Mynimo E,
371 (10) HmAdAxEhA
dbafA J,
40 (3)
vyfAs.Amal; P,
194 hvhy
db,f, J,
305 (2)
578 INDEX
j~D;b;fa J,
243 (24) dqaPA J, 270 (1)
dxom; dfa e,
334 (4) drap;ni
P, 118 (8), 143
(1), 195
yHa j~d;Of J, 502 (4) hbArAv; hrAPA P, 105 (15)
MlAOf (compounds
of) P 235 (17) CraPA
J, 341 (3)
rkafA J,
404 (8) MywirAPA
J, 530 (4)
tdoOx-lfa E,
530 (5) HtaP,
J, 486 (20)
yKer;Bi-lfa E,
253 (11)
rbaD;-lfa E,
253 (11) hdAce
E, 484 (9)
xrAqA NKe-lfa J, 61 (3) rhaco
P, 119 (9)
hmAdAxEhA yneP;-lfa J, 61 (3) Haylic;Hi
J, 306 (16)
bc.efat;hi J,
62 (8) Ml,c,
P, 50 (5)
NObc.Afi J,
30 (7) hrAyfic;
J, 250 (2)
Mc,f, (self-same) P, 114 (24) hrAcA E, 484 (10)
yriWAb;U ymic;fa J, 353 (3)
rcafA J,
216 (9) hvAHETaw;hiv;
ddaqA J,
307 (20)
rw,xE bq,fe R,
289 (4) Mym.ifa
lhaq; P,
333 (6)
rKaKiha yrefA P, 192 (5) MUq
(be made sure)
P, 297 (9)
hd,W.Aha bW,fe J, 30 (2) tyriB;
Myqihe P,
107 (16)
hWAfA J, 29 (1) hnAFaq;
(of age) E, 355
(2)
hwfE (inf.)
E, 530 (3) lqa
J, 119 (11)
ds,H, hWAfA J,
245 (29) ll.aqi
J, 181 (6)
rtafA J,
321 (1) NyAn;qi
P, 370 (2)
hc,qA
J, 508 (5)
B; fgAPA E,
342 (3) hvhy
Mweb; xrAqA J,
326 (5)
MrAxE NDaPa P,
320 (4) ymiw;
Mh,bA xreq.Ayi E,
519 (3)
Ucponi (CUP) J, 143 (1) txraq;li J, 242 (16)
qHAc;yi dHaPa E, 371 (9) hrAq;hi
J, 306 (15)
br,H, ypil; J,
143 (1)
wgl,yPi J,
292 (2) hxor;
(infin.) E, 518
(1)
ll.ePi E, 519 (4) hB,r;xa
hBAr;ha J,
216 (10)
ll.ePat;Hi E,
260 (3) tw,q,
hbero E,
273 (10)
MfaPah J,
241 (9) hdAr;
(inf. of drayA) E, 498 (3)
hp, hcAPA J,
40 (10) txraq;li
CUr J, 353 (2)
hcAp;nA (CcaPA) J, 118 (8) qHer;ha E, 273 (13)
rcaPA J,
242 (12) bk,r,
J, 530 (4)
INDEX 579
wUcr;,
wkarA
P, 176 (2) rq,BoBa
MyKiw;hi J,
244 (26); E 272
Wm,r,,
WmarA
P, 115 (26) (3)
fare J,
456 (5) ryHixA
Mwev; J,
41 (13)
yneyfeB; ffarA E, 272 (4) h.mAw;U
J, 293 (4)
qra J,
62 (7) lx,
fmawA P,
297 (10)
lOqB
fmawA E,
272 (2)
lOql;
fmawA J,
216 (8)
hd,WA J,
39 (2) yy.eHa
ynew; P,
296 (5)
yOgl; MUW E,
273 (12) hHAp;wi
J, 353 (4)
hd,W.aha HayWi J, 30 (2) JqawA
J, 241 (6)
lyxim;Wihi J,
194 (2) Cr,W,, CrawA P, 115 (25)
xneW J,
306 (18) tdol;OT
P, 96 (1)
hpWA J,
145 (1) hbAfEOT
J, 503 (6)
qWa E,
483 (3) bwAOT
P, 297 (7)
hcAr;xa hvAHETw;hi (hHawA)
J, 244 MTa
J, 507 (3)
hyHiw;ha,
tHewa
P, 111 (19) MypirAT;
E, 371 (3)
IV. THE ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS
ABATED,
J, 119 (11) Beast
of the earth, P, 4, 30 (2)
Abomination,
J, 503 (6) Beast of
the field, J, 30 (2)
Advanced
