| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
The five books of Moses were collectively called the Pentateuch, a word of Greek
origin meaning "the five-fold book." The Jews called them the Torah, i.e., "the
law." It is probable that the division of the Torah into five books proceeded
from the Greek translators of the Old Testament. The names by which these several
books are generally known are Greek.
The first book of the Pentateuch (q.v.) is called by the Jews Bereshith, i.e.,
"in the beginning", because this is the first word of the book. It is generally
known among Christians by the name of Genesis, i.e., "creation" or "generation,"
being the name given to it in the LXX. as designating its character, because it
gives an account of the origin of all things. It contains, according to the usual
computation, the history of about two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine years.
Genesis is divided into two principal parts. The first part (Genesis
1 - 11)
gives a general history of mankind down to the time of the Dispersion. The second
part presents the early history of Israel down to the death and burial of Joseph
(Genesis
12 - 50).
There are five principal persons brought in succession under our notice in this
book, and around these persons the history of the successive periods is grouped,
viz., Adam (Genesis
1 - 3),
Noah (Genesis
4 - 9),
Abraham (Genesis
10 - 25:18),
Isaac (Genesis
25:19 - 35:29),
and Jacob (Genesis
36 - 50).
In this book we have several prophecies concerning Christ (Genesis
3:15 ; 12:3
; 18:18
; 22:18
; 26:4
; 28:14
; 49:10).
The author of this book was Moses. Under divine guidance he may indeed have been
led to make use of materials already existing in primeval documents, or even of
traditions in a trustworthy form that had come down to his time, purifying them
from all that was unworthy; but the hand of Moses is clearly seen throughout in
its composition.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
beginning
Smith's Bible Dictionary
(origin) The first book of the law or Pentateuch, so
called from its title in the Septuagint, that is, Creation. Its author was Moses.
The date of writing was probably during the forty-years wanderings in the wilderness,
B.C. 1491-1451.
Time . --
The book of Genesis covered 2369 years,--from the creation of Adam, A.M 1, to
the death of Joseph, A.M. 2369, or B.C. 1635.
Character and purpose . --
The book of Genesis (with the first chapters of Exodus) describes the steps which
led to the establishment of the theocracy. It is a part of the writers plan to
tell us what the divine preparation of the world was in order to show, first,
the significance of the call of Abraham, and next, the true nature of the Jewish
theocracy. He begins with the creation of the world, because the God who created
the world and the God who revealed himself to the fathers is the same God. The
book of Genesis has thus a character at once special and universal.
Construction . --
It is clear that Moses must have derived his knowledge of the events which he
records in Genesis either from immediate divine revelation or from oral tradition
or written documents. The nature of many of the facts related, and the minuteness
of the narration, render it extremely improbable that immediate revelation was
the source from whence they were drawn. That his knowledge should have been derived
from oral tradition appears morally impossible when we consider the great number
of names, ages, dates and minute events which are recorded. The conclusion then,
seems fair that he must have obtained his information from written documents coeval,
or nearly so, with the events which they recorded, and composed by persons intimately
acquainted with the subjects to which they relate. He may have collected these,
with additions from authentic tradition or existing monuments under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, into a single book. Certain it is that several of the first
chapters of Genesis have the air of being made up of selections from very ancient
documents, written by different authors at different periods. The variety which
is observable in the names and titles of the Supreme Being is appealed to among
the most striking proofs of this fact. This is obvious in the English translation,
but still more so in the Hebrew original. In Genesis
1 to 2:3,
which is really one piece of composition, as the title, v.
4, "These are the generations," shows, the name of the Most High is uniformly
Elohim , God. In ch. ( Genesis
2:4 ) to ch.
3, which may be considered the second document, the title is uniformly Yehovah
Elohim, Lord God ; and in the third, including ch.
4, it is Yehovah, Lord , only; while in ch.
5 it is Elohim , God only, except in v.
29, where a quotation is made, and Yehovah used. It is hardly conceivable
that all this should be the result of mere accident. The changes of the name correspond
exactly to the changes in the narratives and the titles of the several pieces."
Now, do all these accurate quotations," says Professor Stowe, "impair the credit
of the Mosaic books, or increase it? Is Marshalls Life of Washington to be regarded
as unworthy of credit because it contains copious extracts from Washingtons correspondence
and literal quotations from important public documents? Is not its value greatly
enhanced by this circumstance? The objection is altogether futile. In the common
editions of the Bible the Pentateuch occupies about one hundred and fifty pages,
of which perhaps ten may be taken up with quotations. This surely is no very large
proportion for an historical work extending through so long a period."--Bush.
On the supposition that writing was known to Adam, Genesis
1 - 4,
containing the first two of these documents, formed the Bible of Adams descendants,
or the antediluvians. Genesis
1 to 11:9,
being the sum of these two and the following three, constitutes the Bible of the
descendants of Noah. The whole of Genesis may be called the Bible of the posterity
of Jacob; and the five Books of the Law were the first Bible of Israel as a nation.
--Canon Cook
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
jen'-e-sis:
I. GENERAL DATA
1. The Name
The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, bere'shith,
i.e. "in the beginning" (compare the Bresith of Origen]). In the Septuagint it
is called Genesis, because it recounts the beginnings of the world and of mankind.
This name has passed over into the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
(Liber Genesis). As a matter of fact the name is based only on the beginning of
the book.
2. Survey of Contents
The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first
human beings (Genesis 1); of paradise and the fall (Genesis 2); of mankind down
to the Deluge (Genesis 4; compare Genesis 4, Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself
(Genesis 6-9); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs (Genesis 10:1-11:26;
compare 11:1, the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (Genesis
11:27-25:18); of Isaac and his house (Genesis 25:19-37:2); of Jacob and of Joseph
(Genesis 37:2-50:26). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history
of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down
to the beginning of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and
it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (Genesis
1:1-11:26) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (Genesis 11:27-50:26) the
history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of
the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with Exodus 1. Though
the introduction, Genesis 1-11, with its universal character, includes all mankind
in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (12:1-3), it is
from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart
one man and his family (Genesis 12-50), and after that a single nation (Exodus
1), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of
salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation
is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.
3. Connection with Succeeding Books
By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection
Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history
of the chosen people, which begins with Exodus 1, at the very outset and with
a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare Exodus
1:1-6,8 with Genesis 46:27; 50:24; and see EXODUS, I, 3), although hundreds of
years had clasped between these events; which years are ignored, because they
were in their details of no importance for the religious history of the people
of God. But to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 the promise had been given, not only
that he was to be the father of a mighty nation that would recognize him as their
founder, and the earliest history of which is reported in Exodus and the following
books of the Pentateuch, but also that the Holy Land had been promised him. In
this respect, the Book of Joshua, which gives the story of the capture of this
land, is also a continuation of the historical development begun in Genesis. The
blessing of God pronounced over Abraham, however, continued to be efficacious
also in the later times among the people who had descended from him. In this way
Genesis is an introduction to all of the books of the Old Testament that follow
it, which in any way have to do with the fate of this people, and originated in
its midst as the result of the special relation between God and this people. But
in so far as this blessing of God was to extend to all the nations of the earth
(Genesis 12:3), the promises given can be entirely fulfilled only in Christ, and
can expand only in the work and success of Christian missions and in the blessings
that are found within Christianity. Accordingly, this book treats first of beginnings
and origins, in which, as in a kernel, the entire development of the kingdom of
God down to its consummation is contained (compare VI below). |
II. COMPOSITION OF GENESIS IN GENERAL
1. Unity of the Biblical Text
(1) The Toledhoth
The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has,
at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2 and 3). This impression
is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan
and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation
of the world (Genesis 1:1-2:3) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical
unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case
bear the name toledhoth, or "generations." For this word never signifies creation
or generation as an act, but always the history of what has already been created
or begotten, the history of generations; so that for this reason, Genesis 2:4a,
where mention is made of the toledhoth of heaven and of earth, cannot possibly
be a superscription that has found its way here from Genesis 1:1. It is here,
as it is in all cases, the superscription to what follows, and it admirably leads
over from the history of creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1 to
the continuation of this subject in the next chapter. The claim of the critics,
that the redactor had at this place taken only the superscription from his source
P (the priestly narrator, to whom Genesis 1 - 2:3 is ascribed), but that the section
of P to which this superscription originally belonged had been suppressed, is
all the more monstrous a supposition as Genesis 2:4a throughout suits what follows.
Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term toledhoth can the fact
be finally and fully explained, that the toledhoth of Terah contain also the history
of Abraham and of Lot; the toledhoth of Isaac contain the history of Jacob and
Esau; the toledhoth of Jacob contain the history of Joseph and his brethren. The
ten toledhoth are the following:
I, Genesis 2:4 - 4:26, the toledhoth of the heavens and
the earth;
II, Genesis 5:1 - 6:8, the toledhoth of Adam;
III, Genesis 6:9 - 9:29, the toledhoth of Noah;
IV, Genesis 10:1 - 11:9, the toledhoth of the sons of Noah;
V, Genesis 11:10 - 26, the toledhoth of the sons of Shem;
VI, Genesis 11:27 - 25:11, the toledhoth of Terah;
VII, Genesis 25:12 - 18, the toledhoth of Ishmael;
VIII, Genesis 25:19 - 35:29, the toledhoth of Isaac;
IX, Genesis 36:1 - 37:1, the toledhoth of Esau (the fact that Genesis 36:9, in
addition to the instance in verse 1, contains the word toledhoth a second time,
is of no importance whatever for our discussion at this stage, as the entire chapter
under any circumstances treats in some way of the history of the generations of
Esau; see III, 2:9);
X, Genesis 37:2 - 50:26, the toledhoth of Jacob. |
In each instance this superscription covers everything that follows down to the
next superscription.
The number 10 is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles EXODUS,
LEVITICUS, DAY OF ATONEMENT, also in EZEKIEL, it has been shown what role the
typical numbers 4, 7, 10 and 12 play in the structure of the whole books and of
the individual pericopes. (In the New Testament we meet with the same phenomenon,
particularly in the Apocalypse of John; but compare also in Matthew's Gospel the
3 X 14 generations in Matthew 1:1, the 7 parables in 13:1, the 7 woes in 23:13.)
In the same way the entire Book of Leviticus naturally falls into 10 pericopes
(compare LEVITICUS, II, 2, 1), and Leviticus 19 contains 10 groups, each of 4
(possibly also of 5) commandments; compare possibly also 18:6-18; 20:9-18; see
LEVITICUS, II, 2, 21, VI. Further, the number 10, with a greater or less degree
of certainty, can be regarded as the basis for the construction of the pericopes:
Exodus 1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16 (10 plagues); 13:17-18:27 (see EXODUS, II, 2:1-3); the
Decalogue (20:1); the first Book of the Covenant (21:1-23:13; 23:14-19), and the
whole pericope 19:1-24:18a, as also 32:1-35:3 (see EXODUS, II, 2, 4, 6). In the
Book of Genesis itself compare further the 10 members from Shem to Abraham (11:11-26),
as also the pericopes 25:19-35:29; 37:2-50:26 (see III, 2, 8, 10 below), and the
10 nations in Genesis 15:19. And just as in the cases cited, in almost every instance,
there is to be found a further division into 5 X 2 or 2 X 5 (compare, e.g. the
two tables of the Decalogue); thus, too, in the Book of Genesis in each case,
5 of the 10 pericopes are more closely combined, since I-V (toledhoth of Shem
inclusive) stand in a more distant, and VI-X (treating of the toledhoth of Terah,
or the history of Abraham) in a closer connection with the kingdom of God; and
in so far, too, as the first series of toledhoth bring into the foreground more
facts and events, but the second series more individuals and persons. Possibly
in this case, we can further unite 2 toledhoth; at any rate I and II (the primitive
age), III and IV (Noah and his sons), VII and VIII (Ishmael and Isaac), IX and
X (Esau and Jacob) can be thus grouped.
(2) Further Indication of Unity
In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text
of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it
is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations
that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before
the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development.
Cain's history (4:17) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (4:25
f J; 5:3 P); Japheth's and Ham's genealogy (10:1 P; 10:8 P and J) before that
of Shem (10:21 J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah
(9:24); the further history of Lot (19:29 P and J) and of Ishmael's genealogy
(25:12 P and J) before that of Isaac (25:19 P and J and E); Esau's descendants
(36:1 R and P) before the toledhoth of Jacob (37:2 P and J and E).
