L L990CE10 [91
i
OLNOWOL 30 AL
HANDBOUND AT THE
wk
Φ
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/criticalexegeticOOskinuoft
ar
τ ΒΞ
The Anternational Critical Commentary 7 on the Holy Seriptures of the Old and dew Cestaments
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford
THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. Late Master of University College, Durham
AND
THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics Union Theological Seminary, New York
th ΟΝ ὙΡΉτ Ὁ
7 i ke ae
wy οὖν ὌΝ ha 4 te ¢ Ἰ 4 ὃ _ 4
The International
Critical Commentary
On the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
EDITORS’ PREFACE
A Ι ὝΠΕΚΕ are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. Zhe Cambridge Bible for
Schools, the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students,
The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff),
The LExpositor’s Bible, and other similar series, have their
special place and importance. But they do not enter into the
field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of
Commentaries as the Aurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
A. T.; De Wette’s Kurzgcfasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum
NV. T.; Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and
Delitzsch’s Bzblischer Commentar iiber das A. T.,; Wange’s
Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack’s Handkommentar
zum A.T.; Holtzmann’s Handkommentar sum NN. Ζ: Several
of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public; others are in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott,
Kalisch, Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the
time has come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enter-
prise, when it is practicable to combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, comprehensive
Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical scholarship,
and in a measure lead its van.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, under th editorship of Prof. C. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., for the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New Testament, in Great Britain.
The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discuss- ing impartially the questions still remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper place in the body of the Commentary. Lach section of the Text will be introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct from matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testament the exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature of the subject. Historical and Archzological questions, as well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. ‘The Volumes will con- stitute a uniform series.
The International Critical Commentary
ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
GENESIS. The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Chureh of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. 5. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
LEVITICUS. J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Mow Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rey. 5. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro- fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Vow Ready,
JOSHUA. The Rev. GEorRGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, United Free Church College, Glasgow.
JUDGES. The Rev. GEorGE Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol- ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Mow Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smitu, D.D., Professor of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [Vow Ready.
KINGS. The Rev. FRANcIS Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
CHRONICLES. The Rev. Epwarp L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L.W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of St. Mark’s Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia.
PSALMS. The Rev. CuHas. A. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Pro- fessor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Readw PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Mow Ready.
JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
ISAIAH. Chaps. XL-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England.
JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooker, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Inter- pretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. CHARLES F. BuRNnEY, D. Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John’s College, Oxford.
DANIEL. The Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael’s Church, New York City.
AMOS AND HOSEA. W.R. Harper, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime Presi- dent of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready.
MICAH TO HAGGAI. Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; Prof. CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York; ὟΝ. Hayes Warp, D.D., LL.D., Editor of Zhe /ndependent, New York; Prof. JuLius A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof. H. G. MitcHELL, D.D., Boston University.
ZECHARIAH TO JONAH. Prof. H. G. MircHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P. SMITH and Prof. J. A. BEWER,
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Patron, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart- ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. Gzorce A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli- cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Mow Ready
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rey. CHARLESA. Briccs, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rey. WiLLouGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Goutp, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa- ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Mow Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of University College, Durham, [Now Ready.
Tue INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
ST. JOHN. The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of &. Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WILLIAM SAanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WIL- LOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford.
ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London.
ROMANS. The Rev. WILLIAM Sanpay, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A, C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King’s College, London. [Wow Ready.
CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. ARCH. ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.,and DAWSON WALKER, D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham.
GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. ΑΒΒΟΤΎ, B.D., D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now Librarian of the same. [Mow Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHiLEMON. The Rev. MARVIN ΚΕ. VINCENT, D.D., Professor of Biblicaf Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Mow Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev. JAMEs E. FraAms, M.A., Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
HEBREWS. The Rev. A. NaIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King’s College, London.
ST. JAMES. The Rev. JAMES H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES Bicc, D.D., sometime Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
[Now Ready. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Rev. E. A. BRooKE, B.D., Fellow and Divinity Lecturer in King’s College, Cambridge.
REVELATION. The Rev. Ropert H. CHARLES, M.A., D.D., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin.
are
ri aa aya Ba μ ieee wpa ve Ἢ Ὁ) ἀν. ἢ ven ol ae we ney ms ios Ν, γον He 4 Lak
Bx ΠῚ αν. ἢ Τῇ Wa ἈΓΕΥῚ ἘΠῚ ἊΝ
aa ΜΝ ἢ ans 3
bias (: i Ἶ ee Pe Se ie th teeta an a ee oe ad al ον
Par μασι ἡ ΑΗ νὰ ῥα, γὴ helibwn yy ἐπὶ PE PhO LAE A
oO ie SO UNE Eee
Ἢ Tae Liv Oa ee ‘ aba ith HM " να ae ar ἷ 21 ho fe Wedd
i ὗ ' τῳ io ert Ave ᾿ Wy eet : i ὶ ὌΝ ny ary eat ΝΘ ds ΝΕ
ὅς Wy hiv,
Fue ΠΗ
ft ΔῊ Γ ~ie ΒΚΗ, ae ie H 4 i 4nau hast ak) 3)
GENESIS
JOHN SKINNER, D.D.
> ia yt τὸ DEPARTMENTAL '
enes\$ LISRARY = THE _INTERNATIONAL@-CRITICAt—~COMMENTARY A
Perr AL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
ON
ΘΕ Ν E SES
BY
JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Hon. M.A.(CANTAB.)
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1910
tT. Tow. mary Pilg, ἐγ >
MY WIFE
‘a
ot Lae
PREFACE.
—— ι-
Ir is a little over six years since I was entrusted by the Editors of ‘‘The International Critical Commentary” with the preparation of the volume on Genesis. During that time there has been no important addition to the number of commentaries either in English or in German. The English reader still finds his best guidance in Spurrell’s valuable Motes on the text, Bennett’s compressed but sug- gestive exposition in the Century Bible, and Driver’s thorough and masterly work in the first volume of the Westminster Commentaries; all of which were in existence when I commenced my task. While no one of these books will be superseded by the present publication, there was still room for a commentary on the more elaborate scale of the ‘‘International” series; and it has been my aim, in accordance with the programme of that series, to supply the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and archzological questions, which the present state of scholar- ship demands.
The most recent German commentaries, those of Holzinger and Gunkel, had both appeared before 1904; and I need not say that to both, but especially to the latter, I have been greatly indebted. Every student must have felt that Gunkel’s work, with its esthetic appreciation of the genius of the narratives, its wider historical horizons, and its illuminating use of mythological and _ folklore parallels, has breathed a new spirit into the investigation of Genesis, whose influence no writer on the subject can
hope or wish to escape. The last-mentioned feature is vil
Vill PREFACE
considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part of which (1909) was published just too late to be utilised for this volume. That I have not neglected the older standard commentaries of Tuch, Delitzsch, and Dillmann, or less comprehensive expositions like that of Strack, will be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the notes. The same remark applies to many books of a more general kind (mostly cited in the list of ‘‘ Abbreviations ”), which have helped to elucidate special points of exegesis. The problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis are, indeed, too varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily treated within the compass of a single volume. The old controversies as to the compatibility of the earlier chapters with the conclusions of modern science are no longer, to my mind, a living issue; and I have not thought it neces- sary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those who are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages of Dr. Driver, where they will find these matters handled with convincing force and clearness. Rather more atten- tion has been given to the recent reaction against the critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am very far from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative or its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the scholarly work of the last hundred and fifty years. At all events, my own belief in the essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed by the renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present under- taking required. It will probably appear to some that the analysis is pushed further than is warranted, and that dupli- cates are discovered where common sense would have suggested an easy reconciliation, That is a perfectly fair line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept in view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain which is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts from cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontrovertible, and moves on to others where it is less certain; and it is surely evident that when the composition of sources is once established, the slightest
PREFACE ΙΧ
differences of representation or language assume a signifi- cance which they might not have apart from that presumption. That the analysis is frequently tentative and precarious is fully acknowledged ; and the danger of basing conclusions on insufficient data of this kind is one that I have sought to avoid. On the more momentous question of the historical or legendary character of the book, or the relation of the one element to the other, opinion is likely to be divided for some time tocome. Several competent Assyriologists appear to cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of fresh discoveries which will vindicate the accuracy of at least the patriarchal traditions in a way that will cause the utmost astonishment to some who pay too little heed to the findings of archeological experts. It is naturally difficult to estimate the worth of such an anticipation; and it is advis- able to keep an open mind. Yet even here it is possible to adopt a position which will not be readily undermined. Whatever triumphs may be in store for the archeologist, — though he should prove that Noah and Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are all real historical personages,—he will hardly succeed in dispelling the atmosphere of mythical imagina- tion, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the life and soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be neces- sary, if we are to retain our faith in the inspiration of this part of Scripture, to recognise that the Divine Spirit has enshrined a part of His Revelation to men in such forms as these. It is only by a frank acceptance of this truth that the Book of Genesis can be made a means of religious edification to the educated mind of our age.
As regards the form of the commentary, I have en- deavoured to include in the large print enough to enable the reader to pick up rapidly the general sense of a passage ; although the exigencies of space have compelled me to employ small type to a much larger extent than was ideally desirable. In the arrangement of footnotes I have reverted to the plan adopted in the earliest volume of the series (Driver’s Deuteronomy), by putting all the textual, grammatical, and philological material bearing on a parti-
x PREFACE
cular verse in consecutive notes running concurrently with the main text. It is possible that in some cases a slight embarrassment may result from the presence of a double set of footnotes; but I think that this disadvantage will be more than compensated to the reader by the convenience of having the whole explanation of a verse under his eye at one place, instead of having to perform the difficult operation of keeping two or three pages open at once.
In conclusion, I have to express my thanks, first of all, to two friends by whose generous assistance my labour has been considerably lightened: to Miss E. I. M. Boyd, M.A., who has rendered me the greatest service in collecting material from books, and to the Rev. J. G. Morton, M.A., who has corrected the proofs, verified all the scriptural references, and compiled the Index. My last word of all must be an acknowledgment of profound and grateful obligation to Dr. Driver, the English Editor of the series, for his unfailing interest and encouragement during the progress of the work, and for numerous criticisms and suggestions, especially on points of philology and arche- ology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to give effect.
JOHN SKINNER.
CAMBRIDGE, April τοῖο.
CONTENTS.
--ς-- List oF ABBREVIATIONS . e . e e ᾿ INTRODUCTION. 5 - - - A .
Sar.
Introductory: Canonical Position of the Book—its general Scope—and Title . . . .
A, NATURE OF THE TRADITION.
§ 2. History or Legend? . § 3. Myth and Legend—Foreign Myths 7, "ypes of eephccal Motive . . . . § 4. Historical Value of the τ radition . A . 8 5. Preservation and Collection of the Traditions . . B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK. § 6. Plan and Divisions . . . . . § 7. The Sources of Genesis . . . . § 8. The collective Authorship of J ana IX ° 8 9. Characteristics of ] and E—their Relation to Literary Prophecy - . . 8 το. Date and Place of OeieRelarion of JE . . § 11. Zhe Priestly Code and the Final Redaction . . COMMENTARY . . . . . ° .
EXTENDED NOTES :—
The Divine Image in Man . . . . The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath . . . Babylonian and other Cosmogonies . . . The Site of Eden 5 . . . e . The ‘ Protevangelium’ . . ᾿ . . The Cherubim δ . . Origin and Significance of the ΠΝ ἸΑΡΡῸΝ . . Origin of the Cain Legend . . . . . The Cainite Genealogy - . . . . The Chronology of Ch. 5, etc. . . . . The Deluge Tradition δ . e . . Noah’s Curse and Blessing . - . . . The Babel Legend . . . . . .
χι
PAGES ΧΙΠ-ΧΧ
i-lxvii
iii
Viii Xili XXVill
XXXil XXXIV xliii
xlvii lii Ivii
1-540
81
48 41-50 62-66 80
89 9°-97 ITI-115 122-124 134-139 174-181 185-187 228-231
XII CONTENTS
PAGES Chronology of 111° , : e e . 233 Historic Value of Ch. 14. . e e e 271-276 Circumcision . . . . e e . 296 The Covenant-Idea in P 5 . ° . . 297 Destruction of the Cities of the Plain . ° . 310 The Sacrifice of Isaac 5 . . . . 331 The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting . . 402 The Legend of Peniel : . : . δ 411: The Sack of Shechem . . . δ δ 421 The Edomite Genealogies . . ° ° ° 436 The Degradation of Reuben . . . δ 515 The Fate of Simeon and Levi . δ . . 518 The ‘‘Shiloh”’ Prophecy of 49” ο - . © 521-524 The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes e . 534
ΙΝΡΕΧ-- I. English . . . e e . 541-548
II. Hebrew e e e e e . 548-55 I
ABBREVIATIONS.
---4Φ---
1. SOURCES (see pp. xxxiv ff.) TEXTS, AND VERSIONS.
E
Ks . τ Por PC . Pg ἢ RE
RJ . RP
RE RJEP
EVV]. . Jub. . J I es . OF aa . Aq. . . ΕΝ ° δ =. : . Gr.-Ven. . & : : πε τς
x . . % id Pate AL . Φ ee Gr τς 6) Speer)
Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative.
Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative.
Jehovist, or the combined narrative of J and E. The Priestly Code.
The historical kernel or framework of P (see p. lvii).
Redactors within the schools of E, J, and P, respectively.
The Compiler of the composite work JE.
The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch.
English Version[s] (Authorised or Revised).
The Book of Jubilees.
Massoretic Text.
Old Testament.
Greek Translation of Aquila.
» AA », Lheodotion. 3 a », Symmachus.
Codex ‘ Grzecus Venetus’ (14th or 15th cent.).
The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the OT (ed. A. E. Brooke and N. M‘Lean, Cambridge, 1906).
Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde, Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior Grece, etc. (1883).
Codices of && (see Brooke and M‘Lean, p. v).
Old Latin Version.
The Syriac Version (Peshitta).
The Samaritan Recension of the Pent. (Walton’s ‘London Polyglott’).
The Targum of Onkelos [znd cent. a.D.] (ed. Berliner, 1884).
The Targum of Jonathan [8th cent. a.pD.] (ed. Ginsburger, 1903).
The Vulgate.
xm
XIV ABBREVIATIONS
2. COMMENTARIES,
Ayles . . . H.H. Β. Ayles, A critical Commentary on Genesis 11. g-ttt. 25 (1904).
Ba{ll] . : . C.J. Ball, Zhe Book of Genesis: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text printed in colours... with Notes (1896). See SBOT.
Ben[nett] . . W.H. Bennett, Genesis (Century Bible).
Calv[in] δ . Mosis Libri V cum Joh. Calvini Commentariis. Genesis seorsum, etc. (1563). De[litzsch] . . F. Delitzsch, Meuer Commentar tiber die Genesis
(5th ed. 1887).
Di{ilmann] . . Die Genesis. Von der dritten Aufiage an erklirt von A. Dillmann (6th ed. 1892). The work embodies frequent extracts from earlier edns. by Knobel: these are referred to below as ‘‘ Kn.-Di.”
Dr[iver] . . The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes, by 5. ΚΕ. Driver (7th ed. 1909).
Gu[nkel] . . Genesis tibersetzt und erkldrt, von H. Gunkel (2nd
ed. 1902). Hofizinger]. . Genesis erklirt, von H. Holzinger (1898). ΤΕΖ. - : . Abraham Ibn Ezra (+. 1167). Jer[ome], Qu. . Jerome (+ 420), Questiones sive Traditiones hebraice
in Genesim.
Knfobel] . . A. Knobel.
Kn.-Di. 6 . See Difllmann].
Ra{shi] : . Rabbi Shelomoh Yizhaki (t 1105).
Spurrell . . 6. J. Spurrell, Motes on the Text of the Book of Genesis (2nd ed. 1896),
Strfack] . . Die Genesis tibersetzt und ausgelegt, von H. L. Strack (2nd ed. 1905).
Tu[ch] . . Fr. Tuch, Commentar tiber die Genesis (2nd ed. 1871).
3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE,
Barth, ZS . . Jj. Barth, Ltymologische Studien zum sem. insbe- sondere zum hebr. Lexicon (1893).
» ἽΕ,- . Die Nominalbildung in den sem. Sprachen (1889-91). Barton, SO. . 6. Α. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902). BED. A . S. Baer and F. Delitzsch, Liber Genesis (1869).
The Massoretic Text, with Appendices. BDB . . . F. Brown, 5. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT (ι8οι-- 1). Benz[inger], Arch.” I. Benzinger, Hebriische Archdologie (2nd ed. 1907). Ber. R. : . The Midrash Bereshith Rabba (tr. into German by A. Wiinsche, 1881). Bochart, Hievoz.. S. Bochartus, Hievozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacre Scripture (ed. Rosenmiiller, 1793-96).
Bu[dde], Um. . Buhl, GP . 3
” Burck[hardt] Che[yne], 7BLA]Z
GIS. . Cook, Gi < :
Cooke, VSJ
Cofrnill], Zz. Ἔ Hist.
Curtiss, PSR
Dav[idson] .
re OLR ; DB: : Del[itzsch], wd.
a3 Par..
= Prol,.
” Doughty, AD Dri[ver], LOT
3 Sam.
EB’. . .
ΒΖ, ς . .
Ee({rdmans] : Erman, LAE
pe PELL Ewfald], Gr.
sp EEE,
Ἕ Ant. Field . .
ABBREVIATIONS XV
K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (1883).
Fr. Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina (1806).
Geschichte der Edomiter (1893).
Burckhardt, Motes on the Bedouins and Wahdbys.
Travels in Syria and the Holy Land.
T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel (1907).
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (1881- ).
S. A. Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions (1808).
G. A. Cooke, A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscrip- tions (1903).
C. H. Cornill, Zinlettung in das AT (see p. xl, note).
History of the People of Israel (Tr. 1898).
S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day (1902).
A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax.
The Theology of the OT (1904).
A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by J. Hastings (1898-1902).
Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwirterbuch (1896).
Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische Studie (1881).
Prolegomena eines neuen hebriisch - aramdischen Worterbuchs zum AT (1886).
See BA below.
C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta (1888).
S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the OT (Revised ed. 1910).
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890).
A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew (3rd ed. 1892).
Encyclopedia Biblica, ed. by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (1899-1903).
See Hilprecht.
B. D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien:
i. Die Komposition der Genesis. ii. Die Vorgeschichte Israels.
Ad. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt (tr. by H. M. Tirard, 1894).
A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (tr. by A. S. Griffith, 1907).
H. Ewald, Ausfiihrliches Lehrbuch der hebriischen Sprache des alien Bundes (8th ed. 1870).
History of Israel [Eng. tr. 1871].
Antiquities of Israel [Eng. tr. 1876].
F. Field, Ovigenis Hexaplorum que supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Grecorum in totum V.T. Fragmenta (1875).
XVI ABBREVIATIONS
Frazer, AAO . J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in the history of Oriental Religion (1906). " ae . The Golden Bough ; a Study in Magic and Religion (2nd ed. 1900). " Folklore in the OT (1907). v. Gall, CS¢. . A. Freiherr von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstdtten (1898). G.-B. . . . Gesenius’ Hebraisches und aramdisches Handwerter- buch tiber das AT (14th ed. by Buhl, 1905). Geiger, Urschr.. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in threr Abhingigkeit von derinnern Entwickelung des Judenthums (1857). Ges[enius], 72. . W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus Lingue Hebree et Chaldee V.T. (1829-58).
G.-K. . ° . Gesenius’ Hebrdische Grammatik, vollig umgear- beitet von E. Kautzsch (26th ed. 1896) [Eng. tr. 1898].