in days, J, 245 (32) Because (Nfaya), R, 289 (3)
Afar
off, E, 273 (13) Because
(bq,fe), R, 289 (4)
Again,
J, 40 (8) Because
of (llag;Ba), J, 185 (6)
All
flesh, P, 103 (11) Because
of (rUbfEBa), J, 118 (6)
All
living things, P, 118 (7)
All
that went out of the gate of Before,
.J, 242 (13)
the
city, P, 403 (11) Beforetime,
E, 371
Also,
J, 243 (19) Beget,
J or P, 111 (20), 133, 234
Am I
in the place of God, E, (10)
530 (4) Begin,
J, 61 (2)
Angel
(of Jehovah), J, 215 (1) Behold
now, J, 185 (4)
Angry,
to be, J, 245 (30) Bethuel
the Aramrean, P, 320 (5)
Aram-naharaim,
J, 305 (3) Bless one's
self, R, 289 (5)
Archer,
E, 273 (10) Blessed
of Jehovah, J, 326 (4)
Blot out, J, 111 (19)
BEAR,
to, P, 192 (2) Bondmaid,
J, 353 (4)
Beast,
P, 403 (9) Bone
and flesh, my, J, 353 (3)
580 INDEX
Born
to, were, J, 133 Door,
J, 486 (20)
Both.
. . and, J, 503 (10) Dream,
E, 260 (4)
Bottle,
E, 273 (8) Dwell,
P, 192 (3)
Bow
himself to the, earth, J, 244
(27) EATING,
P, 112 (21)
Bow
the head and worship, J, Elder,
E, 355 (2)
307 (20) End,
J, 508 (5)
Break
forth, J, 341 (3) Enemy
J, 306 (18)
Bring
down (to Egypt), J, 451 (3) Eternity
(compounds of), P, 235
Brother's
name, and his, J, 41 (13) (17)
Burn
in one's eyes (anger) E, 491 Every
living thing, J, 118 (7)
(2) Exceedingly
(dxom;
dxom;), P, 116
Bush
of the field, J, 30 (2) (27)
Exceedingly (dxom;
dfa), E, 334
CALL
upon the name of Jehovah, (4)
J, 326 (5) Except, E, 276 (4)
Cast
out, E, 272 (5) Expire,
P, 110 (18)
Chariots,
J, 530 (4)
Child,
E, 272 (6) FAIL,
J, 507 (3)
Children
of Heth, P, 296 (3) Fair,
J, 61 (5)
Circumcised,
every male of you Fair of form
and fair to look
be, P, 402 (5) upon, E, 355 (3)
Cleave
unto, J, 403 (1) Fair
to look upon, J, 306 (13)
Collection,
P, 4, 5 Families,
according to their, P,
Come
(incitement), J, 456 (6) 104 (13), 142 (4)
Comest,
as thou, J, 143 (2) Families
of the earth, all the, J,
Concubine,
J, 292 (2) 181 (4)
Covenant,
conclude or make, J, Far be
it, J. 241 (8)
107 (16) ; E, 276 (2) Father of, J, 137
Covenant,
establish or ordain, P, Fear of
Isaac, E, 371 (9)
107 (16) Fell
on his neck, J, 502 (1)
Create,
P, 29 (1) Field,
J, 39 (2)
Creep,
creeping thing, P, 115 Find
favor, J, 62 (10)
(25, 26) First-born,
J, 250 (1)
Cry,
J, 241 (7) Fodder,
J, 483 (1)
Curse,
J, 181 (6) Food
(lk,xo), J, 485 (12)
Cursed
art thou, J, 40 (6) Food
(hlAk;xA), P, 112 (21)
DAUGHTERS
of the Canaanites, Forasmuch
as, J, 456 (8)
J, 305 (4) Form, to, J, 29 (1)