In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the
Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history
that begins with Exodus 1, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion
with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis
(compare, e.g. 3:8; 7:16; 11:5 J; 17:1,22; 35:9,13 P; 18:1; 32:31 J), afterward
ceases; and that in Ex, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than
in the Book of Genesis (see EXODUS, III, 2); that Genesis contains rather the
history of mankind and of families, while Exodus contains that of the nation (see
I, 2 above); that it is only in Exodus that the law is given, while in the history
of the period of the patriarchs we find only promises of the Divine grace; that
all the different sources ignore the time that elapses between the close of Genesis
and the beginning of Exodus; and further, that nowhere else is found anything
like the number of references to the names of persons or things as are contained
in Genesis (compare, e.g. 2:23; 3:20; 4:1,25, etc., in J; 17:5,15,17-20, etc.,
in P; 21:9,17,31, etc., in E; 21:6; 27:36, etc., in J and E; 28:19, etc., in R;
49:8,16,19, etc., in the blessing of Jacob); that the changing of the names of
Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah from Genesis 17:5,15 goes on through all
the sources, while before this it is not found in any source. Finally, we would
draw attention to the psychologically finely drawn portraits of Biblical persons
in Genesis. The fact that the personal pronoun hu' and the noun na'ar are used
of both masculine and feminine genders is characteristic of Genesis in common
with all the books of the Pentateuch, without any difference in this regard being
found in the different documents, which fact, as all those cited by us in number
1 above, militates against the division of this book into different sources. Let
us now examine more closely the reason assigned for the division into different
sources. |
2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory
(1) In General
(a) Statement of Theory
Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in
dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P),
Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed
the following greater and connected parts: 1:1-2:4a; 5; a part of the story of
the Deluge in chapters 6-9; 11:10; 17; 23; 25:12; 35:22b; the most of 36. As examples
of the parts assigned to J we mention 2:4b-4:26; the rest of the story of the
Deluge in chapters 6-9; 11:1; 12; 16; 18, with the exception of a few verses,
which are ascribed to P; chapter 24 and others. Connected parts belonging to the
Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters 20 and 21 (with the exception of
a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that,
beginning with chapter 22, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of
Joseph (25:19-50:26), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found
under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized
only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener,
and the author of the present article.
(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions
As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into
different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the
two names of God, namely Yahweh (Yahweh) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude
that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although
other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen
the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in
contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g.,
Genesis 1 is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of
the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity
to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch
and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article
PENTATEUCH. In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis,
and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for
God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts
of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates
are found, e.g., Genesis 1:1-2:4 a the Priestly Code (P), and 2:4b J, containing
two stories of creation; Genesis 12:9 J; 20:1 E; 26:1 J; with the narrative of
how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters
15 J and 17 the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded
His covenant with Abraham; 21:22 E and 26:12 J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters
16 J and 21 E, the Hagar episodes; 28:10 J and E and 35:1 E and the Priestly Code
(P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention
made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt (37:25;
39:1); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition
a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these
sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material,
as in 5:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:6 (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau);
P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in
his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because
according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to
Exodus 6:1. Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking
to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according
to J Yahweh is said to have conversed with mankind personally. In regard to the
peculiarities of language used by the different sources, it is impossible in this
place to enumerate the different expressions, and we must refer for this subject
to the different Introductions to the Old Testament, and to the commentaries and
other literature. A few examples are to be found under (c) below, in connection
with the discussion of the critical hypothesis. Finally, as another reason for
the division of Genesis into different sources, it is claimed that the different
parts of the sources, when taken together, can be united into a smooth and connected
story. The documents, it is said, have in many cases been taken over word for
word and have been united and interwoven in an entirely external manner, so that
it is still possible to separate them and often to do this even down to parts
of a sentence or to the very words.
(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory
(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language
It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in
legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove
that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts
that are no less systematic than those of P (compare Genesis 4:17; 10:8; 22:20-24);
or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (Genesis 7:2,7; 7:4,12,17;
8:6; 7:4; 8:8,10,12), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible.
In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited
to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb bara', "create," in Genesis
1:1 is used to prove that this was written by the Priestly Code (P), but the word
is found also in 6:7 in J. The same is the case with the word rekhush, "possession,"
which in 12:5; 13:6; 36:7 is regarded as characteristic of the Priestly Code (P),
but in 14:11,16,21 is found in an unknown source, and in 15:14 in J. In 12:5;
13:12a; 16:3; 17:8 it is said that 'erets kena'an, "land of Canaan," is a proof
that this was written by P; but in chapters 42; 44; 47; 50 we find this expression
in Jahwist and Elohist, in Numbers 32:32 in J (R) ; compare also Numbers 33:40
(PR) where Numbers 21:1-3 (JE) is quoted; shiphchah, "maid servant," is claimed
as a characteristic word of J in contrast to E (compare 16:1); but in 16:3; 29:24,29
we find this word not only in P but in 20:14; 30:4,7,18; in E Min, "kind," is
counted among the marks of P (compare e.g. 1:11), but in Deuteronomy 14:13,14,18
we find it in Deuteronomy; rather remarkably, too, in the latest find on the Deluge
made by Hilprecht and by him ascribed to 2100 BC. Compare on this subject my book,
Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, and Orr, POT, chapter vii, section vi, and
chapter x, section i; perhaps, too, the Concordance of Mandelkern under the different
words. Even in the cases when the characteristic peculiarities claimed for the
sources are correct, if the problem before us consisted only in the discovery
of special words and expressions in the different sources, then by an analogous
process, we could dissect and sever almost any modern work of literature. Particularly
as far as the pieces are concerned, which are assigned to the Priestly Code (P),
it must be stated that Genesis 1 and 23 are, as far as style and language are
concerned, different throughout. Genesis 1 is entirely unique in the entire Old
Testament. Genesis 23 has been copied directly from life, which is pictured with
exceptional fidelity, and for this reason cannot be claimed for any special source.
The fact that the story of the introduction of circumcision in Genesis 17 in many
particulars shows similarities to the terminology of the law is entirely natural:
The same is true when the chronological accounts refer one date to another and
when they show a certain typical character, as is, e.g., the case also in the
chronological parts of any modern history of Israel. On the other hand, the method
of P in its narratives, both in matter and in form, becomes similar to that of
Jahwist and Elohist, just as soon as we have to deal with larger sections; compare
Genesis 28:1; 35:9; 47:5, and all the more in Exodus and Numbers.
Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact
of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts
in Genesis 1; 17 and 23, of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would,
according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the
patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, 11:27,31; 12:4b; 13:6a 11b,12a;
16:1a,3,15; 19:29; 21:1b,2b-5; 25:7-11a; and in its later parts P would become
still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see III below).
No author could have written thus; at any rate he would not have been used by
anybody, nor would there have been such care evinced in preserving his writings.
(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter
The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics,
constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination,
and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot
be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited
to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge
(see III, 2, in each case under (2)).
(iii) The Biblico-Theological Data
The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic
in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes
with mankind only in the beginning (Genesis 2; 16; 11:5; 18), but not afterward.
In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose
conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare
Genesis 17:1,22; 35:9,13). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not
only in E, (Genesis 21:17, 'Elohim), but also in J (Genesis 16:7,9-11). In 22:11
in E, the angel of Yahweh (not of the 'Elohim) calls from heaven; theophanies
in the night or during sleep are found also in J (compare Genesis 15:12; 26:24;
28:13-16; 32:27). In the case of the Priestly Code (P), the cult theory, according
to which it is claimed that this source does not mention any sacrifices before
Exodus 6:1, is untenable. If it is a fact that theocracy, as it were, really began
only in Exodus 6, then it would be impossible that P would contain anything of
the cults before Exodus 6; but we have in P the introduction of the circumcision
in Genesis 17; of the Sabbath in 2:1; and the prohibition against eating blood
in 9:1; and in addition the drink offerings mentioned in 35:14, which verse stands
between 35:13 and 15, and, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), is only in the interests
of this theory attributed to the redactor. If then theory here outlined is not
tenable as far as P is concerned, it would, on the other hand, be all the more
remarkable that in the story of the Deluge the distinction between the clean and
the unclean (7:2.8) is found in J, as also the savor of the sacrifice, with the
term reach ha-nichoach, which occurs so often in P (compare Genesis 8:21 with
Numbers 15:3,7,10,13,24; 18:17); that the sacrifices are mentioned in Genesis
8:20, and the number 7 in connection with the animals and days in 7:4; 8:8,10,12
(compare in the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Leviticus 8:33; 13:5,21,26,31,33,10,54;
14:8,38; 14:7,51; 16:14; Numbers 28:11; 29:8, etc.); further, that the emphasis
is laid on the 40 days in Genesis 7:4,12,17; 8:6 (compare in the Priestly Code
(P), Exodus 24:1-8; Leviticus 12:2-4; Numbers 13:25; 14:34), all of which are
ascribed, not as we should expect, to the Levitical the Priestly Code (P), but
to the prophetical J. The document the Priestly Code (P), which, according to
a large number of critics, was written during the Exile (see e.g. LEVITICUS, III,
1, or EZEKIEL, sec. II, 2) in a most surprising manner, instead of giving prominence
to the person of the high priest, would then have declared that kings were to
be the greatest blessings to come to the seed of Abraham (Genesis 17:6,16); and
while, on the critical assumption, we should have the right to expect the author
to favor particularistic tendencies, he, by bringing in the history of all mankind
in Genesis 1-11, and in the extension of circumcision to strangers (17:12,23),
would have displayed a phenomenal universality. The strongest counter-argument
against all such minor and incorrect data of a Biblical and a theological character
will always be found in the uniform religious and ethical spirit and world of
thought that pervade all these sources, as also in the unity in the accounts of
the different patriarchs, who are pictured in such a masterly, psychological and
consistent manner, and who could never be the result of an accidental working
together and interweaving of different and independent sources (see III below).
(iv) Duplicates
In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions,
see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).
(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together
But it is also impossible that these sources could have been worked together in
the manner in which the critics claim that this was done. The more arbitrarily
and carelessly the redactors are thought to have gone to work in many places in
removing contradictions, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they at other
places report faithfully such contradictions and permit these to stand side by
side, or, rather, have placed them thus. And even if they are thought not to have
smoothed over the difficulties anywhere, and out of reverence for their sources,
not to have omitted or changed any of these reports, we certainly would have a
right to think that even if they would have perchance placed side by side narratives
with such enormous contradictions as there are claimed to be, e.g. in the story
of the Deluge in P and J, they certainly would not have woven these together.
If, notwithstanding, they still did this without harmonizing them, why are we
asked to believe that at other places they omitted matters of the greatest importance
(see III, 2, 3)? Further, J and E would have worked their materials together so
closely at different places that a separation between the two would be an impossibility,
something that is acknowledged as a fact by many Old Testament students; yet,
notwithstanding, the contradictions, e.g. in the history of Joseph, have been
allowed to stand side by side in consecutive verses, or have even intentionally
been placed thus (compare, e.g. Genesis 37:25). Then, too, it is in the nature
of things unthinkable that three originally independent sources for the history
of Israel should have constituted separate currents down to the period after Moses,
and that they could yet be dovetailed, often sentence by sentence, in the manner
claimed by the critics. In conclusion, the entire hypothesis suffers shipwreck
through those passages which combine the peculiarities of the different sources,
as e.g. in Genesis 20:18, which on the one hand constitutes the necessary conclusion
to the preceding story from E (compare 20:17), and on the other hand contains
the name Yahweh; or in 22:14, which contains the real purpose of the story of
the sacrificing of Isaac from E, but throughout also shows the characteristic
marks of J; or in 39:1, where the so-called private person into whose house Joseph
has been brought, according to J, is more exactly described as the chief of the
body-guard, as this is done by E, in 40:2,4. And when the critics in this passage
appeal to the help of the redactor (editor), this is evidently only an ill-concealed
example of a "begging of the question." In chapter 34, and especially in chapter
14, we have a considerable number of larger sections that contain the characteristics
of two or even all three sources, and which accordingly furnish ample evidence
for protesting against the whole documentary theory.
(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes
All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when
we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources
J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles
that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves
to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like
to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger
that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in Genesis 12:9
and in 26:1, are ascribed to J, and the story as found in Genesis 20:1 to E. But
evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories
are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly,
we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories
have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual
occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use
is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in Genesis 17:17; 18:12;
21:6, namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But
since 21:9 E; 26:8 J also contain references to this, and as in 21:6 JE, in addition
to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then,
in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of
three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point
to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As
a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that
there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1
and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch,
Kuenen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of
J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent
sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration
some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others).
Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and
separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original
form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are
themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is
absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological
ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the
Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources,
except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have
been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other
less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these
sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in
view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if
consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and
this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably
leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars
have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence
which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have
achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely
from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all
solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored. |
|
(2) In View of the Names for God
(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle
The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point
for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief
sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves
be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in Exodus 6:1, in the Priestly Code
(P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by
the name of Yahweh, but only as "God Almighty," it seems to be the correct thing
to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which
in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other
with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names
of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from Genesis
20 on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E),
whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori
discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all
the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever
portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical
in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either
the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even
before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to
this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide
J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the
names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps
in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a ha-'Elohim source,
an 'El Shadday source, an 'Adhonay source, a Mal'akh Yahweh source, a Mal'akh
'Elohim source, etc., but unfortunately these characteristics of the sources come
into conflict in a thousand cases with the others that are claimed to prove that
there are different sources in the Book of Genesis.
(b) False Basis of Hypothesis
But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, Exodus 6:1 P; is falsely
regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses,
as Exodus 6:1 P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive
a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such
an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known
before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible
for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since
it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the
composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare Exodus
6:20 and Numbers 26:59). In addition, we do not find at all in Exodus 6:1 that
God had before this revealed Himself as 'Elohim, but as 'El Shadday, so that this
would be a reason for claiming not an 'Elohim but an 'El Shadday source for P
on the basis of this passage (compare 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3 P--43:14 E! compare
also 49:25 in the blessing of Jacob). Finally, it is not at all possible to separate
Exodus 6:1 P from that which immediately precedes, which is taken from JE and
employs the name Yahweh; for according to the text of P we do not know who Moses
and who Aaron really were, and yet these two are in Exodus 6:1 regarded as well-known
persons. The new revelation of God in Exodus 6:1 (P) by the side of 3:1 (JE and
E) is also entirely defensible and rests on a good foundation; for Moses after
the failure of Exodus 5 needed such a renewed encouragement (see EXODUS, sec.
II, 2, 1). If this is the case, then the revelation of the name of Yahweh in Exodus
6:1 cannot mean that that name had before this not been known at all, but means
that it had only been relatively unknown, i.e. that in the fullest and most perfect
sense God became known only as Yahweh, while before this He had revealed His character
only from certain sides, but especially as to His Almighty Power.
(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance
In view of the importance which among oriental nations is assigned to names, it
is absolutely unthinkable that the two names Yahweh and Elohim had originally
been used without any reference to their different meanings. The almost total
omission of the name Yahweh in later times or the substitution of the name Elohim
for it in Psalms 42-83 is doubtless based in part on the reluctance which gradually
arose in Israel to use the name at all; but this cannot be shown as probable for
older times, in which it is claimed that E was written. In the case of P the rule,
according to which the name Elohim is said to have been used for the pre-Mosaic
period, and the reason for the omission of Yahweh would have been an entirely
different one. Then, too, it would be entirely inexplicable why J should have
avoided the use of the name Elohim. The word Elohim is connected with a root that
signifies "to fear," and characterizes God from the side of His power, as this
is, e.g., seen at once in Genesis 1. Yahweh is splendidly interpreted in Exodus
3:14; and the word is connected with the archaic form hawah for hayah, "to be,"
and the word characterizes God as the being who at all times continues to be the
God of the Covenant, and who, according to Genesis 2:4-3:24, can manifestly be
none other than the Creator of the universe in Genesis 1:1-2:3, even if from Genesis
12 on He, for the time being, enters into a special relation to Abraham, his family
and his people, and by the use of the combined names Yahweh-Elohim is declared
to be identical with the God who created the world, as e.g. this is also done
in the section Exodus 7:8-13:16, where, in the 10 plagues, Yahweh's omnipotent
power is revealed (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 2); and in 9:30 it is charged against-Pharaoh
and his courtiers, that they did not yet fear Yahweh-Elohim, i.e. the God of the
Covenant, who at the same time is the God of the universe (compare also 1 Kings
18:21,37,39; Jonah 4:6).
(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God
But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of
passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect
consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice
of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.
(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh
The fact that the toledhoth of Terah, of Isaac, and of Jacob begin with the name
Yahweh but end without this name. In the history of Abraham are to be noted the
following passages: Genesis 12:1,4,7,8,17; 13:4,10,13,14,18; 14:22; 15:1,2,8;
16:2,5-7,9,10,11,13; 17:1; in the history of Isaac: 25:21,22,23; 26:2,12,22,24,25,28,29;
and in the toledhoth of Jacob 38:7,10; 39:2,3,1. In these passages the beginnings
are regularly made with the name Yahweh, although with decreasing frequency before
the name Elohim is used, and notwithstanding that in all these sections certain
selections from P and E must also be considered in addition to J. Beginning with
Genesis 12, in which the story of the selection of Abraham is narrated, we accordingly
find emphasized, at the commencement of the history of each patriarch, this fact
that it is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who is determining these things. Beginning
with Genesis 40 and down to about Exodus 2 we find the opposite to be the case,
although J is strongly represented in this section, and we no longer find the
name Yahweh (except in one passage in the blessing of Jacob, which passage has
been taken from another source, and hence is of no value for the distinction of
the sources J, E and P; this is the remarkable passage Genesis 49:18). In the
same way the story of Abraham (Genesis 25:1-11) closes without mention being made
of the name of Yahweh, which name is otherwise found in all of these histories,
except in Genesis 23 (see below). The toledhoth of Isaac, too, use the name Yahweh
for the last time in 32:10; and from this passage down to Genesis 37:2 the name
is not found. It is accordingly clear that in the history of the patriarchs there
is a gradual decrease in the number of times in which the name Yahweh occurs,
and in each case the decrease is more marked; and this is most noticeable and
clearest in the history of Joseph, manifestly in order to make all the more prominent
the fact that the revelation of God, beginning with Exodus 3:1, is that of Yahweh.
These facts alone make the division of this text into three sources J, E and P
impossible.
(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him
The fact, further, that the approach of an individual to God or his departure
from God could find its expression in the different uses made of the names of
God is seen in the following. In connection with Ishmael and Lot the name Yahweh
can be used only so long as these men stood in connection with the kingdom of
God through their relation to Abraham (compare Genesis 16:7,9,10,11,13 and 13:10;
19:13,16), but only the name Elohim can be used as soon as they sever this connection
(compare Genesis 21:12,17,19,20 and 19:29). On the other hand, ['Elohim] is used
in the beginning of the history of the Gentile Abimelech (Genesis 20:3,6,11,13,17;
21:22); while afterward, when he has come into closer relations to the patriarchs,
the name Yahweh is substituted (Genesis 26:28,29). A similar progress is found
in separate narratives of the patriarchs themselves, since in Genesis 22:1 and
chapter 28 the knowledge of Elohim is changed into that of Yahweh (compare 22:1,3,1
with 22:11,14,15,16, and 28:12 with 28:13,16).
(iii) Other Reasons
['Elohim] can, further, in many cases be explained on the basis of an implied
or expressed contrast, generally over against men (compare Genesis 22:8,12; in
the second of these two passages the fear of God is placed in contrast to godlessness);
Genesis 30:2; 31:50; 32:2; compare with 32:4 and 8; 32:29; 35:5; or on the basis
of an accommodation to the standpoint of the person addressed, as in 3:1-5 (serpent);
20:3,6,11,13,17; 23:6; 39:9 (Gentiles); or on the basis of grammar, as in 23:6;
32:3; 28:17,22; because the composition with the proper name Yahweh could never
express the indefinite article (a prince of God, a camp of God, a Bethel or house
of prayer); or finally in consequence of the connection with earlier passages
(compare 5:1 with chapter 1; 21:2,4; 28:3; 35:9 with chapter 17). A comparison
of these passages shows that, of course, different reasons may have induced the
author to select the name Elohim, e.g. 23:6; 28:12; 32:12.
(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham
That the names for God are systematically used is finally attested by the fact
that in the history of Abraham, after the extensive use of the name Yahweh in
its beginning (see above), this name is afterward found combined with a large
number of other and different names; so that in each case it is Yahweh of whom
all further accounts speak, and yet the name of Yahweh is explained, supplemented
and made clear for the consciousness of believers by the new appellations, while
the full revelation of His being indeed begins only in Exodus 3 and 6:1, at which
place the different rays of His character that appeared in earlier times are combined
in one brilliant light. The facts in the case are the following. In the story
of Abraham, with which an epoch of fundamental importance in the history of revelation
begins, we find Yahweh alone in Genesis 12 f. With the exception of chapter 23,
where a characteristic appellation of God is not found, and 25:1-11, where we
can claim a decadence in the conception of the Divinity (concerning 23:6; 25:11;
see above, the name of Yahweh is retained in all of these stories, as these have
been marked out (III, 2, 6); but beginning with chapter 14 they do not at all
use any longer only one name for God. We here cite only those passages where,
in each ease, for the first time a new name for God is added, namely, 14:18, 'El
'Elyon; 14:19, Creator of heaven and of earth; 15:2, 'Adhonay; 16:7, the Angel
of Yahweh; 16:13, the God that seeth; 17:1, 'El Shadday; 17:3, 'Elohim; 17:18,
ha-'Elohim; chapters 18, special relation to the three men (compare 18:2 and 19:1);
18:25, the Judge of the whole earth; 20:13, 'Elohim constructed as a plural; 21:17,
the Angel of God; 24:3, the God of heaven and the God of the earth; 24:12, the
God of Abraham. |
(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof
If we add, finally, that to prove the hypothesis we are limited to the meager
materials found in Genesis 1:1 through Exodus 6:1 if; that in this comparatively
small number of chapters Genesis 40 to Exodus 2 cannot be utilized in this discussion
(see above under (d); that all those passages, in which J and E are inseparably
united must be ignored in this discussion; that all other passages in which J
and E are often and rapidly interchanged from the very outset are suspiciously
akin to begging the question; that Genesis 20:18, which with its "Yahweh" is ascribed
to R, is absolutely needed as the conclusion of the preceding Elohim story; that
in 21:33 with its "Yahweh" (Yahweh) in the Jahwist (Jahwist), on the other hand,
the opening Elohim story from E, which is necessary for an explanation of the
dwelling of Abraham in the south country, precedes; that the angel of Yahweh (22:11)
is found in E; that 2:4-3:24 from J has besides Yahweh the name Elohim, and in
3:1b-5 only Elohim (see above); that in 17:1; 21:1 P Yahweh is found; that 5:29,
which is ascribed to J, is surrounded by portions of the Priestly Code (P), and
contains the name Yahweh, and would be a torso, but in connection with chapter
5 the Priestly Code (P), in reality is in its proper place, as is the intervening
remark (5:24 P); that, on the other hand, in 4:25; 6:2,4; 7:9; 9:27; 39:9 Elohim
is found--in view of all these facts it is impossible to see how a greater confusion
than this could result from the hypothesis of a division of the sources on the
basis of the use made of the names of God. And then, too, it is from the very
outset an impossibility, that in the Book of Genesis alone such an arbitrary selection
of the names for God should have been made and nowhere else.
(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position
The modern critics, leaving out of consideration entirely their further dissection
of the text, themselves destroy the foundation upon which this hypothesis was
originally constructed, when Sievers demands for Genesis 1 (from P) an original
Yahweh Elohim in the place of the Elohim now found there; and when others in Genesis
18 f J claim an original Elohim; and when in 17:1-21:1 the name Yahweh is said
to have been intentionally selected by P.
(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint
Naturally it is not possible to discuss all the pertinent passages at this place.
Even if, in many cases, it is doubtful what the reasons were for the selection
of the names for God, and even if these reasons cannot be determined with our
present helps, we must probably, nevertheless, not forget that the Septuagint
in its translation of Genesis in 49 passages, according to Eerdman's reckoning,
and still more according to Wiener's, departs from the use of the names for God
from the Hebrew original. Accordingly, then, a division of Genesis into different
sources on the basis of the different names for God cannot be carried out, and
the argument from this use, instead of proving the documentary theory, has been
utilized against it. |
|
|
III. STRUCTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERICOPES
In this division of the article, there is always to be found (under 1) a consideration
of the unity of the Biblical text and (under 2) the rejection of the customary
division into different sources.