Glaser, Skizze . E. Glaser, Sktzze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens, ii. (1890). Gordon, ZE7G . A.R. Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907). Gray, 7PN . Ὁ. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names (1896). Gu[nkel], Schoff H. Gunkel, Schipfung und Chaos in Urseit und Endzett (1895). Guthe, GZ . . H. Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1899). Harrison, Prol. . Jane E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion (2nd ed. 1908). Hilprecht, ZBL. H.V. Hilprecht, Zxplorations in Bible Lands during the roth cent. [with the co-operation of Ben- zinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903). Hofizinger], Zz. H. Holzinger, Hinleitung in den Hexateuch (1893). or Hex. Hom[mel],44A . F. Hommel, Aufsdtze und Abhandlungen arabistisch- semitologischen Inhalts (i-iii, 1892— ). " AHT. The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments (1897). oF AOD. Die altorientalischen Denkméler und das AT (1902). A Gesch. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1885). », SAChrest. Siid-arabische Chrestomathie (1893). Hnupffeld], Qu. . H. Hupfeld, Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art threr Zusammensetzung (1853). Jastrow, RBA . M. Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1808). JE. 5 The Jewish Encyclopedia. Je[remias], ATLO? A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients (2nd ed. 1906). Jen{sen], Kosm. . P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890). KAT*. . . Die Keilinschriften und das AT, by Schrader (2nd ed. 1883). KoA, . Die Keilinschriften und das AT. Third ed., by Zimmern and Winckler (1902).
Kent, SOT. - KIB . : ᾿ Kit[tel], BH ᾽» γε . Kénlig), Ζρό. ὁ. ” Ss. .
ΚΘ . . .
Kue[nen], Ges. Abh.
ἘΠ πη... Lag[arde], Ané&. .
names. δᾶ...
" Mitth. ” . 55 SEM: « 5
»» Symm. OS? "ὁ : ihe: Lex. « - a : -
Len{ormant], Or.
Levy, Ch. Wo.
Lidz[barski], 276. or NSEpigr. .
Lu[ther], VS . Marquart . .
Meyer, Entst. .
eg . 45 . “ΔΝ .
Miller, AZ. .
Nestle, ΜΗ͂ N6[Ideke], Bist,
sc Unters. OH
Oehler, ATT7h Ols. b
ABBREVIATIONS XVII
C. F. Kent, Narratives of the Beginnings of Hebrew History [Students’ Old Testament] (1904).
Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ed. by Eb. Schrader (1889-_).
R. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica (Genesis) (1905).
Geschichte der Hebriier (1888-92).
F. E. KGnig, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebiude der hebriischen Sprache (2 vols., 1881-95).
Historisch - comparative Syntax der hebr. Sprache (1897).
E. Kautzsch and A. Socin, Die Genesis mit atisserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften.
A. Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (see p. xl, note).
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek . . . (see p. xl, no0/e). P. A. de Lagarde, Ankiindigung einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des AT (1882).
Gesammelte Abhandlungen (1866).
Mittheilungen, i-iv (1884-91).
Orientalia, 1, 2 (1879-80).
Semitica, 1, 2 (1878).
Symmicta, 2 pts. (1877-80).
Onomastica Sacra (1870).
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (1863-93).
An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (5th ed. 1860).
F. Lenormant, Les Ovigines de histoire, (i-iii, 1880-84).
J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch tiber die Targumim . - « (3rd ed. 1881).
M. Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi- graphik (1898).
See Meyer, ZS.
J. Marquart, Fundamente israel. und γα. Geschichte (1806).
E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums (1806).
Geschichte des Alterthums (Bd. i. 1884).
x F (2nd ed. 1909).
Die Tuisliten und thre Nachbarstimme, von E. Meyer, mit Beitragen von B. Luther (1906).
W. Max Miiller, Asien und Europa nach altigypt- ischen Denkmdlern (1893).
E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (1893).
Th. N6ldeke, Bettrége zur semitischen Sprach- wissenschaft (1904).
Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT (1869).
Oxford Hexateuch = Carpenter and _ Harford- Battersby, The Hexateuch (see p. xl, nofe).
G. F. Oehler, Theologie des AT (3rd ed. 1891).
J. Olshausen.
XVIII
Orr, POT . .
Os
Playne] Sm{ith],
Thes.
Petrie . Pro[cksch] -
Riehm, Hdwd.
Robinson, BR
Sayce, EHH
» ΧΟ
SB
OT. : .
Schenkel, BZ. Schr[ader], KGF.
Schultz, OTTh Schirer, G/V
Schwfally] .
Sm
ΕΣ] end, 4716
GASn{[ith], HG .
Rob. Smith, 17?
Spi
Sta
» OTJC® Ὁ» Pr.? ἀν egelberg ” [de] 5 ~ BTh GVI
᾽7
Steuern[agel],
TA
Einw. .
ABBREVIATIONS
J. Orr, The Problem of the OT (1906). See Lagarde. R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus (1879, 1901).
W. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt.
O. Procksch, Das nordhebriische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle (1906).
E. C. A. Riehm, Handwirterbuch des biblischen Altertums (2nd ed. 1893-94).
E. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine (2nd ed., 3 vols., 1856).
A. H. Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews (1897).
The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monu- ments (2nd ed. 1894).
The Sacred Books of the OT, a crit. ed. of the Heb. Zext printed in Colours, under the editorial direc- tion of P. Haupt.
D. Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon (1869-75).
Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts- Sorschung (1878).
See KAT and AJB above.
H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology (Eng. tr. 1892).
E. Schiirer, Geschichte des jtidischen Volkes im Zeitaller Jesu Christi (3rd and 4th ed. 1898- 1901).
Fr. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode (1892).
Semitische Kriegsaltertiimer, i. (1901).
R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religions- geschichte (2nd ed. 1899).
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1895).
W. Robertson Smith, Azushif and Marriage in Early Arabia (2nd ed. 1903).
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2nd ed. 1892).
The Prophets of Israel (2nd ed. 1895).
Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (2nd ed. 1894).
W. Spiegelberg, Aegyptologische Randglossen zum AT (1904).
Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der aeg. Monumente (3rd ed. 1904).
B. Stade, Ausgewihite akademische Reden und Abhandlungen (1899).
Biblische Theologie des AT, i. (1905).
Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1887-89).
C. Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Staimme in Kanaan (1901).
Tel-Amarna Tablets [A78,v; Knudtzon, Die el- Amarna Tafeln (τ9ο8-- ))}.
ABBREVIATIONS XIX
Thomson, ZB . W. M. Thomson, 7he Land and the Book (3 vols. 1881-86). Tiele, Gesch. . C. P. Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum, i. (German ed. 1896). Tristram, VHB. H. B. Tristram, Zhe Natural History of the Bible (9th ed. 1898). We[llhausen], Comp.” J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs una der historischen Biicher des AT (2nd ed. 1880). » Degent. De gentibus et familiis Judeis que 1 Chr. 2. 4 enumerantur (1870). » Heid. . Reste arabischen Heidentums (2nd ed. 1897). » Prol.® . Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. 1905). ae : . Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. Ἔ TBS. Der Text der Biicher Samuelis (1871). Wi{nckler], AOF. H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen (1893- ). 4 ATU. Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (1892). ” GBA. Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens (1892). 99 GI. Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen (1. ii., 1895, 1900). a See KAT® above. Zunz, GdV . Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortriige der Juden (2nd ed. 1892).
4. PERIODICALS, ETC,
4JSE. . . American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera- tures (continuing Hebraica).
AJTh . . . American Journal of Theology (1807-- ).
ARW. . . Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft.
Ay ς . . Beitrige zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprach- wissenschaft, herausgegeben von Εἰ, Delitzsch und P. Haupt (1890-__).
BS ᾿ς . . Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review (1844-- ).
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung (188ο-- ).
Exp. . . . The Expositor.
MET t's 5 . The Expository Times.
GGA . ° . Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen (1753- ).
σον. . . Nachrichten der kinigl. Gesellschaft der Waissen- schaften zu Gittingen.
Hebr. . . . Hebriiica (1884-95). See 4752.
JBBW . . [Ewald’s] Jahrbicher der biblischen Wissenschaft (1849-1865).
J(SIBL . - Journal of [ἴῃς Society of] Biblical Literature and Exegesis (1881- ).
MER « . - The Journal of Philology (1872- ).
JOR . . . The Jewish Quarterly Review.
JRAS . . - Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834- ).
XX
FES: as M[B\BA
MVAG
INEZ OLz . PAOS.
PEFS . PSBA.
SBBA. SAGs TREES. FOIE ὁ TSBA. ZA 5 ZATW
ZDMG ZDPV
Zoe ZAVIP Ne
ABBREVIATIONS
The Journal of Theological Studies (1900- ).
Litlerarisches] Zentralbllatt fiir Deutschland} (ι85ο- )}.
Monatsberichte der kinigl. preuss. Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Continued in Sitzungs- berichte der k. p. Ak. . . . (1881- ).
Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft (1896- ).
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (1890-_ ).
Orientalische Litteraturzeitung (1898- ).
Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental Society (1851- ).
Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements.
Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology (.8γ8- ).
See MBBA above.
Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1828-- ).
Theologische Litteraturzeitung (1876- ).
Theologisch Tijdschrift (1867-_ ).
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology.
Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie (1886-- ).
Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (188:1-- ).
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesell- schaft (1845- ).
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palistina-Vereins(1878- ).
Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftsforschung (1884-85).
Zeitschrift fiir Volkerpsychologie und Sprachwissen- schaft (1860- ).
. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS.
‘New Hebrew’: the language of the Mishnah, Midrashim, and parts of the Talmud.
vide infra ἡ Used in references from commentary
vide supra to footnotes, and vice versd.
Frequently used to indicate that a section is of composite authorship.
After OT references means that all occurrences of the word or usage in question are cited.
Root or stem.
Sign of abbreviation in Heb. words.
= 10 = ‘and so on’: used when a Heb. citation
. is incomplete.
INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. Lntroductory: Canonical position of the book—tts general scope—ana title.
THE Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this 8) forms the opening section of a comprehensive historical work which, in the Hebrew Bible, extends from the creation of the world to the middle of the Babylonian Exile (2 Ki. 25°°). The tripartite division of the Jewish Canon has severed the later portion of this work (Jos.—Kings), under the title of the ‘‘ Former Prophets” (o'7wWN7n ὮΝ Ν)32Π), from the earlier portion (Gen.—Deut.), which constitutes the Law (mqynn),—a seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Térah having attained canonical authority soon after its com- pletion in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity of the Prophetical scriptures was not recognised till some centuries later.* How soon the division of the Térah into its five books (ANNA ‘win Hwan: ‘the five fifths of the Law ’) was introduced we do not know for certain; but it is undoubtedly ancient, and in all probability is due to the final redactors of the Pent.j Inthe case of Genesis, at all events,
* See Ryle, Canon of the OT, chs. iv. v. ; Wildeboer, Origin of the Canon of the OT, 27 ff., tor ff. ; Buhl, Kanon und Text des AT, 8f. ; Budde, art. ‘Canon,’ in ZB, and Woods, ‘ OT Canon,’ in DB.
+ Kuenen, Onderzoek, i. pp. 7, 331. The earliest external evidence of the fivefold division is Philo, De Abvah., intt. (Τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐν πέντε βίβλοις ἀναγραφέντων, ἣ πρώτη καλεῖται καὶ ἐπιγράφεται Τένεσις, ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως, ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ περιέχει, λαβοῦσα τὴν πρόσρησιν" καίτοι κτλ.) ; Jos. c. Ap. i. 39. It is found, however, in a4 and Qh, and seems to have served as a model for the similar division of the Psalter. That it
a
fl INTRODUCTION
the division is obviously appropriate. Four centuries of complete silence lie between its close and the beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history of a nation as con- trasted with that of a family; and its prevailing character of individual biography suggests that its traditions are of a different quality, and have a different origin, from the national traditions preserved in Exodus and the succeeding books. Be that as it may, Genesis is a unique and well- rounded whole; and there is no book of the Pent., except Deut., which so readily lends itself to monographic treatment.
Genesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a peculiarity of the Pent. that it is Law-book and history in one: while its main purpose is legislative, the laws are set in a framework of narrative, and so, as it were, are woven into the texture of the nation’s life. Genesis contains a minimum of legislation; but its narrative is the indispensable prelude to that account of Israel’s formative period in which the fundamental institutions of the theocracy are embedded. It is a collection of traditions regarding the immediate ancestors of the Hebrew nation (chs. 12-50), showing how they were gradually isolated from other nations and became a separate people; and at the same time how they were related to those tribes and races most nearly con- nected with them. But this is preceded (in chs. 1-11) by an account of the origin of the world, the beginnings οἵ human history and civilisation, and the distribution of the various races of mankind. The whole thus converges steadily on the line of descent from which Israel sprang, and which determined its providential position among the nations of the world. It is significant, as already observed, that the narrative stops short just at the point where family history ceases with the death of Joseph, to give place after a long interval to the history of the nation.
The Title.—The name ‘ Genesis’ comes tous through the Vulg. from
the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply Γένεσις (Qa EM, most curs.), rarely ἡ γένεσις ((Χ72), a contraction of Τένεσις κόσμου (Gr4)72r), An
follows natural lines of cleavage is shown by Kuenen (J/.cc.) ; and there is no reason to doubt that it is as old as the canonisation of the Térah.
INTRODUCTION ili
interesting variation in one curs. (129)—7 βίβλος τῶν γενέσεων (cf. 24 5')* —might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view the series of Téléd6th (see p. xxxiv), and regarded the book as the book of origins in the wide sense expressed above. But there is no doubt that the current Greek title is derived from the opening theme of the book, the creation of the world.t—So also in Syriac (sephra dabritha), Theod. Mopsu. (ἡ κτίσις), and occasionally among the Rabb. (ΠῪΞ) 150).—The common Jewish designation is ΠῚ ΝΞ, after the first word of the book (Origen, in Euseb. HE, vi. 25; Jerome, Prol. gal., and Quest. in Gen.) ; less usual is pex won, ‘the first fifth.—Only a curious interest attaches to the unofficial appellation wn 15D (based on 2 Sa. 1.8) or onw7’d (the patriarchs) see Carpzov, Jntrod. p. 55; Delitzsch, to.
A. NATURE OF THE TRADITION. § 2. History or Legend ?
The first question that arises with regard to these ‘origins’ is whether they are in the main of the nature of history or of legend,—whether (to use the expressive German terms) they are Geschichte, things that happened, or Sage, things said. There are certain broad differences between these two kinds of narrative which may assist us to determine to which class the traditions of Genesis belong.
History in the technical sense is an authentic record of actual events based on documents contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with the facts narrated. It concerns itself with affairs of state and of public interest, with the actions of kings and statesmen, civil and foreign wars, national disasters and successes, and such like. If it deals with con- temporary incidents, it consciously aims at transmitting to posterity as accurate a reflexion as possible of the real course of events, in their causal sequence, and their relations to time and place. If written at a distance from the events, it seeks to recover from contemporary authorities an exact knowledge of these circumstances, and of the character and motives of the leading personages of the action.—That the Israelites, from a very early period, knew how to write
* Cambridge Septuagint, p. τ. +See the quotation from Philo on p. i above; and cf. Pseudo Athanasius De synop. script. sac. 5.
NEN!
1V INTRODUCTION
history in this sense, we see from the story of David’s court in 2 Sa. and the beginning of 1 Kings. There we havea graphic and circumstantial narrative of the struggles for the succession to the throne, free from bias or exaggeration, and told with a convincing realism which conveys the impression of first-hand information derived from the evidence of eye-witnesses. As a specimen of pure historical literature (as distinguished from mere annals or chronicles) there is nothing equal to it in antiquity, till we come down to the works of Herodotus and Thucydides in Greece.
Quite different from historical writing of this kind is the Volkssage,—the mass of popular narrative fa/k about the past, which exists in more or less profusion amongst ail races in the world. Every nation, as it emerges into historical consciousness, finds itself in possession of a store of traditional material of this kind, either circulating among the common people, or woven by poets and singers into a picture of alegendary heroic age. Such legends, though they survive the dawn of authentic history, belong essentially toa pre-literary and uncritical stage of society, when the popular imagination works freely on dim reminiscences of the great events and personalities of the past, producing an amalgam in which tradition and phantasy are inseparably mingled. Ultimately they are themselves reduced to writing, and give rise to a species of literature which is frequently mistaken for history, but whose true character will usually disclose itself to a patient and sympathetic examination. While legend is not history, it has in some respects a value greater than history. For it reveals the soul of a people, its in- stinctive selection of the types of character which represent its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place and mission in the world; andalso, to some indeterminate extent, the impact on its inner life of the momentous historic experi- ences in which it first woke up to the consciousness of a national existence and destiny.*
* Comp. Gordon, Early Traditions, 84: ‘* As areal expression of the living spirit of the nation, a people’s myths are the mirror of its religious and moral ideals, aspirations, and imaginations.”
INTRODUCTION ν
In raising the question to which department of literature the narratives of Genesis are to be referred, we approach a subject beset by difficulty, but one which cannot be avoided. We are not entitled to assume a priort that Israel is an exception to the general rule that a legendary age forms the ideal background of history: whether it be so or not must be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it prove to be no exception, we shall not assign to its legends a lower significance as an expression of the national spirit than to the heroic legends of the Greek or Teutonic races. It is no question of the truth or religious value of the book that we are called to discuss, but only of the kind of truth and the particular mode of revelation which we are to find init. One of the strangest theological prepossessions is that which identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact accuracy either in science or in history. Legend is after all a species of poetry, and it is hard to see why a revelation which has freely availed itself of so many other kinds of poetry—fable, allegory, parable—should disdain that form of it which is the most influential of all in the life of a primitive people. As a vehicle of religious ideas, poetic narrative possesses obvious advantages over literal history; and the spirit of religion, deeply implanted in the heart of a people, will so permeate and fashion its legendary lore as to make it a plastic ex- pression of the imperishable truths which have come to it through its experience of God.
The legendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears in such characteristics as these: (1) The narratives are the literary deposit of an oral tradition which, if it rests on any substratum of historic fact, must have been carried down through many centuries. Few will seriously maintain that the patriarchs prepared written memoranda for the information of their descendants ; and the narrators nowhere profess their indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians freely refer to written authorities where they used them (Kings, Chronicles); but no instance of this practice occurs in Genesis. Now oral tradition is the natural vehicle of popular legend, as writing is of history. And all experience shows that apart from written records there is no exact knowledge of a remote past. Making every allowance for the superior retentiveness of the Oriental memory, it is still impossible to suppose
that an accurate recollection of bygone incidents should have survived twenty generations or more of oral transmission, Néldeke, indeed, has
vi INTRODUCTION
shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabatzans and Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.* (2) The literary quality of the narratives stamps them as products of the artistic imagination. The very picturesqueness and truth to life which are sometimes appealed to in proof of their historicity are, on the contrary, characteristic marks of legend (Di. 218). We may assume that the scene at the well of Harran (ch. 24) actually took place; but that the description owes its graphic power to a reproduction of the exact words spoken and the precise actions performed on the occasion cannot be supposed ; it is due to the revivifying work of the imagination of successive narrators. But imagination, uncontrolled by the critical faculty, does not confine itself to restoring the original colours of a faded picture; it introduces new colours, insensibly modifying the picture till it becomes impossible to tell how much belongs to the real situation and how much to later fancy. The clearest proof of this is the existence of parallel narratives of an event which can only have happened once, but which emerges in tradition in forms so diverse that they may even pass for separate incidents (1 2198: || 201: || 266% ; 16, || 218% ; 15. || 17, etc.).—(3) The subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind con- genial to the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different from transactions on the stage of history. The proper theme of history, as has been said, is great public and political events ; but legend delights in genre pictures, private and personal affairs, trivial anecdotes of domestic and everyday life, and so forth,—matters which interest the common people and come home to their daily experience. That most of the stories of Genesis are of this description needs no proof; and the fact is very instructive.t A real history of the patriarchal period would have to tell of migrations of peoples, of religious movements, probably of wars of invasion and conquest; and accordingly most modern attempts to vindicate the historicity of Genesis proceed by way of translating the narratives into such terms as these. But this is to confess that the narratives themselves are not history. They have been simplified and idealised to suit the taste of an unsophisticated audience ; and in the process the strictly historic element, down to a bare residuum, has evaporated. The single passage which preserves the ostensible appear- ance of history in this respect is ch. 14; and that chapter, which in any case stands outside the circle of patriarchal tradition, has difficulties of its own which cannot be dealt with here (see p. 271 ff.).—(4) The final test —though to any one who has learned to appreciate the spirit of the narratives it must seem almost brutal to apply it—is the hard matter-of- fact test of self-consistency and credibility. It is not difficult to show that Genesis relates incredibilities which no reasonable appeal to miracle will suffice to remove. With respect to the origin of the world, the antiquity of man on the earth, the distribution and relations of peoples, the beginnings of civilisation, etc., its statements are at variance with
* Amalekiter, p. 25 f. + Cf. Wi. Abraham als Babylonier, 7.
INTRODUCTION Vil
the scientific knowledge of our time ;* and no person of educated intelligence accepts them in their plain natural sense. We know that angels do not cohabit with mortal women, that the Flood did not cover the highest mountains of the world, that the ark could not have accom- modated all the species of animals then existing, that the Euphrates and Tigris have not a common source, that the Dead Sea was not first formed in the time of Abraham, etc. There is admittedly a great difference in respect of credibility between the primzeval (chs. 1-11) and the patriarchal (12-50) traditions. But even the latter, when taken as a whole, yields many impossible situations. Sarah was more than sixty- five years old when Abraham feared that her beauty might endanger his life in Egypt ; she was over ninety when the same fear seized him in Gerar. Abraham at the age of ninety-nine laughs at the idea of having a son; yet forty years later he marries and begets children. Both Midian and Ishmael were grand-uncles of Joseph ; but their descendants appear as tribes trading with Egypt in his boyhood. Amalek was a grandson of Esau ; yet the Amalekites are settled in the Negeb in the time of Abraham.+—It is a thankless task to multiply such examples. The contradictions and violations of probability and scientific possibility are intelligible, and not at all disquieting, in a collection of legends ; but they preclude the supposition that Genesis is literal history.
It is not implied in what has been said that the tradition is destitute of historical value. History, legendary history, legend, myth, form a descending scale, with decreasing emphasis on the historical element, and the lines between the first three are vague and fluctuating. In what pro- portions they are combined in Genesis it may be impossible to determine with certainty. But there are three ways in which a tradition mainly legendary may yield solid historical results. In the first place, a legend may embody a more or less exact recollection of the fact in which it originated. In the second place, a legend, though unhistorical in form, may furnish material from which history can be extracted. Thirdly, the collateral evidence of archeology may bring to light a correspondence which gives a historical significance to the legend. How far any of these lines can be followed to a successful issue in the case of Genesis, we shall con- sider later (§ 4), after we have examined the obviously legendary motives which enter into the tradition. Mean- while the previous discussion will have served its purpose
* See Dri. XXXI ff. 109 ff. + See Reuss, Gesch. d. heil. Schr. AT’, 167 f.
vill INTRODUCTION
if any readers have been led to perceive that the religious teaching of Genesis lies precisely in that legendary element whose existence is here maintained. Our chief task is to discover the meaning of the legends as they stand, being assured that from the nature of the case these religious ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient Israel. It is a suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the permanent value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that underlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.*
§ 3. Myth and legend—Foreign myths—Types of mythical motive.
1. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On this question there has been all the variety of opinion that might be expected. Some writers, starting with the theory that mythology is a necessary phase of primitive thinking, have found in the OT abundant confirmation of their thesis. The more prevalent view has been that the mythopceic tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of its religion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown in its literature. Others have taken up an intermediate position, denying that the Hebrew mind produced myths of its own, but admitting that it borrowed and adapted those of other peoples. For all practical purposes, the last view seems to be very near the truth.
For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see Tuch, pp. I-xv; Gu. p. xvi; Hoffding, Phil. of Rel. (Eng. tr.), 199 ff. ; Gordon, 77 ΤΕ; Procksch, Mordhebr. Sagenbuch, τ. etc.—The practically im- portant distinction is that the legend does, and the myth does not, start from the plane of historic fact. The myth is properly a story of the gods, originating in an impression produced on the primitive mind by the more imposing phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to the personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of the narrative an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on observation of a
* On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the admirable statement of A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, pp. 76-92. + Goldziher, Der Mythos bet den Hebréern (1876).
INTRODUCTION 1X
solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative of the sun-god (see p. 180f.). But the utility of this distinction is largely neutralised by a universal tendency to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men (Sargon of Agade, Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.) ; so that the most indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage. — Gordon differentiates between spontaneous (nature) myths and reflective (ztiological) myths ; and, while recognising the existence of the latter in Genesis, considers that the former type is hardly represented in the OT atall. The distinction is important, though it may be doubted if zetiology is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and asa parasitic development it appears to attach itself indifferently to myth and legend. Hence there is a large class of narratives which it is difficult to label either as mythical or as legendary, but in which the ztiological or some similar motive is prominent (see p. xi ff.).
2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent in the primitive traditions of chs. 1-11. The discovery of the Babylonian versions of the Creation- and Deluge- traditions has put it beyond reasonable doubt that these are the originals from which the biblical accounts have been derived (pp. 45 ff., 177f.). A similar relation obtains between the antediluvian genealogy of ch. 5 and Berossus’s list of the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood (p. 137f.). The story of Paradise has its nearest analogies in Iranian mythology ; but there are faint Babylonian echoes which suggest that it belonged to the common mythological heritage of the East (p. goff.). Both here and in ch. 4 a few isolated coincidences with Pheenician tradition may point to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium through which such myths came to the knowledge of the Israelites. —All these (as well as the story of the Tower of Babel) were originally genuine myths—stories of the gods; and if they no longer deserve that appellation, it is because the spirit of Hebrew monotheism has exorcised the polytheistic notions of deity, apart from which true mythology cannot survive. The few passages where the old heathen concep- tion of godhead still appears (176 3° 4 δι. 7118.) only serve to show how completely the religious beliefs of Israel have transformed and purified the crude speculations of pagan theology, and adapted them to the ideas of an ethical and monotheistic faith.
xX INTRODUCTION
The naturalisation of Babylonian myths in Israel is conceivable in a variety of ways; and the question is perhaps more interesting as an illustration of two rival tendencies in criticism than for its possibilities of actual solution. The tendency of the literary school of critics has been to explain the process by the direct use of Babylonian documents, and to bring it down to near the dates of our written Pent. sources.* Largely through the influence of Gunkel, a different view has come to prevail, viz., that we are to think rather of a gradual process of assimilation to the religious ideas of Israel in the course of oral trans- mission, the myths having first passed into Canaanite tradition as the result (immediate or remote) of the Babylonian supremacy prior to the Tell-Amarna period, and thence to the Israelites.| The strongest argument for this theory is that the biblical versions, both of the Creation and the Flood, give evidence of having passed through several stages in Hebrew tradition. Apart from that, the considerations urged in support of either theory do not seem to me conclusive. There are no recognisable traces of a specifically Canaanite medium having been interposed between the Bab. originals and the Hebrew accounts of the Creation and the Flood, such as we may surmise in the case of the Paradise myth. It is open to argue against Gu. that if the process had been as protracted as he says, the divergence would be much greater than it actually is. Again, we cannot well set limits to the deliberate manipulation of Bab. material by a Hebrew writer ; and the assump- tion that such a writer in the later period would have been repelled by the gross polytheism of the Bab. legends, and refused to have anything to do with them, is a little gratuitous. On the other hand, it is unsafe to assert with Stade that the myths could not have been assimilated by Israelite theology before the belief in Yahwe’s sole deity had been firmly established by the teaching of the prophets. Monotheism had roots in Heb. antiquity extending much further back than the age of written prophecy, and the present form of the legends is more intel- ligible as the product of an earlier phase of religion than that of the literary prophets. But when we consider the innumerable channels through which myths may wander from one centre to another, we shall hardly expect to be able to determine the precise channel, or the ap- proximate date, of this infusion of Bab. elements into the religious tradition of Israel.
It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit no traces of Bab. mythology, they contain a few examples of mythical narrative to which analogies are found in other quarters. The visit of the angels to Abraham (see p. 302f.), and the destruction of Sodom (p. 311 f.), are incidents of obviously mythical origin (stories of the gods) ; and to both, classical and other parallels exist. The account of the births of Esau
*See Bu. Ung. (1883), 515f.; Kuenen, Z7h7, xviii. (1884), 167 ff. ; Kosters, 2b. xix. (1885), 325 ff., 3443; Sta. ΖΑ ΤῊ (1895), 159f., (1903),
175 ff. + Schépfung und Chaos (1895), 143 ff; Gen.? (1902), 64f. Cf.
10 εἰ. 31.
INTRODUCTION ΧΙ
and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (p. 359), which is repeated in the case of Zerah and Perez (ch. 38). The whole story of Jacob and Esau presents several points of contact with that of the brothers Hypsouranios (Samem-rum) and Usdos in the Phoenician mythology (Usdos=Esau : see pp. 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric variant of the incest of Reuben (p. 427). These phenomena are among the most perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradi- tion.* We can as yet scarcely conjecture the hidden source from which such widely ramified traditions have sprung, though we may not on that account ignore the existence of the problem. It would be at all events a groundless anticipation that the facts will lead us to resolve the patriarchs into mythological abstractions. They are rather to be explained by the tendency already referred to (p. ix), to mingle myth with legend by transferring mythical incidents to historic personages.
4. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical elements of the tradition, to classify the leading types of mythical, or semi-mythical (p. ix), motive which appear in the narratives of Genesis. It will be seen that while they undoubtedly detract from the literal historicity of the records, they represent points of view which are of the greatest historical interest, and are absolutely essential to the right interpretation of the legends.{
(a) The most comprehensive category is that of etiological or ex- planatory myths ; z.e., those which explain some familiar fact of experi- ence by a story of the olden time. Both the questions asked and the answers returned are frequently of the most naive and childlike descrip- tion: they have, as Gu. has said, all the charm which belongs to the artless but profound reasoning of an intelligent child. The classical example is the story of Paradise and the Fall in chs. 2. 3, which con- tains one explicit instance of ztiology (24: why a man cleaves to his wife), and implicitly a great many more: why we wear clothes and detest snakes, why the serpent crawls on his belly, why the peasant has to drudge in the fields, and the woman to endure the pangs of travail, etc. (p. 95). Similarly, the account of creation explains why there are so many kinds of plants and animals, why man is lord of them all, why the sun shines by day and the moon by night, etc. ; why the Sabbath is kept. The Flood-story tells us the meaning of the rainbow, and of the regular recurrence of the seasons: the Babel-myth accounts for the existing diversities of language amongst men. Pure examples of ztiology are practically confined to the first eleven chapters; but the same general idea pervades the patriarchal history, specialised under the headings which follow.
* See Gu. p. LVI. + The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken, with some simplification, from Gu. p. xvi ff.
xii INTRODUCTION
(5) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal narra- tives, is what may be called ethnographic legends. It is an obvious feature of the narratives that the heroes of them are frequently per- sonifications of tribes and peoples, whose character and history and mutual relationships are exhibited under the guise of individual bio- graphy. Thus the pre-natal struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the rivalry of ‘two nations’ (25); the monuments set up by Jacob and Laban mark the frontier between Israelites and Aramzans (3144%) ; Ishmael is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16), and Cain of some ferocious nomad-tribe ; Jacob and his twelve sons represent the unity of Israel and its division into twelve tribes; and soon. This mode of thinking was not peculiar to Israel (cf. the Hellen, Dorus, Kuthus, Aeolus, Achzus, Ion, of the Greeks) ;* but it is one specially natural to the Semites from their habit of speaking of peoples as sons (7.e. members) of the collective entity denoted by the tribal or national name (sons of Israel, of Ammon, of Ishmael, etc.), whence arose the notion that these entities were the real progenitors of the peoples so designated. That in some cases the representation was correct need not be doubted ; for there are known examples, both among the Arabs and other races in a similar stage of social development, of tribes named after a famous ancestor or leader of real historic memory. But that this is the case with all eponymous persons—e.g, that there were really such men as Jerahmeel, Midian, Aram, Sheba, Amalek, and the rest—is quite in- credible ; and, moreover, it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are an exact copy of the personal experiences of its reputed ancestor, even if he existed. We must therefore treat these legends as symbolic representations of the ethnological affinities between different tribes or peoples, and (to a less extent) of the historic experiences of these peoples. There is a great danger of driving this interpretation too far, by assigning an ethnological value to details of the legend which never had any such significance ; but to this matter we shall have occa- sion to return at a later point (see p. xix ff.).
(c) Next in importance to these ethnographic legends are the cult- legends. A considerable proportion of the patriarchal narratives are designed to explain the sacredness of the principal national sanctuaries, while a few contain notices of the origin of particular ritual customs (circumcision, ch. 17 [but cf. Ex. 4%]; the abstinence from eating the sciatic nerve, 32%). To the former class belong such incidents as Hagar at Lahairoi (16), Abraham at the oak of Mamre (18), his planting of the tamarisk at Beersheba (21%), Jacob at Bethel—with the reason for anointing the sacred stone, and the institution of the tithe—(28), and at Peniel (32%); and many more. The general idea is that the places were hallowed by an appearance of the deity in the patriarchal period, or at least by the performance of an act of worship (erection of an altar, etc.) by one of the ancestors of Israel. In reality the sanctity of these spots was in many cases of immemorial antiquity, being rooted in the most primitive forms of Semitic religion; and at times the narrative
* See Dri. 112; Gordon, Z7G, 88.
INTRODUCTION ΧΙ
suffers it to appear that the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch (see on 12°). It is probable that inauguration-legends had grown up at the chief sanctuaries while they were still in the possession of the Canaanites. We cannot tell how far such legends were transferred to the Hebrew ancestors, and how far the traditions are of native Israelite growth.
(4) Of much less interest to us is the etymological motive which so frequently appears as a side issue in legends of wider scope. Specula- lation on the meaning and origin of names is fascinating to all primitive peoples; and in default of a scientific philology the most fantastic explanations are readily accepted. That it was so in ancient Israel could be easily shown from the etymologies of Genesis. Here, again, it is just conceivable that the explanation given may occasionally be correct (though there is hardly a case in which it is plausible) ; but in the majority of cases the real meaning of the name stands out in palpable contradiction to the alleged account of its origin. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the same name explained in two different ways (many of Jacob's sons, ch. 30), or to have as many as three sug- gestions of its historic origin (Ishmael, 16"! 17% 2117; Isaac, 17371814 219). To claim literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile.
(6) There is yet another element which, though not mythical or legendary, belongs to the imaginative side of the legends, and has to be taken account of in interpreting them. This is the element of poezic idealisation. Whenever a character enters the world of legend, whether through the gate of history or through that of ethnographic personifica- tion, it is apt to be conceived as a type ; and as the story passes from mouth to mouth the typical features are emphasised, while those which have no such significance tend to be effaced or forgotten. Then the dramatic instinct comes into play—the artistic desire to perfect the story as a lifelike picture of human nature in interesting situations and action. To see how far this process may be carried, we have but to compare the conception of Jacob’s sons in the Blessing of Jacob (ch. 49) with their appearance in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren. In the former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the char- acters attributed to them are those of the tribes they represent. In the latter, these characteristics have almost entirely disappeared, and the central interest is now the pathos and tragedy of Hebrew family life. Most of the brothers are without character or individuality; but the accursed Reuben and Simeon are respected members of the family, and the ‘wolf’ Benjamin has become a helpless child whom the father will hardly let go from his side. This, no doubt, is the supreme instance of romantic or ‘novelistic’ treatment which the book contains ; but the same idealising tendency is at work elsewhere, and must constantly be allowed for in endeavouring to reach the historic or ethnographic basis from which the legends start.
§ 4. Historical value of the tradition.
It has already been remarked (p. vii) that there are three chief ways in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradi-
χὶν INTRODUCTION
tion may yield solid historical results: /first, through the retention in the popular memory of the impression caused by real events and personalities; secondly, by the recovery of historic (mainly ethnographic) material from the biographic form of the tradition; and ¢hzrdly, through the confirmation of contemporary ‘archeological’ evidence. It will be con- venient to start with the last of these, and consider what is known about—
1. The historical background of the patriarchal traditions. —The period covered by the patriarchal narratives * may be defined very roughly as the first half of the second millennium (2000-1500) B.c. The upper limit depends on the generally accepted assumption, based (somewhat insecurely, as it seems to us) on ch. 14, that Abraham was contemporary with Hammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty. The date of Hammurabi is probably c. 2100 B.c.f
* The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal tradi- tion, because it is only with regard to it that the question of essential historicity arises. Every one admits that the pre-historic chapters (1-11) stand on a different footing, and there are few who would claim for them the authority of a continuous tradition.
+ The date here assigned to Hammurabi is based on the recent investigations of Thureau-Dangin (Journal des Savants [1908], 190 ff. ; ZA, xxi. [1908], 176 ff.), and Ungnad (OZz. [1908], 13 ff.); with whom Poebel (ZA, xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement. The higher estimates which formerly prevailed depended on the natural assumption that the first three dynasties of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880 and 1884) reigned consecutively in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King (Chronicles concerning early Bab. Kings) published new material, which showed conclusively that the Second dynasty, ruling over the ‘ Country of the Sea,’ was at least partly, if not wholly, contemporaneous with the First and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer (GA, τ. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold that the Third (KaSSite) dynasty followed immediately on the First ; and that consequently the previous estimates of the chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the total duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according to List A). The scholars cited at the head of this note consider, on the other hand, that the contemporaneousness was only partial, and that there was an interval of 176 years between the close of the First dynasty and the accession of the Third. The chief data are these: King’s new chronicle has proved beyond dispute (1) that Ilima-ilu, the founder of the Second dynasty, was contemporary with Samsu-iluna and Abi-eSu’, the 7th and 8th kings of the First dynasty ; and (2) that Ea-gAmil, the last king of
2
INTRODUCTION XV
The lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is usually assigned (as it must be if Ex. 1 is genuine) to the reign of Merneptah of the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty δ. 1234-1214 B.c.). Allowing a sufficient period for the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to about the middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the family left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chron- ology assigns nearly the same date as above to Abraham, but a much earlier one for the Exodus (c. 1490), and reduces the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan to 215 years; since, however, the chronological system rests on artificial calculations (see pp. 135f., 234), we cannot restrict our survey to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal period in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so numerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field than the five centuries mentioned above.*
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of writers, this period of history has been so illumined by
the Second dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain KaSSite (king ?), KaStiliaS. Now, KaStiliaS is the name of the grd king of the KaSSite dynasty; and the question is whether this KaStiliaS is to be identified with the contemporary of Ea-g4mil. Th.-Dangin, etc., answer in the affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty coincides with a gap in the list of Ka3Site kings (8th to 15th), where the name of KaStiliaS may have stood. Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gamil with the third KaSSite king; but gets rid of the interregnum by a somewhat arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty to about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is referred to the lucid note in Dri. Gen.’ xxvii. ff. (with lists).—King believes that his date for Hammurabi (c. 1958-1916) facilitates the identification of that monarch with the Amraphel of Gn. 14 (see p. 257 f. below), by bringing the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer accord with the biblical data ; but in view of the artificial character of the biblical chronology (v.s.), it is doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed to this consideration.
* Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Ex. 1!) put back to c. 1450 B.C. (Hommel, £7, x. [1899], 210 ff. ; Orr, POT, 422 ff.); while Eerdmans would bring it down to c. 1125 B.C. (Vorgeschichte [sraels, 14; Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Wi. al.) identified with a minister of Amenophis Iv. (c. 1380-1360), by Eerdmans with a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty (c¢. 1205). See p. 501 f.
Xv1 INTRODUCTION
recent discoveries that it is no longer possible to doubt the essential historicity of the patriarchal tradition.* It is admitted that no externa. evidence has come to light of the existence of such persons as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, or even (with the partial exception of Joseph) of men playing parts at all corresponding to theirs. But it is maintained that contemporary documents reveal a set of conditions into which the patriarchal narratives fit perfectly, and which are so different from those prevailing under the monarchy that the situation could not possibly have been imagined by an Israelite of that laterage. Now, that recent archeology has thrown a flood of light on the period in question, is beyond all doubt. It has proved that Palestinian culture and religion were saturated by Babylonian influences long before the supposed date of Abraham; that from that date downwards intercourse with Egypt was frequent and easy; and that the country was more than once subjected to Egyptian conquest and authority. It has given us a most interesting glimpse from about 2000 B.c. of the natural products of Canaan, and the manner of life of its inhabitants (Tale of Sinuhe). At a later time (Tell-Amarna letters) it shows the Egyptian dominion threatened by the advance of Hittites from the north, and by the incursion of a body of nomadic marauders called Habiri (see p. 218). It tells us that Jakob-el (and Joseph-el ?) was the name of a place in Canaan in the first half of the 15th cent. (pp. 360, 389f.), and that Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200B.c.; also that Hebrews (‘Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from the time of Ramses 11. to that of Ramses Iv. (Heyes, 82d. uw. Aeg. 146ff.; Eerdmans, /.¢. 52 ἢ; Exp. Ζ. δι πο Δ this is of the utmost value; and 7f the patriarchs lived in this age, then this is the background against which we have to set their biographies. But the real question is whether there is such a correspondence between the bio-
* Jeremias, 4710", 365: ‘Wir haben gezeigt, dass das Milieu der Vatergeschichten in allen Einzelheiten zu den altorientalischen Kultur- verhidltnissen stimmt, die uns die Denkmaler fiir die in Betracht kom- menden Zeit bezeugen.”
INTRODUCTION XVii
graphies and their background that the former would be unintelligible if transplanted to other and later surroundings. We should gladly welcome any evidence that this is the case; but it seems to us that the remarkable thing about these narratives is just the absence of background and their general compatibility with the universal conditions of ancient Eastern life.* The case for the historicity of the tradition, based on correspondences with contemporary evidence from the period in question, appears to us to be greatly over- stated
The line of argument that claims most careful attention is to the following effect: Certain legal customs presupposed by the patriarchal stories are now known to have prevailed (in Babylon) in the age of Hammurabi; these customs had entirely ceased in Israel under the monarchy ; consequently the narratives could not have been invented by legend-writers of that period (Je. ATZO*, 355ff.). The strongest case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Cod. Hamm. 146 to the position of Hagar as concubine-slave in ch. 16 (below, p. 285). Here everything turns on the probability that this usage was unknown in Israel in the regal period; and it is surely pressing the azgumentum ex silentio too far to assert confidently that if it had been known it would certainly have been mentioned in the later literature. We must remember that Genesis contains almost the only pictures of intimate family life in the OT, and that it refers to many things not mentioned later simply because there was no occasion to speak of them. Were twin-births peculiar to the patriarchial period because two are men- tioned in Gen. and none at all in the rest of the OT? The fact that the custom of the concubine-slave has persisted in Mohammedan countries down to modern times, should warn us against such sweeping negations.—Again, we learn (zd. 358) that the simultaneous marriage with two sisters was permitted by ancient Babylonian law, but was proscribed in Hebrew legislation as incestuous. Yes, but the law in
* A striking illustration of this washing out of historical background is the contrast between the Genesis narratives and the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe, from which Je. (A 7ZO*, 208 ff.) quotes at length in demonstra- tion of their verisimilitude. While the latter is full of detailed informa- tion about the people among whom the writer lived, the former (except in chs. 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (245 37") to the aboriginal population of Palestine proper. Luther (ZS, 156f.) even maintains that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at this time an unin- habited country! Without going so far as that, we cannot but regard the fact as an indication of the process of abstraction which the narratives have undergone in the course of oral transmission. Would they appeal to the heart of the world as they do if they retained, to the extent sometimes alleged, the signature of an obsolete civilisation ?
ὀ
XVII INTRODUCTION
question (Lv. 1818) is late; and does not its enactment in the PC rather imply that the practice against which it is directed survived in Israel till the close of the monarchy ?—The distinction between the mdhar, or purchase price of a wife, and the gift to the bride (7.), should not be cited : the mdhar is an institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral societies ; it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Ex. 2216); its name is not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into personal service is in accordance with Arab practice (p. 383 below). ‘—In short, it does not appear that the examples given differ from another class of usages, “die nicht spezifisch altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spatern bez. intergentilen Rechtszustanden entsprechen, die aber . . . wenigstens teilweise eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Cod. Hamm. erfahren.” The “‘interessante Beleuchtung ” will be freely admitted.
Still less has the new knowledge of the political circumstances of Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation of the patriarchal tradi- tion, although it has brought to light certain facts which have to be taken into account in interpreting that tradition. The complete silence of the narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a fading of the actual situation from the popular memory during the course of oral transmission. The existence of Philistines in the time of Abraham is, so far as archzology can inform us, a positive anachronism. On the whole it must be said that archzology has in this region created more problems than it has solved. The occurrence of the name Yakob-el in the time of Thothmes 11., of Asher under Seti 1. and Ramses 1., and of Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (Habiri?) in Palestine in the 15th cent., and in Egypt (‘Apriw ?) from Ramses 1. to Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to the adjustment of the patriarchal figures to their original background. We do not seem as yet to be in sight of a historical construction which shall enable us to bring these conflicting data into line with an intelligible rendering of the Hebrew tradition.
It is considerations such as these that give so keen an edge to the controversy about the genuineness of ch. 14. That is the only section of Genesis which seems to set the figure of Abraham in the framework of world history. If it be a historical document, then we have a fixed centre round which the Abrahamic traditions, and possibly those of the other patriarchs as well, will group themselves ; if it be but a late imita- tion of history, we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an uncertain and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to estimate the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the commentary below (p.271ff.). Here, however, it is in point to observe that even if the complete historicity of ch. 14 were established, it would take us but a little way towards the authentication of the patriarchal traditions as a whole. For that episode confessedly occupies a place entirely unique in the records of the patriarchs; and all the marks of contemporary authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs
* See S. A. Cook, Cambridge Biblical Essays, 79 f.
INTRODUCTION xix
that the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack that particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral traditions and historic notices relating to the same individual proves that the former rest on a basis of fact; but it does not warrant the inference that the oral tradition is accurate in detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the circumstances of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham of oral tradition is a far more important religious personality than Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in ch, 14.
2. Ethnological theories.—The negative conclusion ex- pressed above (p. xviif.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian analogies to the patriarchal tradition, depends partly on the assumption of the school of writers whose views were under consideration: viz., that the narratives are a tran- script of actual family life in that remote age, and therefore susceptible of illustration from private law as we find it embodied in the Cod. Hamm. It makes, however, little difference if for family relations we substitute those of clans and peoples to one another, and treat the individuals as representatives of the tribes to which Israel traced its origin. We shall then find the real historic content of the legends in migratory movements, tribal divisions and fusions, and general ethnological phenomena, which popular tradition has disguised as personal biographies. This is the line of interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles since Ewald; * and it has given rise to an extraordinary variety of theories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it is not necessarily inconsistent with belief in the individual existence of the patriarchs; though its more extreme ex- ponents do not recognise this as credible. The theories in question fall into two groups: those which regard the narratives as ideal projections into the past of relations sub- sisting, or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in Canaan;7 and those which try to extract from them a real history of the period before the Exodus. Since the former class deny a solid tradition of any kind behind the patriarchal story, we may here pass them over, and confine our atten-
* Hist. of Isr. i. 363, 382, etc. +So We. Prol.® 319 ff. [Eng. tr. 318 ff.], 7157. und γα, Gesch. 11 ff. ; Sta. GVI, i. 145 ff., ZATW, i. 112 ff., 347 ff.
XX INTRODUCTION
tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth in the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor worse than others that might be chosen, we may take that of Cornill. According to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed a migration from Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through the successive separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main body of immigrants was so reduced that it might have been submerged, but for the arrival of a fresh contingent from Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the names, except Abraham’s, are all tribal or national), This reinforce- ment consisted of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest and strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to Egypt. The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support, was assailed by the Leah-tribes led by Reuben; but the attempt was foiled, and Reuben lost his birthright. Subsequently the whole of the tribes were driven to seek shelter in Egypt, when Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing them to settle by its side in the frontier province of Egypt (Hist. of Israel, 29 ff.).
It will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on two leading ideas: tribal affinities typified by various phases of the marriage relation; and mzgrations. As regards the first, we have seen (p. xii) that there is a true principle at the root of the method. It springs from the personification of a tribe under the name of an individual, male or female; and we have admitted that many names in Genesis have this significance, and probably no other. If, then, two eponymous ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers, we may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious of an extremely close affinity. Ifa male eponym is married to a female, we may presume (though with less confidence) that the two tribes were amalgamated. Or, if one clan is spoken of as a wife and another as a concubine, we may reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow inferior to the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this kind (each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent probabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable; and the attempt to apply it to all the complex family relation- ships of the patriarchs only lands us in confusion.*—The
* Guthe (GVZ, 1-6) has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks can be used (with tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΙ
idea of migration is still less trustworthy. Certainly not every journey recorded in Genesis (e.g. that of Joseph from Hebron to Shechem and Dothan, 3714": pace Steuernagel) can be explained as a migratory movement. Even when the ethnological background is apparent, the movements of tribes may be necessary corollaries of the assumed relation- ships between them (e.g. Jacob’s journey to Harran: p. 357); and it will be difficult to draw the line between these and real migrations. The case of Abraham is no doubt a strong one; for if his figure has any ethnological significance at all, his exodus from Harran (or Ur) can hardly be inter- preted otherwise than as a migration of Hebrew tribes from that region. We cannot feel the same certainty with regard to Joseph’s being carried down to Egypt; it seems to us altogether doubtful if this be rightly understood as an en- forced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in advance of the rest (see p. 441).
But it is when we pass from genealogies and marriages and journeys to pictorial narrative that the breakdown of the ethnological method becomes complete. The obvious truth is that no tribal relationship can supply an adequate motive for the wealth of detail that meets us in the richly coloured patriarchal legends; and the theory stultifies itself by as- signing ethnological significance to incidents which origin- ally had no such meaning. It will have been noticed that Cornill utilises a few biographical touches to fill in his scheme (the youthful ambition of Joseph; his sale into Egypt, etc.), and every other theorist does the same. Each writer selects those incidents which fit into his own system, and neglects those which would embarass it. Each system has some plausible and attractive features; but each, to avoid ab- surdity, has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent extension of its principles. The consequence is endless
into historical terms. There is probably not one of them which is capable of rigorous and universal application. Thus, the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel does not necessarily imply that Jacob was a tribe which successively absorbed the two clans so named: it is just as likely that the union of Leah and Rachel with one another produced the entity called Jacob.
ΧΧΙΙ INTRODUCTION
diversity in detail, and no agreement even in general out- line.*
It is evident that such constructions will never reach any satisfactory result unless they find some point of support in the history of the period as gathered from contemporary sources. The second millennium B.C. is thought to have witnessed one great movement of Semitic tribes to the north, viz., the Aramzean. About the middle of the millennium we find the first notices of the Aramzans as nomads in what is now the Syro-Arabian desert. Shortly afterwards the Habiri make their appear- ance in Palestine. It is a natural conjecture that these were branches of the same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent of Hebrews and Aramzans. The question then arises whether we can connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with what stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the reckoning, be- cause neither is ever brought into contact with the Aramzans ; Rebekah is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by the chronology, unless (with Corn.) we bring down his date to ¢. 1500, or (with Steuer.) regard his migration as a traditional duplicate of Jacob’s return from Laban. But if Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of the Habiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation of two traditions,—one tracing his nativity to Harran and the other to Ur; and it is conceivable that he is the symbol of two migrations, one of which might be identified with the arrival of the Habiri, and the other might have taken place as early as the age of Hammurabi. But these are speculations no whit more reliable than any of those dealt with above ; and it has to be confessed that as yet archzology has furnished no sure basis for the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permis- sible to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at present how far that history can be explained on ethnological lines. t
* Luther (ZATW, 1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading theories (We. Sta. Gu. Corn.), with the purpose of showing that the consistent application of the method would speedily lead to absurd results (46). He would undoubtedly have passed no different verdict on later combinations, such as those of Steuernagel, Kinwanderung der. Isr. Stimme ; Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 45 ff. ; Procksch, Mordhebr. Sagen- buch, 330 ff. etc.—What Grote has written about the allegorical inter- pretation of the Greek legends might be applied word for word to these theories: ‘The theorist who adopts this course of explanation finds that after one or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open, and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous refinements and conjectures” (Hist. of Greece, ed. 1888, p. 2).
+ To the whole class of theories considered above (those which try to go behind the Exodus), Luther (/.c. 44 f.) objects that they demand a continuous occupation of Palestine from the time when the legends were
INTRODUCTION xxiii
3. The patriarchs as individuals.—We come, in the last place, to consider the probability that the oral tradition, through its own inherent tenacity of recollection, may have retained some true impression of the events to which it refers. After what has been said, it is vain to expect that a picture true in every detail will be recoverable from popular tales current in the earliest ages of the monarchy. The course of oral tradition has been too long, the disturbing influences to which it has been exposed have been too numerous and varied, and the subsidiary motives which have grafted themselves on to it too clearly discernible, to admit of the supposition that more than a substantial nucleus of historic fact can have been preserved in the national memory of Israel. It is not, however, unreasonable to believe that such a historical nucleus exists; and that with care we may disentangle from the mass of legendary accre- tions some elements of actual reminiscence of the pre- historic movements which determined the subsequent development of the national life.* It is true that in this region we have as a rule only subjective impressions to guide us; but in the absence of external criteria a subjective
formed. He hints at a solution, which has been adopted in principle by Meyer (ZNS, 127 ff., 415, 433), and which if verified would relieve some difficulties, archeological and other. It is that two independent accounts of the origin of the nation are preserved : the Genesis-tradition, carrying the ancestry of the people back to the Aramzans, and the Exodus- tradition, which traces the origin of the nation no further than Moses and the Exodus. There are indications that in an earlier phase of the patriarchal tradition the definitive conquest of Canaan was carried back to Jacob and his sons (chs. 34. 38. 48”) ; on Meyer's view this does not necessarily imply that the narratives refer to a time subsequent to Joshua. A kernel of history may be recognised in both strands of tradition, on the assumption (not in itself a violent one) that only a section of Israel was in Egypt, and came out under Moses, while the rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the Exodus-tradition to the whole people was a natural effect of the consolidation of the nation ; and this again might give rise to the story of Jacob’s migration to Egypt, with all his sons.
* Cf. Winckler, KAZ", 204: ‘“‘Es ist namlich immer wahrschein- licher, dass ein grosses fiir die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem Gedachtniss besser erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten seines Herganges.”
XXIV INTRODUCTION
judgement has its value, and one in favour of the historic origin of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the contrary effect.—The two points on which attention now falls to be concentrated are: (4) the personalities of the patriarchs; and (8) the religious significance of the tradi- tion.
(2) It is a tolerably safe general maxim that tradition does not invent names, or persons. We have on any view to account for the entrance of such figures as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph into the imagination of the Israelites; and amongst possible avenues of entrance we must certainly count it as one, that they were real men, who lived and were remembered. What other explanations can be given? The idea that they were native creations of Hebrew mythology (Goldziher) has, for the present at least, fallen into disrepute ; and there remain but two theories as alternatives to the historic reality of the patriarchs: viz., that they were originally personified tribes, or that they were originally Canaanite deities.
The conception of the patriarchs as tribal eponyms, we have already seen to be admissible, though not proved. The idea that they were Canaanite deities is not perhaps one that can be dismissed as trans- parently absurd. If the Israelites, on entering Canaan, found Abraham worshipped at Hebron, Isaac at Beersheba, Jacob at Bethel, and Joseph at Shechem, and if they adopted the cult of these deities, they might come to regard themselves as their children; and in course of time the gods might be transformed into human ancestors around whom the national legend might crystallise. At the same time the theory is destitute of proof; and the burden of proof lies on those who maintain it. Neither the fact (if it be a fact) that the patriarchs were objects of worship at the shrines where their graves were shown, nor the presence of mythical traits in their biographies, proves them to have been super- human beings.—The discussion turns largely on the evidence of the patriarchal ames; but this, too, is indecisive. The name Israel is national, and in so far as it is applied to an individual it is a case of eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph (assuming these to be contractions of Yizghak-el, etc.) are also most naturally explained as tribal designations. Meyer, after long vacillation, has come to the conclusion that they are divine names (Z/VS, 249 ff.) ; but the arguments which formerly convinced him that they are tribal seem to us more cogent than those to which he now gives the preference. That names of this type frequently denote tribes is a fact; that they may denote deities is only a hypothesis. That they may also denote individuals
INTRODUCTION XXV
(Vakub-ilu, Yasup-ilu) is true; but that only establishes a possibility, hardly a probability ; for it is more likely that the individual was named after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an individual.—The name Abram stands by itself. It represents no ethnological entity, and occurs historically only as the name of an individual ; and though it is capable of being interpreted in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy is in favour of explaining it as a theophorous human name. The solitary allusion to the biblical Abram in the monuments—the mention of the ‘ Field of Abram' in Shishak’s inscription (see p. 244)—is entirely consistent with this acceptation.—It is probably a mistake to insist on carrying through any exclusive theory of the patriarchal personalities. If we have proved that Abram was a historical individual, we have not thereby proved that Isaac and Jacob were so also ; and if we succeed in resolving the latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham falls under the same category.
There is thus a justification for the tendency of many writers to put Abraham on a different plane from the other patriarchs, and to concentrate the discussion of the historicity of the tradition mainly on his person. An important element in the case is the clearly conceived type of character which he represents. No doubt the character has been idealised in accordance with the conceptions of a later age; but the impression remains that there must have been something in the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the idealisa- tion. It is this perception more than anything else which invests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it has possessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still resists the attempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious phantasy. If there be any truth in the description of legend as a form of narrative conserving the impression of a great personality on his age, we may venture, in spite of the lack of decisive evidence, to regard him as a historic personage, however dim the surroundings of his life may be.*
* Cf. Hoffding, Phil. of Rel. 199 ff. : ‘Its essence [that of legend] consists in the idea of a wonderful personality who has made a deep impression on human life—who excited admiration, furnished an example, and opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a strong expansion of feeling takes place: this in turn gives rise to a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which a process of picture-making is set in motion. . . . Inlegends. . . the central interest is in the subject-matter, in the centripetal power, which depends on an intensification of memory rather than on any naive personification and colouring. . . .”
XXVI1 INTRODUCTION
(4) It is of little consequence to know whether a man called Abraham lived about 2000 B.c., and led a caravan from Ur or Harran to Palestine, and defeated a great army from the east. One of the evil effects of the controversial treatment of such questions is to diffuse the impression that a great religious value attaches to discussions of this kind. What it really concerns us to know is the spiritual signi- ficance of the events, and of the mission of Abraham in particular. And it is only when we take this point of view that we do justice to the spirit of the Hebrew tradition. It is obvious that the central idea of the patriarchal tradi- tion is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as a nation it originated in a great religious movement, that the divine call which summoned Abraham from his home and kindred, and made him a stranger and sojourner on the earth, imported a new era in God’s dealings with mankind, and gave Israel its mission in the world (Is. 4188). Is this conception historically credible ?
Some attempts to find historic points of contact for this view of Abraham’s significance for religion will be looked at presently ; but their contribution to the elucidation of the biblical narrative seems to us disappointing in the extreme. Nor can we unreservedly assent to the common argument that the mission of Moses would be unintelligible apart from that of Abraham. It is true, Moses is said to have appealed to the God of the fathers; and if that be a literally exact statement, Moses built on the foundation laid by Abraham. But that the distinctive institutions and ideas of the Yahwe-religion could not have originated with Moses just as well as with Abraham, is more than we have a right to affirm. In short, positive proof, such as would satisfy the canons of historical criticism, of the work of Abraham is not available. What we can say is, in the first place, that if he had the importance assigned to him, the fact is just of the kind that might be expected to impress itself indelibly on a tradition dating from the time of the event. We have in it the influence of a great personality, giving birth to the collective consciousness of a nation; and this fact is of a
INTRODUCTION XXVIi
nature to evoke that centripetal ‘intensification of memory’ which Héffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and the preserving salt of legend as contrasted with myth. In the second place, the appearance of a prophetic person- ality, such as Abraham is represented to have been, is a phenomenon with many analogies in the history of religion. The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the founda- tion of the religion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ of divine revelation ; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the first of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself. The keynote of Abraham’s piety is fac‘h in the unseen,—faith in the divine impulse which drove him forth to a land which he was never to possess; and faith in the future of the religion which he thus founded. He moves before us on the page of Scripture as the man through whom faith, the living principle of true religion, first became a force in human affairs. It is difficult to think that so powerful a conception has grown out of nothing. As we read the story, we may well trust the instinct which tells us that here we are face to face with a decisive act of the living God in history, and an act whose essential significance was never lost in Israelite tradition. The significance of the Abrahamic migration in relation to the general movements of religious thought in the East is the theme of Winckler’s interesting pamphlet, Abraham als Babylonier, Joseph als Aegypter (1903). The elevation of Babylon, in the reign of Hammurabi, to be the first city of the empire, and the centre of Babylonian culture, meant, we are told, a revolution in religion, inasmuch as it involved the deposition of Sin, the old moon-god, from the supreme place in the pantheon in favour of the ‘Deliverer Marduk,’ the tutelary deity of Babylon. Abraham, a contemporary, and an adherent of the older faith, opposed the reformation; and, after vainly seeking support for his protest at Ur and Harran, the two great centres of the worship of Sin, migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of Hammurabi’s empire, to worship God after his fashion. How much truth is contained in these brilliant generalisations it is difficult for an ordinary man tosay. In spite of the ingenuity and breadth of conception with which the theory is worked out, it is not unfair to suggest that it rests mostly on a combination of things that are not in the Bible with things that are not
in the monuments. Indeed, the only positive point of contact between the two data of the problem is the certainly remarkable fact that tradi-
XXViil INTRODUCTION
tion does connect Abraham with two chief centres of the Babylonian moon-worship. But what we chiefly desiderate is some evidence that the worship of the moon-god had greater affinities with monotheism than the worship of Marduk, the god of the vernal sun. [The attempt to connect Joseph with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten (Amenophis Iv.) is destitute of plausibility. ]|—To a similar effect Jeremias, ATLO*, 327 ff.: ‘‘A reform movement of protest against the religious degeneration of the ruling classes” was the motive of the migration (333), perhaps connected with the introduction of a new astronomical era, the Taurus-epoch (which, by the way, had commenced nearly 1000 years before! cf. 66). The movement assumed the form of a migration— a Hegira—under Abraham as Mahdi, who preached his doctrine as he went, made converts in Harran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and else- where, finally establishing the worship of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic legend, considerably different from the old.
§ 5. Preservation and collection of the traditions.
In all popular narration the natural unit is the short story, which does not too severely tax the attention of a simple audience, and which retains its outline and features unchanged as it passes from mouth to mouth.* A large part of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives of this description,—single tales, of varying length but mostly very short, each complete in itself, with a clear beginning and a satisfying conclusion. As we read the book, unities of this kind detach themselves from their context, and round themselves into independent wholes; and it is only by studying them in their isolation, and each in its own light, that we can fully appreciate their charm and under- stand, in some measure, the circumstances of their origin. The older stratum of the primeval history, and of the history of Abraham, is almost entirely composed of single incidents of this kind: think of the story of the Fall, of Cain and Abel, of Noah’s drunkenness, of the Tower of Babel; and again of Abraham in Egypt, of the flight or expulsion of Hagar, of the sacrifice of Isaac, etc., etc. When we pass the middle of the book, the mode of narra-
* Cf. Gu. p. XXXII, to whose fine appreciation of the “" Kunstform der Sagen”’ this ὃ is greatly indebted.
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΙΧ
tion begins to change. The biography of Jacob is much more a consecutive narrative than that of Abraham; but even here the separate scenes stand out in their original distinctness of outline (e.g. the transference of the birth- right, Jacob at Bethel, the meeting with Rachel at the well, the wrestling at Peniel, the outrage on Dinah, etc.). It is not till we come to the history of Joseph that the principle of biographical continuity gains the upper hand. Joseph’s story is, indeed, made up of a number of incidents; but they are made to merge into one another, so that each derives its interest from its relation to the whole, and ends (except the last) on a note of suspense and expectation rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the greater popularity and more frequent repetition of the stories of Jacob and Joseph; but at the same time it bears witness to a considerable development of the art of story-telling, and one in which we cannot but detect some degree of professional aptitude and activity.
The short stories of Genesis, even those of the most elementary type, are exquisite works of art, almost as unique and perfect in their own kind as the parables of our Lord are in theirs. They are certainly not random pro- ductions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable stamp of individual genius (Gu. p. xxx). Now, between the inception of the legends (which is already at some distance from the traditional facts) and the written form in which they lie before us, there stretches an interval which is perhaps in some instances to be measured by centuries. Hence two questions arise: (1) What was the fate of the stories during this interval? Were they cast adrift on the stream of popular talk,—with nothing to secure their preservation save the perfection of their original form,—and afterwards collected from the lips of the people? Or were they taken in hand from the first by a special class of men who made it their business to con- serve the integrity of the narratives, and under whose auspices the mass of traditional material was gradually welded into its present shape? And (2), how is this whole
XXX INTRODUCTION
process of transmission and consolidation related to the use of writing? Was the work of collecting and syste- matising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it already commenced at the stage of oral narration ἢ
To such questions, of course, no final answers can be given. (1) It is not possible to discriminate accurately between the modifications which a narrative would undergo through constant repetition, and changes deliberately made by responsible persons. On the whole, the balance of pre- sumption seems to us to incline.towards the hypothesis of professional oversight of some sort, exercised from a very early time. On this assumption, too, we can best under- stand the formation of legendary cycles; for it is evident that no effective grouping of tradition could take place in the course of promiscuous popular recital. (2) As to the use of writing, it is natural to suppose that it came in first of all as an aid to the memory of the narrator, and that as a knowledge of literature extended the practice of oral recitation gradually died out, and left the written record in sole possession of the field. In this way we may imagine that books would be formed, which would be handed down from father to son, annotated, expanded, revised, and copied ; and so collections resembling our oldest pentateuchal documents might come into existence.*
Here we come upon one important fact which affords some guidance in the midst of these speculations. The bulk of the Genesis-tradition lies before us in two closely parallel and practically contemporaneous recensions (see p. xliii ff. below). Since there is every reason to believe that these recensions were made independently of each other, it follows that the early traditions had been codified, and a sort of national epos had taken shape, prior to the com- pilation of these documents. When we find, further, that each of them contains evidence of earlier collections and older strata of tradition, we must assume a very consider- able period of time to have elapsed between the formation
* See Gilbert Murray, Rise of the Greek Epic, p. 92 ff.
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙῚ
of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of J and E. Beyond this, however, we are in the region of vaguest conjecture. We cannot tell for certain what kind of authority had presided over the combination of the legends, nor whether it was first done in the oral or the literary stage of translation. We may think of the priesthoods of the leading sanctuaries as the natural custodians of the tradition: * the sanctuaries were at least the obvious re- positories of the cult-legends pertaining to them. But we cannot indicate any sanctuary of such outstanding national importance as to be plausibly regarded as the centre of a national epic.t Or we may assign a conspicuous share in the work to the prophetic guilds which, in the time of Samuel, were focz of enthusiasm for the national cause, and might conceivably have devoted themselves to the propaga- tion of the national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume, with Gu., that there existed in Israel, as among the Arabs, guilds of professional story-tellers, exercising their vocation at public festivals and such like gatherings, for the enter- tainment and instruction of the people. The one certainty is that a considerable time must be allowed for the complex mental activities which lie behind our earliest literary sources. It is true that the rise of a national epos pre- supposes a strongly developed consciousness of national unity; but in Israel the national ideal was much older than its realisation in the form of a state, and therefore we have no reason for placing the unification of the traditions later than the founding of the monarchy. From the age of Samuel at least all the essential conditions were present; and a lower limit than that will hardly meet the require- ments of the case.
We may here refer to a matter of great importance in its bearing on the possibility of accurate oral transmission of the legends: viz. the recent effort of Sievers (Metrische Studien, ii., 1904-5) to resolve the whole of Genesis into verse. If his theory should be established, concn Ee ee ee ee ee
* Cf. Sta. ZATW, i. 347 ff.
t Pro., however (392f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the national legend was developed.
XXXIl INTRODUCTION
it would not merely furnish the most potent instrument of literary analysis conceivable, but it would render credible a very high degree of verbal exactitude during the period of unwritten tradition, The work of Sievers is viewed with qualified approval both by Gu. (p. xxix f.) and Pro. (210 ff.), and it is certain to evoke interesting dis- cussion. The present writer, who is anything but a ‘Metriker von Fach,’ does not feel competent to pronounce an opinion on its merits. Neither reading aloud, nor counting of syllables, has convinced him that the scansion holds, or that Hebrew rhythm in general is so rigor- ously exact as the system demands. The prejudice against divorcing poetic form from poetic feeling and diction (of the latter there is no trace in what have been considered the prose parts of Genesis) is not lightly to be overcome ; and the frequent want of coincidence between breaks in sense and pauses in rhythm disturbs the mind, besides violating what used to be thought a fundamental feature of Hebrew poetry. Grave misgivings are also raised by the question whether the Massoretic theory of the syllable is (as Sievers assumes) a reliable guide to the pronunciation and rhythm of the early Hebrew language. It seems therefore hazardous to apply the method to the solution of literary problems, whether by emendation of the text, or by disentangle- ment of sources.
B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK.
§ 6. Plan and Divisions.
That the Book of Genesis forms a literary unity has been a commonplace of criticism since the maiden work of Ewald* put an end to the Fragmentary Hypothesis of
* Die Komposition der Genesis, kritisch untersucht (1823).—In that essay Ewald fell into the natural error of confusing unity of plan with unity of authorship,—an error, however, which he retracted eight years later (SA, 1831, 595 ff.), in favour of a theory (virtually identical with the so-called Supplementary Hypothesis) which did full justice to the unity and skilful disposition of the book, while recognising it to be the result of an amalgamation of several documents. The distinction has never since been lost sight of ; and all subsequent theories of the composition of Genesis have endeavoured to reconcile the assumption of a diversity of sources with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed arrangement of the material. The view which is generally held does so in this way: three main documents, following substantially the same historical order, are held to have been combined by one or more redactors ; one of these documents, being little more than an epitome of the history, was specially fitted to supply a framework into which the rest of the narrative could be fitted, and was selected by the redactor for this purpose; hence the plan which we discover in the
INTRODUCTION ΧΧΧΙΠ
Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the book, as has already been briefly indicated (p. ii), is to show how Israel, the people of God, attained its historical position among the nations of the world; in particular, how its peculiar relation to God was rooted in the moral greatness and piety of its three common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and how through God’s promise to them it had secured an exclusive right to the soil of Canaan.* This purpose, however, appears less in the details of the history (which are obviously governed by a variety of interests) than in the scope and arrangement of the work as a whole, especially in the ‘framework’ which knits it together, and reveals the plan to which the entire narrative is accommo- dated. The method consistently followed is the progressive isolation of the main line of Israel’s descent by brief genea- logical summaries of the collateral branches of the human family which diverge from it at successive points.
A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by the editor's practice of inserting the collateral genealogies (7é/édéth) at the close of the principal sections (111°-*° ; 2512-18 ; 36) 7 This yields a natural and convenient division into four approximately equal parts, namely :
I. The Primzval History of mankind: i.—xi.t= II. The History of Abraham: xii. 1-xxv. 18. III. The History of Jacob: xxv. 19-xxxvi. 43. IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren: xxxvii.-L
book is really the design of one particular writer. It is obvious that such a conception quite adequately explains all the literary unity which the Book of Genesis exhibits.
* See Tuch, XVI ff.
+ The genealogies of 417-425 and 22%-?4 do not count: these are not 7élédéth, and do not belong to the document used as a framework. Ch. 10 (the Table of peoples) would naturally stand at the close of a section ; but it had to be displaced from its proper position before 111° to find room for the story of the Dispersion (1113). It may be said, however, that the Zé/édéth of Adam (ch. 5) should mark a main division; and that is probably correct, though for practical purposes it is better to ignore the subdivision and treat the primzval history as one section.
t Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at 11” or ™; but the actual division of chapters has its recommendation, and it is not worth while to depart from it.
Ζ
XXXIV INTRODUCTION
A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement of the various sections.
It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has marked the headings of the various sections by the formula min a)x[y], which occurs eleven times in the book: 2 5!* 69 10! 11! 1127 2:12 35)9 36! 36° 37°. Transposing 2 to the beginning, and disregarding 36° (both arbitrary proceedings), we obtain ten parts; and these are actually adopted by De. as the divisions of his commentary. But the scheme is of no practical utility,—for it is idle to speak of 111° or 25." 18 as sections of Genesis on the same footing as 25!°-35” or 377-507; and theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will suffice to point out the incongruity that, while the histories of Noah and Isaac fall under their own 70/édoth, those of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall under the 70/édéth of their respective fathers. See, further, p. 40 f.
§ 7. The Sources of Genesis.
The Book of Genesis has always been the strategic position of Pentateuchal literary criticism. It was the examination of this book that led Astruc, in 1753,7 to the important discovery which was the first positive achievement in this department of research. Having noticed the signifi- cant alternation of the divine names in different sections of the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon could not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary habit of two writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk of Genesis into two documents, one distinguished by the use of the name D'OR, and the other by the use of 7m; while a series of fragmentary passages where this criterion failed him brought the total number of his smémozres up to twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise the magnitude of this discovery, which Eichhorn{ speedily put on a broader basis by a characterisation of the style, contents, and spirit of the two documents. Neither Astruc nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further than Ex. 2,— partly because they were influenced by the traditional opinion (afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,
* nbn ἼΒΌ A}.
+ Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genése.
+ Linleitung in das AT, 1780-3 (1st ed.).
INTRODUCTION XXXV
and did not expect to find traces of composition in the history contemporaneous with Moses. We shall see presently that there is a deeper reason why this particular clue to the analysis could not at first be traced beyond the early chapters of Exodus.
While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc’s discovery took the direction of showing that the use of the two divine names is determined by a difference of meaning which made the one or the other more suitable in a particular connexion, the more recent opposition entrenches itself mostly behind the uncertainties of the text, and maintains that the Vns. (especially &) show the MT to be so unreliable that no analysis of documents can be based on its data: see Klostermann, Der Pentateuch (1893), p. 20ff. ; Dahse, ARW, vi. (1903), 305 ff. ; Redpath, 4/7%, viii. (1904), 286 ff. ; Eerdmans, Comp. d. Gen. (1908), 34 ff. ; Wiener, BS (1909), 119 ff.—It cannot be denied that the facts adduced by these writers import an element of uncertainty into the analysis, so far as it depends on the criterion of the divine names ; but the significance of the facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories propounded to account for the textual phenomena are improbable in the extreme. (1) So far as I have observed, no attention is paid to what is surely a very important factor of the problem, the frofortion of divergences to agreements as between @ and MT. In Genesis the divine name occurs in one or other form about 340 times (in MT, mar 143t. + onde 1771. +‘x 20t.). The total deviations registered by Redpath (296 ff.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34f.) they are 49; i.e. little more than one-seventh of the whole. Is it so certain that that degree of divergence invalidates a documentary analysis founded on so much larger a field of undisputed readings? (2) In spite of the confident assertions of Dahse (309) and Wiener (131f.) there is not a single instance in which G& is ‘demonstrably’ right against MT. It is readily conceded that it is probably right in a few cases; but there are two general presumptions in favour of the superior fidelity of the Massoretic tradition. Not only (a) is the chance of purely clerical confusion between «$ and @s greater than between m7’ and onnbx, or even between "" and ‘x, and (0) a change of divine names more apt to occur in translation than in transcription, but (c) the distinction between a proper name m7 and a generic ὈΠῸΝ is much less likely to have been overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives κύριος and θεός. An instructive example is 456, where Gk κύριος ὁ θεός is ‘demon- strably’ wrong. (3) In the present state of textual criticism it is impossible to determine in particular cases what is the original reading. We can only proceed by the imperfect method of averages. Now it is significant that while in Gen. & substitutes θεός for m7 21 times, and κύριος ὁ θεός 19 times (40 in all), there are only 4 cases of κύριος and 6 of κύριος ὁ θεός for ὈΠῸΝ (10 in all: the proportions being very much the same for the whole Pent.). (ἃ thus reveals a decided (and very natural) preference for the ordinary Greek θεός over the less familiar κύριος.
XXXVI INTRODUCTION
Dahse urges (p. 308) that MT betrays an equally marked preference for m7, and has frequently substituted it for o7x ; but that is much less intelligible. For although the pronunciation of mm as ‘418 might have removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton,—and that would be a very good reason for leaving 77” where it was,—it suggests no motive at all for inserting it where it was not. There is force, however, in Gray’s remark on a particular case (Vum. p. 311), that ‘‘ wherever [ὁ] κε appears in (ἃ it deserves attention as a possible indication of the original text.” (4) The documentary theory furnishes a better explana- tion of the alternation of the names than any other that has been propounded. Redpath’s hypothesis of a double recension of the Pent., one mainly Yahwistic and the other wholly (?) Elohistic, of which one was used only where the other was illegible, would explain anything, and therefore explains nothing ; least of all does it explain the frequent coincidence of hypothetical illegibility with actual changes of style, phraseology, and standpoint. Dahse (following out a hint of Klostermann) accounts for the phenomena of MT (and a) by the desire to preserve uniformity within the limits of each several pericope of the Synagogue lectionary ; but why some pericopes should be Yahwistic and others Elohistic, it is not easy to conceive. He admits that his view cannot be carried through in detail; yet it is just of the kind which, if true, ought to be verifiable in detail. One has but to read consecutively the first three chapters of Genesis, and observe how the sudden change in the divine name coincides with a new vocabulary, representation, and spiritual atmosphere, in order to feel how paltry all such artificial explanations are in comparison with the hypothesis that the names are distinctive of different documents. The experience repeats itself, not perhaps quite so convincingly, again and again throughout the book; and though there are cases where the change of manner is not obvious, still the theory is vindicated in a sufficient number of instances to be worth carrying through, even at the expense of a somewhat complicated analysis, and a very few demands (see p. xlviiif.) on the services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems, (5) It was frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see Ond. i. pp. 59, 62) that the test of the divine names is not dy ztse/f a sufficient criterion of source or authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through a too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.* Nevertheless the opinion can be maintained that the MT is far superior to the Vns., and that its use of the names is a valuable clue to the separation of documents, Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction; and, however surprising it may appear to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the
* It should be clearly understood that as regards P and J the dis- tinction of divine names is but one of many marks of diverse authorship (see Dri. ZOT*, 131 ff, where more than γῆν such distinguishing criteria are given), and that after Ex. 6, where this particular criterion disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as before. As regards J and E, the analysis, though sometimes dependent on the divine names alone, is generally based on other differences as well.
INTRODUCTION XXXVII
MT does reproduce with substantial accuracy the characteristics of the original autographs. At present that assumption can only be tested by the success or failure of the analysis based on it. It is idle to speculate on what would have happened if Astruc and his successors had been compelled to operate with & instead of MT ; but it is a rational surmise that in that case criticism would still have arrived, by a more laborious route, at very much the positions it occupies to-day.
The next great step towards the modern documentary theory of the Pent. was Hupfeld’s* demonstration that omnbs is not peculiar to one decument, but to two; so that under the name Elohist two different writers had previously been confused. It is obvious, of course, that in this inquiry the divine names afford no guidance; yet by observing finer marks of style, and the connexion of the narrative, Hupfeld succeeded in proving to the ultimate satisfaction of all critics that there was a second Elohistic source (now called E), closely parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (J), and that both J and E had once been independent consecutive narratives. An important part of the work was a more accurate delimitation of the first Elohist (now called the Priestly Code: P), whose outlines were then first drawn with a clearness to which later investigation has had little to add.7
Though Hupfeld’s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of the utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pent. asa whole. In par-
* Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung (1853). Hupfeld’s discovery had partly been anticipated by Ilgen (Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses (1798]). Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld, criticism had passed through two well-defined phases: the Fragmentary Hypothesis (see p. xxxiif. above) and the Supplementary Hypothesis, of which the classical exposition is Tuch’s fine commentary on Genesis (1858; reissued by Arnold in 1871). The latter theory rested partly on a prejudice—that the framework of the Pent. was necessarily supplied by its oldest source; partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld dispelled ; and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so inter- laced with Elohistic that the former could plausibly be regarded as on the whole supplementary to the latter. Though Tuch’s commentary did not appear till 1858, the theory had really received its death-blow from Hupfeld five years before.
+ See Nildeke, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT, 1869, pp. 1-144. It is worthy of mention here that this great scholar, after long resisting the theory of the late origin of P, has at last declared his acceptance of the position of We. (see ZA, 1908, 203).
XXXVIIl INTRODUCTION
ticular, it brought to light a fact which at once explains why Genesis presents a simpler problem to analysis than the rest of the Pent., and furnishes a final proof that the avoidance of m7 by two of the sources was not accidental, but arose from a theory of religious development held and expressed by both writers. For both P (Ex. 6) and E (Ex. 4138.) connect the revelation of the Tetragrammaton with the mission of Moses ; while the former states emphatically that God was not known by that name to the patriarchs.* Consistency demanded that these writers should use the generic name for Deity up to this point ; while J, who was bound by no such theory, could use m7 from the first.| From Ex. 6 onwards P regularly uses m7; E’s usage fluctuates between’x and 7 (perhaps a sign of different strata within the document), so that the criterion no longer yields a sure clue to the analysis.
It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to trace the extension of these lines of cleavage through the other books of the Hexateuch; and of the reflex results of the criticism of the later books on that of Genesis only two can here be mentioned. One is the recognition of the unique position and character of Deuteronomy in the Pent., and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth year of Josiah.{ Although this has hardly any direct influence on the criticism of Genesis, it is an important landmark in the Pentateuch problem, as furnishing a fixed date by reference to which the age of the other documents can partly be deter- mined. The other point is the question of the date of P. The preconception in favour of the antiquity of this docu- ment (based for the most part on the fact that it really forms the framework of the Pent.) was nearly universal among scholars down to the publication of We.’s Geschichte Israels, i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to be groundless by Graf § and Kuenen in 1866-69.
* A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will be found in the art. of H. M. Wiener referred to above (BS, 1909, 158 ff.).
+ For a partial exception, see on 459,
t De Wette, Bettrige zur Einleitung in das AT (1806-7); Riehm, Gesetzgebung Mose’s im Lande Moab (1854); al.
§ Die geschichtliche Biicher des ATs (1866). Graf did not at first see it necessary to abandon the earlier date of the narratives of P; for an account of his subsequent change of opinion in correspondence with Kuenen, as well as the anticipations of his final theory by Vatke, Reuss, and others, we must refer to Kue. Hex. xix ff., or Ho.’s Einleitung, especially p. 64 ff.
INTRODUCTION XXXIX
This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison of the layers of legislation in the later Pent. books with one another, and with the stages of Israel's religious history as revealed in the earlier historical books; from which it appeared that the laws be- longing to P were later than Deut., and that their codification took place during and after, and their promulgation after, the Exile. There was hesitation at first in extending this conclusion to the narratives of P, especially those of them in Genesis and Ex. 1-11. But when the problem was fairly faced, it was perceived, not only that P in Genesis presented no obstacle to the theory, but that in many respects its narrative was more intelligible as the latest than as the oldest stratum of the book.
The chief positions at which literary criticism has arrived with regard to Genesis are, therefore, briefly these: (1) The oldest sources are J and E, closely parallel documents, both dating from the best period of Hebrew literature, but dis- tinguished from each other by their use of the divine name, by slight idiosyncrasies of style, and by quite perceptible differences of representation. (2) These sources were com- bined into a composite narrative (JE) by a redactor (R’), whose hand can be detected in several patches of a literary complexion differing from either of his authorities. He has done his work so deftly that it is frequently difficult, and sometimes impossible, to sunder the documents. It is generally held that this redaction took place before the com- position of Deut., so that a third stage in the history of the Pent. would be represented by the symbols JE+ D. (3) The remaining source P is a product of the Exilic or post-Exilic age, though it embodies older material. Originally an independent work, its formal and schematic character fitted it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal narrative; and this has determined the procedure of the final redactor (ΕἼ, by whom excerpts from JE have been used to fill up the skeleton outline which P gave of the primitive and patriarchal history.
The above statement will, it is hoped, suffice to put the reader in possession of the main points of the critical position occupied in the Commentary. The evidence by which they are supported will partly be given in the next four §§; but, for a full discussion of the numerous questions involved,
xl INTRODUCTION
we must here refer to works specially devoted to the subject.*
Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made by Professor Orr, whose book, Zhe Problem of the Old Testament, de- servedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory of the Pent. that has recently appeared in English. Dr, Orr admits (a) that Astruc was right in dividing a considerable part of Genesis into Elohistic and Yahwistic sections ; (6) that Eichhorn’s characterisation of the style of the two documents has, in the main, ‘stood the test of time’; (c) that Hupfeld’s observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis ‘in substance corresponds with facts’ ; and (d@) that even Graf and We. ‘mark an advance,’ in making P a relatively later stratum of Genesis than JE (pp. 196-201). When we see so many defences evacuated one after another, we begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how a theory which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is going to be prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading havoc over the ‘believing view’ of the OT. Dr. Orr thinks to stem the torrent by adopting two relatively conservative positions from Klostermann, (1) The first is the denial of the distinction between J and E (216 ff.). As soon as Hupf. had effected the separation of E from P, it ought to have been perceived, he seems to suggest, that the sections thus disen- tangled are really parts of J (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter is not quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The distinction in the divine names remains ; and so he is driven to admit that J and E were, not indeed independent works, but different literary re- censions of one and the same old work (229). What is meant by two versions in circulation alongside of each other, which never had cur- rency as separate documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his readers some explanation ; if there were two recensions they certainly existed separately ; and he cannot possibly know how far their agree- ment extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents is, nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that J and E are independent recensions of a common body of tradition, while he maintains that they
* The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, istorisch-critisch onder- zoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Ver- bonds*, i. (1885) [Eng. tr., The Hexateuch (1886)]; and Gesammelte Abhandlungen (transl. into German by Budde); Wellhausen, Com- position des Hexateuchs, etc. (°1889); and Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (81905) [Eng. tr. 1885]; Westphal, Zes Sources du Pent. (1888, 1892); Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften. des ATs (71890) ; Robert- son Smith, Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish Church (71892); Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the OT (81909); Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hex. (1893); Cornill, Einlettung (®1908); Kénig, ind. (1893) ; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Comp. of the Hex. (1902) [=vol. i. of The Hexateuch (1900)].
INTRODUCTION xli
were recensions of a single document, differing in nothing but the use of mm or ands. What reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical view, and coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the first place, the difference between J and E is mot confined to the divine names. The linguistic evidence is very much clearer than Dr. Orr represents ; and differences of conception, though slight, are real. It is all very well to quote from candid and truth-loving opponents admissions of the close resemblance of the narratives, and the difficulty and uncertainty of the analysis, in particular instances, and to suggest that these admissions amount to a throwing up of the case; but no man with an independent grasp of the subject will be imposed on by so cheap a device. In the second place, J and E consist largely of duplicate narratives of the same event. It is true, this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no diffi- culty in conceiving that Abraham twice told the same lie about his wife, and that his son Isaac followed his example, with very similar results in the three cases. But he will hardly affect to be surprised that other men take a more natural view,* and regard the stories as traditional variations of the same theme.—(z2) The second position is that P was never a distinct or self-subsisting document, but only a ‘‘ framework”’ enclosing the contents of JE (341-377). Again we have to ask what Dr. Orr means by a ‘ framework,’ which, in his own words, “‘has also, at certain points, its original, and, in parts, considerable contributions to bring to the history” (272) ; and how he can possibly tell that these original and considerable contributions did not come from an inde- pendent work. The facts that it is now closely interwoven with JE, and that there are gaps in its narrative (even if these gaps were more considerable than there is any reason to suppose), prove nothing except that it has passed through the hands of a redactor. That its history presupposes a knowledge of JE, and is too meagre to be in- telligible apart from it, is amply explained by the critical view that the author wished to concentrate attention on the great religious turning-points in the history (the Creation, the Flood, the Covenant with Abraham, the Blessing of Jacob by Isaac, the origin of the name Israel, the Settlement in Egypt, etc.), and dismissed the rest with a bare chronological epitome. When we add that on all these points, as well as others, the ‘original and considerable contributions’ are (Dr. Orr's protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent from the older tradi- tion, we have every proof that could be desired that P was an independent document, and not a mere supplementary expansion of an earlier com- pilation (see, further, p. lviiff. below). But now, supposing Dr. Orr to have made good his contentions, what advantage has he gained? So far as we can see, none whatever! He does indeed go on to assert a preference for the term ‘collaboration’ as expressing the ‘kind and manner of the activity which brought the Pentateuchal books into their present shape’ (375).t But that preference might just as easily have
* So even Sayce, Early History of the Hebrews (1897), 62 f., 64 f. t+ It isa grave injustice to Di. to associate his name, however re- motely, with this theory of ‘collaboration’ (527). What Di. is speaking
xh INTRODUCTION
‘been exercised on the full literary results of the critical theory. And Dr. Orr deceives himself if he imagines that that flimsy hypothesis will either neutralise the force of the arguments that have carried criticism past the barren eccentricities of Klostermann, or save what he chooses to consider the ‘essential Mosaicity’ of the Pent
Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications, has announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school, and com- menced to lay down the programme of a new era in OT criticism (47208. Journ. vii. [1909], 813 ff.). His Komposition der Genesis (1908) gives a foretaste of his literary method ; and certainly the procedure is drastic enough. The divine names are absolutely misleading as a criterion of authorship ; and the distinction between P and JE goes overboard along with that between J and E. Criticism is thus thrown back into its original chaos, out of which Ee. proceeds to evoke a new kosmos. His one positive principle is the recognition of a polytheistic background behind the traditions, which has been obscured in various degrees by the later monotheistic interpretation. By the help of this principle, he distinguishes four stages in the development of the tradition. (1) The first is represented by remnants of the original undiluted polytheism, where Yahwe does not appear at all; e.g. 35}; the Israel-recension of the Joseph-stories; the groundwork of chs. 1. 20. 281. 6%g!”. (2) Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods; 4. 9! 22. 27. 281! 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage, polytheistic legends are transferred to Yahwe as the only God: 2. 3. 6'8 715 890-22 111-9 16, 18. 19 24. 25'9*4 26. (4) Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion: 1516 17. 359° 4855, Now, we are quite prepared to find traces of all these stages of religion in the Genesis-narratives, if they can be proved ; and, indeed, all of them except the second are recognised by recent critics. But while any serious attempt to determine the age of the legends from their contents rather than from their literary features is to be welcomed, it is difficult to perceive the distinctions on which Ee.’s classification is based, or to admit that, for example, ch. 17 is one whit more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on Ee.’s own showing, the classification affords no clue to the composition and history of the book. In order to get a start, he has to fall back on the acknowledged “terary distinction between a Jacob-recension and an Israel-recension of the Joseph-narratives (on this see p. 439 be- low). Since the former begins 3py” mdn 7x, it is considered to have formed part of a comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing with Adam (5'), set in a framework of 70/édéth. This is the ground- work of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it contains,
of in the words cited is simply the question whether the three documents, P, E, and J, were combined by a single redaction, or whether two of them were first put together and afterwards united with the third. Dr. Orr, on the other hand, is thinking of ‘‘the labours of original composers, working with a common aim and towards a common end”’ (375). If everything beyond this is conjectural (376), there is nothing but conjecture in the whole construction.
INTRODUCTION xlili
however, legends of all the first three classes!), Yahwe being to the compiler simply one of the gods ; and must therefore have originated before the Exile: a lower limit is 700 B.c. This collection was soon enlarged by the addition of legends not less ancient than its own; and by the insertion of the Israel-recension, which is as polytheistic in character as the 7é/édéth-collection! The monotheistic manipulation of the work set in after Deuteronomy; but how many editions it went through we cannot tell for certain. The last thorough-going reviser was the author of ch. 17 ; but additions were made even later than that, etc. etc. A more bewildering hypothesis it has never been our lot to examine ; and we cannot pretend to believe that it contains the rudi- ments of a successful analysis. There is much to be learned from Ee.’s work, which is full of acute observations and sound reasoning in detail ; but as a theory of the composition of Genesis it seems to us utterly at fault. What with Wi. and Jer., and Che., and now Ee., OT scholars have a good many new eras dawning on them just now. Whether any of them will shine unto the perfect day, time will show.
§ 8. The collective authorship of J and E.
In J and E we have, according to what has been said above, the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which had at one time existed in the oral form. When we com- pare the two documents, the first thing that strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and contents. The only important difference is that E’s narrative does not seem to have embraced the primitive period, but to have com- menced with Abraham. But from the point where E strikes into the current of the history (at ch. 20, with a few earlier traces in ch. 15), there are few incidents in the one document to which the other does not contain a parallel.* What is
* The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course, on the validity of the finer processes of analysis, with regard to which there is room for difference of opinion. On the analysis followed in the com- mentary, the only episodes in E to which there is no trace of a parallel in J, after ch. 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; Esau’s selling of his birthright, 257°-*4 (Ὁ). the theophany of Mahanaim, 32* *; the purchase of land at Shechem, 3318... and the various incidents in 351 Ὁ 1*°. Those peculiar to J are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of Sodom, 19); Lot and his daughters, τοῦδ. the birth of Jacob and Esau, 257-8; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob’s meeting with Rachel, 2974; Reuben and the love-apples, 30"; the incest of Reuben, 357): ™ ; Judah and Tamar, 38 ; Joseph’s temptation, 307. Ὁ ; the cup in Benjamin's sack, 44; Joseph's agrarian policy, 47.585 ὦ; and the genealogies of 222-24 pol-6,
xliv INTRODUCTION
much more remarkable, and indeed surprising, is that the manner of narration changes in the two documents pari pass. Thus the transition from the loose connexion of the Abraham legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob, and then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see p. xxviii f.), is equally noticeable in J and in E. It is this extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which proves that both documents drew from a common body of tradition, and even suggests that that tradition had already been partly reduced to writing.*
Here we come back, from the side of analysis, to a question which was left unsettled in § 5; the question, namely, of the process by which the oral tradition was con- solidated and reduced to writing. It has been shown with great probability that both J and E are composite documents, in which minor legendary cycles have been incorporated, and different strata of tradition are embedded. This presupposes a development of the tradition within the circle represented by each document, and leads eventually to the theory ad- vocated by most recent critics, that the symbols J and E must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two schools, t.e., two series of narrators, animated by common conceptions, following a common literary method, and trans- mitting a common form of the tradition from one generation to another.
The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described in the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated here. In J, composite structure has been most clearly made out in the Primeval History (chs. 1-11), where at least two, and probably more, strands of narrative can be distinguished (pp. 1-4). Gu. seems to have shown that in 12-25 two cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (p. 240) ; also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban legends were originally independent of each other: this last, however, applies to J and E alike, so that the fusion had probably taken place in the common tradition which lies behind both. Further, chs. 34 and 38
* One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the facts can be best explained by the hypothesis of literary dependence of one document on the other (so Lu. 7S, 169: ‘‘ E steht vollig in seinem [J’s] Banne”’). But the present writer is convinced from repeated examination, that the differences are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way (see Procksch, 305 f.).
INTRODUCTION xlv
(pp. 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main narrative ; and the same might be said of ch. 49 (p. 512), which may very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the ‘ school’ of J, and the oldest extant specimen of its veferfoire.—With regard to E, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly as- similated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (?if E be a component there), 35!’ 48% and perhaps some other passages.—The important fact is that these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the main source to which they are assigned ; at least, no linguistic differentia of any consequence have yet beendiscovered.* The problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity.
While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally recognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which best explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the impression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception and standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two collections, and maintain that (in the case of J especially) the stamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave much play for the activity of a‘school.’+ It is very difficult
* The only exception would be Sievers’ metrical analysis, which leads to results far more complicated than can be justified by other indications (see p. xxxif.).
+ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in ZS, 107-170, where the thesis is upheld that the Yahwist (z.e. J’) is not a stage in the natural process of remodelling the tradition; that he does not mean merely to retail the old stories as he found them, but writes his book with the conscious purpose of enforcing certain ideas and convictions which often run contrary to the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Lu. seems to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primeval tradition from consideration (108), and ignoring the distribution of the Yahwistic material over the various stages of the redaction (155). It makes a considerable difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the sections which Lu. assigns to J? (e.g. chs. 34, 38, 19) really represent older phases of tradition than the main document ; for if they existed in their Yahwistic colouring prior to the compilation of J', there must have been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them; and even if they received their literary stamp at a later time, there must still have been something of the nature of a school to impress the Yahwistic character so strongly upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an Ephraimite, a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and Rechabite movement of the 9th cent., an opponent of the cultus, and an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the drift of the old tradition,
xlvi INTRODUCTION
to hold the balance even between the claims of unity and complexity in the documents; but the theory of single authorship may easily be pressed too far. If we could get through with only a J! and J?, Εἰ, E? etc.,—z.e., with the theory of one main document supplemented by a few later additions,—it would be absurd to speak of ‘schools.’ And even if the case were considerably more complicated, it might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics do) with the idea of /zterary schools, manipulating written documents under the influence of tendencies and principles which had become traditional within special circles. Gu. goes, however, much further with his conception of J and E as first of all guilds of oral narrators, whose stories gradually took written shape within their respective circles, and were ultimately put together in the collections as we now have them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the action of an outstanding personality in shaping either the oral or the literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage of suggesting a medium in which the traditional material might have assumed its specifically Yahwistic or Elohistic form before being incorporated in the main document of the school. It is at all events a satisfactory working hypothesis ; and that is all that can be looked for in so obscure a region of investigation. Whether it is altogether so artificial and unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the reader must judge for himself.
seems to go far beyond the evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly reconcilable with the religious tone and spirit of the narratives.—To a similar effect writes Procksch, Sagenbuch, 284-308 ; although he does justice to the composite structure of the document J, and describes it in terms which throw a shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of author- ship. When we read of an ‘‘einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den wie in einen Stamm Geschicten ganz anderer Herkunft gewissermassen auf- gepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen durch die massgebenden Ideen’”’ (294 f.), we cannot help asking where these branches grew before they were engrafted on their present stem. If we are right in distinguishing a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the time of Enosh, it is not easy to account for their fusion on any theory which does not allow a relative independence to the two conceptions,
INTRODUCTION xl vii
§ 9. Characteristics of J and E—thetr relation to Literary Prophecy.
It is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive characterisation of the literary or general features of the two older documents of Genesis. If J and E are to be re- garded as, in the main, recensions of a common body of oral tradition, and if they are the work of schools rather than of individuals, it is obvious that the search for characteristic differences loses much of its interest; and in point of fact the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary types is apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which have to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object here is simply to specify some outstanding differences which justify the separation of sources, and which may assist us later to determine the relative ages of the two documents.
J presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than E. I[t is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure narrative style in the OT; and in Genesis it rarely, if ever, falls below the highest level. But while E hardly attains the same perfection of form, there are whole passages, especially in the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to the one a superiority over the other. J excels in picturesque ‘ objectivity’ of description,—in the power to paint a scene with few strokes, and in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues, in particular, are inimitable ‘‘for the delicacy and truthfulness with which character and emotions find expression in them” (cf. Gn. 44'8#-).* E, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper vein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account of Isaac’s sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of Hagar (2188), the dismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob’s fraud (27*#-), Jacob’s lifelong grief for Rachel (487), or his tender- ness towards Joseph’s children (48").; But here again no absolute distinction can be drawn; in the history of Joseph, e.g., the vein of pathos is perhaps more marked in J than
* Driver, LOT, p. 119. + Cf. Gunkel, p LXXVII.
xl viii INTRODUCTION
in E. Where parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it is found in several instances that J’s objectivity of treatment has succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in E is transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The best example is J’s picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable Bedawi woman (ch. 16), as contrasted with E’s modernised version of the incident (218), with its affecting picture of the mother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, E (ch. 20) introduces an extenuation of Abraham’s falsehood about his wife which is absent from the older narrative of J (121).
It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material comprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences reduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular phrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other. The most important case is, of course, the distinctive use (in the pre-Mosaic period) of Yahwe in J and Elohim in E.* But round this are grouped a number of smaller linguistic differences which, when they occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage, enable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the sources.
The divine names.—While the possibility of error in the Massoretic textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of inadvertence in the use of
* This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology ; in the case of E, it is the application of a theory of religious development which connected the revelation of the name Yahwe with the mission of Moses (Ex. 3!%15). It is now generally held that the original E con- tinued to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that the occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to secondary strata of the document. On either view the choice of the general name of deity is difficult to account for. Procksch regards it as due to the influence of the great monotheistic movement headed by Elijah ; but that is not probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah’s crusade was precisely jealousy for Yahwe, the national God of Israel. Gu., on the other hand, thinks it arose from the fact that the legends were largely of Canaanite and polytheistic origin ; and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal history E contains several strong traces of a polytheistic basis of the narratives (28! 32% 3 357 etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic sense to the mind of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against Eerdmans).
INTRODUCTION xlix
mn’ and ods are in Genesis singularly few. In E contexts, ma’ occurs 2211. 14 dis 2821 314, where its presence seems due to the intentional action ofa redactor. J has ovndx (a) in 3! 4% (a special case: see pp. 2, 53); (4) where the contrast between the divine and the human is to be emphasised, 32”; (c) in conversations with, or references to, heathen (real or supposed), 977 39° 4133. 8 43% 29 4416 ; there are also (d) some doubtful examples which are very probably to be assigned to E, 33° 100. 11 428, It is only in the last group (if even there), with the possible addition (see p. 155) of 8', that redactional alteration or scribal error need be suspected.
For the inhabitants of Canaan, J uses ‘1932, 1018 19 126 (7 R), 24% #7 50"! + (with m5, 137 (Κ Ὁ) 34); E “pr, 1516 48%+.*
For the name Jacob, J substitutes Zsvae/ after 357° (exc. 46°) ; E con- sistently uses Jacob (exc. 467 488: 1+ 31 [50° 27).
The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) highly characteristic of J and E respectively :
J: ἘΝ and vnx ov in genealogies: the former, 47 2! 107! 1179 22?'; the latter, 47! 1075 (cf. 227! 25°6 38%-).—n3p1 (in connexion with a late-born child), 2127 2458 379 442°,—in xsp, 68 188 19!9 30% 325 33% 10. 16. 341 308 47% 9 sof+.—nrw (without 3), 2° τοῦ 2415: +,.—yy (in sexual sense), 41: 7 % y9% 8 2416 4836 (also in P).—1b” (=‘ beget’), 418. 10% 18 15.26 25% 25.- Ὁ", 2433. 4249 2816 χ0 6: 58 425 43. 7 4419. 20.26 go6b4 (421 E ?), — Derivatives of αν 1sy, 316 16 17 529 66 455*.—nypn, 2% 185? 2994 35 3520 4690+, —vys, trys (for the younger of two brothers or sisters), 1901: 33: 85. 38 2528 29% 43° 48'4.—"» ova wip, 438 128 134 2138 26%+4.—nep> yn, 18? [191] 2417 2013 334.—nnse, 1216 161 δ: 8:8 2495 407: 10. 12 43 426. 38. 3.41. 2. 6 (2014 2018 R ; also common in P); see on 79x below.— pwn, 1816 1038 268.-.--ὈΡὉ with following gen., 184 247: 8 43% 11 44”°.—Particles : aya, 3!7 87 1218. 16 126 29. 81. 32 2130 26% p74 10. 19. 31 4634, __r3-Sy3, 185 τοῦ 3310 38° +.—mnbab, 411 415 1921 38°+ (in E and P once each).—n3, in J about 40 times, in E about 6 times (in Gen.).
E : 7x, 20!7 2119. 13. 13 393 31334 (see ansv above).—y3 and jyp (‘ elder’ and ‘ younger’), 2916. 18 4213. 15. 20. 32. 34 (cf, 41511.).. 055, 451! 4713 so”), — mawD, 29" 317 41. A very characteristic idiom of E is the vocative (some- times doubled: 22! 462, Ex. 34, [1 Sa. 34 Gh]+) with the answer ‘207: 22) 7-11 271». 18 3711 3713 46?+.—E is further distinguished by a number of rare or archaic words or phrases: 730x, 20!7+ Jos. 7%; man, 486+ ; 121, 30"; non, 2115-194 5 pm, 218+ ; 13 (Shonest’), 42}}" 19: ὃ1, 83.385 pry, 417. 414 ; an 73, 2133 (cf. Is. 14%, Jb. 189+); Py, 229+ ; dp, 48}; ann, 4055. 4τὸῦ' 4 5 nine, go 41}1- ; ons, 41%; πον, 33+ Jos. 24% [Jb. 42"]+ ; by a partiality for rare infinitive forms (318 46° 50” 481}... and the occasional use of long forms of the nominal suff. (217° [31°] 412) 42%),
The religious and theological conceptions of the two documents are in the main identical, though a certain ditfer- ence of standpoint appears in one or two features. Both
* The cross (+) means that the usage is continued in the other bouks of the Hex.
a
| INTRODUCTION
evince towards the popular cultus an attitude of friendly toleration, with a disposition to ignore its cruder aspects ; and this tendency is carried somewhat further in J than in E. Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, or sacred pole, E alludes, without offence, to the Mazzebah, or sacred pillar (2815: 22 3118. 45f. 3520) ; whereas J nowhere allows to the mazzebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe. A very singular circumstance is that while both frequently record the erection of altars by the patriarchs, they are remarkably reticent as to the actual offering of sacrifice: E refers to it only twice (22. 461), and J never at all in the patriarchal history (ct. 4°% 87°), It is difficult to imagine that the omission is other than accidental: the idea that it indicates an indifference (Gu.), or a conscious opposition (Lu.), to the cultus, can hardly be entertained ; for after all the altar had no use or significance except as a means of sacrifice.—The most striking diversity appears in the repre- sentation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His revelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in which Yahwe (or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in human form, and in broad daylight, is peculiar to J (chs. 16, 18. 19), and corresponds to the highly anthropomorphic language which is observed in other parts of the document (chs. 2. 3. 7. 8. 115-7). E, on the contrary, records no daylight theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms of revelation, —the dream or night-vision (15! 20% ὁ 2112 [cf. 14] 2215: 28108. 3111 24 46),* or the voice of the angel from heaven (211"). In this respect E undoubtedly represents a more advanced stage of theological reflexion than J.—The national feeling in both sources is buoyant and hopeful: the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’ the sombre and melancholy view of life which marks the primeval history of J disappears abso- lutely when the history of the immediate ancestors of Israel is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which some
* We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which seem to stand on a somewhat different footing (p. 345). Nocturnal revelations occur, however, in J (2653 281%), but whether in the oldest parts of the document is not quite certain.
INTRODUCTION li
writers note as characteristic of E finds no expression what- ever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Jos. 24), it belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we are not here concerned,
Here we touch on a question of great importance, and one fortunately capable of being brought to a definite issue : viz., the relation of J and E to the literary prophecy of the 8th and following centuries. It is usual to speak of the combined JE as the Prophetical narrative of the Pent., in distinction from P, the Prestly narrative; and in so far as the name is employed (as, e.g., by Dri. ZOZ®, 117) to emphasise that contrast, it is sufficiently appropriate. As used, however, by many writers, it carries the implication that the documents—or that one to which the epithet is applied—show unmistakable traces of the influence of the later prophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to us entirely erroneous. It is undoubtedly the case that both J and E are pervaded by ideas and convictions which they share in common with the writing prophets: such as, the monotheistic conception of God, the ethical view of His providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition to certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, mazzebas, teraphim, etc.). But that these and similar principles were first enunciated by the prophets of the 8th cent., we have no reason to suppose. Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a man of God, is called Madi’ (20’, cf. Dt. 341°) necessarily imply that the figure of an Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers. We must bear in mind that the oth century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement which, commencing in N Israel, extended into Judah; and that any prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to have come from the impulse of that movement as from the later development which is so much better known to us. But in truth it is questionable if any prophetic impulse at all, other than those inherent in the religion from its foundation by Moses, is necessary to account for the religious tone of the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that the really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in
li INTRODUCTION
those parts of J and E with which we have to do. These are: the presentiment of the impending overthrow of the Israelitish nationality, together with the perception of its moral necessity, the polemic against foreign deities, the denunciation of prevalent oppression and social wrong, and the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of recovering Yahwe’s favour. Not only are these conceptions absent from our documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they should have been in the air in the age when the documents were composed. For, though it is true that very different religious ideas may exist side by side in the same community, it is scarcely credible that J and E could have maintained their confident hope for the future of the nation intact against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This consideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary strata of E, and the redactional additions to JE, which do come within the sweep of the later prophetic movement, clearly show that the circles from which these writings emanated were sensitively responsive to the sterner message of the prophets.
§ 10. Date and place of origin—Redaction of JE.
On the relative age of J and E, there exists at present no consensus of critical opinion. Down to the appearance of Wellhausen’s Geschichte Israels in 1878, scholars were practically unanimous in assigning the priority to E.* Since then, the opposite view has been strongly maintained by the leading exponents of the Grafian theory,7 although a number of critics still adhere to the older position.t The reason for this divergence of opinion lies not in the paucity of points of comparison, but partly in the subjective nature of the evidence, and partly in the fact that such indications as exist point in opposite directions.
To take a few examples from Genesis: Ch. 16!" (J) produces an impression of greater antiquity than the parallel 21%) (E); J’s explana-
* Hupf. Schr. NG. Reuss, al. + We. Kuen. Sta. Meyer ; so Luther, Procksch, al. + Di. Kittel, K6nig, Wi. al.
INTRODUCTION liii
tion of the name Issachar, with its story of the love-apples (30!*'), is more primitive than that of E (30!); J (30°) attributes the increase of Jacob's flocks to his own cunning, whereas E (31*!*) attributes it to the divine blessing. On the other hand, E’s recension of the Bethel- theophany (281: 117.) is obviously more antique than J's (5:16); and in the Joseph narratives the leadership of Reuben (E) is an element of the original tradition which J has altered in favour of Judah. A peculiarly instructive case is 12!" (J) || 20 (E) || 267" (J), where it seems to us (though Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is clearly right in holding that J has preserved both the oldest and the youngest form of the legend, and that E represents an intermediate stage,
This result is not surprising when we understand that J and E are not individual writers, but guilds or schools, whose literary activity may have extended over several generations, and who drew on a store of unwritten tradition which had been in process of codification for generations before that. This consideration forbids us also to argue too confidently from observed differences of theological stand- point between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that E, with its comparative freedom from anthropomorphisms and sensible theophanies, with its more spiritual conception of revelation, and its greater sensitiveness to ethical blemishes on the character of the patriarchs (p. x\viii), occupies, on the whole, a higher level of reflexion than J; but we cannot tell how far such differences are due to the general social mz/zeu in which the writers lived, and how far to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which they belonged. All that can safely be affirmed is that, while E has occa- sionally preserved the more ancient form of the tradition, there is a strong presumption that J as a whole is the earlier document.
In attempting to determine the absolute dates of J and E, we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both are earlier than the age of written prophecy (p. lif.); in other words, 750 B.c. is the Zerminus ad quem for the composition of either. If it be the case that 378 in E presupposes the monarchy of the house of Joseph, the fermznus a quo for that document would be the disruption of the kingdom, ¢. 930 (cf. Dt. 337); and indeed no one proposes to fix it higher.
liv INTRODUCTION
Between these limits, there is little to guide us to a more precise determination. General considerations, such as the tone of political feeling, the advanced conception of God, and traces of the influence of gth-century prophecy, seem to us to point to the later part of the period, and in particular to the brilliant reign of Jeroboam 11. (785-745), as the most likely time of composition.* In J there is no unequivocal allusion to the divided kingdom; and nothing absolutely prevents us from putting its date as early as the reign of Solomon. The sense of national solidarity and of confidence in Jsrael’s destiny is even more marked than in E; and it has been questioned, not without reason, whether such feelings could have animated the breast of a Judazan in the dark days that followed the dissolution of Solomon’s empire. That argument is not greatly to be trusted: although the loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt in Judah (Is. γι), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th cent., and we cannot tell how far in the intervening period religious idealism was able to overcome the depression natural to a feeble and dependent state, and keep alive the sense of unity and the hope of reunion with the larger Israel of the north. In any case, it is improbable that J and E are separated by an interval of two centuries; if E belongs to the first half of the 8th cent., J will hardly be earlier than the goth.
Specific historical allusions which have been thought to indicate a more definite date for J (or E) prove on examination to be unreliable. If 3144% 49°" contained references to the wars between Israel and Aram under Omri and his successors, it would be necessary to bring the date of both documents down to that time ; but Gunkel has shown that inter- pretation to be improbable.—27”” presupposes the revolt of Edom from Judah (c. 840); but that prosaic half-verse is probably an addition to the poetic passage in which it occurs, and therefore goes to show that the blessing itself is earlier, instead of later, than the middle of the oth cent. — The curse on Canaan (9*"-) does not necessarily assume the definite subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel ; and if it did, would
* So Procksch (178 ff.), who points out a number of indications that appear to converge on that period of history. We. Kue. Sta. Ho. agree; Reuss. Di. Ki. place it in the 9th cent.
+ Procksch, 286 ff. + So We. Kue. Sta. Kit. Gu. al.
INTRODUCTION lv
only prove a date not earlier than Solomon.—Other arguments, such as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelah and Nineveh in the list of Assyrian cities in 10" etc., are still less conclusive.
While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to J and E, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally accepted view that the former is of Judzan and the latter of Ephraimite origin. Only, it must be premised that the body of patriarchal tradition which lies behind both documents is native to northern, or rather central, Israel, and must have taken shape there.* The favourite wife of Jacob is not Leah but Rachel, the mother of Joseph (Ephraim- Manasseh) and Benjamin; and Joseph himself is the brightest figure in all the patriarchal gallery. The sacred places common to both recensions—Shechem, Bethel, Mahanaim, Peniel, Beersheba—are, except the last, all in Israelite territory; and Beersheba, though belonging geo- graphically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a favourite resort of pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Am. 5° 8!4, 1 Ki. 19%).—It is when we look at the diver- gence between the two sources that the evidence of the Ephraimite origin of E and the Judzan of J becomes con- sistent and clear. Whereas E never evinces the slightest interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above, J makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable theophany, and thus indelibly associates its sanctity with the name of Abraham. It is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the founding of the northern sanctuaries, Shechem and Bethel (127-8); but we can hardly fail to detect something per- functory in his description, as compared with E’s impressive narrative of Jacob’s dream at Bethel (28101? 17-22), or his own twofold account of the founding of Beersheba (chs. 21. 26). It is E alone who records the place of Rachel’s grave (351°), of those of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah (8), of Joseph (Jos. 2453), and Joshua (*°),—all in the northern territory. The sections peculiar to J (p. xlili) are nearly all of local
* We. Prol.6 317. It is the neglect of this fact that has mainly led to the belief that J, like E, is of Ephraimite origin (Kue. Reuss, Schr, Fripp, Luther, al.).
lvi INTRODUCTION
Judzan interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; 19!8 is a legend of the Dead Sea basin; 19° deals with the origin of the neighbouring peoples of Moab and Ammon; 38 is based on the internal tribal history of Judah (and is not, as has been supposed, charged with animosity towards that tribe: see p. 455). Finally, while Joseph’s place of honour was too firmly established to be challenged, it is J who, in defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright and the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (405: 3576, the Joseph narratives).—These indications make it at least relatively probable that in J we have a Judean recension of the patri- archal tradition, while E took its shape in the northern kingdom.
The composite work JE is the result of a redactional operation, which was completed before the other components (D and P) were incorporated in the Pent.* The redactors (R’*) have done their work (in Genesis) with consummate skill and care, and have produced a consecutive narrative whose strands it is often difficult to unravel. They have left traces of their hand in a few harmonising touches, designed to remove a discrepancy between J and E (16%-2821b? 41.498. (Aass.) 39! 4159? 46! 501): some of these, however, may be later. glosses. Of greater interest are a number of short addi- tions, of similar import and complexion but occurring both in J and E, which may, not with certainty but with great probability, be assigned to these editors (13!4- 1817-19 2215-18 26°> 2814 3210-18 4638): to this redaction we are disposed also to attribute a thorough revision of ch. 15. In these passages we seem to detect a note of tremulous anxiety regarding the national future of Israel and its tenure of the land of Canaan, which is at variance with the optimistic outlook of the original sources, and suggests that the writers are living under the shadow of impending exile. A slight trace of Deuteronomic phraseology in 18!" and 26%>f con- firms the impression that the redaction took place at some time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile.
* So N6. We. and most; against Hupf. Di. al.
INTRODUCTION lvii
§ 11. Zhe Priestly Code and the Final Redaction.
It is fortunately not necessary to discuss in this place all the intricate questions connected with the history and structure of the Priests’ Code. The Code as a whole is, even more obviously than J or E, the production of a school, —in this case a school of juristic writers, whose main task was to systematise the mass of ritual regulations which had accumulated in the hands of the Jerusalem priesthood, and to develop a theory of religion which grew out of them. Evidence of stratification appears chiefly in the legislative portions of the middle Pent., where several minor codes are amalgamated, and overlaid with considerable accretions of later material. Here, however, we have to do only with the great historical work which forms at once the kernel of the Code and the framework of the Pent., the document distinguished by We. as Q (Quatuor foederum liber), by Kue. as P?, by others as P*.* Although this groundwork shows traces of compilation from pre-existing material (see pp. 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428f., etc.), it nevertheless bears the impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity.
No critical operation is easier or more certain than the separation of this work, down even to very small fragments, from the context in which it is embedded. When this is done, and the fragments pieced together, we have before us, almost in its original integrity, an inde- pendent document, which is a source, as well as the framework, ‘of Genesis. We have seen (p. xli) that the opposite opinion is maintained ly Klostermann and Orr, who hold that P is merely a supplementing redactor of, or ‘collaborator’ with, JE. But two facts combine to render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments form a consecutive history, in which the /acune are very few and unim- portant, and those which occur are easily explicable as the result of the redactional process. The precise state of the case is as follows: In the primzval history no hiatus whatever can be detected. Dr. Orr’s assertion (POT, 348 f.) that P’s account of the Flood must have contained the episodes of the birds and the sacrifice, because both are in the Babylonian version, will be worth considering when he has made it probable either that P had ever read the Babylonian story, or that, if he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter of
* Kue.’s P! is the so-called Law of Holiness (P"), which is older than the date usually assigned to P8,
lviii INTRODUCTION
fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we shall sce presently, Noah’s sacrifice is an incident which P would certainly have suppressed if he had known of it.—In the history of Abraham there is again no reason to suspect any omission. Here is a literal translation of the disyecta membra of P’s epitome of the biography of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse transposed (19): 124? “Now Abram was 75 years old when he went out from Harran. ὅ And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had acquired, and all the souls whom they had procured; and they went out to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan. 13° And the land could not bear them so that they might dwell together, for their possessions were great, and they were not able to dwell together. "> So they separated from one another: > Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the Oval. 19% And when God destroyed the cities of the Oval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.—16! Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. 8.90 Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband for a wife to him. 15 And Hagar bore to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom Hagar bore to him Ishmael. 16. And Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram. —17! And when Abram was 99 years old, Yahwe appeared to Abram, and said to him,” etc. Here follows the account of the covenant with Abraham, the change of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of circumcision, and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah (ch. 17).—The narrative is resumed in 21! ‘* And Vahwe did to Sarah as he had spoken, *” at the appointed time which God had mentioned. 3 And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised Isaac his son when he was ὃ days old, as God had commanded him. ὅ And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born to him,— 23! And the life of Sarah was 127 years; ? and Sarah died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.” This introduces the story of the purchase of Machpelah as a burying-place (ch. 23), and this brings us to—257 ‘‘ And these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he lived: 175 years; ὃ and he expired. And Abraham died in a good old age, an old man and full [of years], and was gathered to his father’s kin. ® And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the Hittite, which is opposite Mamre: ! the field which Abraham bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.—" And after the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son.” The reader can judge for himself whether a narrative so con- tinuous as this, every isolated sentence of which has been detached from its context by unmistakable criteria of the style of P, is likely to have been produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19”, let him
INTRODUCTION lix
note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its present position that verse is, considered as a supplement to 19'*8,—In the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there are undoubtedly omissions which we can only supply from JE; and if we were to judge from these parts alone, the supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is. We miss, e.g., accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob's arrival in Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel, of the birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt, his reconciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other particulars. Even here, however, the theory is absolutely negatived by the contradictions to JE which will be specified immediately. Dr. Orr’s argument on this point (POT, 343 ff.) really assumes that the account of JE is the only way in which the gaps of P could be filled up; but the examination of the story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts are / fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome of the history, similar to that of the history of Abraham, has been abridged in the redaction, by the excision of a very few sentences, in favour of the fuller narrative of JE.—(z) The second fact which makes Dr. Orr's hypothesis untenable is this, that in almost every instance where P expands into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents. The difference between P’s cosmogony and J’s account of the Creation is such that it is ludicrous to speak of the one as a supplement or a ‘framework’ to the other; and the two Flood stories are hardly less irreconcilable (see p. 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two parallel accounts of the covenant with Abraham in ch. 15 (JE) and 17 (P); and it is evident that the one supersedes and excludes the other. Again, P’s reason for Jacob’s journey to Mesopotamia (281) is quite in- consistent with that given by JE in ch. 27 (p. 374f.); and his conception of Isaac’s blessing as a transmission of the blessing originally bestowed on Abraham (28%) is far removed from the idea which forms the motive of ch. 27. In JE, Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob’s return from Mesopotamia (32°); in P he does not leave Canaan till after the burial of Isaac (35°). P’s account of the enmity between Joseph and his brethren is unfortunately truncated, but enough is preserved to show that it differed essentially from that of JE (see p. 444). It is difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to J and E, but it certainly was not at Machpelah, as in P (see p. 538f.). And so on. Everywhere we see a tendency in P to suppress or minimise discords in the patriarchal households. It is inconceivable that a supplementer should thus contradict his original at every turn, and at the same time leave it to tell its own story. When we find that the passages of an opposite tenor to JE form parts of a practically complete narrative, we cannot avoid the conclusion that ΡῈ is an independent document, which has been preserved almost entire in our present Book of Genesis. The question then arises whether these discrepancies spring from a divergent tradition followed by P£ or from a deliberate re-writing of the history as told by JE, under the influence of certain theological ideals and principles, which we now proceed to consider.
lx INTRODUCTION
The central theme and objective of P* is the institution of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the Tabernacle, erected, after its heavenly antitype, by Moses at Mount Sinai. For this event the whole previous history of man- kind is a preparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last of four world-ages: from the Creation to the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, and from Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine revelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name of God: El Shaddai to Abraham (17!), and Yahwe to Moses (Ex. 65). Each period, also, is marked by the institution of some permanent element of the theocratic constitution, the Levitical system being conceived as a pyramid rising in four stages: the Sabbath (235); permission of the slaughter of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the blood (9!*-); circumcision (17); and, lastly, the fully developed Mosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial worship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars nor sacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history ; and even the distinction between clean and unclean animals is supposed to be unknown at the time of the Flood. It is particularly noteworthy that the profane, as distinct from the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which even the Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back to the covenant with Noah.
Beneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling idea of a progressive unfolding of God’s will to men, we discover a theory of religion which, more than anything else, expresses the spirit of the Priestly school to which the author of P* belonged. The exclusive emphasis on the formal or institutional aspect of religion, which is the natural proclivity of a sacerdotal caste, appears in P* in a very pronounced fashion. Religion is resolved into a series of positive enact- ments on the part of God, and observance of these on the part of man. The old cult-legends (p. xiif.), which traced the origin of existing ritual usages to historic incidents in the lives of the fathers, are swept away; and every practice to which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct
INTRODUCTION Lxi
command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand, such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of personal piety—the disposition of the heart towards God—his narrative hardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a theology at once more abstract and shallower than that of J or E, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life (chs. 3. 6° 8"! 18°" 458 etc.), and succeeds in depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward fellowship with God (cf. 22. 24!" 32%: 48°! etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of P* with indifference to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating character and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are none the less character- istic of the type of mind that produced the colourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant ideas of the Priestly theology. .
Another characteristic distinction between JE and P is seen in the enhanced ¢rvanscendentalism of the latter’s con- ception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthro- popathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception is Gn. 2%: cf. Ex. 3117); revelation takes the form of simple speech ; angels, dreams, and visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not described; God is said to ‘appear’ to men, and to ‘go up from them’ (Gn. 171: 231. 359. 13 488, Ex. 6°), but the manner of His appearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at Sinai (Ex. 245: 34> go%4f), It is true that a similar incon- creteness often characterises the theophanies of J and E, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided approximation to the abstract conceptions of P. But a comparison of the parallels ch. 17 with 15, or 35° with 2810f., makes it clear that P’s departure from the older tradi- tion springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from the representation of Godhead.
It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, P’s attitude to the traditional history of the patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that
xii INTRODUCTION
he accepts the main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But whether he knew that tradition from other sources than J and E, isa question not so easily answered. For the primitive period, divect dependence on J is improbable, because of the marked diversity in the accounts of the Creation and the Flood: here P seems to have followed a tradition closely akin to, but not identical with, that of J. In the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose that he had any other authorities than J and E. The general course of events is the same, and differences of detail are all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code. But the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history, both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a meagre summary, with little save a chronological significance, and that the points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial are (with one exception) precisely those which introduce a new religious dispensation: viz. the Creation, the Flood, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus. The single exception is the purchase of Machpelah (ch. 23), an event which doubtless owes its prominence to its connexion with the promise of the land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest, a certain emphasis naturally lies on outstanding events, like the origin of the name Israel (35°), or the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt (47°); and the author lingers with interest on the transmission of the patriarchal blessing and promise from Isaac to Jacob (28* 3513), and from Jacob to his sons (483). But these are practically all the incidents to which P§ attaches any sort of significance of their own ; and even these derive much of their importance from their relation to the chronological: scheme into which they are fitted.—Hence to say that P's epitome would be ‘unintelligible’ apart from JE, is to confuse his point of view with our own. It is perfectly true that from P alone we should know very little of the characters of the patriarchs, of the motives which governed their actions, or of the connexion between one event and another. But these are matters which P had no interest in making ‘intelligible.’ He is concerned solely with events, not with causes or motives. The indi- vidual is sufficiently described when we are told whose son he was, how long he lived, what children he begot, and such like. He is but a link in the generations that fill up the history ; and even where he is the recipient of a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends on his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any personal endowment or providential training.
The style of P* can be characterised without the reserves and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the difference between J and E (p. xlviif.); there is no better illustration of the dictum Ze style c’est [homme than in this remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped termin- ology, its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its monotonous repetitions, and its general determination to
INTRODUCTION Ixiil
leave no loophole for misinterpretation or misunderstanding. The jurist’s love of order and method appears in a great facility in the construction of schemes and schedules— genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc.—as well as in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a whole. Itis necessary to read the whole work consecutively in order to realise the full effect of the laboured diffuseness, the dry lucidity and prosaic monotony of this characteristic product of the Priestly school of writers. On the other hand, the style is markedly deficient in the higher elements of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an impressive dignity (as in Gn. 1. 47714), it is apt to de- generate into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set phrases and rigid formule (see Nu. 7). The power of picturesque description, or dramatic delineation of life and character, is absent: the writer’s imagination is of the mechanical type, which cannot realise an object without the help of exact quantitative specification or measurement. Even in ch. 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative in the Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the measured periodic movement of the action, and the recurrent use of standing expressions from the opening to the close. That such a style might become the property of a school we see from the case of Ezekiel, whose writings show strong affinities with P; but of all the Priestly documents, P* is the one in which the literary bent of the school is best ex- emplified, and (it may be added) is seen to most advantage.
The following selection (from Driver, ΧΟ 75, 131 ff.) of distinctive expressions of P, occurring in Genesis, will give a sufficient idea of the stylistic peculiarity of the book, and also of its linguistic affinities with the later literature, but especially with the Book of Ezekiel.
onde as the name of God, uniformly in Gen., except 17? 211>,—}"n,
€kind’; 1212.21. 24.25 620 714 (Ly, τι, Dt. 14; only again Ezk. 47”).— VW, ‘to swarm’: 170 21 721 81 9’ +* (outside of P only Ps. 105**, Ezk. 47°).
* As on p. xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further examples are found in the rest of the Pent. It should be expressly said, however, that the + frequently covers a considerable number of cases; and that a selection of phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent the strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in the more exhaustive lists of Dri. (7.c.) or the Oxf. Hex. (vol. i. pp. 208-221).
lxiv INTRODUCTION
— pw, earns things’: 1°° 7214 (only in P and Dt. 14).—nan mp; pee PE eH! coy OG sim 28° 351} 477 484 (Ex. 17, Lv. 26°; elsewhere only Jer. 316 inverted, 235, Ezk. 36").—aboxd: 1% 80. 62! 934 (elsewhere only in Ezk. (10 times), and (as inf.) Jer. 129).—nmn: 10” 25134 (elsewhere 1 Ch. 57 7% 49 88 9% 34 263!), The phrase nbn ΠΟΝ[] occurs in P τὸ times in Gen. (see p. xxxiv), and in Nu. 3!; elsewhere only Ru. 418, 1 Ch. 1, —yn: 617771 258 7 35% 4038. (elsewhere poetical : Zec. 138, Ps. 8815 το φῆ, La. 119, and 8 times in Jb.).—92y, Mx, etc. (appended to enumerations) : 618 77 13 816. 18 o8 284 468-74 non, etc. (after ‘seed’): 99 177 & % 10.19 41 484+.—nin ova oxy: 718 17% 264; only in P and Ezk. 28 24? 4o! (Jos. 1077 redactional). —om—omnpwnd: 819 10% 2 31 3640 + (very often in P: elsewhere only Nu. 111° [JE], 1 Sa. 107, 1 Ch. 57 647-48), —nhy nna: οὐδ 17713194, only in P.— xd wpa: 17% 6 %+ Ex, 17; elsewhere only Ezk. 9° 163,— ean: 125 13° 3118 367 466+; elsewhere Gn. 141: 1216.21 7514; and 15 times in Ch, Ezr, Dn.—w3): 12° 3118 368 466+ .—w53(= ‘ person’): 125 368 46" 18. 22, 25. 26.274; “much more frequent in P than elsewhere.”—o2—anonw ; 17” 9124. 36 times (only in P).—on39: +178 284 367 37! 479+ Ex. 64; else- where Ezk. 20%, Ps. 551° 119%, Jb. 189+.—ainx: 178 2349-20 3648 gol 484 49% so8+. Often in Ezk. (4478 455: & 7- 8.610. 18.830. 21.22). elsewhere Ps, 28, 1 Ch. 73.9? [= Neh. 11°], 2 Ch, 1174 3114+ .—apo: 1713: 18: 28. 27 9318 + (confined to P except Jer. 3211.15 4 16),_npy (= ‘father’s kin’): 1714 ao 7 35% 49% + (also Ezk. 1818; elsewhere Ju. 5'4?, Ho. 104+),—avin: 23+ 10 times (also 1 Ki, 171}, 1 Ch. 29%, Ps. 39)8).—y"3p: 4118 [3473] 36° + (outside of P, only Ezk. 38; Pr. 47, Ps. 10474 10571),
In the choice of synonymous expressions, P exhibits an exclusive preference for 1°17 in the sense of ‘beget’ over 75° (in the genealogies of J), and for the form "3x of the rst pers. pron. (33 only in Gn. 234).
Geographical designations peculiar to P€ are: Kiryath-Arba' (for Hebron) 237 357° +; Machpelah, 23% 17:19. 259 4930 sol8+ ; Paddan-Aram, 25° 28% δ. 6. 7 3118 3318 35% 26 4615+ .—To these may be added jy33 pax, 112 125 1312 168 178 23718 3118 3318 356 3714; the expression is found in JE only in the Joseph-section (chs. 42, 44, 45, 47). P has jy32 without pu only in jy32 m3 (28! 465).
In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list is by no means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the linguistic and stylistic distinction between P and JE (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in criticism.
The date of the composition of P® lies between the promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.c.), and the post-Exilic reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It 5 later than Deut., because it assumes without question the centralisation of worship at one sanctuary, which in Dt. is only held up as an ideal to be realised by a radical reform of established usage. A nearer determination of date depends on questions of the internal analysis of P which are too complex to be entered on here. That the
INTRODUCTION Ixv
Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the division between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer of Deut., and of which we find the origin and justification in Ezk. 44°18, is presupposed as already established (Nu. 3. 4. 8, etc.). It is possible, how- ever, that that distinction belongs to a stratum of the legislation not included in P®; in which case P* might very well be earlier than Ezk., or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern us here. For the under- standing of Genesis, it is enough to know that Ῥξ, both in its theological conceptions and its attitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought much later than J and E.
The view that Pf was written before the Exile (in the end of the qth cent.) is advocated by Procksch (/.c. 319ff.), who reduces this part of P to narrower limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, em- bracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the Law of Holiness (P*), and recognising the priestly status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Dt. (Nu. 17!%*4 and P» in its original form). If that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the document is older than Ezk. It is admitted both by Kuenen and Wellhausen (/ro/.° 116) that the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later strata of P as compared with P8, but that it is not recognised in PS is not clear. As to pre-Exilic origin, the positive arguments advanced by Pro. are not very cogent ; and it is doubtful whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than the ossidilizy of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Pro. : viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in ch. ro bears internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable time before the 5th century B.C. (p. 191 below); but that may be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of ΡῈ made use of pre-existing docu- ments in the preparation of his work.
The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pent. is the amalgamation of P with the older documents, —in Genesis the amalgamation of P® with JE. That this process has left traces in the present text is quite certain a priori; though it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of this kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (cf. 67 77 33. 23 107 274 etc.). The aim of the redactor was, in general, to preserve the zpsissima
é
Ixvi INTRODUCTION
verba of his soufces as far as was consistent with the pro- duction of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every fragment of P that could possibly be retained. It is not improbable that this rule was uniformly observed by him, and that the slight Zacuwn@ which occur in P after ch. 25 are due to the activity of later scribes in smoothing away redundancies and unevennesses from the narrative. That such changes might take place after the completion of the Pent. we see from 475%, where (ἴχ has preserved a text in which the dovetailing of sources is much more obvious than in MT.—If the lawbook read by Ezra before the congrega- tion as the basis of the covenant (Neh. 8:7.) was the entire Pent. (excepting late additions),* the redaction must have been effected before 444 B.c., and in all probability the redactor was Ezra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems to the present writer more probable) Ezra’s lawbook was only the Priestly Code, or part of it (P® + P"),7 then the final redaction is brought down to a later period, the fe minus ad quem being the borrowing of the Jewish Pent. by the Samaritan community. That event is usually assigned, though on somewhat precarious grounds, to Nehemiah’s second term of office in Judza (c. 432 B.C.).
Of far greater interest and significance than the date or manner of this final redaction, is the fact that it was called for by the religious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism. Nothing else would have brought about the combination of elements so discordant as the naive legendary narratives of JE and the systematised history of the Priestly Code. We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly theology is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or that, if the tendencies represented by the Code had pre- vailed, the stories which are to us the most precious and edifying parts of the Book of Genesis would have found no place in an authoritative record of God’s revelation of Himself to the fathers. But this is not the only instance
* So We. Di. Kit. al. + So Corn. Ho. al.
INTRODUCTION Ixvii
in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged more wisely than the learning of the schools. We know that deeper influences than the legalism and institutionalism of P’s manifesto—necessary as these were in their place— were at work in the post-Exilic community : the individualism of Jeremiah, the universalism of the second Isaiah, the devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists, and the daring reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may surely add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the abstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find its nutriment in the immortal stories through which God spoke to the heart then, as He speaks to ours to-day.
ΓΙ ΜΑΙ
ει η taro! ἀν κένηνυ, δὲ “ah tae (yin it ἡ a εἰσ ἄπ Sie τ λον των ῶὼ On. & Ws ἀν νὴ ἐμ PT AUST At we i ἡ διὰ ~antal preity LAN ΠΥ th in alipiebr ty τ dee, woh) εν ΟΣ phe wile a1)? Gb Tie aan τ} breve. ἀνα chy αὐ ἐμ υ i ie halt “atte Vu; ieee eterlee (elias ι “oh ie “εὐ ΝΣ δ ᾿ i" πα ey ΩΣ ;
᾿ , eer " i ay i ἀ ΝΣ
ve en OL a
Wath oat 7 | Ta | “ΜΠ vot Var ͵ ΠῚ 2
y ie
COMMENTARY.
THE PRIMAVAL HISTORY.
Cos. i=Xl;