Days
of the years of the life, P, For
therefore, J, 243 (18)
311 (6) For
the sake of, J, 242 (11)
Destroy,
P, 111 (19) Found,
J, 507 (2)
Divide,
P, 4, 5 Friend,
J, 456 (5)
INDEX 581
From
the time that, J, 462 (3) JACOB,
E, 450 (1)
Fruitful,
be, and multiply, P, Journey,
to J 498 (1)
105 (15) ,
KEEP alive, J, 120 (12)
GATHER,
P, 176 (2). Kind
(species), P. 114 (23)
Gathered
unto his people, P, 310 Kindness
and truth, J, 305 (6)
(5) Know
(euphemism), J, 306 (14)
Gathering
together, P, 4, 5
Generations,
P, 96 (1) LABAN
the Aramrean, E, 371 (4)
Generations,
throughout their, Lad, J,
484 (4)
P, 236 (19) Land of Canaan, P, 177 (4)
Get,
P, 176 (2) Land
of Egypt, P, 509 (1)
Get
possessions, P, 402 (4) Land
of Goshen, J, 509 (1)
Getting,
P, 370 (2) Light,
a (in the ark), P, 119 (9)
Give
up the ghost, P, 310 (4) Light
upon, to, E, 342 (3)
God
was with him, E, 271 (1) Likeness,
P, 4
Goods,
P, 176 (2) Lip
(language), J, 145 (1)
Go
to the right, the left, J, 194 (2) Little,
a, J, 485 (16)
Grain,
E, 485 (12) Living
substance, J, 119 (10)
Grieved,
to be, J, 62 (8) Lodging-place,
J, 483 (2)
Grievous
in the eyes, E, 272 (4) Long
for, P, 402 (3)
Ground,
J, 341 (4) Look,
J, 241 (5)
Ground,
on the face of the, J, Look
forth, J., 241 (6)
61 (3) Lord,
my (ynAdoxE), J, 241 (4)
Grow,
E, 519 (5)
MACHPELAH, P, 296 (4)
HEARKEN
to the voice of, J, 216 Made sure,
P, 297 (9)
(8); E, 272 (2) Maid-servant, E, 259 (1)
Heart,
E, 260 (2) Make,
J, 29 (1)
Heart,
at or unto his, J, 118 (5) Make
a nation, E, 273 (12)
Heavy,
J, 485 (14) Make
an end, J, 333 (2)
Herb
of the field, J, 30 (2) Make
himself known, E, 489
Here,
E, 276 (5) Make
prosperous, J, 306 (16)
Him
also, to, J, 137 Male
and female, P, 103 (12)
Horsemen,
J, 530 (4) Male
and his female, J, 117 (3)
Horses,
J, 507 (4) Man,
the, J, 61 (4), 484 (6)
House,
J, 333 (4) Man,
the lord of the land, E, 484
Hundred,
P, 269 (1) (6)
Meet, to, J, 242 (16)
IMAGE,
P, 50 (5) Multiply
greatly, J, 216 (10)
Imagination,
J, 62 (6)
In
order that, E, 276 (3) NAME,
and her, J, 293 (4)
Israel,
J, 450 (1) Name
shall be called on them,
It
may be, J, 217 (12) E, 519 (3)
582 INDEX
Nations
of the earth, all the, J, Restrain,
J, 216 (9)
243 (25) Rise up early in the morning, J,
Not
to be numbered for multi- 244 (26) ; E, 272 (3)
tude, J, 217 (11) Run to meet, J, 353 (2)
Not
to, J, 242 (14)
Nourished,
E, 506 (2), 530 (2) SACK, J,
483 (3)
Saith Jehovah, R, 289 (2)