The conviction of the unity of the text of Genesis and of the impossibility of
dividing it according to different sources is strongly confirmed and strengthened
by the examination of the different pericopes. Here, too, we find the division
on the basis of the typical numbers 4,7,10,12. It is true that in certain cases
we should be able to divide in a different way; but at times the intention of
the author to divide according to these numbers practically compels acceptance
on our part, so that it would be almost impossible to ignore this matter without
detriment, especially since we were compelled to accept the same fact in connection
with the articles EXODUS (II); LEVITICUS (II, 2); DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, 1),
and aIso EZEKIEL (I, 2, 2). But more important than these numbers, concerning
the importance or unimportance of which there could possibly be some controversy,
are the fundamental religious and ethical ideas which run through and control
the larger pericopes of the [toledhoth] of Terah, Isaac and Jacob in such a way
that it is impossible to regard this as merely the work of a redactor, and we
are compelled to consider the book as the product of a single writer.
1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1-2:3)
The structure of the proemium (Genesis 1:1-2:3) is generally ascribed to P. Following
the introduction (Genesis 1:1,2; creation of chaos), we have the creation of the
seven days with the Sabbath as a conclusion. The first and the second three days
correspond to each other (1st day, the light; 4th day, the lights; 2nd day, the
air and water by the separation of the waters above and the waters below; 5th
day, the animals of the air and of the water; 3rd day, the dry land and the vegetation;
6th day, the land animals and man; compare also in this connection that there
are two works on each day). We find Exodus also divided according to the number
seven (see EXODUS, II, 1; compare also Exodus 24:18 b through 31:18; see EXODUS,
II, 2, 5, where we have also the sevenfold reference to the Sabbath idea in Ex,
and that, too, repeatedly at the close of different sections, just as we find
this here in Genesis); and in Le compare chapters 23; 25; 27; see LEVITICUS, II,
2, 2; the VIII, IX, and appendix; and in Genesis 4:17 J; 5:1-24 P; 6:9-9:29; 36:1-37
I (see under 2, 1,2,3,1).
2. Structure of the 10 Toledhoth
The ten toledhoth are found in Genesis 2:4-50:26.
1. The Toledhoth of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4-4:26):
(1) The Biblical Text.
(a) Genesis 2:4-25, Paradise and the first human beings;
(b) 3:1-24, the Fall;
(c) 4:1-16, Cain and Abel;
(d) 4:17-26, the Cainites, in seven members (see under 1 above) and Seth. The
number 4 appears also in 5:1-6:8 (see under 2); 10:1-11:9 (see under 4); and especially
11:27-25:11 (under 6). Evidently (a) and (b), (c) and (d) are still more closely
connected. |
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 1:1-2:4 a P and 2:4b through
4:26 J).
Ch 2 does not contain a new account of creation with a different order in the
works of creation. This section speaks of animals and plants, not for their own
sakes, but only on account of their connection with man. The creation of the woman
is only a further development of Ge 1. While formerly the critics divided this
section into 2:4-4:26 J, they now cut it up into J1 and j2 (see under II, 2, 1
(c) (because, they say, the tree of life is mentioned only in 2:9 and 3:23, while
in 2:17 and 3:3 the Divine command is restricted to the tree of knowledge of good
and evil. But it is impossible to see why there should be a contradiction here,
and just as little can we see why the two trees standing in the midst of the garden
should no~t both have had their significance (compare 2:9; 3:3). It is further
asserted that a division of J is demanded by the fact that the one part of J knows
of the Fall (6:9), and the other does not know of such a break in the development
of mankind (4:17). But the civilization attained by the Cainites could certainly
have passed over also to the Sethites (see also 6:2); and through Noah and his
sons have been continued after the Deluge. Then, too, the fact that Cain built
a city (4:17), and the fact that he became a fugitive and a wanderer (4:12), are
not mutually exclusive; just as the beginnings made with agriculture (4:12) are
perfectly consistent with the second fact. |
2. The Toledhoth of Adam (Genesis 5:1-6:8):
(1) The Biblical Text.
(a) Genesis 5:1-24, seven generations from Adam to Lamech
(see under 1, and Jude 1:14);
(b) Genesis 5:25-32, four generations from the oldest of men, Methuselah, down
to the sons of Noah;
(c) 6:1-4, intermingling of the sons of God and the sons of men; (d) 6:5-8, corruption
of all mankind. Evidently at this place (a) and (b), (c) and (d) correspond with
each other. |
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 5 P with the Exception of
5:29 (see II, 2, 2 (e)); 5:29; 6:1-8 J). Genesis 6:7 J presupposes chapter 1 P;
as, on the other hand, the fact that the generations that, according to chapter
5 the Priestly Code (P), had in the meanwhile been born, die, presupposes the
advent of sin, concerning which only J had reported in chapter 3. In the case
of the Priestly Code (P), however, in 1:31 it is said that everything was very
good. |
3. The Toledhoth of Noah (Genesis 6:9-9:29):
(1) The Biblical Text.
Seven sections (see 1 above) viz:
(a) Genesis 6:9-22, the building of the ark;
(b) 7:1-9, entering the ark;
(c) 7:10-24, the increase of the Flood;
(d) 8:1-14, the decrease of the Flood;
(e) 8:15-19, leaving the ark;
(f) 8:22-9:17, declaration of a covenant relation between God and Noah;
(g) 9:18-29, transfer of the Divine blessing upon Shem. |
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 7:1-5,7-10,12,16b,17,22; 8:2b,3a,6-12,13b,20-22;
9:20-27 J, the Rest from P). In all the sources are found the ideas that the Deluge
was the punishment of God for sin; further, the deliverance of the righteous Noah
and his wife and three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives; the deliverance
of the different kinds of animals; the announcement of the covenant relations
between God and mankind after the Deluge; the designation of the Deluge with the
term mabbul and of the ark with tebhah. In the Babylonian account, which without
a doubt stands in some connection with the Biblical, are found certain measurements
of the ark, which in the Bible are only in the Priestly Code (P), as also the
story of the sending out of the birds when the flood was decreasing, and of the
sacrifices of those who had been delivered, which in the Bible are said to be
found only in J; and these facts are a very powerful argument against the division
into sources. Further, the Priestly Code (P), in case the critics were right,
would have contained nothing of the thanks of Noah for his deliverance, although
he was a pious man; and in the case of J we should not be informed what kind of
an ark it was into which Noah was directed to go (Genesis 7:1); nor how he can
already in Genesis 8:20 build an altar, as he has not yet gone out of the ark;
and, further, how the determination of Yahweh, that He would not again curse the
earth but would bless it, can be a comfort to him, since only P has reported concerning
the blessing (9:1). Even if the distinction is not always clearly made between
clean and unclean animals, and different numbers are found in the case of each
(6:19; 7:14-16 the Priestly Code (P), over against 7:2 f in J), yet this is to
be regarded merely as a lack of exactness or, perhaps better, rather as a summary
method of procedure. The difficulties are not even made any easier through the
separation into sources, since in 7:8 f in J both numbers and the distinction
between the two kinds of animals are used indiscriminately. Here, too, in J we
find the name Elohim used. The next contradiction that is claimed, namely that
the Deluge according to J lasted only 61 days, and is arranged in 40 days (7:4,12,17;
8:6) plus 3 X 7 = 21 days (8:8,10,12), while in P it continues for 1 year and
11 days (7:11,24; 8:3-5,14), is really a self-inflicted agony of the critics.
The report of the Bible on the subject is perfectly clear. The rain descends for
40 days (7:12 J); but as in addition also the fountains of the deep are broken
up (7:11 P), we find in this fact a reason for believing that they increased still
more (7:24 P and 7:17 J). The 40 days in 8:6 J cannot at all be identified with
those mentioned in 7:17; for if this were the case the raven would have been sent
out at a time when the waters had reached their highest stage, and even according
to J the Deluge covered the entire world. In general see above, II, 2, 1 (c).
|
4. The Toledhoth of the Sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1-11:9):
(1) The Biblical Text.
(a) Genesis 10:2-5, the Japhethites;
(b) 10:6-20, the Hamites;
(c) 10:21-32, the Shemites;
(d) 11:1-9, the Babylonian confusion of tongues. Evidently (a) to (c) is to be
regarded as in contrast to (d) (compare also 11:1,9 J in addition to 10:32 P).
|
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 10:1-7,20,22,31 f the Priestly
Code (P), the Rest Belonging to J). The distribution of Genesis 10 between P and
J is actually ridiculous, since in this case J does not speak of Japheth at all,
and the genealogy of the Hamites would connect directly with the Priestly Code
(P), a phenomenon which must have been repeated in 10:24. The Jewish Midrash,
in addition, and possibly correctly, counts 70 peoples (compare 46:27; Exodus
1:5; Numbers 11:16,25; Luke 10:1). |
5. The Toledhoth of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26):
10 generations (see under II, 1).
6. The Toledhoth of Terah (Genesis 11:27-25:11):
(1) The Biblical Text.
After the introduction (Genesis 11:27-32), theme of the history of Abraham is
given in Genesis 12:1-4 a (12:1, the promise of the holy land; 12:2, promise of
many descendants; 12:3, announcement of the double influence of Abraham on the
world; 12:4a, the obedience of Abraham's faith in his trust upon the Divine promise).
In contrast to the first three thoughts which characterize God's relation to Abraham,
the fourth is placed, which emphasizes. Abraham's relation to God (see under (d)).
But both thoughts give complete expression to the intimate communion between God
and Abraham. On the basis of these representations, which run through the entire
story and thus contribute materially to its unification, this section can also
be divided, as one of these after the other comes into the foreground. These four
parts (12:4b through 14:24; 15:1-18:15; 18:16-21:34; 22:1-25:11) can each be divided
again into four subdivisions, a scheme of division that is found also in Exodus
35:4-40:38; Leviticus 11-15; 16 (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 7; LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2,
III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, 1), and is suggested by Deuteronomy 12-26
(compare also my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, the results of the
investigation of which work are there reproduced without entering upon the details
of the argument).
(a) Genesis 12:4 through 14:24, in which the reference to
the promised land is placed in the foreground; see 12:1, and the passages and
statements in parentheses in the following:
(i) 12:4b-8, Abraham's journey to Canaan (12:5 the Priestly
Code (P), 6,7,8 J);
(ii) 12:9-13:4, descent to Egypt from Canaan, and return (12:9,10; 13:1-4J); 13:5-18,
separation from Lot (13:6 the Priestly Code (P), 7,9 J, 12a the Priestly Code
(P), 14,17,18 J); chapter 14, expedition against Chedorlaomer, etc. (Abraham is
blessed by the priest-king of the country, and receives as homage from the products
of the country bread and wine (14:18 f), while he in return gives tithes (14:20)).
The division of this section (12:4b through 14:24) is to be based on the similarity
of the closing verses (12:8; 13:4; 13:18). |
(b) Genesis 15:1-18:15, unfolding of the promise of descendants for Abraham by
this announcement that he is to have a son of his own; compare 12:2 and what is
placed in parentheses in the following: chapter 15, Yahweh's covenant with Abraham
(15:2,3 JE, 4 J, 5 E, 13,14,16,18 J). The promise is not fulfilled through Eliezer,
but only through an actual son (15:3,1); 16:1-16, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael
as the son of Abraham. Hagar's son, too, namely Ishmael, is not the genuine heir,
notwithstanding the connection between 16:10 and 12:2 (compare 17:18-20 P); chapter
17 the Priestly Code (P), promise of the birth of Isaac given to Abraham (17:2-17,19,21);
18:1-15, Sarah also hears that Isaac is promised (18:10,12-15).
(c) Genesis 18:16-21:34, the double influence of Abraham on the world; compare
12:3 and what is in parentheses in the following: 18:16-19:38, the pericope dealing
with Sodom; (i) 18:16-33, Abraham's petition for the deliverance of Sodom; (ii)
19:1-11, the sin of the Sodomites, while Lot shows some of the characteristics
of Abraham; (iii) 19:12-28, story of the destruction, in connection with which
Lot receives the benefit of his relation to Abraham (19:16,19,21,22); (iv) Lot
ceases to be a part of this history after this destruction; 20:1-18, Abraham with
Abimelech (20:6,9 E, 18 R, punishment; 20:7,17, intercession); 21:1-21, Ishmael
ceases to be part of this history (21:13,18,20 E); 21:22-34, Abraham's agreement
with Abimelech (the latter seeks Abraham's friendship and fears his enmity, 21:27,23
E).
(d) Genesis 22:1-25:11, Abraham's faith at its culminating point; compare 12:4a
and what is in parentheses in the following:
(i) 22:1-19, the sacrifice of Isaac (22:2,12 E, 16,18 R);
(ii) chapter 23, purchase of the place to bury the dead, which act was the result
of his faith in the promised land;
(iii) chapter 24 is introduced by 22:20-24, which has no independent character.
With the twelve descendants of Nahor compare the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve
of Ishmael (25:12; 17:20), and on the number 12 see Exodus 24:18-30:10, under
EXODUS, II, 2, 5; Leviticus 1-7 under LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, i, and under EZEKIEL,
I, 2, 2. Ch 24 itself contains the story of how a wife was secured for Isaac from
among his relatives (the faith in the success of this plan is transmitted from
Abraham to his servant);
(iv) 25:1-11, the sons of the concubine of Abraham (J and R) cease to be a part
of this history; transfer of the entire inheritance to the son of promise (Jahwist);
burial in the ground bought for this purpose (P) (all of these concluding acts
stand in close connection with Abraham's faith). In reference to the force of
the names of God in connecting Genesis 11:27-25:11, see above under II, 2, 2 (d).
|
|
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 11:27,31; 12:4b,5; 13:6a,11b,12a;
16:1a,3,15; 17; 19:29; 21:1b,2b-5; 23; 25:7-11a P; 14 from an unknown source;
15:6; 20:1-17; 21:8-32; 22:1-13,19 E; 15:1-3; 21:6 JE; 20:18; 22:14-18; 25:6 R;
all else belongs to J).
Through the passages ascribed to P breaks are caused in the text of J in Genesis
11:28; 12:4a (Lot); in chapter 16, where the conclusion is lacking; in 18:1 (the
reference of the pronoun); in 24:67 (Sarah's death); in 25:1 (no mention of Abraham's
death). On the other hand P presupposes the text of J in 11:31; 12:4b; 16:1b;
19:29. In the case of E we need mention only the abrupt break in 20:1; and, finally,
the text of the Priestly Code (P), leaving out of consideration the larger sections
(chapters 17 and 23), is entirely too meager to constitute an independent document.
We will here discuss also the so-called duplicates (see under II, 2, 1, a and
c). The different stories concerning the danger in which the wives of Abraham
and Isaac were involved in Genesis 12:9 J; 20:1 E; 26:1 J directly presuppose
each other. Thus, in 20:13, the Elohist (E), Abraham regards it as a fact that
such situations are often to be met with, and consequently the possibility of
an occurrence of such an event could not have appeared so remarkable to an Oriental
as it does to a modern critic; chapter 26:1 suggests the story in 12:9. The words
used here also show that the three stories in question did not originate independently
of each other (compare 26:7; 20:5; 12:19-26:7; 20:11; 12:12-26:10; 20:9; 12:18-26:3;
20:1; 12:10 (gur); see under II, 2, 1, c). The two Ishmael pericopes (chapters
16 J and P and 21 E) differ from each other throughout, and, accordingly, are
surely not duplicates. The two stories of the conclusion of a covenant in chapters
15 J and 17 P are both justified, especially since in 17:7 the author speaks of
an "establishment" of the covenant which already existed since chapter 15. Genesis
17 P and 18:1 J are certainly intended to be pendants, so that it is impossible
to ascribe them to different authors; compare the analogous beginning of theophanies
of Yahweh in 17:1 and 18:1 (even the pronoun referring to Abraham in 18:1 J, unless
taken in connection with chapter 17 the Priestly Code (P), is without any context),
also the laughing of Abraham and of Sarah (17:17; 18:12; see under II, 2, 1 (c)),
the prominence given to their age (17:17; 18:11 f), and the designation of the
time in 17:11; 18:10,14.
Nor can we quote in favor of a division into sources the passage Genesis 21:14
f E, on the ground that Ishmael is described here as being so small that he could
be laid upon the shoulder of his mother and then be thrown by her under a shrub,
while according to the Biblical text he must have been 15 years of age (16:16;
21:5 P). For the original does not say that he was carried on her shoulders; and
in Matthew 15:30 it is even said of adults that they were thrown down. On the
other hand, also according to E, Ishmael could not have been so small a child,
for in Genesis 21:18 b he is led by the hand, and according to 21:9 he already
mocks Isaac, evidently because the latter was the heir of the promise.
Sarah's age, too, according to Genesis 20 E, does not speak in favor of a division
into sources. That she was still a beautiful woman is not claimed here. Evidently
Abimelech was anxious only for a closer connection with the powerful Abraham (compare
21:23,17). Then, too, all the sources ascribe an advanced age to Sarah (compare
21:6 J and E; 18:12 f J; 17:17 P). |
7. The Toledhoth of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18):
Twelve princes descended from Ishmael (see under 6 (d)).
8. The Toledhoth of Isaac (Genesis 25:19-35:29):
The correct conception of the fundamental thought can be gained at once in the
beginning of this section (Genesis 25:22): Yahweh's oracle to Rebekah, that the
older of the twins, with whom she was pregnant, should serve the younger; also
in Romans 9:10 with reference to Malachi 1:2; and finally, the constant reference
made to Esau in addition to Jacob until the former ceases to be a factor in this
history in Genesis 36. Accordingly in the end everything is made dependent on
the one hand on Jacob's election, notwithstanding his wrongdoings, on the other
hand, on Esau's rejection notwithstanding his being the firstborn, or in other
words, upon the perfectly free grace of God; and all the different sources alike
share in this fundamental thought. But in dividing between the different parts
of this section, we must particularly draw attention to this, that in all of these
parts both thoughts in some way or other find their expression.
(1) The Biblical Text.
Containing 10 parts (see under II, 1), namely
(a) Genesis 25:19-26, the birth of Esau and Jacob;
(b) 25:27-34, Esau despises and loses his birthright;
(c) 26:1-35, Isaac receives the blessing of Abraham, which afterward is transmitted
to Jacob, while Esau, through his marriage with heathen women, prepares the way
for his rejection (26:34 f);
(d) 27:1-40, Jacob steals the blessing of the firstborn;
(e) 27:41-45, Jacob's flight out of fear of Esau's vengeance;
(f) 27:46-28:9, Jacob is sent abroad out of fear of his brother's bad example;
(g) 28:10-32:33, Jacob in a strange land and his fear of Esau, which is overcome
in his contest of prayer in Peniel on his return: 28:10-22, the ladder reaching
to heaven in Bethel when he went abroad; 29:1-30:43, twenty years with Laban (see
31:38); 31:1-54, Jacob's departure from Mesopotamia; 32:1-33, his return home;
(h) chapter 33, reconciliation with Esau, who returns to Seir (verse 16; compare
32:4), while Jacob becomes the owner of property in the Holy Land (33:19 f);
(i) 34:1-35:22, Jacob remains in this land, notwithstanding the slaughter made
by his sons Simeon and Levi (compare 34:30; 35:5); the new appearance of God in
Bethel, with a repetition of the story of the changing of Jacob's name, with which
the story of Jacob's youth is closed, and which presupposes the episode at Bethel
(compare 35:1,6b,9-15 with 28:10), and which is not in contradiction with the
first change in the name of Jacob in chapter 32 (compare the twofold naming of
Peter in John 1:43 and Matthew 16:18). Esau is yet mentioned in Genesis 35:1,7,
where there is a reference made to Jacob's flight before him;
(j) 35:23-29, Jacob's 12 sons as the bearers of the promise; while Esau is mentioned
only as participating in Isaac's burial, but inwardly he has no longer any part
in the history of the kingdom of God, as is seen from chapter 36, and in 32:4;
33:16 is already hinted at. In this section, too, evidently there are groups,
each of two parts belonging together, namely (a) and (b) describing the earliest
youth; (c) and (d) in which Isaac plays a prominent part; (e) and (f) both of
which do not exclude but supplement each other in assigning the motives for Jacob's
flight; (g) and (h) Jacob's flight and reconciliation; (i) and (j) Jacob both
according to family and dwelling-place as the recognized heir of the promise.
|
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.
As Genesis 25:29,26b; 26:34; 27:46-28:9; 29:24,29; 31:18; 35:6a,9-12,15; 35:22b-29;
36:6-30,40-43 are ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), it is clear that these are
in part such ridiculously small extracts, that we should be justified in attributing
them to a sensible author. The whole sojourn in Mesopotamia is ignored in the
Priestly Code (P), according to the critics, except the brief notices in 29:24,29;
33:18. Further, the parts of the rest of the text cannot in many cases be dispensed
with; as, e.g. we do not know in 25:26b who was born; nor in 26:34 f who Esau
was; nor in 27:46 who Jacob was; nor in 29:24 who Laban was; nor in 29:24,29 in
what connection and for what purposes Leah and Rachel are mentioned. P makes no
mention of any promise given to Isaac, which is, however, presupposed in 35:12
and later in Exodus 2:24. In Genesis 28:1 P is most closely connected with J (compare
12:1-3, the blessing of Abraham, and chapter 24). It is, further, impossible to
separate the sources E and J in chapter 28 (ladder reaching to heaven); compare
28:10-12,17,20-22 E; 28:13-16 J; 28:19, and the name of God in 28:21 R, and this
proposed division actually becomes absurd in chapters 29 f in the story of the
birth of Jacob's children, which are said to be divided between the sources J
and E. |
9. The Toledhoth of Esau (Genesis 36:1-37:1):
In 7 divisions (see under 1), namely
(a) Genesis 36:1-5 R, Esau's family; the different names
for Esau's wives, as compared with 26:34; 28:7-9 the Priestly Code (P), are doubtless
based on the fact that oriental women are apt to change their names when they
marry; and the fact that these names are without further remark mentioned by the
side of the others is rather an argument against the division into sources than
for it;
(b) 36:6-8, Esau's change of abode to Seir, which, according to 32:4; 33:14,16,
already took place before Jacob's return. Only in case that Esau (35:29) would
have afterward remained for a longer period in Canaan, could we think of a new
separation in this connection. It is more probable that at this place all those
data which were of importance in connection with this separation are once more
given without any reference to their difference in point of time;
(c) 36:9-14, Esau as the founder of the Edomites (in 36:9 the word [toledhoth]
is repeated from verse 1, while the narrative of the descendants of Esau begins
only at this later passage in so far as these were from Seir; compare 36:9 with
36:5, and above, under II, 1);
(d) 36:15-19, the leading line of the sons of Esau;
(e) 36:20-30, genealogy of the original inhabitants of the country, mentioned
because of their connection with Esau (compare 36:25 with 36:2);
(f) 36:31-39, the elective kingdoms of Edom;
(g) 36:40-43, the Edomites' chief line of descent, arranged according to localities.
We have here accordingly geographical accounts, and not historical or genealogical,
as in 36:15,20 (30); compare also 36:40,43, for which reason we find also names
of women. |
10. The Toledhoth of Jacob (Genesis 37:2-50:26):
(1) The Biblical Text.
The key to the history of Joseph is found in its conclusion, namely, in Genesis
50:14-21, in the confession of Joseph, in the light of his past, namely, that
God has ended all things well; and in 50:22, in his confidence in the fulfillment
of the Divine promise in the lives of those God has chosen; compare also Psalms
105:16. According to the two viewpoints in Genesis 50:14-26, and without any reference
to the sources, this whole pericope (37:2-50:15) is divided into two halves, each
of five subdivisions, or a total of ten (see under II, 1). In the exact demonstration
of this, not only the contents themselves, but also regard for the different names
for God will often render good service, which names, with good effect, are found
at the close and in harmony with the fundamental thought of the entire section,
namely,
(a) 37:2-39:6a, Joseph enters Potiphar's house (4 pieces,
see under 6, 1, namely 37:2-11, the hatred of the brethren, 37:12-36, selling
Joseph, 38:1, the Yahweh-displeasing conduct in the house of Judah, compare 38:7,10,
39:1-6, Yahweh's pleasure in Joseph, in contrast to;
(b) 39:6b-23, Joseph is cast into prison, but Yahweh was with him (39:21,23);
(c) 40:1-41:52, the exaltation of Joseph, which at the end especially is shown
by the naming of Ephraim and Manasseh as caused by God, but which for the present
passes by the history of his family (4 pieces, namely, 40:1, interpretation of
the dreams of the royal officials, 41:1-36, interpretation of the two dreams of
Pharaoh, 41:37-46a, the exaltation of Joseph, 41:46b-52, Joseph's activity for
the good of the country);
(d) 41:55-46:7, Joseph becomes a blessing to his family; compare the promise of
God to Jacob in Beersheba to be with him in Egypt in 46:2 with 45:6-9 (in four
pieces, namely, 41:53-57, the general famine, 42:1-38, the first journey of the
brothers of Joseph, 43:14-4:34, the second journey (in four subdivisions,
(i) 43:1-14, the departure,
(ii) 43:14-34, the reception by Joseph,
(iii) 44:1-7, final trial of the brethren,
(iv) 44:18-34, the intercession of Judah); 45:1-46:7, Joseph makes himself known
and persuades Jacob to come to Egypt); |
(e) 46:8-47:26, Joseph continues to be a blessing to his family and to Egypt (in
4 subdivisions, of which the 4th is placed in contrast to the first 3 exactly
as this is done in 10:1-11:9 and 11:27-25:11, namely, (46:8-27, list of the descendants
of Jacob, 46:28-34, meeting with Joseph, 47:1-12, Jacob in the presence of Pharaoh,
47:13-26, the Egyptians who have sold themselves and their possessions to Pharaoh
laud Joseph as the preserver of their lives). From this point on the attention
is now drawn to the future:
(f) 47:27-31, Jacob causes Joseph to take an oath that he will have him buried
in Canaan (compare 47:30 J with chapter 23 P) ; in (e) and (f) there is also lacking
a designation for God;
(g) chapter 48, Jacob adopts and blesses Ephraim and Manasseh (compare also the
emphasis placed on the providential guidance of God in 48:8,11,15, especially
48:16 and 20);
(h) 49:1-27, Jacob blesses his 12 sons and prophesies their future fate (here,
49:18, appears the name of Yahweh, which had disappeared since chapter 40; see
under II, 2, 2 (d), and other designations for God, 49:24 f);
(i) 49:28-33, Jacob's death after he had again expressed the wish, in the presence
of all his sons, that he should be buried in Canaan;
(j) 50:1-13, the body of Jacob is taken to Canaan. In these 10 pericopes again
we can easily find groups of two each, namely, (a) and (b), Joseph's humiliation
(sold, prison); (c) and (d), Joseph becomes a blessing to Egypt and to his family;
(g) and (h), blessing of the, grandchildren and the sons of Jacob; (i) and (j),
Jacob s death and burial; here too the name of God is lacking as in (e) and (f).
|
(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.
Here, too, the separation of P from the rest of the text as a distinct source
is untenable, since in the section from Genesis 37:2-46:34, after 37:2, only the
following fragments are attributed to this source, namely, 41:46a; 46:6 f (according
to some also to 46:27). In the same way P abruptly sets in at 47:5,27b; 49:28b.
Further, 48:3 knows nothing of Ephraim or Manasseh, of whom P reports nothing,
so that 50:13 f are the only verses that could naturally connect with the preceding
statements of P. In 47:5 P reports entirely in the manner of ordinary narratives,
and there is no sign of any systematic arrangement. But the separation between
J and E cannot be carried out either. In the first place, when these two sources
are actually separated by the critics, innumerable omissions in the story arise,
which we cannot at this place catalogue. The contradictions which are claimed
to exist here are the products of the critics' imagination. It is claimed that
according to J it is Judah who plays a prominent role, while according to E it
is Reuben; but in 37:21 Reuben is mentioned by J, and the role played by Judah
in chapter 38 J is anything but creditable. Why cannot both of these brethren
have played a prominent role, as this was also the case with Simeon (42:24,36;
43:14) and Benjamin (42:13,10,32,36,38; 43:3; 44; 45:14)? Just as little are the
Midianites in 37:28,36 E and the Ishmaelites of 37:25,27,28; 39:1 J mutually exclusive
or contradictory, since the Midianites in the Gideon story, too, in Judges 7;
8:24 are called Ishmaelites (compare in the German the name Prager for traveling
musicians, whether they are from Prague or not). In J it is further claimed that
Joseph's master was a private gentleman (Genesis 39:1), while in E he was the
captain of the bodyguard (Genesis 40:3). But in this instance the documentary
theory can operate only when it calls in the assistance of R in Genesis 39:1.
The fact that in chapter 39:1 the name of the nationality is added to that of
the office, is explained on the ground of the contrast to the Ishmaelites who
sold Joseph. Finally, it is claimed to have been caused by the combination of
the different sources in such a way that Benjamin in 43:8,29; 44:30,31,33 J is
described as a boy, but in 46:21, R or the Priestly Code (P), as the father of
ten children. But evidently the author of chapter 46 has in view the number 70
(compare verse 27; see Exodus 1:5; Numbers 11:16,25; Luke 10:1; Exodus 15:27;
Judges 12:13; and in Genesis 10 above, under 4,2); and for this reason, e.g. in
Genesis 46:17, he mentions only one grand-daughter of Jacob; and for this he mentions
all of the descendants of Jacob, even those who were born later in Egypt, but
who already, as it were, had come to Egypt in the loins of their fathers, according
to the view of the author. It certainly would be remarkable if no more grandchildren
had been born to Jacob in Egypt, since Numbers 26 does not mention a single son
of any of the sons of Jacob later than those reported in Genesis 46. In 46:27
Joseph's sons, too, who were born in Egypt, are included in the list, entirely
in harmony with Deuteronomy 10:22. For such an arrangement and adjustment of a
genealogy compare the 3 X 14 generations in Mt 1. From this point of view no conclusions,
as far as the documentary theory is concerned, can be drawn from the ten sons
of Benjamin. |
|
|
IV. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER
1. History of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-50)
(Genesis 12-50):
(1) Unfounded Attacks on the History
(a) From General Dogmatic Principles
In order to disprove the historical character of the patriarchs, the critics are
accustomed to operate largely with general dogmatic principles, such as this,
that no nation knows who its original founder was. In answer to this it can be
said that the history of Israel is and was from the beginning to the end unique,
and cannot be judged by the average principles of historiography. But it is then
claimed that Abraham's entire life appears to be only one continuous trial of
faith, which was centered on the one promise of the true heir, but that this is
in reality a psychological impossibility. Over against this claim we can in reply
cite contrary facts from the history of several thousands of years; and that,
too, in the experience of those very men who were most prominent in religious
development, such as Paul and Luther.
(b) From Distance of Time
Secondly, critics emphasize the long period of time that elapsed between these
events themselves and their first records, especially if these records can be
accredited to so late a period as the 9th or the 8th century BC. In consequence
of this, it is claimed that much of the contents of Genesis is myth or fable;
and Gunkel even resolves the whole book into a set of unconnected little myths
and fables. Over against this claim we can again appeal to the universal feeling
in this matter. I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race
fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual
facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths
the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the
critics, must have been the case in Israel. Prophets accepted the story of the
destruction of the two cities in the Jordan valley, as recorded in Genesis 19,
as correct (compare Amos 4:11; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; Hosea 11:8); also Abraham as a
historical person (Isaiah 29:22; 41:8; 51:1; Micah 7:20; Jeremiah 33:26; Ezekiel
33:24; and possibly Malachi 2:15); then Isaac (Amos 7:9,16; Jeremiah 33:26); also
Jacob (Hosea 12:3; Amos 9:8; Jeremiah 33:26); also Joseph (Amos 5:6,15); and these
prophets evidently thought that these events and persons were regarded as historical
by the people in general. In the New Testament we can cite, for Abraham, Matthew
3:9; Galatians 3; 4:21; Romans 4:9; 9:7; Hebrews 7:1; 11:8; James 2:21, and especially
the words of Jesus in Matthew 8:11; Luke 16:22; John 8:52; finally in Matthew
22:31, the whole argument for the resurrection of the dead is without a foundation
if the patriarchs are not historical personages. Over against this, there was
no period in the history of Israel in which it can be shown that these stories
of Genesis Were regarded only as myths. If these events were actual occurrences,
then those things which the patriarchs experienced were so unique that these experiences
were not forgotten for a long time. Then, too, we can also refer to the strength
of the memory of those nations that were not accustomed to have written records
of their history.
(c) From Biblical Data
Finally, the attempt has been made to discover in the Bible itself a pre-Mosaic
stage in its ideas of man concerning God, which is claimed to contradict the higher
development of Divine ideas in the patriarchs, for which purpose the critics appeal
to Ezekiel 23:3,1; 20:7; Joshua 24:14. But at these places it is evident that
the idolatry of the people is pictured as apostasy. And when in Exodus 6:2 the
name of Yahweh is as a matter of fact represented as something new, it is nevertheless
a fact that in these very passages the revelation given is connected with the
history of the patriarchs. The same is true of Exodus 3:1. The whole hypothesis
that the religion before the days of Moses was polytheistic has not been derived
from the Bible, but is interpreted into it, and ends in doing violence to the
facts there recorded (compare my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen
Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit).
(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia
The critics further compare the pre-Mosaic religion of Israel with the low grade
of religion in Arabia in the 5th century after Christ; but in order to do this,
they must isolate Israel entirely, since all the surrounding nations at the time
of the Tell el-Amarna Lettershad attained to an altogether different and higher
stage of religious development and civilization. |
(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age
(a) Explanation Based on High Places
In denying the historical character of the account of the patriarchs in Genesis,
the critics are forced to contrive some scheme in explanation of the existence
of these stories, but in doing this they make some bad breaks. Thus, e.g., they
say that the Israelites when they entered Canaan found there the high places of
the heathen peoples; and since if they wanted to make use of these in the service
of Yahweh they must first declare them legitimate places of worship, this was
done by inventing the history of the patriarchs, who long before this are said
to have already consecrated all these places to the Yahweh worship. But how is
it possible on this supposition to explain the story of Joseph, which transpired
in Egypt? Then, too, the reasons for the origin of the other stories of the patriarchs
would be enshrouded in a remarkable mystery and would be of very inferior character.
Again, it is nowhere declared in the passages of Genesis that here come into consideration
that they are reporting the beginnings of a permanent cult when they give an account
of how God appeared to the patriarchs or when they erected altars in His honor.
And, finally, while it is indeed true that the cult localities of the patriarchs
are in part identical with those of later times (compare Bethel, Beersheba)--and
this is from the outset probable, because certain places, such as hills, trees,
water, etc., as it were, of themselves were suitable for purposes of the cult--yet
such an identification of earlier and later localities does not cover all cases.
And can we imagine that a prophetical method of writing history would have had
any occasion in this manner to declare the worship of calves in Bethel a legitimate
service?
(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times
But we are further told that the pre-prophetic condition of affairs in Israel
was in general dated back into the primitive period, and this was done in such
a way that the character of Abraham was regarded as reproducing ideal Israel,
and the character of Jacob the empirical Israel in the past; something that certainly
is from the outset an odd speculation of too much learning! If this explanation
is correct, what shall we then do with Isaac and Joseph? And why is the whole
story of the condition of civilization pictured in Genesis so entirely different
from that of later times? And is Abraham really a perfect ideal? Is he not rather,
notwithstanding his mighty faith, a human being of flesh and blood, who can even
doubt (Genesis 15:2; 17:17); who can make use of sinful means to realize the promise
(Ge 16, Hagar); who tells a falsehood, although for the best of purposes, namely,
to protect his wife (Genesis 12:9), and for this reason must accept the rebuke
of the heathen Abimelech (Genesis 20:9)? In addition, Abraham is married to his
half-sister (Genesis 20:12), which, according to Deuteronomy 27:22; Leviticus
18:9,11; 20:17, is forbidden with the penalty of death for the transgressor. In
the same way Jacob, according to Genesis 29, has two sisters as wives, which is
also declared by Leviticus 18:18 to be a crime.
(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi
In the third place, it is said that the people have in the persons of the patriarchs
made for themselves eponymous heroes. But why did they make so many at one time?
In addition, Abraham cannot possibly be regarded as such a hero as Jacob or Israel
is, and in exceptional cases also Isaac and Joseph (Amos 7:9,16; 5:6,15). It is
not correct to place genealogies like those in Genesis 10:1; 25:1,13 on a level
with the stories concerning the patriarchs. In the latter case we are dealing
with individualities of pronounced character, who in the experiences of their
lives represent great fundamental principles and laws in the kingdom of God--Abraham,
the principle of the grace of God, to which faith on the part of man is the counterpart;
Jacob, the principle of Divine election; Joseph, that of the providential guidance
of life; while Isaac, it is true, when he becomes prominent in the history, evinces
no independent character, but merely follows in the footsteps of Abraham (compare
26:1,3,15,18,24), but is in this very imitative life pictured in an excellent
way.
(d) Different Explanations Combined
If we combine two or more of these different and unsatisfactory attempts at an
explanation of the history of the patriarchs, we must become all the more distrustful,
because the outcome of this combination is such an inharmonious scheme. |
(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis
The individuality of the patriarchs as well as their significance in the entire
development of the history of the kingdom of God, and their different missions
individually; further, the truthful portraiture of their method of living, which
had not yet reached the stage of permanent settlement; and, finally, the fact
that the prophets, the New Testament and above all Jesus Himself regard their
historical character as something self-evident (see (1b) above), make the conviction
a certainty, that we must insist upon their being historical personages; especially,
too, because the attacks on this view (see (1) above), as also the efforts to
explain these narratives on other grounds (see (2) above), must be pronounced
to be failures. To this we must add the following: If Moses were the founder of
the religion of Israel, it would scarcely have been possible that a theory would
have been invented and have found acceptance that robs Moses of this honor by
the invention of the story of the patriarchs. Rather the opposite would be the
case. Besides, this older revelation of God is absolutely necessary in order to
make Moses' work and success intelligible and possible. For he himself expressly
declares that his work is based on the promises of God given to the fathers. Through
this connection with the older revelation it was possible for Moses to win the
attention and the confidence of the people (compare Exodus 2:24; 3:6,13; 4:5;
6:3,1; 15:2; 32:13; 33:1; compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen
Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 117; and Strack, Genesis, 93). |
Individuality of Patriarchs, etc.
In so far as the history of the patriarchs contains miracles, they are in perfect
harmony with the entire character of sacred history (compare EXODUS, III, 2);
and as far as the number of miracles is concerned, there are in fact fewer reported
in the days of the patriarchs than in the times of Moses.. On the view that the
history of the patriarchs, which is earlier than the period of Moses, was an invention
and not history, the opposite condition of affairs could be expected. Leaving
out of consideration the unsatisfactory instances cited under V, 2, below, there
is to be found also in the Book of Genesis absolutely no reference to indicate
events of a later period, which would throw a doubt on the historical character
of what is here reported. In every direction (e.g. in connection with theophanies
and the cult worship), there is a noticeable progress to be seen in going from
Genesis to Exodus, a fact which again is an important argument for the historical
reliability of the contents of both books. Finally, we add the following. Ch 14
(the Chedorlaomer and the Melchizedek episodes) has through recent archaeological
researches been brilliantly confirmed as far as the names are concerned, as also
in reference to the political conditions of the times, the general historical
situation and the chronology. In the same way the religious conditions of Egypt,
as described in Genesis 12, and in the entire history of Joseph, are so faithfully
pictured that it is absolutely impossible to regard these accounts as the work
of imagination. These accounts must be the outcome, on the part of the author,
of a personal knowledge of these things and conditions, as they are absolutely
correct, even to the details of the coloring.
2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1-11
(1) Prominence of the Religious Element
In the primitive history as recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis we must
yet emphasize, more than is done elsewhere, that the chief interest for the Christian
is found in the religious and moral teachings of this account; and that these
teachings remain unshaken, even when chronological, historical, archaeological,
physical, geographical or philological sciences would tempt us to reach negative
conclusions. It is a wise thing, from the outset, not to be too timid in this
direction, and to concede considerable liberty in this matter, when we remember
that it is not the purpose of the Bible to give us scientific knowledge in scientific
forms, but to furnish us with religious and ethical thoughts in a language which
a childlike mind, that is open to Divine things, can understand.
(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research
On the other hand, it is right over against the so-called "results" of these different
sciences to be very critical and skeptical, since in very many cases science retracts
today what with a flourish of trumpets it declared yesterday to be a "sure" result
of investigations; e.g. as far as the chronology is concerned, the natural and
the historical sciences often base their computations on purely arbitrary figures,
or on those which are constructed entirely upon conclusions of analogy, and are
far from conclusive, if perchance the history of the earth or of mankind has not
at all times developed at the same pace, i.e. has moved upward and downward, as
e.g. a child in its earlier years will always learn more rapidly than at any later
period of its life.
(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science
But finally the Holy Scriptures, the statements of which at this period are often
regarded slightingly by theologians, are regarded much more highly by men of science.
This is done, e.g., by such scientists as Reinke and K.E. von Baer, who declare
that Moses, because of his story of the creation, was a man of unsurpassed and
unsurpassable scientific thought; or when many geological facts point to such
an event as the Deluge in the history of the earth. The history of languages,
as a whole and in its details, also furnishes many proofs for the correctness
of Genesis 10, and that chapter has further been confirmed in a most surprising
manner by many other discoveries (compare the existence of Babel at a period earlier
than Nineveh, and the colonizing of Assur by Babel). Then facts like the following
can be explained only on the presupposition that the reports in Genesis are correct,
as when a Dutchman in the 17th century built an ark after the measurements given
in Genesis and found the vessel in every particular adapted to its purposes; and
when today we again hear specialists who declare that the modern ocean sailing
vessel is being more and more constructed according to the relative proportions
of the ark.
(4) Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies Babylonian and Biblical Stories
Finally, the similarity of the Biblical and the Babylonian accounts of the creation
and the Deluge, as these have been discovered by learned research (and we confine
ourselves to these two most important reports)--although this similarity has been
misinterpreted and declared to be hostile to the historical reliability and the
originality of Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-9--does not prove what critics claim that
it does. Even if we acknowledge that the contents of these stories were extant
in Babylon long before the days of Moses, and that these facts have been drawn
from this source by Israel, there yet can be no question that the value of these
accounts, the fact that they are saturated with a monotheistic and ethical spirit,
is found only in Israel and has been breathed into them only by Israel. For the
inner value of a story does not depend upon its antiquity, but upon its spirit.
But even this conception of the matter, which is shared by most theologians, cannot
satisfy us. When we remember how Babylonian mythology is honeycombed by the grossest
superstition and heathenism, and that our ethical feelings are often offended
by it in the most terrible manner, it is really not possible to see how such a
system could have had any attraction for Israel after the Spirit, and how a man
who thought as a prophet could have taken over such stories. If Israel has been
a pathfinder in the sphere of religion, as is acknowledged on all hands, why do
the critics always talk of their borrowing from others? And then, since similar
stories are found also among other nations, and as the natural sciences are anything
but a unit in hostility to the Biblical narratives, all these factors can find
a satisfactory explanation only on the supposition that there existed an original
or primitive revelation, and that in Israel this revelation was transmitted in
its greater purity, while among the other nations it was emptied of its contents
or was perverted. In this way the universality of these stories can be explained,
as also the inferiority in character of similar stories among the other nations.
Babylonian and Biblical Stories
The particularly close connection that exists between the Babylonian and the Biblical
versions of these stories is in perfect harmony with the fact that it was from
Babylon that the dispersion of mankind set in. The purity of the Biblical tradition
is further attested by the fact that it reports the actual history of all mankind
(see under I, 2), while the mythologies of other nations are restricted nationally
and locally, i.e. the beginnings of the history of the individual nations and
the beginnings of the history of mankind are identical, and the earliest history
is always reported as taking place in the native land of the people reporting
it. The fact that in earlier times there prevailed in Babylon too a purer knowledge
of God, which, however, steadily degenerated, is proved by many data, and especially
by the recently discovered fragment of a Deluge story, according to which the
God who destroyed the world by the Flood and the God who delivered the one family
is the same God, which is in perfect agreement with the Bible, but is in contradiction
to the later Babylonian story. That in earlier times a purer conception of God
prevailed, seems to be confirmed also by the experiences of the missionaries.
Evolutionism, i.e. the development of a higher conception of God out of a lower,
is nothing but an unproved theory, which at every step is contrary to actual facts.
Compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 129,
and Schmidt, Die babylonische Religion: Gedanken uber ihre Entwicklung, a dissertation
in which the fact that religion naturally degenerates is proved also as far as
the Greeks, the Egyptians, the East Indians and the Chinese are concerned. |
|
V. ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP OF GENESIS
1. Connection with Mosaic Times
That the Book of Genesis stands in some kind of literary connection with the succeeding
books of the Pentateuch is generally acknowledged. But if this is the case, then
the question as to the origin and the time of the composition of this whole body
of books can be decided only if we take them all into consideration. In this article
we have only to consider those facts which are found in Genesis for the solution
of this problem. It is self-evident that the conclusion we have reached with reference
to the literary unity of the book is of great importance for this question (see
under II and III above). The historical character of the book, as demonstrated
under IV above, also speaks emphatically for this claim that the literary composition
of the book must have taken place when the memory of these events was still trustworthy,
and the impression and experiences were still fresh and had not yet faded. Such
individualistic and vivid pictures of historical personages as are reported by
Genesis, such a faithful adherence to the accounts of the civilization in the
different countries and districts and at different times, such detailed accounts
of foreign customs, conditions and historical events, could scarcely. have been
possible, if the Mosaic age with its powerful new impressions, the period of the
Judges, with its characteristic apostasy, or even the division of Israel into
two kingdoms, with its dire effects on the external union of the people, had all
passed by before these accounts were actually written down. On the other hand,
the highly developed prophetic conception of these events, and the skillful plan
of the book demand that the author must have been a religious and ethical personality
of the first rank. And as, finally, it is scarcely credible that Moses would have
failed to provide for a systematic report of the great past of the people, for
which account, before this and as long as only family histories were involved,
there was no need felt, and as the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, which are
acknowledged in a literary way to be connected with Genesis, in many of their
parts expressly declare that Moses was their author (compare EXODUS, IV), the
Mosaic authorship of this book is as good as proved. This is not to deny that
older sources and documents were used in the composition of the book, such as
perhaps the genealogical tables or the events recorded in Genesis 14, possibly,
too, some referring to the history of the times before the Deluge and before Abraham.
This is probable; but as all the parts of the book have been worked together into
a literary unity (see under II and III above), and as such sources are not expressly
mentioned, it is a hopeless task to try to describe these different sources in
detail or even to separate them as independent documents, after the manner refuted
under II and III above, as a theory and in its particulars. And for the age of
Genesis, we can refer to the fact that the personal pronoun here is still used
for both genders, masculine and feminine, which is true also of the word na'ar
("youth"), a peculiarity which is shared also by the other books of the Pentateuch
almost throughout.
2. Examination of Counter-Arguments
(1) Possibility of Later Additions
In itself it would be possible that from time to time some explanatory and interpreting
additions could have been made to the original text, in case we find indications
of a later period in some statements of the book. But that in this case these
additions could not have been made by any unauthorized persons, but only officially,
should, in the case of a book like Genesis, be regarded as self-evident. But in
our times this fact must be emphasized all the more, as in our days the most radical
ideas obtain in reference to the way in which sacred books were used in former
times. And then it must be said that we cannot prove as an absolute certainty
that there is a single passage in Genesis that originated in the post-Mosaic period.
(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea
It is self-evident also that the fulfillment of a prophecy is not an evidence
of a "prophecy after the event" (vaticinium post evenrum), altogether independently
of the fact that in this case Genesis 12:1-3, which is still in process of fulfillment,
could not have been written down even today (compare on this matter, perhaps,
Noah's prophecy (9:25); or the prediction of the career of Esau (25:23; 27:40);
or of Ishmael (16:10; 21:18); or Jacob's blessing (Genesis 49)). The last-mentioned
case cannot in any way be interpreted as the product of a later time; compare
the curse of Levi in 49:5-8 as compared with the honor bestowed on this tribe
already in the Mosaic period (Exodus 32:26-29; Deuteronomy 33:8-11), and in the
time of the Judges (Judges 17:7-13; 1 Samuel 2:27). Zebulun, too, according to
Genesis 49:13 is regarded as being settled on the coast, which is not in agreement
with historical reality (compare Joshua 19:10-16,27). In the same way the curse
on Simeon in Genesis 49:5-7, which declared that his tribe should be distributed
among Israel, was not fulfilled in the time when the people entered Canaan (compare
Joshua 19:1 and 2 Chronicles 34:6). In Genesis 49:10 "Shiloh" cannot refer to
the coming of the tabernacle to Shiloh (compare Joshua 18:1); for Shiloh is, on
the other hand, to be interpreted personally and Messianically. As long as Shiloh
was of any importance (compare 1 Samuel 1), Judah was not in the possession of
the scepter; but when this scepter did come into the control of Judah, Shiloh
had long since ceased to be of any significance (compare my book, Die messianische
Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 360 f).
(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date
In Genesis 12:6; 13:7, it is claimed that it is presupposed that at the time of
the author there were no longer any Canaanites in the country, so that these verses
belong to a much later period than that of Moses. But on this supposition these
verses would be altogether superfluous and therefore unintelligible additions.
For that in the time of Abraham the Canaanites had not yet been expelled by Israel,
was a self-evident matter for every Israelite. As a matter of fact, the statements
in both verses can easily be interpreted. Abraham leaves his native country to
go into a strange land. When he comes to Canaan, he finds it inhabited by the
Canaanites (compare 10:6,15; 9:25). This could have made his faith to fail him.
God, accordingly, repeats His promise at this very moment and does so with greater
exactness (compare 13:7 with 13:1), and Abraham shows that God can trust his faith
(13:7 f). The question whether the Canaanites no longer existed at the time the
book was written, has nothing at all to do with the meaning of these verses. The
same is true of 13:7, on account of the presence of the Canaanites and of the
Perizzites, which latter tribe had probably come in the meanwhile and is not yet
mentioned in Genesis 10, but is mentioned in 15:20, and which makes the separation
of Abraham and Lot only all the more necessary.
That in Genesis 22:2 the land of Moriah is mentioned is claimed by the critics
to be a proof that this passage was written after the times of David and even
of Solomon, because according to 2 Chronicles 3:1 the temple stood on Mt. Moriah.
But as in this latter passage one particular mountain is called Moriah, but in
Abraham's time a whole country was so called, it is scarcely possible that Genesis
22:2 could have been written at so late a period.
Usually, too, the list of 8 Edomite kings, who ruled before there was a king of
Israel, according to Genesis 36:31, is cited as a proof that this part was written
only after the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, although the time down
to the age of Saul would be entirely too long for only eight kings, as already
in the Mosaic period there were kings in Edom (Numbers 20:14). Then, too, we find
in the days of Solomon a hereditary kingdom in Edom (1 Kings 11:14), while in
Genesis 36:31 we have to deal with an elective kingdom. Also it would be impossible
to understand why this list of kings is carried down only so far and no farther,
namely down to the time when there were kings in Israel. This statement can properly
be interpreted only in the light of 17:6,16, where the promise is given to Abraham
that kings should be found among his descendants (compare also 17:20 with 25:16);
and in the light of chapter 14, where Abraham is explicitly brought into connection
with kings in a number of ways (with the four kings of the East, whom he conquers;
with the five kings of the Jordan valley, whom he assists; with the King's Vale
(14:17), which prepared the way for the Melchizedek episode; and with this Priest-King
himself, who blesses him and to whom he gives tithes (14:18); with the king of
Sodom, whom he rebukes (14:21)). Accordingly, the statement in 36:31 is not merely
a dry historical notice, but is a reference to the blessing of God, which is realized
in Israel at a much later time than in the kindred tribe of Esau, and which puts
the faith of Israel to a new test. As the death of the last Edomite king is not
mentioned (compare 36:39 in contrast to the preceding passage and to 1 Chronicles
1:50 f), but as detailed family data are given, we are doubtless dealing here
with living contemporaries of Moses, in whose time already the Edomites possessed
a kingdom (Numbers 20:14; Judges 11:17), just as this was the case with Amalek
(Numbers 24:7), with Moab (Numbers 21:26; 22:4) and Midian (Numbers 31:8). And
why would a later writer have mentioned neither Selah (Petra), so important in
later times (compare Isaiah 16:1; Judges 1:36; 2 Kings 14:7), nor Ezion-Geber
(1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chronicles 8:17), among the places given in Genesis 36:40? In
Moses' time, however, the last-mentioned place was only prairie (Numbers 33:35).
Just as little is it an argument against the Mosaic times that Hebron is mentioned
in Genesis 13:18; 23:2, which city, according to Joshua 14:15; 15:13, is called
Kiriath-arba, a name which Genesis also is acquainted with (compare 23:2), and
which in its signification of "city of Arba" points to an originally proper name.
Hebron is the older name, which was resumed at a later period, after it had in
the meanwhile been supplanted by the Canaanitic name, just as the name of Salem,
which occurs already in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, for a period of time gave
way to the name of Jebus, but was afterward resumed. That Hebron was an old city
and that it existed at a period earlier than the Arba mentioned in Joshua 14:15;
15:13, and from whom its later name was derived, can be concluded from Numbers
13:22.
Further, the mention of Da in 14:14 does not necessarily favor the view that this
chapter did not originate until after Joshua 19:47. Judges 18:29, where Leshem
or Laish is changed into Da (2 Samuel 24:6; compare 24:2 and 24:15), does make
the existence of another Da probable. Since in Genesis 14:2,3,7,17 so many ancient
names are mentioned, and as the author is most fully informed as to the conditions
of the political complexion of the old nations of that time (14:5-7), it would
be incomprehensible if he should not have made use of the ancient names Laish
and Leshem. However, if this Da was really meant, we should at most have to deal
with a revision, such as that pointed out above. Some other less important arguments
against the origin of Genesis from the Mosaic times we can here ignore. The most
important argument for the Mosaic origin of the book, in addition to those mentioned
under 1, will now be discussed. |
|
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation--Creation, Fall, Man in Image of God, Sin, etc.
In the history of the creation the most important feature for us is the fact that
the world was created out of nothing (compare Genesis 1:1 and the word bara'),
which guarantees the absoluteness of God and His perfect control of the entire
material world; further, the creation of man, as the crown of all creation, for
which all things previously created prepare, and who is to rule over them, but
who--most important of all--is created after the image of God in Ge (1:26 f),
and whose body has been created by the hand of God and his soul breathed into
him by God (2:7). On this fact, too, in the end, is founded the possibility of
man's redemption even after the Fall (5:1,3; compare Colossians 3:9; Ephesians
4:24), as also the possibility of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who also is
the image of God (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Then, too, another all-important
factor for us is the unity of the human race, for thereby is made possible and
can be understood the fact that all men have become subject to sin and all can
be the recipients of grace (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:22,45). Also the need
of redemption is brought out strongly in the Book of Genesis. Compare in connection
with the Fall, the pains that shall attend the birth of a child, the cursing of
the land, death (3:15), which finds its first victim in Abel, and the monotonous
and emphatic repetition of the formula, "and he died," in Genesis 5, as characterizing
the dismal fate of mankind, and which finds its expression in the rapid decrease
of the length of life in the genealogies and in the ages of the patriarchs (5:1;
11:10; 25:7; 35:28; 47:28; 50:26; Psalms 90:10), and in the irresistible and increasing
power of death. By the side of this, sin at once assumes its most horrible form
(Ge 3, doubt, pride, fear, boldness of Eve and Adam), and is propagated and increases;
compare the murder and the despair of Cain (Genesis 4:1), which is still surpassed
by the defiant blasphemy of Lamech (4:23 f); and in the same way, death, which
is coming more and more rapidly (see above), is a proof for this, that sin is
being more and more intimately interwoven with the human race. Compare further,
the corruption of the whole earth, which brings with it as a consequence the judgment
of the Deluge (6:5), after the period of grace extending over 120 years had fruitlessly
passed by; the lack of reverence on the part of Ham (9:22); the arrogance in connection
with the building of the tower of Babel (11:1); the Sodomitic sin in 18:16-19:15;
the daughters of Lot (19:30). Still worse is it, that the elect also are not without
blame. On Abraham, see IV, 1, 2b; then concerning Noah (9:21) and Lot's fearful
drunkenness (19:32); Isaac's and Rebekah's preference for Esau or Jacob (25:28);
Jacob's deceptions of various kinds, his preference for Joseph (37:3); the horrible
deeds of Simeon and Levi (34:25; 49:5); Reuben's incest (35:22; 49:3 f); the cruelty
of the brethren of Joseph toward him and his father (chapter 37); finally, Joseph's
pride and his reporting his brethren (37:2,5). In short, wherever we look, we
see in Genesis already a proof for the truth of Romans 3:23, "All have sinned,
and fall short of the glory of God."
2. Preparation for Redemption--Promises and Covenants
By the side of this need of salvation there is to be found also the longing for
salvation; compare the name of Noah (Genesis 5:29), and the word of blessing from
the lips of Jacob (Genesis 49:18); and, further, the fact that Abraham reaches
out after the promised heir in Genesis 15-18, and his desire for the possession
of the land (12-14; 23; 28:20; 33:19 f); and especially from 47:27 on. And in
harmony with this need and this longing for redemption we find above all other
things the saving and the promising grace of God. He does not cause the bodily
death to follow immediately upon the Fall in Genesis 3 (although the beginning
of the spiritual death sets in at once with the separation from God); He provides
for mankind by Himself making garments for them out of skins (3:21); even the
expulsion from Paradise is not merely a punishment; God fears that man might live
forever if he should eat from the tree of life (3:22). He sets enmity between
the human race and the seed of the serpent, so that at least the possibility of
a moral contest yet exists; He strengthens the good in Cain (4:7); He removes
the pious Enoch (5:24); He saves Noah and his family and makes a covenant with
him (8:21); He gives His promise to Abraham (12:1-3) and makes a covenant with
him (chapters 15; 17); He delivers Lot (19:13); He is willing even to preserve
Sodom at Abraham's prayer, if there are as many as 10 just men in the city (18:32);
He bestows a blessing on Ishmael also (16:10; 17:20; 21:13), and permits Isaac
to bless Esau (27:39); but above all He is with Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. It is
indeed true that the thought runs through Genesis that not all men are capable
of receiving His grace, and that not all are drawn to the Father. Cain's sacrifice
is not acceptable before God, as was Abel's; the Cainites with their advance in
civilization (4:17), to whom Lamech also belonged, are different from Seth (4:26;
5:1), who continues the line of the elect. Finally, the godly, too, permit themselves
to be deceived (6:1), and Noah stands alone in his piety. After that Ham is cursed
in his youngest son, Canaan (9:22; compare 10:6); but Shem is blessed to such
a degree that his blessing is to extend to Japheth also; cf, further, the elimination
from sacred history of Lot (19:29); of Ishmael (25:12), and of Esau (36:1); of
Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter 19); then the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau
(25:19-37:1); the preference of Ephraim over Manasseh (48:17); the transmission
of the Messianic promises to Judah (49:10; compare my book, Messianische Erwartung,
360 f), so that at the close of Genesis we find already the hope of a personal
Messiah expressed, in whom also the word (3:15) that was originally spoken to
all mankind is to be entirely fulfilled, and in whom also the blessing given to
Abraham shall find its significance and realization for the benefit of all mankind
(12:3, and see above, 1, 2 and 3). But in the history of Abraham this fact also
becomes clear, that in the end this was all grace on the part of God, and faith
on the part of man; and because both grace and faith are in Genesis placed and
emphasized at the very beginning of the history of mankind, and before the giving
of the law (Exodus 19); then this grace and faith cannot be abrogated through
the latter or made ineffective. Not by works but by faith is man saved (compare
Galatians 3:2; Romans 4; Hebrews 11:8; James 2:21). But the guidance of individuals
and of His people by God, the ways which He took with His elect, become clear
and intelligible ultimately in the history of Joseph; and all and everything must
in the end serve the good of those who are His. |
LITERATURE
Against the separation into documents we mention, of older works: Havernick, Specielle
Einleitung in den Pent; Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Einleitung, II, III; Keil,
Einleitung in das Altes Testament, and his Commentary on Gen; Ewald, Die Komposition
der Genesis. Of later works: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Eerdmans, Die
Komposition der Genesis; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. Against
the evolutionary theory: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays
in Pentateuchal Criticism and Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Green, Unity of
Book of Genesis; Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in
vorexilischer Zeit (here also further lit.). On modern archaeological researches:
Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients; Urquhart, Die neueren Entdeckungen und die Bibel (to be used with
caution; the work is reliable in the facts but not careful in its conclusions
and in its account of Old Testament criticism). Further, compare the histories
of Israel by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen: the
Commentaries on Genesis by Keil, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Lange, Strack, Gunkel, Holzinger;
the Introductions to the Old Testament by Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Konig, Cornill,
Driver; the Biblical Theologies by Marti, Smend, Budde, Schulz, Oehler. Finally
compare Sievers, Metrische Studien, II: "Die hebraische Genesis."
Wilhelm Moller
Tags:
2369 years, adam, abraham, bere'shith, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of genesis, creation, define, deluge, eden (garden of), eve, first book of the law, history of mankind, in the beginning, isaac, jacob, joseph, moses, noah, old testament, pentateuch, torah
Comments:
|
 |
|
