Tive

The following describes roughly the general conclusions of modern criticism. (Jenesis consists of a consecutive narrative weld<'d togi^thcr by a compiler designated K, out of three main docu- mentiiry .sources designated by critics P (the Priestly Code), J (the Jahwist), and E (the Elohist). (rt) Of the.se three principal sources the one most easily distinguished is P.

For, though the frame- work of the narrative preserved from the P source is somewhat meagre, its style and characteristics are very nuirked. Certain leading events are given by it in great detail, e.;/. the Creation, the Deluge, the Covenant with Xoah, and the Covenant with Abraham. The chronology is carefully observed ; periods of most remote times are reckoned in years with precision ; and brief summaries of other events are given (e.r/. 10.

2-5'-); or their recollec- tion is preserve<l by means of genealogies (5. 11''' HS, "*'). 'The history [in P] advances along a well- defined line, marked by a gradually diminishing length of human life ; by the revelation of God under three distinct names, Elohim. El Shaddni, and Jahwe.

h; by the blessing of Adam and its charaL'teristic conditions ; and by the subseijuent covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel, each with its special '-sign,"' the rainbow, tlie rite of circumcision, and the Sabbath, Gn 9'2. 1.3 1711^ K.kSI'S' (Driver, LOT^ y. 127). P is also characterized by an avoidance of an- thropomorphisms. There is no mention of angels or of visions in sleep. God is described as ' appear- ing' (Gn l-i-2-2.-s 359.13 483)^ and as 'speaking' (Gn 1-8 6'3 71 8'»-!

li); but, as compared with the other writers whose materials are incorporated in the Pentateuch, P is conspicuously guarded and scrupulous in his references to the Deity against any approach to familiar or irreverent description. The narrative of P is somewhat formal and pre- cise. It abounds in phrases and expressions which are not elsewhere found. The followinjr are some of the interesting traits of the P narrative wliich may be noted here : — (1) Divine Xante.

— Except in 17^ 21, Elohim, not Jahweh. is used as the name of God ; and these two exceptions are prob- ably due to the compiler or to later copyists. God is revealed to the patriarchs as El Shaddai (Gn IT '2S3 3.>ii 48", cf. Ex G^). <'2) Proper Xunieti. — In P * the sons of Heth ' (."^n ^}2) isalways used (Gn 2.3'. ». '. >»• »» ■>b"> 2T" 495=), never ' Hittites ' (2'nn), as in .T and E. P has ' Kiriath-arba ' for ' Hebron ' (Gn 2.S= .S.Vl, and I'addan-aram (Gn 2.V» 2S!. «.

«• ' 31" 33i» 35"- '" 4ti'°) for tlie reirion called in J (Gn 241') Aram-naharaim. The mention of Machpelah occurs only in the P narrative (Gu 23^. '. '" 2.')'^ 49>" 5il>=). (3) Amonjr the words and phraften characteristic of P may be mentioned the following, which are found in Genesis ; — ■■'J^:'? ' possession,' Gn 1"» 28* 36" 47" 495». 'JN 30 times C?JN once, Gn 28«). -\£'3 (li-J-'^r) ' Hesh ' (' all flesh '), Gn G". " 7"^- '« 8" 9". i"". yij ' expire,' Gn 6" 7" 2.58 3,520.

yil ' seed,' Gn 9° 17' 8.'i« 466 44. isb Isp 'very exceedingly,' Gn 7" 17=. n^:i7D Gn 17". i3 03". nnsc'o (e.g. on'.^ins'f;;';' 'according to their families'). Gn gl9 IDS- JO- 31 nin a"n bsy. ' the self-same day,' Gn 7" 17». =«. nb^l n^3 • be fruitful and multiply.' Gn 12S- » S>: 9'- '. <'- "'131 ' possessions,' On 12» IS" 8I» 36'. Xy^ ' swarm,' Gn I. «' "^ 8" 9'. m^^n * (fenerations.'

There is general agreement among critics as to the passages in Genesis that were taken by the compiler from the P document. These are — V, 2' .->i-^- •■W-.12 6'-^'~ 7 (portions) gi. -'.. 31.-5. i,3a. 14-111 fll-i;. 2». 29 ]0'-"- 20- -' ■•"■ 31- 32 11 10-27. 31. :a ]2<'>. ■•• IIJO. III). 12» J(iU- 3. 15. 16 17_ IJV-'O OJllLib-.-. 23. 2 ')■-!'" ', '"■''•'• 2"- Jb 2()-«- ■■« 27«-28" 20'-'- -"•' :!l>sb :i:)isa'34 (portions) SS'''"- '■■, •, "•' ."(i (verv lariielv) .•?

7i -» 41<'' 40«, '^ 475- «•■ ■-"- 276. :8 483-(i. 7 4()la. ;iSI)-.tl |)0', '3. (ft) When the P portions of the naiTative have been removed, there remains a large jiortion of Genesis which critics liave called 'prophetic,' as distinguished from ' priestly,' being clearly sepa- rable from P in language and in treatment of narrative. liut this large portion of prophetic writing has also been conclusively shown to be. not homogene- 0U.

S, but to consist of two main threads of narra- tive which to a great extent must have covered the same ground, and which a compiler combined in the form of a consecutive narrative. There were th-erefore two original documents (.T and IC) independent of one another, which, being welded together, formed a distinct work, .IK. which was afterwards combined with P by the tiiial redactor. As to the relative priority of these two documents, scholars are hardly yet in absolute agreement.

But, at the present day, opinion inclines to the view that the document, which li.as as one of its char.acteristics the use of Jahweh (Jehovah) for the divine name, and has therefore been entitled the 'Jahwist' (=J, for short), is the earlier in date ; and tliat the other, wliich on acccmnt of its use of Elohim for the .sacred name (until Ex :>'*, when the name was revealed to Moses) is called the Elohist ( = E, for short), can be only very .sliglitly later.

In determining what that date miust have been, we are enabled, by the evidence of the language, to discern that both J and E belong to the best period of Hebrew literature, free from the obscurity of the early and from tlie insipidity of tlie later age.

Tlie resemblance of these two documents to one another in tlieir contents, and their difference in style and language, may best be illustrated by a comparison of the parallel narratives in Gn 20 and 21), and in the accounts of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph. J contains some of the most striking descrip- tions in all Genesis ; and there is probably no Hebrew writing which in beauty of narrative, vigour, simplicity, and artistic skill can be con- sidered to surpass this document.

To it we owe the preservation of the famous stories of the Garden of Eden ; of Cain and Abel ; of Abraham and ihe three angelic visitors ; of ■'^odom and Gomorrah ; of the mission of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham ; of Judah and Tamar-; of Judah's intercession witn Joseph. Throughout his narrative, the writer of J keeps prominently in view the spiritual and moral pur- pose with which he indites his records of old time.

It is in this respect that he occupies the position of a ' prophet ' ; he interprets the truths that underlay the history of the past, and explains God's dealings in the world and with His chosen people. ' He is penetrated by the thought of Jehovah's mercifulness, long-suffering, and covenant faithful- ness. He delights to trace tlie successive stages in the development of faith. It is he who tells how Abraham " believed in the I.onl, and He counted it to him for righteousness." .

The Jahwist appears, in fact, to survey the field of history with GENESIS GENESIS 145 the eye of mature spiritual experience ; in the lowly beginnings of Hebrew history he discerns the divinely intended ciinsununation— the ultimate purpose which from the Hrst filled the incidents of ordinary life with solemn significance (Un I'J, "'- 1012 iDsfn. ^oiiff 4y.)if.)' (^ottley's Bampton Lectures, 1897, pp. U'J, 120).

Atnont; the characteristic features of J's writing the following deserve special mention : — (11 The urn of Jahiceh (nn') an the name ofGod.—TSnt, cif course, that the word Kloiiiin was not known or used by him ; he does use it for the purpose of introducing a comparison lie- tween the human and the divine (tin ;1'J29. 3i 3jjioj^ or when he represents a non-IsraeUte speuliiiiif of tile Deitv to an Israelite, or an Israelite to a non-Israelite (Gn 'Jo" 4U» 41"'- 20. 2s. 32 4;j2ii).

lie puts it ijito the mouth of tlio serjient (Gn 32). The name .lahweh. cm the other hand, in liis narrative, is known to the patriarchs and used by tliem ; and the writer is not apparently aware of the tradition that the name was Iirst revealed to Moses, as recorded in Kx :i. To an English reader, his use of the sacred name appears an anacUrouism, or a not unnatural anticipation of later (.'eneral usaj,'e. t'j) J^H line ofirords and phrases may be illustrated by — HDN j, lit.

' as tliou comest to,' Gn lO'"!" etc. 'nx U Gn 4.S=» 44" (cf. Kx 4'». >»). jn N3 j • llrid favour,' Gn 6» ISS »>« 33'- '» etc. ipn nt"^ Gn 24«. ". lo (used also by E, Gn 20" 21» 40"). Vi^ (euphemistic use). Gn 4>. ". »5 199 .7410 3328. [j7;] (Iliph.) Gn 303» 33l'i43»«». S .IT Gn IS^ 24I6. 10. l«. 22^ r': Gn 192 24=s. in>; Gn 2.V" (cf. Ex $'■ M 9M 10"). D;:§n Gn 2=3 IS3J 29s«- 30™ 4C3"; Tys for 'the younger,' Gn 2.'i2» 4;)M 48". i.nD'.y ' maid-servant ' (not n?;N), Gn 16= 30' etc. Tff.

T Gn 1S'» 1<J2«, (3) Grammar. — A preference for verbal sufH-xes, instead of PN with sutlixes. Phrases such as 'and it came to pass,' ^p ^hm, Iw'Np >n^i. Emphatic use of nt and PNT. Fondness for particles. I'se of precative Nl. The portions of Genesis which are generally assigned by critics to J are as follows : — oil)_4-.'l ,r,J9 (Jl-S 71-5. 12. li;h. 17. 22. 23 82b. 3a. 0-12. I3b. 20-22 l)l.s-27 lO*^'"- ='• 24-31) lll-'.l. 2,>»-30 JOl-la. 6-20 ];->l-5. 7-lln. I2I.-18 1(510.2.

4-14 lSl_ir)2,t3il-.TS O] la- 2a. 13 22'-^24 241_25«. lib. 18. 21-26a. 27-34 2(il-33 (exc. IC. lit) O-Jl-i.^ (mainly) 2810. 13-10. 19 2!)-'-I4. 10-35 (eic. 28b. '."S) 301-23 (mainly). 24-42 31I. 3 (25-27. 38-40). 40. 48-.10 324-14. 2.M2 3.31-17 04(largely)3r)21-22ar36.31-38-|3712-35(pnrlly) .■!8. 30. (238-4434 4(;-2s_475. 13-26. 27a. 2'.ksi 49ib-28a .501-11. 14 The majority of critics incline to the view that J was comjio.

sed by a dweller in the Southern king- dom ; and it is pointed out in support of this view tliat I lie dwelling-place of Abraham, and possibly also of Jacob, is, acconling to J, Hebron, and that the leader of Jo.seiih's brethren is Judah and not Heuben. Such arguments are obviously precarious ; but the alternative opinion, that the writer be- longed to the Northern kingdom, a.s Kuenen main- tains, does not reiit on any more convincing proofs.

((•) The E document in Genesis, like the J docu- ment, has ])reserved many of the most interesting features of the patriarchal narrative. To use J>river's phrase, its 'narrative 'is more "objec- tive," less consciously tinged by ethical and theological reflexion tiian that of" J.' We owe to it, however, the mention of many of the most striking details to be found in the book.

For instance, the traditions preserved in connexion with jiarticular localities in l'ah\stine are in E chronicled with minuteness, e.t/. the sacrifice on Mt. Moriah (22), the pillar at 'Bethel (281), and that at Gilead (.■il'). l'"- altar at Bethel (35'-3-:), and Rachel's burying-place (35'^). The story of Joseph is largely narrated from the sources which E preserved ; and it is to E that we are indebted for the record of the Philistine names Ahuz/.

ath and riiicol (21''-), and the lOgyptian names Votiphar (37'"), Zapheuath-paneuh and Asenath (4H''). VOL. II. — 10 The most important .sections from E embrace Abraham's relations with Abimelech in 211 and 21, the expulsion of llagar and Ishmael 20'*, '. the sacrifice of I.saac 22'-'''', Jacob's tlight from Ilaran and his league with Labaii 31, and the story of Joseph as related in 40. 41. 42 and 45.

It may be noticed that E makes frequent men- tion of the means of divine revelation, wliether by dream (^e.g. 2U' 21'-i 22^ 28" 31^' 37" 40) or by the ministration of angels {e.g. 21'" 22" 28i-). ' He interprets in a religious spirit what he record.s, and aims at bringing out the didactic .simiificance of events, e.g. Gn oO-"" (Ottley, BLx>. 119). Among the characteristics of E's style, the following deserve notice :— (1) The name forGod is ' Elohim ' O'^^S).

The sacred name nin^, according to E. was first revealetl to Moses. Accordingly it is not emploved by E until after Ex 3*. Other names are also employed by him, as ' El' '?N (Gn 88">8.5'40') and 'Adonai' 'Jlst (Gn 20»). The name •tiacob' is preferred by E, even after the narrative in Gn 32 with its account of the origiL- of the name Israel. (2) Use of icords and phrases— r"T'N"'?2Gn 21"." pDN Gn 42. »> 442». nnS, not TinB-.;', Gu 20" 21"'. ". •'. 30» 31". SpD (vb. and noun) Gn 203.

Sj'^r Gn 4.')'i 47'= M'-K 3 jS Gn 20». » 31»«. Archaic words preserved in E — njDN Gn 20". I=,'subst. = ' position.' Gn 40" 41". ad). = • lionest,' Gn 42". ■». "-». C'r::'Gn3F. ". ■vf? Gn4ll''. »41». ». (3) Grammatical ut,ages — (a) A markeil preference for the use of nt with the pronom. suttix instead of attaching the sutR.x to the verb. (6) Rare uses of the Intinitive — n-1-i for .17.?., Gn 4(V. v;:'j nu'jj. Gn si* 502». " .■ns-i' Gn 4S".

(c) The connexion of loosely attached passages by such phrases as n^-NT 2'-\3in -iriN <n'l Gn 22' 40' 4S>. And the colioijuial and somewhat redundant phrases prefixed to the interchange of speech, e.ff. 'And . . said (or, called), and he answered. Here am 1,' etc.. Gn 22*. '. " etc. The chief portions of the narrative a.ssigned to E are the following (and it will be observed that they are first to be identified in the story of Abra- ham) ; 15 (portions, according to some scholars), e.ri.

parts of vv. ' 2 '■^ 20'-'" 218-^= 22'-'- ''■' 28"-'^- 17." 18. 2i>-22 201- 15-18 ,30 (portlous), 31, -•■• <"«''• '•" 323. "ti>-22 335b. lSb-20 351-S. 16-2.1 372b-n. H«. 18. 10. 22-24. 2Sa. 28o-30. 3« 40 (showing simie influence of J) 41i-»-''. 5o-i7 42'-^ 451_405 481.'2. 8-'22 oO'^^. That E represents an Ephraimitic tradition is the generally accepted opinion.

This is based upon the prominence given in its narrative to places and persons with which tradition in the Xortliern kiii'gdom would presumably be closer in •sympathy than tradition in the Southern. Joseph, tiie father of Ephraiiu, is the most conspicuous per.sonage in the narrative ; and Reuben, not .ludah, is the foremost of liis brethren. ISethel and Shechein, both .sacred places in the Northern kingdom, are ])artieularly mentioned in E.

The sojourn of Abraham is not at Hebron, but at IJeersheba and tJerar ; that of Jacob, at Beersheba and Shechem. (d) The work of combining JE and P is attri- buted to the redactor or redactors (K), who 'cho.se from his sources what was most suited to the i>lan of his work.' His method is thus a<hiiirably and succinctly described by S])urrell : • Snnietiiiies he merely takes small extracts from (Uie document {/•.(I.

41', ' 111-' 30-'', '-, merely small jiorlionsof fuller accounts), or notices individual points {e.g. IV^ Jiska mentioned ; '20'- the relationship between IG GENESIS GENESIS Abiam and Sarai, c£. 28, [see oo"] 48, ). At other times the portions taken from tlie documents are quoted in full, and for the most part are verbally transferred from the original {e.g.

the narratives in V up to 11-''), and sometimes, ajiain, whole passages from one document are omitted, possibly because they were at variance with the accounts given by the others (see in P the brief accounts in ir-"^-^'- ; the omission of the introduction to the history of Abram, previous to ch. 12 ; of the divine manifestation to Isaac, see 35^^ ; of the so- journ of Jacob in Paddan-aram ; of all the his- tory of .loseph prior to Jacob's arrival in ICi^ypt). Frecjucntly extracts from .

1 arc given in an abridged form, in order that P may be reported more fully (cf. ^'f- 4^''-, the Story of Creation, and the Table of Nations, J), and IG'^f 21-'i'- 25'"-, 32< 3o=sf- P. Else- where, however, in the story of the patriarchs the extracts from J are abridged in favour of E. With the exception of the history of Joseph, E contains (from ch. 20 onwards) fewer jiassages which are verbally reported.

Usually the i)orlions in K are expanded by notices from J, or anything worth recording in E is incorporateil into the narrative of .1. When combining his sources, the compiler, as far as possible, or as far as he deemed necessary, appears to have taken the narrative verbally from each and inserted both in his book (cf. ch. 2 f. side by siilc with 1, ch. 27 side by side with 2Q^'- and 28'-'J; 48''-' side by side with 48', '2). Else- where, as.

for examiile, where tlic event need only be ipioted from one document {e.g. the birth or death of any person), he selects hLs account from one source, even though the same event be recorded in more than one document.

In other cases the compiler found two accounts in the documents before him, agreeing in the main but differing in details; he would then weave one account into the other, omitting from each what could not be reconciled, and choosing from both what, best suited tlie plan of his work (cf. chs. 7f. 10. 16. 2.') 27-37. 39-.')0). It was not always possible, without further revi-sion. to place side by side or to weld together the individual extracts from two or three sources.

So it was necessary to clinnnate what was contradictory from one or other of the docimients {f.g. 21'"i'' explanation of Ishmael's name, 32' of Mahanaim, 33" of Peniel, cf. 31-°), or to insert here and there small additions or remarks in order to fill up gaps and remove contradictions. So 4-» 10^^ 21" 2()ii>- '^- « 3.5' 37''i'- »!>. 3!)i- -" 43'-' 4(5'.

To the desire to produce a readable whole, may be attributed the accommodation necessary to preserve consistency iu the use of the names Abram an<l Sarai in all ])assages previous to ch. 17, of the double name Yahweh- Elohim in chs. 2-3 ; also the change of Elohim into Yahweh in 17' 21'. Another expedient was frequently employed with the same object in view, viz.

transposing entire portions of the narrative (so ll'-9 12'"-=o 2o»f- '"> 25-'"r- iV"-«), or of brief notices (so 2"- 31*-'''' 37-'' etc.), con.sequently R was obliged to insert all kinds of small additions ; cf. 1' 9' 13'- ^'- 24'-. In other passages the sources are loosely combined {e.g. T^-'>-''- lo"- 31'f-, ch. 36. 46, '^), the compiler now and then making additions of his own to bring the documents into harmony {e.g. 21^ 27" 3.5^ 46'2-ii). Explanatory glosses are also found {e.g.

20'* 31^' 3-5''', and ch. 14, where they are numerous), some of which may be due to a later corrector. All kinds of little additions occur, which are probably not derived from the sources themselves, but were inserted, either when the sources were welded together into one work, or some time after this.

These inser- tions were added partly to explain the object of the narrative (Io'^-'b 22''5-'s 26'^i'-^), partly to make it harmonize with statements occurring elsewhere (25''"' 3o'-^, perhaps 4'^»), and partly to introduce new notices, or new phases o! tra<iition which were not mentioned in the three chief documents (10 32"; perhaps 2'"-', and in 10"; ll-si" ol"" lo' 22-, etc.) Sometimes possibly u.se wa.s also made of materials taken from other sources than J. E, and P {e.g. perhaps in ch.

14).' — Spurrell, (iriirsis-, pp. Ixi-lxiii, Whether the work of comliining the narratives of .1 and E was effected by one writer, or was the result of a gradual process directed and influenced by a group or succession of "prophetic' men, nmst be left to conjecture. Some .scholars, however, are prepared to give an unhesitating reply. 'That the compiler of JE was a Judaan is clear,' says Erip]), 'from 22-'.

where he has sub- stituted " Moriah" for some Ejihraimite name ; and that he was not far removed from the Deuterono- mist we may see in ] S''-'- ^s-am^ j,i the kindred pa.s- sages 13"' 15. Ki"' 1818 22'"- '» 26* 32'-'' (cf. I)t !'» lO'^^^ 28"-), and still more jilainly in 26^ ' ( Tlie Composition of the Book of (iene.ii.i, p. 18). V. TiiK HisTiii;u'.u, Value of the Book.

— Doubtless, the views that are held upon the his- torical character of Genesis depend in great measure upon the coiu'eption which is entertained of ' in- spiration.' The book itself makes no claim to being in any way supernaturally furinshed with means of information. The writers and compilers appear to have made use of their materials in the same fashion as other writers of their day.

There is no indication in this, (U- in other books ot Scripture, that Revelation communicated to man a knowledge of facts that were ascertainable by human means. The early narratives of Genesis respecting the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood are based upon myths and traditions which the Israelites inherited in common with other branches of the Semitic family. The labours of Rawlinson.

Eenormant, George Smith, Schrader, Sayce, and others have shown inilisputalily the affinity of the Israelite with the Chald;ean cosmogony. And it has often been pointed out that the Israelite version of the myth is free from the puerilities and .superstitions inalienable from the polytheism of the I5abylonian versi(m. ' Where the Assyrian or Babylonian poet,' says Sayce, 'saw the action of deiiied forces of nature, the Hebrew writer sees oidy the will of the one supreme God' {UCMp. 71).

This assists us to form a judgment upon the true character of these earlj' chapters. The story of the beginnings of the world aiui of mankind is told, not with a scientific but with a religious jjurpose.

The old- world myths, or tales of Semitic folk-lore, were employed for the purpose of setting forth in their true light — as discerned through the revealing spirit of J" — the unchanging verities respecting the nature of God, of :nan, and of the created universe (cf, Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis). The story of the Flood is doubtless drawn from the reminiscence of a fearful dev.astalion by water at some very remote period.

The striking resem- blance between it and the so-called ' poem of Izdubar,' contained in the cuneiform texts tr.ans- lated by Geo. Smith (1872), illu.strates the similar treatment of semi-mythical, semi- historical material by the Israelite writers. The Genesis account presents many insuperable objections, if it were necessary to accept it as a literally accurate record.

But the purpose of the narration is not scientilic, but religious ; it is obviously intended to depict the divine displeasure against sin, and the divine favour towards the upright and God-fearing, On the other hand, there seems no reason to call in question the occurrence of some terrible overthrow by water that laid waste the Euphrates Valley, or the wonderful deliverance of a few indi- viduals.

The reminiscence of these events was GENESIS GENESIS 147 variously enshrined in versions of a common Semitic legend. Tlie imrnuive of the jKitriarchs stands midway between tiie Kiood Ii'adition and the Mosaic his- tory. An compared with tlie former, it marks a fireat advance in llie direction of the historic; relatively to the latter, it still belongs to a pre- historic age.

The narrative has come down to us through tlie medium of documents, whose com- position, in tlie form familiar to us, must have been separated by many centuries from the in- cidents which they relate. On the other hand, there is no reason to douht that the stories respect- ing the Israelite ancestors rest upon a foundation of historic fact. The attempts to resolve the patriarch.

s, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, into abstract personifications of tribes, or into primitive tribal gods, have admittedly failed. Without the patriarchs 'the religious position of Mo.ses.' says Kiltel (Hist, nf the Hebrews, p. 174). 'stands before us unsupported an<l incomprehensible.' It is verj' jio.

^sible, indeed most prol)able, that the picture which has been preserved of the patriarchs derives much of its colouring from the thought and cir- cumstances of a later period, and in particular from the prophetic treatment of the people's history. Nor can it be questioned that the relationship of tribes and clans is represented in the patriarchal narrative under the symbol of a family genealogy. The [irimitive connexion of Israel with the peoples round about — .

\miiioii, Moab, Amalek, Ishmael, Edom — is presented to us under the imagery of incidents occurring in the liistory of a single family during one or two generations. The stories of common folk-lore, deriving proper names from various incidents, are incorporated along with narratives of didactic purpose and deep spiritual import, c.y. the call of Abraham and the visions of Jacob. The memory of the great forefathers of the nation was idealized by the prophetic and priestly writers.

ISut they preserved a living tradition of real men and actual experience. 'i'he dithculty which besets the modern student is how to distinguish the substratum of actual history from the accretion of later legend and from the symbolism of Kastern description. The task is one which will probably defy all the attempts of existing .scholarship. Future discoveries may bring fresh light to bear upon the patriarchal narrative.

For the present, important a-s recent discoveries have been in illustrating the Genesis narrative, they have not supplied us with any certain data for its chronology. Thus, while the credibility of an Elamite invasion, as mentioned in Gu 14, has been conlirmed, in the opinion of competent scholars, Ijy the evidence of cuneiform inscriptions, we have not yet arrived at any settled conclusion as to the century to which the events should be assigned.

While the IJabylonian e(|uivalent to the name Abraham hii.s been found in the inscriptions, neithiT he nor Isaac nor Jacob nor .loseph have yet been identified in the monuments. The ideiititication of Y'kb'ar and Y'sp'r, by which some scholars transliterated Xos. 102 and 78 in the list of towns an<l places compiered by Tahutmes iii.

in his campaiiin against I'alcstine and Syria, with Yakobel and Yose])liel, Jacob and Joseph, would not, supposing it to be accurate, throw any light upon the historical problem. It would, at the mi>st, afford evidence that the names Jacob and Josc>]ili had been current in I'alesline as the names of localities and ilistrict.s -centuries before the time of Moses' (ef. DiUmann, Geji. ii. 4, Kng. tr.)

Again, while we gather from the Tel el-Ainarna tablets that the ofticials in the towns of I'alesline and riuenicia, as well as of Kgypt, were wont, in the lijth cent, n.c, to employ the cuneiform char- acter in their diplomatic and state correspondence, we are brought no nearer to the determination of the (piestion, when the Palestinian (Fheenician- Hebrew) writing was first adopted, or whether the nomad Hebrews employed writing.

To maintain that because cuneiform writing was practised in Palestine in the 1.5th cent, by othcial scribes for state correspondence, the ex- isting liatriarchal narratives are therefore ba.sed uiion Hebrew transcriptions of cuneiform chron- icles which were contemporary with the events, is to leap over several stages of the argiunent.

A comparison of the Tel el-Amarna tablets with the patriarchal narrative confronts us with the fact that no one from reading the Genesis account could form any conception of the political con- dition of Palestine, as it really was, during the patriarchal period. With the isolated exception of the reference to historical details in Gn 14'", the lives of the Hebrew patriarchs furnish no clue to the history of the centuries that cor- respond to the period of patriarchal sojourn in Palestine.

The story of Joseph shows abundant signs of acquaintance with Egyptian life and customs. But there is no appearance of its having been committed to writing in Egj'pt or by any con- temporary. The dynastic name of the king of Egj'pt is alone given, i.e. I'haraoh ; but we are nowhere told either his own name or that of the capital in which he resided.

Accordingly, while some have contended that the mention of the Egyptian hatred for strangers indicates a period subsequent to the domination of the Hyksos, others have held that the elevati<m of Joseph, a shepherd by birth, to the highest office in the kingdom coidd have occurred only under a llyksos dynasty.

The Egyjrtian monuments have hitherto failed to give the name of Joseph ; and the mention of a prolonged famine in the el-Kab inscription illustrates, but cannot with any certainty be identified with, the Genesis narrative. The mea.sures taken by Joseph (Gn 47) i:i consequence of the famine doubtless corresiJond to Egyptian institutions known to the writer ; but hitherto no account of them has been found in other quarters.

The evidence of the monuments, which has in recent years so copiously illustrated the biblical narrative, has not yet contributed with any cer- tainty to the establishment of the literal historical accuracy of the patriarchal story. The result may be disappointing ; but the evi- dence at our disposal does not at present ju.siify us in claiming more than that the general outline of the narrative is historical, and that the Mosaic epoch presupposes the patriarchal age.

'Tlie historian may com|)lain with Kuenen (see ']')!>• liil'fjinii of Israel, vol. i. p. 113) that the strictly historical kernel which can be safely extracted from such a book as Genesis is vague and more or less indefinite. The fact is that the great ligures of the patriarchal period are presented to us in narratives '-of which," says Prof. G. A. Smith, ■• it is .simply impossible for us at this time of day to establish the accuracy."

We have simply to accept the fact that in the present state of our know- ledge there are no clear criteria by which to distinguish precisely the historical nucleus con- tained in the patriarchal narratives from the idealized picture. If there is uncertainly on this point, we can only ccmclude that knowledge of the pnci.se details of the history is not of vital im- portance' (Ottley, /?/>p. lattf.) vi. Tin: HKi.itiiDfsTK.vniiNO or thk Hook.

— A consideration of the religious value of Genesis reveals to us its true character and luirpose. The Scriptures were written for religious instruction ; and in no book of the OT are the trciisures of 148 GENESIS GEXNESAHET, LAND OF theoliigy to be found so close, as it were, beneath the surface as in the Book of (jcnesig. 1. The foumlalions of a true and spiritual relijiinn are contained in llie teacliini; of tlie early chapters of Genesis.

Tlirouirh the medium of tlu' prehistoric legend, the Israelite writers coiiinuniicaled to their countrymen tliat which was revi'aled to them by the Divine Spirit concerning the lieing and Nature of God, the origin and first perfection of the God- created universe, the origin of man, the nature and growth of sin, God's love toward man and His purpose of redemjition.

The narratives of the Creation and of the Fall present pictorially spiritual truths respecting man"s nature, his need of restora- tion, and Ills capacity for a progressive dcvelopnteiit. 2. In the narrative of tlie patriarchs the redemp- tive purpose is unfolded by the gradual process of election (]{oi)i'), the principle of which had already been indicated in the contrast of Gain and Abel, of the Cainites and the Sethites. The well-known .stories of Abraham, Isaac, and .

Jacob were selected and arrange<l to minister to the purpose of re- ligious teaching ; and foremost stood the thought that God's love liad alone determined the choice of the man and of the family from which should come the nation destined to be the channel of blessing to the world (Gn 123 1314 1.55 170 jgir-w 22'« 2G-'i 3.511 .18'"). 'Phis principle of election is pointedly emphasized in the providence which shields Sarai ami Rebekah (Gn 12. 20.

2(1) from harm, and grants to them the gift of children in a quasi- miraculous manner (Gn IV", '" 18'i-i5 21'W*252n- 21- 26). The narrative, too, lays stress upon the divine choice by disposing of the collateral lines in the cho.sen family before passing on to the detailed account of the particular person on whom God's favour has rested (c.f/. the family of .lapheth, Ham, and Shem, Gn 10, "• -i ; the generations of Shem and 'I'd-ah, 11'"- -"^ ; the story of Lot, 18.

10 ; the collateral branches of Abraham's family, pre- ceding the story of Isaac, 2o'- w ; the generations of Esau, preceding the story of Joseph, 30). 3. Akin to this treatment of election is the prominence given to the conception of God as One who was in communion with the children of men, though in an especial manner He revealed Himself to those whom he had chosen. That God showed favour to Abel's sacrifice is thus scarcely more signilicant than that He held converse with Cain the nmrderer.

That He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was not more suggestive of His relation towards mankind than His appearance to Abimelech (20^) and to Laban (31-*). The honour paid by Abraham to Melchizedek typified the recognition of divine power and love transcend- ing the Hunts of a national covenant (Gu 14). At the same time, the story of ' the priest of God Mo.

st High' (14'") illustrated the possession of that basis of instructive national religion, the abiding witness of God within man, upon which alone the structure of revelation could stand. With the people of His choice, God is represented as holding communion under the mo.st anthropomor- phic conditions (e.g. Gn 1(3. 18. 28). But the con- stitution of the covenant with Noah is ratified by the sacrament of the ' bow ' (9*-'"), and the covenant with Abraham by that of 'circumcision' (IV).

And the lesson was thus conveyed to Israel that the phenomena of the physical world are pledges and emblems of a moral purpose overruling all, and that a common — if not almost universal — rite among Semitic races could be set apart and conse- orated for the spiritual purposes of the service of the Ciod of revelation. 4.

The principle of progressiveness in the re- ligious teaching of Israel is illustrated in Genesis by the three great stages of divine self-manifesta- tion in the history of mankind, represented by the judgment in the Garden of Eden, by the visitation of the Klood, and by the calling of Abraham. Similarly, the record of God's dealings with the chosen man, the chosen family, .and the cho.sen clan, lead up to the formation of the chosen nation, the history of which commences in the IJook of K.

Kodus. The tir.-it anticipations of the Messianic hope are expressed in the promise of victory over the power of evil proclaimed in the so-called I'rot- evangelium of Gn 3'^. These receive a narrower definition in the lU'oini.se made to Abiaham that all the families of the earth should bless them- selves in him ((in 12''- *).

InGn 4il" the allusion to a pcrsomil Messiah has been much disputed ; hut, whatever explanation be given of the wonls rendered 'until Shiloli come,' the significance of this passage in the ancient 'blessing of .lacob' consists in its identification of the ultimate glory of Lsrael with the sovereignty impersonated by Jud.ah. Space forbids us to go further into detail re- specting the religious teaching of Genesis.

It has been well sunnned up in the following words: 'The Book of Genesis is the true ami original birthplace of all theology. It contains those iileas of God and man, of righteousness and judgment, of responsibility and moral government, of failure and hope, whicii are piesupposcd through tlie rest of the Old Testament, .and which jirepare the way for the mission of Christ ' (Girdlestone, The Funmla- tions of the Bible, p. 155). LrrnKATCKH. — For the structure of GiMicsis, tlio F.

nplish stiulent is now well eciuipped witll tlu- rcreni literiUure on tho .sulijeet: Driver. LOT; .\<i(iis. Docmiifntt of the Ilixatfiu-lt : Frip[i, ' 'om intfiitiou of the Book of Gen fxiH ; C. 1. liiill. * Honk of Geiie-sis.' ,SBf)T; nutl Spurrell, Kotes on the Text of deneifiH. The fullest eoniplete coniinentaries are those Ity Diilrnnnn and Delitzseli (hoth now translated into Enplisli ; Kdinliurtrli : '1', .t T. C'lark).

Tlie foreit,'n liooks which should tie eonsiilled are those on the struetnre \>y Ilolzinfrer {FinleitiiitiD, Kaiit/srh- Socin.'Wellhausen (/>/*■ t'om/tonitiou den Iiexiiteitehn. lss'.>), ( hi Genesis and the Monuineiits: .Snyce, HCM; Sehr.ider. f'OT; and the writings of Gecu-iie Smith, Maspero. Pinches. Ilau])I, and others. On the Theolofry of Genesis: the OT Tlieoloyt/ of Sehuitz, Oehler, Kiehiii. The reader may also consult Miss AVedjiwood.

Meftnnge of Jsntel ; Watson, The Jlook Genesis : Ottlev, .Anjteetttoft/te Old Tent. ; Westcott, Fail/t of the Goajiet ; Ki le, Kurlii Xnrrativea of Genesis. II. E. RYLK. GENN^US, AV GENNEUS (Tfi.raros, r^wcos A, 2 Mac 12-). — The father of Apollonius, who was the Syrian commander (crrpaTJiyis) of a district in Pal. under Antiochus v. Eupator.