OATH,
J, 326 (3) Say
concerning, E, 262 (5)
Offspring
and posterity, E, 277 Seed
with him, P, 498 (2)
(10) Self-same,
P, 114 (24)
On
account of, E, 273 (14) Send
good speed, J, 306 (15)
Only
(j`xa), E, 333 (1) Servant of Jehovah, J, 305 (2)
Only
(qra), J, 62 (7), She also, J, 292 (3)
Only
(son), E, 287 (6) Shoot,
to, E, 273 (9)
Open
the mouth, J, 40 (10) Show
kindness, J, 245 (29)
Overspread,
was, J, 118 (8) So did
he, P, 105 (14)
Sojourner, P, 297 (7)
PADDAN-ARAM,
P, 320 (4) Sojournings, P,
234 (8)
Parts,
J, 509 (9) Sorrow,
J, 30 (7)
Peradventure,
J, 306 (8) Souls,
P, 177 (3)
Perpetuity
(compounds of), P, Speak in
his heart, J, 306 (17)
235 (17) Speak
in the ears of, J, 529 (2)
Person,
P, 177 (3) Spent,
to be, J, 507 (3)
Possession,
P, 233 (7) Spread
abroad, J, 341 (3)
Possession
of cattle, J, 509 (8) Stood
on or over, J, 341 (2)
Possession
of flocks, J, 509 (8) Stranger,
P, 235 (12)
Possession
of herds, J, 509 (8) Subdue,
P, 4
Possess
the gate, J, 306 (19) Substance,
P, 176 (2)
Pray,
to, E, 260 (3) Swarm,
swarming things, P, 115
Pray
thee, I, J, 185 (3) (25)
Presented,
J, 503 (7) Swear
by myself, R, 288 (1)
Press,
to, J, 242 (12)
Prevailed,
E, 506 (3) TERAPHIM,
E, 371 (3)
Prince,
P, 235 (11) That
soul shall be cut off, P, 236
Prison,
J, 484 (7) (20)
Provision,
E, 484 (9) Therefore
was called, J, 530 (6)
Purchase,
P, 234 (9) This
time, J, 241 (9) .
Thou and thy seed after thee, P,
RECOGNIZE,
J, 456 (4) 109 (17)
Refrain
himself, J, 489 Thou
art yet alive, J, 502 (4)
Refused,
J, 519 (2) Thought,
E, 519 (4)
Remember,
E, 484 (11) Thy
servant, J, 243 (24)
Reprove,
E, 276 (7) Till
the ground, J, 40 (3)
INDEX 583
Times,
E, 371 (10) What
is this that thou hast done, Toil, J, 30 (7) J. 185 (7)
Tongue
(language), P, 145 (1) Wherefore,
J, 243 (17)
Took,
P, 176 (1) Which
belong to, J, 353 (1)
Treated
well, J, 185 (2) Which
ought not to be done, J,
Trouble,
to, J, 404 (8) 403 (5)
Tunic,
E, 451 (2) Wife
(concubine), P, 214 (5)
Tunic,
long, J, 451 (2) Wild
beast, P, 113 (22)
Window (in the ark), J, 119 (9)
UPON
the knees of, E, 530 (5) With
the edge of the sword, J,
Urge,
J, 242 (12) 403 (7)
YEARS of the life of, P, 296 (5)
VISIT,
J, 270 (1) You
and your seed after you, P,
109 (17)
WAGES,
E, 354 (1) Younger
(hrayfic;), J, 25CJ (2)
Ward,
E, 484 (7) Younger
(hn.AFaq;), E, 355 (2)
Waters
of the flood, J, 120 (13) Youth,
J, 503 (5)
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium