ii'':*-.[\ :■ ri^i tjtJ( i'tr." aa*R GENESIS AND ITS AUTHOESHIP TWO DISSERTAT10:^rS. I. ON THE IMPORT OF THE INTEODUCTOEY CHAPTEES OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. II. ON THE USE OF THE NAMES OF GOD IN'THE BOOK OF GENESIS, AND ON THE UNITY OF ITS AUTHOESHIP. EEVISED EDITION. WITH NOTICE OF ANIMADVERSIONS BY THE BISHOP OF NATAL. JOHN QUAEEY, D.D. BHCTOR OF DONOUGHMORE AND PREBENDARY OP CLOYNE. WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 14, HENEIETTA STEEET, COVENT GAEDEN, LONDON; AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. MDCCCLXXIII. HERTFORD : Stephen Austin and Sons, Printers. NOTICE OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF THE BISHOP OF NATAL. In "The New Bible Commentary Critically Examined," Bishop Colenso has spoken of the following work, or rather of its author, as I take it for granted he has never read the book itself, in terms which call for a few remarks from me in reply. In the Preface of Part I. pp. viii. ix., he complains that the Bishop of Ely has briefly referred to me as having " carefully and elaborately investigated " the linguistic differences between the Elohistic and Jehovistic passages of Genesis, instead of making any such investiga- tion for himself; and again, in p. 72, he makes the same complaint. I should have supposed that any occasion for the Bishop of Ely to enter on such an investigation himself would have depended on the in- suflSciency of my discussion of these differences, and that Bishop Colenso had no right to blame the Bishop of Ely for contenting himself with a reference to me, without showing that I had failed in my attempt to account for them. Instead of this, however, he absolves himself from any consideration of my discussion of the matter with this contemptu- ous remark: "From the specimen which we have had in (6 ii.) above of Mr. Quarry's mode of reasoning, so much approved by Bp. Browne, I am not surprised at this," namely, at the Bishop's reference to my work. Turning now to the specimen by which he justifies this contempt (6 ii.) pp. 57.58, we find the Bishop of Ely quoted as saying, in regard to the repetition of the name Elohim in i. 1 — ii. 3, "The passage is scarcely more really marked as Elohistic by the name Elohim occur- ring thirty-five times, than if it had occurred but once ; for its having occurred once would in,evitaUij lead to its continued and frequent recurrence," in support of which my table of alternations of the names in p. 401 of this work is cited in a note by his Lordship. To this quotation Bishop Colenso subjoins, "^ws. * Would inevitaUy lead, etc' ! Then let the reader turn to" — certain passages to which I purpose shortly to revert. And he adds, " In short, the table of Mr. Quarry, to which XIV NOTICE, Bp. Browne appeals in a note with so much, confidence as — showing how different the virtual occurrence of the respective names is from the apparent superficial occurrence on which so much has been built — is a simple absurdity when we take account of the above passages." To this he appends a note, in which he says, " By reckoning thirty-five Elohims in Gen. i. 1 — ii. 3, three in v. 22-26, five in vi. 9-22, four in ix. 1-6, two in v. 1, viii. 1, ix. 1-6, each set as otie, and similarly with Jehovah, Mr. Quarry considers himself to have proved that "as evidence of any predilection for either name, the case is just as if in Gen. i. — si. Elohim had occurred singly fifteen times, and Jehovah twelve times." Just remarking on this note that I plainly did not consider myself to have proved this by reckoning as thus stated, but by the reasons assigned for reckoning in this manner, and that Bishop Colenso thus misrepresents my reasoning, of which he speaks so contemptuously, I now turn again to p. 72, in which I find him further saying that the Bishop of Ely, " after Mr. Quarry, has been * constructing a theory in spite of facts,' since, according to his view — see above (6 ii.) — the writer having once begun with using Jehovah, should ' inevitably ' have gone on repeating it throughout the section." On this passage T remark as follows : — 1. The sentence is constructed with singular ambiguity. A person reading in a cursory way would probably refer the pronoun his in the clause " according to his view, " to me as the person last mentioned. Still, however, it may be alleged that it was intended to be referred to the Bishop of Ely as the principal subject of the sentence. Whether this ambiguity was accidental or not, it seems plain that the author intended to represent me as equally responsible with the Bishop of Ely for the alleged view, and for the use of the word inevitably, or of something equivalent, as giving to the argument the absurdity he so confidently imputes to it, shewing the stress he lays on this word by previously quotiug it twice in Italics. 2. The Bishop of Ely is misrepresented in the sentence, so far as the reference is to him. He merely spoke of the use of a particular name at the outset as inevitably leading to its repetition, which only expresses strongly the natural tendency, what it would inevitably suggest. The author, however, represents the Bishop of Ely as thinking, " after me," that a person having once begun with a particular name, should " inevitably " have gone on repeating it. It will at once be seen how different are the Bishop of Ely's words and this interpretation of them, separated as it is by a considerable number of pages from the words themselves. It is plainly one thing to say that a particular act in- evitably leads to its repetition, and another that the repetition should inevitably take place. Perhaps the Bishop of Ely will think that he may apply to Bishop Colenso the words of the latter respecting himself, NOTICE. XV p. 24, and " assume that this is the result of mere carelessness on his part, and not of a deliberate purpose to misrepresent his argument." 3. And now as regards myself, I never used the words at all, either expressly or by implication. The Bishop of Ely merely expressed his own opinion, and supported it by a reference to the conclusions I had arrived at. And as I never used the phrase on which so much stress is laid, still less would I have said anything implying that this continued use of a name once adopted was in any way necessary. How should I, when I had laid it down first as a principle, p. 264, that "supposing that the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, were co-existing names of the same nature and equivalent in their meaning, it would be nothing remarkable for the same writer, if only for the sake of variety, to use both indiscriminately and indifferently " ? But I further say in the same connection, " At the same time it would not be unlikely that a writer, having from whatever cause set out with one or other of these names, should in any short piece complete in itself, such as a psalm or brief narrative of some particular events or circumstances, occasionally adhere to the use of the same name throughout." This was on the supposition that the names were equivalent ; but having shown at length that the names were not equivalent, the one being a proper name and the other generic, I then, p. 267, mention the occasions which may naturally arise for variation in their use in the same discourse. As regards the tendency to continue the use of the name first adopted, I remarked on Gen. i. 1-ii. 3, in reference to the argument founded on the number of times Elohim is repeated in this passage, that "as regards any weight attached to the frequency of Elohim in the present passage, the argument is perfectly futile. If the writer had both names in common use, and was otherwise indifferent as to his choice, the general unity of this passage in substance and in form, and the regularity with which at each succeeding mention of God, he is introduced as it were with a standing formula, " and God said," " and God saw," " and God created," "and God blessed," would have naturally occasioned the use of the same name throughout, God being mentioned in no other con- nection after the introductory verses. And then the subject matter being uniformly such as made the general name more suitable, the whole must be regarded, not as representing 35 independent instances of the use of Elohim, as the Bishop treats it, but as if it were used only once, all the repetitions of it being of no more weight in this enquiry than the pronoun which might all through be substituted for it after the first use of the word." This remark is referred to in the general survey of the first eleven chapters in pp. 400 ff., and then I add that " the same remark may be made in reference to many other passages, in which one or other name having been, for whatever reason, once XVI NOTICE. adopted, its repetitioa through the remainder of the passage is a matter of coarse, and does not add ia an}' respect to the character of the passage, as Elohlstic or Jeliovistic. The use of the compound n.ime Jehovah Klohim is indifferent, and indicates no preference for either. Setting aside the places where this occurs, and reducing to one the number of times in which the same name is repeated as a matter of course, in sequence with its first adoption, the justness of which in each case the reader can judge for himself, the alternation of the names will be as follows," viz. as set out in the table referred to by the Bishop of Ely, together with the sentence that succeeds it. To that sentence I sub- join what follows : " Had these names been thus thinly scattered, and their places in other instances been supplied as they might, and in other languages would for the most part have been, by pronouns or other devices, it is probable the Jehovist and Elohist, as separate writers, would never have been dreamt of. It is only the Oriental, or at any rate the Hebraistic, habit of repetition which we Westerns try to avoid, that has given a supposititious importance to the recurrence and alternations of these names." This is what I have said on the subject in its general aspect, while in going through the successive portions of the booli in detail, I endeavoured to account for the repetitions or changes as they occur on simple, natural, and reasonable grounds. And in doing this, I have not overlooked the passages in Genesis to which the Eishop of Natal refers in proof of the simple absurdity attributed to my table of alternations. It will now be apparent why I took for granted that the Bishop of Natal had not read this work. "While I have no right to suppose he was bound to make himself acquainted with it, it certainly behoved him, both as a matter of literary caution, and in common fairness, either to have taken no notice whatever of it and of me, or to have first ascer- tained what I really did say on this subject. The passages not contained in Genesis to which Bishop Colenso refers as proof of the alleged absurdity of my table are in Ex. iii. and Numb. xxii. A few words will show that these passages are quite consistent with anything I have said. In Ex. iii. Horeb is called *' the Mount of God" in v. 1, this being in the writer's mind its well-known designation, derived either from the common usage to express a supeiiative, or from the divine mani- festations there made. But this use of Elohim occasions no repetition of that word, as the account of the appearance in the burning bush commences immediately alter in v. 2. Now the regular and all but invariable expression used to denote the personal manilestations of God in a sensible form is " the Angel of Jehovah." This, there- fore, comes in properly in v. 2, and in sequence with it Jehovah NOTICE. XVU again occurs in v. 4, in accordance with the alleged tendency that has given rise to this discussion. But as the Lord might have seen Moses turn aside without being himself sensibly present in the bush, the writer indicates that the actual manifestation in the bush was divine, God himself, not a created angel, by saying that *' Elohim spake to him out of the bush," the generic Eiohim being, as I have abundantly shown, the proper word to murk the dis- tinction between the divine and the created. Then again in v. 6, Elohim, the generic word, is properly used in the predicate, "the Elohim of Abraham," etc. To have said *' I am the Jehovah of Abraham " would have been absurd. But as it was Jehovah that was the subject of this proposition, represented by the pronoun I, so it is still Jehovah that speaks in v. 7. Here, however, comes a break by the intervention of several verses. The name Jehovah is now about to be formally communicated to Moses, first by the form "I am," Ehejeh, in the first person, and then in the third person, Jahveh or Jehovah. To make the narrative more dramatically correct, it is therefore to Elohim Moses is said to have spoken in v. 11, and this word continues to be used until God announces himself as " I am," Jehovah Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, etc., vv. 14-16, in sequence with which we have again in v. 18, Jehovah Elohim of the Hebrews, Jehovah our Elohim. Thus all the instances of alternation and repetition are in the highest degree in accordance with the principles laid down by me on this subject. In Numb, xxii, there is a great dramatic propriety also observable. It was not as an ordinary magician, but as one who professed the worship of Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, and affected to prophesy by hisaid, that Balaam was resorted to by Balak. Accordingly, while in the early part of the narrative, Elohim is used by the writer speaking in his own person, Jehovah alone is put into Balaam's mouth, except in v. 18, where he calls Jehovah his God. This continues until v. 23, where God appears to Balaam as the Angel of Jehovah, this customary desig- nation being here used as in Ex. iii., and continuing through this part of the narrative with the interchange of Jeho\ah by itself twice, in sequence with it, or to mark the identity of the Angel of Jehovah with Jehovah himself. A new portion of the narrative commences with V 36, and in v. 38 Balaam speaks of the word that Elohim should put into his mouth, distinguishing it thus as divine from his own word as human. In xxiii. 3, he hopes Jehovah will come to meet him, while the narrator in v. 4 uses Elohim as before, telling us that God did meet him, though, with manifest reference to Balaam's expectation, he says in v. 5 that Jehovah put a word in his mouth. Jehovah being thus adopted by the writer continues to be used by him in his own person, XVlll NOTICE. except in xxiv. 2, where he says the Spirit of God, a divine not a human influence, came upon Balaam. So also, as before, Balaam in con- versation with Balak uses Jehovah as the name of his God, while Balak uses Elohim, as not being himself a worshipper of Jehovah, but speaks of Jehovah as being Balaam's God, a real god, according to the true spirit of the heathen. But in all the poetical predictions of Balaam, called parables in our English version, with the variation common in the parallel clauses of Hebrew poetry, he uses several different designa- tions of the Divine Being. And it is remarkable that throughout these poetic oracles he never uses the plural form Elohim, except in xxiii. 19, where he calls Jehovah Israel's Elohim, a phrase familiar to the writer's mind, but always the singular El, as if to mark his belief in the unity of God, in opposition to Balak's polytheism. In xxiii. 8, God is El and Jehovah, in 19-24 El, Elohim, and Jehovah; in xxiv. 3-9, El, Shaddai, and Jehovah; in 16-23, he is El, Elion, and Shaddai. Thus these several designations are gathered up into identity with the personal Jehovah, in close conformity with a similar identification which I have noticed in pp. 297-299 as carefully made by the writer of the Book of Genesis. In all this there is great dramatic propriety, great evidence of design on the writer's part, quite enough to overbear any natural tendency to use one name throughout, and to account for the various interchanges. As in the remaining parts of his examination, the Bishop of Natal has entirely ignored my work, I am not called on to notice further any of his remarks. But I take one ** specimen," to use his own word. In p. 65 he revives his advocacy of the genuineness of the celebrated Clarian Oracle, relying on the authority of Land for the purity of its Greek and the correctness of its versification. Of course he takes no notice of what I have said on the subject in pp. 303-4 ; and passing over sub silent io his former translation of the oracle which I have criticised, he now offers a new translation, in which he corrects his mis-rendering of aXaTraSvo'i, so far as to substitute sliffht for adroit, and takes iravpr} as a nominative instead of the dative wavprj, without, however, much mending the sense, as I have shown. Perhaps it was with some feeling of this fact that now, as before, he introduces the indefinite article. But if by *'« little sense and a slight understanding," he intends our elliptical way of recommending a little of sense and a slight degree of understanding, however this may somewhat help the meaning, it is not what the Greek construction signifies, nor is. slight, as denoting quantity, a proper rendering of akairaovoii. He also proposes to sub- stitute v7]iT€v6ea for vqirevOea, a variant that might easily have arisen in copying the modern cursive Greek, but was not so likely to occur in NOTICE. XIX the more ancient uncial character. But to say nothing of the question- ahle lawfulness of conjectural emendation for controversial purposes,' if this change has the advantage of introducing a real in place of a doubtful Greek word, matters are not mended as regards the sense ; for this emendation takes away the little grain of meaning the verse other- wise possessed. For while there was some reason in saying that one ought not to divulge mysteries that were ineffable in the sense of such as should not be mentioned, or rather were not to be enquired into, as the word would more properly signify, to call them " soul-soothing " is to give a reason for divulging, not for concealing them. It is astonishing how uncritical upon occasion, and even credulous, the sceptical mind can be ! Indeed, the entire tone of this examination, as regards the Bishop of Ely, is by no means consistent with the calm, judicial spirit of a true critic. 1 In reference to another conjectural reading, approved of by the Bishop in place of the silly afipbf law of the last line, 1 suggested, p. 304, note, that if emendation of this kind were admissible we might read 'E0paiou law, instead of S'dPpov idoj. I raigbt have justified this by another pretended oracle of Apollo cited by Justin, Cohort, p. 12 B., Par 1615, and by Porphyry, apud Euseb. Prsep. Ev. ix. 10., Par. 1628. As given by Justin it is as follows : — Movvoi Xa\8a7ot (To^lrii' Xdxou, ^S '&p 'Ej3pa7o«, 'AvToyevriTov ayaKTa aefia^dixevot Qihi/ ayuws. Eusebius reads avroyevfdKov. GENESIS AND ITS AUTHOESHIP. I. ON THE IMPORT OF THE INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 0 CHAPTERS I., II. 1-3. THE SIX DAYS' CREATION. I. There is no respect in which those who are adverse to the notion of the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and of an external revelation as contained therein, have supposed that they were in possession of a more advantageous ground from which to direct their attacks, than in the recent discoveries of geological enquirers, and the facts that these have brought to light in regard to the ancient history of our globe and of its living occupants. And nothing has occasioned the advocates of divine revelation a greater amount of perplexity, or placed them in a more unfavourable point of view, than the efforts which they have thought it necessary to make with the view of recon- ciling the accounts of the creation contained in the book ot Genesis with the facts revealed by these discoveries. In the infancy of geological science indeed it presented no obstacle to the reception of the Mosaic account of creation regarded as a literal history, setting forth the successive steps in which it was accomplished in six days of ordinary duration ; while the dis- covery of fossil shells high up on the mountain ranges was sup- posed to afford a striking confirmation of the book of Genesis 1 ^ GENESIS AND ITS AIJTHORSHIP. in respect to another particular of no slight importance, namelyj the history of the deluge. Geology and its speculations, carried on in the interest of revelation, were at that time discountenanced by the infidel, and absurd hypotheses were framed to account for appearances which were supposed to be confirmatory of the Scriptural narrative of that event, such as Voltaire's supposition that the fossil shells of the Alpine passes were left behind by pilgrims, who, on their return from the Holy Land, had brought them as memorials of their pilgrimage.^ The inadequacy of such an explanation was evident enough, and believers in the Scrip- ture history triumphed in this appeal to " the testimony of the rocks." Many that have long known the true state of the case are old enough to remember being taught that the deluge had left incontestible evidences of itself in the shells to be foimd on the tops of mountains — a notion which it is to be feared the general progress of education and difiusion of knowledge have scarcely yet banished from the minds of some. How completely matters have been changed in this respect in these later times it is unnecessary to say. The advocates of revelation have latterly, through their own mistaken tactics, found themselves in the miserable condition of an army obliged to retreat before an advancing enemy, continually taking up new positions to be presently abandoned again, and ever in momentary expectation of being driven from the en- trenchments that seemed to promise the greatest security. The theories that have been framed from time to time to meet the advancing state of scientific discovery, from their variety and inconsistency with one another no less than by their separate insufficiency, have failed to give satisfaction ; even the most confident of their propounders must have felt that at best their explanations were only provisional. Such as have been any time before the world are too well known to those who take an interest in these matters to make it needful to describe them in detail, and their inconsistencies with one another as ' Diet, rhilos., Art. CoquiUes. THE SIX DAYS CREATION. well as with the plain statements of the Biblical document itself have been amply exposed in Mr. Goodwin's article in the "Essays and Eeviews," in a spirit, however, devoid of any desire to sus- tain the character of that document as an inspired communication. These theories have proceeded in general either on the sup- position that the successive stages of creation revealed by the researches of geologists had wholly come to an end, and that the earth was again reduced to a state of chaos, before the supposed new creation of the six days of Moses, representing the present state of nature, commenced ; — a supposition which is negatived by the fact that such a general submersion of the earth as it implies, subsequent to any of the recognised geo- logical periods, or indeed any decided and absolute break of continuity in the transition from the most recent of the older states to the present order, is not only without evidence, but contrary to all evidence afforded by geological observation. Or else they have supposed the successive days of the Mosaic account to represent the successive geological periods, this hypothesis in its most ingenious form, as presented by the late Hugh Miller, assuming that the creatures specified were not the only ones created on the successive days, but such as were specially characteristic of the successive periods. While Hugh Miller adopted the notion of an optical display of creation in its progress, as represented in a vision to Moses, more recently Professor Challis, in his Essay, " Creation in Plan and in Pro- gress," supposes that the first chapter of Genesis presents not a history of the actual progressive operations of the Creator, but a proleptical or anticipatory representation of the scheme of creation, as devised by the Almighty. This he brings into accordance, as he thinks, with facts, by assuming, like Miller, that the point fixed in each successive period is not that of first appearances ; but, instead of Miller's characteristic productions, he supposes that of maximum operation.^ This he says embraces ^ Professor Challis is not consistent in his notion of what constitutes maximum operation or development. In p. 67, "the enormous development of flora in the 4 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the preceding steps of development and the subsequent de- scending steps, while "the intervals over which their unfold- ings were spread, overlapped each other," pp. 70, 71. In order to make the account, even on this supposition, accord with facts, he is obliged to confine the creatures of the sea, said to have been created on the fifth day, to reptiles, relying on the in- sufficient rendering of the Septuagint {epTrera), and the word denoting flying creatures to the winged monsters such as pterodactyls. Thus, though he supposes all kinds of winged animals to be included,^ yet he regards the word as properly and, according to the principle of maximum development, pri- marily to signify a sort of creature quite unknown to those in whose language the word was properly applicable to birds. Fishes he excludes altogether, like birds, from any express recognition, though he supposes them to be included with the cetaceans as the maximum development of the marine tribe, these being brought out of their own period, the tertiary into the secondary, merely on account of their marine habitat ; animals not really belonging to this period at all being thus specified as characterising it in regard to an important part of its living creatures. But even apart from these difficulties, our knowledge of the characteristic productions, or the creatures carboniferous period, greatly exceeding the amount of like productions, before or after," has manifest refereuce to quantity in the aggregate, rather than in the size of individual productions, while in respect to the secondary and tertiary periods, he speaks of the "development of animal life, remarkable as to form and magnitude," such as gigantic species of quadrupeds. In p. 74, he observes there is " no geological evidence of an epoch of the maximum production of fishes. While the species changed very gradually, the individuals were always in nearly the same abundance." Here development in regard to number is plainly intended. But presently he adds that " the epocb of the cetaceans is regarded as that of the maximum development of the marine tribe of animals," as evidenced by the mention of "the great whales," where size not number is the criterion. 1 It is only very recently that birds have been supposed to have existed at all prior to the tertiary period, the first clear instance of the remains of a bird in deposits of an earlier period having been portions of the skeleton of a swimming bird, found in the upper greensaud of the cretaceous series, near Cambridge, in 1858, [the geological age of the footprints previously found in America having been doubted by competent authorities]. Since then the Archasoptcryx Macrurus, now in the British Museum, was found near Solenhofen, in Bavaria, in a member of the upper oolite. See Lyell's Antiquity of Man, p. 451. These rare instances do not certainly justify any reference to them in a description intended to represent the creatures of maximum development, as regards numbers, while in respect to size they are by no means remarkable. THE SIX DAYS CREATION. 0 of maximum development, belonging to particular geological formations supposed to have been contemporaneous, is founded on a very imperfect induction ; we bave not the evidence to be derived from vast regions as yet unexplored by geologists, which may hereafter greatly modify our view of what is cha- racteristic of any particular period, while the larger part of the globe submerged beneath the ocean must for ever remain un- explored.^ But, moreover, all theories, on whatever principle they proceed, agree in one particular, the recent creation of man ; except indeed, that on the scheme of Professor Challis, he might perhaps have existed during the tertiary period. No other scheme at any rate makes any provision for the possible future discovery of human remains in any of the geological periods, as distinguished from the present order of things on the earth's surface. Accordingly the advocates of the purely historical character of the Mosaic account, have within a very recent period been much disturbed by the seemingly unques- tionable discovery of the works of man in the heart of an ancient gravel drift, at Abbeville in Picardy, and like discoveries else- where. The artificial character of these remains, consisting of flint arrowheads, knives, and hatchets, and the antiquity of the deposits in which they were found, were at first disj)uted. Careful investigation, however, removed all doubt on these points. And now Sir Charles Lyell, in his work on the " Antiquity of Man," has brought together a large amount of evidence, which has since received considerable accessions, highly convincing to any one at all acquainted with the nature of geological discussions ; — evidence derived from England, the ^ Thus Sir Charles Lyell, Antiquity of Man, p. 448, eloquently remarks, "that it is not part of the plan of nature to write evei'ywhere, and at all times, her auto- biographical memoirs. On the contiary, her annals are local and exceptional from the first, and portions of them are afterwards ground into mud, sand, and pebbles, to furnish materials for new strata. Even of those ancient monuments, now forming the crust of the earth, which have not been destroyed by rivers and the waves of the sea, or which have escaped being melted by volcanic heat, three-fourths lie submerged beneath the ocean, and are inaccessible to man ; while of those which form the dry land, a great part are hidden for ever from our observation by mountaiu masses, thousands of feet thick, piled over them." 6 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Continent of Europe, and America, by wliich it is clear that man was co-existent with the mammoth and mastodon, the cave-bear, and cave-hyena, and other extinct quadrupeds. The bones of these, in some instances sjDlit for the extraction of the marrow, have been found with human bones and artificial implements, in circumstances quite inconsistent with the sup- position of a cataclysmal sweeping together at some more recent period — circumstances which leave no doubt that the earth was peopled by the human race at a vastly more early period than was previously at all imagined. These unexpected indications of the antiquity of the himian race, and the fact that the result of fresh geological discovery has ever been to push back the existence of different creatures to an earlier period than that in which they had been previously supposed to have lived, as instanced in the recent discovery of the feathered tribe within the secondary period, create a strong anticipation that human remains may also be ere long dis- covered in some of these earlier periods of the earth's existence. Under these circumstances it would be rash in the highest degree to build one's faith on a negative evidence that may at any moment be converted into positive evidence of an oppo- site tendency; and we see how desirable it would be for the advocates of the divine authority of the Biblical records to find some principle of interpretation, which would set them free from all apprehension of discoveries that might seem at variance with such records, and would be far more in accord- ance with the uses of a divine revelation than any representa- tion of the progress and order of the physical development of creation. II. The marvel, indeed, is that those who are thus perplexed by the discoveries of modern geology shoidd not remember, that even supposing these discoveries had never been made, or were of quite an opposite character to what they really are, or that we were still in respect to geological science in that state of happy innocence which prevailed when Voltaire resorted to the THE SIX DAYS CREATION. / Jiotable expedient to account for the existence of fossil shells on the heights of mountains which was adverted to just now, quite as serious an astronomical difficulty would still remain — a diffi- culty felt to be so great when the Copernican system was first established as to occasion the persecution and forced retractation of Galileo, and to induce the Jesuit editors of Newton's Principia to save their reputation by disclaiming a belief in the reality of that system which formed the basis of the great work on which they were commenting. Long habit has enabled men now to blink this difficulty ; or if instead of shutting their eyes to it, many have wisely given up the strictly historical character of the narrative in this particular, it is strange that they should feel bound still to maintain that character with respect to the works assigned to the other days beside the fourth. The more rational view would seem to be that, if the narrative cannot be taken in respect to this fourth day's work in its literal historical acceptation, it is necessary, in order to preserve the imity of character which the whole passage evidently possesses, to abandon that acceptation as regards the remainder. Some indeed, as- Professor Challis, and more recently Dr. M'Caul, "Mosaic Record of Creation," in "Aids to Faith," con- front the astronomical difficulty. The former supposes a dense stratum of cloud to have hidden the heavenly bodies until the fourth day, previously to which the earth was self-luminous, but then ceased to be so, the light of the heavenly bodies be- coming manifest by the disruption of the supposed cloud stratum. And he says that, " according to the principle of this narrative, their existence would not be recognised till they became visible or produced sensible effects," pp. 39, 40. Now this supposes previous alternations of light and darkness, evening and morn- ing, day and night, not produced by the heavenly bodies and their motions, real or apparent, and yet manifestly identified by the narrative itself with the alternations called by the same name, and similarly enumerated in succession as produced by the heavenly bodies ; while the self- luminosity of the earth suffi- . 8 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. cient for tlie purposes of vegetation, tlie very existence of wliicli yet supposes a degree of heat in the earth insufficient to cause a development of light, the production of the alternations of day and night in some imknown way, the existence of the cloud stratmn, dense enough to exclude the sun's light and its subse- quent dispersion, are purely arbitrary conjectures. If conjec- tures such as these, unwarranted by any trace of evidence in the narrative, or any facts of which we are aware, were admissible, any one with a fertile imagination might easily get rid of all difficulties in this and like cases. Dr. M'Caul, "Aids to Faith," pp. 209-12, offers Laplace's celebrated nebular hypothesis of the formation of the solar system, as affording a probable solution of the difficulty, — a theory which its author proposed, as he said, with the defiance which became him in reference to views which had been tested neither by experiment^ nor by calculation, which ' In a note, p. 210, Dr. M'Caul refers, for an experimental verification of the theory, to the beautiful experiments of M. Plateau on a revolving mass of fluid freed from the action of gra^dtation, which he obtained by introducing oil into a mixture of alcohol and water in such proportions as to be of the same specific gravity as the oil. When the oil, which assumed the form of a globe, was made to revolve, it became flattened, and an equatorial ring was separated, which, as it revolved, was divided into equidistant spheres which continued to revolve round the original axis, and also rotated on their own axis, while between them there were smaller globules like satellites which revolved in the same orbit, the entire eff'ect lasting for a few moments. Dr. M'Caul could not have read M. Plateau's own Memoir, as plainly appears from the way in which he describes the experiments as made, namely, by causing the vessel to revolve on its axis. Wlien he caused the vessel itself to revolve, its contents of course soon partook of its own motion and revolved with it as if part of a solid mass, and it was only by suddenly stopping the motion of the vessel, the friction of whose sides then retarded the ambient fluid, that he could obtain an excess of motion in the globe of oil, and thus observe the effect of centrifugal force. He accordingly abandoned this mode of experiment as unsatisfactory. See his note, Taylor's Scientific Memoirs, vol. iv. p. 34. We gather fi'om this that Dr. M'Caul did not see the papers of M. Plateau himself. Had he read them, he would scarcely have appealed to the experi- ments as affording a verification of the theory in question, as M. Plateau is careful to distinguish the force of molecular attraction, which, with the friction of the ambient fluid, was the force opposed to the centrifugal force in his experiments, from that of gravitation, which would have operated by a diflerent law in the formation of the planets. An illustration of the theory they do afford. And accordingly, in p. 36, M. Plateau says : " The experiment which we have just described presents, as we see, an image in miniature of the formation of the planets according to the hypothesis of Laplace, by the rupture of the cosmical rings attributable to the condensation of the solar atmos- phere ;" and again, in p. 43, "Notwithstanding the difierence of the laws which the attractive forces follow in this case, and in that of large planetarv masses, we have seen produced on a small scale a striking representation of the majority of the phe- nomena of configuration relative to the celestial bodies." But that he considered this far from a verification is plain ; for in p. 37, in reference to the illustration of Saturn surrounded by his ring, he says, "this experiment must be regarded merely as THE SIX days' creation. 9 has not progressed a step towards the semblance of demonstra- tion since it was first advanced, and which has been deprived of the seeming comitenance it had received from the existence of other nebulous masses supposed to be like systems in progress of formation, by their resolution into distinct stars in the field of Lord Eosse's telescope.^ Assuming the probable truth of this theory, he supposes that the central mass did not receive its luminous atmosphere while the several planets were in progress a scientific sport, for the circumstances wliicli gave rise to the result have evidently no analogy with those which can have occasioned the configuration of the system ot Satura." And again, in a subsequent memoir, having described the revolution of a column of oil into° larger spheres with intermediate satellites, as in the case of the revolving ring, he subjoins the following note : " It is clear that this mode of forma- tion is entirely foreign to laplace's cosmogonic hypothesis ; therefore we have no idea of deducing from this little experiment, which only refers to the efi'ects of mole- cular attraction and not to that of gravitation, any argument in favour of the hypo- thesis in question, an hypothesis which in other respects we do not adopt."— Taylor s Scientific Memoirs, vol. v. p. 661. It will be observed that the smaller spheres were not, properly speaking, satellites at all, but lesser principals, though there is no reason why satellites should not be produced if the experiments could be continued under favourable circumstances. It will also be perceived that there is no illustration of the formation of a single planet, but only of a series in the same orbit, which appear to have never shown the least tendency to run into one. It is farther observable that while the experiments exhibit a rotation of the revolving spheres on theii- own axis, uothing is said of the velocity of that rotation. Theory would seem to provide for only one revolution on the axis durino- the period of revolution round the centre of the system, as lu the case of the moon? In the ring, as first separated, any imaginary sphere would make one revolu- tion round an axis perpendicular to the plain of the ring while this rotated once round the central body. The principle of rotation on which Foucault's celebrated experi- ment is founded would imply this much ; and when the ring is resolved into separate spheres, it is reasonable to suppose that these would retain the same velocity of revolu- tion on their axis, as there appears nothing to occasion its increase or diminution. The motion of the primary planets, however, on their axes is far more rapid in pro- portion to their periodic times, and for this more rapid motion the nebular theory does not account. , ■, r ^ j i Dr M'Caul says of this theory that "its truth has been taken for granted by Humboldt, ' Cosmos,' i. 85, 90 ; iv. 163." This, however, is far from being the tact. In the place first referred to, Humboldt merely says, " If the planets have been formed out of separate rings of nebulous matter revolving round the sun," such and such causes " mav" have produced certain existing differences. In the thu-d he merely speaks of the internal heat of the earth as " generated possibly by the condensation of a rotatino- nebulous ring." In the second reference he actually suggests a difficulty in the way of supposing the planets to have been thus formed. " If the primary and secondary planets have been formed by condensation from annular rotating portions of the primitive atmospheres of the sun and of the principal planets, there must have been in the ring of vapour which revolved round Uranus singular and unknown relations of retardation or counteraction to have occasioned the second and fourth satellite to revolve in a dii-ection opposite to that of the rotation of the central planet." ' This observation can scarcely be considered as invalidated by the still more recent application of the Spectrum- Analysis to some of the Nebula. The indications of the o-aseous natiu-e of the Nebulce thus obtained can hardly be yet considered decisive. 10 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of formation, as from time to time they were separated in tlie form of rings wliich subsequently broke and were contracted into splieres. " The work of the fourth day consisted in fur- nishing it with its luminous atmosphere, "When this took place, and the sun began to shed its light, then the moon and the earth's fellow planets, 'the stars' of v. 16, became luminous also." He says Moses does not call the sun " Or, light," but " maor, a place or instrument of light, a luminary or candle- stick," or, as he afterwards expresses it, " a lightholder." One would suppose that the use of these terms vrould imply quite the opposite of what Dr. M'Caul adduces them to prove. If one speaks of setting lights in an apartment, nothing is of necessity implied as to the introduction of candlesticks or lamps, which may have been there already, and only needed to be furnished with candles or to have lights kindled in them ; but if one speaks of placing candlesticks or lamps, then the introduction of the " Kghtholders" themselves is expressed, and it is not even implied that lights are kindled in them. Nothing can be plainer, moreover, than that an ordinary reader would naturally understand by "the stars" of v. 16 the stars in general, both fixed and planetary ; while the application of the nebular theory to the explanation of this verse obliges us to confine them to the planets alone, which, as known to the ancients, and distin- guished from the earth and moon, were only five out of that countless host of stars which Abraham was challenged to tell if he could number. And as the narrative of Genesis i. afibrds no intimation that the planets only were intended, it is assimied that the fixed stars, as distinguished from them, were included in the heavens mentioned in v. 1, that verse being supposed to describe a previous crexition to that formed in the six days. And in order to prove the pre-existence of the fixed stars to the earth and so to the other bodies of the solar system, the mention of the morning stars which sang together at the creation of the earth according to Job xxxviii. 7, is relied on. But this proves nothing of the kind ; the singing of the morning stars may have THE SIX DA^S' CREATION. 11 taken place at the simultaneous creation of the earth and other heavenly bodies, when the music of the spheres commenced its glorious harmony. Dr. M'Caid is also mistaken in supposing that the sons of God, mentioned in the parallel clause as shout- ing for joy, were the angels whose supposed existence before the creation of the earth would confirm the previous creation of the morning stars also. Plainly the latter clause, according to the frequent usage of Hebrew poetry, only repeats in a difierent form the idea expressed in the former ; and a personal act being attributed to the stars in the first, (they sang together), the per- sonification is carried on and varied in the second by calling them the sons of God, which here only means their being creatures of God. But even if his interpretation of this verse were correct, its citation in the present discussion would be irrelevant. The question being the agreement of the words of Moses with the facts of nature, it is not allowable to import into the words of Moses a meaning derived from any other author — a meaning which his own words do not imply. More recently, Dr. Pusey, in his great work on the book of Daniel, Pref., p. xviii., speaks of "the remarkable parenthetic mention of the stars in Genesis, when, in the detailed account of the creation of the sun and moon, and of their ofiices for oiu- earth, there are appended the simple words, ' and the stars,' as though it was intended only to guard against the error, that they might otherwise be thought to be uncreated." Now, if they had appeared in the original as in the EngKsh version, " he made the stars also," they might possibly be parenthetic. But as they stand they can scarcely be so regarded, especially as " the stars" is connected by the particle denoting the object ( nJSI ) with the sun and moon, as together governed by the same verb. Moreover, the words expressing the ofl&ces for our earth, to "be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years," must apply to the stars as well as to the sun and moon, inas- much as the sun and moon do not, for the practical uses of mankind, mark seasons and years except in connexion with the 12 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. stars. With great deference for so eminent an authority, one must therefore reject the supposition that this clause is paren- thetic and refers to a previous creation of the stars. It cer- tainly was not so regarded by the writer of Psalm cxxxvi. 7-9 : "Who made great liglits : for his mercy endureth for ever ; The sun to rule the day : for his mercy endureth for ever ; The moon and the stars to govern the night : for his mercy endureth for ever." It is true, however, as Dr. M'Caul says, that " Moses does not say that the body of the sun or moon or stars were created on the fourth day." He says it, however, just as much as he says that their light was created on that day, or that the other works were created on the several days enumerated with them. What- ever was the relation intended between the several works and days respectively, if we may legitimately separate the perfor- mance of any one of the works from the day specified in con- nexion with it, we may just as lawfully do so in regard to the others. And whatever conclusion the exigencies of the narra- tive necessitate in re2:ard to the relation between the works and days in any one case, the unity of character and identity of form in the entire passage will oblige us to adopt the same in reference to all the rest. III. There is a principle frequently insisted on, scarcely denied by an}^, yet recognised with sufficient clearness by few of the advocates of revelation, which if fully and practically recognised, would have saved themselves much perplexity and vexation, and the cause they have at heart the disgrace mth which it has been covered by the futile attempts that have been made through provisional and shifting interpretations to recon- cile the Mosaic Genesis with the rapidly advancing strides of physical science. The principle referred to is this : matters which are discoverable by human reason and the means of investigation which God has put within the reach of man's faculties are not the proper subjects of divine revelation, and matters which do not concern morals or bear on man's spiritual relations towards God are not within the province of revealed THE SIX days' creation. 13 religion. If, then, a person writing by the inspiration of God on things pertaining to religion should have occasion to speak of the phenomena of nature, it might be expected beforehand that he would speak of them as they are phenomena, that is, according to the impressions which they make as appearances, and so according to his own existing conceptions or the imperfect apprehensions of those for whose use he might have been more inamediately writing. On any of the more moderate theories of inspiration, according to which the writer is in the conscious exercise of his own faculties, speaking from his own knowledge and observation in matters within the range of his experience and according to his own familiar conceptions in regard to matters which it did not form part of the design of revelation to make known more exactly, this may seem the less question- able. In regard to such matters, God's part would seem to be confined to such a superintendence and guiding of the writer as might best conduce to serve the end in view, while the more direct communication from God would be confined to matters beyond the writer's information, but which it was God's purpose to reveal. And even the revelation thus imparted, being as it were filtered through the writer's mind, would be more or less coloured by his own individuality. This colouring derived from the writer's individuality is found to be actually observable in the case even of the doctrinal parts of the New Testament, as we may instance in the case of the same truths as put forward by St. James or St. John, and by St. Paul. And this, so far from impairing the value of the sacred writings as the vehicle of Divine revelation, may be, if not necessary, at any rate largely conducive to their serving the purpose for which they were intended. It is thus that the purely chemical elements of the material world would be utterly unfit for man's use as articles of food ; but when taken up and assimilated by the organic productions of Nature they become profitable and nutritious. But even on a higher and more rigid theory of inspiration, what has been called the organic, as distinguished 14 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. from tlie other, known as the dynamic, supposing tliat tlie writer is a mere passive instrument, like a pen in the hand of God, the presumption would seem to be, that God, in communi- cating spiritual truth, would do it in such a way as not to supersede man's understanding and the exercise of his faculties in matters unconcerned with what it was God's purpose to reveal. We see even in the case of our blessed Lord that the union of divine and human in his person did not supersede his growth in wisdom as in stature — in human wisdom, no doubt, as in himian stature. And that man might live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, it would be as needful on this, as on the former supposition, that the pure elements of absolute truth, too subtle or too hard for man's spiritual diges- tion, should be incorporated in some sort of earthly organism, to be available for our instruction. It is therefore presumable, even taking the highest view of inspiration, that much would be conformed to the previous conceptions of the sacred writer, or of those for whom his writing was more immediately intended. It may be said this is true in regard to all casual allusions to natural phenomena, but the case is different in respect to a formal statement purporting to set forth the creation of the world, and bearing on its whole surface such a physical character as is presented by the first chapter of Genesis. But it will readily appear that in this representation the religious element is the essential part ; what is purely physical only the accessor}^ clothing. And if in this physical representation we find particulars manifestly in accordance with things as they appear, and with the natural and popular conceptions of men in regard to them, such as the entire subordination of the heavenly bodies to this earth and the uses of man, and consequently the representation of their creation after the earth, the probability is, that in other particulars not within the range of observation, and so not even sensible appearances, the representation is not more exaeth^ conformed to the reality of things. We need not, however, suppose that in such particulars the writer puts for- THE SIX days' creation. 15 ward his ovm inventions as physical truth. Some poetic imagery is adopted, some principle of representation discover- able by the reader, if only he will give up looking for physical truth where moral alone is to be expected. Such representa- tions are still, however, true in a certain point of view, as they are practically more useful for the writer's purpose, being designedly employed as better adapted to enforce the truth which he is more immediately concerned with inculcating ; while a representation conformed to the reality of nature might, as incomprehensible to the reader, be wholly useless for this end, and so beside his purpose altogether. Moreover, such a representation, conformed to physical reality, beyond the writer's own or his reader's previous conceptions, would render what would be thus taught matter of faith, and so far supersede the exercise of those faculties by which God has intended that we should glorify him in the study of Nature, and thus, for no apparent advantage, defeat a manifest design and arrangement of Providence. Indeed, as scientific investigation is and ever must be a constantly progressing pursuit, each successive discovery, as it advances the frontiers of knowledge, opening a new and as yet unknown region to our speculations, in which fresh dis- coveries are again to be made, any description of physical phenomena imparted by revelation would necessarily, from the very nature of the case, be always imperfect, if conformed to any particular stage of this progressing scientific advancement. Beyond that stage, as discoveries would become extended, men would find the same difficulty and perplexity which is now felt on the supposition that the Mosaic account of creation should be conformed to the present state of scientific knowledge ; while up to that particular stage of discovery there woidd be an equally perplexing inconsistency between the revealed account and men's own observations of nature. Or if the representation shoidd be conformed to the ultimate and absolute reality of things, it would be always to some extent, if not altogether, at variance 16 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. witii men's knowledge arrived at by the investigations of rea- son, which can never be adequate to things as they really are. A representation such as this would occasion a perpetual dis- agreement in many particulars, between what would thus, as revealed, be matter of faith, and even the most advanced scientific knowledge, to say nothing of men's sensible apprehensions or the popular conceptions that would prevail from time to time. It would, therefore, be less useful for any purpose that we can conceive than a description founded on sensible appearances or adapted to the conception of those for whose use it might be intended, or else a representation framed, for some special purpose, according to an artificial scheme, devised by the writer. Only in this latter case we might expect that he would give some indication, perceptible to persons of ordinary intelligence, that he does not intend his statements to be taken in their literal acceptation, as an exact historical account of the matters described. When things are represented according to their sensible appearances, or to popular conceptions, no such indication is called for. The writer speaks in good faith, and his statements are subjectively true as regards his readers, and it may be himself also. It is only when he departs from, or goes beyond, his own or his readers' conceptions, that it is necessary to indicate that he does not mean his words to be understood as exactly conformed to facts, but merely as a manner of speaking, a form embodying a truth not literally expressed. Sometimes the nature of the composition itself as a work of imagination, or at any rate adorned with poetic imagery, will suffice to hinder any misconception. This is partly the case with the Mosaic account of the creation, and partly the statements themselves give sufficient indications that they are not meant to be taken in their exact literal and his- torical acceptation. IV. The existence of these indications in the Genesis of Moses has been perceived by those interpreters in all ages who have not allowed themselves to be blinded by prejudice. Of such THE SIX days' creation. 17 interpreters we can trace back a stream that is finall}' lost in the source from whence the Christian Church received the Hebrew Scriptures ; and it will be foimd that the J»i|jish doc- tors at the time of the Christian era were not unobservant of these indications also. It will be interesting to trace back this stream of opinion with a few rapid strides, and will help per- haps to a right conception of the design and import of the Mosaic account of the creation. But before this is done it will be well to direct attention to the peculiarities of the document itself, that have given rise to the opinion to which reference has just been made, to examine the statements of the Mosaic Grenesis, and to observe whether the writer gives any sufficient indica- tions to justify the supposition that he did not intend his account to be regarded as an exact historical description of the process of creation in the order and limited times of its successive steps. It is not in any spirit of irreverence that such a review of the inconsistencies in this account, when re- garded as a strictly historical statement, is entered upon here. It is with sincere reverence for the document itself, as an in- tegral part of the sacred volxmie, and with the view of freeing it from the difficulties which these inconsistencies present, as well as from those occasioned by physical science, that the writer ven- tures to adduce them, in proof that we must assign to it some other character than that of a strictly historical narrative, and endeavour to remove it altogether from the range of physical interpretation and the relation to scientific discoveries. And, first, it is to be noticed that at the outset the heavens and the earth — the universe at large, as it woidd appear — are represented as created simultaneously — a representation with which the fourth verse of the second chapter, mentioning the day on which God created the heavens and the earth, agrees. The heavens thus created cannot denote the mere empty space in which the heavenly bodies move, that sj)ace not being a material existence but an uncreated vacuity.^ Either the ' One is utterly at a loss to conceive how Professor Challis, pp. 16, 17, can think 18 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Iieavenly bodies themselves, whicli in their aggregate constitute the heavens, or else the material firmament in which they appear to be set, must be intended. In either case this state- ment is incompatible with the subsequent statement taken historically. For the firmament in which, according to v. 14, the heavenly bodies were set is represented as not called into existence until the second day, while the heavenly bodies them- selves are described, with the same formula which expresses the other days' work, as called into existence only on the fourth day. It will not sufiice to say that the first verse contains only an anticipation of the creation of the heavenly bodies ; for the earth is coupled with them, and in that statement rightly sub- ordinated to them, while there is no further mention of the actual creation of the earth, which appears thenceforth as already existing, and so implies the simultaneous existence of the heavenly bodies, whose creation is described conjointly with that of the earth. Thus, at the very outset, we are met by a statement which seems incompatible with the historical character of the subsequent narrative ; and if we must abandon that in so important a particular as the celestial world, a parity of inter- pretation and the unity of character in the entire passage will require the same as regards the other particulars similarly described. And thus we can see how justly the son of Sirach says, " He that liveth for ever created all things together," ^ and why some of the Rabbinical writers and St. Augustine, as we shall see hereafter, regarded all creation as having taken place simultaneously or concurrently, the subsequent orderly of space as a created existence. Regarding the second verse as a negation of the existence as yet of the earth as an objective reality, for which he relies on the words of the Septuagint, r] 8e yrj ■^v a.6paTos koI oLKaTaaKevaffTos, and then supposing the " deep " or abyss to denote space, he infers that this was now created as a positive existence. If he spoke of space as an affection of matter, one of the qualities of which is extension, then we might understand his treating it as in a manner created with matter. But he speaks of it as antecedent to matter, and independent of it, while he says matter, since it has dimensions, is not independent of space. Surely, supposing space to be a positive existence antecedent to and independent of matter, it must at any rate be an uncreated existence. As a mental conception, it is an affection of created intelligences. The reference to Rom. viii. 39, in support of his idea, is quite unwarrantable. * "EKTifff TO TrdvTa koij'^.— Ecclus. xviii. 1. THE SIX days' creation. 19 succession ^of tlie several works and days, as described by Moses, being an ordo rationis solum, only a rational separation, arrange- ment, or classification of things already existing. Then, again, we have the creation of light, while as yet the heavenly bodies, according to the order of the subsequent narrative, have not been called into existence and set in the firmament. Both in fact and in popular conception, light, as a cosmical element, whatever be its nature, molecular or undu- latory, is mainly, and for all the purposes of natural illumination, derived from the heavenly bodies. And it is the light that ilkiminates this world, as distinguished from ordinary darkness, — daylight as distinguished fromnight, receiving from the Creator its name of day, while darkness is called night, and alternating with night through the vicissitudes of evening and morning for three successively enumerated days — that is thus represented as existing before the time when the sun, on which alone depends this alternation, is said to have been called into existence. And surely the days thus specified, whatever is intended by their enimieration, are, as set forth in the narrative, ordinary natural days. No prophetic day, no day of the Lord said to be as a thou- sand years, no day standing for any other definite time, is ever thus described as having evening and morning.^ This is the essential difference — the distinguishing mark of the kind of day mentioned. Moreover, the days enumerated are similarly described all through the chapter ; and as one of these days in particular — the day mentioned in immediate connexion with the appointment of the sun and moon to divide the day from the night, the one to rule the day and the other the night — can ' Dr. M'Caul, in p. 214, says, " The time of light in which the Divine work pro- ceeded He called day, and the time of darkness He called night ;" and then in a foot- note he says, " Compare the words of our Lord : ' I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day ; the night conieth when no man can work.' " This is not a case in point. Day, in our Lord's words, does not stand for an indefinite period, hut for natural day, and night for natural night. Our Lord compares him- self to a workman who has an allotted day's work to accomplish, and must haste to complete it while the daylight lasts, lest the approaching darkness of night should oblige him to cease before his work is done. The same remark applies to similar passages, such as Rom. xiii. 12., which, however, Dr. M'Caul might as well have adduced. 20 GENESIS AKD ITS AUTHOKSHIP. on no fair principle of interpretation denote any other kind of day than tliat produced by the sun, so also must all the days reckoned be the same. The existence of such days in an orderly succession, as proper days, divided by the sun before the actual creation of the sim, would be a contradiction, while the descrip- tion plainly indicates periods and alternations having all the characteristics of such days. That all the appearances produced by the sun should have taken place in orderly succession, and due gradation, while yet there was no sun, and having been thus independently produced for so long, should then without break or interruption have gone on, as the effects of the sun, is so improbable a representation, that one seems forced to find an escape from the difficulty in the non-historic character of the narrative in this particular, and so of the entire account as setting forth the successive steps of the actual creation in due order of time ; while this non-historic character is confirmed by the mention of God's assigning the names of day and night, as subsequently of heaven, and earth, and sea. The attributing the assignment of these names to the Creator, and that in the language of men, while as yet there were in existence no men in whose language such names might be spoken, and to whom they might be communicated, of itself suggests not a literal fact but a manner of speaking indicative of the specific difierences of things as distinguished by the Creator. Moreover, the manner in which the several days are enumerated is peculiar. Josephus ^ intimates that there was a particular reason why in verse 5 we read " one day " and not the^rs^ — a reason which he promised to explain on another occasion, but did not. Now, it is true that the cardinal one with the article (which it has not here) was used in Hebrew as an ordinal. But this was regular, one of the ways of forming a superlative, which the word first properly is, having been to prefix the article. The Hebrews also spoke of the first of the month as " one to the month," the word day being always omitted, — a manner of speaking occa- 1 Aut. I., 1, 1. THE SIX days' creation. 21 sioned by frequent use, and the consequent aiming at brevity. They said likewise " the year of one " for the first year, (as " of two," or " of three," etc.), — an elliptic form which in full would be "the year of one year." But besides these idiomatic ex- pressions, we have no instance whatever of the employment of the cardinal one as an ordinal.^ And, as we find it here, in reference to the first of the creation days, while the ordinals are used to specify all the succeeding days, — a peculiarity sufiicient to attract the attention of Josephus, to whom the Hebrew usage was familiar, — it is at least possible that the writer intended to intimate that he did not mean the first of a series of consecutive days in their proper order of temporal succession, but the first of a promiscuous number, in reference to which the other days were niunerically, as expressed without the article, and not in the order of time, a second, third, etc., just as in the Latin enume- ration by unus, alter, tertius.^ Moreover, an intelligent reader, who had noticed the peculiarity now mentioned, could scarcely have failed to observe further, that in enumerating the days in the unusual manner which the writer adopts — "there was evening and there was morning, one day," "a second day," and so forth, without a definite article prefixed, until the sixth — 1 Mr. Rorison, " Replies to Essays and Reviews," p. 289, note, compares the well- known eV jxia Twv (Tafiddruv. But this manner of speaking is referable, not to Hebraistic usage, but to a proper Greek idiom. See Liddell and Scott, s. v., els- - Mr. Rorison, in the note just referred to, quotes the following note of Kalisch : — " It is futile to assign to this use any mysterious or hidden reason, as Josephus and others insinuate, or to understand it as a peculiar day, a day sui generis, or a period of indefinite duration." This is true, and it mil be observed that Josephus has only been cited as a competent authority in regard to the peculiarity of the expression, not as if it denoted any mystery in the kind of days intended, but simply suggested that the days are not reckoned in the order of temporal succession, the numerals being taken for no more than they actually are, merely denoting promiscuous numbers until the sixth, where the ordinal form, with the article prefixed, indicates the numerical completion of the work-days enumerated. It will be seen, however, as we proceed, that there is an order of succession, though not of temporal succession. It is to be observed that it is not the character of this piece to reject the article generally, as in some of the Psalms and other poetical compositions. The article is used invariably except where the expression is designedly indefinite, or the word is one which habi- tually refuses it. We may instance the former in t;. 2 : "^ spirit (or breath) of Elohim," whether denoting a wind or a divine influence ; and in v. 27 : " In an image of Elohim created he him," as if to express only a certain similitude and not an absolute likeness. Instances of the latter occur in v. 1, 2 ; the words there ren- dered " the beginning " and " the deep" constantly reject the article. 22 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. he abstains from exjjressly asserting that the works enumerated were actually for the first time wrought on the several days reckoned in connexion with them. The relation between the works and days is not distinctly expressed. To the nature of that relation we purpose to revert hereafter ; it is now merely noticed for the sake of remarking that the indistinctness of its expression has place amongst the indications of the non-historical character of the passage. Mr. Rorison, in his very beautiful contribution to the " Replies to Essays and Reviews," which he has named " The Creation Week," relies on the poetical parallelism which charac- terises the whole passage, and which he has so admirably brought out, as an evidence of its non- historic character. Com- paring the arrangement of the passage with that of the Lord's Prayer, he says, " None will dispute the presence of j)arallelism in the Lord's Prayer — such parallelism as is proper to prayer, 9, psalm, or parable, or prophecy, or impassioned discourse, but is not proper to historical narrative. Yet how closely homolo- gous in structure is the Mosaic Heptameron." It is not, how- ever, the simple parallelism that is observable in the passage which indicates its non-historic character. A poetical narrative of historical facts might be set out in parallel sentences. But it is the highly artificial arrangement, strikingly exhibited in the correlation of the two groups or triads into which the six days' works are resolvable, the luminaries of the fourth day corresponding to the light of the first, the fishes and birds of the fifth to the waters and the firmament of the second, and the terrestrial animals of the sixth to the dry land of the thii'd, which afibrds the proper evidence that the narrative is not strictly historical. This correlation of the three latter days' operations to those of the three first respectively, is noticed by Mr. MacDonald, who says, " Creation and Fall," p. 266, " The works of the three last days of creation form a remarkable parallel with those of the first three." Long before, it had not escaped the observation of Thomas Aquinas, who remarks that THE SIX days' creation. 23 "the several parts of the world required to be distinguished first, and then each part to be adorned by being replenished, as it were, with its proper inhabitants." ^ It has, however, been most efiectively displayed by Mr. Rorison, who has perceived, what the others failed to notice, the non-historical character of such an arrangement. V. And now, if we compare the passage concluding with the third verse of the second chapter with the account that follows, we are forcibly struck by a difference which led Josephus to remark, that in the latter Moses begins to speak physiologically, or according to the truth of nature, implying that in the former he spoke in the way he calls enigmatical. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that a writer, proposing to himself to describe a series of events, in a plain historical manner, could have passed consecutively from the one passage to the other. This differ- ence has, therefore, been relied on as one of the main proofs of the supposed fragmentary character of the early part of the book of Genesis. For the present purpose it is, however, prac- tically the same thing, whether Moses composed the two first chapters consecutively, or only put together two documents, one of which, at least, had previously existed, whether composed by himself or by another, or such a combination had been made at a later period. The Jewish Church, at any rate, handed over the whole as one to the Christian, and the founders of the Christian Church adopted it as such, one part to be doubtless understood in a manner consistent with the other. The whole has come to us as part of the sacred writings given by the alleged inspiration of God. The allegation might be as true in regard to a combination of fragments, as to a single work. At any rate, those who put these passages together, if we suppose the fragmentary hypothesis to be true, were as capable as we are of perceiving the apparent inconsistency between them, and may be reasonably supposed to have acted on the principle that one part, at least, was not a strictly historical narrative to be taken 1 Oportuit primo clistiiiQ;iii partes mundi : et postmodum singulas partes ornari per hoc quod quasi suis habitatoribus replentur.— Sum. Theol. Pars. Prim. Qusest. 74, Conclus. 24 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. in the literal acceptation of its statements — a view which, we shall see was taken by some of those who were highly esteemed in the Church immediately after the Apostles' days. That the differences are real, could not have escaped the notice of any but those who, assuming that all must be received as literal history given by the inspiration of God, have habitually shut their eyes against the observation of any disagreements that would be in- consistent with such an assumption. Let us, however, compare the two passages, and note the points of difference. In the first chapter we are told that " the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yield- ing fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." But then in the fifth verse of the second chapter we are told " that every plant of the field was not yet in the earth, and every herb of the field had not yet grown," that is, no plant of the field was yet in the ground, and no herb of the field had yet grown, " for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." This seems to intimate that vegetation had not taken place before the creation of man; and therefore, to provide a place for his reception, God plants a garden, an apparent ex- ception to the barrenness that prevailed as yet. So sensible were translators, Greek, and Latin, and English, of this dis- agreement, that they have rendered the passage in a way in- consistent with the proper meaning and grammatical construc- tion of the sentence, the word WltD, terem without a prefix signifying' wo^ yet, and when placed between the verb and the nominative case, admitting of no other rendering than that given above.^ This erroneous rendering of the translators, manifestly resorted to from the exigence of the case, in order to avoid an apparent contradiction between the statements of the two pas- sages, makes the sacred writer represent the vegetable creation ' [This is plainly the way of construing the words which naturally oifers itself, and that from which an absolute necessity alone would warrant a departure.] See Note A, p. 247. THE SIX days' creation. 25 as a tting made and existing by itself before it was yet in tbe ground, wbereas in the first chapter it was made at its first pro- duction to spring out of the ground. Professor Challis, p. 55, adopts this erroneous translation, apparently not aware of any grammatical objection to it, and regarding the fourth and fifth verses as a summary of the whole preceding account, thinks that the intention was to signify that the foregoing was " an account of the creation as it was in plan or design, not as executed." But besides the incorrectness of the rendering on which he builds, he is mistaken in regarding these verses as a summary of the preceding account, and in thinking that " the historic account of natural facts and creative operations " com- mences with the sixth verse. The abruptness of this verse standing by itself, and its connection with the preceding, both verbally by a copulative, and in sense by the contrast be- tween the mist and the rain, plainly show that it cannot be the commencement of a new paragraph. The words, " these are the generations," are an accredited commencing formula, and there is not a shadow of reason for his saying that the like formula at the commencement of the fifth chapter is retrospec- tive ; nothing can be plainer than its reference to the genealogy that follows.^ He admits the prospective use of the formula at the commencement of the tenth chapter, but relies on the retro- spective reference of the words, '' these are the families," at the close of that chapter. But in this, and in similar instances in the course of that chapter, they could not refer to the sequel which has its own proper beginning, and must therefore refer to what precedes. This is not the case in the second chapter ; the first paragraph has its proper peroration in the three first verses of this chapter, and a second recapitulation in verse 4 would be an unmeaning redundancy. The fourth verse is plainly the head- ing of a new passage, with which it is connected grammatically as well as by the use, for the first time, of the name Jehovah Elohim, which is thenceforward continued through the chapter. 1 [The LXX. use the same formula in ii. 4 as in v. 1, avrt) t) 0i0\os yevecnccs. This could never have had reference to the preceding account.] 26 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Dr. M'Caul, it is true, p. 197, quotes the authority of Ewald, for connecting the fourth verse with the preceding paragraph, or at least the words, " these are the generations of the heavens and the earth." The impossibility of stopping at these words, however, will appear presently, while against the authority of Ewald may be set that of Hengstenberg, who, " Authentie des Pentateuch," pp. 311 ff., makes the second passage to commence with verse 4, as its superscription, in which it was intended to represent the creation as the work of Jehovah, while in the first it appears as the work of Elohim.^ Mr. MacDonald, " Creation and the Fall," pp. 323-4, recognises the incorrectness of the usual rendering of the fifth verse and the necessity of carrying the commencement of the new paragraph further back than this verse. But to get over the difiiculty of the apparent incon- sistency between the two accounts, he makes a division in the fourth verse, in opposition, he admits, to the Masoretic punctua- tion, and, he might have added, to the Septuagint reading also. He connects the first part with the previous account, which he makes to conclude with the words, " These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created ;" and he commences the new paragraph with the words, " In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," supposing that the writer goes back to a point previous to the creation of the vegetable productions. He overlooks, however, the manifest parallelism of the two clauses with the Hebraistic inversion in the second of the order of the leading ideas expressed in the first — "heavens, earth, created" in one, and "made, earth, heavens," in the other — which forbids the separation of the two clauses; while in order to make the connection of the latter with the fifth verse possible, he silently drops the copulative 1 Dr. M'Caul insists on the significance of the inversion of " the heavens and the earth" when repeated as "the earth and the heavens," in v. 4. He supposes that the heavens first mentioned are tlie heavens of Gen. i. 1, created before the earth, while he reo-ards the heavens as mentioned the second time as the firmament of Gen. i. 7, 8,° created subsequently to the earth, and therefore mentioned after the earth. One greatly wonders Dr. M'Caul did not perceive that this is only an Hebraistic poetical inversion of the order of the corresponding terms in the two parallel clauses, an inversion not confined to " the heavens and earth," but extending also to the corresponding words, " created" and " made." THE SIX days' creation. 27 witli wliicli tliis verse commences, and translates, " In tlie day that tlie Lord God made eartli and heaven, there was no shrub of the field yet in the earth." It is strange that while he felt it' necessary to admit that he was departing from the Masoretic punctuation, he should make no reference whatever to the unwarrantable suppression of the conjunction which exists both in the Hebrew, and in the Greek of the Septuagint. It is true we meet with frequent instances in Hebrew in which the second part of a sentence is connected with the first by a conj miction, in cases in which we should not think of using one ; and the next chapter, v. 5, afibrds an instance which at first sight might be thought to justify the use of the copulative in the sentence formed by the proposed division of v. 4, and the junction of its latter clause to «?. 5. In the English version this copulative is represented by then : " In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened," This, in the original, rmis thus : "In the day of your eating thereof, also shall be opened your eyes."^ Here the copulative connects their eating in the former part with their eyes being opened in the latter, somewhat in the manner of the antecedent and consequent of an hypothetic proposition, the parts of which are frequently thus connected in Hebrew ; and, in fact, the instance which has been quoted is only a disguised hypothetic ; "if ye eat, your eyes shall be opened also." When this is not the case, some important word, as the nominative case to a verb, or, as in this instance, the pronoun pour, is carried from the first part of the sentence on to the second. There is nothing of this kind in the case under consideration ; no idea expressed or understood is carried from the first clause into the second ; the word earth, repeated in the latter, has a somewhat difierent meaning from the earth coupled with the heavens in the former, denoting rather the ground or soil out of which vegetables should grow, than the earth in its cosmical sense, and severed also from the heavens, which should be joined with it, if it were in this way 28 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. carried on from the first clause by the conjunction. One can scarcely think that Mr. MacDonald did not perceive this diffi- culty in the way of his subdivision of v. 4, and the connection of its latter clause with v. 5, and it is to be supposed that he would have adduced such instances of the use of the copulative as we have referred to, if they appeared to afford him any assistance. At any rate, nothing can more clearly show the difficulties that beset the purely historical interpretation than the shifts to which its advocates are constrained to resort in order to evade their force. The significance of the formula, "these are the generations," in reference to the organic structure of the entire book, as the title of its larger sections, will be fully discussed hereafter. But to return to the comparison of the two passages, it is to be noticed further that in the first chapter every winged fowl after his kind is created before the dry land appears, while in the second chapter God forms every fowl of the air, no less than every beast of the field, out of the groimd. Moreover, in the latter, both appear to have been formed subsequently to the creation of man, being brought to him at their creation to be named by him ; whereas, in the former, both appear to be previously created, and the fowls on a different day. And, lastly, in the second chapter the formation of the woman is a subsequent operation to the creation of the man, while in the first man is made both male and female at once — a difference which gave rise to the foolish specidation of the Rabbis, that the man and woman were created together, imited back to back or side to side, and separated during the deep sleep described in the second chapter, but which may more reasonably be regarded as indicating that in the first chapter the creation of the species, male and female, and not of an individual man and woman, was intended. Now, it is true that attempts have been made by the supposi- tion of proiepsis in one place and metalepsis in another, anticipated mention here and repetition there, to reconcile the statements of THE SIX DA"YS CREATION. 29 these two passages. It does not concern the present argument to inquire what measure of success may have attended these attempts. It is enough for our purpose that a difference, exists so manifest as to require such attempts at the reconciliation of statements which could scarcely thus widely differ, if written as consecutive parts of a history meant to be understood through- out in the literal acceptation of its words. If the construction of one or both passages is such as to suggest that either is to be taken in a sense different from the literal acceptation, this is sufficient to justify our departing from that acceptation, as designed by the author ; and particularly in respect to that one which we find it difficult to reconcile with facts on the supposi- tion that it is a literal history, as is the case with the first chapter. VI. It was remarked that the necessity of thus departing from the historical interpretation had been felt by many from the very commencement of the Christian era, and even by some of those from whom the Christian Church received the Hebrew Scriptures. It will be of use here rapidly to trace back this succession of interpreters before any endeavour to elicit from the document itself what is its real purport and design. And in doing this it should be premised that it is by no means intended to express any assent to the several opinions which are about to be adduced, but merely to cite them as evidence of the difficulties which men of learning and intelligence, as well as of profound reverence for the sacred writings, have from time to time experienced in the interpretation of this portion of Holy Scripture. Let us take our start from a point anterior to the difficulties presented by modern geological discoveries, and commence with a luminary of the Galilean Church, Augustine Calmet. In a dissertation on the system of the world, according to the Hebrews, prefixed to his Commentary on the book of Ecclesi- asticus, he concludes by remarking : — " Let no one say that if the words of the sacred writers are found inconsistent with truth and experience in matters of physical science, we have no reason 30 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. to bestow greater credit on them in other matters. For the statements referred to are not so positively set down, as if they meant, to assert them for truths. They put them forward, as it were ex hi/pothesi — not as their own, but as the received opinion." ^ [More distinctly amongst ourselves Dr. Samuel Clark, in his "Exposition of the Church Catechism," speaking of the Fourth Commandment, says, "As to the particular space of time, in which this beautiful fabric of the world was formed out of a Chaos, and made of things which do not appear ; 'tis not in itself at all material, whether it had been performed in one moment, or in six days. But for our greater distinctness of perception, 'tis described to have been effected in six days; and possibly, moreover, as this might be a typical representa- tion of some greater periods." The allusion is probably to the notion of the world lasting six thousand years, to be followed by a millenial period; the notion of long geological periods had not yet been thought of.] We turn now to Dr. Thomas Burnet, the well-known author of the " Theory of the Earth," who, in his Archwologia? PJiilo- soj)hicce, having pointed out the disagreement of several particu- lars in the Mosaic Genesis with the truth of nature, proceeds to gay 2; — "These brief annotations on the Genesis set forth by Moses, seem to prove that it was not the design of the sacred author to explain the formation of the world in accordance with physical truth, which would have been useless for a people incapable of instruction in philosophy; but to represent the origin of things in such a manner as might be easy of concep- tion, and might beget piety and the worship of the true God in the minds of men." And he proceeds to observe, that as other ancient nations prefixed a cosmogony full of idolatrous notions to their national history, so Moses prefixed to the history and institutes of his nation something of the same kind, in a form calculated to eradicate such idolatrous notions. In illustration of this he refers to a passage in the Hexaemeron of Basil the 1 Translated from the Latin edition of "Calmet's Commentary on the Bible." » Arch. Phil., b. ii. c. 8, p. 424. THE SIX days' creation. 31 Great, where it said that the creation of the sun did not take place until after the earth was clothed with vegetables, in order to counteract the tendency of men to worship the sun as the supposed cause of vegetation. It is true Basil treats this as designed, not merely in the order of narration, but of creation itself. But that, under the historical form, a different meaning was suspected by Basil himself to lie hid, may be gathered from his words in the introduction to the first homily, where he says, it is desirable at the outset to enquire who the author was, as though, through the weakness of our understanding we may not be able to arrive at the inward meaning of the historian, yet having regard to the credibility of the speaker, we may be readily led to assent to what he says.^ We pass next to Stillingfleet, who briefly remarks, " All the question is concerning the particular manner which was used by Grod, as the efficient cause in giving being to the world. As to which I shall only in general suggest what Maimonides says of it. Ommia simul creata erant, et 'postea successive ah invicem separata; altho' I am somewhat inclinable to that of Gassendus, Majus est mimdns ojms, quam ut assequi mens huniana illius molitionem possit."^ Perhaps we shall see reason to suspect that Maimonides, if not Stillingfleet after him, regarded the subsequent successive separation, as pertaining only to the de- scription and not the actual formation of the six days' work. The next writer to whom reference may be made is the cele- brated Dr. Henry More, who, in 1662, published his Conjectura Cahhalistica, in which he proposed a threefold interpretation of the three first chapters of Grenesis, distinguished as the Literal, the Philosophical, and the Mystical or Moral Cabbala. With ^ 'Evdvixr]6Z/j.ev ris 6 Sta\ey6fievos 7]ixlv' SiSti Khv rf/y fiaOfias KapSias rod s fxr] a.(piK(Lju.eda dta rh rris Siavoias rifiwv acrOeves, ctAAa TTJye a^ioincrTia TrpotrexofTes toO \iyovTos, avrofxaTCtis €js ffvyKaTadeffti' tS>v elp7]fiivoiv e^ax^TjirJjueSa. [Burnet corre- sponded -with Sir Isaac Newton on this subject, and there is an interesting letter from Newton in Brewster's Life of Newton, vol. ii. pp. 447 fF. I extract the following : — " When he tells us of two great lights, and the stars made the fourth day, I do not think their creation from beginning to end was done the fourth day, nor in any one day of the creation. — It being his design to describe things in order according to the succession of days, allotting no more than one day to one thing, they were to be referred to some day or other." There is, however, a good deal of realism in the interpretations contained in^this letter.] '■^ Originos Sacrtc, b. iii. c. 2, p. 296, cd. 1709. 32 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the latter we are in no way concerned ; of the Literal, he says in the Preface that by it " there is a very charitable provision made for them that are so prone to expect rigid precepts of philosophy in Moses his outward text. For this Literal Cabbala will steer them from that toil of endeavouring to make the bare letter speak consonantly to the true frame of nature, which while they attempt with more zeal than knowledge, they both disgrace themselves and wrong Moses." The spirit of this so- called Literal Cabbala is to be found in the Introduction to the Defence of it, p. 50, where he says that " the manner of deliver- ing the Creation is accommodately to the apprehension of the meanest : not speaking of things according to their very essence and real nature, but according to their appearances to us : not starting of high and intricate questions, and concluding them by subtle arguments, but familiarly and condescendingly setting out the Creation, according to the most easy and obvious con- ceits they themselves had of those things they saw in the world. Nor doth it follow that the narration must not be true, because it is according to the apjjearance of things to sense and obvious fancy ; for there is also a truth of appearance, according to which Scripture most-what speaks in philosophical matters." In the Philosophical Cabbala there is a great deal of Pytha- gorean speculation on the meaning of numbers, much that makes one readily assent to what the author says in the Preface in reference to the title of his work, "that though I call this interpretation of mine Cahhala, yet I must confess I received it neither from man nor angel. Nor came it to me by Divine inspiration." A few sentences are extracted that are of moment to the present inquiry. In p. 72, he says that the atheist shall have nothing to allege against the philosophy of this account of the Creation, " for he shall not hear Moses in this Fhilosophkh Cahhala either tasking God to his. six days' labour, or bounding the world at the clouds, or making the moon bigger than the stars, or numbering days without suns." And in pp. 79, 80, he says, '' you are to understand that these six numbers or days do THE SIX days' creation. 33 not signify any order of time, but the nature of the things that are made in them. But for anything in Moses his Philosophick Cabbala, all might be made at once, or in such periods of time, as is most suitable to the nature of the things themselves." — " Nov will this at all seem bold or harsh, if we consider that the most learned have already agreed that all the whole creation was made at once. — So that that leisurely order of days is thus quite taken away, and all the scruples that may rise from that hypothesis." Bacon points to a like manner of regarding the description of the six days' work. He says, " In the works of creation we perceive a twofold emanation of divine virtue, of which one has relation to power, the other to wisdom. The former is chiefly discerned in the creation of matter in the mass, the latter in the beautiful disposition of its form. This being premised, it is to be noted that there is nothing in the history of the creation to hinder our understanding the confused mass and material of heaven and earth to have been created in one moment of time, to the disposing and digesting of which six days have been attri- buted, so significantly has God discriminated between the opera- tions of his power and of his wisdom. To this is to be added that in respect to the creation of matter it is not related that God said, 'Let there be heavens and earth,' as was said of the succeeding works ; but the actual work is nakedly asserted : * God created the heavens and the earth ; ' so that matter appears as if wrought by hand ; but the introduction of form has the style of a law or decree."^ If we observe the use of the word ^ In operibus creationis, duplicem virtutis divine emanationem videmus, quarum una ad potentiam refertur, altera ad sapientiam : Ilia prsecipue cernitur in creanda mole materipe, hpec in piilchritudine formse disponenda. Hoc posito notandum est, nihil in creationis historia obstare, quin fuerit confiisa ilia colli terrajque massa et materia unico temporis momento creata, cui tamen disponendse, digerendgeque sex dies fuerunt attributi ; aded signanter Deus opera potentife ac sapientiae discriminavit. Cui accedit quod de materice creatione memorife proditum non sit dixisse Deum, fiat ccelum et terra, sicut de sequentibus operibus dictum est ; sed nude atque actualiter, Deus creavit cmlum et terrain : ita ut materia videatur, tanquam manufacta ; formae vero introductio stylum habeat legis, aut decreti. Be Augm. Sci. lib. i. [In the earlier "Advancement of Learning" the disposition of the mass of created matter is called " the work of six days." But if we compare Thom. Aq. Sum. Theol. pt. 1. qu. 74. Art. 2 sub Jin., where the views of Augustine are discussed, we cannot doubt that Bacon had this in view and that the change was designed. Both make the same 34 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. actnaliter in regard to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and reflect that the actual introduction of form required divine power as much as the creation of the universe in mass, we cannot doubt that he regarded the account of the six days' work as descriptive of things as they exist, rather than as they were actually created. In the unreformed Church, the celebrated Cajetan,^ who died in 1534, thus wrote on Gen. i. 5 ; " For the sanctification of each seventh day, Moses gathered the days to seven rather than to any other number. Yet the works of the six days were not on this account a fiction. But to six perfections of the universe in orderly mutual relation he accommodated six days, to signify that the things of which the universe consists have an order and sequence between themselves, just as six natural days have. So that between days and works there is a similitude of propor- tion in such manner that, as a second day has its relation of sequence to the first, and a third to the second, and so on to the seventh, so the six created perfections have a relation of sequence to one another up to the consummation of all things requisite to the perfection of the universe in every respect in the existing nature of things. Because, therefore, the things created by God when distributed into six gradations are related to one another, just as if the several gradations had been pro- duced on several days, and the artificer had rested on the seventh, all being completed; so without a fiction Moses ac- commodated all the works created at the first instant, in which God created the heavens and the earth, as distributed into six degrees of perfections in orderly relation to one another, to six natural days, and rest to a seventh." ^ distinction between the creation of matter in the mass and the communication of form, both use the word ulrribnte in reference to the six days, and the word sigita)iter in reference to the discrimination in speaking of Creation. — Dens creavit omnia sinml, quantum ad rerum substantiam quodammodo informem : sed quantum ad formationem et ornatum non simul. Unde signanter utiter verbo creationis. — Secundum Aug. ille ordo dierum referendus est ad naturalem ordinem operum, quae diebus attribuuntur.] [ ^ Mr. Mivart, in the " Contemporary Review" for Jan., 1872, gives many references to other eminent Eoman Catholic theologians. A striking passage by Colet, the Dean of St. Paul's, is quoted by Milman in his "Annals of St. Paul's CathecU-al.] 2 Moses propter sanctificationem septimi cujusquo diei collegit dies ad septem potiCis quam alium numerum. Nee propterea finxit opera sex dierum : sed accommo- davit sex ordinate se habentibus perfectionibus uuiversi sex dies : ad significandum, THE SIX days' creation. 35 If now one steps back to the times of the Schoolmen, a "■ IIIIIIIIMI cursory glance at the questions discussed in the Summa Theologke, of Thomas Aquinas, in reference to the six days of creation, their nature and the works performed in them, will show how many and perplexing difficulties this portion of Holy Scripture was at that period thought to present, p Amongst these questions may be instanced the difficulty arising ' from the enumeration of successive days with evening and morning, light and darkness, before the creation of the heavenly bodies as represented on the fourth day, and the production of the vegetable clothing of the earth prior also to the existence of the smi, so necessary to its growth according to all experience. At an earlier period the Yenerable Bede remarked in reference to the mention of the first day in Gen. i. 5 : ** Perhaps under the name of day all time is here designated, and all revolving ages are included in this word. Hence it is not called the first day, but one day."^ The notion that the creation days extend over all time to the final consummation, and are accord- ingly still going on, was, as will presently be seen, entertained by a much earlier authority. Procopius of Gaza, who flourished circa an. 520, in his Com- mentaria in Octateuctmm, says, in reference to the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day, that "we learn from it that the number of days was assumed for the sake of order, and because of our weakness of understanding. For else we should quod res universi sunt a Deo dispositse ordinate et consequenter se habentes inter seipsas, quemadmoduiu sex dies naturales. Ita quod inter dies et opera est similitude proportionalis : ut sicut secundus dies consequenter se habet ad primum, et tertius ad secundum, et sic usque ad septimum ; ita effecta3 sex perfectiones consequenter se habent inter sese usque ad consummationem omnium requisitorum ad omuimodam perfectioncm universi in esse naturae. Quia itaque effecta a Deo in sex distributa gradus se babent inter se ac si facti fuissent singuli gradus singulis diebus, et septimo quievisset opifex perfectis omnibus ; ideo absque fictione Moses effecta omnia in primo instanti, quo creavit ccelos et terram, distributa in sex perfectionum gradus consequenter se babentes, accommodavit sex diebus naturalibus, et quietem diei septimo. Comment in Gen. i. ^ Fortassis bic diei nomen, totius temporis nomen est, et omnia volumina seculorum hoc vocabulo includit. Ideoque non dictus dies primus sed dies unus. He says of tbe second day, Ita hsec qune repetuntur, sicut supcriiis intelligenda sunt. And so also he says of the other days. U. ..^ 36 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. not have been able to apprehend the order of created things by reason of their multitude." And again on the commencement of ch. ii. he says, " I think it manifest that after all things had been already made and completed, for the sake of order and proper harmonious arrangement, this number" (namely, six) "was assumed."^ We now come to St. Augustine, who discourses at large on this subject with great subtlety, and at the same time with great depth of thought. He says, " It is more probable that the first six days were evolved in a manner strange and imwonted to us, in the conditions of things themselves, wherein even- ing and morning, like real light and darkness, that is day and night, did not present that alternation which natural days do by the course of the sun ; what at any rate we are obliged to admit in regard to the three days enumerated before the luminai'ies were created."^ He also says, that of the same Creator of whom this Scripture says that in six days God finished all his works, it is elsewhere written that he created all things simultaneously, these six or seven days being rather one day six or seven times repeated in condescension to the capacity of those who could not readily form a conception of such a simultaneous creation of all things.^ And in a passage ' Docet numcrum dierum assumptum esse ordinis gratia et ob nostram imbecillita- tem intellectus. Nam alioqui non quivissemus ordiiiem rerum creatarum ob multi- ' tudinem assequi. In Gen. i. 14. Manifestum arbitror ciim omnia jam essent facta et consummata, ordinis gratia et debitse consonantiai assumptum esse hunc uumerum. In Gen. ii. 1, 2. 2 Probabilius est istos quidem septem dies, illorum nominibus et numero, alios atque alios sibimet succedeiitcs currendo temporalia peragere spatia : illos auteni primes sex dies inexperta nobis atque inusitata specie in ipsis rerum conditionibus explicates, in qiiibus et vesperc et mane, sicut ipsa lux et tenebrse, id est dies et nox, non eam vicissitudinem pra'buorunt, quara prajbcnt isti per solis circuitus ; quod certe de illis tribus fateri cogimur qui ante condita luminaria commemorati atque enumerati sunt. Gen. ad Lit. iv. 18. Equally strong expressions of this view of the creation days are to be found in the Liber Iraperfectus de Gen. ad Literam. Eeference may be made to § 28, \ 43, and § 51. 3 Gen. ad Lit. iv. 33. De quo Creatorc Scriptura ista narravit quod sex dicbus consummavei'it omnia opera sua, de illo alibi non utique dissonanter scriptum est quod creavit omnia simul. Ac per hoc et istos dies sex vel septem, vel potius unum sexies septiesve repetitum simul fecit ([ui fecit omnia simul. Quid ergo opus erat »ex dies tam distincte dispositeque narrari ? Quia scilicet ii qui pon possunt videre quod dictum est, Creavit omnia simul, nisi cum eis sermo tardiiis incedat, ad id quo eos ducit pervenire non possunt. THE SIX days' creation. 37 to which there will be occasion to refer farther on, he says that that one day which Grod first made was made present to all his works, being prior or subsequent not by intervals of time, but in the connexion of the creatures. The alternation of these days, he says again, is not to be understood of a succession of time, but of the variety that exists in the works of God, the historian having subsequently in his discourse divided that which God did not divide in the accomplishment of his work ; for God created all things simultaneously, whilst by one act of his will he provided for the manifold variety of all species, in which will all things were made without time, which from their very origin God ceases not to dispense throughout all time.^ Before Augustine, Origen likewise expressed his belief that the account of the creation given by Moses contained under the veil of the letter a profound and hidden meaning, intimating that perhaps the only thing expressly taught was the creation of the world in time.^ He asks how any one possessed of sense could suppose that there was a succession of first, second, and third days, with their evening and morning, before the existence of sun and moon and stars, as represented by this account in its literal acceptation.^ Irenaeus gives a distinct intimation that he regarded the six days of creation as still going on, the seventh day being the promised rest of the righteous hereafter. He says that the statement, that God finished his works in six days and rested * De mirabilibus Scripturse i. Sed quamvis per sex dierum alternationeni omnis instituta fuisse creatura perhibetur, ron tanien htBC dierum altei'natio per spatiutn temporis intelligitur ; sed in his operum vicissitudo declaratur. Post namque bistorias narrator divisit in sermone-, quod Deus non divisit in operis perfectioue. Simul enim cuncta quaj condidit, Deus creavit, dum una voluntate multiplicem omnium specierum varietatem fieri disposuit, in qua vobintate una omnia simul sine tempore esse fecit, qure ab ipso ortu suo per tempus dispensare non desinit. * De conditione mundi quae alia nos Scriptura magis poterit edocere quam ea quae u Moyse de origine ejus scripta est? Quae licet majora intra se contineat quam bistorise narratio videtur ostendere, et spiritalem in quam maximis contineat intellectum, _atque in rebus mysticis et profundis velamine quodam literaj utatur, tamen nihilominus indicat boo sermo naixantis, quod ex certo tempore creata sunt omnia quaj videntur. Ilepl apxv(noKoye7i' Mwvcttjs y-ira Tr]u e^SofiTiv tjp^aro, mpl ttjs tov avOpdirov KaraffKeuTjs Ktyoiv o'vtws — k.t.A., i., 1. 1. 42 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP, Enough has now been done to show that long before geology, or even modern astronomy, presented the difficulties that of late years have perplexed believers, and afforded a fancied triumph to the infidel, for which believers have very much to blame them- selves, there were those who saw abundant difficulties in the way of a literal acceptation of the Mosaic statements, who could yet be profound believers in the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture and of this part in particular, — Jewish doctors, Christian fathers, burning and shining lights of the Church. VII. We are now in a position to return to the document itself, which, as has been already shown, affords numerous indi- cations that it was not intended to be taken in the strict historical and literal acceptation of its statements. Putting aside for the present the question of time, and looking only at the works themselves as successively enumerated, it will be seen that they are described according to a principle of classification. But for the idea of temporal succession produced by the reckoning of days, this classification could scarcely have escaped the notice of any intelligent and observant reader. A very simple but comprehensive and complete classification of material creatures, from a terrestrial point of view and in accordance with sensible qualities and appearances, is presented to us under the form of a successive development, the succession being expressive of the order in which the series is arranged. It is resolvable into two parts, the successive particulars enumerated in the second having severally, in the order in which they are placed, a special relation to the successive particulars in the first. This former part is in fact an enumeration of the so called Elements, to which as a classification of material creatures the ancients attached so much importance ; and these, according to the assumed character of the entire passage, are presented in their concrete form, the progression being from the most subtle and impalpable to the densest and most substantial.^ 1 That one, by uuderstanding the Spirit of God in verse 2 to denote the air, mij^ht see the four elements in the heaven, earth, spirit or air, and waters, of the two first THE SIX days' creation. 43 First, light is specified, or, according to the dramatic character of the representation, called into existence. Light and heat were intimately associated in the conceptions of the ancients, being naturally regarded as only different modifications of the same element. Accordingly the word here used to designate light is in several instances also used to denote heat and even artificial fire, (Is. xviii. 4, xxxi. 9, xKv. 16, xlvii. 14, Ezek. v. 2) ; and it is the light which constitutes day, and which, therefore, as coming from the sun, is identified in men's ordinary conceptions with the heat of the sun, that stands as the representation of this element in the Mosaic description. From this, the most subtle and imponderable, the sacred writer proceeds to the denser but still subtle elements of air and water. These, like the chaotic aggregate of creation which at the commencement, with reference, as may be supposed, to the subsequent orderly classification, is represented as existing in a state of confused combination, are at first represented as mingled and united together. In other words they are classed together as possessed of common properties. The transparency of air and water, the permeability of both by solid bodies, the free motion of their parts amongst themselves, and the ready conversion of water into an aerial substance in the form of vapour would naturally lead to their being classified together ; while their separation into the firmament or expanse of the atmosphere, and the waters, above the firmament, as rain or clouds, and below it, as the water on the earth's surface, presents these substances as different and distinct elements, though thus classed together. verses, we learn from the Liher Imperfectus of St. Augustine, Be Gen. ad Lit., § 18 : — Tertia opinio de hoc spiritu oriri potest, ut credatur Spiritus nomine, aeris elementum enuntiatum ; ut ita quatuor elementa insinuate sint, quibus niundus iste visibiKs surgit, coelum scilicet et terra et aqua et aer : non quia jam erant distincta et ordinata ; sed quia in illius materia quamvis informi confusione, tameu exortura prsesigna- bantur, qune informis confusio tenebrarum et abyssi nomine commendata est. Of this unformed and confused material, as compared with the several creatures afterwards separately brought into existence, he remarks in his unretracted work. Be Gen. ad Lit. Lib. v., V. 13, — Non tcmporali sed caussali ordinc priiis facta est informis forma- bilisque materies, et spiritalis et corporalis, de qua fieret quod faciendum esset. 44 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. And then from these fluid and elastic elements we are led to the most solid and substantial. Earth, as the dry land, appears and is covered with its vegetable clothing as a part of itself. And thus we have an orderly classification of the elements, — just what Josephus calls in the heading of his account of the contents of this chapter, 97 hiara^L the order in which they are actually placed being that in which for another cause, namely that of classification, they happen to be reckoned. It was also observed that, as regards the six days of creation the writer abstains from, at any rate, expressly saying that the works were actually accomplished on the respective days reckoned along with them ; while the most that is implied in the words of the Fourth Commandment — "six days God made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is" — amounts to the assertion that the aggregate of the days occupied was six. In fact, in the enumeration of the works and days, one of each is simply set over against the other respectively. Works which in their actual formation may have taken place wholly, or in part, either simultaneously or successively, and in the latter case in any order of succession, are, when separated and classified according aerique conjungitur, produxitad Dei verbum indigenas suos, omnia scilicet natatilia et volatilia ; et hscc potentialiter in numeris, qui per congruos temporum motus ei- sererentxir. Sexto terrestria similiter animalia tamquara ex ultimo elemento mundi ultima; nihilominus potentialiter, quorum uumeros tempos postea visibilitur explicaret. Be Gen. ad Lit. V. v. 14. The elemental classification is here implied, only St. Augustine regards the narrative as describing a potential creation before the actual creation of time, while the view above given supposes a representation of things as actually created in the order and succession in which they are classified. THE SIX days' creation. 47 to their several natures and kinds, represented as so many- separate days' work of tlie great artificer. "We might almost think that this was a purely metaphorical use of the day for the work, if it were not for the statement at the close that God rested on the seventh day from all his work. Mr. Rorison indeed, relying on the poetical character and structure of the composition, regards the days as not indicating any relation of time whatever. "The days themselves are transfigured from registers of time into definitives of strophes or stanzas, — lamps and landmarks of a creative sequence, — a mystic drapery, a parabolic setting, — shadowing by the sacred cycle of seven the truths of an ordered progress, a foreknown finality, an achieved perfection, and a divine repose."^ And then in reference to the use made of the Mosaic Heptameron in the Fourth Command- ment, he says, that this symbolism " becomes, in turn, to the Jewish nation at the Exodus, the platform of the law of the Sabbath. God's week is mystical, man's week is literal. But the spiritual homology assumed is not disturbed by the inevitable disparity of scale." But why inevitable? Plainly the days may indicate real time just as much as the operations a real creative work, that in fact had some real relation to time, whether expressed or not in the narrative. Here is his weakest point and our greatest difficulty. God's resting on the seventh day from all his work, coupled with the words of the Fourth Com- mandment— " six days God made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is," — does seem to point to a closer relation between the several works and the specified times, than that of mere poetic figure or symbolism. ' P. 336. In a note he extracts some passages from Herder, from which are taken the following : — " To remove the false notion of days, let me observe what is obvious to every one on a bare inspection, that the whole system of this representation rests on a comparison by means of which the separations do not take place physically but symbolically. As one eye is incapable of comprehending at one view the whole creation, it was necessary to form classes, and it was most natural to distinguish in the first place the heavens from the earth Thus this ancient document is the first simple table of a natural order, in which the term " days," while it is sub- servient to another purpose of the author, is employed only as a nominal scale for the division." 48 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. But then, at any rate, it is to be observed in the first place, that it is by no means clear that it is not with the issuing of God's commandments, " Let there be light," and so forth, instead of with the actual genesis of the creatures, that the specification of time is intended to be connected, especially as the creatures, at any rate the plants and animals, are described in the widest generality of kinds, rather than as individual specimens of each kind. Now the ascription to God of the utterance of such com- mands is only a human manner of representing the determining will of God, just as the resting from his work can only signify that there existed no such will to create any other material beings, beyond those included in the comprehensive enumeration of the six days' work. God's relation to time is wholly difierent from ours. But even in ourselves a resolute purpose kept steadily in view may with equal truth be assigned to any one point as to another of the entire period during which it is thus kept in view. Still more is this true in the case of the Almighty, whose thoughts and purposes are ever present, and to whom yes- terday, to-day and for ever are but one constant now. His deter- mining will to create a world, all whose parts are resolvable into the sixfold division we have presented to us in the Mosaic Genesis, may with equal truth be assigned by him to six several days as to one, and these in any order, all being alike one to him. Assuming therefore this account to be a divine product, as written under the inspiration of God, — and on any other sup- position ice have no concern to vindicate the truthfulness of the document, — we may perhaps reasonably conceive that, for a special reason, Moses may have been led by the divine Spirit to assign God's determining will to create the several kinds of creatures enumerated to the several days reckoned along with them, such an accommodation not being likely to mislead those who are capable of forming right conceptions of the Deity in relation to time, while those who are incapable of such conceptions must needs be dealt with in some manner of accommodation.^ 1 Such au accommodation to -weaker minds is suggested by St. Augustine in the Lib. Imperf. de Gen. ad Lit. § 28, as well as in a passage already quoted. THE SIX days' creation. 49 Tlie nearer proximity, however, in the narrative of the specifica- tions of time to the mention of the manifestation of the creatures in their concrete state, may seem to some rather to indicate that "we should connect the mention of the days with the realisation of God's will in the actual creation of the world, and with his will itself only as exerted in that realisation in time. But then it is to be considered that the creatures, though described in their concrete state, are still described as kinds in a very wide and comprehensive generalisation, and that notwithstanding the impression which the narrative produces of an immediate fulfilment of the divine commands, we yet have represented to us the growth of vegetables as prpduced from the ground, and of the living beings as if bred from the waters and from the earth, — a manner of production which suggests according to our experience a slow and gradual process.^ If then we are not by this representation of a gradual process in the fulfilment brought back to the purpose and will as existing in God rather than as manifested in time, we are certainly not warranted in supposing that the specified days denote the full and exact space Eeferring to the already noticed words of the son of Sirach expressive of a simul- taneous creation of all things, he says, " In ipsa ratione operationem contemplatus est in Spiritu Sancto qui dixit, Qui nianet in feternum creavit omnia simul : sed commodissime in illo libro, quasi morarum per intervalla factarum a Deo rerum digesta narratio est, ut ipsa dispositio, qua3 ab infirmioribus animis contemplatione stabili videri non poterat, per hujusmodi ordinem sermouis exposita quasi istis oculis cerneretur." He had just before said, " Ubi est quod scriptum est, Subest enim tibi ciim voles posse, si opus est Deo productione temporis, ut aliquid perficiat.^ An omnia quidem tamquam in arte atque ratione perfecta sunt Deo, non in pro- ductione temporis, sed in ipsa vi qua illas etiam res, quas uon stare sed transirfr cernimus, stabiliter efficit ? " ' St. Augustine, Be Gen, ad Lit. Lib. Lmperf., ^ 51, seems to have read at the conclusion of the command to be fruitful and multiply, in v. 22, and immediately before the mention of the fifth day, the words occurring after the mention of some of the divine operations, et factum est sic. On this he remarks, — Hie plane quivis tardus jam evigilare debet ut intelligat quales isti dies enumerentur. Ctim enira certos semiuum numei'os Deus animantibus dederit, servantes miram certo ordine constantiam, ut certo dierum numero, pro suo quoque genere, et concepta utero gerant, et edita ova calefi^ciaut ; cujus natura3 institutio Dei sapientia conservatur, quae tendit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponat omnia suaviter : quomodo uno die potuerunt et concipere, et utero gravescere, et parta vaporare atque nutrire, et implere aquas maris et multiplicari super terram ? Though this is grounded apparently on the place in which the words et factum est sic were read by St Augustine in this verse, yet the question which he asks is equally pertinent in reference to the germination of the vegetable productions and the derivation of the living creatures from the earth and waters, by some process of generation. 50 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of time actually occupied in the production of eacli class of creatures, only one, namely that of light, consisting of a singular effect of creative power. Rather these days should be taken as indicating days on which the several classes of creatures had virtually begun to exist, or had fully attained their existence as such. Some of the particidars comprised in any of these classes may have been in existence longer than others, and some simultaneously growing into their proper condition but unequal in their degrees of contemporaneous development ; yet there must have been some one day on which each of these classes might be more truly said to have virtually come into existence, or else to have been completed and so pronounced good in respect to that virtual existence or completeness, as in other respects, than at any other time. Some of these days may have been separated from others by indeterminate intervals, but these intervals are overlooked, as periods during which the classes in their comprehensive entireness did not yet exist ; they may have been all several, or some of them may have been concurrent, but, in respect of the diversity of operations, treated as different, the object not being to date any one of these operations from any particular epoch ; and even we might suppose that all took place simultaneously, and that only one actual day was repeated six times as diverse in the sixfold diversity of the creatures enumerated, as we have seen St. Augustine thought. In our conception there would be a real diversity and succession in the same actual time thus severally repeated in connexion with several distinctly conceived things supposed to have happened in it. This diversity in conception seems to have been the idea embodied by St. Augustine in the extracts which are subjoined underneath.^ ^ Ita fortasse dictum est, et facta est vesper a et factum est mane, dies units, sicut ratione prospicitur, ita fieri debere aut posse, non ita lit fit temporalibus tractibus. Be Gen. ad Lit. Lib. Imperfect., § 28. Dies ergo ille quem Deus primitus fecit si spiritalis rationalisqiie creatiu-a est, id est aiigelorum supercoslestium atqiic virtutum, prsesentatus est omnibus operibus Dei boo ordiue pricsentia?, quo ordine scieutiK qua et in verbo Dei facienda prseuosceret, et in creatura facta cognosceret, non per intervallorum temporalium moras, sed prius et posterius habens iu conueiione THE SIX days' creation. 51 And here too it must be remarked in regard to God's resting from his works on the seventh day, that this was not a cessation from work on that particular day, to be followed by a resump- tion of work at its expiration, but a cessation from work in the same sense for all time to come. That cessation was certainly not a suspension of the exercise of Almighty power in respect to the material world. It is as true that on every day in all time God says of each of his works, and of every class of them, Let it be, and it is, as this was true at the first creation of each. It was only therefore a cessation from work in respect of the virtual existence or completeness already, in their comprehensive character, of those classes which embrace the whole material crea- tion in all its diversity of kinds and under all the variations to which it either has been or may hereafter be subjected. Hence it is not said in Gen. ii. 1, 2, that God rested from working, but from the works as completed, not ah operationibus, but ah operatis. The word used (nDX7/D) does not denote the doing, but the work done, and is therefore used to express goods, and cattle in par- ticular, as a man's acquisitions. As this rest — a rest to extend to all subsequent time and consistent with the continued exercise of creative power within the limits of those comprehensive classes, which had virtually and in the completeness of their classification already come into existence — is yet determined to the particular day on which it might be said by reason of that completeness to have commenced, so also the determining each several class to the day when it might more strictly be said to have virtually begim, or been completed in its character as a class, is consistent with a previous or subsequent exercise of creative power within its own' particular limits. And if we may suppose these several classes to have occupied unequal periods of duration in arriving at the state assigned to each particular day, or in the subsequent creaturaruin, in efficacia vero Creatoris omnia simul. Gen. ad Lit. iv. 34. To understand this difficult passage we must know that St. Augustine considered, as the most probable supposition, that the light first created and distinguished from the corporeal light of the luminaries, was spiritual light as existing in the cognitions of Angelic Intelligences, to whose conceptions he here refers. The principle involved holds equally good however in regard to the conceptions of men. 52 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. development summed up therein, there is the more reason for treating as several the days which virtually sum up these diverse ages, however in point of actual time any of them may have been concurrent with others. Days that potentially rej)resent various and unequal periods are, without respect to their possible concurrence, treated as if they were as diverse and several as are the works assigned to them — works which in their poten- tiality sum up and represent the continued operations of those different periods. And this seems to be quite a natural pro- ceeding, though its justification may lead us, as often happens in such cases, into this somewhat abstruse discussion. IX. It will be well now just briefly to re-state the conclusions at which we have arrived. The creation of the material universe is represented in the form of a cosmogony, but the formation of its several parts, though described in this form, is set forth not in the order and succession in which they were actually brought into existence, but according to the principle and in the order and subdivisions of a simple and comprehensive classification. All things being thus resolved into six classes, these classes, as severally enumerated, are respectively followed by the enumeration of six days. And these days, up to the last, being numbered not in a manner necessarily denoting the suc- cession of time, but in such a manner as might be consistent with any order of temporal succession, if not standing meta- phorically merely to denote so many days' work as it were of the great artificer, represent days to which the divine purposes or commands for the creation of each class are determined, or the days on which each began virtually to exist as a class, or was completed in its character as such ; there being good and sufficient reasons, as wiU be presently shown, for adopting this form of representation. It is to be observed that the view which has been now pre- sented not only sets us free from any difficulties arising from astronomical science or the successions of organic creatures brought to light by geological discoveries, but also exempts us THE SIX days' creation. 53 from all anxiety in respect to any theories of the formation or transmutation of species by development or selection, or arising from any future possible discovery of a greater antiquity of the himian species than has hitherto been assigned to it. The principle of classification and of days reckoned according to the order of that, and not of the succession of time, renders us in- difierent to the actual priority or subsequence of any particular creatures to any others, and embraces in its comprehensive generality the creatures of all periods, whether newly created or derived from those that preceded them, the kinds enumerated being still the same in their generality, however different the species have become. Professor Challis agrees as to the necessity of abandoning the strictly historical view. But he substitutes for it, as we have already seen, the supposition of what he calls a prophetical account of creation. He supposes that the order of epochs is not in accordance with the historic epochs of first appearances, but with those of maximum developments. TheSe he says must embrace the ascending steps by which the maximum is reached and the descending steps by which it declines. He is evidently thinking of a mathematical formula which, if it includes the maximum, must equally apply to the variable quantity in its increasing and decreasing stages. But just as in such a mathe- matical formula, when it is made to express the maximum by supposing the increment of the variable to become evanescent, the increasing and decreasing values of the variable are thus excluded; so also the mere mention of the culminating point in a series of progressing and then declining events of the same kind, does not necessarily include, but rather excludes, the ascending and descending steps, especially where we are not informed that it is the point of maximum development of such a series. Supposing however that the third, fifth and sixth days works thus specially refer to the organisations of the carboniferous, secondary, and tertiary geological periods, he says the intervals over which their unfoldings were spread over- 54 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. lapped each other. This under an historical form is in effect a classification, the principle of which is to group together the like organisations of whatever period, and to arrange them in the order of the periods in which these attained their maximum developments. Some of the dif&culties he has to contend with in this supposition have already been noticed, and it is necessary now only to observe that having thus adopted a principle of classification according to geological periods, he is not able to adhere to it. He is obliged to admit amongst the plants of the carboniferous period, fruit trees, that do not belong to it, which he justifies on the ground of similarity of nature ; and to include in the secondary period feathered fowl, which barely belong to it as far as we know, cetaceans, which do not belong to it at all, and fishes which belong alike to all periods. Thus having first adopted one principle of classification, that of geological periods according to maximum developments, he violates this by including in his groups creatures classed with them on a different principle altogether, that of similarity of nature and habits. Driven to this by the exigencies of the case, it is strange he did not perceive that as a scheme the Mosaic account agrees no better with geology than as a history, while the classification, in the several groups of creatures out of their proper periods, falsifies the indications of time as denoting the order of succession on this supposition of a proleptic scheme, just as much as it does the same indications regarded as representing the actual periods of creation on the supposition of a literal history. This view is therefore encumbered with quite as serious difiiculties as those which beset the historical interpretation ; while sending us back to the conceptions of the divine mind, it presents those concep- tions in a form which, as regards the third, the fifth, and the sixth daj^s, is in effect a classification, the principle of which, however, is not adhered to. It is not necessary to examine the fanciful supposition of physical possibilities by which he en- deavours to account for the other days. But if we are to ex- plain any part on the principle of a classification, let it be one THE SIX days' creation. 65 that is consistent with itself and applies to the entire, as the unity of character in the whole passage would lead us to expect. We have seen that such a classification, formed in accordance with the recognised principles of early times, and not drawing on the scientific discoveries of later ages, is visible on the sur- face of the narrative, if men would be content to look at that surface before they begin to dig beneath it in search of geolo- gical formations and organic remains. It remains only further to consider whether there was any reason why the account of the creation should have been thrown into this particular form. "We have already seen that a state- ment which should be conformed to the absolute truth of nature, or to any particular stage of subsequent scientific discovery, was not to be expected nor likely to answer any useful purpose ; while it will appear that the representation actually given was well calculated to answer ends that the sacred writer must have had in view. X. The first and greatest design, which one cannot but believe that Moses at the outset would have had in view, was to give the children of Israel just notions of God, and guard them from the prevalent idolatry, to which, from the force of example on every side, they were so prone, notwithstanding the divine interpositions on their behalf coupled with the most stringent injunctions to avoid it in every form and degree. The great particular of divine truth with which he sets out, is therefore the creation of the world at large, heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, by the one living and true God, acting as a single being, while the name by which he is described in its plural form is expressive of the concentration in that one God of all power, might, majesty and dominion, those several powers which, as separately personified, were worshipped as dis- tinct divinities by the heathen being combined in him, and the several creatures, which were likewise objects of religious worship, being all the work of that same God. However this truth may be regarded as a deduction possible to human reason, and so 56 GENESIS A^^5 ITS AUTHORSHIP. might be considered as not falling properly within the province of revelation, it is certain that the people for whom Moses more immediately wrote, surromided as they were by universally pre- valent idolatry, would find reason of itself practically insufficient to maintain the truth. Under existing circumstances, at any rate, it was necessary to make it an article of faith ; and so it comes to pass that in the New Testament we are told that the creation of the world by the word of God is understood by faith, the truth which it was needful to reveal not being the order or manner of creation, but the fact that the worlds were made by the word of God. And to impress the unity of God the more forcibly on the minds of the people, in opposition to the preva- lent idolatry, which consisted so largely of the worship of natural objects, it was desirable not only to set forth the creation of the world in its aggregate as the work of God, but also to exhibit the several parts as each the result of the same creative power. This is done by a simple, natural and complete enumeration of all kinds of creatures, each of which, with all its varieties and in all its properties, is the work of God severally wrought by him. And as the ancients, and more especially the Eastern nations, with whom the Israelites were in contact, delighted to exercise their imaginations in speculating on the origin and relations of natural objects, their cosmogony being blent with theogony and forming part of their religious systems, 80 Moses also represents the process of creation and the enumera- tion of its parts under the form of a cosmogony, that might sup- plant or exclude the notions which else the Israelites might borrow from their neighbours, corrupt and debasing as such notions of the Gentiles mostly were. In giving his description of creation this form, he uses much poetic imagery, and in an impressive and dramatic manner represents the immediate and personal agency of God. And while this dramatic character of the representation involved the appearance of succession in the works performed as it were one by one, the erroneous impression that might be caused by this dramatic representation of sue- THE SIX days' creatiox. 57 cessive acts, would be counteracted in the minds of those whose advancing knowledge would make this correction needful, by the assertion of the creation of all in the aggregate first. And we have seen how in fact it was thus counteracted. And as it was part of the poetic form of the description to represent the works of nature as thus successively formed with dramatic action, instead of presenting a simple enumeration of the classified creatures, so the aggregate from which the several particidars are to be distinguished is with like poetic imagery described as a dark and indistinguished mass, over which, in keeping with the dramatic character, a Spirit or breathing of God moves pre- paratory to the subsequent division. How needful it was thus to set forth the formation of the heavens and the earth as the first efiect of God's creative power, we may judge from the fact that ia the ancient systems of theosophy, heaven and earth appear generally as the first exist- ing deities or as a self-existing mass of unshapcd and chaotic matter. We need not more than remind the reader of the Coslum and Terra of the Greek and Roman mythologies,^ derived no doubt from Oriental sources, and of the personified Xdo^;^ or inanimate rudis indigestaque moles of Ovid. This primitive vkr^, or matter, was itself regarded as a deity ^ by Grecian philosophers, as well as the elements derived from it. In this they borrowed from the Eg}^tians, who, as Diogenes Laertius informs us, on the au- thority of Hecatgeus, Aristagoras and others, considered matter to be the principle of all things, from which the elements were separated.* These elements appear as deities not only by their ' Thus Apollodouis begins his Bibliotheca by saying, 'Ovpavhs Trpajroi toO Trdvros iSvvdcTTevcxe Koafiov yfj/xas 5e 77)^ inKvucre — k.t.A. « The word translated "the deep" in Gen. i. 1, Dinn, has invariably the gram- matical character of a proper name. 3 ThiLS Clement of Alexandria, Admon. ad Gentes, p. 42, B. Ed. Sylbnrg. telLs us, Tdrr)v Ti]y (pvcnu a\Xr)\ais exovaas aTrapri^etv rhv iviavrhv dplaTrj avfj-cpcovia, (pvcriv 5e aufiPdWecrOai irXelcrra els t^v tuv airdvTwv ^woyopiav roiv Oecov tovtoov, rhv fiev irvpciSovs Koi irffv/xaros, ttjj' 5e uypov Kol |rjpoO, Kotyfj d^ afi'0V9 5irip6pClllJ.tUT) TWV KCLT ''AiyvrTTOV avOpunrwv. ■ Sir J. G. Wilkinson, ap. "Rawlinson's "Herodotus," vol. ii., p. 243, second edition, remarks, — " There is a striking resemblance between the Semitic nef, ' breath,' and the Coptic nibe, nifi, uouf, ' spiritus ; ' and between the hieroglyphic num (with the article pnum), and the irvfvua, spirit, which Diodorus says was the name of the Egyptian J upiter. He was ' the soid of the world ' (compare mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet)." Again p. 251, he says that on the tombs of the kings there are few dii-ect indications of the creation of the world " beyond some mysterious allusions to the agency of Pthah (the Creator), or the representation of Noum (nef), the divine Spirit, passing in his boat ' on the waters,' or fashioning the clay on a potter's wheel." The Spirit of God moving on the face of the waters in the Biblical account, seems to have a striking relation to this representation of the Spirit passing in his boat on the waters. The idea of the potter fashioning the clay, is presented to us in the second chapter, where the formation of man and of the inferior animals is described by the verb "1^* 62 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. adopted by the Hebrew Legislator witli a view to counteract such an idolatrous view of the nature of the material world.^ XI. We may likewise find sufiicient reason for connecting with these sixfold operations of God's creative power the eniuneration of the six days, the import of which has been sufficiently dwelt on already. This reason we shall find in the prevalence of the hebdomadal division of time, and in the insti- tution of the Sabbath. Though, as we shall presently see, there is no evidence of the observance of the Sabbath amongst the Gentiles, there is evidence of a prevalent observance of the week as a division of time, an observance which originated in natural causes. Macrobius, Somn. Scip. i, 6, dwells largely on the im- portance and prevalence in natm^e of the septenary number, and amongst many examples, instances the period of human gestation and many circumstances connected with it as measured by weeks, and the variations of the tides concurrently with the quarters of the moon as taking place in weekly periods. Mr. MacDonald, Creation and the Fall, p. 317, in order to connect the observance of the week with a Sabbatical tradition supposed to have been derived from the creation, and to have been anterior to the Mosaic institution, objects to our supposing that the hebdo- madal reckoning was derived from the subdivision of the moon's period into four parts. Certainly such a subdivision of the full period of a lunation would not be likely to suggest itself naturally, this period being nearly thirty days. But though the period of the moon's return to the sun would not suggest such a subdivision, that of her return to the same place in the zodiac, which is as naturally observable as her return to the sim, and not afiected by the apparent simultaneous motion of the sun in ^ " We have abundant evidence that the Egyptian tlieology had its origin in the personification of the powers of nature, under male and female attributes, and that this conception took a sensible form, such as the mental state of the people required, by the identification of these powers with the elements and the heavenly bodies, tire, earth, water, the sun and moon, and the Nile. Such appears everywhere to be the origin of the objective form of polytheism, and it is especially evident among the nations most closely allied to the Egyptians by position and general character — the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, and in remoter connexion, the Indians on the one side and the Greeks on the other." — Keurick, Ancient Egypt, vol. i., p. 435. THE SIX days' creation. 63 the zodiac, would suggest such a division ; and more particularly as the phases of the moon, though depending on the joint motion of sun and moon, and so connected with the monthly period, present nevertheless at each quarter a visible mark by which only seven full days are measured. And thus the hebdomadal division of time would naturally have suggested itself, notwith- standing the speedy separation that would take place between the recurring weeks and the lunar phases, until the completion of a cycle of which the ancients were not unobservant. He thinks the division of the month into decads would have been more natural, as indeed it would if regard were only had to the period of a lunation ; and he argues from the non-observance of such a decimal division in favour of the Sabbatical origin of what he considers the purely traditional observance of the week. He seems not to be aware that this decimal division was observed in historical times by the Athenians, the days of each decad being numbered as first, second and so forth, fn]vb ITS AUTHORSHIP. vasts xm iiisfnimrnfi, and the true meaning of the sentence is, In, or with, a beginning God created the heavens and the earth, — an explanation suited to indicate the newness of the world. ^ Plainly he takes the word in its indefinite form as without the article, and supposes the meaning to be that the world was not eternal, but had a beginning, — a sense which we have already seen, p, 37, was attributed to it by Origen, namely, qiidd ex certo tempore creata sunt omnia qiia>. cidentur. The two particulars, it is to be observed, which are essential to the explanation of Maimonides, and are plainly implied in his words, are that the beginning meant by Reskitli is the early or commencing part of the thing of which it is the beginning, and that the beginning here spoken of is to be understood indefinitely as a beginning. This it was not easy to express in the Latin of Buxtorf's translation ; but it is manifestly implied. Dr. M'Caul, Aids to Faith, p. 200, lays great stress on this absence of the article, as the word is written with the Masoretic vocalisation. He says, " Here it is necessary to observe that Reshith, the Hebrew word for ' beginning,' is in the original without the definite article. The antiquity and correctness of this reading are proved by the Septuagint, Chaldee, and Syriac versions. The uniformity of the reading, and the care with which it had been preserved for centuries — notwithstanding the natural temptation to supply the article — testify that there was an uniform traditional meaning attached to it, different from that possible, if the word had the article." The absence of the article is no doubt singular, as the only other instance where the word has not a pronominal suffix, or a genitive after it to which it transfers the article when it will bear it, and yet 1 Scito ante omnia, quod clifFerentia magna sit inter Primum et Principium. Nam Prvuipium dicitur de re, cujus est principium, vel cum qua incipit, licet tempore illam non prajcedat ; veriim Prinnim dicitur proprie de eo tatilCim quod tempore pnecedat. De Principio autem docet vocabulum Rcsclnth, quod derivatur a liosch Caput, quod situs ratione principium est animantiuni. Mundus non creatus est in Principio tempdrali (temporis) sicuti declaravimus ; tempus enim est ex numero creaturarum. Ideo dicitur, Bcreschith creavit Deus; ubi prispositio inseparabilis 3 Beth est Beth vasis seu instrumenti : et vera illius loci exp^sitio est hajc : In principio creavit l)em super iora et inferiora : Expositio conveniens novitati Mundi. More iS ebocliini, iii. 30. THE SIX days' creation. 75 wants the article itself as here, is Is. xlvi. 10. And there the absence of it is probably due to the poetical character of the composition. He supposes the absence of the article here renders it equivalent to the T^DIpl by which Onkelos represents it, the meaning being in antiquities, in former times, or as Dr. M'Caul will have it, on account of the abstract form of the word, in anteriority; the design of this form of expression having been, as he thinks, to avoid any reference to the order in which things were created. But then it is to be observed, that though ab- stract in its form, this word is always used in a concrete sense, as Maimonides teaches us above, to denote the earlier part of any- thing, as of a year, a series of events, a person's life, or the produce of the ground. Though it has a seeming abstract use in Isaiah xlvi. 10 — "Declaring the end from the beginning," n''£i^X'lZ? n^inX — yet even here the sense is really concrete. As nnHNt does not mean simply posterior time, but the events of a future time, the latter part of the history referred to, so Reshith even here denotes the earlier part. If the word in Gen. i. 1 had the article, it would denote the earlier part of the world's existence ; without it, the acceptation, as a note of simple anterior duration, is quite conjectural. And it was probably this which made Aquila, a Jew by birth, who professed to translate with scrujiulous exactness, render the word by the expression already mentioned, iv KecjiaXalo), in one sum. Re- garding the unusual manner in which the word is employed as indicating an unusual signification, he had this not infrequent signification of the concrete J^N*1 in Hebrew, which appears as tJ^X"! in the Chaldee of Dan. vii. 1, to suggest a like meaning for Bereshith here. Translating thus according to the abstract form of the word, and without the definite article, we should render it, " In a totality God created the heavens and the earth." And it may have been with an allusion to this passage, similarly understood, that the son of Sirach, in a sentence already quoted, and so much relied on by some of the writers whose notions have been laid before the reader, said, 6 i^wv eh alwva eKTiae rd, 76 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. TTcivra KOLvfj, tlie adverb Koivfj being used in tbe sense of conjointly. It is to be remembered, however, that the absence of the article from Berenhith is purely traditional. The word without the vowel points gives no indication whether it should be read with or without it. But while Dr. M'Caul correctly speaks of the indefinite reading as traditional, he is wrong in citing the eV cip-)(ri of the LXX. as an evidence of the antiquity of the tradi- tion. The forms o-tt' ap)(f] '^^'^^ ^PX^^^ used as adverbs, habitually reject the article, as ap-)(y}v by itself also sometimes does. Hence, even if the LXX. had read the Hebrew with the article, they would as naturally have used iv apxu with- out it, as if they had supposed it absent from the Hebrew. We may, therefore, take the LXX. as probably representing the definite reading, from their rendering by ctpxh> ^^^^ Aquila as following the indefinite reading, and so adopting a different sense of the word D.e!ih of a compound sentence : " When first God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void." But the position of the noun before the verb in the second clause negatives the supposi- tion that it is to be thus connected with the first. The use of the particle dlt, as a sign of the accusative, pre- fixed to the words " heavens " and "earth " in this verse, and to so many other of the objects of creation in this account, may, perhaps, be not without significance here, though possibly often employed in cases where it can add no force to the expression. This particle, in its primitive meaning, denotes the very ex- istence of that to which it is prefixed, whence the word to which it is prefixed is used not only as an accusative, but as the subject to a neuter or passive verb. Thus Fuerst, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, says it is properly a substantive, denoting " exkteuce, being, essence, bodijJ' Hence it gives the article to the word following, even when that would else be indefinite, as governing it in the construct state. THE SIX days' creation. 77 Instances of this frequently occur ; but as we shall have occasion to discuss this matter more fully hereafter, it will be unneces- sary to dwell on it here. Another word occurs in this verse which never, at least in the singular number, has the article prefixed. The deep or abyss, Dinn, has thus the character of a proper name, which the word probably originally was, representing the personal Chaos of the ancients. Here, however, it appears as a part of the created heavens and earth. The divine influence which moves on the face of the waters, whether expressing an immediate agency of God, or a physical wind produced by him, is also without the article. Thus the D^H /J^ flT) here mentioned is not the personal Spirit of God, as in that case the article would have passed over to Elohim, which takes the article regularly when governed in staf. constr. by a definite noun. The form of the verb nn^H in the clause, " the earth was without form and void," seems opposed to the notion that, after a first orderly creation, the relics of which are contained in the rocks, the earth was reduced to a state of confusion, out of which the present order of things was produced by a new creation. Dr. M'Caul, Aids to Faith, p. 208, seems to favour this notion. He says, "If D.ithius's translation, 'The earth had become desolation and emptiness,' be correct, it would follow that this was not the earth's original state." In a note he says that this is supported by the fact that several times in this chapter the same verb has the force of ^ivoyuai, fio. But surely the pluperfect tense, had become, could only denote some time previous to the only particular already mentioned, namely, the creation itself; while, on the other hand, a subsequent reduction to a state of desolation would be properly expressed by a future with the vna conversive.^ Plainly the natural meaning is that the state described by the words tohii vaboha was simultaneous with * ^fr. J. J. Stewa'-t Perowne has also just shewn in a vry satisfactory manner the invalidity of Dr. Pusey's reiisons for adopuui^ tins int-,^rpretation, in the " (Joutem- porary lieview," No. I , Art. '' Dr. Puscy -^n i)?vic] the Prophet." 7i8 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the creation itself of the heavens and the earth. This state was not one of desolation produced by destruction, but by the negation of light, and of the living things that dwell upon the earth. Hence the LXX. render the words toha vahoJta by doparo'? Kol dKaTa(rKevaaTo whether these verses be considered by themselves, or compared with the reference to them in ch. ix. The unlimited grant of "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth," clearly implies man's natural right to employ these creatures for all the uses to which he can possibly turn them in accordance with his own nature. The principal and most general uses to which man thus turns the living creatures are for carriage, clothing and food, the omnivorous nature of man making animal food as proper to him as any other kind of diet. Indeed there is no general and important use to which the fish of the sea can be turned except for food. If, therefore, i\ 28 stood alone, no one could doubt that the grant for food was included in the imiversal dominion which it conveys without any re- striction whatsoever. But if we consider attentively the succeed- ing verses, we shall perceive that the grant of the fruits of the earth for food to man, in v. 29, does not stand in opposition to V. 28, but as an addition to it, the contrast being not between these two verses, but between v. 29 and v. 30. Besides the dominion over all living things for all uses, food no less than perceived tliat in thus imagining a class of animals exactly suited to meet the emergency of the case he has to establish, he is supplying the missing link, the absence of which has been one of the greatest difBculties in the way of the Darwinian or development theory, to which he is, at the same time, greatly opposed. The probabilities are that an approximation to man's mental endowments would be attended with some approach also to his moral nature, faint traces of which have been thought by some to be perceptible in certain of the lower animals. The views put forward in this work render us indifferent to all such speculations or possible discoveries. THE SIX days' creation. 83 others, man receives, by virtue of liis superior intelligence and of Lis ability to till the ground, grain and other fruits capable of cultivation ; while to the inferior animals only the green herb as naturally produced is given. And as this last verse does not, of course, exclude the animal food of carnivorous animals, so neither does the former exclude the animal food of man. Moreover, throughout this account, the speaking, and naming, and consulting with himself in words, as attributed to God, can only be understood of God's will expressed in the actual ex- istence and nature of the things created. Hence, by parity of interpretation, and to preserve the unity of character in the entire piece, we can only understand the words attributed to God in these verses as the indications of his will expressed in man's nature, which as truly implies the right to animal food as to vegetable. So far, therefore, as these verses are considered by themselves, they give no countenance to this supposed re- striction. If, however, there is no ground for supposing the restriction to have existed in these verses of ch. i., there is as little for thinking that its previous existence is implied in the grant of animal food made in ix. 3. In ix. 1 the command to be fruitful and multiply is repeated in the words of ch. i. Then the command to subdue and have dominion over all living creatures is represented by a promise that the fear of man should prevail over all these creatures, with the additional clause, " Into your hand they have been given," 'l^Hi. This clause makes the new form fully equivalent to that contained in i. 28. Then, not as an additional grant, joined as it would probably have been in such case by a copulative, but as if an explanatory addition, without a conjunction, God adds, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you ; as green herb I have given you all." Now, except we were to understand this latter clause as a reference to i. 29, it woidd give no colour to the supposition of a previous restriction. But if we turn to ch. i., we find that the green herb, 2^^ p'!^^ was not mentioned 84 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. in V. 29 at all, but in contrast with it was the food granted in ?;. 30 to the inferior animals ; and so if there is any reference at all, it must be to this latter grant, which is impossible. The reference being thus disproved, the supposition of a previous restriction falls with it. The whole is only a renewal of the original grant. But there is a special reason for mentioning the use of animal food here, namely, that the restriction from its use with " the life, which is the blood," might be subjoined. The grant of animal food is here expressly mentioned, instead of being merely implied as before, not with any reference to the absence of a previous right to use it, but with a view to a restriction to be newly introduced, rendered necessary, perhaps, by the prevalence of savage habits in the use of animal food degrading to human nature, and tending to sanguinary violence towards men. The prevalent notion, therefore, of the unlawful- ness of animal food before the deluge, or of the first grant of it after that event, has no real foundation in the first and ninth chapters. The seeming coimtenance which exists for such a supposition vanishes on a careful consideration of the sacred text.i Ch, II. 2. The first verse of this chapter having stated that the heavens and the earth with their inhabitants were completed, with manifest reference to the previous description of the six days' works, and the second verse stating that God rested on the seventh day from all his works, the intervening clause, which says that God finished his works which he had made on the seventh day, has caused great perplexity to interpreters. The LXX., Samaritan and Syriac present, indeed, a difierent 1 In support of the original grant of the use of flesh, reference may be made to Rivetus, Exercitationcs in Genesin, 1633, p. 289, and to Heidegger, Rashe Avoth, Exercit. xv. The latter mentions as authorities in favour of the same view, amongst the unreformed, Cajetan, F. de S. Victoria, Dc Soto, and Vatabhis ; and of the re- formed, Calvin, PartEus, J. Capellus, and Bochart, with others. The follo^'ing from Eivetus may be quoted with advantage : — Ciim plena dominatio ipsi concessa fuisset, videtur etiam concedeudum, potuisse hominem vesci carnibus. — Quod si quis qua'rat, cur jam hoc loco (scil. Gen. ix. 3) illius rei mentio fiat.'' Eespondeo, id factum ideo fuisse, quia Deus voluit legem sancire de sanguine et suffocato non comedendo, qua; cCim exceptio fuerit apposita concessioni generali, prius voluit concessionem illam repcterc, ut mclitis intelligeretur seqnens prohibitio. THE SIX days' creation. 85 reading, the sixth, whicli, however, has probably been produced by the perplexity occasioned by the Hebrew reading. Keil has suggested that the resting and blessing the seventh day were themselves the completing intended, these latter clauses being explanatory of the former. This is a hard way of under- standing the words, which may be explained in a simpler manner by supposing the word finished in this place to have the same signification as in Daniel ix. 24, — "to finish the transgression," — where the same verb, with a simple accusative, is used likewise. In this latter case, the finish-, ing consisted not in doing the last act of transgression, but in causing the transgression to cease. So here Joo the finishing of God's work consists in ceasing to do any more. Nor is this a superfluous addition to ?'. 1. We could easily understand the works of the six days to have been completed, and yet God to have proceeded to some new work on the seventh. But not so ; the six days' works, the heavens and earth and ail the host of them being completed, he then, on the seventh day, finishes all his works by doing no more. The completeness of the previous enumeration, as embracing all the works of the material creation, not a cessation ab operando, is what is thus taught us. And this is further implied, not only in the word rendered works, which denotes the things done, not the doing of them, but also by the pluperfect verb subjoined. God finished all his works which he had made, not was making ; they were finished by his doing no more, and so he rests, and in like manner bids the Children of Israel rest on the seventh day. It may be remarked, in conclusion, that this entire passage is distinguished in a striking manner by a character of iteration. The repetition of the formula " And God said," of the phrase " And it was so," as well as of the sentences enumerating the several days, and the recapitulation of the several works of crea- tion mentioned in the divine commands in the subsequent state- ments of the fulfilment of those commands, give the whole piece the air of the tales and spoken narratives of the East, and GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. indeed, of tlie young and simple everywhere. This character, so like the ambages of storytellers, may have been adopted with a view to frequent recitation. It also seems to suggest, and may have been intended to indicate, that under this form — obscurum verborum ambage novorum carmen — was veiled something different from the literal and historical acceptation of the narrative, as it presents itself at first to our notice. We shall have to remark a similar character of itera- tion in two or three other instances. 87 CHAPTER II. 4.— IV. THE GENERATIONS OF HEAVENS AND ElETH. I. PARADISE AND THE FALL. I. In reviewing the account of creation presented to us in the document which is prefixed to the First Book of Moses, and which forms a meet introduction not only to that book but to the Sacred Canon at large, it was urged that one could not well conceive that a writer engaged in setting forth a strictly- literal history of the order and progress of creation in its several steps as they actually took place, could have passed from this opening portion to the account contained in the second chapter, as a continuous part of the same narrative. The several points of disagreement between these two representations of events, the same in part, were pointed out, and adduced in evidence of the impossibility of such a supposition, and in proof that both at any rate were not intended to be taken as literal history. Even if we supposed the two accounts, distinguished from one another as they are by these marks of disagreement, to have proceeded from different authors, and either one or both to have been adopted by a subsequent writer and attached to his own work as an integral part of it, the conclusion would be the same as regards the light in which such a later writer must have viewed the documents, and the sense in which he intended them to be understood in thus attaching them to his own work or compila- tion. Indeed it may be looked on as certain that a writer, who knew these two accounts, thus inconsistent with one another, to have proceeded from different authors, would never have dreamed of connecting them as successive parts of the same continuous o6 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. narrative. And it is to be observed that it is on the authority of the writer who had thus adopted and compiled these documents, and not of their original authors, that they would have in such case been transmitted to us as parts of the sacred canon, and claiming the same reverence that is due to the other parts of the work to which they are attached. However these state- ments originated, they have come to us as part and parcel of the book of Genesis, and for the present enquiry must be treated as such. If, then, a writer such as the author of the latter portion of the book of Genesis must have been — one who, if he was not Moses, was at any rate, like Moses, ov')(^ 6 tu^^wv dvrjp — if such a writer presents successively inconsistent accounts of the same events in whole or in part, not as different versions of the same events according to different authorities, but as alike his own original or adopted rejjresentations of the facts, it is plain that he intended one or both to be taken in a sense not strictly historical, at least as regards the literal acceptation of their statements. The same may be said of a mere compiler, if all were put together by a subsequent author, and of the community which accepted and transmitted the whole as one authoritative document. It is only the finding them together by those who are possessed with the notion that all must be strictly literal history, that has led to the attempt to reconcile the statements, or caused men to shut their eyes to the dif- ferences between them, which could not fail to have been noticed if the two accounts had been handed down as separate and unconnected writings. When, however, the incompatability of the two accounts has once been recognised, while they are connected together, with the same historical form in kind and degree, and without any expressed indication of the light in which either was intended to be vieAved, the natural conclusion would be that both were intended to be understood in the same non- historical acceptation. The slight indication which the mere circumstance of its priority might be thought to afford, in favour of the strictly historical character of the first, is neutralised by PARADISE AND THE FALL. 89 the proofs already exhibited at length, that that is not to be taken in its strictly literal and historical acceptation. It is now proposed to analyse the second document with the view to ascertain if it affords any internal evidence of the light in which it should be regarded, whether as an exact and Kteral history, or framed on some principle of symbolical repre- sentation. The document which is thus to form the principal subject of the present part of our enquiry extends from th« commence- ment of the fourth verse of the second chapter to the close of the third. It is severed from the preceding portion by the regular introductory formula, " These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created." It has already been shewn that this formula cannot be separated from the sequel and connected with the preceding account as a recapitulatory conclusion ; and it may be added to what was then said, that it is not the generation of the heavens and the earth in the active sense of their production, the generating of them, that is referred to in these words, as might be expected in the case of such a supposed recapitulation. It is the genera- tions (nn/iri),^ the products derived from the heavens and earth when already created, that these words denote, and the manner of their production which is represented. And this is done in such a way as to shew that, while both the earthly material from which the animals and plants were formed, and the celestial influences employed in their production and con- 1 "The words, ' These are^ the tholedoth of the heavens and the earth when they were created' form the heading to what follows. This would never have been disputed had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the Tision of commentators. The fact that in this passage the true meaning of nn^in precludes the possibility of its being an appendix to what precedes, fully decides the question. The word nn^lfl "«vhich is only used in the plural, and neyer occurs gxcept in the construct state or with suffixes, is a Eiphil noun from "Tvin and signifies literally the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations, or of his descendants ; in other words, the history of those who are begotten, or the account of what happened to them and what they performed. In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life. — Keil, Biblical Commentarv vol. i., pp. 70-1. Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark. 90 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. ducive to their perpetuation, are implied in the designation of them as the generations of the heavens and the earth, their production was not the result of a spontaneous or natural gene- ration, as in the heathen cosmogonies, in which Heaven and Earth appear as the personal parents of all other creatures, but was owing to the immediate operation of the Supreme Creator, himself the maker of the heavens and the earth no less than of the generations derived from them. " These are the generations of heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heavens." ^ And while the heavens and the earth are thus set forth as Grod's creatures, in the pro- duction of each of their generations, as successively described, it is the same Lord God that is the operating and immediate agent in all. While the document now more immediately under con- sideration is thus marked off from the preceding portion, which has its own proper recapitulation in the commencing verses of the second chapter, as this has its proper introductory formula in the fourth verse of the same chapter, and while it is distinguished in the entire character of its representations from 1 The Greek and Latin fathers were often misled by their ignorance of Hebrew into mistakes which they would not otherwise have made. Thus St. Augustine translates ii. 4, Hie est liber creaturas coeli et terrse, cvim factus est dies, fecit Deus coelum et terram. This is founded on a misreading of the Greek ; instead of reading as the Hebrew requires, — '6re eyfvero' y Vf^^pt} fT^olrjffe k.t.\,, he read — '6r€ iyfi/ero 7) vfj-^pa, inolTiae k.t.A. By this mistaken interpretation he confirms the notion, ah-eady supported on other grounds, that the several days of the creative week were only repetitions of the one first day. Nunc certe firmior fit ilia sententia, qua intelligitur unum diem fecisse Deum, unde jam illi sex vel septem dies unius hujus repetitione numerari potuerint. — De Gen. ad Lit. V. i. I. Such are the traps which are laid in translations for those who cannot refer to the originals from which they are derived. It may be remarked here that " earth " and " heavens " in the latter clause are without the article. In the fii'st clause the article prefixed to these words is due to the stai. cotistr. being the article of " generations," and is only, as transferred to " heavens " and " earth," the sign of the genitive. No argument can therefore be founded on the absence of the article in the second clause and its presence in the first, inasmuch as in such a case the words in the genitive may be definite or indefinite according to circumstances. As there is ample reason in other respects for connecting the two clauses, the indefiniteness of the words in the latter determines their indefiniteness in the former also. Tet it will be seen hereafter that some critics, whose theories require the connection of the first clause with the preceding passage as its recapitulatory conclusion, rely on the existence of the article in it, before the words " heavens " and " earth," and its absence from these words in the second clause. PARADISE AND THE FALL. 91 the account of the creation given in that preceding passage, it is also distinguished from it by a marked peculiarity in the names of God as employed throughout. In the first God is exclusively called Elohim, the generic term for Deity, ex- pressing through its etymology and plural form the concentra- tion of all powers in the Godhead, and so pecidiarly appro- priate to the first and introductory representation of the divine operations in the creation of the world; while in this second account of creation, and throughout the entire document of which it forms a part, God is described by the combination of the proper name Jehovah and the generic Elohim in every instance in which the narrator speaks in his own person, it being only in the case of interlocutors represented as speak- ing that the simple Elohim appears. God being represented in this narrative in a highly anthropomorphic character, and entering into personal converse with the newly created human pair, a proper and personal name would seem more appropriate ; while at the outset of a narrative describing the commencement of things it would also not be inappropriate to signify by such a combination as is here used, that Jehovah, the personal agent in the transactions recorded, was Elohim, and that not as one of many Elohim, but as the one only God, Jehovah Elohim. And this would be the more natural, if the author was as yet only proleptically using a newly introduced substitute for the proper name or names that had previously been in use, as some sup- pose to be intimated by Exod. vi. 3, — " I appeared unto Abraham, imto Isaac, and unto Jacob by El Shaddai, but (as to) my name Jehovah I was not known to them." The true meaning of this passage will be more fully discussed on another occasion ; but if, as is probable, it does not indicate the first introduction of the name, it plainly does introduce it with new significance. Its import was then fuUy manifested, and if the name was not wholly new, it was revived after having been in abeyance. This seems clear from the enquiry of Moses, by what name he should describe to the people the Being who had 92 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. appeared to him in the burning bush, and by the reply, " I am that I am," which, in the fii'st person, lays the foundation for the name Jehovah in the third person, by which Moses is presently after bid to announce him to the people. However this name might have been known to the patriarchs, nothing is more likely than that it should have gone out of use amongst the children of Israel during their sojourn in Egypt, where, as we find by Joshua xxiv. 14, they served strange gods. To turn the people efiectually from these strange gods, and to guard them against worshipjjing the false gods of their future neighbours in Palestine, nothing would more conduce than the adoption of a special proper name of God not used by the other nations, and appropriated to the Israelites, as the name of the one living and true God, and, as the name of their national God, for those who could not yet rise to the conception of the divine unity. Whether the name chosen for this end was wholly new, or, as seems more probable, was revived by Moses, it was natural that on the first occasion of its use, at the com- mencement of the writings which were to embody his legislative and religious systems, he should in some striking manner identify this God, Jehovah, with the generic Elohim. It would have been the more needful, if the name had never been in previous use, but was a newly introduced substitute for the proper name or names that had previously been in actual use, as supposed by some to be intimated in Exod. vi. 3. In this case the exceptions to the use of this combination would not only be attributable to a religious dislike to put the sacred name Jehovah into the mouth of the tempter, whose use of Elohim is followed by Eve in her conversation with him, but to a sense of dramatic propriety, which on some other occasions also influenced the writer, and which is likewise very noticeable in the usage of the book of Job. In that book. Job, whether as representing the Jewish people, or on historical grounds, appears as a worshipper of Jehovah. Accordingly, not only in the words of the narrator, but of Job himself when he PARADISE AND THE FALL. 93 soliloquises in i. 21, this personal name of God is used; " Jehovah, gave and Jehovah hath taken away ; blessed be the name of Jehovah." On the other hand, the friends of Job, who are non-Israelites, and Job himself in conversing with them, invariably use a different proper name, Shaddai, by which name combined with El, and not by that of Jehovah, God is represented in Exod, vi. 3, as telling Moses he was known to the patriarchs, and which was doubtless in use amongst other Shemites also.^ This document, thus distinguished both in substance and form from that which precedes it, is also marked off from its sequel, the fourth chapter, which forms a second subdivision of the section headed " The generations of the heavens and the earth," not only by the completeness of its narrative terminating with the expulsion of man from Paradise, but also by a similar difference in the use of the names of God. As the first portion uses only Elohim, and the second, with the exceptions noted, only Jehovah Elohim, so in the sequel of this, the fourth chapter, Elohim is dropped and only Jehovah used, except in one instance to be noticed on a subsequent occasion. The identity of Jehovah and Elohim having been made clear in the one passage by the combination, Jehovah by itself might then be used in the other without occasioning any uncertainty in the minds of readers, who might not have been sufficiently familiar with this name owing to its recent introduction or revival. In thus referring to the peculiarity of usage in regard to the divine designations by which these commencing passages of the book of Genesis are characterised, the use made of it is not the same as that on which have been grounded the speculations of some writers as to difference of authorship or the interpolation of difierent parts of this book. The peculiarity is here only relied 1 The non-Israelite Balaam uses the name Jehovah, evidently because it was not simply as a magician of note that Balak resorted to him, but as one who affected the worship of Jehovah, and who was therefore thought likely to have had some special influence in obtaining a curse on the children of Israel from their own national God, whose power had hitherto been exerted on their behalf. 94 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. on as marking, in connexion witk a distinction of subject matter, the limits of certain portions whicli, standing separate and complete in themselves, may be subjected to a manner of interpretation which may not be applicable to other parts of the book, especially as these portions do not occur in the heart of the book, surrounded by passages of plainly historical character and intended to be taken in their literal acceptation, but forming the introductory chapters of a history which imitates the profane histories of other nations by going back to the origin of all things. As these histories proceed from myth to more authentic narrative, so the sacred history proceeds, not from myth, but from allegorical representations shadowing out the earlier historical facts, in their moral aspect, under the veil of figurative representations of the deepest significance. In limiting the application of this manner of interpretation with any degree of confidence to the two first passages, which contain within themselves, whether con- sidered separately or viewed in comparison with one another, plain indications that they are of the character here represented, one cannot be charged with throwing doubt on the historical character of subsequent portions, which seem as plainly intended to be taken literally, as these, marked ofi" as sepa- rate documents, seem intended to be taken in an allegorical acceptation. II. The first particular that claims to be noticed in this entire passage is the tentative and suppletory character of the order and progress of the divine operations as represented therein. Each succeeding step seems to be taken with the view of supply- ing some defect found to exist in the preceding work, or of pro- viding for some want arising out of its creation. Even the mo- mentous subject of the Fall seems to be introduced in a manner subsidiary to this way of representing the divine proceedings. It will be well to exhibit this pecidiar manner of representation in detail. The introductory sentence, the poetical structure of which. PARADISE AND THE FALL, 95 as exhibited in its parallelism and in the inverted repetition of its ideas, has already been noticed, — " These are the generations of heavens and earth when they were created,^ In the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens," — assumes the cosmical creation, and announces the production of the vegetables and animals derived from thence by creative power. Before any of these are generated, the new-made earth is represented as devoid of vegetation : — " No plant of the field was yet in the earth, And no herb of the field had yet grown." - This deficiency is ascribed to the existence of a twofold want, namely, of rain and of a man to till the ground : — *' For Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, And there was not a man to tiU the ground." Accordingly, the supply of these two wants is immediately pro- vided. As regards the first, — " A mist went up from the earth, And watered the face of the whole groimd." ^ Here we have a true and exact account of the production of rain, which is represented as taking place naturally, while the operation of God in its production is implied in the statement of the previous verse that God had not as yet caused it to rain upon the earth. And then, no sooner is this necessity provided for, than the other want, to which the absence of vegetation 1 Literally, " In the creating of them." But the preposition ? thus used " may be resolved by conjunctions in connexion with prepositions, according as one thinks of time, place, or circumstance along with the action, so that ? may be translated by while, after that, when," etc.— Fuerst, Heb. and Chald. Lexicon. The "generations" though succeeding, were potentially comprised in the creation of the heavens and the 2 The correct rendering of this passage was shown on a former occasion ; see p. 24. 3 The " but " of the English version (Se, LXX. ; seel, Vulgate), implies that thismist was a temporary substitute during the period when there was no rain. This is quite wrong. The copulative of the original (never to be translated but except in the clearest cases of an adversative use), and the futiu-e form of the verb, implying succession, plainly show that this was the way in which God proceeded to supply the deficiency just found to exist. The " earth " of the first clause is cosmical ; mcluding its seas, it sends up its vapour to water the ffromd. The distinction of earth and ground is duly observed throughout. 96 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. is attributed, is also supplied, by tbe formation of a man to till the ground : — " Jehovah Elohim formed a man,i dust from the ground, And breathed into his nostrils breath of life ; And the man became a living soul." And in tliis formation of man tbe same tentative character which distinguishes the whole is observable. At first the man is only a lifeless figure, moulded and shaped as it were by a gradual process, after the manner of a potter or of one who moulds (^!i**) an image of plastic clay. Life is yet wanting, but the want is immediately supplied. God breathes into his nostrils breath of life, and the inanimate figure becomes a Kving person. The two requisites for the fruitfulness of the ground have been supplied ; the barren earth is watered, and there is now a man to till the ground. Still the ground is as yet unfurnished with the plants needful for man's sustenance, and the man now formed and animated with the breath of life needs some better dwelling than the bare earth unclothed as yet with grass, some spot prepared for his pains to till it. The want thus felt is according next supplied. A garden is provided for him : — " Jehovah Elohim planted a garden in Eden eastward, And there he put the man whom he had formed. And from the ground Jehovah Elohim caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food ; And the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Here is provided a dwelling-place furnished with all trees needful for ornament and for man's sustenance ; while, under the veil of the two mystical trees, a provision for his moral probation is likewise indicated, as we shall hereafter more fully see. And then to secure the fertility of the garden thus amply furnished, it is not left merely to enjoy the benefit of the mist ^ The article here prefixed to "man," is due to the stat. constr. with the particle Eth. This usage will be fully discussed hereafter. The instances of it are frequent. It will suffice for the present to refer to Gen. vi. 17, " a deluge," not " the deluge ;" viii. 7, 8, " a raven " and " a dove," not " the raven " and •' the dove." PARADISE AND THE FALL. 97 already mentioned ; a stream is likewise caused to spring up in Eden, and to flow through the garden, copious enough to form, at its emergence from the garden, the heads of four of the chief rivers of the earth : — " And a river went from Eden to water the garden, And from thence it parted and became four heads." And now that the garden is laid out and furnished with trees and provided with a fertilising stream, the man already placed there receives it in charge to dress and to keep it, with permission to use the fruit of all its trees but one. That v. 15 is not a mere repetition of the latter clause of v. 8, describing the first introduction of man into the garden seems plain, partly from the construction, the consecutiveness of the successive steps being indicated by the continued use of the future with the conversive vau, while the preterite with a pluperfect sense would properly have been used if this fifteenth verse went back to the time of v. 8. And it partly follows from the difierent import of the verbs used. In v. 8 the verb W^'^ denotes simple location; the verb used in v. 15 is the Hijphil XVI^}^ a causative form signifying to cause to remain, leave behind, permit one to do something, or leave one in charge to do it, as when David left his concubines to keep the house (2 Sam. xvi. 21). So here God takes the man already in the garden, and leaves him in charge of it to dress and to keep it, all being now ready to ' "li^D?.!. This leaving does not here imply a local departure of God, but simply the leaving of the care and management of the garden to the man, — a representation highly indicative of the way in which man is placed in the world, pro\'ided with what is needful for his welfare, but left to turn this provision to his own use, by the exercise of his own faculties and exertions. In lix. 16, the angels bring Lot and his family out of Sodom, and leave them (-innil^l) outside the city, not " set them " as in the English Version ^xi^pomerunt in the Vulgate. The conversation in the sub- sequent verses plainly took place while they were going along and up to the time of the departure of the angels. The English Version, " when they had brought them forth," is quite incorrect. The verb is a suffixed infinitive, and is properly to be translated " as they were bringing them out." The \iJi\yar/ov of the LXX. is an imperfect, the preceding t^viko. not being incompatible with this tense, as in Soph. Ajax, 1144, — ■^n'/c' eV kok^ xf'M'ij'"'^ «?X*''''' The last clause of xix. 16, mistranslated by the English Version and the Vulgate, is not given at all by the LXX. The expression " and he took the man," does not of course mean more than guidance and direction. Cepit, i. fleiit. Sic alibi, capit animas sapiens, quod ex^ornxnif edit, ■ allicit. — Rabbi Salomo, apud Crit. Sacr. 98 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. be given into his care. But one restriction is enjoined as regards the use of its productions. The man has a moral nature, and he is prohibited to eat the fruit of the mystic tree of knowledge of good and evil, with the threatened consequence of disobedience subjoined : — " And Jehovah Elohim took the man, And left him in the garden of Eden to dress and to keep it. And Jehovah Elohim enjoined on the man, saying : Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it ; For in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die." The new-formed man has wants both physical and moral, and these wants are thus supplied. But these are not his only wants. Man is a social being, and was made with instincts for the continuance of his kind. He needs a companion and a wife, and the supply of this need also is resolved on : — " And Jehovah Elohim said, It is not good that the man should be alone ; I will make him an help meet for him." And here the tentative manner in which God is represented as proceeding to accomplish this purpose is very remarkable. He does not all at once form a woman, as might have been ex- pected, but first, as in the formation of the man himself, he pro- duces from the ground various kinds of beasts and birds, and brings each in succession to the man, to see what he would call it : — " And Jehovah Elohim formed out of the ground every beast of the field and every fowl of the air, And brought them unto the man, to see what he would call them ; And whatsoever the man called every living thing, that was its name. And the man called names for every beast, and for every fowl of the air, and every living thing of the field ; But for the man there was not found an help meet for him." Both the grammatical construction, and the whole design of this proceeding, as here represented, plainly show that the formation of the animals was intended to be regarded as sub- sequent to that of the man. The verb is connected with the preceding part of the narrative by the vau conversivum Juturi, PARADISE AND THE FALL. 99 indicating the consecutiveness of the historical order of the transaction, and not a mere resumed mention of a previous event. ^ Hence the LXX. translate thus : koX eifXaaev 6 ^eo? ert CK Trjv 0(Tt4wv jj-ov Ka\ ffapl eK t^s aapK6s fJ.ov. roaovTov &pa 6 i.v6pwiros Kevovrai Ttf cirfpfiari, '6(ros oparai Tip (rci/iOTt. apxh yap yiveafois Th airaAXaTTOfj.evoi'. Clem. Alex. Ptedag. II., p. 193, Ed. Sylburg. Cajetaa'snote may be here subjoined : — Quod autem subdit : Os ex ossibiis meis, et caro de cardie mcA, mulieris manifestat naturam simul et productionem. Mulier enim qua^libet, ciim sit vir laesus, est os ex ossibus virilibus, et caro de came virili, quantum ad productionem _: intendit enim Tirile semen ad producendum virum ; sed defectu interveniente, impotens facere virum ex integro, efficit virum lassum, hoc est, mulierem : et sic mulier est os ex ossibus virilibus intentis, et caro de carne virili intenta. Apart from the speculation that mulier est vir Icesus, it is true that " the woman is of the man," bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, in the ordinary course of generation, and so a help meet for him, as distinguished from the other creatures amongst which was found none meet to he his consort. The Targum of Jerusalem, op. F. Tayleri, 1649, explains v. 18,— Faciam ei consortem quasi in eam exiisset. In thus explaining the word rendered "meet for him," nJJ3, the Targumist had probably in view the Chaldee ^J3., manavit,Jluxit, as in Dan. vii. 10 : "A fiery stream issued (153) and came forth from before him." This sense is perhaps also to be traced in the Syriac _ J , which in the causative Aphel, rvil, is used in the sense of attraxit, as it were, caused to flow, in St. John lii. 32. '^ 2 So Cajetan remarks on Gen. iii. 1., Tum communibus locutionibus sacrae Scripturee, tum propriis textus hujus quadrat, serpentis nomine non proprie intelligere illud brutum, sed metaphorice Diabolum. Eusebius, in like manner, speaking of this part of the Mosaic narrative, tells us that there is a wicked spirit lying in wait for everv one, beguiling and hating what is good, that from the commencement plotted against the salvation of men. He says that Moses calls this demon by the name of dragon and serpent, being black and akin to darkness, full of poison and malice. And he adds that by his deceit the first parents of our race fell from the happier lot in which they had originally been placed. His words are, ncfpea-Ti rts iKdo-rcp vovriphs Saifiwv €(/;€5pos, pdffKavos Kol nicr6Ka\os, kuI rrjs avdpdiraiv apxv^fy iirlfiovKos^ cwrripias. ApaKovra 5e rovrov KofOcptv ovojud^et, fitXavd re koI (TK6TovsolKf7ov, lav T« Kttl KaKlas ■K\-hpt)v. — Toinov Se airoTj) kuI tovs irpoTrdropas T)pMiv toC yivovs rrjs eeiorepas A7)|6«j fKTrfffely. Prfep. Evan'g. i. 10. It is evident Eusebius did not suppose that a real serpent was intended. 124 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. realistic acceptation, which he adopts conjointly with the sup- position of a Satanic tempter using the instrumentality of a real serpent, as a proof of the purely historical character of the entire representation, by virtue of the unity of character which he rightly thinks pervades the whole. The notion of a natural serpent being the real tempter, which is what the narrative literally implies, may be dismissed at once, as utterly incon- sistent with the nature of a serpent. And accordingly, the New Testament plainly intimates that, according to the view of its writers, the real tempter was the devil. Thus we read in Apoc. XX. 2, " That old serpent the devil and Satan." The supposi- tion that Satan for the occasion merely assumed the appearance of a serpent is also utterly untenable. That the evil spirit ever had the power of assuming any material form is what there is no sufficient reason to suppose. Even our Lord's temptation, as related in the Gospels, does not necessitate such a supposition of the tempter having appeared in a material form, or spoken with audible sounds. In every temptation which extends beyond a sudden impulse, the pretexts in favour of the act, and the reasons against it, are realised in the mind of the person under temptation in the form of words — ^words which, as respects the arguments of evil, may in a manner of speaking be regarded as the words of the tempter. Such a subjective argument with the tempter, in our Lord's case, is sufficient to satisfy the Gospel narrative ; and, as an example for us, it is more instructive when thus viewed, as the counterpart of our own temptations.^ At any rate, if any weight attaches at all to the letter of the narrative in Gen. iii., it cannot be regarded as merely denoting the assumption of a serpentine form by Satan for this occasion. ' And so, in regard to the temptation of Eve, Cajetan remarks,— Non fait igitur sermo yocalis, sed sermo internre suggestionis, quo Diabolus serpere venenosa cogitatione incepit. Et eodem sermonis gencre imiversus iste dialogus inter serpentem et mulierem intelligendus est. Sunt autem seusus isti metaphorici non sol&m sobrii secundiim sacram Scripturam ; sed non pardm utiles Christianse fedei profession!, proecipue coram sapientibus mundi hujns : percipientes enini quod liajc non ut litera sonat, sed metaphorice dicta intelligimus, ac credimus, non horrent hsec de costa Adami, et serpente, tanquam fabellas ; sed venerantur mysteria, et facilius ea quae sunt fidci couplectuntur. — Ubi supra. PARADISE AND THE FALL. 125 The serpent as a species is first described, and at the end the penalty has reference, in its Kteral form, only to the serpent as a species also. The alternative therefore is, that the entire reference to the serpent is purely symbolical, or else that Satan not merely assumed a serpentine form, but actually possessed a real animal serpent, if the animal itself was not the tempter. But now, in the first place, as already remarked, there is no ground whatever for supposing that the evil spirit has ever had the power of possessing at wiU any living creature he might choose to employ for his wicked purposes. Even the demons in the gospel history, whatever was the nature of that dispensa- tion imder which they possessed mankind, ordinary or extra- ordinary as it may be thought, had not the power of going into the swine without the divine permission. Whether this de- moniacal possession was really a possession by separate spirits with personal characteristics, or some form of disease in regard to which our Lord spoke and acted in accordance with the popular conceptions that were prevalent, certain it is that there is nothing to connect this possession with the immediate agency of the devil, except the words of our Lord in reply to the charge that he cast out the demons by Beelzebub the prince of the demons. But our Lord's words on that occasion, "If Satan cast out Satan," — " if Satan be divided against himself," have too much the character of an argument ad homincm, to prove anything as to his own view of this matter. He denies, indeed, his own employment of the agency of the devil, but it is doubt- ful if, by casting out Satan, he meant more than the spiritual e£&cacy of our Lord's work and teaching to undo the Satanic evils of the world, of which the casting out of the demons may have been significant. Only in this way would Satan be divided against himself ; for it is plain that, if it were in his power, he might co-operate in the ejection of evil spirits for his own wicked ends. Moreover, the serpent, if possessed by Satan, not having the organization for articulate speech, the speaking of the serpent, as well as his possession, was clearly a miraculous 126 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. performance. And it is scarcely conceivable tliat God would have allowed such miraculous power to the evil spirit for the express purpose of deceiving the yet innocent and inexperienced human couple ; especially when, as is devoutly to be believed, it was God's design to authenticate his revelations to mankind by miraculous interpositions. And even if we suppose that the ignorance of the first pair should as yet have made them m- capable of perceiving that the speech of the serpent was mira- culous, it is stUl impossible to beKeve that, at the opening of a series of documents intended to be received as divine on the strength of miraculous evidences, the very first miracle recorded, after the order of nature was once established, should be a miracle wrought by the evil one for the purpose of deceiving and betraying to their ruin the yet innocent parents of the human race, and with them their descendants also.^ 1 If the arguments dravra in the present day from the invariableness of the order of nature, against the belief in divine miracles, are not sufficient, as doubtless they are not to disprove the reality of such performances, it can, however, scarcely be believed that the author of nature would suffer those laws, the uniformity of which is the expression of his own veracity, to be disturbed for the deception of mankind. It is true there are powers in nature of which most men at particular times may have been ignorant, by which pre- tended miracles may have been wrought. Juggling, and natural magic, and the other artifices of thaumaturgy, at times had so strongly created a belief in their supernatural character, that it became needful to warn men against being led astray by such signs and wonders. That God should interpose to frustrate these natural means of produc- ing deception, is as little to be expected as that he should interpose in an extraordinary manner to counteract any other kind of wickedness. And similarly it is not to be expected that the course of providence should be altered to hinder those occasional coincidences, by which dreams and oracular sayings have received a remarkable fulfil- ment,—cases not more frequent in reality than the laws of probability would warrant men to expect, but remembered for their marvellousness, while the immense number of failures are forgotten. The fact, therefore, that there may be seeming miracles in connexion with some form of deadly error, of course renders the moral character of the doctrine, and its purifying efficacy, a grand element in the evidence of its truth. At the same time true miracles can never be relied on as testimonies to facts and truths not naturally discoverable or demonstrable, if any act having the character of a true miracle may be performed in attestation of a falsehood, or for the purposes of man's deception. Even the employment of miracles, not for man's deception, but simply for his probation, would render them useless as attestations of truth. For we could never be perfectly sure that in any particular case the miracle was intended as an attestation and not for our trial. The speaking of a serpent is plainly an event out of the ordinary course of nature, imitable indeed by the art of ventriloquism, but clearly not thus imitated in the case now under consideration. Ventriloquism in such a case would imply what is as difficult to believe as the speaking of the serpent, namely the power of Satan to produce effects cognisable to the human senses — a power of which there is no evidence whatsoever. It may be said, this supposition of the supernatural agency of the evil spirit is implied in the narrative, and if inadmissible, is itself an argument against the document which contains the statement. In reply to this, PARADISE AND THE FALL. 127 But next it is to be observed that, on this realistic supposi- tion, it is plainly the subtlety of the animal serpent, and not of the true tempter, that is referred to, as qualifying him for the temptation, and is brought into play in its accomplishment. It is clearly as an animal species that the serpent is said to have been more subtle than any beast of the field that the Lord God had made, by reason of that natural craftiness which became proverbial, as in our Lord's words, "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Hengstenberg's notion, indeed, is that this mention of the serpent's subtlety proves the realistic and literal character and meaning of the representation. No doubt it proves that a natural serpent is what is literally spoken of, but it as clearly proves that this natural serpent is only the symbol of the real tempter. The serpent's subtlety is plainly mentioned as that by which the success of the temptation was compassed. Its mention, on any other supposition, is wholly unmeaning and beside the subject in hand. This leaves us no alternative, so far as this particular is concerned, but to suppose either that a real serpent was the tempter by means of his natural craft, or that the serpent and its subtelty stand merely as the symbols of the real tempter and his Satanic craft. The supposition of a late learned writer, Dr. Donaldson, in his work on the book of Jashar, that the nakedness, not the craft of the serpent, is intended by the word h)1V, could only have been made with a view to sustain the peculiar view which that divine adopted in regard to the for- bidden fruit. As far as the narrative itself explains or suggests its own meaning, the idea of nakedness is quite irrelevant, while there are abundant instances of the use of the word in the sense of crafty, an interpretation adopted by the LXX., who render it (f}povifi(t)Taro^, and by St. Paul, who says that the however, it is to be observed that we contend that the document has in itself sufficient indications that it was not intended to he understood in the literal acceptation of the several particulars set forth in it. And this one of a serpent speaking, introduced as it is without any allusion to a spiritual tempter, and then the penalty inflicted on the serpent in its animal nature, are relied on as amongst the clearest indications that the literal acceptation was not intended. — See Note C, p. 248. 128 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. serpent deceived Eve ev rfj iravovp'yta avrov. It is true, a word similar in sound, D'^^^iy, is used in the sentence next preceding in the sense of naked. But it will be seen here- after that this play on sounds and double senses is a striking characteristic of the entire book. Hengstenberg relies also on the penalty inflicted on the tempter, " On thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life," as indicating a real serpent. So also does the reference to the serpent's treachery in biting the traveller's heel, and the difficulty of killing a serpent except by a wound on the head. But then these evidences of the reality of the serpent, as repre- sented in the text, only show that, as respects the manner of representation, a natural serpent is really intended ; but, except on the supposition that this serpent was itself the tempter, they show that the natural serpent is adopted only as the symbol of the real tempter. Otherwise the innocent animal receives all the punishment; the really guilty being, the true tempter, is not even remotely alluded to. And thus the evil spirit would have accomplished his malignant designs without a symptom of the divine reprobation, or the faintest intimation that his triumph should not always prevail to man's destruction. This would be the plain consequence of the literal acceptation of the narrative in this particular. It cannot be too strongly insisted on that such an acceptation leaves no alternative, but the incredible supposition that a natural serpent was, by some miraculous exercise of unwonted powers, the sole and conscious tempter. The notion, therefore, of a natural serpent having been actually employed in man's first temptation, as this narra- tive describes it, must be wholly abandoned. The natural serpent in the narrative stands as the symbol of the real tempter.^ Whatever be the nature of Satan's influence in 1 "That was in ancient times the symbol or hieroglyphic, whereby he was usually represented ; and under that, therefore, well-known emblem, he is spoken of in Scrip- ture history ; the language is adapted to the character, and yet in such a manner as to show that a figurative rather than a real serpent was intended. How the serpent came to be made the symbol of the tempter, Moses intimates in sajang, that ' the PARADISE AND THE FALL. 129 man's ordinary temptations, tlie means by whicli lie suggests evil to the mind, excites the desires, or offers pretexts for their unlawful gratification, the first temptation as here described required nothing more. There is no apparent reason to doubt that these might have produced the efiects ascribed to the suggestions of the tempter in this narrative without any visible appearance or audible sounds. A person under temptation will, as already ob- served, clothe in words, at least mentally, the arguments which an evil casuistry invents or suggests. Hence those arguments are, in the symbolical representation of the fall, clothed in words, as if spoken by the symbolical tempter, though only suggested by the real one. These suggestions are similar to those with which men are familiar in all their ordinary temptations : — the withholding of some supposed advantage, or object of desire, is made the occasion of discontent ; the threatened consequences of transgression will not follow ; God envies us the enjoyment serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field,' and Aristotle and other naturalists, as well as Moses, extol the subtlety and insidiousness of the serpent, which was therefore a proper emblem of the tempter and deceiver of mankind." — Bishop Newton, in the Dissertation above referred to. The Bishop supposes that in this narrative " the language is extremely figurative, being taiien from the ancient pictures and hieroglyphics, wherein these transactions were first recorded. These images and symbols passed into common discourse and became a part of the current language. It is evidently from them, as things well known and readily apprehended, that Moses copies his descriptions; he represents things in words just as they were represented in figures ; his style is a kind of picture and should be understood and explained accordingly." The remarks of iiishop Sherlock on this subject, may also be quoted with advantage. As regards those who, without being altogether infidels, " ai-e shocked with the cir- cumstances of tliis history," he says, " I desire them to consider, that the speculations arising from the history of the fall, and the introduction of natural and moral evU into the world, are of all others the most abstruse, and farthest removed out of our reach : that this difiiculty led men in the earliest time to imagine two independent Principles of Good and Evil, a notion destructive of the sovereignty of God, the maintenance of which is the principal end and design of the Mosaic history. Had the history of man's fall plainly introduced an invisible evil being to confound the works of God, and to be the author of iniquity, it might have given great countenance to this error of two Principles : and since this difficulty might in a great measure be avoided, by having recourse to the common usage of the eastern countries, which was to clothe history in parables and similitudes, it seems not improbable that for this reason the history of the fall was put into the dress in which we now find it. The serpent was remarkable for an insidious cunning, and therefore stood as a proper emblem of a deceiver ; and yet, being one of the lowest of God's creatures, the emblem gave no suspicion of any power concerned that might pretend to rival the Creator." — The Use and Intent of Prophecy, Dis. iii. The absence of a personal devil from the subsequent Biblical writings until we reach those of the latest period, if the book of Job be referred to that period, is in full accordance with the Bishop's supposition. 9 130 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of the wished- for gratification, whether of sense or of intellect. Then these suggestions fall in with the natural appetites and inclinations, just as the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise. There is nothing in all this to require a visible and audible tempter ; it takes place in our own minds without one, often without an external personal temjDter at all, as far as there are any means of judging in such a matter. As regards the transgression itself, that which constituted the corpus delicti, what has already been said in disproof of the supposition that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a real tree goes equally to disprove that the transgression consisted in partaking of the natural fruit of that supposed real and natural tree. On the supposition that the tree was mystical and allegorical, there is nothing in the account to throw any light on the particular offence which was of such terrible con- sequences to mankind at large. That there must have been some one first overt act of sin is of course evident. That such overt act did not constitute the whole, much less the commence- ment, of the transgression is also plain. There must have been some internal sin, some point at which natural appetite passed into that stage of its progress when, as St. Jam&s says, lust has conceived, and at which the sin thus conceived, though yet unborn into an overt act, was quickened into mental transgression. That point, lost in the mystery that envelopes every beginning of existence, mental or material, of thought or of act or of substance, was the real fall, and is better represented by the mystical symbol of the participation of forbidden fruit, than by an historical narrative that should only specify the overt act in words to be taken in their literal acceptation.^ ' Here again \ve may quote Bishop Newton : " What was the particular nature of the sin of our first parents, it is not an easy matter to determine. ' Eating forbidden fruit,' is nothing- more than a continuation of the same hieroglyphic characters, wherein the history of the fall was recorded before the use of letters. It was plainly the violation of a divine prohibition ; it was indulging an unlawful appetite ; it was PARADISE AND THE FALL. 131 YII. — The manner in which God is represented as walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and as it were talking to himself aloud so that his voice is heard by the guilty pair, who in consequence try to shun his observation and to hide them- selves from his visible presence, has already been noticed as an instance of the divine anthropism which pervades the whole passage and forms a strong proof of its allegorical character. The sentences of condemnation pronounced on the offenders, therefore, next claim attention. And first, as regards the serpent^ and the condemnation of it to go upon the belly and to feed upon dust, this having respect only to the animal serpent, as such, and not at all to the real and guilty tempter, has just now been insisted on as an evidence of the symbolical character of the serpent as it appears in this narrative. It is further to be noted here, that such a change of habits as is implied in this sentence of condemnation would require a change of organiza- tion amounting to a virtual transmutation of species, and, so far as the name denotes the nature and is significant of the species, what would be properly called a serpent after such a transmutation would not have been a serpent at all before it. Nor would such a transformation, however it might be regarded by an intelligent observer as a degradation of nature, be to the animal itself any punishment whatever. All sentient creatures have their happiness in the habits for which they are formed and aspiring after forbidden knowledge, and pretending to be wise above their condition. So much may be safely asserted in general ; we bewilder and lose ourselves in search of more particulars." 1 While St. Augustine supposes that a real serpent was used as an instrument by the devil, he regards the entire sentence pronounced on the serpent as figurative : Tota ista sententia figurata est. Quod serpen ti dicitur, et ad eum qui per serpentem operatus est utique refertur, procul dubio figuratum est. — Be Gen. ad lit. XI. xxxvi. 49. "The sentence upon the serpent is no more to be understood of a real serpent than the same figure employed by Isaiah (Ixv. 25), w^hen, speaking of the triumphs of the Gospel, he saith, ' that dust shall be the serpent's meat.' It is to be under- stood in the same manner as when the prophet Micah (vi. 17), saith of the enemies of the Lord, that ' they shall lick the dust like a serpent.'" — Bishop Newton, in the Dissertation quoted already. Justly, therefore, Cajetan remarks that it would be puerile to understand this corporeally. Puerile esse constat intelligere illam (so. poenam) corporaliter ut 8onat. — Comment, in Gen. 132 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. adapted by tlieir nature, and a change of nature, wHcli would necessitate a change of habits, would make the new and altered habits essential to the comfort of the creature, instead of a punishment to it. All creatures, too, but men, seem perfectly contented with the condition in which they exist, with habits and in circiunstances perfectly adapted to their nature. It requires a degree of intelligence beyond that which is possessed by the brute animals — a power of comparing one condition and state of existence with another, and of estimating the real or supposed advantages of each — to be capable of feeling such a change from one state to another, as would still imply an adap- tation of nature and habits and circumstances, to be a degrada- tion or punishment. Moreover, the enmity which was to be established between the serpent and its seed and the woman and her seed, as here described, is a natural antipathy, grounded on the nature of the creature, and is not confined to the case of the serpent, or greater in its case than in that of any equally per- nicious animal. The wounding of the heel and the crushing of the head are also founded in the nature of the animal, in its crawling and treacherous habits and the difficulty of inflicting a mortal wound except on its head. All this, as in its literal import it merely relates to the animal and leaves the real tempter out of view altogether, must for that reason be regarded as quite symbolical. The grovelling motion of the serpent and the con- sequent mingling of dust with all its food are significant in a high degree of the grovelling and debasing nature of sin, and of the filthy and unsatisfying gratifications which it ministers, espe- cially of the sin which designedly betrays the innocent into transgression. The conflict predicted between the serpent's and the woman's seed well describes the perpetual conflict between mankind and the principles of evil — a conflict that was to culminate and find its triumph in One who should be in a pre- eminent sense the woman's seed. And though this, as we now understand it, is a literal fulfilment of the prediction in that particular of special derivation from the woman, PARADISE AND THE FALL. 133 the serpent and its seed are still figurative. It is only the mystery of Christ's incarnation that enables us to see in the words anything beyond the seed of the woman as naturally begotten in successive generations, however, as time rolled on, and the conflict was still waged without any decisive victory, the thoughtful might have been led to anticipate some particular person as the promised seed rendered more definite by subsequent predictions. And though in the fulfilling of this there was a realising of the words in their strictest and most literial signifi- cance, according to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, jet even here the general allegorical character of the represen- tation holds good in the most decided form. It is in accordance with the general nature of the entire piece that the persons, divine and human,^ that are introduced should be real persons, and yet that the acts and words attributed to them should be mystical and symbolical. As God, the man and the woman, so in like manner the woman's seed, whether the expression denote mankind in general or Christ in particular, was to be real and historical. Still the wounding of the heel of the woman's seed, and the bruising of the serpent's head are under any circumstances purely symbolical, as all must admit. The sentence pronounced on the woman seems, no less, to describe circumstances pertaining to her natural condition as woman, rather than any directly penal consequences of her trans- > The only person that does not appear under his proper designation is the tempter. One can scarcely help connecting this with the absence of any other reference to th« evil spirit in the early books of the Holy Scripture, as remarked in a former note. May not the veiling of the tempter, under the symbol of the serpent in this place, and the abstinence from any further reference to him, have proceeded, as Bishop Sherlock suggests, from an apprehension lest, in the state of religious development then existing amongst the children of Israel their superstitious and idolatrous tendencies might have led them to render him religious worship ? The dualism, which in later times effloresced in the Gnostic and Manichsean heresies, had its root in the Eastern mind from a very re- mote antiquity. The idolatrous tendencies of the Jews were passing away when the notion of the devil or Satan was developed amongst them in later times. Of course this remark implies the late composition of the book of Job. But the fact that as a very early production it would stand singularly distinguished by the representation of a, personal evil being under the designation of Ha- Satan, the adversary, may justly be regarded as strongly confirming the later origin of that Ijook, now generally admitted by Biblical critics. In the absence of any belief of a personal evil spirit, the sym- bolical character of the representation and the subjective nature of the temptation would be readily perceived by intelligent readers. ;134 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. gression. In the words " I will greatly multiply tliy sorrow and thy conception," if the conception is to be taken as dis- tinguished from the pains consequent on it, its multiplication is certainly no punishment ; it is only the carrying out of the origi- nal blessing, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth," and apart from the attendant sorrows, and even in spite of them, it is the joy of a woman. But even if the words be taken to denote only the sorrows of conception according to a customary manner of speaking, the increase of these seems to imply that they would have had some existence even if the fall had not tak«n place ; and an argument may thus be derived even from the very words of the sentence against the notion of St. Augustine that, if the fall had not taken place, there would have been genera- tion without passion, and parturition without pain.^ Doubtless, while the inferior animals do not bring forth without pain, it seems to be much greater in the case of women. This, however, seems to be the natural result of their finer and more delicate organi- zation ; and as this is increased by the refinements and artificial habits of civilised life, the efiect is doubtless greater in that state than in the savage and uncivilised, or in the simpler habits of man's primitive innocence. And as the vices and follies of mankind have had a large share in deteriorating the human constitution through long succeeding generations, much of the ills to which the sentence on the woman refers may doubtless be the natural result of the fall. There are also anxieties and mental pains, which even in the moment of a woman's joy that a man is born into the world impair a mother's happiness, — anxieties and sorrows occasioned by the forebodings of evil for her offspring in this sinfid world, which are exemplified in the name Abel, by which Eve is represented as calling her second- born son. But independently of these sorrows, the natural pains of child-birth seem, in accordance with the analogy of other viviparous animals, to belong to the human race also by its original physical constitution ; and these are the sorrows ^ Ut neque cum ardore seminaretur, neque cum dolore pareretur. — De Gen. ad LH., IX. X. 18. PARADISE AND THE FALL. 135 which seem specially intended in the purely physical part of the sentence. And then, in the less physical part of the sentence, the direction of the woman's desire towards that of the man, and the husband's dominion over the wife, seem proper to the natural and innocent state no less than to the fallen con- dition of mankind. The sexual impulses of the woman have in them more of the moral and less of the physical than in the case of the man, and the foundation of all purity in woman seems to be that her desire is rather to gratify the man than herself, and herself only in that way. And when in any instance the case is otherwise, the individual is of a lower and degraded type. So far therefore as the sentence refers to such impulses, it rather denotes the purer and finer, than the grosser and less pure, manifestations of this part of a woman's nature. The general subjection of the wife to the husband, and the prevalence of his will over her's, seems necessary to the happiness of the married state, irrespectively altogether of the fall. It was implied in the original design of the woman's formation as expressed in the previous part of the narrative, namely, that she should be an help meet for the man. When two persons naturally possessed of independence are united in such a relation as that of wedlock, one must of necessity have the right to prevail over the other ; and the more morally perfect such a couple might be, the more completely would such a relation as that which is expressed in the sentence on the woman have been realised. And accord- ingly, in reference to this whole sentence, St. Augustine, who yet leans much to the realistic acceptation of the narrative in this as in other particulars, observes that it seems more conveniently to be understood figuratively ; ^ and in reference to the latter part of it, that it cannot be believed that even in the unfallen state the woman was otherwise constituted than that the man should rule over her, and she should serve him.^ But then, ac- ' Et mulieri dixit, muUiplicans et cetera. Htec quoque in raulierem Dei verba, figurate ac prophetice multo coramodius intelliguntur. Be Gen. ad Lit. XI. ixxvii. 50. * Neque enim et ante peccatum alitor factam fuisse decet credere mulierem, nisi ut 136 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. cording to the general character of this narrative, things natural and material stand as the types and symbols of what is moral and spiritual. And these natural conditions of the woman are the fitting symbols of that moral defect produced by trans- gression, and of its consequences, whereby what would else have been accepted and acquiesced in, as being the necessary conditions of her state and place in the economy of human nature, have become a real punishment through the discontent, the perverse- ness of will, and the rebelliousness of spirit which have by the fall been engendered in mankind. The entire economy of man's increase on the earth has thus become the occasion of the worst ills of life, ills in which it may safely be said woman has been the greatest sufferer as being the weaker vessel. What are the mere natural sorrows of her conception thus become the type of unspeakable woes, of which this economy has by sin become the occasion to her. The natural rule of her husband is suggestive of the dreadfid tyranny which man has too often exercised over her, both in wedlock and out of it, while the reluctance to submit to it, which is part of the rebellious spirit that sin has introduced into the world, has been to herself the occasion of the greatest misery. It is in this point of view also that the sentence on the man must be regarded. The curse of the ground for man's sake has its real existence in man's own fallen nature. The thorns and thistles it should bring forth for his pmiishment are natural productions, as good in their kind as the fruits on which man lives, useful as affording the natural food of other creatures, and in general filling a place in the economy of nature.^ Even in Eden there was need of counteracting by labour the spontaneous yir ei dominaretur, et ad eum ipsa serviendo converteretur. Ubi supra, The service to be rendered by the woman iu her innocence he compares with that recommended by St. Paul, Gal. v. 13, " By love serve one another ;" that denounced by the sentence, to the servitude into which some men were brought to others as a penal consequence of sin. But then it will be perceived that this difference arises not from a change in the nature of the relation, but from a change in the moral state of the persons themselves. ' Hence St. Augustine suggests that it is said, not simply pariet, but pariet tibi. He supposes that thorns and thistles existed before the fall, that they were useful as affording food to birds and beasts, and might have had uses for mankind also; but that they became a trouble to man after the fall, whcu he began to labour iu cultivat- PARADISE AND THE FALL. 137 growth of such natural productions as would else have been to the detriment of cultivated fruits. The man was placed in the garden to dress and to keep it. This manner of representing man's primitive state plainly implies that the ground naturally produces its fruits irrespectively of their use to man, who must use care to obtain such as are beneficial to himself, that a state of idle- ness was never contemplated, and that the toil, which in the sen- tence is presented as a penalty, was really a needful good in man's innocent as well as in his guilty state. Dislike to labour in due moderation is itself a sinful consequence of the fall ; and the natural reluctance to excessive laboiir makes the necessity of it, which a state of society that is partly the result of sin has pro- duced, a real punishment. The inequality in the amount of labour each has to perform, the differences in its kind, the discontent that each feels with the irksomeness of his own work, of which he is sensible, as compared with that of others, which he does not feel and therefore does not think as great as that of his own labour, the diflficulty so many find by the utmost labour to maintain their existence in a selfish and rapacious w^orld, — all these and many other efiects of human sin have made the labour that would have been man's happiness in his inno- cence, and so often is his happiness now too in many ways, and at any rate conduces to or is necessary for his welfare, to be at the same time felt as a punishment, and actually to be so in many instances and in some respects. Still it is in man himself that the curse exists, and not in the labour, nor in the thorns and thistles which the ground brings forth and which make the labour necessary, nor in the ground itself, the naturally barren soil of which becomes fruitful by labour, while the fruit- ful soil becomes profitless for want of it. Doubtless there were barren places that labour might clothe with verdure, and there ing the ground. Non quod aliis in locis hsec antea nascerentur, et post in agris quos homo ad capiendas fruges coleret ; sed et prius et postea in iisdem locis ; prius tamen non homini, post autem homini, ut hoc significatur quod additum est, tibi : quia non est dictum, Spinas et tribulos pariet, sed pariet tibi ; id est ut tibi jam ista nasci inci- piant ad laborem, quae ad pastum tantummodo aliis auimalibus antea nascebantur. De Gen. ad Lit. III. iviii. 28. 138 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. was luxuriant vegetation that needed to be checked by labour, before the fall as after it. The labour of head and hand, which is able to effect so much in spite of all the obstacles to its beneficial exercise which sin has raised, would have had its blessed func- tions in an innocent world, as it has in a guilty one also, though in the latter man's sin has made it to be felt as a curse. In general it may be said that beings created with appetites and wants must of necessity incur some measure of trouble, if not of toil, that their wants may be satisfied and their desires fulfilled. All creatures not absolutely perfect and infinite must have de- fects, and at times find themselves in circumstances of inconve- nience and disadvantage. Physical evil is therefore in some degree the necessary condition of existence in an imperfect state. Such a state must, to a being possessed of a moral nature, be the occasion of a moral probation, and impose the obligation of self-control, the denial of inclinations and propensions, and a cheerful submission to the necessary conditions of such an imperfect state of existence. There is nothing penal in its una- voidable ills, so long as the moral character remains unimpaired ; once that has undergone a depravation, those ills become them- selves the punishment of the sinful dispositions that rise up in opposition to them, while the indulgence in such dispositions has a baneful effect in their multiplication and the aggravation of their irksomeness. Even the last particular of the sentence on guilty man, his return to the dust from whence he was taken, is a natural condition of all animal existence. The observation of death in the inferior animals, coupled with the knowledge that man has himself a like animal nature, and with the instinct of self-preservation of which he is also conscious, would lead even innocent man to anticipate for himself at some time the dissolution of his mortal frame. However that might have been warded off by a special dispensation of providence, or in whatever way it might be deprived of its most repulsive physical characteristics, the removal of the older generations of men, as men would in course of time multiply and require room beyond PARADISE AND THE FALL. 139 what the limits of this earth would afford, would independently of the fall have necessitated some kind of euthanasia or other means of withdrawal from this world.^ Even if that were to be strictly speaking death, it would in such case have wanted that sting of death which is sin, and which is what makes it so terrible a punishment to guilty men. It is not simply death, such as might be the peaceful transition of the innocent to a more perfect state, that is the real penalty in this sentence, but death with the unseen terrors of future retribution looming in the view of a guilty conscience. Whatever may be thought of the preservation of unfallen man from death in its present manner of dissolution and corruption, at any rate, in the sentence pronounced after the fall, as represented in this narrative, that which constitutes the chief part of the penalty, the future retribution and the sting which the apprehension of that future retribution gives to death in the case of the guilty, is wholly left out of view. It is true this omission is characteristic of the Old Testament generally, and in particular of the Mosaic part. Still not the less does physical death, in accordance with the symbolical character which pervades this entire passage, represent that which is the more terrible part, the real punishment. Even to fallen men, though they have through their lifetime been subject to bondage in fear of death, yet by the hope of a blessed immortality it is robbed of its terrors, and they can say with the Apostle, " 0 death, where is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory?" Death to innocent man, as the peaceful transition to a happier state, would certainly ' Donee post vitara bene gestam in melius mutari mererentur. — St. Augustiu, 2>d Gen. ad Lit., XI. xxviii. 50. Potuerunt homines genitis filiis, perfectaque Immani ofEcii justitia, hiuc ad meliora transferri, non per mortem, seJ per aliqiuim commuta- tionem. — IX. vi. 10. On the whole sentence inflicted on the man, the note of Cajetan may be here subjoined witli advantage : Adverte prudens lector quod quemadmodum mors, quae suapte natura consequebatur hominem, poena est propter adeniptum benefi- cium ex peccato, ita impedimenta spinarum, dolores, sudores, ac labores inter poenas supputantur propter beiieflcium divinum preeservativum hominis ab islis ademptum ex eodem peccato. Ita quod non est mutata conditio terrsB : sed est mntata conditio hominis ex statu privilegiato in suum naturalem statum. This status privilegiatus, howevef, may have consisted only in his own virtue and the general blessing of God attendant on it. [' "And death by "sin," that is, death which at first was the condition of Nature, became a punishment upon that account : just as it was to the serpent to creep upon his belly, and to the woman to be subject to ber husband. These things were so be- fore, and would have been so. But it had not been a curse.' — Bp. Taylor. Unum Neccssarium, ch. vi. sect. i. 7.] 140 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. have had no penal character, and would have been regarded only as one of the unavoidable ills of an earthly state, to be undergone with submission, preparatory to his entrance on the heavenly state clothed in the spiritual as distinguished from the natural body. And accordingly, St. Paul in contrasting the first Adam by whom death came with the second Adam by whom comes the resurrection of the dead, seems to refer the mortality of the first, not to the fall as the penal consequence of it, but to the original formation of man as of the earth earthy, and as made a living or natural soul by God breathing into him the breath of life. And at the close, when he speaks of the Chris- tian's triumph over death, he intimates that it is not over death as a natural condition that this triumph is obtained, but over death as deriving a stinjj from sin which but for sin it would not have. This it is which converts a natural condition of our earthly ex- istence into a penal infliction, and makes bodily death the fitting symbol of the retribution of man's transgression, of that second death which is the sequel of bodily death to the impenitent. And then in connexion with this sentence of man's return to the dust from whence he was taken stands the concluding par- ticular in the narrative, his exclusion from access to the tree of life which, as has been shown, symbolized the gift of eternal life to the innocent, but from which he is prohibited by the Cheru- bim and the flaming sword, that were placed to keep the way of the tree of life, lest the man should put forth his hand and take of it and eat and live for ever. Thus is well represented man's final exclusion from eternal life, as far as his own ability and the re- ligion of nature could enable him to obtain it, and the barrier which the divine condemnation on the one hand, and a guilty conscience on the other, have raised between sinful man and his ofiended Maker. VIII. This whole narrative has now been reviewed at length, its peculiarities have been noticed, and it has been found that a very large proportion must needs be taken in a mystical or allegorical sense. The tentative and suppletory character of the PARADISE AND THE FALL. 141 order and progress of creation, as here represented, is so plainly- conformed to the manner of human operations, and so unlike what we conceive must be the absolute nature of the divine operations, that of itself it might suggest to us the probability that a mystical representation was intended. The divine anthro- pism that has been shown to prevail also in other particulars tends to the same conclusion. This, at any rate, cannot be taken in its downright literal acceptation, but must be regarded as a manner of representation widely differing from the reality it symbolizes. And then it has been found that each particular of the narrative is presented in the same historical form, while a large proportion of the particulars thus indicated can only be regarded as mystical representations of facts that must have been far different as actual events, though truly such as here repre- sented in their moral aspect. These particulars of allegorical import being thus blended indiscriminately in the same historical form with others, the mystical character of which is equally possible, though not so necessary when they are viewed by themselves, the natural conclusion is that these latter, as well as the others, are alike mystical. And thus the whole narrative is to be regarded as a parabolical representation, setting forth under a veil certain important facts, and inculcating great moral principles, which when thus presented, are more likely to impress the minds for which this account was more immediately intended, than if those principles were set forth in their naked abstract form. There is a stage in the progress of the human mind at which everything must be presented in this concrete form. Children must have tales and fables to impress a moral on their minds with practical conviction. The oriental mind seems in some important respects to have never advanced beyond this stage. Hence arose the prevalence of apologue and parable and mystical representation in the entire literature of the East. This method of conveying instruction was adopted by the pro- phetic teachers of the Old Testament, and was stamped with a still more immediate divine sanction by the practice of our 142 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. blessed Lord himself. And there is this important difference between a Kteral narrative of historical facts and a mystical representation in an historical form, that the former cannot be logically generalised, while the latter being designed to exem- plify general truths, which are embodied in a particular concrete form, the arrival at the implied generalities is that to which the narrative was itself intended to lead. The concrete form suits the weaker apprehension of the more simple stages of human intelligence. The air of ideality which the narrative, with all its historical aspect, still bears about it naturally suggests that something more is meant than meets the eye or reaches the ear ; the mind is thus drawn into an effort to penetrate the veil, and the truth, when once attained, impresses the mind more forcibly by means of the effort that was necessary to reach it. The necessit}' of the same effort becomes to the thoughtless the occasion of their missing the designed instruction, and thus their thoughtlessness is punished by the very form in which the truth is presented, while the thoughtful are by the same means re- warded. Hence our Lord said to the disciples, " Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand." And so as regards the narrative contained in the second and third chapters of Genesis, everything of practical importance which would be taught by it, if viewed as a downright historical accoimt of events as they actually happened, may perhaps be regarded as more effectually conveyed by it, when considered as a parabolical representation. It sets forth no less strikingly, and with greater generality, the happiness of man in his state of innocence, and the fact that that happiness was dependent on the conduct of man, as even in his innocence placed in a state of probation. In the literal narrative these thiugs are represented in a more physical and material foi'm, while the mystical acceptation introduces the reader to the spiritual realities thus shadowed forth. With special reference to pre- vailing vices, the fitting conditions of the marriage union are PARADISE AND THE FALL. 143 represented, and the permanency and purity of the tie incul- cated. Then the nature and sources of temptation in general are strikingly exhibited, and the special weakness of woman when exposed to it, with the peril that arises when she becomes a tempter to man. These are presented with a wider generality by the story viewed as a mystical adumbration, than as a state- ment of what actually took place in one particular instance ; though doubtless what is thus common to all temptations virtually took place in the instance of the first. The tre- mendous fact of the fall of man from his first innocence is no less clearly presented in the one form than in the other, while the consequences of that event in turning even the common conditions of humanity, and the natural circumstances of the earthly state of man's existence, into a curse, are no less strik- ingly manifested, and with a wider generality. The constant strife that man should ever maintain with the principles of evil and the authors of it, the conflict between the law of the mind and the law in the members warring against it, the partial success of evil, and the final triumj^h of good over the powers of darkness, through what seems with special significance to be designated as the woman's seed, stand out with equal distinct- ness, as if the particulars of the statement were to be taken in their historical literality as here described. And far more in- structive and of more general significance is the mystical import of the Cherubim with the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life against the ofienders expelled from Paradise, as representing the loss of that eternal life which was to reward man's unsinning obedience, — the sword of divine justice uplifted against him, prohibiting the hope of regaining for himself the lost inheritance, — that sword which, sharper than any two-edged sword of man's making, pierces to the dividing asunder the soul and spirit, is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,^ probes the conscience and ' This figure in the Epistle to the Hebrews of a two-edged sword piercing to the dividing asunder the soul and spirit, and discerning the thoughts and intents of the 144 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. rankles in it with tlie torments of remorse; far more in- structive is all this than the mere local expulsion of a guilty- pair from an earthly garden, and the hindrance of their return to it even by the flaming sword of visible Cherubim, according to the literal representation of this narrative. Though the historical reality of the commencement of human sin in the first actual transgression, and of its fatal consequences, underlies this representation, yet the ideality of the manner of representation makes it no less applicable to the case of all temptation issuing in sin, at all times and under all circumstances, and to the con- sequences and efiects of such transgression in general. Such a mode of representation, which, as has now been shown, will serve for its religious uses in all respects equally well as, and in some respects even better than a purely historical statement of literal facts, is free from many difficulties which have made this narrative, on the supposition that it should be understood in the latter sense, a stumbling block to the sceptical, and an occasion of ridicule to scoffers. And it is not those j)articulars which at first sight might be thought encumbered with the greatest difficulty that chiefly have had this efiect. Such as bear more immediately on the face of them the marks of allegory and symbolical representation afibrd less scruple for this very reason, as they are more readily perceived to be such, and are consequently taken at once in their true acceptation. It is the particulars which are more capable, as considered in themselves, of being regarded as historical in their literal acceptation that create the chief difficulty. Some of these particulars, which, taken allegorically, stand in accordance with the nature of all symbolism as the fitting representations of what is con- cealed imder the veil of a simple naturalism, have a childish heart seems to be employed with a manifest allusion to the flaming sword that turned every' way to keep the way of the tree of life. If the writer had this in his view, the allusion is another instance of mystical import recognised in the New Testament as pertaining to the representations' in which the circumstances of man's creation and fall are presented in this narrative of the hook of Genesis, such as those already noticed in the case of the river of Paradise and the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. PARADISE AND THE FALL. 145 air about them as historical realities, and would seem even ludicrous in any document not invested in our concejjtions with a sacred character. The making the destiny of the world to depend on the eating of an apple, as it is commonly said ; the effort to find amongst the inferior animals an help meet for man ; the extraction of the rib for the formation of the woman ; the sewing of the fig leaves by the man and the woman to make themselves aprons, together with the stress laid on the absence of shame in their previous state of naked- ness, and the subsequent provision of garments by God himself; the hearing of the voice of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the hiding amongst the trees for shame of their nakedness ; these particulars, let it be said with reverence, would seem simply ludicrous and silly, if pre- sented to us as things to be literally understood in any pro- duction not supposed to be sacred, and could scarcely fail to produce a similar impression if now read for the first time even in a document believed to be of divine authority.^ Our famil- iarity with them in childhood, when their childishness as matters of historical fact did not of course attract the notice of our childish apprehension, the subsequent retaining of the senti- ments of our childhood, and the unbroken reverence with which we have ever since regarded this sacred document, have saved these particulars from being viewed in such an unpleasant light by men of devout and religious minds ; and even with those who are not religious, this early habit has largely prevailed to the same effect. With the profane and the sceptical they are doubtless either an occasion of ridicule or an obstacle to faith. No less difficulty is presented by some of the other particidars 1 " Magna vis est consuetudinis et prgeconceptae opinionis, in animos humanos. Hos breves commcntarios aut historiolas de liominura rerumque primordiis, ex ore Mosis sine examine, sine mora, accipimus et amplectimur. Apud alium vero si eandem doctrinam legissemus, puta apud Philosoplium Graicum, apud Doctorem Eabbinicum, aut Mahometanum, bsesisset animus in unaquaque periodo, dubiis et objectiunculis plenus. Hoc discrimen oritur non ex natura rei aut materise subjecta;, sed ab opinione nostra de fide et autboritate scriptoris, utpote divinitus inspirati. Hoc libenter agnoscimus, nee dubitatur boo loco de autboritate scriptoris, sed quo animo, quo consilio haec sciipserit, quo genere styli usus fuerit." — Dr. Tbomas Burnet, Archceolor/ice Philosophic^, Lib. II., cb. vii., p. 385. 10 146 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of the history, which are not liable to be regarded in a ludicrous point of view. The rivers of Paradise proceeding from one source ; the preservation of life for ever by the natural fruit of a tree ; the speaking of a serpent as if quite naturally, and, if re- garded as a miraculous effect, its occurrence and use for the purpose of man's deception and eternal ruin ; the punishment of the serpent as if it were the real and only tempter, and that punishment only what must have been the natural condition of the animal already ; the motive with which Grod resents the acquisition by man of the knowledge of good and evil, and by which he is influenced in hindering his acquisition of im- mortality, namely, a jealousy of man's approaching too near to himself in the enjoyment of privileges, which, in the ex- clusive possession of them, he strives to retain to himself; all these particulars on a system of literal and realistic interpre- tation present serious difiiculties, which would weigh strongly with many minds. The effect of such a manner of interpreta- tion in regard to such minds would either be the exclusion of this portion from the sacred canon, or else the weakening of their reverence for the whole, of which this is regarded as an integral part. Only the symbolical. acceptation of the en- tire can consistently and effectually free it from these diffi- culties. And just in jDroportion as it has been shown that a large part was plainly intended to be thus imderstood, while unity of character apparently pervades the whole, and sound principles of interpretation demand uniformity in the manner of explanation throughout, does this symbolical acceptation claim to be admitted as the only and true explanation, with a force that carries conviction, and clears the document from all the objections to which it is otherwise liable. IX. Against the mystical and symbolical manner of explana- tion of this narrative which has been just advocated, Hengsten- berg sums up a series of general objections, which can be met with more advantage now that the several particulars which tend to prove that this is the character of the entire document PARADISE AND THE FALL. 147 liave been considered in detail. It will be perceived that the improbabilitj^, such as it maybe, which these general objections create, can have no weight against a sufficient proof that any- one particular is mystical in its signification. And if there be any such, as plainly there are, their effect, so far as it might weigh in regard to others which are capable of being literally explained, would only be to show that, if these be thus understood, the passage taken as a whole is a piebald and inconsequent jumble of literal and symbolical representations. How little the argu- ments relied on tend to create such an impression as to the nature of the document will appear from a brief consideration of them. The following are the objections, as summed up by Hengstenberg, Christologie, Th. i., Abth. i. p. 26 : — " To the allegorical inter- pretation of the entire passage there are many objections. The connexion with the sequel, in which the history of the same human pair, that is here treated of, is carried on — the exact geographical representation of Paradise — the fact that the con- dition of mankind, which in this passage is announced as a punishment, is real — the want of any mark which might indicate that the author meant to give an allegory and not a history — the passages of the^New Testament in which the history of the fall is taken as actual history (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14, E,om. V. 12) — the embarrassment, uncertainty, and arbitrariness of allegorical interpreters, when they would point out the truth that lies at the foundation, which yet, in case the author designed an allegory, should present itself so distinctly that it could not be missed." 1. The first of these objections is the connexion with the sequel, in which the history of the same human pair is carried on. But it is to be observed in the first place, that this objec- tion is founded on the assumption of an uninterrupted continuity of composition with the sequel ; and as the same human pair are likewise presented to us in the preliminary narrative of the first chajDter, identified by the name Adam, this con- tinuity must be carried back to it as well as forward to 148 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the sequel. Against such an assumption are the strong grounds already shown for separating this narrative, at least as regards continuity of composition, from the preceding narrative of the creation, such as the inconsistency of the two accoimts taken as a literal history of the order and manner of creation, and the remarkable difference of usage as respects the name of the Creator in each, this latter being an equally strong reason for separating this document from the sequel. These reasons have had sufficient weight with a numerous and able body of critics to form the basis of an hypothesis of different authorship. Though they may seem far short of proving dif- ferent authorship, they strongly make against the supposition of an uninterrupted continuity of narration. But, in the second place, the symbolical and mystical explanation of the narrative has reference to the facts relating to the human pair represented in this allegorical form, not to the human pair themselves. It is not supposed that these are an allegorical couple, but the same actual pair as in the subsequent parts of the history ; only this document, complete and distinct in itself, represents real facts in the history of this couple in a symbolical form, whatever be the manner of representation adopted in the sequel. 2. The second objection is derived from the exact geographical description of the situation of Paradise. This, so far from being an objection to the mystical explanation, forms, under the cir- cumstances, a very striking evidence in its favour. If, indeed, there existed any four such rivers as are described, including in their number the Euphrates and Tigris, arising at one common source and divided from one parent stream, then indeed it might be supposed the writer intended to indicate, as the actual situa- tion of the garden, the region watered by that as yet undivided stream. But when the fact is that no such parent stream has any existence, none even from which the two rivers designated by well-known names could have proceeded, while the others, though now doubtfully recognised by the names under which they appear in the narrative, were evidently equally well known PARADISE AND THE FALL. 149 in the writer's day and amongst his people, being probably the Nile and one of the great rivers of India, but at any rate wholly unconnected with the other two, it is evident that it can only be by some poetical fiction, or with a view to some merely allego- rical and mystical representation, that the writer has imagined such a situation for his primeval garden, and fixed the site with such apparent geographical exactness, but with such a real inconsistency with facts as must wholly withdraw the situation of Paradise from the sphere of geographical reality.^ 3. The third objection is drawn from the fact that the condi- tion of mankind which constitutes the penalty is real. But if, as has been shown, there are strong reasons for thinking that this was the real and natural condition of mankind prior to and independently of all transgression, and if it became the penal con- sequence of transgression only by the moral change which took place thereby in man himself, causing that this natural condi- tion, including the necessity of labour and mortality itself under ^ The author has had sent him a slip from an Indian newspaper, giving the subjoined explanation of the river of Paradise as contained in a forthcoming work by Mr. C. A. Rassam, British Vice-Consul at Mosul : — " Taking the word eidh in the original of Geu. ii. 6, to be Persian, signifying a. flood, ov flood-tide, and not a mist, he renders the passage, ' The flood-tide rose above the ground, and irrigated all the surface of the land.' By making 'eidhcn (Eden) synonymous with eidh, in spite of the difference in the radicals, for which, however, an ingenious explanation is given — he abolishes our 'Eden' altogether. Gen. ii. 8 he reads as follows : — ' And the Lord planted a garden by the tide [of the river] eastvvardly,' or on the east side, and supports tliis rendering by v. 10 of the same chapter, which he translates, ' And a stream [or current] proceeded from the flood-tide to water the garden, and from thence it supplied four heads,' viz., Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Parath, severally identified by the critic with the Karoon, the Sowaib or Howeiza, the Tigris and the Euphrates. In support of this exegesis, he adduces the fact that the same phenomenon exists at the present day ; for when the tide from the Persian Gulf flows into the Shattool-Arab — the confluence of the united streams — the water rises in the four above-named rivers, and therefore may be said tp supply, or to be divided among them." It may not be fair to hold Mr. Eassara responsible for an opinion promulgated in this way, but the opinion itself is an instance of the extremities to which those who look for a literal interpretation of this passage are driven by the difficulties wbich beset them. The word edh or eidh is good Hebrew and Arabic for a vapour, and it is unwarrantable to resort to a different, and not even a cognate, language, for a signification more suitable to a theory than the proper Hebrew sense of the word. The identification of Eden (01!) with IX or H^X, than which no words could be more radically different, is also quite arbitrary. Moreover Eden has a good Hebrew signification, expressing the delightsomeness of the place, and is frequently used by the prophets to denote the garden itself, besides being also applied to more than one real place. The notion of a garden being watered by the salt tide of the Bea, or even the brackish water of an estuary, is quite absurd. 150 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. certain conditions, should be regarded as a punishment, wliich else it would not have been thought to be, then this representa- tion becomes evidently another instance in which we are to look for a moral rather than a physical and literal explanation. 4. The absence of any mark of the author's intention to pre- sent an allegory instead of a history is next relied on. But an allegorist never thinks of giving any such mark distinct from the representations of the allegory itself. It is the nature of all allegory to assume the form of an actual history. It is only from the nature of the particulars related, regarded either severally or in their connexion as a whole, that the allegorical character of the narrative is inferred. If the unreality of these particulars, considered severally or in their combination as a whole, does not of itself demonstrate the allegorical character of the narra- tive, then the story may be a fictitious tale designed to instruct or to amuse, but it cannot be called an allegory which represents supposed realities in a mystical and unreal form.^ There are ample indications in the narrative now under consideration that it has this allegorical character, indications afforded by the manifest symbolical and unreal character of many of its par- ticulars, as already shown at length ; and these being sufficiently perceptible, it is unreasonable to expect that the author should have given any express intimation that he meant to write allegorically. 1 If St. Paul, in Gal. iv. 24, having referred to the history of Sarah and Hagar and their two sons, had used the words which the English translators have atti-ibuted to him, " which things are an allegory," he would have appeared to treat the stoi-y as not founded in fact, but only invented to foreshadow the doctrine he illustrates by means of it. His words, however, are very different, denoting not that the original history was an allegory, but that an allegorical meaning was put upon it : — artud iffTiv aWriyopovfieva, allegorized, or treated as an allegory. He probably had in view the allegorical allusion made to the story in the words of Isaiah liv. 1, which he quotes in the course of his owti allegorical interpretation. This is only a development of that of the prophet, and an extension of it to the casting out of the bondwoman with her son. The story had been in part allegorized by the prophet. The Judaizing Christians, who desired to be under the law, had probably been familiar with this application of it to the two covenants, and as they had so far understood it in this light, he shows them that, if this mode of interpretation be carried out consistently, it illustrates the incompatibility of the two systems, and the freedom of Christians from the bondage of the law, as it existed under the old covenant. The argument was ad hominem, but the allegorical allusion of Isaiah to the history gave him a certain scriptural authority for pressing it on those whose mistaken notions he wished to counteract. PARADISE AND THE FALL. I5l 5. The passages in. the 'New Testament in which the history of the fall is referred to, and in which it is alleged that it is assumed to be a real history, are next insisted on. But the reality of the fall has not been disputed, but only the reality of the circumstances of it, and of the manner of its occurrence as here represented. We need no proof of the reality of the fall beyond our own experience of man's sin- fulness, together with the impossibility of believing that man was not made uj)right as he came from the hands of his maker. A fall from a state of innocence there must have been, a first transgression, however the account of it given in this passage may be regarded. One of the New Testament references relied on is Eom. v. 12. Surely, when the Apostle speaks of those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, he does not mean those who had not exactly imitated that transg-ression in the eating of the forbidden fruit of a tree. The similitude was in the nature rather than in the form of the transgression. Whether he means infants who were subject to death, notwithstanding their freedom from actual transgression, as some have supposed ; or those who sinned only against the law written on the heart, the law of nature, while yet no out- ward law had been communicated, whereas Adam's transgression is represented to have been against an express commandment, as others have thought ; or, as Grotius thinks, those who had not committed any grave delibei^te sin like Adam's, which in Hosea vi. 7 is spoken of as a type of the more heinous kinds of trans- gression,^ but led comparatively blameless lives, committing only the sins of infirmity ; or else those against whose sin the specific penalty of death had not been denounced, as in Adam's case, which is probably the true meaning ; — at any rate the reference is only to the general nature and not the particular form of Adam's transgression. The reference there- fore proves nothing as to the Apostle's belief in the reality of that form as here represented. Another reference is 2 Cor. 1 " But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant." 152 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. xi. 3, where St. Paul sjDeaks of the serpent having tempted Eve. But Heno'stenbero; foro^ets that though he maintains there was a real serpent, yet he also expressly maintains that the serpent was not the real tempter. He forgets also the passages in the Apocalypse, where the serpent is identified with the devil him- self. Doubtless there was a real temptation, and the agency of Satan in that temptation is not affected as a matter of fact by his being represented under the symbol of a serpent in this narrative. And even if St. Paul had entertained this symbolical view of the narrative, he was not on that account the less likely to refer to it in its seeming historical character, than to trans- late the symbols into what they were intended to represent. The characters in a fable or parable are commonly referred to as real persons, even though the parable or fable veils no historical events at all, but only exemplifies a moral or principle under the form of an historical tale. The third passage referred to is 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14. This, undoubtedly, assumes the reality of the difference in the manner in which the woman was brought into transgression from that in which the man is represented as having been led into sin ; and the Apostle gromids the impro- priety of the woman's usurping authority over the man partly on this difference, and partly on the priority of the man's formation as represented in Gen. ii. But then the mere circumstance of priority in time would not prove the superiority of the man to the woman as regards authority. On the contrary, in the first chapter, man is formed last of all the living creatures and yet receives authority to rule over all. It is the design of the woman's formation, represented as taking place after that of the man, to supply a want in his condition, her formation to be a help meet for the man, and the manifest supplemental and secondary character of her relation to the man, and not the circumstance of her later formation, that is the true reason why she should not usurp authority over the man. And hence, even in the Apostle's argument, this circumstance of later formation must have been adduced only as symbolizing or representing the supplemental and PARADISE AND THE FALL. 153 secondary relation of the woman to the man ; and, standing as the symbol of a real inferiority of relation, its citation by the Apostle as such, does not makd it less symbolical or more real in the original document, whatever may have been the actual fact in re- gard to the time of the woman's formation relatively to that of the man's. And then, as regards the circimistance that the woman in her temptation was deceived, as represented in the Mosaic narrative, while the man, at the woman's instigation, sinned with his eyes open, as it were, and without being deceived, this is only in accordance with the general character of each. The man, how- ever he may be carried away by the violence of his passions, is ordinarily not so liable to be deceived in his times of temp- tation, as the woman in her's. The Apostle's design was not to measure the comparative guilt of the transgressors, but to show by this example of the greater liability to be deceived' the unfitness of the woman to teach or to usurp authority over the man, whose guilt may notwithstanding be the greater in proportion as he is the less beguiled. This great characteristic difference, so often exemplified in the respective temptations undergone by the two sexes, this greater liability of the woman to be led into sin by deception, of the man to sin without being deceived, as well as the fact that the woman should so often, both intentionally and unintentionally, be the occasion of sin to the man — dux fccmina facti — is what may well be supposed to have been exhibited in the case of the first temptation and transgression. In that instance the woman's inexperience of evil, which even since has so often been the occasion of her ruin, would have rendered her the more liable to deception, while the man, to whom woman had never as yet been a tempter, would have been more likely to yield ■ to influences that, with all the subsequent experience of mankind, are still 80 powerful for evil as well as for good. That these charac- teristic peculiarities in the temptation of each were thus exemplified on the occasion of the fall is doubtless a part of the historical basis that underlies the account given of that 154 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. event in the Mosaic narrative, and whicli that narrative was designed to symbolize. More than this the Apostle's reference in 1 Tim. ii. 13^ 14, does not necessarily imply. 6. The last of Hengstenberg's objections is the perplexity, uncertainty, and arbitrariness of the allegorical interpreters, when they proceed to display the underlying truth, which in the case of a designed allegory should be so manifest that it could not be mistaken. I^ow if the whole were an apologue without any historical basis whatever, the moral lessons to be derived from it would be intelligible enough ; certainly as intelligible as in any of the parables of Holy Scripture. But plainly there is an historical basis sufficiently manifest underlying this narrative, which is not a mere fable to illustrate moral principles, but an allegorical representation of important facts. The creation of the first human pair ; the provision of all things needful for their temporal wants ; the state of moral probation in which they were placed ; their first innocence and subsequent temptation and fall ; the manner of that temptation as regards the mental process by which it issued in transgression ; the consequences of lost innocence, such as shame and the con- version of the natural circumstances of man's condition into punishment by the change in his own moral nature ; the needful contest to be ever maintained with the principles of evil, issuing finally in a promised triumph over them ; all these particulars are presented in a series of representations, the meanings of which are by no means obscure, and afford no occasion for any arbi- trariness in their exj)lanation. The narrative being grounded on two grand historical realities, the creation and the fall, both alike unquestionable ve4:'ities, it is reasonable to suppose that the other particulars implied in it have a foundation in fact also, such as the original creation of a single pair, and the tmity of the human race as derived from them, the woman being the mother of all living and herself bone of the man's bones, and flesh of his flesh. Under any mode of interpre- tation, the special meaning of the seed of the woman bruising OFFSPRING OF FALLEN MAN. 155 tlie serpent's head would have been missed, until the manner of Christ's birth gave significance to a representation which pre- viously could only be understood in a very vague and general manner. There is nothing, however, uncertain or arbitrary in the explanations which arise with sufficient readiness from the passage itself. Enough of the historical facts are patent, to suffice for all the moral and religious uses of such a narrative ; nothing is told merely to gratify curiosity. The details that could only serve this end are withdrawn behind the veil of a mystical mode of representation. Such details of historical circumstance not being within the sphere of the writer's ob- servation, or of his ordinary means of information, could only be known by a direct and immediate revelation, while yet, not being needful for any religious use, they are matters in regard to which revelation is not to be expected. The alternative of such a revelation of actual details would be the presenting the events of moral significance under the veil of a mystical repre- sentation, which should contain in itself sufficiently distinct indi- cations of the symbolical character of that representation, and of which the import should be sufficiently intelligible for all the moral and relio-ious uses of such a narrative. These con- ditions are beautifully and strikingly fulfilled in these chapters, the import of which has now been discussed. II. OFFSPEING OP FALLEN MAN. I. The fourth chapter is connected with the passage which has just been considered, not only as it forms with it one of what, as will be hereafter shown, constitute the larger organic divisions of the entire book, but also as being its natural sequel. It commences without prefatory notice, and carries on the names, Adam, Eve, and Eden from the preceding chapters, without explanation or remark of any kind. But though the fourth chapter is thus closely connected with that preceding passage, they are at the same time distinguished 156 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. from one anotlier in a very marked and striking manner, not only by the completeness and self-contained character of the previous narrative, which closes with the final expulsion of the guilty pair from the garden of Eden, but also by the form and structure of the one as compared with that of the other. The poetical character and form of the earlier part is now entirely dropped, and the versification which distinguished it disappears, except in the brief snatch of early song attributed near the close of the chapter to Lamech, the entire tone and and character, except in that one instance, being quite prosaic. Then the compound name Jehovah Elohim, by which God is designated in the preceding passage, and which by the fre- quent repetition in that form of combination, unusual in the Hebrew copies, constituted a ver}'' marked characteristic, is now entirely dropped, and the name Jehovah by itself appears in its stead, except in one instance where Elohim is employed. The cause of the use of Elohim in this one instance is probably to be found in an implied contrast between divine and human agency, a contrast which, it will hereafter be seen, has in very many instances occasioned the use of the generic Elohim, rather than that of a proper and personal name. In the present case, — " She called his name Seth, for Elohim hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew," — the implied contrast is this : — man had slain one son, God has given another in his place. But whatever may have occasioned this single variation, the marked difference between this chapter and the preceding passage in the use of the names by which the divine Being is designated, joined with the difference of cha- racter between this prosaic and the other highly poetical passage, suffices to distinguish this as a separate document to be viewed by itself, and not as part and parcel with the other. This being the case, there is no necessity of appl}dng to the present passage the same principle of interpretation, which the unity and consistency in form and character that pervaded the former rendered it obligatory to apply to it with unde- OFFSPKING OF FALLEN MAN. ' 157 viating uniformity. There is nothing, moreover, in the subject matter of the fourth chapter, as there was in the previous passage, to indicate that it should not be taken in a strictly literal and historical acceptation. The fact, indeed, that the proper names are in many cases clearly significant, and for the most part significant of circumstances in the subsequent history of the persons and places they are used to designate, might seem to favour the application of an allegorical mode of interpretation to this, as well as to the previous passage. Thus if the name Cain has its appropriateness in the acquisition by Eve of her firstborn son, that of Abel — unsuited to the joy that a man is born into the world, and to the hopes that nature prompts a mother to entertain of the future prosperity of a new born child — has all its appropriateness in the mournful character of the subsequent history of him, who yet is represented as receiving the name at his birth. Again, the land of Nod, In which Cain becomes a fugitive and a vagabond, is so called apparently from this very circumstance of Cain's wandering therein.^ If the city which Cain built was called after his son Enoch, or rather Chanoch, this name itself is significant of the inauguration or dedication of a building or a city.^ Jabal is significant of the wandering life of one that was the father of all such as live in tents and have cattle.^ So also is the name of his brother Jubal derived from Jobel, a wind instru- ment, whence comes the well-known term jubilee. The first part of Tubal-cain signifies the dross of brass or iron in Persian, and the latter part, Cain, a smith both in Arabic and Persian, the former in like manner having had probably at one time its Shemitic representative. But then these names, being all but this one, and perhaps this also, of purely Shemitic origin, must, if the names of real persons, be taken merely to represent more ancient names now lost, which may not have had the like ex ])ost facto significance. ^ *1-"13, vagari, "li3 vagatio, exilium, 13 yagus. 2 "^in inaugurari, iaitiare. 3 ?5'' ire, fluitare. 158 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. It is also true tliat the quarrel between Cain and Abel might be supposed to symbolize the opposition ' between the two classes into which the earliest races of men would naturally resolve themselves, the pastoral and the agricultural. The interests of these classes would be opposite, and the more rapid degeneracy of the agricultural would be contrasted with the comparative innocence of the pastoral. And then the assigning of the building of cities and the invention of arts to the de- scendants of Cain might be supposed merely to indicate that agriculture was the parent of an advanced civilisation, while the habits of pastoral life, which least draws out the inventive faculties, and least brings men into combination and mutual dependence, gave no encouragement to such progress in civili- sation. Still, after explaining these particulars in this way, there would yet remain some particulars in this chapter, the explanation of which must under such a priuciiDle of interpreta- tion be rather arbitrary. Particulars not serving merely to fill up the picture, and not yielding a naturaf signification on the supposition of a parabolic character, are certainly an indication of some weight that a narrative is not intended to be taken in such an acceptation. In the present case, however, the particulars needed to fill up the picture might have been taken from the prevalent historical traditions, from whatever source those traditions were derived, or however they may have originated. Such traditions, accepted for what they were worth, would have afforded a natural ground work on which to build an embodiment representing the moral and social conditions of mankind in the earliest period. And if the pre- ceding passage has been justly treated in the foregoing dis- cussion, the connexion of this with it as its proper sequel would favour, though it does not necessitate, a similar accepta- tion in this case. II. There are a few particulars in this chapter on the import of which some remarks will not be amiss. The first of these to be noticed is the exclamation of Eve on the occasion OFFSPKING OF FALLEN MAN. 159 of the birth of Cain, " I have gotten a man from Jehovah," nin|*"ni:{. a disposition has i^revailed amongst certain divines to interpret these words as indicating an impression on the mind of Eve that her newborn son was himself Jehovah. This supposition has been grounded on the use of the particle flNI as a sign of the accusative. This is alleged to be employed here to connect Jehovah in apposition with the word man, as if she had said, "I have gotten a man, even Jehovah." Amongst others, so respectable a writer as the late Dr. Pye Smith, in his " Scripture Testimonies to the Messiah," gave his adherence to this interpretation. To make it possible to suppose that Eve had imagined this to be the nature of the son she had just borne, it is necessary to assume that she not merely regarded this son as the promised seed that should bruise the serpent's head, but also that she had under- stood the great Christian doctrine of the divine incarnation, a doctrine which yet, notwithstanding the many prophetic indications of it subsequently given, remained ever after un- known to the world until its accomplishment in the person of our blessed Lord. Such an assumption as this, in the absence of all evidence, is monstrous. That this passage affords no proof of it is certain. For though it is true that the particle ^^5 would admit of being taken to express this connexion, and would perhaps be more naturally so taken if it yielded a pro- bable or rational sense, yet it is not necessarily to be so under- stood ; and in the absence of such necessity it is allowable to take the probability of the meaning into consideration. There are abundant instances where the i^article has the force of a preposition, being used in an indefinite manner to indicate relations of every kind, when the case itself sufficiently shows the nature of the relation intended to be expressed. An in- stance like that now under consideration exists in Gen. xlix. 25, where H^ HJSI is used as the parallel and equivalent of 7N)b : " From the God of thy fatlier, and he shall help thee, And from Shaddai, and he shall bless thee." 160 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. The conjunction here prefixed to il5S» shows that it must be regarded as a preposition, though if that were absent it might be supposed to indicate simple apposition. Another instance is to be found in Exod. ix. 29, 33, where ^'•yHTli;^ is used in expressing that Moses went from the city. The use as a mere sign of the accusative is no doubt the most frequent, and should therefore be followed in preference, if it afibrded a pro- bable sense. But here is just one of the cases where a different relation is more naturally indicated ; while nothing but the absence of any instance in which the particle is used to denote any other case but the accusative, or else to mark any other relation than simple apposition, would justify its being under- stood here in a sense which would yield so improbable a mean- ing as that in question. A doctrine which is sought to be upheld by pressing into its service such support as this sufiers more from the impression which is thus produced that it stands in need of such forced assistance, than it can possibly gain by the fancied countenance it may derive from so questionable an interpretation, as this must after all be regarded even by those who are favourable to its adoption. III. The divine origin and institution of animal sacrifice has been inferred by many from the preference of Abel's offering coupled with the words of the Lord to Cain, " Sin lieth at the door," in which sin is supposed to stand for a sin-offering. All that can be said in favour of this view may be seen in Archbishop Magee's work on the Atonement. But after all that has been said, the inference that it was a positive institution of divine orio-in at its first observance is rather more than the sacred narrative will warrant. It is evidently the writer's object to trace back the practice to the very earliest times of man's fallen state. But whether that proceeded from God's direct appointment, or was the spontaneous growth of the human mind, we are not informed. It is not even stated that Abel's offering was slain, the word applied to both Cain's and Abel's ofierings being Mincha, the term which in the law of Moses OFFSPRING OF FALLEN MAN. 161 more properly denotes the meat offering or drink offering, as distinguished from burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. The LXX. indeed apply the word dvala to Abel's offering, but they use it also of Cain's, and therefore it is plainly employed in a more general sense than that which it literally bears. It is rightly remarked by Archbishop Magee that the fat of his flock offered by Abel does not mean the fat as dis- tinguished from the other parts of the animal offered which were not consumed by fire, but taken in connexion with the firstlings means the fattest of them. In the epistle to the Hebrews indeed it is said that Abel offered irXelova Ovalav, rendered "a more excellent sacrifice" in the English Version, but properly signifjdng a sacrifice excelling in number or quantity. But then it was by faith he did this, and it was the faith itself that rendered the offering larger. Each brings the best of what he has to offer, but faith is superadded in one case, and this renders that offering ifKeiova} It is true an argument has been built on this mention of Abel's faith, as implying some divine promise on which Abel proceeded in bringing the sort of offering he did. But this is not necessarily implied. The preceding instance of faith in Heb. xi. is that which consists in the belief that the world was made by the word of God, and in the following instance it is said, in reference to Enoch's faith, that " he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." The commenda- tion therefore of Abel's faith by no means impUes that he acted in conformity with a divinely appointed means of obtaining ' St. Mark xii. 33 — rb ayairav k.t.X. ■ir\eL6v iffri iravTwv rSiv 6\oKav^a.Ta>v Koi tSiv 9v Ka'Lv, tov firj aveXelv avrov iravra tov evpiaKovra avrov. And it is the most probable ; a mark set upon Cain, such as some personal peculiarity, would rather tend to increase the apprehended danger, as it would serve as a mark of identi- fication, and would draw the notice of people upon him. While the mention of the remission of the capital punish- ment in the case of this first instance of the crime of murder would tend to aid the merciful provisions of the law of Moses for restraining the vindictiveness of the avenger of blood, it OFFSPRING OF FALLEN MAN. 651 seems to have been partly with a view to bringing out, with the like intention, the difference between wilful murder and the less guilty forms of homicide, that the genealogical account of Cain's descendants is brought down to Lamech and his im- mediate family, and then ceases. That the writer availed him- self of an existing tradition may be gathered from the snatch of seemingly ancient song, in which Lamech's words are given, so different in their style from the prosaic tone of the other parts of this narrative : — " Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech ; I have slaiu a man for my wound, A young man for my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, So Lamech seventy and seven." The greater vengeance, which Lamech expects to be taken on the person who should slay him in consequence of the homicide he had committed, plainly indicates that his crime was of a less guilty kind ; and perhaps the expressions " for my wound," and " for my hurt," may have been intended to signify the occasion of the homicide, not its injurious consequences to himself. They may be taken to intimate that he had been himself attacked and wounded, and in the fray had slain his adversary.^ While the text of the EngHsh Version follows the LXX. and the Vulgate in giving to the preposition 7 here used a consequential meaning, its marginal rendering is " in my hurt," and " in my wounding." Lev. xix. 28, " Cuttings in your fLesh /or the dead," that is, "on account of the dead;" Num. vi. 7, " Unclean /or his father or /or his mother, or /or his brother, or /or his sister, when they die," that is, unclean 1 So Bp. Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Uebraorum, Prael. iv., translates : — Propter vulnus mihi inflictum, propter plagas mihi impositas. He also gives as Houbigant's translation : — Ego vlrum vulneratus occidi Juvenem plaga affectus. He adds, — Est Lamechi effatum apologia pro homicidio perpetrate sui defendendi causEi contra hominem hostiliter ipsum invadentem, et vim, plagas, vulnera inferen- tem : et opponitur hujusmodi homicidium, sub moderamine inculpatae tutelae com- missum, voluntario et inexcusabili Caini parricidio. 166 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. by reason of them, because of the toucb. of their dead bodies ; Josh. ix. 9, " From' a very far country thy servants are come because of" (lit. /_for) " the name of the Lord," may be adduced as instances in which this preposition denotes the cause. ^ This representation of the less guilty character of some forms of homicide, and of the exemption of the persons who may have committed them from capital punishment, would be of greater moment as qualifying the unlimited sentence in chap, ix, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and was the more needful for the instruction of those for whom it was written, inasmuch as it was the friend of the slain person who was charged with the punishment of the homicide. V. It is a characteristic of this chapter to trace back to the earKest days of the world's history the origin of institutions, customs, and practices prevalent in the world. Thus it notices the early separation of men into the agricultural and pastoral classes, and derives from the former the aggregation of men in cities and the invention of arts. And in the way in which the inventors of arts are described, as the fathers of those that practice them, we notice a familiarity, such as might be expected in the traditionary author of this book, with Egyptian customs, all trades and occupations having been hereditary in ancient Egypt. The worship of God by oblation and sacrifice at stated periodical times, " at the end of days," is also attributed to the firstborn of mankind ; and if it is left in doubt whether it was of direct institution and appointment by God, the divine acknow- ledgement and acceptance of it is plainly taught. If the latter part of 't\ 7 be understood as referring to Abel, which it pro- bably does, the authority of the firstborn and the rights of I It is unnecessary to justify, as Bishop Lowth does, the passive relation here expressed by the pronominal affix " my." The remark of Kimchi, on which he relies, that the affixes to nouns have cither an active or a passive sense, would be of nionicnt if the nouns denoted actions. But here they signify something suffered, and the passive relation expressed by the pronominal affixes is the natural one. And, indeed, whether Lamech's hui't and wound be taken as the cause or the effect of the homicide, the passive relation must be understood here. The idea of a wound and hiu't inflicted by Lamech would strain both the nouns and the prepositions, besides giving a very weak meaning to the verses. OFFSPRING OF FALLEN MAN. 167 primogeniture receive also the divine recognition in the history of these earliest days, a form of expressing this being used exactly similar to the words expressive of the authority of the husband over the wife in iii. 16 : — " Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him." Whether this has sprung from an in- stinct of human nature, or has arisen from the practical advan- tage which seniority gives to the eldest born of a family, whereby the younger members find themselves from the dawn of consciousness in a position of practical inferiority, and have become habituated to this in the growth of all their feelings and conceptions, the inferiority has its foundation in nature, and so must be regarded as having the divine approval which is implied in the words of the Lord to Cain. As institutions, customs and arts are thus traced back, so are certain crimes and abuses. The shedding of blood in its more guilty form, with the natural and instinctive feeling of appre- hension that the murderer should be slain in turn, is first ex- hibited ; and then the less guilty forms of homicide, with the expectation of a greater exemption in such cases from the severer penalty, are also presented to our view. Another evil, namely that of polygamy, is also noticed. It was not the design of the Hebrew legislator absolutely to condemn or prohibit this abuse ; but neither was it his purpose to approve or encourage it. Hence while in chap. ii. the divine institution of marriage plainly contemplates the union of one man with one woman, the first instance of a departure from this the original design is presented to us amongst the degenerated descendants of the guilty Cain, and not until after the interval of several gene- rations. Another particular supposed by some to be traced back to its origin is that which is understood to be expressed in the con- cluding words of the chapter, rendered in our English Version *' Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord."^ There has been much diversity of opinion, however, as to the meaning 1 :nin^ u^% K-ip*? "pmn tx. I68i GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of this sentence, a. That it does not mean that the name Jehovah, as the proper name of God, whether totidem Uteris, or as repre- senting some earlier and now lost name of God, was for the first time adopted at the period specified seems clear, as the writer would scarcely, if he had intended so soon to state this, have put the name into the mouth of E^e at the commencement of the chapter, especially when he had observed dramatic pro- priety in not letting the interlocutors of chap. iii. use the name, owing to the fact that the tempter was one of them. b. Neither can it be supposed that he meant to intimate that the invocation of God in divine worship then commenced. The contrary is implied in the references to the worship of God in the earlier part of the chapter, c. It cannot signify that now the name Jehovah came to be used, as it was in later times, as supplying a component in the formation of the proper names of men. None of the proper names of this early period show any trace of such a component, d. Some have suggested that the words may signify that men began to be called by the name of Jehovah, with reference to the designation "sons of God" in vi. 2, 4. But the expressions are of very difierent import. " Sons of Elohim," would describe a character, but " Sons of Jehovah" would denote personal sonship, by birth or adoption. €. The adoption of the name of God, by way of assuming divine honours, would scarcely have been expressed in so indirect and ambiguous a manner, even if there existed the least reason to suppose that the attempt to usurp the honour due to God was meant to be ascribed to so early a period in the history of man- kind. Nor would the proper name Jehovah be that used in such a statement, if it were intended to be made. Those who assumed divine honours, or to whom they were paid by men, were called by some name proper to themselves, and were regarded as dis- tinct from some one supreme being to whom such a name as Jehovah would belong, f. The Hiphil of the verb 7/11 being sometimes used in the sense of profane, the passive form of this conjugation here used has been supposed by some to be em- OFFSPRING OF FALLEN MAN. 169 ployed in the same signification. The meaning would either be that the calling by the name of Jehovah was profaned by the ascription of that name to idols or false gods, or more simply that the calling on the name of Jehovah, in the sense of using it profanely, became prevalent. That this would fall in with the tracing of other ofiences and moral abuses to their first rise throughout this passage is in its favour ; and the objection that when the verb has this signification it takes a noun and not an infinitive after it, as urged in Poole's Synopsis, is quite ground- less, as in this case the form is passive and the verb is used im- personally, in which manner of use it is properly followed by an infinitive, g. But while men have been looking for remote and recondite significations, a much more simple explanation has been overlooked. As at the birth of Cain an acknowledge- ment of the goodness of Jehovah was made, and again at the birth of Seth God was thanked for the appointment of another son in the place of Abel, so in like manner at the birth of Enos the name of Jehovah was invoked. The verb is impersonal and the English Version supplies men as the subject, in making it active and personal. Instead of men, it should be they or he ; either Seth alone or Seth and his household then began, namely when Enos was bom, to call on the name of Jehovah, either to invoke his blessing or acknowledge his goodness. Both the LXX. and the Vulgate translate in the singular, the latter having iste cwpit, and the former ovTo^^X Gilgal, and nS^S)l» " ^ skull." As this latter is -represented in Syriac by "^^.o.. Grogulto, so is v^7i by ]lLaa denoting hesitancy of speech.- But even sup- ' But move recently in Pt. v. Crit. Anal. p. 43, the Bishop says, " There is little doubt among scholars that the word is Bah-Il, meaning " House of God." "Which is the opinion generally received by scholars .^ In thus restoring one of the radicals to the first part of this compound, this later derivation leaves the second part still without one of its radicals, the final ^ only representing tliis ])art. - See Rosenmiiller's Biblical Geography, in Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, vol. xvii. p. 64. CONFUSIOM OF TO Jv CUES. 195 posing that the name Babel had a different origin, we must re- member that it is not an uncommon thing, on perceiving a new significance in a name, or when mentioning some circumstance to which the name, according to some not improbable derivation or origin other than the true one, is particularly appropriate, to say- that what bears the name is so called on this account. The mean- ing in such case is only that the name might well have been derived from the circumstance of which it is thus significant. An instance of such a manner of speaking is to be found in xxvii. 36, where Esau says of Jacob, "Is he not rightly named Jacob ? for he hath supplanted me these two times ; " whereas the original caiise of the name Jacob is given in xxv. 26 ; " His hand took hold on Esau's heel (ipy!!!), and his name was called Jacob." The original of xxvii. 36 is simply X'lp "'^H, in the sense of annon vocavit. Moreover, in xi. 9, it is not Jehovah that is said to have given the name of Babel. The position of Jehovah in the succeeding clause between the verb "confounded" and its object "speech," shows that it cannot be the nominative to the verb in the first clause. The expression Dt^ ^Ip 5 though active in form, is idiomatically used passively ; strictly it is as if the person or thing called his or its own name so and so, or as if one so called it. This remark on the signi- ficance of proper names may be applied frequently with advan- tage to the explanations of proper names occurring in this book. II. Another part of this passage, which in these more recent times has been regarded as attended with difiiculty, is that which describes the manner in which the divergence of language and dispersion of mankind took place. The existing difierences of languages, as far as they have been brought within the range of modern philology, seem all attributable to a gradual change, resulting from growth or degeneration, and point to the opera- tion of time and the separation of mankind as their cause. That the existing difierences are such as not only might have naturally resulted from a previous separation of tribes, but, as 196 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. far as brought within the range of investigation, indicate this as the actual order of the events, is so evident to those who have studied this subject, that some have rejected the account con- tained in Gen. xi. altogether, while others^ have been disposed to treat that account as only describing after an accustomed manner of Biblical representation the natural effect of the scat- tering abroad of men on the earth. The question then arises, how far the Scriptural narrative may be consistent with such a view of the matter, or necessarily implies a different cause and order of events. No difficulty arises from the anthropomorphic representation of the divine agency in this matter. No visible or external manifestation of God is implied in the narrative, nor is there, at any rate, any express assertion of miracle, however it may be implied on the supposition that the confusion of tongues is here represented to have taken place out of the ordinary course before the separation. If this supposition is not necessarily implied in the narrative, then the agency of God in the matter is reduced to the ordinary operation of God in the providential course of things. Any who recognise this providential agency of God will find no difficulty in the anthropomorphic repre- sentation of it. Shuckford, who amidst much that is now quite exploded has many sensible remarks on this subject, recognises the production of the effect without miracle. " God is said to have sent down and confounded their language ; but 'tis usual to meet with things spoken of as done by God, which were effected not by extraordinary miracle, but by the course of things permitted by him to work out what he would have done in the world." ^ He supposes the divergence to have begun from a spirit of innovation, leaders of parties inventing new names, and thus causing confusion. He adds, "It does indeed look more like a miracle, to suppose the confusion of 1 As the \vi-iter of a most interesting article on this subject in Macmillan's Maga- zine, for May, 1863, pp. 61-71. - Connection, B. ii., vol. i., pp. 133-4. Ed. 1731. CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 197 tongues effected instantly in a moment ; but tlie text does not oblige us to think it so sudden a production. From tbe be- ginning of Babel to tbe dispersion of the nations might be several years ; and perhaps all this time a difference of speech was growing up until at length it came to such an height as to cause them to form different companies, and to separate." ^ Still he did not consider the divergence of language thus produced the full effect. For he observes,^ " Though the difference of the tongues was at first but small, yet every language, after the stability of speech was lost, varying in time from itself, the languages of different nations in a few ages became vastly different, and unintelligible to one another." Bishop Stilling- fleet^ wavers between the natural and the miraculous character of the event, but inclines to the latter. He says, "It is certain that miracles may be in those things which might be effected otherwise by natural causes, when they are produced without help of those causes, and in a space of time impossible to nature." The only proof that the effect was in this case pro- duced without the help of natural causes would have been its production in a time imposssible to nature. That this was the case, however, is an assumption of which there is no evi dence, but much that points in the opposite direction. The building of a city that might counteract a growing tendency to dispersion, which the narrative itself supposes, would be a work of time, the progress of which would keep pace with the growth of population, but certainly would not anticipate it to any great extent. Le Clerc avoids the difficulty in regard to the variation of language . by supposing that the sameness of lip in v. 1 denotes unity of purpose rather than sameness of language, which he says would be of less moment for the building of a city than unity of purpose.* He thinks there is no reason 1 Pp. 134, 5. 2 p. 139. 3 Origines Sacra, Lib. iii., ch. 5, §. 4, p. 364. Ed. 1709. * Forte haec verba homines Concordes egisse ante omnia significant, quia ad unam civitatem condendam, baud paulo magis necessaria est coucordia, quam sermonis 198 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. wliy we should suppose the confusion to have taken place in a moment of time, and that it is more likely that the interruption of the building was occasioned by discord, and that the people having on this account sejDarated, their language underwent a change in lapse of time. The words rendered in our version, "That they may not understand one another's speech," lit. tiC ne audiant, he explains of not complying with one another's desires. It is possible that in v. 1 one phrase might denote unity of purpose and the other sameness of language, but few will think that the phraseology of v. 7 is not more appropriate to language than design, and that a confusion of tongues, how- ever produced, is not intended. It may be observed that Philo, without deciding positively, leans to the opinion adopted by Le Clerc, and remarks that if only a difference of language had been intended, confusion would not have been the word used, but distinction} Heidegger, Raske Avoth, Exerdt, xxi., quotes the Adversaria of Is. Casaubon,^ who in reference to this subject maintains that the first change consisted in the introduction of new iyKkiaretii Kol irpocre^KkLaei^. "It is certain," Casaubon says, " that those nations, who were dispersed through various regions, did not pass suddenly into the most distant parts of the world, but to those which were nearer their original country. If therefore entirely different languages had been j)roduced at Babel, the Assyrians and Chaldeans would of necessity have retained those strange and different langu.ages. But we see that the contrary was the fact. For it is most certain that other similitudo ; nee Hebraicoc Lingufe idioma banc interpretationem vespuit. In support, of this statement he refers to Joshua ix. 2, where the kings are said to have gathered themselves together against Josluia "with one mouth," to 1 Kings xxii. 13, where tlie words of the prophets are said to have declared good to the king " with one mouth," and to Is. xix. 18, where it is said that five cities of Egypt should speak " the lip of Canaan." Tliis last expression seems, however, clearly to indicate the prevalent use of Hebrew owing to the number of Jews resident in those cities. He cites in reference to the second phrase, " of the same words," the explanation of Raslii : — Salamo Jarcbi idem consilinm exponit. — Comment, in Pentateuch. Gen. xi. ' Tb yap yiv6^evov (Tvyx^^^iv Trpofrelwev, Kalroiye el SiaXfKTuii' yevicriv ahrh fiivov fSrikov, Kau ovofxa ivdv^oKuiTarov ewecpriixiaev avjl avyx^ffiois StaKpiaiv. — Tlepi 'Xvyxifffccs AtaXiKTwv. 2 Titulo de Linguarum Confusione. CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 199 languages retained and still retain more distinct and manifest traces of Hebrew origin, tlie nearer they were to the ancient and primitive seat of mankind. This propinquity we make to be twofold, of place and of time. For each nation nearest to the Hebrew, both in respect of situation and of time, approached most nearly to its language. But distance of place and time , produced as its consequence a greater diversity. This is clear from a comparison of the Syriac, Chaldee, Arabic, Punic, etc., with the Hebrew language." This argument di'awn from the similarity of the Shemitic dialects, holds good against the sup- position of the introduction of entirely new languages at Babel, apart from the notion which Casaubon maintained that the Hebrew was the primitive language. It is to be noted that the iyKXiaeL'i and TrpoaeyKXlaea, which he speaks of, are exactly the variations that would have been coming into existence in different tribes, though not dispersed more widely than the necessities of increasing numbers would require, the tendency to scatter thus produced having been no doubt the cause- of the efforts made to hinder disjDersion, as disjjlaj^ed in the building of the tower and city. Heidegger, reviewing the arguments on both sides, declares himself in favour of the natural pro- duction of languages in the course of time. He appeals to the teaching of experience, and says that there can be no reason for supposing that the change did not originally take place, as we now see it in progress from various causes, unless it can be shown by clear proof that it happened otherwise by the inter- ference of a miracle.^ That there was no such miracle, he argues from the difference between confusion of tongue or lip, and confusipn of tongues. Two or three people might speak ^ CoUigiraus multis fidiculis, Linguarum diversitatem non esse immediate per confusioiiem, ingeneratis novis liabitibus, introductam, sed procedente tempore, divisis gentibus, notoriam illara linguarum mutationem et diversitataai ex uno prineipio, ia quod per artem resolubilis est, obrepsisse. — Denique experientia rerum magistra ipsa quoque lenocinari nobis videtur. Nulla enira ratio, cur aliter antiquitus linguarum varietatem obvenisse opinemur, quam hodieque linguarum mutatiunem contingere cernimus. — Eodem modo antiquitus unum idioma iu varia successu temporis divisum esse, proclive est divinatu, nisi miraculo intercedente aliter factum esse liquido probari possit. 200 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. with confused discourse, and so not understand one another, without diversity of languages.^ Moreover, like Philo, he thinks that confu&wn of tongue is not the proper expression to denote the introduction of languages different from that pre- viously spoken. We may now pass to a much earlier authority. It is well known to the learned that Grregory of Nyssa held the notion of the human origin of language in general ; and in reply to the objection to this opinion which might be drawn from the story of the confusion of tongues, he says that God is not said to have produced languages on that occasion, but to have con- founded the existing language.^ He does not, indeed, say in what manner this confusion was produced ; but he says that, while living together, men had one language, but that when God willed the earth to be peopled, then men, being scat- tered according as they agreed in language, went apart in different directions.^ Hence he alleges that his oj)inion of the human origin of language, both before and after the dispersion, is not in any way invalidated by this narrative.'* It is plain that the community and difference of speech, in accordance with which men went together or parted asunder, may in Gregory's conception have been growing up simultaneously with a general sameness of language through a considerable period, as well as produced all at once ; indeed, we might say the former is more consistent with his view of the matter. Thus we see that Ions: before the existence of recent linguistic theories, not only ' Planufli est disparata licec duo, eonfusio lingua seu sermonis et labii, et confusio linr/uarum, hoc est divisio linguarum, seu loquendi generuni verbis et idiotismis discrepantium. Sic enim duo tresve loqui posseut confuse sermone, neque uUi invicem intellecto. An iccirco duuruni vel trium divcrsarum lingiiaruni ritu ? ■^ 'El 5e Tis t))v eVl ttjj -irvpyoTrouas auyxvffiv ais ivavTiovfX€vriv toIs elpftfJ-ivois irpocrcpfpr], ovSe e'/ce? ttoiuv Xeyerai yXwcraas 6 Qihi rcov ctvOpunav, aWa (rvyxfiy ti^v ovcrav. ws ov juv; iravTis ttolvtcov olkovuv. — jddv. Eiuiom. xii. •* Tots Zi^inrapQivTis Kara ttjv rrjs (poDvrjs Koiuwyiav &\Aos aWaxv SieuTrdpTj. — Ibid. * "no-re fiivet irdyios rjfuv 6 \6yos 6 ras avOpca-Kiyas ^aivas Trjs v/n€T^pas Siavoias evpriiJ.aTa flvat 6pt^6jx€vos' ovt€ yap an' apxrjs 'ic^s o/xScpiovou awav j)i> eavTt^ ih o.vdpdiiTivov, 6fov prifxaTuiv ZiSaaicaXiav Tiva yeyovviav to7s avdpunrois vapa rrjs ypatpTJs H^lxaB-iiKafXiV ovn eh iroiiciAas yKcccracov 5La(j)6pas SieTixrtdiVTuiv^ oTtiis hv eKa(TTOS eration of which may have itself, indeed, originated in the earliest and most partial separations, but the subsequent efiect of which was most potently to cause a wider separation, and to hinder the success of any attempts to counteract the natural tendency of men to separate. This the narrative very distinctly presents to our view, but in a manner more suited to the capacity of those for whom it was written, than if it had given a more particular and literal representation of the way in which the events actually took place. Enough has perhaps been now said to remove any difficulty ' Deut. xxxii. 7, 8. CONFUSION OF TONGUES. 205 wMcIl this narrative might occasion, as seeming to describe the events in a different order from that in which the analogy of the changes that have ever since taken place would seem to indicate. The actual order is implied in the statements of the narrative, sufficiently to clear the account from the charge of misconception ; the seeming inversion of order is only apparent, inasmuch as once the process had come into operation each of the two concurrent events became in turn, in the jjrogress of their growth, a cause and an effect of the other. The remarks that have been made will also remove the difficulty which has been occasioned by the supposed needless introduction of miracle to produce a result, for which natural causes, that must have been in operation from the beginning, would have sufficed. The narrative, in fact, does not necessarily imply the operation of any miraculous interference of God whatever, though it does ascribe the result in a most decided manner to the divine agency. That agency may have been the ordinary operation of the natural laws which God had established in the world, the anthropomorphic representation of it being in entire accordance with the Scriptural manner of representing all the operations of God in nature, — that God who rides upon the winds, and makes the clouds his chariot, whose voice is in the thunder, and his footsteps upon the sea. In this short narrative we may likewise notice, though perhaps only in a slight degree, the characteristic already re- marked in former instances, where the repetition of a particular formula seems to give the narrative the air of a tale intended for recitation, and veiling under its form an event or moral somewhat different from that which is actually expressed. This character- istic in the present case consists in the repetition of the phrase which appears in the English Version as " Go to ;" and as the original word for this, niH, which occurs here three times, and is put into the mouth both of God and of men, is elsewhere found in this interjectional sense only in xxxviii. 16, and Exod. i, 10, its repetition here is certainly remarkable, considering how 206 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. short the entire passage is, and is not without significance in connexion with the remarks already made. CHAPTERS X. 19, XIII. 10-13, XIV., XVIII. 20-33, XIX. THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. The destruction of the cities of the plain, or of the circle, as the word 15p should perhaps be rendered, however it was occasioned, and by whatever means efiected, seems to be as clearly an historical event as any on record. Josephus, De BelU Jud., iv. 8, 4, says that the ruins, or as he calls them, the shadows of the five cities, were still visible in his time. He had himself visited that region, for he tells us. Ant. i. 11, 4, that he had himself seen the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was turned. Doubtless he saw, what are still to be seen, masses of salt, from which pillar-like blocks are sometimes separated, one of which he might naturally have supposed to be that with which Lot's wife was encrusted according to the Biblical narrative. Strabo also, Geog. xvi. Syria, mentions the extant remains of a wall of sixty stadia which had enclosed the city of Sodom. Indeed, if De Saulcy's observations are to be relied on, there are traces of the ruins still in existence. At any rate, it was only in Christian times that the notion prevailed that the site of the cities was overflowed by the Dead Sea, after their destruction. When Genesis x. 19 was written, they were sufficiently extant to furnish notorious landmarks, by which to limit the border of the Canaanites. Had they been at that time covered by the sea, it would have been the sea itself and not the no longer visibly cities which would have been men- tioned as the boundary. In chap. xiii. they are mentioned as already destroyed, but there is no intimation that the sea had overflowed the plain. Eather the manner of speaking seems to imply the desolateness of the region in the writer's time, by the mention of its fertility before the destruction. The THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 207 plain or circle was still there, tliougli not as it once was, " before Jehovah, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as a garden of Jehovah;" and in the account of the destruction in xix. it is also to be noticed that there is not a word said of the sea. It is true that in xiv. 3, after the mention of " the vale of Siddim," the gloss is added, " That is the Salt Sea." Mr. Grove, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. Siddi?n, thinks that the writer of this gloss believed that the sea had over- flowed the site. And Josephus himself, Ant. i. 10, says that the vale called "the Slime Pits" became after the destruction of Sodom the lake Asphaltitis. It is plain, however, from all that Josephus says about this region, that he distinguishes this valley from the adjacent site of the cities. And, indeed, Gen. xiv. itself seems so to distinguish^ it likewise. The kings of the five cities had come together to ( 75SI) the vale of Siddim. Had this valley contained in it the five cities, this manner of speaking would have been absurd. Whether therefore the writer of the gloss thought the sea had subsequently overflowed this valley, or merely that this vale was the site of the sea, its border being the place where the kings assembled, and where the slime pits existed, plainly nothing is said about the site of the cities in connexion with the sea. As chapter xiv. mentions one of the physical characteristics of the region, the existence of bitumen, so does chapter xix. another, namely, the salt with which Lot's wife, as she lingered, was overwhelmed. These and the existing desolation of the region are the points of agreement between the particu- lars mentioned in this book and the present state of that country. On the other hand, the fact that the geological character of the region is for the most part that of aqueous formation, and that the igneous rocks found there are ancient trap-rocks, and not the products of recent volcanic action, presents no difiiculty in the way of our receiving the Biblical story of the destruction of the cities. On the contrary, the appearance of volcanic action as the cause of the destruction 208 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. would be rather adverse to tlie Scriptural account. For nowhere is the destruction ascribed to that action, in whole or in part. Fire from the atmosphere is the sole physical cause that is mentioned. The probable use of asphalt for mortar in the building- of the cities would no doubt have rendered them more liable to destruction by means of fire. The existence indeed of bitumen in any region may be taken to indicate the develop- ment of internal heat by which the oils of vegetable deposits might be distilled ; and this internal heat might predispose a region affected by it to earthquakes, such as have occurred in Syria from time to time. It might, however, be only a local development of heat produced by chemical decomposition in the ligneous deposits, insufficient to cause any disturbance of the surface like an earthquake. And this is the more likely, if the bituminous matter is limited in its extent, as apj)ears to be the case. But, at any rate, the story in Genesis makes no reference to this as a cons]Diring cause, except so far as it may be imagined that it is implied in the use of the verb " over- throw," in describing the destruction. But though this verb, "nfin in its literal signification, implies an overturning, yet its use here is not decisive. For, not to insist on the laxer use of the word to denote any kind of destruction, it is certain that the destrviction of buildings by fire tends to the fall of masonry by the spoiling of the cement, which would especially ha23pen if bitimien was used, and also by the removal of the timber bands and supports, when consumed by the fire. The destruction is ascribed by Josephus to a thunderbolt, that is, to lightning. The account in Gen. xix. 24 ascribes it to " brimstone and fire." This is of course only a IicncUadis denoting sulphureous fire. And a reference to Ps. xi. 6, " Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and a tem- pest of flames," may show that this is only a popular and figurative way of representing lightning. Also in Deut. xxix. 23 the reduction of " the whole land to brimstone, and salt, and burniag, like the overthrow of Sodom," is plainly a figura- THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN. 209 live description of the threatened desolation. But though we might reasonably ascribe the destruction of these cities to the operation of natural lightning, we should not yet thereby ex- clude the miraculous from the Biblical narrative. The predic- tion of the approaching destruction, and its occurrence as foretold, would still be supernatural. And perhaps, ultimately, very many of the other Scripture miracles, also, may be reduced to the supernatural prediction of events, in the production of which God has used the ordinary forces of nature acting according to their wonted and regular operation. Much perplexity has been occasioned by the name Siddim in Gen. xiv. The Vulgate translates by vallis silvestris, which seems to be only a guess ; and the LXX. render the name T) cfxipay^ rj akvKr], which seems to be only borrowed from the subjoined mention of the Salt Sea. Josephus calls it rrjv Kotkaha rrjv Xeyofievrjv (fjpeara aa(f)d\Tov. He may have understood the mention of the wells of bitumen in «;. 10 as an explanation. At any rate, perhaps he was niot far from the true explanation. Siddim (DHb^) may have been akin to "T'25^ sid, which as a verb signifies to plaster, and as a noun mortar. The name, as it is used in Gen. xiv., is not strictly a proper name, for it takes the article from the preceding word with which it is in stat. constr. The word may have signified plasterers, or makers of cement, — a trade which may have existed there in consequence of the use of bitumen for mortar, as in Gen. xi. 3 : " They had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar." There is one part of the narrative relating to the destruction of Sodom, that presents in a marked degree a peculiarity already noticed in certain portions of this book. The intercession of Abraham on behalf of that city is remarkable for the recurrence of the same expressions in the same order throughout. The repeated use of Adonai, the deprecatory sentences with which his requests are prefaced, repeating one or other of two forms, and the recurrence in each request of the word v^^5» rendered " peradventure " in the English Version, give to this passage 14 210 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the same character of a story intended for recitation, which distinguishes the first chapter and the history of the deluge, and in a lesser degree the account of the confusion of tongues. The nature of the subject matter renders this peculiarity other- wise less significant here. CHAPTER XXII. THE OFFEEING OF ISAAC. I. The first question which suggests itself to us, in reference to this transaction, is the place where it was enacted, called in the words describing the command to Abraham, a mount in the land of Moriah. The supposition, up to very recent times adopted by all, was that this was the Mount Moriah on which the temple of Jerusalem was built, except that the Samaritans maintained that it was Mount Gerizim. Recently, however, a disposition has become prevalent to identify the place where the ofiering of Isaac was enacted with the place called Moreh, where Abraham first established the worship of God on his settlement in the land of Canaan. One reason for this sup- position, the proximity to Mount Gerizim, loses all weight when it is considered that the Samaritans had other motives for fixing on this place, than any knowledge or tradition. From the time of the separation of the two kingdoms it became the object of the Samaritan rulers to break ofl' all regard in the people's minds from the holy sites of Judaea. And the later Samaritans were not less inclined to maintain the severance, as we see from St. John iv. 20 : " Our fathers worshipped in this mountain ; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." The similarity of the two names, Moreh and Moriah, is also a slender reason ; Moreh is strictly a proper name, and as such, both in Gen. xii. 6 and Deut. xxix. 30, though in the genitive after a definite noun, rejects the article ; the " hill of Moreh," mentioned in Judges vii. 1, where the name has the article, being a totally different place. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 211 as shown in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. On the other hand, the name Moriah, in the two places of its occurrence, namely, Gen. xxii. and 2 Chron. iii. 1, bears the article as an appellative, whether it denotes the same situation in both places or not. It is true the LXX. render the Moreh of Gen. xii. and the Moriah of Gen. xxii. alike by the adjective v-^Xr], in one case translating by the words, " the lofty oak," in the other by " the high land." It is plain that on whatever grounds they proceeded in thus translating, this gives no support to the sup- position that the names, as names of places, are synonymous, in- asmuch as they did not take the words for names of places at all, but as descriptive adjectives. An argument is founded on the similarity of the names, both in form and in signification, as derived from the same root. In respect to the former, Mr. Grove, in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, tells us that n**l^D is only the feminine form of iTli^. According to no analogy of the construction of feminine forms can this be said ; the masculine form should in this case have have been *'^^tt. It is true the resemblance is greater, and the relation of masculine and feminine forms more apparent, as the words are given in the Samaritan Pentateuch, \^*^\l^ and nt^'TlXD- But then these Samaritan readings are liable to the suspicion, that they arose from a disposition on the part of the Samaritans to identify the Moreh and Moriah of Genesis, and to distinguish the latter from the Moriah of Solomon's temple. The same may be said of their supposed signification, vision, as derived from HJ^^ to see. This derivation, as concerns ' T T ' the Hebrew forms, is very dubious. It would be more probable in regard to the Samaritan readings, which, however, are subject to the suspicion just mentioned. It is true that the Moriah of 2 Chron. iii. 1 is supposed to be there all but expressly derived from the verb, and consequently to denote vision plainly in the mind of the writer. No doubt this is true if we judge by the translations. Thus in the English Version we read, " Solo- mon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in 212 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. mount Moriah, where tlie Lord appeared unto David his father." " The Lord," however, is supplied, although the account in 2 Sam. xxiv. makes no mention of any appearance of the Lord, but only of the destroying angel, the communica- tions from the Lord himself having been made through Gad, David's seer. Hence in the margin of the English Version, the reading, " which was seen of David his father," is given.i Doubtless the indication of the place by Gad, as that on which David was to offer the atonement, is what the writer of the Chronicles refers to, inasmuch as David himself had inferred from this, that it was the place on which the temple was to be built. Thus we read in 1 Chron. xxii. 1, immediately after the purchase of the threshing floor of Oman and the biiilding of the altar and offering on it the burnt-offering, that David said, " This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt-offering for Israel." And accordingly in 2 Chron. iii. 1, after the clause, " which was seen of David his father," there is subjoined the additional clause, " in a place which David appointed." Indeed the former clause might be rendered, " Which was provided by David his father," the latter being an explanatory addition in that case. Any reference therefore to the idea of the vision in the name Moriah as given in 2 Chron. iii. 1 is to say the least extremely questionable. Another argument, on which much stress is laid, is the supposed height of the hill of the sacrifice, rendering it visible from a great distance, " afar off," as in Gen. xxii. 4 ; whereas Dean Stanley informs us that the towers of Jerusalem are indeed seen at a distance of three miles to the south, but not as an elevation, while there is nothing that answers to the place " afar off," to which Abraham "lifted up his eyes." But here there is too much stress laid on the words, " lifted up his eyes," as im- plying an elevation of any great height, or indeed any elevation at all. In V. 13 of this chapter, Abraham is said to have lifted 1 T'n? nK"l3 "1K'>?. Mount not Moriah, is the antecedent of the rehative ; at any rate if Moriah be feminine, as it probably is. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 213 up his eyes and seen the ram caught in the thicket, at a time when having doubtless had his eyes just before raised towards the angel speaking from heaven, he must in fact have lowered them, to see the ram. The expression is used of directing the eyes in any manner. Also the phrase, " afar off," may denote any distance beyond immediate proximity, according to the cir- cumstances ; as in xxxvii. 18, " When they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them." Here it could not have denoted a distance much greater than that mentioned by Dean Stanley, inasmuch as there was now no occasion to bring the attendants or the ass any further, and Isaac was able to bear the load of the wood laid upon him to the appointed place, which may still have been, as the Moriah of Jerusalem is, a hill, though not distinguishable as such at any distance. The immediate proximity to Salem, the city of Melchizedek, if that were Jerusalem, is thought to be imlike " the lonely and desolate spot implied by the narrative, where not even fire was to be obtained, and where no help but that of the Almighty was nigh," as Mr. Grrove remarks. But even under the walls of the city of Melchizedek the whole may have taken place without attracting the notice of the inhabitants, and the desolate loneli- ness of the spot, supposed to be implied in the narrative, has no place in it whatever. It is not implied that Abraham could not obtain fire ; but going to an unknown place he took with him by way of precaution what would be needful for the intended sacrifice. The last argument relied on is the silence of the sacred writers in reference to this event in connexion with the dedica- tion of the spot, or the building or restorations of the temple, or in any of the paronomastic addresses of the prophets, the sermon of St. Stephen, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, while it is alleged that, had the transaction taken place on the site of the temple, some allusion to it would without fail have been made. This argumentum ah silentio is notoriously not to be relied on ; the instances of unaccountable silence respecting undoubted 214 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. facts, where we might have expected them to be mentioned, are too numerous amongst ancient writers to allow it any weight, except as tending to corroborate arguments that may have con- siderable weight in themselves. In the present case, the clause in 2 Chron. iii. 1, "Which was seen" (Jli^ni) or "provided by David," may fairly be taken as containing an obscure reference to the Jehovah-jireh, and the saying, " In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen," of Gen. xxii. 14, so that the absence of all such reference is not so complete as is alleged. On the whole these arguments are not sufficient to disturb the traditional view, which has in its favour not only the tradi- tion itself, but the identity of the name, used in both places alike as an appellative bearing the article. And it is also to be remarked that it is a mistake to say that the name is used in a more limited sense in 2 Chron. iii. 1, than in Gen. xxii. 2. In the one case a particular hill in the land of Moriah is to be shown to Abraham ; in the other, a particular hill of Moriah was pointed out to David, the antecedent to the relative in this latter case being the word hill, and not Moriah, which is probable a feminine word, while the relative and verb are masculine. II. The next question of moment which this narrative suggests is the source from which the temptation of Abraham proceeded. The Bishop of Natal, in the sermon on this subject which he was not permitted to preach, treats it as a spontaneous impulse arising in the patriarch's mind under the influence of a preva- lent notion that human sacrifice was acceptable to God. The Dean of Westminster, in his beautiful Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, Lect. ii. p. 48, First Series, has the follow- ing note on this subject : — " That this temptation or trial, through whatever means it was suggested, should in the sacred narrative bo ascribed to the overruling voice of God, is in exact accordance with the general tenor of the Hebrew Scriptures. A still more striking instance is contained in the history of David, where the same temptation, which in one book is ascribed to God, is THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 215 in another ascribed to Satan : ' The Lord moved David to say, Go, number Israel ' (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) . * Satan provoked David to number Israel' (1 Chron. xxi. 1)." These two passages, 2 Sam. xxiv. I, and 1 Chron. xxi. 1, are likewise instanced by Dr. Hannah, Bampton Lecture, 1863, Lect. iii. p. 88, as affording an example of the Scriptural antinomies which involve an apparent contradiction. He takes both texts as they stand in the English Version, but in a note gives a series of extracts from commentators that have endeavoured to evade the difficulty by assuming that Jehovah is not the subject of the second clause of 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, as for instance in the reading in the margin of the English Bible, where Satan is supplied, "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and (Satan) moved David to say. Go, number Israel." Others suppose that the verb standing without a subject, the clause should be rendered " one moved David," or David was moved. Any artifice of this kind does great violence to the words as they stand in the original, and would only be admissible if the passage itself showed that the subject of the verb could not be carried on from the first clause. To import a reason for it from another book by a different author, after the reader must have first naturally and spontaneously supplied a subject from the pre- ceding clause, is perfectly and absolutely unwarrantable. At the same time the introduction of a new agent does not sever the im- pulse to number the people from the divine operation, as still it will appear as the effect of God's displeasure against Israel ; and the introduction of Satan, as in the margin of the English Version, only brings into the one passage the simultaneous ascription to God and the devil of an effect, which otherwise is supposed to be ascribed to these agents severally in different passages. On the other hand the supposition of Satanic agency in the matter at all seems due to a mistake. In 1 Chron. xxi. 1 the word Satan is not used as a proper name. It is an appellative, and nowhere appears in the true character of a proper name. In the book of Job, indeed, and in that of 216 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Zecharlali, it is used of the evil being ; but then it has the article prefixed, "the adversary," Kar e^o')(rjv. In all other places it is used as a common noun, denoting an adversary of any kind, and is employed even in reference to the " angel of Jehovah," perhaps a personal manifestation of God, in the story of Balaam on his way to Balak. In Ps. cix. 6 it means an adversary generally — no doubt a human adversary, as appeal's from the parallelism : — " Set thou a wicked mau over him, And let an adversary stand at his right hand." It is true that both here and in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, the LXX. translate by Sid^o\o<; ; but then in both places there is no article, and this word is used by them to represent other kinds of adver- saries than the devil, as 1^ and ^*1^. Thus the Chronicler only says in a general way, what is more particularly related in the book of Samuel : " An adversary stood up against Israel, and moved David," It is to be further considered, that the number- ing of the people was not a thing wrong in itself. The evil was in certain dispositions and feelings attendant on and arising out of the transaction in the mind of David. It is not, however, to be denied, that even in our temptations to ill there is at times an indirect agency ascribed to God in the Scriptures. We may instance the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and the petition of the Lord's Prayer, " Lead us not into temp- tation." A mere probationary trial or temptation would not be such, if there was not in the case some incitement to evil, how- ever we may be sui'e that the direct suggestion of evil does not proceed from God. Indeed, as our temptations in general arise from something in our natural constitution, which necessarily moves us to a certain course of action under certain circum- stances, it is impossible to exclude the divine agency in its remote, if not its immediate, operation from any of our temptations. Hence, in the note of Dean Stanle}^ above quoted, it is not so much thjc supposition that the same incitement might from difierent points of view be ascribed to both God and Satan, that THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 217 has reasonably wounded the sensitiveness of pious feeling, as the application of this principle to the case of Abraham's offer- ing of Isaac, which has shocked the minds of many that have regarded this transaction as in a special and peculiar manner the result of an immediate and extraordinary divine command. It may be observed that the case differs in one very material respect from those probationary temptations of which we have just spoken. In these, the doing of the act, the incitement to which constitutes the means of trial, awakens the displeasure of God. In the case of Abraham, the performance, as far as it was permitted, of that which he was, in whatever way, moved to do as the means of trial, meets with the highest approval and commendation of God. It is to be further noticed, that the mere spontaneous impulse awakened in Abraham's mind, resulting from an habitual persuasion that human sacrifice was acceptable to God, as supposed by the Bishop of Natal, seems wholly and absolutely inconsistent with the representation of the transaction in the book of Genesis. It is there plainly represented, not only that Abraham thought he was acting in obedience to a divine command, but that he actually did in some way receive such a command ; and this command is attributed to Elohim, the generic name of deity, which, as will abundantly be seen hereafter, is continually employed where the object is to mark a contrast between divine and human — between God and his creatures. And then, further, it is to be remarked, that as regards the channel through which the command was given, it is described in the same way as the other divine commands represented in this book as given to Abraham ; such for instance as the command to leave his native country and settle in Canaan, or the command to observe the rite of circumcision. Through whatever means these commands were given, or what- ever manner of representation is adopted in describing the com- munication of them, we can make no distinction, nor sever one from another, as more or less historical. And as regards these communications in general, there is no greater difficulty in sup- 218 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. posing tte historical truth of their divine origin, than in respect to the supposition of the like historical truth of the divine communications recorded in subsequent parts of the Old Testa- ment, and in the New. III. But as regards the moral aspect of this particular trans- action, it may, not unreasonably, be asked whether it is possible that such a command as that to Abraham to slay his son in sacrifice could have proceeded from God, and whether any amount of evidence whatever should have led Abraham to believe that Grod could have given him such a command ? To this enquiry, as it regards God, it may be answered that plainly, according to the entire representation, God had no intention of permitting Abraham to carry the command into execution, it being given only for trial, and the approbation of God having reference only to the faith and the readiness to yield up the dearest object at God's command, which were manifested on this occasion. And at the same time there may have been that in Abraham's state of moral feeling on this subject, the participa- tion by him in a low sense of the value of human life as then prevalent, and, it may be added, a familiarity with the prevalent notion of human sacrifice and its acceptableness to God, which woidd have rendered any direct censure of Abraham, for intend- ing to slay his son in obedience to a supposed divine command, undeserved and therefore unjust — any direct censure ; for in- directly the mind of God in regard to such an act was plainly enough made known, by the suddenness of the divine interposi- tion at the arrival of the critical moment, and the urgency and decisiveness with which the fatal stroke was arrested. This may fairly be understood, in connexion with what is elsewhere taught in this book of the xmlawfulness of taking human life, as an in- dication of the divine will on this matter in general ; while the substitution of the ram, and still more the name assigned to the place by Abraham, Jehovah-jireh, taken in connexion with his previous remark to Isaac, " My son, God will pro^dde himself a lamb for a burnt ofiering," may also be regarded as an indication THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 219 of the divine will, and of Abraham's perception of it, in respect to human sacrifice. And then, as far as the question proposed above relates to Abraham himself, the existence of those habits of thinking, which would have made the divine censure unde- served, would have incapacitated him from feeling, as one of us would feel, that such a command could not come from Grod, and so ought not to be obeyed. And thus what would justly be discommended in the case of one of us, may have been highly commendable in Abraham's case. We need not, therefore, insist on the possibility that a secret feeling may have aU along pos- sessed the patriarch's mind, and sustained him in his trial, that God would extricate him in some unforeseen way from the terrible situation in which he found himself placed — a feeling that may have prompted the expectation that God would provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering, however he was under the necessity of proceeding, as far as he could see, to the last ex- tremity, and which would have grown out of his faith in the promise that in Isaac should his seed be called. Such a feeling, at any rate, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, extended to the persuasion that God was able to bring him again from the dead. And perhaps the manner in which the writer of the Epistle expresses this feeling, that God ivas able to bring him even from the dead again, not that God wotdd so bring him, may be taken to imply that, in his mind, Abraham did entertain the hope that matters would not be permitted to reach the worst extremity, though even if they should, he accounted that God was able to bring his son again from the dead. Still less should we rely on Warburton's theory, in his famous discourse on this subject in the "Divine Legation," that Abraham knew that the transaction was a scenic representation of our redemption, and that it had consequently no moral import ;^ unless Abraham 1 " And now we see the weakness of the third and last part of the objection, which supposes this command capable of aflbrding a temptation to transgress the funda- mental principles of the law of nature, one of which obliges us to cherish and protect our offspring ; and another, not to injure our neighbour. For as, by the command, Abraham understood the nature of man's redemption: so by the nature of that 220 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. knew that the slaying was to be in mere show and not in reality, the scenic character of the transaction does not relieve it from any of its moral difficulties. A command actually to slay one's son as a scenic representation of Christ's death would be attended with the same moral difficulties, as to slay him for any other end, expressed or unexpressed. TV. In connexion with the foregoing remarks, it will not be amiss to notice here, that Bishop Colenso, who talks of human sacrifice as having been at times frightfully prevalent amongst the Israelites, alleges' that "we have at least one 'statute' in the Pentateuch which expressly/ enjoins human sacrifice /" The statute on which he lays so much emphasis he finds in Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, which in the EngKsh Version stands thus : — " No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord, of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed : every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death." And the Bishop argues from the expression, " which I- commanded not," used by Jeremiah in reference to the burn- ing of their sons for burnt ofierings to Baal, that the people must have alleged some such divine authority for the practice. As regards the construction put on the passage in Leviticus, the blame is partly due to the ambiguity of translations, and the misconception of interpreters, some of whom have resorted to various devices in order to evade the objectionable meaning it was thought to suggest. Thus Junius and Tremellius supply in V. 29, the word bestia, and render the phrase D'^^{^"|p ab homi7ie, instead of ex homiiiibus, by which they translate the redemption, he must know how the scenical representation was to end. Isaac, he saw, was made the person or representative of Chriat dijimj for us : the Son of God, he knew, could not possibly lie under the dominion of the grave. Hence he must conclude one of these two things, either that God would stop his hand, when he came to the sacrificing stroke : or that if the relation of this mystery was to he represented throughout in action, that then his son, sacrificed under the person of Christ, was, under the same person, soon to be restored to life." — Divine Legation, B. vi. sect. o. 1 Pt. v., p. 294. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 221 D*7N/b of y. 28.^ Others suggest that either civil or natural death is intended according to circumstances.^ And the Bishop cites Keil and Delitzsch, as allowing that a private individual might devote a person, as a child or a slave, in this manner, but supposing that death was only to be inflicted in case the devoted person should refuse to Kve the life of sanctification to which he was set apart. The writer, however, who took the view most in accordance with the Bishop's interpretation was L. Cappellus, in his De Voto Jephtce Diatriha Singularis, He maintained that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter under a vow made in accordance with this passage in Leviticus, which Cappellus regarded as giving parents or masters the power of thus devoting to death a child or a slave. He supposed that this provision of the law had a typical reference to Christ, who was devoted by his heavenly Father to be made a curse for us by his death on the cross ; while he thought that it would act as a check on rash imprecations in mo- ments of wrath, when men knew that a curse devoting to death a child or a slave would be irrevocable. And he further sup- posed that the law itself imposed a check on the making of such rash vows, inasmuch as by Numb, xviii. 14, " Everything devoted in Israel shall be thine," the priesthood had the power to decide in what cases the vow was legitimate or not, — an ap- plication of these words which is evidently quite foreign to their true purport and intent, namely, the grant of whatever was devoted to religious uses to the support or service of the priest- hood. The learned Selden replied to this Diatribe of Cappellus, in his work De Jure Naturali et Gentium juxta Disciplinam EhrcBorum. 1 Omnis hestia devota qure devovetur ab homine, tie redimitor. The presence of the article in this latter verse does not alter the meaning. It may be due to the stat. constr. with the preposition fully expressed, this and other prepositions having been doubtless originally substantives, and therefore frequently transferring an article to the governed word. Or the article here may be generic, denoting mankind, as dis- tinguished from cattle or other possessions. 2 Morietur, morte scil. vel naturali, vel civili (qua abdicatur a negotiis, et cultui Dei deputatur) ; juxta diversam materiam et conditionera rei. — Poole, Synopsis Criticorum. Bonfrere, Cor. a Lapide, and Estius are cited as authorities for this gloss. 222 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. He lays down that there were four kinds of Cherem, four ways in which objects were devoted by anathema. 1. The word was used to denote the voluntary irrevocable devotion of any pos- session to sacred uses, to which Lev. xxvii. 28 exclusively refers. In regard to such gifts he shows that it was a rule of the Jewish doctors that no one could devote in this way anything that was not fully and absolutely in his own power, interpreting the words, " of man," to denote Gentile slaves, who, except as regarded their lives, were as fully under the dominion of their masters as cattle or other possessions. These they might devote to the service of the priests by an absolute and irre- vocable gift. But as the law gave them no right over the life of their slaves, much less of their children, apart from this donation, the rule that they could bestow nothing that was not their own rendered it impossible that by such a gift any person might devote to death his child or his slave. 2. The second kind of Cherem was when, by right of conquest or military law, persons were devoted to destruction, and things treated as accursed. An example of this is presented in the case of Jericho, Josh. vi. 17, 18 : — " The city shall be a Cherem, it and all that is in it to the Lord. — And ye shaU in anywise keep yourselves from the Cherem, lest ye make yourselves a Cherem. — And all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron are consecrated to the Lord." To this kind of Cherem alone he thinks that Lev. xxvii. 29 refers. But to prove the exclusive reference of it to this kind, it is necessary to exclude the re- maining two. 3. The third kind of anathema is exemplified in the edict of Ezra (x. 8), that " whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be made a Cherem, and himself separated from the congregation." 4. The fourth sort of Cherem was, when by a legal enactment persons or things were laid under anathema in case they should hereafter be guilty of some trans- gression, or had already done something thought worthy of such a sentence. To this he refers Neh. xiii. 25 : — " I contended with THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 223 them and cursed them, and made them swear by God, ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons or for yourselves." He also classes under this the curse pronounced by Joshua on any one that should rebuild the city of Jericho. Now in reference to these two latter kinds of anathema, which are nearly identical, he shows that, accord- ing to the Jewish interpretations, they only extended to excom- munication of persons and forfeiture of goods, and he positively asserts that there is no trace of evidence of any one having been put to death under them, much less that they were supposed to sanction the voluntary devotion of any one to death by private persons. If death was in any case the consequence of such a sentence, it was to be regarded strictly in the character of punish- ment legally inflicted, as for a crime committed, and that not by the arbitrary act of private persons, but by public authority. Returning now to the second kind of Clierem enimierated, that by which the inhabitants of besieged cities were devoted to destruction in case of capture, or fellow citizens thus de- voted if guilty of violating military duty, Selden exemplifies this on the one hand by the case of Jericho and Hormah, and on the other by the destruction of the men of Jabesh-Gilead by virtue of the oath that those who should not come up to the Lord to Mizpeh should be put to death, Jud. xxi. 5, 10. To this also he refers the case of Jonathan, when he unwittingly fell under the curse pronounced by Saul on any who should taste food until evening, 1 Sam. xiv. It was only to such cases as these that the Jewish doctors supposed the precept in Lev. xxvii. 29 to relate, the previous verse, as already mentioned, having reference only to things dedicated to religious uses, which were not to be put to death at all. It is plain, that according to their view no provision whatever was made by this Levitical law for any voluntary devotion of human beings to death by way of sacrifice, or any devotion of persons to death on any ground, except as punishment of crime or by right of conquest or military law. 224 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. As regards the case of Jephthali's daughter, on which Bishop Colenso relies as an example of human sacrifice under this law according to his conception of its purport, Selden shows that the Jewish doctors were divided, as to whether in fact she was put to death at all. But he proves that they were all agreed that, if she was sacrificed, there was no legal justification for such a deed. Nor does the Scripture justify the act. The com- mendation of Jephthah in Heb. xi. does not necessarily extend to this transaction, or give any approval of it as regards its moral character. The commendation has reference to his faith and reliance on God, by the efficacy of which to impart extra- ordinary energy, he, like others, was enabled to " subdue king- doms." Possunt quia posse videntur} The Jewish doctors must have felt that there was something in the verbal character of the passage in Leviticus to justify the interpretation which they put upon it. Let us see if we have reason for thinking they were right in this belief. It is to be observed that, as in the case of the word 'T^'2, to bless, the Greek avdOefjba or avadrj/jia, and the Latin sace)\ this word C/iercm has its good and its bad significations, and that in point of fact it is never, at least in the Biblical usage, applied in its ill sense to any of those lesser cases of excommunication enumerated by Selden. It is invariably used either of something devoted irrevocably to God's service, which is the good signification, or something irrevocably accursed, and, in the case of living beings, to be destroyed. And as the noun Cherem has thus its double sense, so has also the cognate verb, which is only used in the Hiphil and Hophal forms, DHnn and D'lnn, to make and to be made a Cherem, 0*1.11. It is further to be noted that this verb, which is one of very frequent occurrence, has in every instance of its use but one, apart from this passage in Leviticus, the ill sense of devoting to destruction, or of actually destroying utterly, except when the adjunct, " to the Lord," gives a special ' Seidell's discussion of this subject occupies chapters vi.-xi. of the fourth book of his great work, De Jure Naturali et Gentium juxta Discipliuam Ebrteorum. I THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 225 meaning to the word. The one instance in which the sense is doubtful is in the edict of Ezra (x. 8), ah-eadj^ mentioned, where it is said, "all his substance, ^'^D*!, shall be made a Cherem,'" D'in\ This is rendered in the English Version by "forfeited." The rendering of the LXX. is avaOrj^aTtcrOi^creTaL, which is ambiguous. And perhaps, considering the uniformity of the usage otherwise, we should here render, " shall be accursed," the cattle and other goods to be destroyed, except the gold and silver, and brazen and iron vessels, which should be brought into the treasury of the Lord. The other signification of the verb, that of devoting to religious uses, is determined by the adjunct, " to the Lord," in Micah iv. 13 : — " I will consecrate their gain unto Jehovah, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth." So also in Lev. xxvii. 28 we have this adjunct: — "Every Cherem that a man shall consecrate to the Lord of all that he hath, of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall not be sold and shall not be redeemed > every Cherem, it is holy of holies to the Lord."i The Rabbis perceived the force of this adjunct here, but as usual refined too much in its application, thinking that it distinguished things devoted specially to the use of the sanctuary from those which were for the service of the priests. See Le Clerc, Comment, in Pent, in loc. If we now pass on to v. 29, we notice the repetition of the prohibition to redeem, which would be needless if this verse only referred to a special case of what was more generally treated of in the verse preceding ; the absence of the adjunct, "to the Lord," which would in such case have had as good reason io be repeated as the prohibi- tion to redeem ; and the omission of the subject ^''^, including any private person, with the conversion of the verb into a ' It is tnie tliat in Josh. vi. 17, we find this adjunct : — " The city shall be Chrrem, it and all that is in it to the Lord." The verb however is not here used, and the extent to whieh the phrase " to the Lord" is limited is to be o^athered from v. 19, where it is said that " the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, shall be a holy- thing to the Lord." These, like the rest, were to be Cherem. in the sense of accursed, as long as they were out of the Lord's treasury ; as soon as they should be brought into it, tlipy should become Cherem, in the sense of things consecrated to sacred uses. lo 226 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. passive form. All these differences, in connexion with the double sense of the word Cherem and of the cognate verb, point to a different subject: the previous verse prescribes a rule relating to the Cherem, which should be consecrated to Jehovah ; the latter verse prescribes what should be done in the case of a Cherem consisting of human beings who should be devoted to destruction. These might not be redeemed, or delivered, as the word here used signifies in a more general sense, but should surely be put to death. This is confined to the case of men ; other things were not necessarily in all cases to be destroyed, but if not destroyed, they then became a Cherem in the sense of the previous verse, like the gold and silver of Jericho ; and there was therefore no necessity in regard to anything but men, to make such a rule as is given in v. 29.^ In this there is not the slightest indication that the death prescribed was regarded as a sacrifice to God, or that the devoting might be the act of a private person. The change of expression removes all indication that either was contemplated. It was God himself, or the rulers, who devoted this kind of Cherem ; and the prohibition of the redemption or deliverance of the devoted victims would act as a check on the practice on the part of the rulers, or of commanders in war, who would be careful not to make a vow of this kind, that could not be recalled, however they might desire its revoca- tion, and Avho might else be tempted to make such vows in the hope of extorting greater ransom. The practice was thus limited to extreme and special cases. There is nothing sacrificial implied in the expression, " before the Lord," as iised in the case of Samuel hewing Agag in pieces, and of the hanging of the seven sons of Saul who were given up at the desire of the Gibeonites. The expression only denoted that the act was performed in obedience to a divine command, or under a sense of religious duty. When David ' Le Clerc, Comment, in loc, still further limits this verse to the case of enemies devoted to death in time of war, as the law elsewhere prohibited the redemption of criminals liable to capital punishment. THE OFFERING OF ISAAC. 227 asked the Gibeonites, " Where witli shall I make an atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord ?" the atonement was plainly to be made to them and not to God. Hence they decline silver and gold, as a compensation to atone for the wrong they had suffered. And when they said they would hang up the sons of Saul "unto the Lord," they considered that their lives were forfeited to God by the deeds of Saul and of. his bloody house. ^ The slaying in such cases was regarded as a punishment which God exacted, and was therefore said to be done "to the Lord;" and God's anger was supposed to be appeased, when the crime was thus expiated. Under the theocratic government all capital punishment, and especially in the case of murder, was considered as an expiation due to God. We ourselves, who are far enough from all thought of human sacrifice, also speak of a murderer as expiating his crime on the scaffold. But in neither case is this a sacrifice, in the sense of a creature slain as an act of religious worship, and as a means of supplicating the divine favour. If the expression, " which I did not command," used in re- ference to the offering of the children in the fire to Baal, or Moloch, had really arisen from the allegation of a divine command sup- posed to have been given in Lev. xxvii. 29, the repudiation of any such command must plainly have proceeded on the ground that the construction of the precept was such as to warrant the dis- claiming of it, as a perversion of the precept. But in truth the expression had no reference to any such supposed command. It may be compared with St. Paul's manner of speaking in reference to the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. v. 22, 23 : — " Against such there is no law," — his meaning being that these virtues were in the strongest sense enjoined. So too the expression, ' The family of Saul are included in the guilt of blood, whether any of his sons had share in the crime against the Gibeonites or not. It is to be remembered that under the theocratic government the visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, which always more or less takes place in the ordinary course of Providence, had a more direct and distinctly recognised place, though the law prohibited the children to be put to death for the sins of the fathers. Dent. xxiv. 16, 2 Kings, xiv. 5, 6. This was reserved to God himself. 228 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. " wliicli I did not command," is in more than one instance used idiomatically as an equivalent to "which. I expressly forbad." Thus in Lev. x. 1, Nadab and Abihu "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he did not command them,'' the reference being to the prohibition against offering strange incense in Exod. xxx. 9. Also in Deut. xvii. 3, the expression, " which I have not commanded," is used in reference to serving other gods, the prohibition in the First Commandment being plainly in view. And in this case also of offering the children in the fire there was a like express prohibition in Lev. xviii. 21, to which the words under consideration plainly refer. On the whole there was doubtless much in the way in which human life was dealt with in the practice of the Israelites, and tmder the sanction of a divine dispensation, that belonged to an order of things very foreign to the refined sentiment of modern times, and abhorrent to Christian feeling. The degree of sanc- tion which this received under the theocratic government should be viewed rather as a yielding, as in other particulars, to the circumstances and inveterate habits of a lower stage of civilisa- tion, than an absolute divine approval. For nothing was more strongl}^ resented by the law of Moses than the shedding of innocent blood ; "for blood, it defileth the land, and for the land there shall be no expiation for the blood that is shed in it, but by the blood of him that shed it," Numb. xxxv. 33. We know also how David was not permitted to build the temple, because he had been a man of blood. When we consider, how- ever, the sanguinary dispositions of men in the earlier stages of civilisation, the bloody character of ancient warfare, and the ruthless vengeance of the conquerors, it may perhaps be thought that it was in the interests of humanity, and with a view to the diminution of bloodshed, that the destruction of life, which was to so great an extent unavoidable, should be restrained within such limits as might be fixed by a divine command, or only permitted in cases in which religious sanctions might be pleaded for its justificntion. Tt thus became, at least in theor^y, not the Jacob's farewell address. 229 indulgence of private passions, but the solemn performance of a grave public duty. In judging of ancient times in respect to this matter we must remember that though the savage nature in our- selves has been subdued by Christianity and its accompanying civilisation, it has not been extinguished. How ready it is to revive, when circumstances awaken it, may be seen not only in the horrible deeds of cruelty and murder that are from time to time revealed in our criminal courts, but also in the horrors of the sacking of a captured town, the dreadful crimes of a rebellion or revolution, and even the lengths to which those who are en- gaged in the lawful suppression of rebellion are carried by the excitement of the moment, — excesses of which they are them- selves ashamed when the danger is past. CHAPTER XLIX. 1-28. JACOB'S FAKEWELL ADDEESS TO THE PATEIARCHS. I. The last words of Jacob addressed to his twelve sons have been made the occasion of an argument for the late authorship of the part of the book in which they are contained. The argument is framed by shov>'ing how true to fact on the whole these predictive sayings are found, and by pointing out a time at which they were all simultaneously more or less exactly verified, if not for the first time, at least then in a greater degree and a fuller sense than previously. This, which at a former period would have been thought a good proof of the true prophetic character of the sayings, is now made a proof that they were composed at, or soon after, the time when they were so weU verified. And it is supposed to establish this on the assumption that a seeming prediction, if consistent with facts, must be really a taticinmm j)ost eoentum, history put into this form, whether to deceive, or merely to follow an understood custom of the times. Of course, if it is proved that such a custom existed, and that its adoption was, if not indicated on the face of the document itself, at any rate clearly understood by those for whose use it was intended, there can be no objec- 230 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. tion made ou moral grounds to sucli a practice, and we should have in any particular case onlj^ to consider what evidence there might he that the custom was followed in that instance. An historical romance, as such, is a legitimate composition even on moral grounds. The adoption of this form of composition, however, when it is intended to deceive the reader, is not morally defensible ; and it seems difficult to clear the Biblical writings from blame in this respect, on the theory that those apparent predictions with which they abound, were first written 'post exentum. If, on the other hand, true prediction, true not merely in its accordance with the facts to which it relates, but as written or spoken before the time of those events, exists at all in the Bible, one seeming prediction may be as truly a real prophecy as another, except when there exist sjjecial grounds for viewing it in a different light. Merely to treat a seeming prophecy as history put into this form, because its apparent predictions are verified in fact, is in reality to deny the exis- tence or possibility of any such prediction ; and such a principle, if adopted at all, must be ai^plied equally to all cases, to the Christian, as well as to the Old Testament Scriptures. If svich a general application of the principle is impossible, then it is arbitrary and uncritical to adopt it in any particular case, merel}^ to support a theory which necessitates its assumption. If it is proved otherwise, for example, that this book of Genesis was written so late as the reign of David, then of course it follows that the prophetic character is only pretended. But it is reasoning wholly in a circle to ai'gue back again from the assumed non-prophetic character to the late origin of the book. That the simultaneousness of the fulfilment of the predictions in Gen. xlix. for the first time, in their fullest development, at the period supposed for the date of the book, if truly made out, would not add to the Aveight of the argument, is plain. It was in any case to be expected, that the age of the nation's glory, of its first bloom in its collective character, and of its first triumph over its enemies generally, would be the period of the Jacob's farewell address. 231 first full and clear verification of the predicted circumstances of the several tribes. That there was a previous verification, and that in a striking degree in some cases, is however by no means disproved. It is not, indeed, to be imagined that the djdng Patriarch uttered his vaticinations in the exact form in which they appear in this document. The poetical character of the composition, exemplified in the versification, in the use of poetical forms and manners of expression, and in the higlily lyrical key to which the whole is tuned, forbids our supposing it at all probable that Jacob uttered the sayings in such a form. But the traditional oracular sayings preserved by the people, whether in writing or orally, may have in time been thrown into this poetical form, as part of the popular songs, or they may have been gathered up by the author of the book, and put by him into this form, as being the regular form into which all Scriptural prophecy was habituallj^ thrown. All that the most decided advocate of the true prophetic character of the sayings, and of the genuineness of these oracles as ascribed to Jacob, could require, is that they preserve and embody the substance of what he really said, however difierent in form from his actual words they may be thought. The ancient classical historians, indeed, claimed to themselves considerable liberty as regards the speeches which they attributed to those whom they introduced into their narratives. Still this liberty was restrained within the bovmds of reason and proba- bility. Lucian, in his treatise on the art of writing history, says that when there is occasion to introduce any one speaking, the greatest care mvist be taken to make him say what is in accordance with his character and suitable to the occasion ; but that at the same time the historian is allowed within these limits to display his rhetorical skill. ^ Thucydides appears to have restricted ' HcSs SeT avyypdcpetv. Cap. Iviii. — •*Hj/ Se irore koI \6yovs ipovvTO. riva Ser](Ti] eladyeiv, jxaKiara fj-fv ioiKOTa TCf ■n-pocrd!>Trq> koI t^ Trpay/xaTi oiKua \eyea6w, eireira us aav kfi ■nap6r'Tcoi' ra ^eovTO. /.laAiar' eiVeo' f'xo/ueVo) oti iyyvTUTa ttjs ^vfiirdaris Jacob's farewell address. 233 suppose was the case, we must accept the prophetic character of the present passage, at least as regards the general purport of the recorded sayings. We may now pass to the more par- ticular consideration of such of these sayings as have occasioned special remark. II. The case of Reuben suggests no question attended with any kind of difficulty. The Patriarch is represented as first magnifying the dignity of Reuben's primogeniture, and then contrasting with it his grievous misconduct, by reason of which he is deprived of the privilege of his birthright. The descrip- tion of his character, which in the English Version appears as "unstable as water," should properly be rendered, as by the LXX., " boiling over as water." It expresses an impulsive and passionate character, strongly exhibited in his misconduct, and also manifested in his words to Jacob, xlii. 37, " Slay my two sons if I bring him not to thee." This exuberance of cha- racter might naturally have aided him in holding his place as the firstborn ; but for his offence his father displaces him. "Boiling over as water, thou shalt not excel, because thou wentest up to thy father's bed." The word rendered " excel," nnin tothar, refers to the " excellency (^T\\ yether) of dignity and excellency of strength," in the previous verse. This pre- eminence, to which he was entitled by his birth, is taken from him for his crime. It is needless to go into the subsequent history of the tribe, except to remark that it never took the lead on any important occasion, and on one momentous occasion failed to come to the aid of the other tribes, as mentioned in the Song of Deborah. The prayer for this tribe in the Song of Moses, Deut. xxxiii. 6, seems to imply a presaging of decay. " Let Reuben live and not die, and let his people be a nmnber ; " — let him at least have a number, though not a very great number, as the rather disparaging word used implies. There . is no occasion for supplying the not of the English Version from the preceding clause. The LXX. do not indeed seem to have regarded the word ISDO as necessarily implying a small 234 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. number ; for they translate, koX ecrroi ttoXu? iv apiOfjuoi. The Alexandrian copy of the LXX. indeed takes a different course, introducing " Simeon" as the subject of this clause, and thus suppljdng the deficiency as regards that tribe in the Song of Moses as otherwise preserved. III. From Reuben the Patriarch proceeds to Simeon and Levi. They had been united in an act of violence, which he strongly condemns, and he pronounces that he will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel. First, as regards Levi, their dispersion throughout the land in the cities of the Levites is in accordance with this sentence, as far as the literal fact is concerned. But what has evidently a penal character in the sentence ascribed to the Patriarch, ajDpears as a blessing and reward in the Song of Moses and elsewhere. Or at least this latter confers on Levi the privilege and blessing of the priesthood, which involved the dispersion, in reward for the conduct of this tribe in transactions which it is not necessary here to discuss. The Bishop of Natal insists that the blessing of Moses " was composed at a much later period, at a time when the tribe of Levi was really held in high esteem and honour, and was com- posed, perhaps, by one who was himself a Levite and a priest. Whereas in the time of the Jehovist, their condition, apparently, was as low, and their position as insignificant, as the words before us imply." ^ The words, however, do not necessarily imply any insignificance, but simply the dispersion of this tribe, instead of its settlement in a separate territory like the others. The difficulty does not lie in the supposed insignificance thus implied, but in the fact that the dispersion is regarded as penal, and the improbability that any one writing after the attainment of the sacerdotal dignity by this tribe should have invented the penal sentence put into the Patriarch's mouth. But this is a difficulty only to those, who lilce the Bishop, insist on the late fabrication of the entire story ; it is no difficulty at 1 Pentateuch and Joshua, Pt. v., p. 147. Jacob's farewell address. 235 all in the way of tliose who regard the words ascribed to Jacob as the bona fide report, in substance at least, of his last address to his assembled sons. To Levi himself the failure of his descendants to attain the position of a territorial tribe, in his ignorance of any compensating privilege, would have had a truly penal character ; and yet that circumstance may have subsequently assumed a very different character to his descen- dants, in connexion with their position in other respects, though in itself a disadvantage always, and a possible cause of jealousy and unfavourable comparison. Nothing in the course of human affairs is more common than that a circumstance, which to a man himself, and, in his view, to his posterity also, is a great disadvantage, and being due to his own misconduct a great punishment, should come to be regarded by those who descend from him in a very different light, either on its ovni account, or in connexion with other circumstances that entirely alter its character. The Bishop feels this difficulty, for he says, "It seems impossible that any one — at least, any pious writer — living after the age of Moses, should have expressed himself thus about the Levites, j/the books of Leviticus and Numbers had been in existence in his time, and their laws in operation to any extent^ IVe need not insist on the impossibility alleged by the Bishop, except as regards the piety of the writer, and that in a different point of view, but we certainly may on the great improbability, on the supposition that the writer was simply inventing the words ascribed to the Patriarch. But if we regard him as reporting substantially, though not in form and in the literal exactness of a verbal transcript, the sayings of Jacob, in whatever manner transmitted, the difference affords a strong indication of the writer's good faith. The Bishop, however, thinks it necessary to prove that the tribe of Levi was not invested at all with the sacerdotal dignity during the earlier times of the national history, not, in fact, until after the latter part of David's reign, when he supposes this chapter of Genesis was written. As usual, in the absence of positive 236 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. indications favourable to his views, he relies on the argument ab sileJitlo. His first reference in this line of argument is to the absence of Levi from the Song of Deborah, who he thinks cannot be conceived to have omitted all reference to priest or Levite, ark or tabernacle, if these institutions existed and were highly esteemed at the time she is alleged to have written. But as other tribes are not mentioned in that song, because their situation rendered it impossible for them to have taken part in the proceedings to which it relates, so the very fact that the Levites were a class of men dispersed in various parts of the country, and so incapable as a tribe of giving any assistance in this hurried expedition, would sufficiently accoimt for there being no mention of them in a poem which confines itself to those who took part, or ought to have taken part, in it. He remarks that the Levites as a tribe are never once mentioned in the book of Judges. It is true they are not mentioned as acting in the col- lective character of a tribe. The very circumstance of their dis- persion would render this improbable. But then we have mention of two persons as Levites, which clearly shows that, in whatever position, they had a tribal character. And the first of these, mentioned in Judges xvii. and xviii., though at first roaming about in search of employment, was plainly regarded as quahfied for a priestly office, and found employment in such an office, first with Micah, and afterwards with the Danites. The idolatrous practices with which he mixed himself up were only in ac- cordance with the evil tendencies of the times ; but it is plain that his being a Levite was regarded as his qualification for the employment he found. The Bishop indeed supposes that in Micah's words, "Now I know that Jehovah will do me good, see- ing I have the Levite to my priest," the use of the article shows that no importance was attached to his being a Levite, and that he would have said the same of a Simeonite vagabond that might have come to hire himself for the same office. The article it is true is merely an article of reference. But it is plain from the whole story that the reason why he expected a Jacob's farewell address. 237 benefit from God was liis liaving a Levite. For be it observed, lie had first consecrated one of his own sons to be a priest, and he made no proposition to the Levite to take his son's place until he heard that he was a Levite. And though he had the services of his son in this capacity already, he thought it worth his while to give this man his living and a salary to secure his services ; and then no reason can be imagined for expecting a divine blessing, but the fact that it was a Levite he had now got. Had he no priest at all before, there might be some reason in the Bishop's inference, but now his expectation must be built upon the difierence between this man and his own son. That difference was the Levitical birth and character of his new priest. The Bishop seems to think that the stress lay on his consecration ; but this could have been no different consecra- tion, as effected by Micah, from that which had already taken place in the case of his son. Each was similarl}^ consecrated, and the expected blessing could not therefore have been anti- cipated from the consecration, but plainly from the Levitical origin of the person whom he had now got for a priest in place of his son who was not of the sacerdotal caste. The other Levite mentioned in xix. and xx. was going to the house of the Lord when he came to Gibeah. It is true, indeed, this might have been, like Elkanah's periodical visit, for private devotion. Still we have the fact that Levites were living in various parts of the country, but not merged in the tribes within the territory of which they resided. And at the same time Phineas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron, was exercising the office of high priest at Shiloh, while to him resort was made to inquire of the Lord, according to the words of the Song of Moses, " Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one." Thus we find the tribe of Levi invested with the sacerdotal functions in their different orders at the earliest period after the final settlement in the land of Canaan of which we have any account ; and how- ever depressed their condition may at times have been, their dispersion in Israel was, from their first entrance into the land, 238 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. connected with this dignity, and could not have been regarded in the purely penal light in which it is treated in the last words of Jacob, at any period subsequent to the settlement in the land of Canaan. As regards Simeon, the dispersion of his descendants was of a somewhat different kind. At first this tribe obtained a settle- ment within the district already assigned to Judah, this latter tribe being unable to occupy it entirely. Hence we find that Judah and Simeon were conjoined in an expedition against the Canaanites (Jud. i. 3-17), their proximity doubtless making them have common interests, and greater facilities for joint action. It is probable, indeed, that a great many Simeonites became dispersed in the cities of Judah, for at the time of the separation of the two kingdoms we read (2 Chron. x. 17) that the children of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah con- tinued subject to Rehoboam. Some of these were doubtless Levites, but there must have been some of other tribes, or at least of another tribe, and from situation, these were probably Simeonites. But there were also Simeonites that fell to Jero- boam, for afterwards we read in 2 Chron. xv. 9 that strangers from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, in great abundance re- volted again to Asa, and these, as having been strangers, pro- bably came now to reside in the Jewish territory. Then in the days of Hezekiah there were Simeonites still in the land, who had escaped the Ass^Tiau captivity. A large migration of these took possession of Hamite territory, and another body of five hundred exterminated the remnant of the Amalakites, and dwelt in their places, as related in 1 Chron. iv. 39 seqq. Thus, considering how few the notices of the tribe of Simeon are in the entire history, they appear to have been sufficiently divided to satisfy the prediction ascribed to Jacob, though in a less marked degree than in the case of Levi. It is also to be con- sidered that the prediction, to some extent at any rate, refers to the separation of Levi and Simeon from one another. They had been united in violent counsels and transactions, but would be parted from one another in their subsequent history. Jacob's farewell address. 239 The disappearance of Simeon from the Song of Moses, or else his original absence from it, is certainly remarkable. The Alexandrian Codex of the LXX. is free from this deficiency. Its reading, and it is no mean authority, is, ZrjT(o 'Pov^rjv, koX fir) aTTodaveTco' koX XvfJieoiv €(ttco TToXv'i iv aptOfiw} If it was originally absent from the Hebrew, the supposition that the tribe had disappeared from Israel at the late period to which some critics assign this composition, is still perfectly arbitrary and un- warranted. There is not the slightest evidence of its having thus disappeared. On the contrary, we find Simeonites after the As- syrian captivity. In 1 Chron. iv. 38 they had greatly increased in numbers, and doubtless it was this increase that occasioned the migrations in Hezekiah's time. Moreover, even if this tribe had ceased to exist as a tribe at the time supposed, the author of the song was well aware that such a tribe had existed in the days of Moses, and would scarcely have been guilty of an over- sight that has been thought to betray the late period of its com- position. It is difiicult also to explain the absence of this tribe from the song, if written at an earlier period, though some have supposed that at that time this tribe was under the special dis- pleasure of Moses, on account of the conduct of Zimri, a prince of the Simeonites, in the matter of Poor, and in the matter of Cozbi. TV. We now arrive at the vaticination of Judah's greatness. It resolves itself into three principal parts, the first describing the military glory and prowess of the tribe, and the last the fertility of its territory. These have not given rise to much discussion or difference of opinion ; it is the second particular of the predicted greatness, that relating to the possession of the sceptre, and particularly its final clause, in which Shiloh is named, that has during the last century been the subject of contention. The weak point of the previous modes of interpre- tation has been the failure of all attempts to explain the name of Shiloh, as a proper name or otherwise, with any degree of 1 Grahe's Septuagint, Deut. xxxiii. 6. 240 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. certainty or unanimity. The modern way of interpreting, "until lie come to Shiloh," free as it is from this difficulty, is yet attended with the gravest difficulties of a different kind. Foremost amongst these is the mention of this as the terminus ad quern of the sovereignty intended. The entire description seems plainly to refer to the condition of Judah in the promised land. Indeed it is doing great violence to the whole, to separate any of its parts from the concluding account of the fertility of the Jewish territory, described as this is in v. 11, 12 in the closest grammatical connexion with the particular which has been the subject of disagreement. Yet the arrival at Shiloh is only the period of the very commencement of Judah' s possession of that territory. Moreover up to this time Judah was in no respect distinguished for prowess above other tribes, had no kind of sovereignty over any of the others, and so far was not dis- tinguished from any other tribes in retaining its internal self- government. As a prediction the words would be futile, and as a vaticinium post cventum, still more improbable. Indeed it seems inconceivable that a person writing at the time of Judah's greatest prosperity, with the manifest intention of glorifying that tribe beyond all the rest, should have dated back the terminus ad quern of the glory described to so earl}'- a period, or indeed to any preceding time. For though it is true the words rendered "until" do not forbid the continued existence of the matter described beyond the terminus specified, they certainly abstract from all such subsequent existence, and confine the reader's thoughts to the limit expressed. And this at least suggests the possibility of subsequent failure, and in such a case as the present, would have had the force of a presage of decay, which in the circumstances supposed would have been a most im- probable thing for such a writer to suggest. It may be added that there was no particular sense in which Judah could have been said to have come to Shiloh. This place was not within the territory of that tribe, but belonged to its great rival Ephraim ; the worship of Jehovah there established was under JACOB S FAREWELL ADDRESS. 24i the administration of another tribe, while " of Judah Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood ; " and Joshua, the leader of the Israelites ■ when they arrived at Shiloh, and fixed the tabernacle there, was also of a different tribe. It is impossible, therefore, to conceive a poorer, less appropriate, and more un- likely terminus to have been chosen for this prediction, whether such in reality, or subsequently composed ; and in this latter case it is still more improbable than in the former. It is true that Gesenius/ s.v. TVT^, in order to evade this difficulty, suggests that the clause might be rendered " So long as they go to Shiloh." But this is only a desperate attempt, unwarranted by any usage of the form ""^ 15^ and therefore quite arbitrary. Besides, on the supposition of the composition of this passage in the latter part of David's reign, the difficulty remains in its full force. God had already " forsaken the tabernacle of Shiloh." The ark was now in Zion, and Judah no longer went to Shiloh. The structure of the passage is also greatly imfavourable to this interpretation, not simply because the pronoun and pre- position are absent, which it is freely admitted the genius of the language would sanction, but because they are not expressed in this case, under circumstances that would naturally have made the writer express them, if they had been in his mind. It will be seen that throughout the preceding part, when the verb and its subject are both expressed, the subject always follows the verb. Thus we have, " Judah, thou ! shall praise thee thy brethren, — shall bow down to thee the sons of thy father," in V. 8 ; and then in v. 10, " shall not depart the sceptre from Judah, and (shall not depart) a lawgiver from between his feet, until shall come Shiloh." ^ Considering the prevalence in the passage of this arrangement, and the force of the parallelism, if the reader could possibly give any better meaning to Shiloh, than the city so named, he would naturally make it the subject of ^ [See " Heb. and Eng. Lexicon, edited with improvements from the German works of Geseuius," by Gibbs. It is on this authority I ascribe the suggestion to Gesenius ; it has, at any rate, been adopted by others of the same school.] * "We subjoin here the entire passage in as exact conformity with the original, both. 16 242 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the verb ; and the writer would similarly, if he meant to alter the arrangement and to avoid mistake, have felt the necessity of introducing either the pronoun before the verb, or a preposi- tion before Shiloh. Some indeed insist that the position of the pronoun in the subsequent clause, " to him shall be the obedience of the people," suggests in accordance with the Hebrew paral- lelism a like position for the word to which it refers, and so calls for the introduction of the pronoun in the interpretation of the preceding clause. But if there is any force in this argu- ment drawn from the Hebrew parallelism, it tells with three-fold or four-fold weight in the opposite direction, in consequence of the previous arrangement of the verbs and their subjects. Hence the older interpreters, differing as they do in the meaning assigned to Shiloh, have with a singular unanimity agreed in making it the subject of the verb. Nor have they failed in assigning more than one probable explanation of the word, however uncertain we may feel in coming to a positive conclu- sion. The explanation adopted by several of the Rabbis, and amongst modern interpreters by Luther and Calvin, which makes the last S3'llable of Shiloh the poetical pronominal affix, li his, has in its favour the occurrence of this affix twice after- wards, as noted below, and in each case, as here, at the end of a clause, no doubt for fulness of breathing and to sustain the voice in the position of the words and otherwise, as the English language will allow ; the pronoun and preposition supplied by modern interpreters in the clause relating to Shiloh are enclosi d in italics : — "Judah, thou! shall praise thcc thy brethren, Thine hand on the neck of ihino enemies, SluiU bow down to thee the sons of thy father. A whelp of a lion, Judah ! From tlie prey, my son, thou hast gone up ; He couched, he lay down as a lion, And as a lioness, who shall raise him up ? Shall not depart the scejitre from Judah, And a lawgiver from Iv twcen his feet. Until [he] shall come [to] Shiloh. (aff. H ?) And to him the obeilience of peoples. Binding to the vine his ass-colt, (afF. p;) And to the choice vIik; the ibal of his she-ass. He washed in wine his garment, And in blood of grapes his dress ; (aff. f\) Eed in the eyes from wine. White in the teeth from milk." Jacob's farewell address. 243 at the close of the verse. The sense, " his offspring," the promised seed, would be to the heart's content of the advocates of the Messianic application of the passage. But, unfortunately, the Hebrew language presents no instance of the word 7'^^ in this sense of proles. There is indeed what might be regarded as a kindred word, T\w^, which the lexicons explain, as in the margin of the English Version of Deut. xxviii. 57, by "the afterbirth." In this only instance of its occurrence in the Bible, it can scarcely mean that, but denotes the offspring itself. It is absLird to speak of a woman's eye being evil to what is expressed by the word in the sense assigned to it, and that in connexion with her husband, and her son, and her daughter, and her children that she shall bear. Plainly the eye being evil denotes the grudging of food, and requires a person for its object. This is clearly the meaning of the expression in V. 54, as in Deut. xv. 9 ; elsewhere also an evil eye denotes a grudging disposition. In v. 54, 55, the man grudges to his wife and children share of the children he eats ; and similarly in V. 56, 57, the woman grudges her husband, and her children enumerated in every variety of age and sex, share of the like food ; for she too is to eat them, that is, some of them, as the man in v. 55. Hence the English Version, in the text, has " her young one that cometh out from between her feet ;" and some copies of the LXX. have, not j^optov, but to Kopcov avTfj, in Syriac." This is mentioned not because they were likely to have spoken to the king in any other lan- guage, but because the narrator, having written thus far in He- brew, was about to introduce their words in the language in which they spoke, namely the Biblical Chaldee.^ And having given m'inn which is feminine, but is used substantively as the accusative after the verb read. ' The Talraudists eviilontly thus understood it : Distincte lectuni per periodos et commata. Sec Grotius in loe. ' It is expressly said in Ezra v. 1, that it was to the Jews, evidently not to- the priests only but to the people at large, that Haggai and Zechnriah prophesied pre- paratory to the resumption of the building of the temple on the accession of Darius. Hence we find in their books besides parts addressed to the rulers and priests, other parts expressly directed to the people: Haggai i. 13, "Then spake Haggai in the Lord's message unto the people;" Zech. vii. 5, " Speak unto all the people of the land and to the priests." Similarly the fii-st chapter of Malachi is " The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel," while the second begins, " And now, 0 ye priests, this commandment is for you." 2 It is supposed, however, that the Chaldeans, being a non-Shemitic race, did no THE .ORIGINAJ. HEBREW TEXT. 261 their words in this dialect lie continues to use it to tlie end of the narrative, apparently for the purpose of giving the words of the interlocutors in the language in which they were spoken. The remaining Chaldee portion of this book is a collection of documents unconnected with one another or with what precedes, one of them being a writing by Nebuchadnezzar, and another by Daniel, but introduced by a preface which mentions him in the third person, and states that he wrote this account of a dream that he had, and spake what follows. In the remaining portion of the book, in which Daniel appears as his own historian and speaks throughout in his own person, the language is Hebrew. This Aramaean or Chaldee thus used in the Book of Daniel, and distinguished from the Hebrew or Jews language, ^"'"^'''^^ i^ ^ Kings xviii. 26, and in the corresponding passages of Chronicles and Isaiah, was also the language spoken by the colonists who had taken the place of the Jews in Palestine at the time of the captivity. In Ezra iv, 7 we are told that certain adversaries of the Jews, of course some of these colonists, wrote to Artaxerxes complaining of the proceedings of the Jews in rebuilding the temple. This letter, as addressed to the Persian government, is described by a word of Persian origin (])J^p*i) and was no doubt written in the Persian tongue. But it is added that " the writing of the letter was written in Syriac, ^'•0'^^?, and interpreted in Syriac." The only intelligible meaning of this statement is that the Persian copy was written in Syriac letters, and that there was also a draft or copy in Syriac, as the native tongue of the writers. And this would likewise have been the vernacular of the Jews if they had lost the use of Hebrew in Babylon. But instead of that we find in Neh. xiii. 24 the Jews language described by the same word, ^^^^^ by which it is distinguished from the Syriac in 2 Kings xviii. 26, while it is here distinguished from speak the same language as the general inhabitants of Babylon, at least in their professional proceedings. And thus is explained by some the necessity of Daniel and his companions learning the tongue of the Chaldeans, Dan. i. 4. But this might be explained by the difference between Hebrew and Syriac. 262 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the speech of Ashdod, which may have been some form of Syriac. And then we read in Esth. viii. 9 of letters written to the Jews, and to the rulers of the provinces from India to Ethiopia, "unto every people after their language, and to the Jews ac- cording to their writing, and according to their language." From this it may be concluded that the Chaldee was not the vernacular of the Jews at this time. Had it been, it would not have been necessary to distinguish the language in which they were addressed from the languages in which the letters to the several provinces were written, amongst which, of course, the Syriac or Chaldee was included. It is clear, therefore, that the Biblical Hebrew had not as yet gone out of use amongst the Jews, however the intercourse with the colonists, and the growing use of the Greek language after the time of Alexander the Great, may have subsequently occasioned its disuse in Judaea. The foregoing remarks may be fortified by the arguments of Carpzov, who, Crit. Sacr. Vet. Test. Pt. I. c. V. §. 5, in proof that the Jews had not lost the vernacular use of Hebrew in Babylon, urges, — 1. That it would have been next to a miracle, if the Jews, in the space of seventy years, living together as a colony, had lost their vernacular speech, especially as after their return there were some who remembered the first temple and wept. — 2. That Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi recited their writings to the people, and wrote for the use of the people in general. — 3. That after the return, not only the public reading of the Law, and the public prayers Avere in the Hebrew language, but also that the covenant subscribed by the people, Neh. ix., x., was in Hebrew. — 4. That according to Neh. xiii. 24, it seemed strange that the children of the mixed marriages spoke after the speech of Ashdod, and of the Moabites and Ammonites, instead of the vernacular language of the Jews. If now the Hebrew of the later books of the Old Testament was in common use amongst the Jews in the time of Ezra, it is impossible that the language of the Pentateuch in its present THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXT. 263 form could liave then needed interpretation, such as is plainly described in Neh. viii. 8, which seems too precise to denote anything such as mere comment or explanatory discourse. " They read in the book of the law of God a separated portion, and gave the sense and caused to understand as they read." The inference therefore is that it was the original language of the Pentateuch which at this time had become generally unin- telligible, and that the form, in which the Pentateuch at present exists is a translation or modernised version into the later Biblical Hebrew, the original being now lost. But if this be the case, as it is impossible now to ascertain on what principle the authors of such a modernised version proceeded in regard to the names of God, any conclusion drawn from their usage in this respect, must needs be highly precarious, especially with the example of the Alexandrian translators in this matter in view. The singular consistency indeed which is observable in the first portions of the book as regards the manner of using these names, confirmed as that is in regard to ihe earliest document by the usage of the LXX., renders it highly probable that, as regards these portions, a like consistency existed from the commencement. And this probability is sufiicient to justify the reserved and cautious use that has been made of this peculiarity in the preceding Disserta- tion, as helping, in connexion with a distinctness and completeness of subject matter,, to mark off those documents as separate from the rest, and to be treated as subject to any such principle and mode of interpretation as they may seem to reqidre, on considerations proper to themselves, without involving the necessity of adopt- ing a like manner of interpretation in reference to the remaining parts of the book to which they are prefixed. As regards the book in general, however, enough has been said to show how very precarious must be any conclusions, for the certainty of which it is necessary to suppose that the names of God as they exist in the present Hebrew copies are exactly as they came from the hand of the original writer or writers, to whom the several parts of this book are ascribed^ 264 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. 11.— THE NAMES OF GOD, GENERIC AND PROPER. The uncertainty respecting tlie original use of the names of God whicli has been just insisted on, though sufficient to render the conclusions of modern critics very precarious, especially as it will be seen particularly to affect some of the passages of most importance in this discussion, may yet leave a large proportion of instances of their use unaffected. And perhaps it may be found that, whether we regard the present text as substantially conformable with the original, or due to edi- torial revision, a tolerably satisfactory account may in most instances be given of the use of each name as it occurs, on the ordinary principles which influence writers in the em- ployment of contemporaneous terms. Supposing that the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, were co-existing names of the same nature and equivalent in their meaning, it would be nothing remarkable for the same writer, if only for the sake of variety, to use both indiscriminately and indifferently. Indeed it is not denied that one of the supposed writers of the book of Genesis, the so-called Jehovist, used both names freely. At the same time it would not be unlikely that a writer, having from whatever cause set '«ut with one or other of these names, should in any short piece complete in itself, such as a psalm or brief narrative of some particular events or circum- stances, occasionally adhere to the use of the same name throughout. Even on this supposition, therefore, the existing variation in the use of these names would have no great weight, unless it should ajDjiear that they were not in contemjDoraneous use at the time in which any of the documents in question are com- monly supposed to have been written. But in fact these words are not both proper names, nor of co-ordinate value, however on par- ticular occasions they might be interchanged without injury to the meaning of the writer ; just as one might at times ascribe an action indifferently to the Emperor, or the Emperor Augustus, GENERIC AND PROPER NAMES OF GOD. 265 or simply Augustus, and yet at other times it would be proper to use one rather than another. While Jehovah is strictly and essentially a proper name, Elohim is not a proper name at all, but is the generic name of deity, and may be applied equally to false gods or to the one living and true God. This is clearly implied in, and is the ground of, the common expression, " the Lord our God," Jehovah our Elohim, which is an assumptive proposition, of which the proper name Jehovah is the subject and the appellative Elohim the predicate.^ Hence the English Version of Deut. vi. 4. " The Lord our God is one Lord," is singularly infelicitous. The words as thus rendered only assert the singleness of Jehovah, as if any one had ever imagined that there was more than one Jehovah. Plainly it never could have been intended to make so unmeaning and needless an assertion. Manifestly the correct translation is, " Jehovah is our Elohim, Jehovah is one," or else, "Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah is one," that is, one Elohim, ^t^^ having here the sense of nniciis or solus, as in 1 Kings iv. 19, Is. li. 2, and 1 Cliron. xxix. 1, and the object being plainly to inculcate the oneness of God, Jehovah the God of Israel being that one God. Both the LXX. and the Yulgate are consistent with the true meaning, — Kvpio<; 6 deo<; rj/ncov Kvpio<; eh earn, — Dominus Deus noster, Dominus unus est. In the former, Kvpto^ is not an appellative used without the article as the predicate ; it is the subject, but has dropped the article, according to the usage of the LXX. when it represents the proper name Jehovah. The absur- ^ " In that oft-recurring phrase, ' I am Yahveh, your Elohim,' it is clear that we could no more transpose the two words, than in the expression, ' I am Joseph, your brother,' we could interchange the words 'Joseph,' and 'brother.' ' Yahveh'' stands as XSx^ personal name of the Being who is speaking ; while ' Elohim' is in the natm-e of a common noun (though there is but one, in fact, who can be connoted by it)." — Crisis Hupfeldiana, by the Rev. W. Kay, D.D., Principal of Bishop's College, Calcutta, p. 9. This brief work has many good remarks, but the theory of the difference in the significance of the names added to the observation just quoted, as the foundation of the variation in the use of them, has the same fault, that will presently be noticed as affecting Hengstenberg's views. It is too artificial, and is not directly evolved from the documents themselves. The pious considerations relied on have a value and truth in them, but do not serve the pui-poses of the present discussion. 266 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. dity of tlie English. Yersion is less apparent, as the English word Lord, though representing Jehovah, is strictly speaking an appellative. But it becomes manifest by substituting Jehovah. And hence when the sacrifice of Elijah was consumed, the wor- shippers of Baal exclaimed, " the Lord, he is the God," Jehovah, he is the Elohim. And in other cases the same manner of speak- ing will be observed, only its significance is lost in the English Version, as in Deut. iv. 35, 39, where it has " The Lord he is God/' the original being, " Jehovah, he is the Elohim ; there is none else beside him," — "he is the Elohim in heaven above and upon the earth beneath." There is no respect in which the English Yersion of both Old and New Testaments so entii^ely fails, as in its neglect of the article. The familiarity of the translators with the Latin Bible, and the long established practice of mak- ing Latin the vehicle of communicating the knowledge of other ancient languages, have doubtless been in great measure the cause of this grievous defect. The co-existence of two such names is quite natural. In a system of Polytheism, besides the name of God in general, proper names to distinguish the several gods and goddesses in particular were absolutely necessary. In a system of Mono- theism, if, as in the case of the Israelites, its opposition to- the prevalent idolatry was to be strongly marked, a proper name in addition to the general name of God, was requisite to distinguish the one true God from the several false gods of the heathen. And apart from this, such a projDer and personal nam€ is needful for the higher purposes of devotion, and for all closer communion with God in worship. With us Christians the word Lord used singularly and definitely, the Lord, as a translation of the Hebrew Jehovah, the designations of the several persons of the blessed Trinity, used in a like singular and definite manner, and above all Jesus, the proper name of the Saviour, by whom God is especially revealed to the world, amply supply the need of proper names for the purposes of devotion, in strict conformity with the religious system to which these words belong. Mahomet, GENERIC AND PROPER NAMES OF GOD. 287 whose object was on tlie one hand to oppose the polytheistic tendencies arising from contact with the heathen, and on the other the Trinitarian notions of the Christians, as in his view inconsistent with the unity of God, avoiding all other personal names, converted the generic name into a proper name, as in the Mahometan formula, La Elah ilia Allah, which answers to that of Deut. vi. 4, and which declares that there is no God but Allah. But though the same word thus answers both pur- poses, that of a generic and of a personal name, it is as truly a proper name in one case as a general term in the other. Indeed Allah with the double consonant is properly an abbreviation of Al Elah, the God, commonly used to express the singleness of God.^ In the Patriarchal and Hebrew theology, which involved the closest personal relations between God and man, a proper and personal name of God was as essential as the generic, which was needed to describe the Being to whom the proper name was assigned. The same word used for both purposes, as in the Ma- hometan system, would have occasioned constant and inex- tricable confusion. Many occasions would occur where the proj)er and the general name could not be substituted one for the other ; and in many cases, where perhaps either might make good sense, one in preference to the other would properly and naturally be chosen, in accordance with the particular devo- tional feeling of the time, or the particular circumstances in reference to which the mention of God is made. Often the choice is unconsciously made through some instinctive feeling, some impalpable, but not less real, subjective difference at the moment of writing or speaking. But besides these causes of variation in the use of the names of God, the mere disposition to avoid sameness, and to enliven one's discourse with an agreeable variety, would lead to a promiscuous and indiscriminate use of such names. 'Even pure seeming accident, in the absence of any adequate determining cause in the writer's consciousness, ' This use of tlie generic name with the article, to denote pre-eminence or singleness, was frequent mth the later Hebrew writers, as will be seen hereafter. 268 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. may occasion sucli diversified use. " One name miglit still be generally preferred perhaps, but this would depend upon habit rather than upon reason ; while the slightest variations of occasion or- feeling might produce the most complete change of usage, without any sufficient cause or motive being apparent. Who would be prepared to account for his o^vn employment of the various divine titles in use amongst ourselves ? Who would attempt to assign a reason why one Christian speaks of God's Son as Jesus, another as Christ, a third as our Lord, a fourth as our Saviour, and so on ? "V^Hio would venture to decide upon the genuineness, integrity, and date of the Epistles, by reference to their usage of the divine titles ? (See p. 15 note.) Causes and reasons for all things no doubt there are ; but their con- nection with the phenomena is so slight and uncertain, so liable to variation from the least disturbing circumstance, that to deduce the one from the other is a hopeless task. Just so we miglit expect that it would be with the Jewish names for God. So soon as Jehovah and Elohim became fully established on an equal footing, it was to be expected that their usage would become subject to variations, for the most part quite incapable of explanation."^ Hence Hengstenberg's very elaborate attempt to apply to the whole Pentateuch, with special reference to each passage in particular, the highly artificial theory by which the use of either name on the occasion of its occurrence is sousrht to be explained, seems as uncalled for, as it has certainly proved unsatisfactory. This seems quite as little requisite to account for the phenomena, as any of the theories involving different 1 The Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch, by a Layman, p. 79-80. The note referred to in the passage quoted above is as follows : " In the Epistle to the Eomans, St. Paul uses the name Jesus 5 times, Christ 33 times ; in the two to the Corinthians, Jesus 16 times, Christ 77 times ; in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, Jesus 4 times, Christ 87 times ; in the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Jesus twice, Christ 4 times; in all, Jesus 27 times, Christ 201 times, or nearly 8 times as often. In the two Epistles to the Tliessalonians, liowever (whose g-enuine- ness has been defended by such critics as De Wette, Meyer, and Jowett), we find precisely the reverse usage, Jesus 13 times, Christ 4 times; a conclusive proof no doubt of diverse authorship." The reasons which influence this excellent author in not allowing tlicir full weight to the remarks above quoted, as applied to the book of Genesis, will be considered in due course. GENERIC AND PROPER NAMES OF GOD, 269 autliorsliip and the fragmentary or interpolated condition of the writings.^ The generic name in its simplest form El, 7^, is expressive of the power of Grod, and in its plural W/^ denotes the " mighty- ones." So does the larger form Elohim when used as a plural ; but used as it most frequently occurs, as a singular noun with plural form, it rather denotes the concentration of all powers in the divine Being, the summing up in God of all that is implied in his omnipotence. It is rather the pluralis excellentue, than the pluralis uiajestatis. Its generic character is evidenced not only from the frequent use of it with the article, but also from its very frequent use in such a connexion as would render ' It would be difficult to give a clear and concise abstract of Hengstenberg's prolix and laboured, and it must be added, cloudy discussion of tbis subject. Having endeavoured at great lengtb to sbow tbat in tbe Biblical usage, the closest connexion exists between the name and the nature of the thing signified, so that the one is not to be considered as a mere name or sign, but as embodying the nature and essence, in which he is so far correct, as that names are for the most part significant, and that the word name may be understood often to denote the nature or essence, while at the same ti.ne of necessity, this word, and particular names however significant, must often be used as bare signs, he gives as the result of this enquiry, Authentie, i. p. 286: — 1. That the names Jehovah and Elohim are not identical, but depend on a twofold aspect of God. — 2. That as it is clear that the Pentateuch describes a revelation of God advancing step by step, until at last He as it were assumes flesh and blood in the theocracy, so it is to be expected from the close connexion betAveen the name and the thing signified by it, that the actual differeuce between the earlier and later periods would be indicated by a designed and accurate interchange of the diff'erent names of God. — 3. That as it is certain that Elohim is the more indefinite {algemeinere), Jehovah the deeper and more significant name of the Godhead,* we should also from this point of view already beforehand expect to see them, in the period preceding the full establishment of the theocracy, interchanged in a manner far otherwise than afterwards. This, as the period of the gradual selfdisplay of God to the world, and the gradual advancement of the knowledge of God depending thereon, has a mixed character. On the one hand the religious condition of the period seems allied to that of the later heathen world, on the other hand we already descry in it the same elements which afterwards were concentrated in the theocracy. But then the mixed character of this pro-theocratic period must occasion the mixed use of the names Jehovah and Elohim. According as the one side or the other, the relation to the earlier or the later, the analogy with the heatheu world or the theocracy, predominates, must one name or the other be employed. He admits indeed that this view is likely to seem too artificial on a superficial consideration of the subject ; but then he says that fi-om his point of view, it is so natural, that one must set out on the enquiry with the confident expectation of finding it confirmed. Men who set out on an enquiry with such an expectation generally do find it confirmed, at least to their own satisfaction. But the lengthened endeavours of the author to display this confirmation, by a discussion of the several passages throughout the Penta- teuch in which either name is used, seem only to confirm what he admits would be the first impression, that his view of the matter is too_ artificial to be true. • It is plain from the way in which alf/emeinere is here opposed to the deeper and jnore significant meaning of Jcliovah, tliat the author uses it in the sense of more indefinite and less significant, rather than in the logical sense of more general. 270 GENESIS AKD ITS AUTHORSHIP. any other than a general term improper, as in the First Com- mandment. On the other hand, Jehovah never appears as a general term, never has an article or pronominal suffix, and is never qualified by being connected with any other word in the genitive case. The onlj^ instance that may be adduced as an exception is the phrase, " the Lord of hosts," Jehovah Sabaoth. This, however, is not perhaps a real exception. It is probably an elliptic expression abbreviated from the larger phrase, " the Lord God of hosts," lit. Jehovah the Elohim of hosts, Hosea xii. 5. And this will appear the more probable by a reference to Amos v. 27, where we find, " Jehovah whose name is the God of hosts." The word Jehovah is used in- variably and strictly as a proper name, applied to but one God, and never used of any other being, while Elohim is con- tinually emploj^ed with all the characteristics and in all the cii'cumstances proper to an appellative or common name. *^* Use of Elohim u-ith the Article. How completely the word Elohim was in its original nature a true appellative, and continued throughout to retain this character, may be seen from its use with ihe article, which in Hebrew is never prefixed to a true proper name. That the word is commonly used without the article, where it does not simplj^ mean a god, but stands for the one God in the mouth of tliosc who were not idolaters, and in the mouth of heathen men is used to denote the generalised deity, with a verb in the singular number, is indeed quite true. Instances of the former usage are too fre- quent to need any example ; as regards the latter may be adduced Gen. xli. 39, where Pharaoh says to Joseph, " Elohim hath showed thee all this." Here the word is not used as denotins: Joseph's God in particular, but as a generalised designation of deity ; just as in the previous verse he speaks to liis own servants of Joseph, as one in Avhom is a sjjirit of Elohim, — not ike spirit of Elohim as in the English Version, but a spirit ELOHIM WITH THE ARTICLE. 271 of Elohim, or a divine spirit. In like manner tliis way of speaking was used by Moses himself in Exod. xxxv. 31, where he says that Jehovah had filled Bazaleel with a spirit of Elo- him, meaning not the personal Spirit of God, hut a divine spirit or influence. This generalised use of the word without the article was common with the Greeks also, as in such phrases as eav Oeof; ideXr), though the genius of the Greek language pre- ferred in such cases to use the article. Amongst the believers in but one God the word is commonly thus used, however, not only in such cases as the above, where merely the idea of divinity in general is intended, but also where it stands for the personal God, Gesenius, Heb. Gram. Ed. Hodiger, §. 107, says it " is often so used without the article because it approaches the nature of a proper name." It would certainly have this quasi character of a proper name, if the writer or speaker had not the option of using a true proper name. But as it is equally so used where the choice of a proper name existed, it is rather to the frequent apj^lication of the term to a singular being, where no reference or distinction was in- tended, that its use without the article is to be ascribed. The tendency to abbreviate in cases of very frequent occurrence would naturally lead to the loss of an unnecessary addition to the word. And so it will be found that it is just in those cases which are extremely frequent in their recurrence, that the article is deficient, as when the word is the nominative, or accusative without nX, or has a prefix. In most instances indeed of its occur- rence with prefixes, it may be doubted whether the article was used or not, because where its presence was only indicated by the vowels, the word might have been originally pronounced as if it had the article, though shortened in process of time before the vowels were introduced into the text. However this may have been, it is certain that it is only in these very frequent cases that the word habitually occurs without the article, while it will be found that in all the less frequent constructions the article is present or absent, just as it would be in the case of any other 272 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. appellative. Indeed it will be found that in tlie Pentateucli at any rate, and it may be added in the earlier historical books, a sufficient explanation of the existence of the article can be given in all cases, either on grammatical grounds, or for some special reason in the particular circumstances of the occasion. In this respect it will be seen that the earlier books are remarkably distinguished from such late writings as the Chronicles, and the books of Jonah, Daniel, and Nehemiah, to which may be added Ecclesiastes. In these Elohim frequently has the article, not only in cases where a special reason for its use existed, but also where in the earlier books it would have been without the article. This difference is of some moment as bearing on the supposed late date of the Pentateuch, or of some parts of it, and as indicating a different habit prevailing when it was written, from that which prevailed near the time of, and after, the Captivity. It will be well to make a careful examination of the usage in this matter, not only as thus throwing light on tlie date of the earlier Biblical writings, but also as proving what has been maintained in regard to the true appellative character of the word, whether with or without the article. And this is the more needful as a force unwarranted by the usage has been ascribed to its presence or absence. Thus, while Gesenius ascribes to Elohim without the article the quasi character of a proper name, he at the same time speaks of it as equivalent to Jehovah, where the article is prefixed : " 7i Exod. xviii. 19 ; by 0^", XX. 21 (18) ;i by ly, xxii. 8 ;2 and by DSJ, Gen. xli. 32, 2 Chron. x. 15, xxiv. 16. On the other hand there are no instances of any of these particles preceding Elohim without the article, except in the case of DV in Gen. xxxii. 28 (29), and 1 Sam. xiv. 45, The very great prevalence of this usage, would, apart from all reference to particular passages, lead one to suppose that the article must be due to the governing particles. And in fact the grammarians regard them as having been originally nouns governing the genitive in staL constr., and there must have been something definite in their original use which would occasion the transfer of the article to the word governed by them. In some of these instances the Elohim would no doubt of itself have been definite, and the import of each particular passage will show this. It is the prevalence of the article in cases where it is plainly indefinite according to the ordinary usage, that shows how the article is due to the governing particle. As regards the particle HX, and its kindred forms both in Hebrew and the cognate dialects, it unquestionably originally denoted bein^, existence, essence ; see Fuerst, Lexicon, s.v.v., 1 As in Gen. ii. 11, nnjH DK^-'lK'Si?. ' That the article is due to the preposition here and in the previous verse, where it is ?K, is evident from the foot that immediately after it becomes Elohim without the article. This shows that Elohim does not mean judges here, but God. They were to bring the matter before Elohim, and whomsoever Elohim should condemn, he should pay double. So also in xxi. 6. If the article was before Elohim to denote the judges it should have been retained in v. 8 (9), when Elohim becomes the nominative to the verb. Gesenius, Beb. lex.., s.v. Elohim, refers to Deut. xix. 17, to show that Elohim does not mean judges in these places but God, Elohim being there represented by Jehovah, and a different word used forjudges. 282 . GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. r\)i^ and n**}*}, and Grarnett, Philological Essays, p. 93-4.^ This nature of the particle as a substantive accounts not only for its bearing the pronominal suffixes, but also for its existence before a nominative case when the verb is passive or neuter. It was pro- bably used to sustain any relation which might be gathered from the connexion, and which therefore was not expressed by a pre- position. Hence it came to be used as a preposition itself ; and it is only in this way that the great variety of significations it has when so used can be explained. It needs only a cursory look through the books of the Old Testament, to see that as a general rule it gives the article to words in themselves indefinite. Thus we may notice Gen. ii. 7, D'lJ^JH'nJ!^, not the man, but a man. In the same phrase in i. 27, the article might denote the genus if it occurred thus in the first instance. But the previous ex- pression of God's purpose, " Let us make man," has man without the generic article, and this is the case with regard to other creatures also, which are described indefinitely, such as grass, herb, tree, living soul, creeping thing, etc. The article therefore to man in the second place of its occurrence is rather to be attributed to its connexion with the particle T\i^ in Stat, constr. Hence, in the case of the great whales and the beasts which are construed with HK and the article, these should also probably be understood indefinitely, not the whales, the beasts, but whales and beasts. — Gen. vi. 17, S^H^Il'nj^, not the deluge, of which no previous mention was made, but "a deluge, waters upon the earth." Waters is in apposition, otherwise the article would have passed on to it. — Gen. viii. 7, 8, n!li*n"nX, i*lJ^n"il{S», not the raven and the dove, as some 1 In the Semitic languages, this author remarks, " the present of the verb substan- tive is often denoted by an abstract noun denoting being, combined with the oblique cases of the different personal pronouns. The Hebrew word is K^.^ [ycsh) ; but as there might be some question as to the real nature and import of this word, we prefer adducing the S3T.-iac form H^X (ith)," evidently the counterpart of the Hebrew n'lK and nX, " the plural of which is employed in statu regiminis along with the pro- nominal suffixes to express the various persons of the verb ' to be,' according to the following paradigm : — ^ri"'X ithai, literally, cxistentia) mei = sum," etc. — " Ithai is unequivocally a noun plural, and the pronominal suffixes are not nominatives in ap- position or concord with the noun, but oblique cases sub rcgimine." ELOHIM WITH THE ARTICLE. 283 would say, the raven and dove of the well-known story, but d raven and a dove. — Gen. ix. 23, nS/b^n'n^J, not tJie gaiment, of which no previous mention had been made, but a gai-ment. Gut of the book of Genesis we may instance 2 Kings xxi. 13, rinpitn'nj^, not the dish, but a dish, and a passage that will be again referred to, Numb. xiii. 33, "We saw, D^^^S3^-^^^, giants, the sons of Anak greater than the giants." These instances will sujSice as regards other words ; and if we compare with these the cases where Ha-Elohim occurs, we shall see that the stress laid on the article in these latter cases is unwarrantable? Thus in Gen. v. 22-4 Enoch is said to have walked with God, ^''n /^^HTIJ;^, and in vi. 9 Noah similarly. Keil remarks on this, that " the article in D>n';){»{n gives prominence to the personality of Elohim, and shows that the expression cannot refer to inter- course with the spiritual world," as if the remark that Elohim took Enoch, immediately after these two instances of Ha-Elohim, did not imply as much personality. It is now apparent that the article is only due to the prefixed ^|^^, and the seeming in- consistency of saying that Enoch walked with Ha-Elohim, and was not, because Elohim took him, is thus explained. Similarly in connexion with the preposition ^i^, when we are told, Exod. xix. 3, that Moses went up to Ha-Elohim and Jehovah called to him, we are not to suppose that the article gives any sig- nificance to Elohim as identical with Jehovah; it is merely owing to the prepositions. We have been the more particular in discussing these cases, as the conclusion at which we have arrived will be found of much moment in its general bearing on the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the origin of this use of the article, now shown to have preceded from the particles preceding, has not been adduced by other writers as accounting for what else seems so often to be inexplicable, and has been frequently relied on as evidence of a significance which had no existence in the mind of the writer. 3. We now pass to cases in which Elohim being in stat. constr.y and governing genitives of words not proper names, or 284 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. otherwise definite themselves, transfers to them its article. In all such cases the article belongs to Elohim, and this will be found properly definite in its use on these occasions. Thus Gen. xxiv. 3, 7, " The Elohim of heaven and the Elohim of earth ; " XXXV. 2, " The Elohim of strangeness, or the strange place, that are among you," where even if Elohim was not definite in its sense it would have the article from the prefixed HX ; Exod. iii. 18, V. 3, vii. 16, ix. 1, 13, "The Elohim of the Hebrews ;" Numb. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16, "The Elohim of the spirits of all flesh ;" Deut. vi. 14, xiii. 7 (8), xxix. 17 (18), " The Elohim of the nations," in the last of which we have f^^{ also prefixed ; xxxi. 16, "The strange Elohim of the land." In all these cases, whether the word denotes the true God, or false gods, it is alike definite in sense, and out of regimen wotdd have had the article. But in these cases, being in stat. cmistr., it has transferred it to the subjoined genitive. 4. It now remains to examine the cases of Elohim where it is not in any kind of construction, but takes the article for dif- ferent reasons according to circumstances. These may be reduced to the following classes : — a. ^Yhere the article denotes the genus or class, as when in Gen. iii. 1 we read that " the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field." This is a common use of the article, and as regards Elohim it occurs occasionally. Thus we read in Gen. xliv. 16, " The Elohim hath found out the iniquity of thy servants ; " xlv. 8, "It was not you that sent me before you, but the Elohim;" Exod. xvui. 11, "Jehovah is greater than all the Elohim;" xix. 19, "The Elohim answered with a voice ;"^ XX. 17 (20), " The Elohim is come to prove you ; " xxi. 13, " If a man lie not in wait, but the Elohim deliver him into his hand ;" Jud. vii. 14, "The Elohim hath delivered Midian into his hand;" Jud. xiii. 9, " Manoah intreated Jehovah, and Ha- Elohim heard him;" but this may be a case of simple re- ' But this may be a case of reference to Elohim mv. 17, the ai'ticle prefixed to ■which is due to the stat. constr. ELOHIM WITH THE ARTICLE. 285 ference, — tlie Elohim just before spoken of, namely, Jehovah, or the man of God, — a divine manifestation ; 1 Sam. x. 7, "The Elohim is with thee;" 2 Sam. ii. 27, "As the Elohim liveth;" 2 Chron. ii. 4 (5), "Great is our God above all the Elohim," not "all gods," as in the English Version without the article. In all these instances, except two, Elohim is used as a singular noun, notwithstanding the generic sense, as in the case of " the serpent" already noticed. This generic use does not imply a plurality of gods, but it generaKses the conception, making it somewhat of an abstract, just as we would say " the deity," and the expression is equivalent to our Providence. The important point to be observed is, that this usage is as far as possible from denoting the individual or personal God, as some suppose, but. rather the abstract and impersonally conceived power of God. Hengstenberg would put Gen. xxxv. 7 in this class, especially as the verb to which Ha-Elohim is nominative is plural in that place. But it will be seen that it is rather a case of reference. h. In Jud. xvi. 28 the prefixed article is the sign of the vocative case, while in 2 Kings v. 7, the prefixed aspirate is the sign of interrogation. c. Cases of simple reference form an important class. In Gen. XX. 3 we are told that Elohim came to Abimelech in a dream, DPIHS. This word is here of course indefinite. But it would be exactly the same if the preposition 3 were prefixed to the definite Di7nn ; and accordingly when it is so used again in V. 6, though the same dream is evidently intended, yet the am- biguity of the word renders the reference uncertain. The English translators therefore fell into the mistake of supposing a difierent dream, and rendered " in a dream," instead of " in the dream," in ??. 6. This ambiguity, however, is avoided in the original by prefixing the article to Elohim ; the Elohim that had been speaking to him spake again in the dream.^ * Hence the fine drawn remark of Keil, that " Abimelech recognises the Lord, Adonai, i.e. God (ver. 4) ; whereupon the historian represents DTl^Sn (Elohim with the article), the personal and true God, as speaking to him," is all imaginary. 286 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Gen. xxii. 1, 3, 9 will also be explained by regarding the article as indicating reference. It is to be remarked that this chapter stands in the closest connexion with the preceding, which left Abraham at Beersheba, while on the return of Abraham from Moriah, he goes again to Beersheba. Then it is to be noticed that in the last verse but one of that preceding chapter we are told that Abraham planted a grove, and there called on the name of Jehovah El-Olam ; that is, the name by which he there invoked Jehovah was El-Olam, as is expressed by the LXX. by using deo The places referred to are 1 Chron. v. 22, xiv. 11, 14, 16, xyii. 2, 21, xxi. 15, XXV. 5, 5, xxviii. 3 ; 2 Cliron. xiii. 12, 15, xviii. 5, xix. 3, xxiv. 20, xxv. 8, 20, xxvi. 7, xxix. 36, xxxii. 31 ; Ezra i. 5; Xeh. iv. 9, v. 13, xii. 43; Eccl. iii. 11, 14, 14, 15, 17, 18, V. 1, 5, 17, 18, 19, vi. 2, 2, vii. 14, 29, viii. 15, ix. 7, xi. 9; Jonah i. 6 (perhaps a case of reference to " thy God" immediately preceding), iii. 9, 10, 10, iv. 7 ; Dan. i. 9, 1". In some of these books the instances are few, yet they are all for which the subject matter afforded occasion. INTRODUCTION OF THli NAME JEHOVAH. 291 The reader who has been at the pains to go through this pro- tracted and perhaps tedious discussion, will it is hoped excuse it for the importance of the results. These are, — the dispelling of the supposition that any essential difference existed, at least in the earlier hooks, between Elohim with and without the article, any difference at all, but such as the exigences of each occasion in respect of sense or grammar would have made in the case of any common appellative, — the illustration of the use of the article with particles and prepositions, elucidating many passages of Scripture, and explaining many seeming causes of perplexity, — the light thrown generally on the passages referred to, — and the establishment of an important characteristic difference as regards the usage in the case of Elohim with or without the article, between the earlier and later books of the Sacred Canon, the book of Ecclesiastes being, as far as this evidence goes, a work of the later period. III.— THE IXTHODIJCTIOX of the K\ME JEHOVAH. The use of the name Jehovah in the book of Genesis must be considered in connexion with what is said in the book of Exodus respecting the previous knowledge of that name, or of its true significance. On the supposition that Exodus vi. 3 indicates the introduction of tlie name Jehovah, as virtually a new name not before in general use amongst the Israelites or their fathers, it has been argued that the parts of the book of Genesis, in which this name has been employed as if in previous use, could not have been written by the writer of that text in the book of Exodus, that therefore only certain parts purely Elohistic were written by him, and that he purposely abstained from the use of the name Jehovah until he came to the period at which he announced its actual introduction. That a new name of God should have been introduced at the time of Samuel, to whom the Bishop of Natal, amongst others, assigns its introduction, or at any period subsequent to the Exodus, is 292 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. wholly without evidence ; and Samuel himself would never have been fixed on, except for the sake of fathering its introduction on some notable personage, on the supposition that it was not due to Moses himself. But if Samuel, or any one at so late a period, had thus introduced a new name of God, and represented its introduction to have been made through Moses and recorded in a writinsr of the time of Moses, he must have been infatuated to have imagined that he could persuade an entire people, priests and laymen, that they had not only the record of this event for several ages in their sacred books, but also the name itself in general use in their public and private devotions, if not in their common conversation, lie must either have persviaded himself that he could create this belief, which is quite incredible, or he must have acted solely with a view to posterity. Now whatever motive Samuel in particular might be thought to have had for introducing a name, which might bring God into a closer and more personal relation to the people in their apprehension, at the time when the change in the character of the theocracy might have been thought likely to weaken the present sense of God in their minds, he could have had no probable motive to do this merely for posterity, much less to resort to fraud and falsehood for the sake of producing such a future effect. On the other hand, if it be assumed that the true interpretation of Exod, vi. 3 is that which makes it indicate the introduction of this as an entirely new name, nothing would have been more natural than that such a name should have been adopted at the time of the Exodus. The Israelites were then about to assume a separate and independent national existence, in which state they were to stand in a special relation to God as his people, and he to them as in his own person their king as well as their God. This might well have occasioned the adoption of a new name to designate the new relation, while at the same time they ■were entering into a state of the strictest seclusion in regard to religion, and, with a view to the maintenance of that, on a state of social separation from the surrounding nations. This would INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH. 293 render still more likely the introduction of a new name of God, to supersede in more general use any personal name that had been previously employed, which their fathers might have had in common with the other Shemitic nations, and which may amongst the latter have been employed with reference to the objects of their idolatrous worship. Such may have been the name El-Shaddai,^ which is specially mentioned in contrast with Jehovah in Exod. \i. 3. Now if this were done by Moses, nothing would have been more natural than that he should have endeavoured to promote the use of this name by freely em- ploying it in the course of his history, at any rate when he speaks in his own person. Perhaps he might even have thought it of less moment to observe dramatic propriety by excluding the name from the mouth of the interlocutors in his narrative, as he has done with regard to all not of the chosen race, except where a special reason for the contrary can be discerned, than to familiarise the people with its use by oc- casionally, or even frequently, making some of his speakers employ it. In sueh a proleptic use it would stand only as the new substitute for the proper name actually used by those of earlier days, all danger of mistake being avoided by the know- ledge of the people themselves, and the writer's own intimation in Exod. vi. 3 of the recent introduction of the name. Had he thrown back its pretended introduction to an earlier period, as is imputed to Samuel, or some other later writer to whom some attribute the authorship, then, indeed, this would be liable ' Shaddai, -which aftenrards appears by itself as a proper name, is used in Exod. vi. 3, and in the book of Genesis, as an addition qualifpng and rendering specific the generic El, as in the case of El-Elion and El-Olam. In signification it is similar to the appellative ^jHS, Lord, and to the name Baal, which is identified with the idolatry of the Canaanites and other eastern nations, to the allurements of ■which the Israelites were about soon to be exposed. Shaddai is also related to the word D^'lE', which stands for false gods in Deut. xxxii. 17 and Ps. cvi. 37, being in both places used in connexion with the sacrifice of their sons and daughters, and which in its Syriac form denotes demons. It is possible that this name, as one in general use, may have been felt less suited to the exclusive worship of the Israelites, and it may have been thought desirable to introduce a name expressive of a different attribute of God, which might in great measure take the place of the other. The word Seid, or Lord, is the modem Arabic representative of Shaddai, as in Seid Issa, the Lord Jesus. 294 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. to the objections already made against the supposition that it was done by such later writer. But as Moses is repre- sented as openly announcing the introduction of the name through himself, the proleptic use, even in the mouth of the speakers who are rej) resented as using it, is less objectionable than it otherwise would be ; and such a proleptic use must, at any rate, be admitted in Gen. iv. 1, 26, whoever was the author of that chapter.^ For the writer of it, the same who described the Confusion of Tongues, and who certainly knew the prevalence of other and equally original dialects of the Shemitic language, and was aware that the Biblical Hebrew, or a closely allied dialect, was the language of Canaan, could scarcely have im- agined the existence of Jehovah totidem Uteris in the primitive language of mankind. But whatever difficulty may be thought to attend the sup- position of this proleptic use of the name Jehovah throughout the book of Genesis, that, as well as any argument against the unity of its authorship drawn from the use of this name viewed in connexion with Exod. vi. 3, depends entirely on the correct- ness of the interpretation by which that verse is made to indicate the first introduction of Jehovah as the proper name of God. But, however the words considered by themselves may seem to admit of this interpretation, there are certain verbal peculi- arities in them which throw some doubt on its correctness, and suggest another view of the meaning much more suitable to the words of God which follow in immediate connexion with them. To translate as in the English Version, " by the name of Al- mighty God," it is necessary to supply in the first clause an ellipsis of the word name from the second. The more natural place for the ellipsis would be in the second clause, where its supply from the first would be a matter of course. Moreover, there is nothing in the verb of the first clause to render this ' The meaning of the latter of these verses has hecn already discussed, in remark- ing on the import of the fourth chapter, in the former part of this work. It will not be necessary to state over again here what was then suid. INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH. 295 ellipsis by anticipation more natural. The words, " I appeared," rather throw the reader off the scent of the word supposed to be understood, which would be more readily suggested if the com- mencing words were, as in the second clause, " I was known." To appear by a name is a harsh expression, and the more natural meaning of "I appeared by (or in) El-Shaddai," would be " in this character," namely, as God Almighty, in the character of a mighty Lord. Then, in the second clause, where the word "name" is introduced, and the verb is changed to "I was not known," it is at least possible that the omission of the pre- position before the word "name" is designed to avoid the inter- pretation in question. The construction, "and my name Je- hovah, I was not known to them," is the regular form for a very different meaning. A word put absolutely, and followed by a verb with which it is not grammatically connected, is properly to be translated as in the sentence, " As Jo?' this Moses, we wot not what is become of him." The meaning would thus be, " as for," or as regards, "my name Jehovah, I," not it, " was not known to them." And then, as the first clause suggests, not the name, but the character of El Shaddai, so here it may be, not by the name, but as regards the character which the name denotes, that God was not known to the Patriarchs.^ In what sense it was that God was thus not known in respect to the import of the name Jehovah,, the sequel proceeds to explain. Let it be remembered that n*in\ apart from the modern vocalisation, which is only adopted from Adonai, which ' It has been supposed by some, as most recently by Dr. Kay, Crisis Hupfeldiana, p. 18, that the verb being in the Niphal conjugation, 'FlV'^^^, ^^^ primitive reflexive force of that conjugation would give the meaning that God had not made himself known to the Patriarchs by the name of Jehovah, and that it was intended to be understood that God had not fully revealed himself in the character of Jehovah. But this is not the reflexive meaning of Kiphal, but the causative import of Hiphil and Hophal. The reflexive meaning of Niphal M'ould be, " I was not known to myself." This meaning, of course, is out of the question, and the more usual though later passive sense must be adopted, " I was not known." Eanke, Untersuchutiyen ueber den Pent., ii. p. 17, notices the peculiarity of construction as intended to obviate a misunderstanding. If it had been, " My name, Jehovah, was not known to them," the sense might have been doubtful. To hinder the mistake of supposing that it was the name itself, and not its import, that was unknown, the construction is, " My name, Jehovah, I was not known to them." 296 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. was substituted for it in later times by the Jews, who had a superstitious objection to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, is only the third person future of the verb of existence, the first person heing adopted in the n^TTK, I am, of Exod. iii. ; only that in the proper name, the form of the verb H^n, instead of n^H, is adopted for the sake of easier pronunciation, the other form T\'^r\\, "yihyeh," being too difficult for a word in very frequent use. This present-future of the verb substantive denotes con- tinuousness, and when not limited would signify continuousness in every respect, and so would imply the unchangeab'leness of God's purposes, and the certain fulfilling of his promises. As long as God's promises were unfulfilled, there was no experience of the continuousness of his purpose, and the unchangeableness of his character. The Patriarchs had only the promises un- fulfilled ; in respect to the fulfilment of them, " they received not the promises." God is now about to fulfil the great promise to give the land of Canaan to their seed, and so he announces himself to Moses in the words, " I am Jehovah," and tells him, that while the Patriarchs had manifestation of God in his character as El-Shaddai, they had not experience of him as regards this name, which implied the continuousness and un- changeableness of his gracious purposes towards them. He had indeed, he says, established his covenant with them, to give tliiem the land wherein they were strangers ; he has now heard the groans of their descendants, and remembers his covenant. He therefore bids Moses tell them emphatically, " I am Je- hovah," promises to deliver them, to take them to be his people, while he will be their God, whereby, he says, " Ye shall know that I am Jehovah" (not as in the English Yersion, that I Jehovah am) " your God that bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians ; and I will bring you into the land concerning which I did swear to give it, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and I will give it to you for an heritage. I am Je- hovah." This emphatic repetition of the phrase, " I am Jehovah," and the assertion that the Children of Israel should now come INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH. 297 to know this by their deliverance, plainly shows that it was not only as a mere name, as merely a vocal sound, that they should now become acquainted with Jehovah, and that it was in respect to the import of the name and the character implied in it, and not merely to the name itself, that Grod was not known to the Pa- triarchs. Hence when Moses was first commissioned to go to the Children of Israel, and when he asked what he should tell them was the name of Him by whom he was sent, attention is drawn away from the name as a mere name, to be fixed on its import, by the change in God's reply from the usual form in the third person, m^^ to the first person, H.'^HX. The usual form, as commonly in the case of a familiar name, or one becoming familiar by frequent use, would be heard without recalling its import ; the change of person forces this on the attention of the people : " I am," — I that am and ever will be, — " hath sent me unto you." And this import of the name thus made known, and proved by the evidences of God's unchangeableness then afforded, continued to the close of the sacred records to be con- stantly urged on the minds of the covenant people : "I, Jehovah, change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed," Mai. iii. 6. Not only therefore in the mere verbal construction of Exod. vi. 3, but in the import of the entire passage, there is strong ground for concluding that something else than the simple introduction of a new name was intended. And if this be the case, all that is built on that interpretation falls to ground. At any rate it is quite plain that henceforward this name Jehovah, whether now for the first time introduced, or revived after having fallen into disuse, or only now invested Avith new and special significance, was to be the great name of God amongst the Children of Israel. And if from this point of view we now look back on the book of Genesis, we cannot fail to see a constant efibrt to identify Jehovah with every title and designation by which God had previously been worshipped, to make it absorb into itself all other names, and take up every form of worship 298 GENESIS AXD ITS AUTHORSHIP. that had before been offered to God under whatsoever designation. Thus in Gen. ii. 4 the Elohim of creation is Jehovah Elohim that made heaven and earth ; in iv.-ix. Jehovah is the Elohim of the first parents of mankind and of their descendants to the time of Noah and the flood. After that the first sacrifice is offered to Jehovah, and he is Jehovah the Elohim of Shem from whom the chosen race was to descend. It is Jehovah that calls Abra- ham, and to whom the Patriarch offers his first localised worship at the several places of his sojourn on coming into the land of Canaan, xii. xiii. He is Jehovah El-Elion, the God of Mel- chizedek, xiv. He is Adonai, or Lord, when addressed by Abraham, xv. xviii. In xvi. he is the El who hears Hagar's affliction, by reason of which her son is to be called Ishmael, and the localised El-roi of the fountain Lahairoi, at which the Angel of Jehovah appeared to her. Then in xvii. Jehovah announces himself as El-Shaddai, the name on which so much stress is laid in Exod. vi. It is Jehovah that Abraham invokes at the grove he has planted at Beersheba under the name of El-Olam in xxi. 33. In xxiv. he is the Elohim of heaven, and the Elohim of the earth. In xxvi. Jehovah appears to Isaac as before to Abraham, and renews the promise of the land of Canaan. Again, when Jacob is . on his way to Mesopotamia, Jehovah appears to him at Bethel as the Elohim of his fathers, and Jacob vows that if God brings him back in safety to his father's house, and Je- hovah will be his Elohim also, that shall be the house of God, ch. xxviii. In xxxi. it is Jehovah bids Jacob return, and to whom he appeals to watch between himself and Laban ; while in xxxii. he prays to him as the God of his fathers who had bid him return ; again, by reference at least, he is the God who bids him go to Bethel and make there an altar to the God that appeared to him when he fled, who was Jehovah, and hence in fulfilment of his vow, it is Jehovah that is the El-Bethel, to whom he builds the altar at Bethel, because God there appeared to him, that God having been Jehovah (comp. xxviii. xxxv.) Lastly, it is Jehovah for whose salvation Jacob has waited, when INTRODUCTION OF THE NAME JEHOVAH. 299 at the last lie takes leave of his sons, xlix. 18, having previously by reference, if not by name, implied the care of Jehovah for him and his fathers, as in xlviii. 15, 16. And this identification of Jehovah with other names and manifestations of God is much more explicit in the earlier parts of the book than in the later, as if the author had sufficiently effected the purpose of establish- ing it, and felt himself afterwards more free to use the names that ofiered themselves, with less regard to this particular end. And if these identifications are mainly confined, according to the views of the partitionists, to passages of Jehovistic author- ship, that is only because their assumption, that the writer of the so-called Elohistic narrative knew nothing of Jehovah, ne- cessarily, and as a consequence, excludes from the part assigned to that writer all passages where Jehovah is mentioned. Still against these critics stands the famous seventeenth chapter, which has been relied on as one of the main pillars of the theory,^ but which cannot be made to serve this purpose but by the arbitrary assumption of an interpolation or alteration in V. 1, by which the name Jehovah is said to appear in that place. But to assume that this is the case in order to make this pas- sage Elohistic, in spite not only of the existing Hebrew text, but of the LXX., who so often difier from the Hebrew else- where, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has Jehovah also, and then to argue from the characteristics of this passage thus made exclusively Elohistic, in proof of the Elohistic origin of other passages, is most unwarrantable. Yet the critics who thus distrust even the Hebrew text, when it is op- posed to their theory, rely on its correctness when it is in their favour, in passages where the readings of the LXX. throw dis- credit on it, as already noticed in the case of the Elohistic part of the history of the deluge. 1 As by Kuenen, p. 30. 300 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Jehovah not a Phcenician God. This is the place to notice a theory which has found some advocates, that Jehovah was a name in use amongst the Phoe- nicians, and designated the deity known also as the Sun Grod, Adonis, and Dionysus, After the very complete view of the objections to this supposition, given in the article Jehovah in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, it may seem unnecessary to enter on the discussion of it here. But the Bishop of Natal has, notwithstanding, brought it forward again in the last volume of his work on the Pentateuch, affirming the notion with much confidence ; and he not only devotes a chapter to the exhibition of the proofs on which he relies, but also in an appendix presents an abridged translation of a chapter from Movers' Phonizier, in which it is maintained that not the Hebrew Jehovah, but a kindred form, n'HT*, written with H instead of H, was employed by the Phoenicians to denote the Sun God, Adonis, and Dionysus, as the source and giver of life. As usual, the Bishop goes beyond those whom he makes his authorities. In this case he not only leans to the notion that it was the Hebrew form, Jehovah, the Phoenicians had, but, whereas Movers only supposes that the two names existed col- laterally, the Bishop maintains that the Israelites borrowed the name from the Phoenicians after their settlement in Palestine. It seems therefore desirable to review the grounds of this sup- position, and see how far they bear out the conclusions built on them with such unhesitating confidence. If the Patriarchs were acquainted with the name Jehovah, and had it in use, it is clear that the name must have been one of ancient Shemitic origin, and was probably brought by Abraham with him from Mesopotamia.^ And that a name of Hebrew 1 That the name Jah, used in the Bible only in poetry and the composition oC proper names, was originally an independent name, is not impossible. It has just now been found in use amongst the tribes of Central Arabia, recently visited by Lieut. -Col. Pelly and j\[r. Palgrave. as the name of the pole-star, thougli it is doubt- ful whether it is used as expressive of adoration. Lieut. -Col. I'clly, British Political JEHOVAH NOT A PHCENICIAN GOD. 301 origin should have been known to the Phoenicians, who spoke a dialect closely allied, would be by no means unlikely. But the evidence that they had this name in use as denoting one of their gods, or that the Israelites borrowed it from them, has abso- lutely no existence. That which is adduced as evidence is insufficient even for an antiquarian conjecture, prone as anti- quaries are to form conjectures on the slightest grounds ; much less is it of weight in regard to a conclusion of so much moment as that in question. We now proceed to make good this con- fident assertion. 1. Of all the alleged authorities, none lays claim to any high antiquity, but that of the apocryphal Sanchuniathon, which is only known to us by the report of Philo Byblius, whom some suspect to have been himself the pretended Sanchuniathon, while the report of Philo is only known to us through Porphyry, and that of Porphyry through Eusebius. Porphyry's statement is, that "by far the most correct description of the afiairs of the Jews, and that most consistent with their places and names, is given by Sanchuniathon, who received his memoirs from Hierombalus the priest of the god leuo. He having dedicated his history to Abibalus, the king of the Berytians, was admitted by him, and by those who examined it along with him, to have given a correct account. — Philo Byblius translated the work of Sanchuniathon into the Greek language."^ The name Hierombalus is plainly Eesident at the Persian Gulf, thus writes of the "Wahnbees : — "They respect the polar- star, which they call Jah, as the one immoveable point which directs all travellers by sea and land." Edin. Ee\'iGw, for October, )865, Art. on Mr. W. G. Palgrave's Travels in Central Arabia, from which the following is extracted : — " Whether the name Yah or Yahce (for I have heard now one occur and now the other), which is by them and by them alone, as it would seem, applied to the polar- star, has any connexion with credence or worship, 1 am unable to say." — Vol. ii. p. 262. Fuerst, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, infers fi'om Isaiah xxvi. 4, and Ps. Ixviii. 5, "that a more mysterious, perhaps a holier name (n^3) existed from primi- tive times besides the short name of God H^ , imder whose form H^ may have been conceived of as invested with higher attributes." However, in the absence of any other evidence, one may doubt the existence of such a name, and be content to regard the 2 as a preposition, at any rate the apposition of Jah and Jehovah in those places, and also in Isaiah xii. 2, would seem to indicate the independence of these names, one of the other. ' 'IffTOpe? Sf TO TTfpl 'lovdaiwv oTt aXriOtcrTara Kal to7s tottois koX toIs ovofxacnv avTwv (rvfj.(puiv6TaTa 'Xa.yxovviaQoiv 6 Bripurios, elKijcpus ra virofji.v'ijfxuTa irapa 302 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the Hebrew Jerubbaal ; and some of the older and less critical writers, as Bochart, did not hesitate to think that Gideon him- self was the informant of Sanchuniathon. It is probable, how- ever, that the name was taken from the book of Judges, as one imagined to have been connected in some way with Berytus, from the mention of the adoption of Baal-Berith as a god after Gideon's death. He would naturally have been described by one imper- fectly acquainted with Israelitish affairs as a priest of Jehovah, from his having built an altar to him and invoked upon it Jehovah Shalom. But whoever this Hierombalus was, or was pretended to be, there is no assertion that the God 'lefco was worshipped by the Berytians, but only that they acknowledged the correct- ness of the information derived from this priest of 'levco in reference to Jewish matters. Plainly it is as a competent au- thority respecting Jewish, not Berytian affairs, that this priest of Jehovah was alleged as the source of Sanchuniathon's inform- ation. Whether, therefore, this allusion to the name Jehovah be genuine, or only a forgery of Philo Byblius, — at best it is apocryphal, — it gives not the slightest countenance to the notion that the Phcenicians had that name in use amongst themselves. Whenever Sanchimiathon may have lived, if he ever lived at all, Philo was himself a contemporary of Adrian. 2. From the antiquity, pretended or real, of Sanchuniathon, we arrive after a long interval at the testimony of Diodorus Siculus. With what relevancy to the present discussion this is adduced it is hard to see, as he mentions the name 'Ium in con- nexion only with Moses and the Jewish people. He merely says,^ that amongst the Jews it was reported that Moses claimed to have received the laws, which he enacted, from the God called lao. Except as identifying this name with the Jehovah of the 'lepofj.$a,\ov Tov lepecos Oeov tov 'lei/oj, 6s 'A^ifiaKo) tsS jSocriAer BrtpvT'iuv rijv icTTopiay avaOels vn' fKeivov Koi rwv /car' aiirhv i^eTaarciv rrjs aAi^deias TrapeSe'xSrj. — to Se tov 'ZayxovutdOcai'os fis 'EWdSa yAwffcrat' rip/xfivevcre ^'tAuv 6 Bv/BA.fOj. — Porphyrins, iv. Contra Christianos, aputl Scaligeri Fragnientn Grirc. Vet. Emend. Temp. Addita. ' Hapa fxff yap to7s ' Api/xacriroTs Zadpavdrriv IcnopovffLV rhv ayadhv Sal/nova TvapanoiriaaaOai tovs y6fj.ovs avTs vorirhv tt; ^oivikccv •yXuxrcrri. Koi 'S.a^athQ 5e iroWaxov X^-yirai, olov 6 vttip rovs tTTO, noXovs, rovTiariv 6 Ari/xiovpy6s. — J. Lydus, Do .Alensibus, iv. 38. - "Ort ^ aw wapa XaXSaiois ipixriviveTai (pa>s yo7]rhv rfj ^olvIkoiv yXajaarj' ical 2a/3aa)0 Se 6 vTTip fiTTa TToAous, TovT^ffTiv u Arj/xiovpyos 6e6s. — G. Cedrenus, Ed. Bekkero, Yol. i., p. 296. ■* s vo-.-jThv 0 ayaOhs Keyerai, Slu to TrduTa /x^v inrepovpdvtov vovv eiiiriixirXavai i/oTjToD ipoiT6^. De Diviiiis Nominibus, cap. iv., sect, v., Apud Suiccri Thcsaur. TLeol. s.v. (bm. JEHOVAH NOT A PHCENICIAN GOD. 309 moutli of a Greek, not the language as spoken by the ancient Phoenicians, but the then current Syriac. Or, at any rate, either name might have been used indifferently, as in the well-lmown words of Lucian in the Pseudo-Mantis, describing Alexander as (fxovd'i TLva|/6Tai Se T\r\fjL0V0S Mvppas (pvfJLvhv &(TTV, ttjs fxoyoaroKOvs Kai rhv dea KXavadevTa FavavTos rd^ov '2,xoiv1hi, fxooaucpdapToi', 'Apeura, HeVjj, Kpavrrjpi \€vk<^ rhp ttot ^Krave TrreAas. It is plain that Adonis is here spoken of, and that Lycophron regards him as the son of Myrrha. Tzetzes, however, after subjoining certain other comments to the note above given, then proceeds to say that there was a Cyprian Adonis and a Biblian Adonis, that the former was the son of Cynaras, and the latter of Myrrha, but that some, not knowing this, confounded the two, the poet on whom he is commenting being evidently regarded by him as sharing in this mistake.^ Whatever therefore the authority of Tzetzes may be worth in this discussion, it is explain this trifling, one Avould be tempted to suggest DTlT'S niH* as the name intended. This combination has nine letters, of which five are consonants, the J< and n being reckoned as vowels. Then looking only at the written letters, and leaving out of view the unwritten vocalisation, the three first syllables have two letters each, and the last three, being four syllables in all. Reckoning the K as 1000, DvHK numbers 1645. The number yielded by nilT' is only 26. If this be doubled wc shall have the specified sum 1697. The fact that this name had a K'ri, or spoken substitute for the written form, might have been made a pretext for doubling its number, in order to ri>ndcr tlie description more itnigmatical. ^ 'O ^'ASaiifis Tavas irapa Kvirpioii KaAflrai. ^ 'E(c rov eiTTilv Se otj enoypsTat Tavis, 7] Trjv BijSAoc, 7) Tr;»' KvTrpoV koI eV T17 Bi,8\ci> yap ^v "ASa'vis, Kal eV rrj Kvirpcf) erepos ' AScofis., 6 Kvvdpov. OTrep aKpilBciis rives ovk eiSoTts <7y7x*<'i'cri rovs veovi irws, ol /j.^ yivwcTKOvriS rhv Mvppas " ASccuiv Bt'/SAior elvai, rhv Se hv etTro^tv Kiirpiov, vr) Hesych. ^aKypv KkavOfJiov, from Hplll."^ This derivation for the name is at least more probable than that proposed for lacchus, inasmuch as it is a real, and not a mere conjectural word, which is suggested as the origin. The fact that lacchus was regarded as a mystical name^ has been relied on in connexion with the secresy attached to the name Jehovah. But the word mystical has a very different sense as applied to these two names. Jehovah was a mystical name in later times, in so far as its pronunciation was avoided, and was kept secret from the multitude. lacchus was not a secret name at all, but well-known from the cries of the Bacchanalians ; * See Davidson's Translation, p. 251. Hesychius ascribes this to the Phoenicians : — - Thus Ai-rian, Exped. Alex. ii. 16, says, ko! 6 "laKXos 6 nvariKhs tovtcji t^ 314 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. it was only mystical as used in the mystical rites of Bacchus, and perhaps having a mystical significance attached to it. 9, The last particular that calls for notice in reference to this question, is the use of Baal in the formation of proper names in the same manner as El and Jah, or interchangeably with them. This might have arisen in one case from idolatrous tendencies, in another from familiarity with Phamician proper names, and sometimes by the employment of Baal in its common sense without any reference to its use as ajDplied to the god so called. Baal was an appellative signifying lord or master, and so when api^lied to this deity it always took the article, Hab-Baal, the Lord. In this way it may have been used in one of the Biblical names thus formed, Bealiah (1 Chron. xii, 5). As Elijah means " Jah is God," or " my God," so Bealjah will signify " Jah is lord," or " my lord." Another instance is Eliada, a son of David, called Beeliada in 1 Chron. xiv. 7. In this case the LXX. follow the former reading, as it is in 2 Sam. v. 16. That in this instance it was not a mere interchange of equivalents, but a sub- stitution of an unobjectionable for a highly objectionable name, may be inferred from the change in the case of two sons of Said, Eshbaal and Meribbaal, 1 Chron. viii. 33, 34, and ix. 39, 40, who in Samuel appear as Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth. The like change occurs also in the case of Jerubbaal, who in 2 Sam. xi. 21 is called Jerubbesheth. The word Bosheth, or Besheth, signifying shame or confusion, is used in Jer. xi. 13, and else- where in the prophets, to denote Baal, and the substitution of this word for Baal in these proper names shows how odious the latter must have been felt by the right-minded as thus used in the formation of proper names. There are no other Israelitish instances, however, but these noticed. The reader who has duly considered these evidences of the supposed Phoenician use of Jehovah, will probably feel convinced of their inadequacy as j)roof of such use, and will think that apocryphal writings, and statements of authors who lived late in the Christian era, or at any rate after its commencement, JEHOVAH NOT A PHCENICIAN GOD. 315 rendered sometimes more convenient by conjectural emendations and fancied etymologies, are not the kind of proofs on whicli so important a conclusion should be rested. And if it did result, as it does not, from these evidences that the Phoanicians had this name in use, the very lateness of the authorities would render it more likely that they had borrowed it from the Hebrews, than the Hebrews from them ; ^ and much more pro- bable than that this should have been done by the religious teachers themselves, who were so constant in their resistance to the idolatrous tendencies of the people. That they should have adopted a name identified with rites which they held in abomi- nation, as the highest and most sacred name of the true God — a name expressive of his nature, as well as distinguishing him as their national God — is quite inconceivable. Such a supposition may well be dismissed as being in itself as improbable, as it is destitute of the slightest basis of evidence, however they might have retained it, if they had had it all along in use simulta- neously with its employment by their idolatrous neighbours. This was the case with Elion, and Adonai, from which the Greeks derived their Adonis. In such case it would have been sufficient to have rejected the false God and his worship under some distinctive name not in use amongst themselves, as Baal, without abandoning a name deeply rooted in their own popular use. There is no proof, however, as we have shown, that Je- hovah was thus simultaneously used. True, this name, if known and in use amongst the Patriarchs, could not have been wholly unknown to the inhabitants of Canaan at an early period. That the name, however, is not put into the mouth of any of these, except when a particular reason for its use exists, which will abundantly appear hereafter, is a sufficient proof that it was not in familiar use amongst them. Had this or a kindred name been known by the Israelites to have been in use amongst the heathen occupants of the country, there could have existed no motive for carefully excluding it in this book of Genesis and 1 See Note D, p. 634. 316 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. elsewhere from the mouths of any but the chosen race, except in the cases where it was merely adopted by others with re- ference to its use amongst them. IV.— ORGAmC STRUCTURE AlfD DIVISIONS OF THE BOOK. While the book of Genesis certainly does not resolve itself naturally into the parts ascribed to different authors, it is by no means an unbroken and continuous narrative. Hence in examining more particularly the usage in respect to the names of God throughout the entire book, and considering the other evidences for or against the general unity of its authorship, regard should be had to the structural organization of the whole, and the subdivisions into which it is resolvable in ac- cordance with that structure. To neglect these structural divisions, and merely to resolve the book into passages longer or shorter in which particular usages occur, and then to assume the different authorship of these two sets of passages, merely on the ground of this difference of usage, is a highly arbitrary and unwarrantable course. The legitimate mode of proceeding is first to observe the structural arrangement of the book ; and if there be any well defined arrangement of this kind, it is by no means allowable to separate parts of these natural divisions, and to combine them with parts of others, merely to help any theory one might form in regard to the particular subject in question. It will be observed hereafter that this has been done in respect to the history of the deluge. The verses vi. 5-8, which are admitted by Davidson and others to belong to a different section, are yet connected with the succeeding section as an integral part of the history of the deluge as it now exists, while by the structural division of the book it forms no part of that history at all. The effect of thus regarding these verses as part of the existing history of the deluge is to give a certain coun- tenance to the notion, that that history has been made up of two independent narratives of the same events, pieced together by a subsequent compiler, without much regard to the con- ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 317 sistency of the entire. More particular notice will be drawn to this hereafter. If it should appear that there are portions naturally and evidently complete in themselves, and charac- terised by a peculiar usage of any kind, then it may fairly be maintained that these portions have a certain distinct documen- tary character, not necessarily indicating different authorship, but, at any rate, a different mental habitude in the writer, at the time of their composition, from that which existed in the com- position of parts differently characterised, except so far as there might be something in the subject matter of the passages them- selves, to account for the peculiarity observable. But if such documentary portions are found to be subordinated to a, more general structure, into which they are naturally and consistently interwoven, and that more general structure is plainly the original plan of the entire work, then the unity of the whole is highly probable, in spite of the supposed peculiarity in these several passages. That the entire book is characterised by a very marked and consistent structural arrangement will presently appear, though several causes have tended to obscure it, and divert attention from its observation. One of these causes has been the arbitrary division of later times into chapters, such as they appear in our present Bibles. Prior to these divisions, the structure had been obscured by the Jewish subdivision of the Pentateuch into fifty- four Perashim or sections, in order that the entire might be read through in one year, provision being made for the inter- calary as well as the ordinary Sabbaths. These divisions effectually turned away men's eyes from the real subdivisions of the book, the two classes of separate portions being, though equal in number, rarely conterminous, and never so at both beginning and ending. These divisions of pretty equable length having been adopted for the convenience of public reading, any earlier marks of subdivision would have been apt in course of time to disappear from the MSS. Another potent cause is the fact that the book is to a great extent made up of narratives more or 318 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. less complete in themselves, sometimes treating of particulars separated from those mentioned in the preceding or subsequent parts by considerable intervals of time, though all having a certain order of progress and tending to the general advance of the entire history. The distinctness of these several narratives has caused them to pass with those who have looked beyond the mere arbitrary division of chapters or Jewish Perashim, for the natural and only subdivisions of the book ; and this has tended to help the theory that the book is a compilation of passages of various authorship and of different ages brought together at some subsequent period. That the writer may have availed himself of existing documents, or of traditional statements pre- served with sufficient care to have the value of documents, is very possible. And if a writer of sufficient authority should have stamped such documents incorporated into his narrative with the seal of his ap]3roval, then they come to us with the same weight, as regards his belief in their substantial accuracy, as if they were entirely his own. Tables of genealogy, indeed, he may have taken, just as he found them in the registers or the traditions of the people, without intending to. vouch for their accuracy ; and inaccuracy in these should be regarded as no more invalidating the general truthfulness of the genea- logy or of the history at large, than the omission of certain names in the genealogy of the Saviour in St. Matthew's gospel is supposed to have such an invalidating effect. The reader will not be displeased by the introduction here of an extract from Dr. Hannah's Bampton Lecture for 1863, Lect. v., p. 151, 2, in reference to the employment of earlier materials, and the use of traditions existing in the author's time : — " It is important to point out that the principle which has been thus asserted, stands in the strongest possible contrast to the theories which would disintegrate the books of Scripture, and distribute them among the earlier documents of which they are alleged to be compounded. That view is destructive of all real authorshij), as claimed for the several writings in their existiuo; form : an ORGANIC STKUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 319 authorsliip, which in many instances is sufficiently ascertained, though in others, when it has not been decided by testimony, it forms a legitimate subject for critical enquiry. That authorship, be it known or unknown, rests in each case with the inspired writer who produced the book acknowledged in the canon ; and the belief that he availed himself of earlier materials, would no more entitle us to rend his work in pieces and re-assign its frag- ments to imaginary claimants, than the same argument would destroy the rights of an uninspii^ed historian to the ivork ivhich he had moulded into unity, and impressed with the fuU stamp of his own intellectual character from such materials as he was able to command." As regards this book of Genesis, however, even distinguishable documents characterised by their own peculiarities, genealogical tables which were possibly preserved from earlier times than those of the writer of the book, and adopted by him perhaps only on their recognised authority, and episodes and narratives more or less complete in themselves, while less closely connected with those preceding or following them than in their own internal contents, are not the only or the principal subdivisions of the book, though they are often the natural subsections of the greater portions. These latter, forming the larger structural divisions of the entire book in its organic integrity, claim our attention first. 1. Besides the Exordium which consists of the first chapter and the three first verses of the second, the book consists of a series of Toledoth, generations, or histories founded on genealogical relations, but in most cases embracing much more than the particulars of family descent. In some cases these particulars of family descent occupy a very subordinate place, as in that commencing at Gen. vi. 9, where the history of JS^oah contains only the mention of his three sons ; while in one case, namely the first, commencing at ii. 4, " The generations of the heavens ' It soems strange that Eanke and others, who recognise the expression, "These are the generations," as generally an initial and not a terminal formula, should 320 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP, and the earth," ^ it is only in a highly figurative sense that the genealogical idea is at all implied. This figurative representa- tion is indeed in full keeping with the allegorical nature of the representation in at least the first part of this portion as already pointed out, and it is only in the second of these divisions of family history, commencing with chapter v., that the true and literal sense of the word is implied. This is the true beginning of the genealogical history which it is the author's design to trace down from Adam to the twelve patriarchs, and accordingly, while each of the other sections begins with the formula, " These are the generations," this fifth chapter commences with the fuller and more formal expression, " This is the book of the generations," the Se'pher Toledoth, from Adam in the line of Seth.^ We have then first the Exordium, then,— (1.) "The generations of the heavens and the earth," the mystical genera- tions, from ii. 4 to the close of ch. iii., and the sequel in ch. iv. to the birth of Seth. — (2.) " The book of the generations of regard it in the latter character in Gen. ii. 4. It is vain to urge that the pronoun these (H^X) may as properly refer to things preceding as following, and to say that it is used five times in chap. x. ■with a retrospective signification. It is not on the nature of the phrase itself, that its initial character here depends, hut on the invariable use of this particular expression, '' These are the generations," as a superscription throughout the remainder of the book. It is also to be noted that Eanke mistranslates the word Toledoth in this instance. He says that in Gen. ii. 4 the meaning is, Diess ist'die Entstehimg, this is the origin of the heavens and the earth. It has been noticed on a former occasion, that it is not the generation, in the sense of the generating, which Toledoth could not signify, but the generations or genealogical descendants, and in a wider sense the offspring and family history in a descending line, that this word denotes. See Untersuchungen ueher den Pentateuch, i. p. 160. The same remark applies to the title of the Elohislic narrative, the " Book of Origins," adopted by Kuenen from Ewald in his work. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, as translated by the Bishop of Natal, chap. xv. p. 33. In no sense could this title be properly used, except we were to understand the first origin of the successive descending steps in the narrative. The plural form, however, shows that the word Toledoth denotes the successive steps themselves, these being products not origins. It is curious that while Ranke considered it of moment to the unity of the book to insist on the retrospective import of this ])hrasc here, as tending to disprove the partition at ii. 4, which he calls the irpuTov ^/eCSos, later writers, as Kuenen and Colenso, favour the same view of it, as not wishing to give this phrase, especially as an initial formula, to the Jehovist. ^ " The first step in what may be technically called the narrative of history is taken at the beginning of the fifth chapter of the book of Genesis, in the words, 'This is the book of the generations of Adam,' — words which are followed by the briefest possible summary of the previous account of creation, and then by the order of a lineage, and then the regular chi'onicle of dates and ages." — Dr. Hannah,, Bampton Lecture, 1863, Lect. v., p. 164. ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 321 Adam^" ch. y, to vi. 8, where JN^oali is introduced on the scene. — (3.) "The generations of Noah," containing the history ol Noah and his family until his death,, from vi. 9 to the end of ch. ix. — (4.) " The generations of the sons of Noah," describ- ing their descendants, the overspreading of the earth, and the scattering of men abroad by the Confusion of Tongues, from the commencement of ch. x. to xi. 9. — (5.) " The generations of Shem," in the line of Arphaxad to Abram, Nahor, and Haran, the sons of Terah, from xi. 10 to 26. — (8.) " The genera- tions of Terah," containing the history of Abraham to his death, Terah not Abraham being made the head, as the chosen race was to be derived, not merely from Abraham in the male line, but from Terah in the female line also, through Sarah and Hebekah. Terah is therefore made the head of this descent as including both the male and female lines. This section extends from xi. 27 to xxv. 11. It does indeed seem strange that "The generations of Abram" should not form a distinct title, if we consider the important place he holds in this history. If that title had ever existed, it will shortly appear that its probable place was immediately before the last clause of xii. 4. — (7.) "The generations of Ishmael," from xxv. 12 to v. 18. — (8). " The generations of Isaac," containing his history and that of his family to his death, extending from xxv. 19 to the end of ch. XXXV. — (9.) " The generations of Esau," ch. xxxvi. 1 to y. 8. — (10.) " The generations of Esau," in Moimt Seir, xxxvi. 9 to xxxvii. 1. — (11.) " The generations of Jacob," containing the remaining history of Jacob and his sons to the date of his owti death and that of Joseph, from xxxvii. 2 to the end of ch. 1. and the close of the book. Thus the entire book consists of twelve principal sections including the introductory portion, in which divisions the history is successively carried on, on the principle of genealogical descfint, some of these sections which relate only to collateral branches and less closely concern the immediate object of the writer, being brief and not resolvable into lesser divisions, while others are full and extensive, and naturally divide them- 21 322 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. selves according to their subject matter into smaller portions, which are in some cases less closely connected than in others with the preceding or following parts, but still always help on the general course and progress of the history.^ We have to notice here a peculiarity in this organic structure and arrangement of the history, that bears in an important manner on the present inquiry. It will be found that while, generally speaking, in each of these successive Tolcdoth the nar- rative in general is carried down to the close of the period em- braced in it, at the commencement of each succeeding portion there is for the most part a brief repetition of so much of the previous account as is needed to make it an intelligible narrative in itself, — a peculiarit}^ which will be found to extend to the lesser subdivisions also. In some instances this resumed narration is as concise as possible, and in others more full. Thus the first of these Toledoth, commencing at ii. 4, just in the slightest manner alludes to the day in which God created the earth and the heavens as set forth in the first chapter. Then the second portion, v. 1., contains a brief but more explicit reference to the same first chapter, and the account in it of the day in which God made man in his image and likeness, male and female, giving them the name Adam and 1 This oi'ganii; strncturo is very partially and imperfectly recopfiiised by Davidson, He first_ remarks, p. 13.5, that " the book of Genesis may be divided into two leading parts, viz., chapters i.-xi., and xii.-l." He then subjoins, " These two great divisions contain eleven minor parts, viz.: i.-ii. 4; ii. d-iv. 26; v. 1-vi. 8; vi. 9-ix. 29; X. 1-xi. 9; xi. 10-26; xi. 27-xxv. 11; xxv. 12-18; xxv. 19-xxxv. 29; xxxvi. ; xxxvii. 1-1. 26. Most of these have appropriate titles." If he had fixed the boundaries correctly, and recognised the title as the indication of a new section, he •would have perceived that all his subdivisions after the first have appropriate titles. That he did not take the title as a guide, but divided on other considerations is apparent from his making but one section of ch. xxxvi. instead of two, and his commencing the next section at the first, instead of the second ver.se of ch. xxxvii. Tlie importance of correctly observing the true commencement of this last, or rather tlie proper termination of the preceding section will be seen hereafter. That a subdivision made without reference to the titles should so well agree with that made according to them, is so far a confirmation of the correctness of the latter. It will be observed that one of his greater parts ending with ch. xi. divides one of the lesser, in the above sub- division of the book by Davidson. As already noticed, Kuenen, who in this is followed by the Bishop of Natal, violates the uniformity with which the phrase, " These are the generations," occurs as a superscription, attaching the first clause of Gn\. ii. 4 to the preceding passage, in order to avoid giving to the Jehovist one of these titles, Avhich *'it is assumed belong especially to the Eloliist." Similarly, "The generations of Isaac," xxv. 19, must on this account be Elohistic. See Kucncn, p. 44. ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 323 blessing tliem in tlie clay when they were created. The next, beginning at vi. 9, "The generations of Noah," recapitulates the character of Noah, the names of his sons, the degeneracy of mankind, and God's determination to destroy all flesh. " The generations of Noah's sons," at chapter x., not requiring any fuller recapitulation, as purely genealogical in its early part, simply repeats the names of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with a casual allusion to the flood. " The generations of Shem," at xi. 10, being merely genealogical has just a similar casual allusion to the flood. " The generations of Terah," at xi. 27, repeats that Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, this having been only just mentioned in the verse immediately preceding which closes " The generations of Shem." Next when after the death of Abraham, " The generations of Ishmael" follows, he is described as Abraham's son, whom Hagar, the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham, though the circum- stances of his birth had already been fully set forth in the previous family history of Abraham. And similarly with "The generations of Isaac" commencing at xxv. 19, Isaac's paternity, and that of Rebekah his wife, and her relation as sister to Laban the Syrian, are rej)eated. At " The generations of Esau," in ch. xxxvi. 1, Esau's wives are again enumerated, though with a certain variation from the names mentioned in the previous accounts of his marriages at xxvi. 34 and xxviii. 9, to which variation between the several accounts attention will be drawn hereafter. At xxxvii. 2, " The generations of Jacob," we do not find that his sons in general, who had been fully enumerated with the names of their mothers just at the close of " The generations of Isaac," are again mentioned. Still there is a certain resumed mention in so far as it is stated that Bilhah and Zilpah were wives of Jacob, when it is mentioned that Joseph was with their sons feeding the flock ; and the mention of Joseph's age as seventeen years takes us back a dozen years before the death of Isaac already recorded.^ 1 Isaac was sixty when Jacob was born, and an hundred and eighty at the time of 324 GEKESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. An instance in whicli the peculiarity now exhibited, as regards the principal sections, is of especial moment to this enquiry is in the history of the deluge. Those who maintain that the book of Genesis is compiled from several narra- tives, one being by the Elohist as he is named, and another by the Jehovist, conceive that this history of the deluge affords strong proof of the combination of two different accounts. And overlooking the organic subdivision of the book, and the prevalence of the recapitulation . now pointed ovit, at the commencement of the successive portions, of particidars, the mention of which would be needful to make these portions more complete in themselves, .and thus regarding this history of the deluge as it now exists to commence with the fifth verse of the sixth chapter, instead of at " The generations of Noah" in vi. 9, they have fancied that in the renewed mention of the particulars with which this division begins, such as Noah's character, the names of his sons, and the degeneracy of mankind, with God's determination to destroy all flesh, the narrative of the supposed Elohist is to be found, as distinguished from the previous mention of the same particulars attributed to the Jehovist. But in fact, in the present case, this resumed mention of previously related circumstances is only in accordance with the general character of the book as just exhibited, with this difference merely, that it is more full in its recapitulation than in other cases. The desire to make this division in itself a com- plete account of the deluge, and of Noah and his family in con- nexion therewith, and to trace the terrible event in this complete narrative of it to an adequate cause, will account for a fuller repetition of the particulars mentioned at its commencement, though already described in the preceding division, than takes his own death. Jacob was therefore nu hundred and twenty when Isaac died. Joseph ■was thirty when he stood before Pharaoh, and adding the seven years of plenty and two of famine, he was thirty-nine when Jacob came into Egypt, at whicli time Jacob was an hundred and thirty. Josei)h, having been seventeen at the time of his sale into }>ypt, was twenty-two years in Egypt when his father came. Hence Jacob was an hundred and eight when Joseph was seventeen. But he was an himdred and twenty when Isaac died, so that " The generations of Jacob " goes back twelve years previous to the death of Isaac. ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS, 325 place in otlier instances. The use of the names of God in these two passages, which constitute the close of one and the beginning of another section, as well as in the remainder of this latter sec- tion, together with another instance in it of repetition supposed to be attributable to different authorship, will be considered in the more detailed examination of the successive portions into which the book is resolvable. Another such instance may be found in XXV. 19, 20. The so-called Jehovist had given in xxiv. an account of Isaac's marriage with Rebekah. This is again repeated in xxv. 20, and is assumed to be the Elohist's account of the same event. But in fact, there is no ground in this repetition for assuming different authorship. The writer in commencing a new section, "The generations of Isaac," or family history of that Patriarch after the death of Abraham, recapitulates so much as is necessary to give it a certain independent completeness. Hence he men- tions that Abraham begat Isaac, that Isaac was forty years of age at his marriage, and that it was Rebekah, the daughter of Laban the Sj'rian, whom he married. He then describes the birth of his children and proceeds with the history thus prefaced. Another peculiarity of these Toledoth, or principal sections of the book, is that for the most part at their commencement there is some note of time, or some event specified which serves to indicate the date from which each commences. Thus, besides the Bereshith, " In the beginning," of the Exordium, we have in ii. 4, " The generations of heavens and earth when they were created, in the day," etc. ; in v. 1, " The generations of Adam, in the day," etc. ; in x. 1, " The generations of the sons of Noah," to whom "sons were born after the flood;" in xi. 10, " The generations of Shem," who was a hundred years old and begat a son " two years after the flood ; " in xxv. 19, 20, " The generations of Isaac," who was " forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife ; " and in xxxvii. 2, " The generations of Jac(5b ; Joseph was seventeen years old." Thus of the twelve principal sections we have seven thus characterised, three of the others, namely the generations of Ishmael, and of Esau in the land 326 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. of Canaan, and in Selr, being more exclusively genealogical, but all noting the marriage, or the birtli of sons, as a point of departure. It is further to be remarked, tbat in some of these cases the note of time, or event indicating the point of departure of the narrative, is exj)ressed by a gerund- infinitive referring to the date or fact in an allusive manner, as already known to the reader by its previous mention. Thus in ii. 4 we have, " In the creating of them ; " in v. 1, " In the day of Eloliim making man ; " and in xxv. 20, " Isaac was forty years old in his taking Rebekah to wife." The characteristic now exhibited with regard to the principal divisions of the book, and, in particular, the assumptive and allusive manner of dating last noted, will be found of use in serving to determine the exact point of division in several of the lesser subdivisions also. Before we pass on to these we may remark that the structural organization which has been now displayed is a strong proof of the unity of design and authorship of the entire book. And though some of the larger divisions are resolvable into lesser subdivisions, which in some cases consist of narratives comjjlete and independent in themselves, yet for the most part these are so needful to fill up and help on the history, and fit so well into their respective places, that they present no real difficulty in the way of admitting the unity of their authorship. For though some of these lesser divisions are not so closely connected with those preceding and following them as others, they all help on the progress of the history, and tend to make it more complete. 2. As the i^rincipal divisions of the book are usually charac- terised by a sort of recapitulatory preface, or repeat in their progress such particulars of the previous sections as may be needed to make them more complete in themselves and in- dependent, so also the same characteristic will often be observed in 'the subsections into which these are resolvable. Whether this was designed to render these lesser portions more complete and independent for the purpose of recitation, either as lessons for the congregation or for private use, or it rcsidted from some ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. o27 disposition on tlie part of the author to preserve a special structure and organization throughout, certain it is that this j)eculiarity will be found to distinguish several of the subsections, as weE. as the principal divisions of the book. The subsections generally will be ascertained and distinguished in the special examination that is presently to be entered on. It will be neces- sary here only to point out the instances of this repetition so often made with the view to render the separate portions more complete and intelligible in themselves, — partly as exhibiting more fully the organic structure of the book, and partly because these repetitions have in some instances been relied on as evidences of separate authorship. The concluding subsection of "The generations of Noah" extends from v. 18 of ch. ix. to the end of the chapter, and contains the story of Noah's intoxication and the conduct of his sons in reference thereto, and the prediction of their future liistory in consequence of the same. To render this account more complete in itself, it is prefaced with the statement in V. 18, that " the sons of Noah, that went out of the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth," although this was already sufficiently indicated, the exit from the ark being therefore now mentioned only allusively. On the score of this repetition it has been assumed by the partitionists, that this is the Jehovist's mention of the names of those who went out of the ark, the previous mention of the exit of the sons of Noah, whose names had been also mentioned on their entrance into the ark, being assigned to the Elohist. Any countenance that this repetition of their exit from the ark might afford to the supposition of diverse authorship will vanish, when it is perceived that such repetitions are common at the commencement of the several subsections, being evidently intended to make them more complete in themselves. The succeeding principal section headed " The generations of the sons of Noah" has two subsections, one genealogical and ethnical, and the other narrative extending from the first to the close of the ninth verse of ch. xi. The fortner represents the 328 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. tribes as already divided "after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations." The second sub- section goes back to the period when the whole earth was of one speech and language, and again describes the dispersion and the variation of language from a different point of view, taking its departure from an event which, as in the case of some of the principal sections already noticed, is indicated by a gerund- infinitive : — " And all the earth was of one lip and one speech ; and it was in their departing from the east, and they found," etc. The portion entitled "The generations of Terah," is sub- divided into several lesser narratives more or less complete in themselves. The first of these extends from xi. 27 to xii. 4, con- cluding in that verse with Abram's departure from Haran, and his taking Lot with him. This is evidently a portion complete in itself, the seeming break at xii. 1, as implied in the English "now," having no existence in the original where the simple copu- lative is found. It contains the history of the family up to the final momentous step, the departure for the land of Canaan. The next subsection, which relates the arrival and first proceedings of Abram in the land of Canaan, begins at the last clause of v. 4, which tells the age of Abram at the time of his departing, this departure from Haran being put in the assumptive form, " in his departing from Haran," as having been previously stated his- torically and directly at the close of the preceding section, other sections as already remarked, and as we shall further see here- after, similarly beginning with a note of time and an assumption of the event last related now only indirectly mentioned. Indeed, considering the analogy of other portions, and the important place the Father of the faithful occupies in this history, one can scarcely help thinking that this section was originally here pre- faced with the title, " These are the generations of Abram." To make its story more complete, it repeats the taking of his family and substance that he had gotten in Haran, Lot's departure with him, their setting out from Haran to go into the land of Canaan, and their arrival in that land. All this, except the actual arrival ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 329 in Canaan, having been implied in the previous subsection has, on the score of this repetition, been assigned to the Elohist as inter- polated in the Jehovistic narrative, whereas it is really only the usual prefatory matter to make the new subsection complete in itself. In the course of this subsection it is mentioned that the Canaanite was in the land when Abra'm arrived there. In the next subsection the same fact is again repeated, in connexion with Abram's return after a short interval spent in the land of Egypt, the occasion of the repetition being to render the part of the narrative where it occurs more intelligible. Then follows the subsection, ch. xiv., which, as in so many other cases, commences with a note of time, " In the days of Amraphel," here specified in a direct form, as not having been previously mentioned. This passage is very complete in itself, but connected with the preceding one so far as that, when reference is made to Lot and to Abram, it finds Lot at Sodom and Abram at Mamre, where the previous chapter had left them. This, however, is not mereh^ assumed, but made the subject of express mention when they first appear in the narrative. And to give greater completeness and independence to the story, Lot is described as " Abram's brother's son who dwelt in Sodom," and Abram as " Abram the Hebrew," who " dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite." The mention of these particulars, so well known in the pre\dous narrative, afibrds as much difiiculty if the passage is assigned to the Jehovist, as if it be given to the Elohist ; and hence Dean Stanley and others seem disposed to regard it as a more ancient document incorporated in the history at its proper place. It might be so ; but the repetition of the particulars now adverted to does not necessitate such a supposi- tion, as it falls in with the general practice, observable through- out the book, of repeating in each distinct narrative such particulars as may have seemed needful to give it greater completeness in itself. The only real difiiculty is presented by the description of Abram as "the Hebrew." But this is 330 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. expressed in the subjectivity of the messenger that came to inform him of what had happened, not of the writer himself. One that had escaped from the disaster, a native of Palestine, would think and speak of Abram as " the Hebrew," whether this description be referred to his descent from Eber, or to his arrival in Canaan from the other side of the river. The writer throws himself into the spirit of the fugitive, and repre- sents him therefore as telling " Abram the Hebrew" what had happened. The fifteenth chapter,^ which has also a note of time referring to what was previously mentioned, — " After these things," — contains an account of God's appearing to Abram, and promising him a son notwithstanding his complaint of child- lessness, with an engagement that his seed should possess the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Then the next chapter contains an account of Abram's connexion with Hagar, her flight and return, and the birth of Ishmael. Now, these two narratives are quite distinct and complete in themselves, but at the point where they meet^ we find a striking instance of repetition. In xvi. 1, 2, we are told that Sarai, Abram's wife, was childless, that she had a maid named Hagar, an Egyptian, and that she proposed to Abram, as the Lord had restrained herself from bearing, that he should enable her to obtain children by Hagar. And we are informed that Abram hearkened unto her voice. Im- mediately after, however, in v. 3, we are told that Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyj)tian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram to Avife. The repetition of this with the same expressions designating Sarai as Abram's wife, and Hagar as her maid and an Egyptian, has been supposed to indicate that these passages have been put together from difierent original sources, the first, second, and third verses being by some assigned to three difierent authors. The repetition, however, may mucli more simply and naturally be explained by supposing that verses 1 and 2 belong to the previous narrative, with which they very readily connect themselves, inasmuch as ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 331 the promise of seed wMcli should jDOSsess the land is thus con- trasted with Sarai's barrenness, while she, despairing of the fulfilment of the promise in seed born of herself, suggests how its accomplishment may be otherwise brought about. Here, indeed, as elsewhere, the connexion is lost by the English " now " at the commencement of ch. xvi. But this represents only the Hebrew 1, which might even be adversative and rendered but. At any rate, there is nothing to hinder, and much to recommend the joining of xvi. 1, 2 to the subsection contained in ch. xv. And then the new subsection, containing the story of Hagar's flight, commences with the customary repetition sufiicient to make it complete in itself, the note of time being added to this prefatory matter with the same allusive reference to the particular by which the time is reckoned, as observed before in similar cases : — " After ten years of Abram to dwell in the land of Canaan." This seems a much more probable solution of the difficulty than the supposition that a compiler should so foolishly have repeated the same matter from different sources, as the partitionists maintain here solely on the ground of the repetition itself. The next instance of similar repetition offers itself at the close of ch. xvi. There we have it stated in v. 15, that " Hagar bare Abram a son, and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael." Moreover, the narrative has already given sufficient indication of Abram's age at this time. His union with Hagar took place, as we are told in y. 3, after he had dwelt ten years in Canaan, his age at his removal to that country from Haran having been previously said to have been seventy-five. Thus the connexion with Hagar was formed at eighty-five, and in due course Hagar conceived and bare Ishmael. But though all this is quite cle^r, still at the end of the chapter, immediately after the preceding statement of the birth of this son, Abram's age at his birth is specified ; and even if it might have occurred to the writer to repeat the age, there was no sufficient reason for adding the clause, " When Hagar bare Ishmael to Abraham." Accord- ingly this repetition has been made a ground of assigning the 332 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. last verse to a different auttor from the writer of tlie preceding. It is a better ground, however, for detaching it from the pre- ceding section, and pLacing it as the prefatory commencement of the next subsection with the customary recapitulation. This will then commence with the renewed mention that "Abram was fourscore and six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram,'' the mention of this event being, as in the note of time in the other instances already mentioned and to be remarked hereafter, given in the allusive form, — " Abram was fourscore and six years old at Hagar bear- ing Ishmael to Abram," — this event having been just before stated directly, and therefore now only alluded to as already known. And then the narrative proceeds to say, that when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared unto him. The reference to Abram's age at Ishmael's birth in the commencement of this new section was conducive to its complete- ness and independence, inasmuch as Abram, doubtful of the pros- pect of a son by Sarai, refers to Ishmael as more likel}^ to fulfil the promise, and says, " 0 that Ishmael might live before thee." And then in connexion with this, the mention of Abram's age in xvii. 1 serves to indicate the age of Ishmael when he was cir- cumcised, within the limit of the 23rd verse, which as we shall presently see is the conclusion of this section, that age being again mentioned in v. 24. Another instance of this repetition, as just intimated, will be found after the history of the institution of circumcision in ch. xvii. That chapter begins by stating that Abram was ninet}' years old and nine when Jehovah appeared to him. After setting forth the various particulars and promises connected with the command to circumcise himself and his household, it states in v. 23 that " Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house ; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the self-same day, as God had said unto him." This narrative is here complete ; yet immediately after we find ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 333 the same particulars specified again, Abraham's age, and Ishmael's, which were both already implied in the previous account, and the circumcising of Abraham and the men of his house : — " Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son, and all the men of his house born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circum- cised." Now if this latter passage belongs to the preceding section, we have a quite needless repetition of a long series of particulars, while at the same time we have in the next chapter an entirely new subject, on a new occasion, commencing with the words, " Jehovah appeared unto kim," not to Abraham, a manner of commencement not to be expected in a perfectly new passage. But if we take the verses containing the repeti- tion as an introduction to this new subsection, we explain the repetition, as in accordance with the custom of the writer to give a recapitulatory preface to his new sections, and we remove the abruptness of the commencement of ch. xviii. "We have also here again to remark the agreement of this as a commencement with so many other instances, in the allusive form in which the matter connected with the indication of time is mentioned, as already known by the statement of it at the close of the previous section : — "Abraham was ninety years old and nine in his cir- cumcising the flesh of his foreskin," But it ought to appear that some reason existed for repeating in this introduction the matter which had been just previously told. That will be found in the connexion between Abraham's obedience to this trying command, which was the implied condition of his having a son, and the renewed appearance of Jehovah to repeat the promise shortly after. The expression repeated in this passage, "on the self- same day," will in this part, taken separately from the preceding passage, mean the self- same day when he was ninety-nine years old, just as in the previous use of the same expression it not 334 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. merely denotes tlie da}' Jehovah appeared to him, but that on which he was ninety-nine years old. Again an instance of like repetition, with the same allusive re- ference to the event from which it sets out, will be found in ch. xix. 29, " And it came to pass, in Elohim destropng the cities of the plain, that Elohim remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt." Here the repetition falls in with the Elohistic character of the passage, as a supposed evidence of different authorship ; and this verse is accordingly regarded as the Elohist's account of the overthrow of the cities of the plain, the previous narrative being the Jehovist's history of the same event. Indeed, apart from the Elohistic character of the verse, there is nothing unreasonable in regarding it as a concluding recaj)itulation of the preceding history. It seems, however, more in accordance with analogy to treat it as the recapitulatory pre- face to the story of Lot and his two daughters. Preparatory to this tale of wickedness, the divine vengeance on the cities of the plain for like abominations is indicated, and at the same time it is intimated that the divine interposition by which Lot was de- livered was not for the sake of himself or his wicked daughters, but for Abraham's sake. By this means the divine favour as exerted on behalf of so undeserving a household cannot be adduced as an objection to the moral government of God, or an encourage- ment to such vice. The Elohistic character is thus accounted for also. The author's thoughts were directed merely to the divine origin of the interposition, and therefore, as will be more fully shown hereafter, Elohim is the name suitable to the occasion. The next subsection seems to extend from Abraham's journey southward, xx. 1, to the birth and circumcising of Isaac, there being, as will be noticed hereafter, a close connexion between the close of ch. XX. and the commencement of xxi. Then takingr the mention of Abraham's age in xxi. 5, " at Isaac his son being born to him," and this allusive mention of Isaac's birth, as indi- cating, after the example of other instances, the commencement ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 335 of a new story, the passage describing tlie circumstances which occasioned Sarah's displeasure, and the consequent casting out of Hagar and Ishmael, down to Ishmael's marriage, may be regarded as a new subsection ; and we may thus explain the fulness of the description in v. 9 of Ishmael as " the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham," as adding to the com- pleteness of this portion, though it would suffice in a continu- ous and undivided narrative to have simply named him. The partitionists assign this and the preceding verse to the compiler of the entire, called by Davidson the Redactor. The repetition, as we have seen, affords no ground for assuming a different author ; but they wish to make the second departure of Hagar to be only another version of her previous flight, and the supposed Redactor must accordingly invent a cause for the second flight which he makes this passage to describe. We now 23ass over a number of portions distinct and complete in themselves, but not pi'esenting any instances of the reca- pitulation we have been observing, except those which occur at the commencement of the principal sections or Toledoth in xxv. 12 and 19, 20, which have been already noticed. The subsection, however, which commences with xxvi. 1 and extends to the end of V. 33, presents a slight instance of this characteristic allusion in the reference to the first famine that had been in the days of Abraham, as distinguished from that which now takes place, and which leads Isaac to go and sojourn in the country of the Philistines. The two last verses of ch. xxvi., describing Esau's marriages, are wholly unconnected with the subject of Avhat precedes, but are needful to explain the last verse of the next chapter, and therefore properly belong to it, and form the commencement of a new sec- tion. Having thus, apart from anything in the form of expres- sion separated these from what precedes, and connected them with the sequel, we notice, as confirming our previous observation of the significance of the note of time at the commencement of a new section, the mention of Esau's age when he married. But 336 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. as nothing had been previously said of his marriages, the allusive form of reference to them is not adopted here, but they are mentioned in a direct historical manner. Then the section which commences with this mention of Esau's marriage, and describes the blessing surreptitiously obtained by Jacob, extends to the consequent sending of Jacob to Padan-Aram to Laban. This subsection extends to the end of xxviii. 4, and. a new section commences at v. 5y with repetition of Isaac's sending Jacob away,^ and a renewed description of Laban as " the son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Eebekah, Jacob's and Esau's mother." This repetition, strange in an unbroken narrative, comes quite naturally, as in other cases, at the beginning of a new section. It seems to make the narrative of this important part of Jacob's history complete in itself, and is in exact accordance with the other instances exhibited. Then the portion which describes Jacob's return extends from xxxii. 1 to xxxiii. 17, and leaves Jacob at Succoth. A new subsection then begins with Jacob's settlement in Shechem and relates the story of Dinah. In the prefatory verse prefixed to this narrative it is said that " Jacob came to Shalem a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan-Aram." This latter clause is supposed to be an inter- polation, as unnecessary to the history which has already had Jacob in several other places since he came back from Syria. But in fact, this mention of the retiu-n from Padan-Aram is only a repetition to give fulness to the new story and mark its place in the narrative. Taken in immediate connexion with the previous verse, it would indeed seem strange as thus mentioning that the arrival at Shalem was on the return from Padan-Aram. But as the commencement of a new section, it naturally, and in accordance with other subsections, indicates a point of time, for which piirpose, not the immediately preceding event, but the general period of the return from Syria is adopted as sufficiently exact in the writer's mind. This more general note of time, instead of the last mentioned particular, indicates a suspension ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 337 of continuity in the writer's thoughts, as natural when entering on a new subject. Perhaps, indeed, this mention of the return from Syria, taken in connexion with the description of Shalem as in the land of Canaan, may in the present case be due to the fact, that this was the first place strictly in the land of Canaan to which Jacob came on his return from Syria, the places pre- \dously mentioned having been east of Jordan. At any rate, in a case clearly marked otherwise as the commencement of a new section, we have the note of time introduced in the same allusive manner, — " In his coming from Padan-Aram" — already noticed in so many other instances, where the particular referred to had been previously mentioned. In ch. XXXV. we have an account of Jacob's departure from Shechem, and of his arrival at Bethel, where he builds an altar, because God there ajDpeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother. The death of Deborah, Pebekah's nurse, is then mentioned, after which in v. 9 it is said that " God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-Aram, and blessed him." The unsuitableness of the mention of Deborah's death in this place has been noticed, as we shall see hereafter, as an evidence of interpolation. In a continuous narrative, it certainly does come in awkwardly between v. 7 and 9. But if we per- ceive that V. 9 begins a new section, this awkwardness dis- appears. At the close of the section describing Jacob's arrival at Bethel, this event having taken place there comes in very naturally. In r. 9 a new section, describing the important vision which took place there, begins. And in this commence- ment we have the same note of time similarly expressed as in xxxiv. 18, — " At his coming from Padan-Aram," — this being the second ap]3earance of God to Jacob after his return. "We may now pass to the history of Joseph, and it will be seen that the first lesser portion ends with Joseph's sale into Egypt at the close of ch. xxxvii. Then is introduced the history of Judah's marriage and family relations, and this is succeeded with a new subsection in which Joseph is in Poti- 22 338 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHOESHIP. phar's house. This new part recapitulates the sale into Egypt, and the rejDetition has been taken advantage of to make out that there were two different accounts of the sale now blended into one, the purchaser having been originally different in each story. The interposition of the narrative respecting Judah and his family would, however, naturally account for the repetition, even if such repetitions were not common in this book. But even sup- posing that ch. xxxviii. is here interposed out of its proper place, the custom of recapitulating certain prefatory matter at the com- mencement of the several lesser sections, would sufficiently account for the repetition in the present case. In ch. xli. we have a slighter instance of this repetition. Joseph on his exaltation went out from Pharaoh in authority over the land of Egypt, a section evidently closing with this announcement in v. 45. A new section then commences describing the course of his admi- nistration. This begins with a statement, as in other like cases, of Joseph's age at this important point in his history when he stood before Pharaoh, and adds that he went out, from Pharaoh of course, this expression being repeated from the preceding- verse. And here, too, the reference to his standing before Pharaoh is in the allusive form on which so much stress has been already laid : — " Joseph was thirty years old in his stand- ing before Pharaoh." An instance of great significance and moment in the present enquiry is at the commencement of the part which relates the arrival in Egypt of Jacob's sons for the purchase of corn, ch. xlii. Tlie preceding chapter at its close represents the famine as extend- in o- over all lands, Joseph as established in full authority and havino- the issue of food at his disposal, and all countries coming to buy corn from him. While the famine is thus sore in all lands, Jacob learns that there is corn in Egypt, and bids his sons o-o down to buy, but will not send his j^oungest son Benja- min. The writer, having thus related the mission of the sons of Jacob, describes their arrival with others who came to buy " for the famine was in the land of Canaan," and tells us that ORGANIC STRtrCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 339 Joseph was governor, and that it was he who sold to all that came. This repetition of particulars, already so fully set forth at the close of the previous chapter, has great weight with " The Layman," as evidence of a combination of different narratives. He says, "It will be observed that the writer has distinctly laid down, (1) Joseph's position in Egypt, (2) his selling corn to the people, (3) the extension of the famine to Canaan, and (4) the visit of his ten brethren for the purpose of buying corn. He is ready, therefore, to proceed at once to their reception by Joseph. Yet strange to say, every one of these four points is again rejjeated in the two next verses, before this is entered upon. ' And the sons of Israel came to buy grain among those that came ; for the famine was in the land of Canaan. And Joseph was the governor over the land, he that sold grain to all the people of the land ; and Joseph's brethren came,' etc. (xlii. 5, 6). Is it likely that any writer would have thus needlessly repeated himself, or have taken such pains to reiterate points on which he had already fully informed his readers only two or three sentences before ? Regard these verses, however, as part of a different narrative which the Jehovist here transcribes verbatim, having replaced the previous portion by his own composition, and all is simple and natural."^ Now it is first to be observed that the repetition marked (4) in this passage is really no gratuitous repetition at all. In v. 3, " Joseph's ten brethren went down," etc., the departure of ten is told in opposi- tion to Benjamin's remaining at home. In v. 4 their arrival is mentioned, and that not simply, but in the company of others who came with them, perhaps from the land of Canaan. And this seems of some significance to the narrative ; coming in the crowd of purchasers, they might easily have escaped the notice of Joseph, who recognised them notwithstanding. The other repetitions lose all their significance as evidences of compilation, ' Mosaic Origin of the Pentateuch, p. 35. It ■will be seen hereafter that other partitionists leave all this to the Jehovist down to the end of v. 5, notwithstanding that this verse contains two of the repetitions complained of. 340 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. wlien it is perceived that a new subsection of the narrative commences witli oh. xlii. 5, and that the writer, according to his custom, repeats as preliminary to this part of his story the particulars under consideration, in order to make it more com- plete and independent. When this is perceived it renders the whole matter much more simple and natural than the sup- position of the needless introduction of a portion of a different writing repeating the same particulars, — so much more simple and natural, that it seems only necessary to point it out in order to gain the preference for it. And we may in this case also perhaps regard the expression, "In the midst of the comers," as an allusive indication of the date from which this part of the narrative sets out, so common at the com- mencement of new sections, and here equivalent to saying the sons of Israel came at the time already indicated, when others of all lands were coming. In xlvii. 27 the narrative of Jacob's settlement and resi- dence in Goshen till his death and burial commences. It is true his settlement in Groshen after his arrival in Egypt, and the gift to him of a possession there, were previousl}^ mentioned ; but this being the commencement of a new subsection, the same particulars are repeated : " And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen ; and they had possessions therein." It will now perhaps be admitted that the examples of this kind of repetition are sufficiently nimierous to establish it as one of the marked characteristics of the structure of the book. And if in some cases the subdivision might be less apparent but for the repetition at those particular places, yet the prevalence of it in more decided cases Avill justify the sujDposition of a sub- division as thus marked in the more doubtful instances. The indications ascertained in several instances, in the case of the principal sections, become a guide for the partition of the sub- ordinate sections also. It may, indeed, have been that these ORGANIC STRUCTURE AND DIVISIONS. 341 subdivisions had no other distinguishing marks in the original writing, than these very evidences of a resumption of his subject after a pause and suspension of his thoughts in the writer's mind. But the phenomenon of these repetitions having to be explained, the manner of accounting for them, which has now been proposed, it may be said with confidence, is much more probable, than that a writer compiling his narrative from several existing documents, or interpolating his own account with sentences adopted from another, should in the most need- less manner have repeated the same particulars with only slight verbal differences. And it is to be observed that these repeti- tions are not given in the form of authorities cited, but incor- porated into the substance of the narrative. Such a supposition as this is only one degree less improbable, than that the author writing entirely from himself should have in this manner im- mediately repeated his own statements but just made. This view of the organic structure of the book brings our general observations to a close, and we may now proceed to the special examination of the several portions in detail. 342 SPECIAL EXAMINATION". I— EXOEDIUM. Ch. I., II. 1-3. ELOHISTIC ACCOUNT OF CEEATION.i The reasons for limiting this passage to the third verse of the second chapter have been already discussed, and will be again adverted to, when the next section is under consideration. The passage is strictly Elohistic, the LXX. uniformly observing the same usage, 6 ^eo9. The subject being the creation of the universe in its widest generality, and in its most material aspect, the writer seems quite naturally to have designated the Creator by the term most applicable to him in the character of abstract deity, a term in its import significant of his omnipo- tence. Hengstenberg remarks that as regards the creation of man in God's likeness, it would have been improper to have used Jehovah. So far as Jehovah is expressive of the one attribute of eternal self-existence, there could be no resemblance from the very nature of the case in a created and therefore not self-existent being. But that the author adopted Elohim throughout with a design, as Hengstenberg thinks, of represent- ing in these early chapters the gradual transition, in man's appre- hension, from Elohim to Jehovah seems quite too artificial a supposition. The nature of the subject, the display of the divine power in creation, rather than the introduction of God in personal relations with mankind, seems to have led to the 1 In this and similar instances throu2:hout tlie sequel, the words Elohistic and Jehovistic are used, not to denote supjDosed different autliorsliip, but the prevailing name of God adopted in each passage, whether Elohim or Jehovah. CH. I., II. 1—3. 343 spontaneous adoption of the general, in preference to tlie special and proj^er name. The only place in which the projaer name would have been otherwise more suitable, as representing God in personal relation to man at his creation, is one in which, for the cause just mentioned, as noticed by Hengstenberg, that proper name would have been quite inapplicable, as more than any other name expressive of the difference rather than the likeness between the Creator and the created. The Bishop of Natal, Pent., Pt. ii., p. 175, insists on the frequency with which the name Elohim is used in this passage : — " In i.-ii. 3 we have only Elohim 35 times, and in xxiv., only Jehovah 19 times. Can any one believe that these two passages were written by one and the same writer?" How he makes out that xxiv. contains only Jehovah 19 times it is hard to discover ; but as regards any weight attached to the frequency of Elohim in the present passage the argument is perfectly futile. If the writer had both names in common use, and was otherwise indifferent as to his choice, the general unity of this passage in substance and in form, and the regularity with which, at each succeeding mention of Grod, he is introduced, as it were with a standing formula, " And God said," " and God saw," " and God created," " and God blessed," would have naturally occasioned the use of the same name throughout, God beino: mentioned in no other connexion after the introductory verses. And then the subject matter being uniformly such as made the general name more suitable, the whole must be regarded, not as presenting 35 independent instances of the use of Elohim, as the Bishop seems to treat it, but as if the word were used only once, all the repetitions of it being of no more weight in this enquiry, than the pronoun which might all through be substituted for it after the first use of the word. This is not the only instance, as will be seen, in which such a frequent repetition, which takes place as a matter of course, as it were in a recurring formula, is relied on by the Bishop as exhibiting so many independent instances of a particular usage. 344 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. n.— THE GENEKATIONS OF HEAVENS AND EAETH. §. 1. Ch. II. 4-III, PARADISE AND THE FALL. JEHOVAH-ELOHISTIC WITH AN ELOHISTIC PASSAGE. The reasons for making this section to commence with v. 4, have been already considered. The uniformity with which the formula, " These are the generations," stands at the head of each succeeding principal section of the entire book, the variation of the expression when we find a concluding formula, such as " these are the sons," " these are the families," at the close of genealogies where the other formida stands at the head of the section, and the impossibility of dividing v. 4 on grammatical grounds, as well as by reason of the poetical parallelism and repetition of the ideas expressed, as already noted, make it quite evident that this is the true point of division between the first and second sections. Bishop Colenso, Pt. iv., p. 19, quotes Delitzsch as an authority for dividing the fourth verse, on the grounds that the heavens and the earth in the first clause have the articles, while earth and heavens in the second have none, that the expression " in their creation" in the first clause corres- ponds to the Elohistic language in v. 2, " in the day of their creation," and that this clause suits best the first account of creation in ch. i., in which alone the actual creation of the earth and heaven is described. As regards the j)resence of the article, however, before heavens and earth in the first clause, and its absence in the second, it has already been observed that this difference is only apparent. These words in the first clause are in Stat, constr., being governed by Toledoth. The article belongs to this, and is only transferred according to the rule to the genitives following. There is no reason, therefore, for separating the clauses on this ground, as heavens and earth may be taken indefinitely in the first as well as the second. Then the expression, "in the day of their creation," does not occur CH. II. 4-III. 345 at all in v. 2, but in v. 3 there is tlie expression " whicli God created to make," and the word "make" connects this with the second clause of v. 4, just as much as the word " created" does with the first. And as to the creation of the heavens and the earth being only described in the first chapter, it has already been noted that the expression in v. 4 is not " the generation" in the sense of the generating or production of them, but the genera- tions, or events consequent on their creation as having already taken place. The Bishop doubts the correctness of the division of V. 4, but observes in regard to it, p. 21 : — " In any case the involved construction in y. 4, when compared with the verses which precede and follow it, is a sign that it does not proceed in an independent original form from the pen of either of the principal writers, but contains expressions of both fused together, to form the connecting link between two distinct narratives." He seems wholly unconscious that what he calls the involved construction is really only an instance of the inversion of ideas in the parallel clause, which is an occasional ornament in Hebrew poetry, — the order in the first clause being heavens, earth, creating, and in the second making, earth, and heavens. The Jehovistic character of the present passage has already been noticed, the reason for the adoption of the proper and personal name, as suited to the anthropomorphic character ' of the representation, and at the same time the identification of the Being thus designated at the outset by a revived or newly introduced name, with the Godhead as described by the generic name Elohim, an identification efiected by the combination of both names, have been pointed out, and the cause of the Elohistic exceptions indicated. The Bishop adduces the anthro- pomorphisms of this and other Jehovistic passages as a peculi- arity of the Jehovistic writer (Pt. iv. p. 24). But, in fact, instead of the anthropomorphisms being an independent characteristic of the supposed Jeh ovist, the Jehovistic character of a passage may rather be due to the use of anthropomorphisms. In the present passage God is introduced in a highly anthropomorphic 346 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. character, and entering into the closest personal relations with, man. A proper and personal name would in such a case naturally suggest itself to the writer's mind in preference to the general term significant of the Deity. But if the name Jehovah, according to one interpretation of Exod. vi. 3, were of only recent introduction amongst the children of Israel, the writer, in choosing it in preference to any proper name previously in use and more familiar to his readers, would seem to have thought it desirable on this the first occasion of his using it to assert by the combination of Jehovah and Elohim, not simply the godhead, but the exclusive godhead of Jehovah. To have put such an assertion into the mouth of the tempter or of Eve would have been j^lainly out of place, and in that part of the narrative the choice was therefore between Jehovah and Elohim simply, the latter being adopted, partly perhaps from an un- willingness to put the name Jehovah into the mouth of the tempter on grounds of religious feeling, but at an}^ rate from an instinctive sense of dramatic propriety, which in subsequent parts of the book seems to have hindered the writer from putting this name into the mouth of any not of the chosen race, except where special reasons for the contrary existed. In conversing with the tempter. Eve would naturally be represented as following his usage. In this part of the narrative the LXX. agree with the Hebrew in using onl}^ 6 6eo) = 1 25 Elohim, 1 » = I 26 Jehovah, 1 )) = L T. 1 Elohim, 2 )) = 1 22-24 Elohim, 3 )) = L 29 Jehovah, 1 !> = 1 vi. 2-4 Elohim, 2 )) = I 3 Jehovah, 1 V = 1. 5-8 Jehovah, 4 >) = 1 9-22 Elohim, 5 n = ] vii. 1-5 Jehovah, 2 )) = 1 9 Elohim, 1 = L 16 Elohim, 1 >t = I Jehovah, 1 )j = 1 iii. 1 Elohim, 2 ») = L 15 Elohim, I i> = I 20, 21 Jehovah, 3 )) = 1 ix. 1-6 Elohim, 2 )) — L 8-17 Elohim, 4 )> == ] 26 Jehovah, 1 >> = 1 Elohim, 1 )) — 27 Elohim, 1 = ] X. 9 Jehovah, 2 )j = 1 xi. 5-9 Jehovah, 5 )) = 1 15 12 Hence for the purposes of the present enquiry, and as evidence of any predilection for either name, the case is just as if in these eleven chapters, in the order of succession and at the distances here indicated, the name Elohim recurred singly 15 times, and the name Jehovah 12 times. Had these names been thus thinly scattered, and their places in other instances been supplied as they might, and in other languages would for the most part have been, by pronouns or other devices, it is probable the Jehovist and Elohist as sepai^te writers would never have been dreamt of. It is only the Oriental, or at any rate the Hebraistic, habit of repetition which we Westerns try to avoid, that has given a supposititious importance to the recurrence and alternation of these names. 26 402 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. (2.) There are several phrases and expressions which are thought to distinguish the different writers, besides those which have been noticed as we have proceeded with our inquiry. Some of these will be best examined after we have gone through the entire book, such as the use of the two forms of the first personal pronoun, and the use of the third personal pronoun, t<^n, the employment of the particle HX as a preposition in the sense of with, the use of the particle D5, the word HNID for an hundred in stat. constr. or the contrarj^, and and some others. A few that more particularly belong to these earlier chapters, may, however, be noticed here. 1. The compound TOVlu^'O) "from above, upwards," in vi. 16 and vii. 20, is a mere accidental coincidence. — 2. The expression, " creepeth upon the earth," repeated in the enumer- ations of different creatures, is adopted as a matter of course from ch. i. It is sometimes " upon the ground," as in vii. 8, sometimes " upon the earth," as in vii. 21. The Elohist has both words, " earth" and "ground," in ch. i., and the Jehovist both in ii. 6, 7. — 3. In the same connexion the use of the words ■pl^J^ and 2J^^^ is insisted on. Both, whether as verbs or sub- stantives, occur in the Elohistic parts. They are distinguished as denoting different creatures in ch i., and so are enumerated separately in the history of the deluge, w'hich follows the enu- meration of the creatures in that chaiDter. The substantive 2^^*) is used also in the passages ascribed to the Jehovist, vi. 7 and vii. 23. In the Jehovistic commencement of ch. vii., the men- tion being only of clean and unclean animals, there was no occasion for mentioning these words, and though there is no mention of Y^^ in the Jehovistic enumerations in vi. 7 and vii. 23, yet it is to be observed that it is also omitted in the Elo- histic vii. 8, while UJ2'^, is specified, as also is the case in vii. 14. — 4. The expressions, "all flesh," and, "wherein is breath of life," are said to distinguish the Elohist, while every living substance, D^p^ri"73, and " in whose nostrils was breath of life," in vii. 22, 23, distinguish the Jehovist. But the fact is CH. I. TO XI. 26. 403 only, that advantage is taken of the recurrence of the former of these expressions with others, in the copiousness of the writer's style, to assign v. 23 to the Jehovist, of whose style it cannot then in turn become a test. The expression, " wherein is breath of life," is referred to i. 30, as Elohistic, and " in whose nostrils was breath of life," to ii. 7, as Jehovistic. But in i. 30 the expression is not " breath of life," but " a soul of life," or " living soul," as in the Jehovistic ii. 7 ; and in vii. 22, we have the same phrase, " breath of life," as in vi. 17, with the addition of the word " nostrils," and the word translated " breath " in ii. 7.^ Tlfe so-called Elohistic and Jehovistic passages are by these expressions closely bound together, instead of being distin- guished and sejDarated. Much cannot now be made of the ex- pression, " all flesh," apart from that which is connected with it in these passages of chapters vi. and vii. — 5. The word DIHri "the deep," in Gen. i. 2, vii. 11, and viii. 2, is thought to characterise the Elohist, and its use in the latter places to have reference to the waters below the firmament in ch. i., as dis- tinguished from the waters above, to which the windows of heaven woidd have reference. Whatever may be thought of this supposed reference, the word itself — the use of which in ch. vii. and viii. is only equivalent to one instance, the second being a mere rejaetition of the first — can scarcely be regarded as specially indicating the Elohist, when it is to be found, as its only subsequent place of occurrence, in xlix. 25, which is assigned to the Jehovist. — 6. The verb 711(1 in the sense of " began,'' in vi. 1, ix. 20, x. 8, and xi. 6, as compared with iv. 26, is thought to indicate the Jehovist. But the conjugation E. Gen. i. 30— n*n \y^\ i2-x'x J. Gen. ii. 7-D^-:n no;*'? VQN? E. Gen. vi. 17— D\*n n-n'i2~it?>x J. Gen. vii, 22— D''?n mi nop'j x'n It is plain from the comparison of these phrases that the forms of expression are equally characteristic of hoth the supposed writers. 404 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. is different, if the meaning is not doubtful, in iv. 26. Its use in this sense, however, appears to be confined to passages given to the Jehovist, valeat quantum, only that some give ix. 20 to a different writer. — 7. In vi. 6, D^yfl'Jj " grieved himself," is compared with the word p^^y for "sorrow" in iii. 16, 17, and in v. 29, which latter, however, is merely a reference to the former. The use of the verb in one place and the noun in another will hardly be thought to indicate any distinctive similarity of style. — 8. The use of iM^ijS'! £^''5Stj for male and female, in vii. 2, which however the Samaritans do not follow, is adduced as a Je- hovistic peculiarity ; but as it is admitted that immediately after, in v. 3, the words iised by the Elohist, Hllpi^ *1^T, are also employed, much weight is not attached to this pecidi- arity. — 9. The form ri/^ijt, " food," in vi. 21 and ix. 3, as com- pared with i. 29, is regarded as an Elohistic distinction ; but in vi. 21 we have also the form /DNJ^, which is likewise used in the Jehovistic ii. 2 and iii. 6. — 10, l^^"* in vi. 5, and viii. 21, denoting imagination or figment of the mind, is compared with the verb ^\ used in ch. ii. to express \hQ formation of man and animals of the dust of the earth. But, besides the difference between the words, as verb and noun, the use is figurative in one place and quite literal in the other. The comparison is therefore far from indicating any Jehovistic similarity of style. — 11. Because nD'in is used in vii. 22 to denote the dry land, while Hii'^'' is used for the same purpose in i. 9, 10, this difference is thought to suggest different writers ; as if the same writer might not have varied his expression, and that after a sufiicient interval to have lost sight of the word previously used. Surely this is great trifling. So is also the reference to D^p^ in vii. 4 and 23, as characterising the Jehovist ; the latter follows as a matter of course from the former : every living substance was to be des- troyed, and so it is declared that every living substance was des- troyed, the sameness of the writer being admitted on all hands as regards these passages. The same may be said of y"l5 " to die," in vi. 17 and vii. 21 ; and of n*ri for a wild beast in ch. i.. CH. I. TO XI. 26. 405 in vii. 14, and in viii. 1, 17, 19, as Eloliistic words. If the sepa- rated parts were proved to belong to different writers, tlien these coincidences would to some extent countenance the appropria- tion of the parts where they occur to the same one of them ; but they give no help to the separation of these passages from the parts assigned to the other. It is not clear, indeed, that the Bishop means to use these comparisons farther than as indica- tions of the sameness of authorship, except when he contrasts them with other forms of expression. But as no one questions the sameness of their authorship, something more seems to be suggested, as if these resemblances tended to differentiate the passages in which they occur, from others from which they are simply absent. If they are not distinctive, it is mere trifling to adduce them. — 12. There are a few more similar resemblances, to which as these remarks apply, it will be enough simply to indicate them. Thus i. 31, " Elohim saw . . . and behold," and vi. 12, "Elohim saw . . . and behold:" iii. 16, "Thy desire," -3tc., and iv. 7, "his desire," etc.: ii. 19, "to see," and viii. 8, " to see :" iii. 23, 11?^*, " send forth," applied to exclusion from Eden, and viii. 8, 12, applied to sending the dove from the ark ; but in the former case, the word is used with a paranomastic reference to its previous use in a quite different sense, v. 22, " Lest he send forth his hand . . . therefore Jehovah sent him forth :" in iv. 2, " added to bear," and viii. 10, 12, "added to send," and " added not to return," — the usual way of expressing repetition : 7 to signify the time when, in iii. 8, "at the cool of the day," and viii. 11, " at the time of evening : " " be fruitful and multi- ply," in i. 22, 28, and afterwards in the Elohistic parts of the history of the deluge, where, however, it is mere reference to ch. i. : beginning of arts, in ch. iii., and of making wine in ix. 20, 21 ; but here it is not wine that began to be made, but Noah began to be a husbandman, which Cain was before ; the expres- sion, moreover, being different, as Cain was " a servant of the groTmd," and Noah " a man of the ground : " the covenant to be established in vi. 18, compared with that in ix. 11 ; but 406 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. though there is verbal similitude, the covenants are different : curses in iii., and the curse of Canaan in ix., besides reference to the curse of the ground in v. 29 and viii. 21, where, however, the word for curse is different : 1)*^ ^P^, ^^ ^^i^- ^^) compared with a similar phrase in viii. 12 : ^^^^5, " on account of," in iii. 17 and viii. 21 in reference to the curse of the ground : niSH, " to smite," in iv. 15 and viii. 21 : "remember," in viii. 1 and ix. 16 : jHi for set ov place, of the heavenly bodies, in Gen. i., and of the bow in ix. 13 ; but the word is not used out of its common sense in either place : " make a name," in xi. 4, compared with "men of name," in vi. 4 : Jehovist's knowledge of geography in ch. X., compared with like knowledge in ch. ii., which latter is no knowledge at all, as it is plain no such four rivers proceed from a common source (see Dis. I., pt. ii.) : I'l^), in ii. 10, for the dividing of the river of Eden, and the same word in x. 5 for the dispersion of tribes : \7V. " was born" in iv. 18, and like word in X. 1 : ''Hy^, "everything living," in iii. 20 and viii. 21 : distributive use of 5 in vii. 21, viii. 17, and ix. 2 : " animal of the field" in ii. 19, 20, and iii. 1, 14, contrasted with "animal of the earth" in ix. 2, 10 : " and to Seth, even to him was born," in iv. 26, as of Shem in x. 21 ; but from the position of 5^^n"D5 in the latter place, it is probable that it should be construed with what follows, " also he was the father," not " to him also was born : " H^H XIH, he was, in iv. 20, 21, and x. 9 : p'Sy, therefore, in ii. 24 and x. 9 : the window in the ark in vi. 16 and in viii. 6 ; but the word for window is not the same in both places, which the Bishop would say in another case suggests a different writer.^ A large proportion of these phrases and words are such as might have occurred in any writings, being the current modes of expression for certain ideas, though it is freely 1 It seems scarcely necessary to mention the difference noticed between the Jehovistic expression, "thou and all thine house," in vii. 1, and the enumeration of the members of Noah's family in the Elohistic portions. The use of the word ''P02 is also noticed as a Jehovistic negative in iii. 11 and iv. 15. Its subsequent occur- rences are xxi. 26, which Davidson's table assigns to the junior Elohist, perhaps that he should not give this word to the earlier Elohist, xxxviii. 9, given to the Jehovist, xliii. 3, and xlvii. 18, passages given to Jehovist. CH. I. TO XI. 26. 407 admitted that they mark a considerable resemblance of style in passages, which were never doubted to have proceeded from the same author. They certainly do not distingiush the style from other parts sufficiently to indicate different author- ship. Many have been ascribed to the Jehovist in particular, simply on account of these resemblances ; that is, by a careful selection a style has been made, and then that style has been relied on in proof of a separation of the passages thus cha- racterised.— 13. In this portion, viz. in vi. 18 and in ch. ix., occurs the phrase n''13 Q'^pD, " to establish a covenant," which, with the phrase T)'*'lil tHX is supposed to characterise the Elohist, as distinguished froih T\'''l^ ^l-?) " ^° cut," etc., regarded as the Jehovistic formula. The passages in which either phrase occurs are too few to establish any decided usage in connexion with other Jeho\'istic or Elohistic peculiarities. The first mentioned expression occurs in only three instances in this book, except when it is repeated in this ninth chapter and in xvii., first in in vi. 18, then in ix. 9, simply repeated again in ix. 11, and referred to in v. 17, and thirdly in xvii. 7, 21, the other phrase n^lS tni being used in xvii. 2. Now in none of these places would the other formula, which implies the ratification of a covenant by sacrifice, have been properly used. In vi. 18 God simply makes a promise or engagement without any ratification or token whatever. In ch. ix. he makes an engagement or promise, giving as a sign or token of its fulfilment the bow in the cloud, in which connexion any reference to the slaying of a victim, as implied in the other phrase, would be plainly im- proper. In ch. xvii. the covenant of circumcision is established also without any sacrifice. God first says he will give his cove- nant, by which expression is to be understood the giving of the sign or token of the covenant, namely circumcision ; and so in V. 13 we read, " My covenant shall be in your flesh." Then in V. 7 he varies the expression, using the word " establish," literally, " cause to arise," the expression which would imply a sacrifice being quite consistently avoided. On the other hand. 408 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. the instances of the other formula all have reference to cases where the covenant is ratified by sacrifice. These are also few but clear. First, in ch. xv. Abraham by God's desire takes the victims and divides their carcases, and a smoking fire and burn- ing lamp passes between the parts. Immediately after this it is added, that on that day Jehovah made a covenant with him, the verb being here rTlS. Again, ui xxi. 27, 32, the Elohistic con- nexion of which is sought to be evaded by attributing that passage to the supposed junior Elohist, there was plainly a sacrifice of some of the sheep and oxen, of which it is said that Abraham "took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and both of them made a covenant." In xxvi. 28, 30, ia like manner, the feast mentioned in the latter verse plainly implies the slaying of a victim in ratification of the covenant, of which they afterwards eat. Lastly, in xxxi. 44 the same phrase is used, the projDOsi- tion there made for the establishing of a covenant being carried into effect by the sacrifice described in v. 54. The expressions therefore, as employed in this book, are not interchangeable in their signification. The one is used in reference to one particular manner of making a covenant, the others in reference to cases in which the former would be wholly out of place. The use of the expression in the other books of the Pentateuch is qiiite con- sistent with the usage in Genesis. In Exod. xxiv. 8 Moses at Horeb, sprinkling the people, says, " Behold the blood of the covenant which Jehovah hath made with you." This is plainly a case in which the covenant was made with sacrifice, and it is referred to again in several places, the same formula being used in reference to it.^ In Deut. xxix. 1 mention is made of a com- mand given to Moses to make a covenant with the children of Israel, beside the covenant he had made with them at Horeb. Doubtless the new covenant was to be made in the same manner as the former, and the significance of the expression is thus pre- served. This is again referred to under the same phrase in xxix. 14 and xxxi. 16. Besides these instances, the expression 1 Exod. xiiiy. 10, 27, Deut. iv. 23, v. 2, 3, ix. 9, x-xix. I. CH. I. TO XI. 26. 409 is used four or five times in speaking of a league or covenant between the children of Israel and other nations, where its appro- priateness is undoubted, the universal practice of ancient times having been to make a league by slapng a victim, as expressed. by the Greek opKca ri/jLvetv, repeated in the Latin fo&dus fer'ire. Wherever the expression is used therefore in the Pentateuch it has a s]Decial significance. The instances of the other phrases in these books are few. In Exod. vi. 4 the reference is probably to Gen. xvii., where the sacrificial phrase was inappropriate. In Lev. xxvi. 9, and Deut. viii. 18, the expression does not refer to the making of the covenant at all, but to the subsequent confirm- ing and making it good. This is also the case with the giving the covenant to Phinehas in Num. xxv. 12, which simply means the special appropriation to Phinehas of the already existing cove- nant of the priesthood. Thus the use of these varying formulae for the making of a covenant does not depend on the habitual absence of the idea of sacrifice from the mind of one writer, and its presence in the mind of another, as might be alleged, but on the circumstances related in each particidar case. If the covenant was one made by sacrifice, the sacrificial term was employed ; if it was a case in which no sacrifice was made, a more general form of ex- pression was used. In later books of the Bible the terms may have become more indiscriminate in their use, as when Job says, "I have made a covenant with mine eyes ; " but such is not the case in the Pentateuch. — 14. Another expression relied on as Jehovistic (Davidson, p. 30) is jH K^D, as in Gen. vi. 8, "" Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah." Its use in this Jehovistic connexion is easily explained. The proper expression is not simply " to find favour," but " to find favour in the eyes of" the person men- tioned, or in his sight. Through the entire book the expression is used about a dozen times, and in all these instances, except vi. 8, it is used in conversation with, and in reference to, men or angels appearing as men. It so happens that these conversations, on account of the brief and summary nature of the passages ascribed , to the Elohist after ch. xvii., are given to the full and copious 410 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. narrative of the Jehovist. Had the Elohistic narrative embraced many conversations of this kind, the phrase, which was plainly a conversational formula in common use, would doubtless be found in these also. As it is, there was scarcely an opportunity for its use by the Elohist in the passages ascribed to him, how- ever disposed he might have been to have so expressed himself on a suitable occasion. In the one instance in which it is used in speaking of God in this book, namely vi. 8, the anthropistic- character of the phrase naturally connects it with the personal,, and so frequently anthropomorphic, Jehovah. (3). A style of copious iteration,, coupled with a variation of expression which is repeated in the successive repetitions, has made possible, as regards the deluge, a separation into two nar- ratives, and at the same time the giving to each a certain semblance of proper style. However, even after this ingenious separation, it may perhaps be possible to detect sufficient marks of resemblance between the separated parts of this account of the deluge compared with one another, and with the other por- tions previously assigned to the different authors, as well as in those other portions compared together, to weaken the force of the characteristics just enumerated, and to give good ground for supposing that all proceeded from the same author. It will be well now to observe these points of resemblance between the parts assigned to the different authors, of whose writings the narrative is supposed to be compiled. 1. At the very outset the Elohistic Gen. i. announces the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the course of the chapter the expression is sometimes varied to make. Both are united, " created to make," in the last clause of this sec- tion, ii. 3. Then at the commencement of the Jehovistic account of the creation in ch. ii., there is mention of " heavens and earth in their creatftng,. in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens." And again we find the two expressions, "created" and " made," in the Jehovistic vi. 7, in reference to animals and man, as in i. 25-27. — 2. The Elohistic manner of expression, ch. i., " the face of the deep," " the face of the waters," " the CH. I. TO XI. 26. 411 face of all tlie earth," and in vii. 18, " the face of the waters," 23 and yiii. 13, " the face of the ground," is in like manner to be found in its several forms in the Jehovistic ii. 6, " all the face of the ground," iv. 14, "face of the ground," and again in vi. 1, 7, " face of all the earth," vii. 3, " face of the ground," vii. 4, and again in viii. 8, " face of all the earth," viii. 9, and again xi, 4, 8, 9. — 3. The antithetic forms in ch. i., characteris- ing the Elohist, such as heavens and earth, light and darkness, day and night, evening and morning, dry land and water, waters above the firmament and waters below the firmament, are not only paralleled in the subsequent Elohistic " clean beasts and beasts not clean," vii. 8, and " windows of heaven and fountains of the deep," vii. 11, but also in the Jehovistic " good and evil," ii. 17, " beast of the field and fowl of the air," ii. 19, seed of the woman and seed of the serpent, his heel and its head, iii. 16, " sons of God and daughters of men," vi. 2, " forty days and forty nights," viii. 4, " seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night," viii. 22. — 4. " Elohim saw," i. 12, etc., and vi. 12, and " Jehovah saw," vi. 5. — 5. " To rule over" expressed by 5 /^t2 in the Elohistic i. 16, and in the Jehovistic iii. 16 and iv. 7. — 6. Elohim speaks to himself in the plural form, " Let us make man," in i, 26, Jehovah Elohim, " The man is become as one of us," in iii. 22, and Jehovah, " Go to, let us go down," in xi. 7. — 7. In ch. i. man and other creatures are bid to be fruitful and multiply, and vi. 1, " men began to multiply." — 8, The enumeration of animals sub- jugated to man in i. 26 mentions the fishes of the sea, the fowl of the heavens, the cattle, and everything that creepeth on the earth ; and the animals to be destroyed besides man, in the Jehovistic vi. 7, are the cattle, the creeping things, and the fowl of the heavens, fishes being of course excluded there. And the same enumeration occurs again in the Jehovistic vii. 23. Thus if the other enumerations of ch. i. are paralleled in the subsequent Elohistic parts, this is in the Jehovistic. — 9. The Elohistic grant of food in ch. i., as far as expressed, is only of trees and 412 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. herbs ; so likewise tlie Jehovistic gi^ant in eli. ii. is only of tlie fruit of trees, no grant of flesh for food being there expressed. It may be allowed to the Bishop of Natal, that iv. 4 implies the use of animal food. "The fat thereof" does not, indeed, mean the fat as distinguished from the rest of the flesh supposed to have been eaten, but the best of the flock, as in Num. xviii. 29. But the keej)ing of sheep may be taken to imply the use of animal food, as the grant of dominion over all animals in eh. i. may be supposed to imply the use of them for food as for other purposes. Thus these passages coincide in the implied grant of animal food, as in the expressed grant of vegetable. — 10. The week of seven days, and the sanctification of the seventh day, in the first Elohistic passage, find their counterpart in the sevens of clean animals, the seven days' warning before the deluge begins, and the intervals of seven days in the story of the raven and the dove, all ascribed to the Jehovist, as well as in the sevenfold, and seventy and sevenfold, vengeance to be taken on him who should slay Cain and Lamech in ch. iv. — 11. It seems in reference to this protection of the homicides in ch. iv., which is Jehovistic, that the sentence of punishment to be inflicted on the shedder of man's blood in the Elohistic ch. ix. is pro- nounced ; "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." The words, " at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man," unmistakeably refer to the inquiry by Jehovah in ch. iv., " What hast thou done ? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." — 12. In iv. 15 Jehovah gives a sign or token to Cain, that no one find- ing should kill him, not, as in the English Version, sets a mark upon him, which would rather tend to cause his destruction by identifying him to those that should find him. The original is r\)^ d^l, which may be compared with ^J^ttb^ ^Pi< ^HhJ^ in Exod. X. 2. Then in ch. ix. 12 the bow, which Elohim sets or gives in the clouds, is given for a token or sign, HIX^, of the covenant not to destroy the earth any more by a flood. — 13. Seth as the son of Adam, and Enos as his son, of whose birth an CH. I. TO XI. 26. 413 account is given at the close of the Jehovistic ch. iv., re-appear in the Elohistic account of the descendants of Adam in ch. v. It is a gratuitous assumption that Seth appears in this latter as the eldest son. The object is only to trace one particular line, namely that from which the promised seed should issue. In that line more than once a younger son takes the place of an elder, as in the case of Shem, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Judah, of Pharez, and as in that of David and of Solomon in later times. — 14. The Jehovistic distinction of clean and unclean animals in vii. 2 and in viii. 20 appears also in the Elohistic vii. 8, a coincidence which neutralises the apparent inconsistence between the numbers taken according to either passage. — 15. The word HVp^, "after the end of the 150 days," in the Elohistic viii. 3, may be compared with viii. 6, ascribed to the Jehovist, VDO, "after the end of forty days." The choice of the briefer word here is not owing to a different habit of speak- ing, but to the hiatus which the final H might occasion with the word for "forty" following, which begins with t<. — 16. Jehovah's observation of the wickedness of man in vi. 5 may be compared with Elohim looking upon the earth, and seeing its corruption in vi. 12 ; though the phraseology is something different, yet the thought is similar. — 17. The similarity has already been noticed between "a soul of life" in the Elohistic i. 30, and "a living soul" in the Jehovistic ii. 7, in both n^Pl ^Si ; and again between the D''*?! HII, " breath of life," in the Elohistic vi. 17 and vii. 15, and in vii. 22 ascribed to the Jehovist. — 18. Stress was laid on the different words used by the supposed different authors to express the destruction to be occasioned by the flood, iv'fpe, properly id ash aivay, in one case, and corrupt in the other. The destruction is, however, also expressed by dying, in the Elo- histic vi. 17 and vii. 21, and then in the next verse ascribed to the Jehovist. It is true the verb in one case is J^13 and in the other n^/b. But the change of verb is sufficiently accounted for by the needful variation in the repeated mention of the death of all creatures, on the supposition of only one author. The two 414 GENESIS AND ITS ArXHORSHIP. verbs are combined in the formal mention of the death of Abra- ham in sxv. 8, of Ishmael in xxv, 17, and of Isaac in xxxv. 29. It is true these verses are ascribed to the Elohist, the greater part of the chapters in which they occur being given to the Jehovist, not on the ground of any prevalence of the name Jehovah, for they are all Elohistic in this respect, but simply for the exigencies of the theory. Perhaps the un'willingness to allow the Jehovist to use the word yi5 may be one reason of the separation. The combination of the words by either destroys the distinctiveness of the usage. — 18. The verb substantive followed by 1 with the verb denoting what took place, occurs in the Jehovistic iv. 8, vi. 1, vii. 10, and viii. 6, this manner of speaking being rendered in the English Version, " It came to pass that." The same manner of expression occurs in the Elohistic viii. 13, " It came to pass that," ix. 14, " It shall come to pass that," and then re-appears in the Jehovistic xi, 2. The alliterations, and play upon the sounds and double senses of words, already noticed, and frequently recurring through the entire book, may also be recalled here as equally characterising the parts ascribed to the Jehovist and the Elohist. These points of resemblance in the parts assigned to the dif- ferent writers, in these earlier chapters of Grenesis, tend to neutralise the characteristics which are reKed on as distinctive. Such verbal grounds of distinction or identification are, how- ever, greatly weakened as evidence on either side, in the case of Hebrew writings, in which the prevalence of repetitions with variations of expression affords an opportunity of dividing a nar- rative into two, each of which may stand in a certain way by itself, care being taken to assign to each such of the duplicate statements as best agree in phraseology together. CH. XI. 27. — xin. 415 yn. THE GEXEEATJOXS OF TEBAH. §. 1. Ch. XI. 27— XII. 4. FEOM THE BIETH OF ABRAHAM TO HIS DEPAETUKE FEOM HAEAX. JEHOVISTIG. §. 2. Ch. XII. 4 (last CLArsE) -20. FEOM THE DEPAETUEE FROM HAEAX TO THE DEPAETUEE FEOM EGYPT. JEHOVISTIC. §. 3. Ch. XIII. FEOM THE EETTEN FEOM EGYPT TO THE SETTLE- MENT IX MAMEE. JEHOVISTIC. The larger section headed "The generations of Terah" con- tains the history of the chosen family, from Abraham's birth till his death as related in xxv. It has been made an objection against the integrity of the book, that no section exists entitled " The generations of Abraham," but that his history is subordinated to that of Terah. The reason of this, howcTer, is probably not that any separate title, which might have existed originally has slipped out, or been omitted, by the compiler of the supposed separate narratiyes. But the chosen race vras not derived from Abraham only, but from Sarah also, to whom in this history an almost equal importance is attached ; and the pair are therefore included under their common progenitor, Terah, the father of Abraham and uncle of Sarah, from whom also the other female ancestors of the twelve tribes, Eebekah, and Rachel and Leah, in whose names their handmaids bore children to Jacob, were derived. Hence Terah is set at the head of this section, his descendants being for the purposes of this history traced through Xahor and Haran, as well as through Abraham. K a separate title, " The generations of Abraham," had ever existed, its place would have been before the last clause of xii. 4, where at any rate a new section begins. The importance of keeping distinct the subsections, into which this part naturally resolves itself, has been already insisted on, and its bearing on the present inquiry fiilly shown. For the general purposes of the inquiiy, however, it will be more convenient to consider together the three lesser sections above noted. 416 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Before we advert to the Jehovistic character of these pas- sages, there are some particulars that require to be noticed. The first of these is the mention in xii. 6 that, at the time of Abram's arrival in the land of Canaan, "the Canaanite was then in the land," and in xiii. 7, the Canaanite and the Periz- zite. It has already been shown that the repetition of this particular, so soon after its first mention, is- attributable to the writer's custom of repeating in the separate portions such matters as seemed of moment to give them the needful completeness and independence. And in the first instance, the existence of the Canaanites in the land is mentioned with special reference to the first promise of that land to Abraham, a promise not of an unoccupied and vacant country, but of one already in full occupation, such as required a frequent removal on the part of Abraham and his company for want of room. Nor was this a matter needless to be men- tioned in the writer's apprehension. For though the occupa- tion of the land by Canaanitish tribes at the subsequent periods of the history was notorious enough, yet it might not have seemed so clear that they had arrived before Abraham's migra- tion thither. We learn from x. 15-17, that the sons of Canaan had grown into tribes before they migrated from their original dwelling, the greater part of Canaan's descendants being only described by tribal patronymics, such as the Jebusite, the Amorite, and so forth ; that afterwards, that is, plainly, after they had thus become distinct tribes, the families of the Canaanites were dispersed ; and that then, as expressed by the converuve vau, ^H^V the border of the Canaanites came to be {iyivero, LXX.) from Sidon unto Gaza. Now considering how short an interval this history allows from the deluge to the migration of Abraham, and how much time the Canaanites would have taken to become tribes large enough to be obliged to migrate, we see that it might not have appeared to the writer so evident that they had already arrived in the land before Abra- ham came there, and received the promise of it as an inheritance, CH. XI. 27. — XIII. 417 as not to deserve distinct mention. The repetition in eh. xiii. had a different object, namely to account for the want of room for the great flocks and herds of Abraham and Lot. The form of the verb is specially appropriate there, ^K^"*, " was dwelling," occupying the country, so as to leave insufficient room for Abram and Lot. There is no ground therefore for supposing that these clauses are antiquarian remarks, betraying a date when those inhabitants had long disappeared. In the use of the name Bethel there is an instance of the writer's habit of employing names proleptically, if this is not to be attributed, as already suggested, to the translation of the original into a more modern dialect. As it is impossible to say at what period the city of Arba came to be called Hebron, this remark may be unnecessary in regard to the mention of that place in xiii. 18. Hengstenberg, Authenfie, ii. p. 190-1, justly infers from Gen. xxiii., that Hebron not being in the possession of the Anakim in Abraham's time, as may be gathered from the absence of any reference to such remarkable occupants, and from the simple mention of the sons of Heth as its possessors, Kirjath- Arba was not the name of the place in this Patriarch's time. Having come into the possession of Arba after Abraham's time, it received the name of Kirjath-Arba from him, a designation which presupposes a proper name besides. This was Hebron, in addition to which, it was also called Mamre in Abraham's time, after its possessor Mamre, as it was afterwards called Arba from a subsequent possessor. Hengstenberg well remarks, that if Anakim or giants had been there in Abraham's time, some reference would have been made to the might of these inhabit- ants, when with the assistance of Mamre, who was confederate with him, he went to the rescue of the five kings. The ex- pression in xiii. 18, " the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron," would seem to indicate that this latter name was at that time given to a district, as well as, if not rather than, to a city. In the table of passages ascribed to the several authors, Davidson, p. 58-9, the whole of oh. xii. is given to the Jehovist 27 418 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. except the last part of v. 4, from " and Abram," and v. 5, which are given to the Elohist.^ The concluding verses of ch. xi., which had been given to the Elohist,^ containing the removal of Terah and his family from TJr of the Chaldees, and their settlement in Haran, the command to Abram in xii. 1 to depart from his country and kindred is the natural sequel to that particular. Haran had become his country, when his father and kindred had settled there ; and now the command is, not to leave Ur of the Chaldees, but to separate, not only from his country, but from his kindred and his father's house, which there was no occasion of mentioning at the removal to Haran, as all went together. The pluperfect of the English version, " the Lord had said," as if referring to some command given on a previous occasion, the fulfilment of which was de- ferred till after Terah's death, is quite wrong. The gram- matical construction is in favour of the subsequence of the com- mand to Terah's death, and should be left as it is : " And the Lord said."^ The LXX. translate correctly, koI elire Kvpion \''.i5 ?3. The same reason, which caused the expression, " kindreds of the ground," in xii. 1-3, has also caused it in xxviii. 14. CH. XYI. 16-XVII. 1-23. 437 The importance, however, attached to the Elohistic style attri- buted to this passage makes it well to consider the principal evidences of it here.^ (1.) The shorter form of the pronoun I, which is used by both the supposed principal writers, will be considered in a general examination of these peculiarities. (2.) El-Shaddai is used here and in other Elohistic connexions. In xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlviii. 3, and Ex. vi, 3, this present passage is either itself quoted, or its quotation successively carried on. The title is also admitted to exist in two Jehovistic passages, xliii. 14, xlix. 25. (3.) Abraham is exhorted to be " perfect," and " Noah was perfect," vi. 9. One is tempted to say. There is a river in Macedon and a river in Monmouth. (4.) The phrases give and establish a covenant, as in ch. ix., are relied on as special Elohistic tokens, the Jehovist using the word cut. This latter expression we have shown to be proper when a covenant is made with sacrifice, as in Gen. xv., and therefore it is used in that chapter. To give, establish {lit. cause to arise), a covenant is also a manner of speak- ing proper in the case of a superior granting the privilege of a covenant to an inferior, as here and in Gen. ix. These expres- sions would be unsuitable as between equals, and therefore the other phrase is used in xxvi. 28 and xxxi. 44. The expressions are properly used in their several places according to the cir- cumstances, without reference to the question of their separate Jehovistic or Elohistic origin. (5.) To speak with, the preposi- tion being Jl^, is used three times. It occurs elsewhere in passages of both kinds, the only reason for making it Elohistic being the relative proportion of its occurrences. (6.) The com- bination of the words " fructify and multiply," as used in Gen. i. and in the history of Noah, is also relied on with great confidence. The combination in viii. and ix. is simply borrowed from ch. i. In this chapter, both in the blessing of Abraham and of Ishmael, the two words are used, though in the case of Abraham they are separated . In xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlviii. 4, they are simply adopted 1 Bishop of Natal, Vi. v., Crit. Anal., p. 68-70. 438 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. from their occurrence in ch, xvii. The only independent use of the combination elsewhere is in xlvii. 27. There are therefore only- three independent instances, viz., in Gen. i., xvii., and xlvii. (7.) The indirect derivation implied in the change of Abram's name to Abraham is relied on as Elohistic. It is not easy to see whether the Bishop thinks that ti^n ^i;} is given as the derivation of Abraham, or only an explanation of it. This way of explaining words, however, is common in both Jehovistic and Elohistic parts. It is just like that ascribed to the Jehovist in v. 29, where Noah's name is explained. Abraham has its proper deriva- tion from Dri'l, " a multitude," a word still subsisting in Arabic, as will be seen in the Lexicons. The consistent use of Abram and Sarai in the Jehovistic passages preceding this chapter, has caused great perplexity to those who regard the Jehovist as an inde- pendent historian, and not as merely supplementing the Elohist. (8.) " Kings shall go forth out of thy loins," in xxxv. 11, is simply borrowed from this. " Souls that went forth out of his thigh," in xlvi. 23, adds no significance to this instance. (9.) *' The land of thy sojournings," in xxviii. 4, xxxv. 12, and Ex. vi. 4, is merely copied from this place. The expression in xxxvi. 7, xxxvii. 1, may be also taken from this, but its ascrip- tion in those passages to the Elohist is quite arbitrary. The "years" and "days" of their sojournings in xlvii. 9 are quite different phrases. (10.) The word ^•'[^^5, for "possession," which begins to be used here, re-appears again in several places. In xlviii. 4 it is only borrowed from this. In xxiii., the Elo- histic appropriation of which is quite arbitrary, Abraham seeks " a possession of a burying place," and that expression, according to the legal character of the entire piece, is repeated in v. 9 and 20, and is simply copied in 1. 13. In xxxvi. 43, "the land of their possession," stands in contrast with " the land of his father's sojournings," in xxxvii. 1. Both may be derived from ch. xvii. ; at any rate, the Elohistic origin of these verses, is hypothetical, being partly grounded on the use of these phrases. Only xlvii. 11 remains as an independent instance, and whether it is in CH. XVI. 16-XVII. 1-23. 439 an Elohistic or Jehovistic connexion, it affects the argument but Httle. (11.) The use of the Hiphil n^SlH for " beget," has been ah-eady noticed. (12.) The expression, *' bone of that day," for self-same day, occurs previously in vii. 13, and twice in this chapter, 23 and 26. But it has already been shown, that the latter place belongs to the succeeding Jehovistic section, as part of the recapitulatory preface prefixed to it. Moreover the phrase was in common use, and though an idiom, was not peculiar, as it appears in EngKsli to be. Dr. Kay, Cris. Hupf., p. 36, justly animadverts on this and like literal translations of idiomatic expressions. (13.) The word \T\^, " with him," used it is alleged as an expletive, is also relied on. This form is not an expletive in any of the passages referred to in the history of the deluge, except perhaps ix. 8. In the other cases it is needed to complete the sense, except in ix. 10, where " with thee" is explained by the creatures that went out of the ark. In xi. 31, " They went forth with them," the expression, " with them," is indeed expletive, but quite different from the instances that have been referred to. There it is equivalent to our phrase, " they went forth with themselves." In xlvi. 6, 7 the expression, " with him," may be regarded as a needless addition ; but whether so or not, the phrase in xvii. 27 is not unnecessary. It implies that all the men of Abraham's house were not merely circumcised, but circimicised simultaneously with himself. Moreover this is connected with the succeeding Jehovistic passage. These evidences of a differentiating Elohistic character will now show how little ground the partitionists have to rely on the vaunted discovery, which they regard the Elohistic origin of this passage to be, or to treat it as one of "the main pillars" of their theories. Perhaps after the examination that has now been made of these evidences, the reader may feel more con- fidence as we proceed. 440 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. § 8. Ch. xvii. 24-xix. 28. VISIT OF THE THREE ANGELS TO ABRAHAM, HIS INTERCESSION FOR THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN AND THEIR DESTRUCTION. JEHOVISTIC WITH ADONAI. The reasons have already been assigned for making tliis section to commence with, the concluding verses of ch. xvii. The absence of the name of Abraham from xviii. 1-5/ and the use of a pronoun instead, suggests some previous mention of the Patriarch's name, while yet the subject matter separates this passage from the preceding one in its main particulars. But the otherwise unexplained repetition at the close of ch. xvii., supplying the prefatory matter to this according to the practice of the writer, contains the name ; and the connexion of what it relates of the circumcising of Abraham and his household with the new section is, that his obedience in thus entering into the divine covenant by this newly appointed rite is followed by a renewed promise of the birth of a son and other signal favours from Jehovah. The Elohistic ch. xvii. is thus connected in the closest relationship with the Jehovistic xviii. though they are separated both in subject matter and as different sections, and distinguished by a different tistcs as to God's name.^ Though this is a lengthened passage, containing several im- portant matters, one of which at any rate, the visit of the three men at the first to Abraham, has nothing to do with the sequel, yet the whole is so closely connected in its form that it cannot be separated into very distinctly marked sections. It has, however, certain rests and stages in its progress ; first comes the visit to Abraham, and the promise of the birth of Isaac, then the intercession for the cities of the plain, and lastly the ^ This h;is caused much perplexity to the partitionists. Bp. of Natal, Pt. v. Crit. Anal. p. 70-1. The Bishop sees the necessity of connecting with XAdi. 2-4-27 this commencing verse of xviii., but according to his theory supposes that the Jehovist merely supplemented the previous narrative. The division of the sections as exhibited above removes all the dithculty. 2 The latter verses of ch. x\i\., receiving a Jehovistic connexion as the preface to xviii., present us then with a Jehovistic use of the expression noted as an Elohistic peculiarity to denote the self-same day, viz., "in the bone of that day." It will, mean here the day on which Abraham was ninety years old and nine.. CH. XVII. 24— XIX. 28. 441 visit of the angels to Lot, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And first, as to the visit of the three men to Abraham, we are told here, as in the last manifestation, that Jehovah appeared unto him ; and it is plain that this appearance was made through one or more of the three men that came to him — three real hu- man visitors as Abraham no doubt at the first supposed. There is therefore no reason for thinking that he used the address "Adonai" at the first, except as he would have used it to his fellow men, though the Masoretic punctuation is the same here as when it is applied to God. The narrative makes it probable that only one of these strangers was the Divine Being himself ; for we read, V. 22, that " the men turned their faces and went toward Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Jehovah," and then in xix. 1 we read that " t/ie two angels,"^ not as in the English Version " two angels" indefinitely, came to Sodom. At any rate we cannot doubt that it was intended by the writer to imply that by this time, and at this second stage of the events recorded, Abraham had become aware he was conversing with a Divine manifesta- tion. But though the writer calls this Divine person Jehovah, the Patriarch speaks of him all through as Adonai. It seems to have been in the following out of the design already noticed to identify the name Jehovah in the course of the history with all the other designations of the Godhead, that this is done. In the Adonai Jehovah of ch. xv. the word was used rather as a prefix of respect ; now it appears as a substantive title applied to Jehovah, just as in the last chapter Jehovah was identified with El-Shaddai, and previously with other titles and designa- tions, and as we shall further observe it to be in the sequel. The conversation in which Abraham pleads for the cities of the plain is marked by several peculiarities, besides the expressions which are supposed to characterise the Jehovist's manner of speaking. Amongst the Jehovistic forms which the Bishop of Natal has noticed, may be instanced the use of the word ^^^^5 for propter, 1 Dos'pEin '<:^. 442 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. and '^^'!\H,J'ortasse.^ This latter is repeated several times, the former more than once ; but the repetition in a recurring form, as here, is only equivalent to a single instance. It has been already observed that there are in this book several instances of passages, on which the writer has exercised his skill in giving them a peculiar artificial form, whereby they stand out as distinct from the rest of the narrative. The commencing passage, with its heptameral subdivision and its peculiar repetitions, is one. The next passage, as already fully exhibited, is another. The genealogies in v. and xi. may be instanced likewise, and the blessing of Jacob's sons in ch. xlix. The present passage is also an instance of a striking character. And it is plain that these passages being designedly composed in a style sui generis, any peculiarities they contain cannot justly be regarded as evidences of the general style, orhabit of thinking or speaking, peculiar to the writer, any more than their peculiarity of form, and special mannerisms, should be regarded as indicating authors different not only from each other, but also from the writer or writers of other parts of the book. The character of some of these passages as odes or poems, and of others as singular in- stances which it was wished to particularise for recitation or recollection, may account for their special form. The first of the expressions above-mentioned occurs in iii. 17, where the curse of the ground for man's sake is mentioned, and in viii. 21, which adds nothing as being an evident reference to the former. It occurs again in xii. 13, 16, and in xvii. 4, instances too few to establish a style through so wide a range of composition. The other word, besides here, only occurs in xvi. 2 and xxiv. 5, instances still fewer, and is therefore no indication of style. The Bishop of Natal, Pt. v. Crit. Anal. p. 73, says in regard to 18, 19, that " the change to the third person in v. 19, ' that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham what he hath spoken con- cerning him,' seems to imply that we have here an interpola- ^ This passage has another instance of the alliterative tendency of the writer, ")?K1 ISy, " dust and ashes," r. 27. CH. XVII. 24— XIX. 28. 443 tion by a strange hand." And accordingly lie assigns v. 18, 19 to the Deuteronomist. The change of person, however, could only indicate an interpolation as regards the clauses in which the third person appears, and is no reason for attributing the previous clause of v. 19 and v. 18 to this strange hand. On the contrary, if the change of person does not separate the latter clauses of v. 19 from the previous parts of that verse and V. 18, it does not indicate any strange hand at all. But it is of moment to the Bishop to withdraw v. 18 from the Jehovist, in- asmuch as it has the expression, " nations of the earth," and not " kindreds of the ground," as in xii. 3, and xxviii. 14, the reason for which in those places has been shown. The entire passage (17-21) should be introduced with a pluperfect in trans- lating, the future with the vau conversive having been dropped, and the past form substituted, " And Jehovah had said." The second stage of the narrative thus commenced extends to the end of the chapter. The third part of the section extends from the commencement of xix. to V. 28 of that chapter. There occurs no mention of God in it until v. 14 where the angel says that " Jehovah will destroy this city." Then in v. 16 Jehovah is merciful to Lot ; and in v. 24 Jehovah rains fire and brimstone from Jehovah out of heaven ; and finally in the morning Abraham goes to the place where he had stood before Jehovah, the whole history of this event from the commencement being thus strictly Jehovistic in the use of the Divine name by the author. This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the narrative, in which God appears in a bodily form, and in personal converse with Abraham ; and having in this form announced the destruction of the condemned cities, then the same personal Jehovah rains on them fire and brimstone from Jehovah out of heaven, while at the close the reference to the conversation between Abraham and Jehovah connects the whole narrative into one. The LXX. have 6eo different shades of meaning. Nor is there the slightest evidence that at different times the tribe was knowii by the names in the different forms Zebudun and Zebulun. Had it been so, an editor who found the name different from what was prevalent in his time would, while inventing a derivation for the new foi'm, have also introduced the new form itself, if he did not expunge the old, and would scarcely have trusted to the reader's CH. XXIX.-XXXT. 493 perception of a nice phonetic principle, which indeed it cannot be imagined that he knew himself. A third instance of double etymology is alleged to exist in this chapter : " And she (Rachel) conceived and bare a son, and said, God hath taken away my reproach. And she called his name Josejoh, and said. The Lord shall add to me another son." " In the former case," says Davidson, " tpV is equivalent to Plpi^'' from ?p^ ; in the latter, the Jehovist deduces it from tlp^ to add. To this Keil replies, that the former gives no etymology, but only makes a slight allusion — a most incorrect statement." That it is not an incorrect statement may be seen by the allusion in the remark, " the Lord hath looked upon my affliction," to the former part of the name Reuben, in which case there exists no pretence on which to ground the supposi- tion of a double etymology. These alliterative allusions, beside the etymology, are of frequent occurrence, as already noticed in other cases, like those of No^h and Japheth. There is a clause in v. 40, " and set the faces of the flocks toward the ring-straked and all the brown in the flock of Laban," which is given to the Redactor. This clause seems awkward in the English Version. It is not so in that of the LXX., who, however, omit the word Laban at the end of it. Retaining this we must not connect the words, " in the flock of Laban," with the "ringstraked and every brown," but with the verb. " Jacob had separated the lambs, and he set the faces of the sheep towards a ringstraked (ram LXX.) and every brown, in the flock of Laban." The author is describ- ing an additional plan, besides that of the rods. At any rate, designed interpolations are made to clear up difiicidties, not to create them. The accidental creeping into the text, through whatever agency, of a few words out of their place and only creating confusion, is what any ancient book transmitted through so long a succession of copyists is liable to sufier. The parts of this chapter . which Dr. Davidson assigns to the com- piler, the Bishop of Natal leaves to the Jehovist, while he 494 GENESIS A^'D ITS AUTHORSHIP. extracts a number of clauses and brief passages whicli he gives to the Elohist in connexion with those of the last chapter. These are v. 1 first clause, 4 first clause, 5, 6 first clause, 7, 8 first and third clauses, 9-13, 17, 18 first and third clauses, 19, 20 first and third clauses, 21-24 first clause. Even if the general outlines of the Bishop's theory were true, we might decline on the authority of other partitionists to follow him here. On the other hand the Bishop, still difiering from these critics, gives only v. 18 of the next chapter to the Elohist, and assigns all the rest to the Jehovist, notwithstanding its striking verbal Elohism, declaring that he has been unable to detect any decisive signs of a difference in authorship, or of a break in the connexion. In the hands of the others, however, this chapter undergoes most minute anatomising, each of the four alleged authors getting a share of it, in alternating clauses, sentences, or verses, with now and then a somewhat longer passage. The Elohist gets only v. 18.^ His claim to it is doubtless founded on the mention of Padan-Aram, and the resemblance to xii. 5. It does not, however, connect itself with the last pre- ceding Elohistic passage, xxviii. 1-9, in a satisfactory manner. One of the minor omissions, which it is said the compiler has made in piecing this chapter, must have taken place here, if the Elohist's narrative had ever a self-standing existence. In partitioning the remainder amongst the other supposed original .writers, and the compiler who put the parts together, verses and clauses of verses are separated throughout ; and it is necessary to suppose that the compiler, who broke up the original writings and put them together as we now find them, made several minor omissions of matter which, no doubt, he must have found redundant or inconvenient.^ The use of the names of God has little if anything to do with this subdivision, the improbability ' " And lie cnrried away all liis cattle, and all his goods, wliich he had gotten, the cattle of his getting which he had gotten in Padan-Aram, for to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan." - A general view of these subdivisions Avill be given hereafter. CH. xxix.-xxxi. 495 of which, from its very minuteness and the gratuitous exercise of ingenuity in putting the fragments together, which the Redactor had first with such minuteness disjoined from their respective documents, will satisfy perhaps most readers of the groundlessness of this theory of the combination of seA'eral distinct narratives. What motive could the compiler have had in taking such trouble in thus piecing a number of disjointed fragments ? It could not have been reverence for the very letter of the previously existing documents, as too sacred for anything to be lost ; the several omissions he is supposed to have made, and his own additions, would prove that he had no superstitious reverence for the documents he handled so freely. Would not the natural, the almost certain course he would have adopted, have been to take one as the basis, and from himself to supply the matter furnished by the others in such form and words as he thought fit, without attempting to dovetail minute fragments of the other documents into that which he took as the fundamental one ? If the passage before us has on its face the evidence of interpolation, let the editor have the credit of it. It is absurd to find in the interpolated phrases the ipsissima verba of several other documents. Most readers will probably see little reason to suspect interpolation in the docu- ment as it stands, except what the author himself may have subsequently added. There is, however, a care and discrimination in the use of the Divine appellations which indicates unity of design and author- ship in the whole of chapter xxxi. First, in v. 3, the writer says that Jehovah spake unto Jacob. Here he is introduced as the personal and special God of the chosen race ; and this name in a manner governs the subsequent designations of the Divine Being. Then in v. 5 Jacob says to his wives, " I see your father's countenance, that it is not towards me as it was before ; but the Grod of my father hath been with me." This latter clause does not indeed refer to the appearance of Jehovah to Jacob implied in v. 3, but it still refers to that Jehovistic verse, 496 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. namely to the promise, in its last clause, " I will be -svitli thee," no less than it refers to the preceding v. 2, supposed to be by the junior Elohist. The designation, " the God of my father," is equivalent to Jehovah, Elohim being rendei'ed specific b}' the addition ; but this form is preferred for the contrast between the Divine favour and that of Laban : "I see the face of i/our father that it is not towards me as yesterday and the day before, but the Elohim of mf/ father hath been (or is, n^H ) with me." The protection of the God of his father is put in opposition to the human favour of their father. The same contrast is marked in the next verse also. Their father tried to do him wrong, but Elohim did not sufier him ; man would have injured him, but God hindered it. So again, v. 9, it was Elohim, and not Jacob, that took their father's cattle, the contrast being still sustained, now between God and Jacob, as before between God and Laban. With this contrast fresh in mind, Jacob is repre- sented as telling, v. 11, that the angel of Elohim spake to him in a dream ; and perhaps the use of Elohim has also a further design there, namely to indicate that this dream was a Divine communication, and not a mere ordinary human dream. When in relating the words of this angel of Elohim the author makes him say, " I am the God of Bethel," the word El is used on the purely verbal ground that it forms the second pari; of the com- pound Bethel, " I am the El of Beth-El." But the use of Elohim in Eachel's and Leah's words, v. 16,^ is in natural sequence with, and reference to, its previous use. They recog- nise the Divine interposition, as intimated by Jacob, and bid him act on the Divine command he had received. In the following verses a division is made, first in r. 17,~ the latter half of which is given to the Jchovist in connexion with V. 3, in order to make his narrative represent Jacob as taking- steps to fulfil the command of Jehovah ; and then this is joined again to the second clause of v. 19, the first clause ^ " For all the riches which Elohim hath taken from our father, that is cur's and our children's. Now then whatsoever Elohim hath said unto thee, do." - " Then Jacoh rose up, aud set his sons and his wives upon camels." . CH. XXTX.-XXXI. 497 being interpolated after r. 18, which is given to the Elohist, while V. 20 is given to the junior Elohist, The groundless- ness of all this will appear from a careful examination of the order of the narrative. We have seen that Jacob's wives had just bidden him to obey the Divine command he had received to return to his own country. In compliance with this advice, he rises up and gathers all together, and carries it away to the land of Canaan. How is he able to accomplish this without opposition from Laban ? That is next explained ; Laban had gone to shear his sheep. The flocks, be it remembered, had been severed, and as Laban went to shear his sheep, Jacob would naturally be with his own for the same purpose. And here let the force of the tenses be properly observed. It is not, as in the English Version, "Laban went to shear his sheep, and Hachel had stolen the images that were her father's." It should be "Laban had gone," "^?n, here with the force oi pluperfect, as in the Vulgate, ierat, and "Rachel stole," this verb heingfut. with mil confers., and so implying a transaction subsequent to Laban's departure. The conjunction van prefixed to r. 19 should have an adversative force, "But Laban had gone to shear his sheep." Then in Laban's absence Rachel stole her father's teraphim, and Jacob stole away unknown to Laban. These clauses, notwithstanding the Masoretic division of the verses, stand in the closest verbal relation to one another, being con- nected by one of those instances of play on the sound and double senses of words so common in this book : — " Rachel stole the teraphim that were her father's, and Jacob stole the heart of Laban the Sjanan."^ Connected as the clauses thus are, it is probable that it is with reference to these teraphim that Laban is here named " the Syrian," for which, as they are separated in diiFerent and unconnected verses, no sufficient cause appears. It The words p? sb are a further instance of alliteration. This is given to the junior Elohist. We might have noticed a Jehovistic instance in xxx. 29 : — , 32 498 GENESIS AND ITS AIJTHORSHIP. was as being a Syrian that Laban used these images, and the mention of this was natural, in order that the idolatrous tendency might not be imputed to Jacob, and so afford a bad example to the Children of Israel, The reason why the mention of Laban as a Syrian is deferred to the end of the second clause was, that the words on which the play of sound and double sense is made might for that purpose be brought nearer together, and that at the close of the second clause there might be something to balance the first in weight of sound. While Laban's nation is here intimated to account for the use of teraphim, it is mentioned in r. 24 to imply that there was something unusual in a Divine communication being made to one who was not of the chosen seed, and was himself not a decided worshipper of the true God. And so Laban himself perceived that it was not his own Elohim, but the Elohim of Jacob's father that appeared to him, v. 29 ; his own Elohim he shows in v. 30 to have been the teraphim Rachel had stolen. The reason, however, why it was Elohim and not Jehovah that was said to have appeared to Laban, was to distinguish this dream as a Divine communication from a mere ordinary and natural dream. In t\ 29 there is another instance of the play on sound and double sense, which accounts for the use of Elohim : " It is in the El of my hand to do you evil, but the Elohim of your father spake to me" — " it is in the might of my hand, but the mighties of your father." The generic Elohim becomes specific by the addition, " the Elohim of your father," and is equivalent in the writer's view to Je- hovah. And so in ii. 42, where there appears a reference to the Jehovistic v. 3, the Jehovah of that verse is represented by the paraphrastic expressions, "the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of my father, the fear of Isaac." This Elohim, in fulfilment of the promise of v. 3, has been with Jacob, else Laban would have sent him away empty. But the Elohim of the latter clause, " Elohim hath seen my affliction," is emphatic ; it was God that rebuked Laban the night before, not any remorse of his own conscience, or any imagination of his own mind. CH. xxix.-xxxi. 499 In V. 49 Laban says, " Jehovah Avatch between us," not as if it were implied that Laban was in any special sense a wor- shipper of Jehovah, but because he knew that Jacob would not heed an apjaeal to any other God but the God of his fathers, who is described by this name. But in the next verse it is Elohim, because of the contrast between God and man : " no man is with us, see, God is witness between me and thee." In V. 53 Elohim is rendered specific in different senses by several additions, in accordance with Laban's polytheistic conceptions. Anxious to bind Jacob more strongly by an oath, and with the view of embracing in the adjuration his own hereditary Elohim, he says, " The Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Nahor, be judges betwixt us, the Elohim of their father." The verb "judge," ^i03ti^'^, is plural here, not from the plural form or sense of Elohim, but from the mention of several Elohims, whether regarded as numerically different, or as different in the relations between the different persons named and the one Elohim, — several in regard to these several relations. Jacob, however, only recognises one, and swears " by the fear of his father Isaac." It thus appears that throughout this chapter, as far as the names of God are concerned, there is a great unity of Conception, and a nice discrimination in their use, that marks unity of authorship ; while the narrative itself is so well con- nected, and so free from any needless redundancy, that its reso- lution into fragments of four different authors is a most uncalled- for proceeding, and wholly unwarranted by anything on the face of the documents, and in parts contradicted \>y the relation of the separated fragments. As regards the names of God in these chapters, the LXX. differ from the Hebrew in some of their readings, having in two instances Kvpio^J ' all which is his' etc. — twenty-seven times." Of these, two non- Jehovistic should be rejected, and five in xxxix. 4-8 are only^=l, as are also xii. 20 and xiii. 1 == 1. Thus this very likely mode of expressing what the author had to say is reduced to twenty-one. But the manner of speaking is not uniform in these instances ; sometimes all is omitted, sometimes the pronoun is a dative, sometimes it is afiixed to the preposition uith. No stress can be laid on so variable a phrase, the use of the relative being the only point in which it is consistent. " * (xxi.) a-ip, ' arise ' = set out, — twenty times." " E has it once, xxviii. 2." • Yery little of the movements of the Patriarchs is assigned to the Elohist, who had therefore less room for the expression, even if he were a different person from the Jehovist. But he was not averse to this idiom, which seems to have arisen from the shifting habits cf a nomadic people. The word " arise" does not mean as the Bishop says, "set out;" its use seems to have grown out of the breaking up from a resting place. " (xxir.) 1^3 'youth,' m. and/. — n^J?J ' damsel,'— 27 last half, 28. xiii. 6, 11 last clause. xlviii. 3-7. 12 two first clauses. xlix. 29-33, except second clause. XV. 1. 1. 12, 13. The Bishop modifies these references by a few subtractions and additions, but on the whole the difference is but slight. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS, 621 sented, has been abstracted, there still remains in the residue much Elohistic matter, which the partitionists of an earlier date would have assigned to the original Elohist, and which, if joined to what is now attributed to him, might have considerably modi- fied the result of the comparison which has just been made. But our concern is not with the theory in a form which it has been found necessary to abandon, but in the form in which its advo- cates for the present think fit to present it. How long it may retain that form it is indeed hard to predict. As in regard to sects and parties, so also in regard to questions of criticism, the application of tests and discriminating criterions seldom stops short at a binary division, and has a tendency to continued sub- division. Thus it has been with the documents into which the book of Genesis has been resolved. The critics who first thought only of two original documents, the Elohistic and the Jehovistic, now find that division insufficient. A third has been now marked off, to say nothing of the hints that are thrown out of further subdivision. With regard to this third document Davidson says, "How have traces of a junior Elohist been detected? Certain portions of the Pentateuch belong to neither of the two documents exclusively, but present peculiarities resembling both. Though Elohim occurs in them, they are not what are termed Elohistic. Their tone and manner more resemble the Jeho- vist's."^ Taking the book as it exists in its integrity, we may justly regard these passages that savour of both as evidences of the unity of the entire. The varying phases of a writer's mind, which will at one time produce one peculiarity, and at another time another, will also naturally show themselves in their intermediate stages, and blend both peculiarities. But when the extremes have been separated, it is impossible to adjudicate these transitional passages fairly between the two, and nothing remains for it but to turn them over to a third author. The whole evidence for the existence of this third writer, denominated the junior Elohist from the frequent though 1 I., p. 44, 622 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. not exclusiTe use of Elohim, depends on the previous partition between the Elohist and the Jehovist, the phenomena -which this portion presents being easily reconcileable with the whole in its integrity, as it contains the peculiarities that distinguish both the other portions, though not so readily with either of the latter in their separate state. Thus, for instance, the primitive Elohist is in general too brief to admit any very diffusive narrative, especially in regard to the patriarchal history, to be assigned to him. Thus Davidson says, p. 44, " The history of the settlement of Jacob's family in Egypt, which is largely interwoven with Elohistic materials, belongs in a great degree to the junior Elohist. This is shown by the contents, manner, and stjde. The narrative is too diffuse and minute to harmonise with the summary notices of the primitive Elohist, unless the occurrences bore a particular theocratic and legal significance, which they do not." The assumed criterion of theocratic and legal significance fails, and the theory is modified accordingly. The necessity which exists therefore for separating so much Elohistic matter from the primitive Elohistic document, when once the principle of separate authorship has been adopted, justifies the comparison of that Elohistic document in its reduced form, with the remaining materials contained in the book, which has just been made. III. Before making a further remark on the book in its general aspect, as partitioned amongst the several supposed authors — the Elohist, the Jehovist, the junior Elohist, and the Redactor, — it will be desirable to present one complete table of the parts assigned to each in the order of their succession and alternation, rather than separate tables of the parts assigned to each, such as Davidson and the Bishop of Natal have given. Table of Passages assigned to the several Authors} Ch. i. ii. 1-3 E. Ch. ii. 9-25, iii. 1-21 J. 4-9 J. iii. 22-24 E. 9, " tree of life." R. iv J. 1 In this Tabic, E. stands for Elohist, J. for Jehovist, J.E. for junior Elohist, and E. for Eedactor. The Bishop of Natal greatly modifies this table, rejecting a CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 623 Ch. V. 1-28, to "begat" E. 28, "a son." R. 29, "Noah." E, remainder R, 30-32 E. vi. 1-3 R. 4 first clause J. remainder R. 5-8 J. 9-22 E. vii. 1-5 J. 6-8 E. 8, " clean, and of beasts that were not clean.".. R. 9 E. 10 J. 11 E. 12 J. 13-16 E. 16 last clause, 17 J. 18-21 E. 22,23 J. 24, viii. 1, 2 first clause E. •viii. 2 second clause, 3 first clause.. .J. 3 second clause E, 4, "the ark rested." J. dates E. "on the mountains, etc.", .J. 5 E. 6-12 J. 13-19 E. 20-22 J. ix. 1-17 E. 18, to " Japheth" J. last clause R. 19 J. 20-27 R. 28,29 E. s. 1-5 first clause J. 5, "every — tongue," R. remainder — 8 first clause... J. 8 second clause R. 9-20 to "families" J. 20, " after their tongues," ...R. remainder J. 21 R. 22-25, to "Peleg" J. 25 next clause R. last clause — 31 as far as "families" J. 31, " after their tongues," ...R. remainder, 32 J. xi. 1-9 R. 10-32 E. xii. 1-4 to "with him" J. Ch. xii. 4 last clause, 5 E. 6-20, xiii. 1-5 J. xiii. 6 E. 7-11 to "east" J. 11 last clause, 12 to " place "..E. 12 last clause, 13-18, xiv. ...J. XV. 1 E. 2-21, xvi. 1 J. xvi. 2 J.E. 3 E. 4-14 J. 15 first clause R. remainder, 16, xvii E. xviii. xix. 1-28 J. xix. 29 E. 30-38 R. XX. 1-17 J.E. 18 J. xxi. 1 J.E. 2 first clause E. second clause J. last clause E. 3 J.E. 4-5 E. 6-7 J.E. 8 9 R. 10-16, 17 first clause J.E. 17 second clause R. remainder, 18-20 to "grew" J.E. 20 remainder J. 21-34, xxii. 1-13 J.E. xxii. 14-18 J. 19 '....J.E. 20-24 J. xxiii E. xxiv. 1-67, except last clause ...J. 67 last clause R. XXV. 1-6 J. 7-11 to "Isaac" £. 11 last clause JE 12-16 ; J. 17 E. 18-19 J. 20 E. 21-26 to "Jacob" J. 26 last clause E 27,28 J. 29-34, xxvi. 1-5 R. xxvi. 6 J.E 7-12 R. 13-14 to "servants" J.E. 14 last clause, 15 R 16-17 J.E. 18 R. separate compiler altogether, and giving a much gi-eater proportion of the whole to the Jehovist. It is unnecessary for the present argument to give the Bishop's table, as it is mainly directed against the more complex subdivision. This table is formed from that of Dr. Davidson, who gives Boehmer as his principal authority for it. 624 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Ch. Xivi. 19-22 J.E. 23,24 R. 25 to "these" J.E. last clause R. 26-33 first clause E. last clause R. 34,35 E. xxvii. 1-45 J. 46 R. xxviii. 1-9 E. 10-12 J.E. 13-16 R. 17-22 J.E. xxix. XXX. 1-13 J. XXX. 14-16 R. 17-40 first clause J. 40 second and third R. remainder, 41-43 and xxxi. 1 J. 2 J.E. 3 J. 4-9 J.E. 10 R. 11 first clause J.E. remainder, 12 R. 13-17 first clause J.E. 17 second clause J. 18 E. 19 first clause J.E. second clause J. 20 J.E. 21-23, to "journey" J. 23, thence to "him" J.E. "in the mount Gilead"..R. 24 J.E. 25, 26 first clause J. 26 remainder J.E. 27 J. 28, 29 J.E. 30, 31 first clause J. 31 remainder J.E. 32-37 J. 38-41 first clause J.E. 41 intermediate part R. last clause, 42 J.E. 43-45 J. 46-48 first clause J.E. 48 remainder, 50 to " daughters" R. 50 remainder J. 51, to "heap" .....J.E. to "pillar" R. last clause, 52 to " wit- ness" J.E. 52, thence to "pillar" R. thence to "heap" J.E. "and this pillar" R. remainder J.E. 53, to "us" J. lastclause,54to" bread" J.E. 54 last clause, 65 first J. Ch. xxxi. 55 intermediate part J.E. last clause J. xxxii. 1-2 J.E. 3-21 J. 22 first clause R. intermediate part J. 33 last clause J.E. 23 first clause R. remainder J. 24 first clause R. second clause J.E. 25 R. 26-31 first clause J.E. 31 last clause, 32 R. xxxiii. 1-16 J. 17 R. 18 first clause J. to "Aram" R. last clause J. 19,^ R. 20, xxxiv. 1, to " out" ...J. xxxiv. 1 concluding words R. 2, to "saw her" J. remainder R. 3, 4 J. 5 R. 6 J. 7 R. 8-13, to "said" J. 13 last clause R. 14-18 J. 19 R. 20-26 first clause J. 26 remainder, 27 R. 28-30 J. 31, XXXV. 1-4 R. XXXV. 5 J. 6, 7, to "him" J.E. 7 remainder, 8 R. 9, to "Jacob" E. "again" R. remainder — 15 E. 16 first clause R. remainder — 20 first clause J. 20 second clause R. 21 J. 22-26 J.E. 27, to "father" E. "unto Mamre" J. thence to "Hebron". .E. last clause J. 28,29 J.E. xxxvi. 1 R. 2, to"Anah" J.E. " daughter of Zibcon".R. "the llivite," 3-5. ..J.E. 6, as far as " went" E. " to a country " R. remainder — 8 E. 9 R. -CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 625 Ch. xxxvi. 10 J 11-14 !.".'.".'!.!!."!].'!!j.*e.' 15-18, as far as " Jaalani " J. 18, " duke Korah" R. 19 two first clauses J. last clause — 28 J.E. 29, 30 R. 31-43 J. xsxvii. 1 E 2 z:z:::":j'. 3, to "age" J.E. last clause J 4-10 J.E. 11 first clause J. second, 14,to"again"J.E. 14, thence to " Hebron". ..R. last clause, 18 to "off" J.E. 18 second clause R. last clause J. 19-22, to " upon Mm ". J.E. 22 remainder R. 23 first clause J.E. last clause J 24-28, to "pit" J.E. 28 next clause J. last— 31 J.E. 32 first clause J. second J.E. remainder, 33 to "said" J. 33, thence to "him" ...J.E. last clause — 35 J. 35 last clause, 36, to "Egypt" J.E. 36, "unto Potiphar" R. remainder J.E. xxxviii. xxxix. 1 to "Potiphar" .J. xxxix. 1, " oflicer — guard," R. remainder — 20, " to "prison " j. 20, "place — bound" R. last clause— 23 J. xl. 1-3 first clause J.li' 3 remainder R. 4, 5, to "bound" J.E. 5, " in the prison " R. 6, 7, to "were" J.E. 7, "withhim" R. 8-15 first clause J.E. 15 remainder R. 16-23, xli. 1, to " dreamed".J.E. xli. 1 last clause, 2-5, to "behold" R. 5 remainder, 6-14, to "'Joseph" J.E. 14 " and — hastily" j. thence to "raiment" R. last clause, 15 to "dream" J. 15 remainder- 1 7 first clause J.E. 17 remainder, 18-21 ... J 22, "aud" ■■■.■.r" Ch. xli. 22 remainder— 24firstclauseJ.E. 24 remainder R. 25 first clause J.E. second clause R. remainder j. 26 first clause R. second clause J.E, last clause, 27, to " years " R. 27 remainder ' . J.E 28-31 j' 32 ;;..;";;r; 33 J. 34 two first clauses J.E. last clause J. 35 first clause J.E. ' second j. last J.E 36-38 J. 39 fii-st clause J.E. remainder j. 40 first clause J.E. remainder— 42, to " hand ".J. 42 remainder, 43 ... JE 44 ■" j' 45 IZ!!!!^.^ 46, 47 J. 48 J.E. 49 J 50-52 !!".!'.*.;..;"j.e! 53, 54, to "said" j. 54 remainder j.E. 55-57, xlii. 1-5 ............J. xlii. 6 two first clauses .R." remainder j.e. 7 three clauses j, remainder— 9, to "said unto them" j.e. 9, "ye are spies," j. last clause, 10 j.e." 11 .j! 12 J.E. 13-20 J 21-23 j'V 24-38, xliii ■■■ '"■ ' j' xiiv. 1, 2 ;; V 3-34, xlv. 1 '" J ^iv. 2, 3 ";;;;:;:y;E: 4-28 J, xlvi. 1-5 first clause 'jj. 5 remainder ... j 6,7 '::::::::::::'£ 8-12, to "Zarah" J.E. 12 remainder .... j? 13-27 '::::::ry.£ ..28-34, xlvii. 1-11 first clause J. xl^ii. 11 second clause £. remainder — 27, to '" * "Goshen" j^ 27 remainder, 28 .V.V.Ve.* 29-31, xlviii, 1 first clause ."r! 40 626 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. Ch. slviii. 1 remainder, 2 J.E. CH.xlvlii. 21, 22, xlix. 1-28, to "unto 3-5, to "mine" .....E. them" J. 5, "as Reuben and Simeon" R. xlix. 28 remainder ....R. last clause — 7 E. 29-33 first clause E. 8,9 J. 33 second clause J.E. 10, to "see" J.E. remainder E. remainder, 11 J. 1. l-ll R. 12 first clause R. 12-13 E. second clause J. 14 R. 13, 14 J.E. 15-21 J. 15-19 J. 22, to "house" J.E. 20 J.E. remainder, 23 J. 24-26 R. ]S[ow, if the reader will take the pains to scan the columns of the foregoing table, he cannot fail to be struck by the large pro- portion of the book that is supposed to be made up of brief passages, single verses, sentences, clauses, and phrases of one or two words, interlaced and interwoven, as picked in varying alter- nations from the several documents, which are alleged to have been made use of by the laborious compiler of this tessellated work. In all there are 370 alternations of authorship, and of these 155 are in length less than two verses, very many much smaller. The task, which the Redactor is thus imagined to have set himself, was very different from that which the modern critics have accomplished in their analysis and resolution of the book as it came into their hands. Having assumed certain tests and criteria of authorship, whether fallacious or not, they had only to apply these tests as they went along, and then to classify the separated parts accordingly. The admitted copiousness, and even redundancy of narration, favoured this operation, and helped the formation of distinct narratives out of the separated materials. Whatever did not fit conveniently into any of these in their separated state, it was easy to ascribe to the compiler himself; and whenever a want of connexion, or a serious omis- sion of particulars that ought to have been specified, presented itself in these separated documents, it was easy also to imagiue an omission by the Redactor of what he did not want in dupli- cate, and could not convert into narratives of different events, or to suppose that he altered the grammatical structure to suit his combined performance. But when he went to work, he CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 62- must have had the documents before him in their separate and severally unbroken continuity. "What he would have been likely to have done in such a case was to adopt one, the most complete perhaps, as the basis of his operation ; he might, perhaps, have introduced longer portions of the others, just as he found them, into the places to which they were obviously adapted ; and with regard to the remainder, he woidd have supplied from it, in his own words, whatever was deficient in that which he adopted as the ground work, or he would, using the particulars supplied by all as his materials, have written from himself a complete and continuous narrative. If the theory was presented to us in this form, then the compiler would in fact have been an original author, and the only question would be as to his age and name. There would have been no antecedent impossibility that Moses himself might have proceeded in this way, any more than that the three first Evangelists, having in memory, as seems most probable, some protevangelium, or statement of Grospel history drawn up for use in the congregations, should have interwoven the same in their own fuller narrations. The application of the tests, however, does not suit such a form of the theory, and a compiler is therefore supposed to have set about breaking up the several documents into minute fragments, and then to have pieced and patched these together into a continuous narrative. That any one should have attempted this operation would imply such a superstitious reverence for the mere letter of the several documents, as is contradicted by the freedoms which this com- piler is supposed to have taken not only with the sense, which he must often have altered, bvit even with the letter itself in many cases. That any one shovdd have undertaken such a task is what may well seem incredible to one accustomed to form his opinion on, at least, a reasonable amount of probability. This remark, indeed, is far more applicable to the complex arrange- ment of the parts of the book adopted in the table we have just given, than to the more simple partition of the Bishop of Natal ; 628 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. but it does apply with very considerable force to it also, on the supposition that the second Elohist was a different writer from the Jehovist, who subsequently interwove the two Elohists with his own additions. It applies, at least, so far as the second Elohist's portions extend. That the author of the entire book in its present state might not unreasonably be admitted to have incorporated a previously existing document, like that which forms the vertebral column of the three first Gospels, is what no one would feel any disposition to question, if only the evidences of such an earlier document were sufficiently clear, as they certainl}^ are in the case of the Gospels. The absence of evidence sufficient to sustain this supposition, as regards the Elohistic document supposed by some to be embodied by a later Jehovist has been sufficiently exhibited in the foregoing examination. The supposition of a later introduction of certain Jehovistic and other passages by the writer himself may, perhaps, claim a greater degree of probability ; though it is not necessary to accoimt for the phenomena presented by the book in its present state, if the considerations already brought before the reader have any weight. The fifth chapter, which is the proper sequel of the introductory passage ending with ii. 3, and which seems to have been originally intended as the first of the principal sections following the Exordium, having the more formal title, " This is the book of the generations of Adam," may have been com- posed in immediate connexion with that commencing passage. Then the intervening portion, so different in its representation of the process of creation, may have been introduced by the author at a subsequent period ; only in such case the reference to iii. 17 in v. 29 must have been simultaneously introduced in the latter place. Such a reference, connecting the new matter with the old, the original writer might have thought of intro- ducing ; a subsequent compiler would scarcely have interpolated it, where nothing existed in the document before him to suggest it to his mind. If then we may reasonably assume the subse- CONCLUDIXG OBSERVATIONS. 629 quent introduction of the section entitled, " The generations of heavens and earth," what was thus done in one instance may have taken place in others also. Such passages as vii. 1-10,^ viii. 20-25, and others, the omission of which would not break the continuity of the narrative, and which may be thought to exhibit a somewhat different mental habitude, either as regards the names of God, or in other respects, from their present context, or to repeat somewhat needlessly what was already told, may be due to such interpolation by the author himself, at a period subsequent to the original composition of the book. Few works are free from such additions made by their own authors ; and in an age when the art of composition was not cultivated as in after times, less care may have been taken to avoid the appearances of the more recent introduction of the passages in question. In the investigation already made this supposition has not been relied on. It seemed bettor to judge the book as it exists, without the aid of any such con- jecture ; and it is hoped that a good case has been made out, independently of any supposition of this kind. It is not amiss, however, to suggest here the possibility of a subsequent re- touching and introduction of fresh materials, which the critics, who may, perhaps, refuse to this book the benefit of such a conjecture, are yet in the habit of giving to their own more artistically constructed writings. One may feel the less scruple in claiming for a single author of the entire book this privilege of introducing new matter here ' The connexion, which, as ■we have akeady seen, exists between the several par- ticulars enjoined in vii. 1-5, and the fulfilment of the commands as stated in the succeeding verses (seep.368),rendei-s it necessary to suppose that such an introduction by the author, at a later period, must have extended to at least the tenth verse. But then this would bring together parts, on the diiferences of which the supposition of their different authorship has been grounded. One of these differences is the change from Jehovah to Elohim, and the other the absence of any distinction as regards the number of pairs, when the distribution of clean and unclean animals is mentioned in v. 8. If only vii. 1-5 were subsequently introduced, as above sug- gested, then the author must have taken the several particulars contained in the Divine command from those specified in the succeding verses, and put them in the same order. The necessity, however, of multiplying hypotheses diminishes the pro- bability of any conjecture. 630 GENESIS AND ITS ADTHORSHIP. and there, on subsequent reviews of his writing, and at times when different circumstances, or variations in mental habitude, may have occasioned variations of phraseology, since the Bishop of Natal himself, in the last volume of his work, has claimed the same privilege for his Jehovist, Having admitted the validity of the reasons for separating the portions of the book ascribed to the second Elohist from those of the Jehovist, reasons more or less valid, as the legitimate application of the principle of sub- division, on the grounds already relied on for separating the Elohistic parts, he still thinks these portions ascribed to the second Elohist may have been written by the Jehovist at a dif- ferent time from the principal Jehovistic parts. Thus, Pt, Y., p. 60, he speaks of the probability of " the second Elohist being the same as the Jehovist, only writing at an earlier period of his life, before he had acquired that freedom and fluency, which seems to characterise the more decidedly Jehovistic matter." And again in p. 65 and 67, and several times elsewhere through the volume, the same notion is put forward with more or less confidence. And though he claims for these parts a closer agreement in style than between the original Elohist's writing and either, yet in what is simply a matter of degree, or depends on difference of cii'cumstances, greater intervals and more widely different circumstances might have occasioned greater diversity. The brief and simple style of much of the Elohistic parts might reasonably be thought to indicate, that a dry abstract of leading facts was first prepared, which was afterwards at different times enlarged and filled up. This, however, cannot have been the case with some of the fuller portions of the Elohistic matter, such as ch. i. and the history of the deluge, which may have been written at large at the earlier period, the rest, though in parts also fuller than others, being as yet mainly only sketched out. And thus the book might have gradually assumed its present form in the hands of a single author. In conclusion, it remains only to be remarked, that the unity of the book rests on an unbroken tradition, which even in the NOTE A. 631 time of tlie LXX. appears to have been as unquestioned as it was in subsequent ages, if indeed they had not more satis- factory evidence as to its authorship than any mere tradition, however uninterrupted. The burden of proof rests, therefore, on those who now maintain the plurality of authorship ; and those who advocate the unity are only called on to rebut or debilitate such proof as may be adduced. If they are success- ful in this, they are not obliged to produce any positive proof in support of the traditionary character of the book, which may well claim to hold its prescriptive rights until they have been disproved. That the arguments relied on in proof of the plurality of authorship have in some cases been wholly re- butted, in others so much weakened as to be of little force in proof of the conclusions drawn from them, and that the residue are quite insufl&cient to establish these conclusions, is the least that may be claimed as the result of the foregoing examin- ation. It is hoped, however, that many positive proofs of the unity of authorship have been presented from time to time, and that whatever has been thus adduced as direct evidence of unity will be found not wholly destitute of weight. NOTE A. {Page 306, line 23.) Iiv drawing conclusions from fragments of ancient authors, Orphic verses, oracles, and such like remains of antiquity, we should remember how manifestly corrupt these things have in many instances conje to us, taxing the ingenuity of the learned either to elicit meaning from them, or to restore their metre. However the conjectural emendations of such remains may often carry with them the self- evidence of their success, in many cases we must still feel considerable doubt, and greatly distrust such amended authorities in discussing controverted questions. Moreover this habit of applying conjectural emenda- 632 GENESIS AND ITS AUTHORSHIP. lion to corrupted remains of ancient authors has not been a practice adopted onl}' by modern critics. Ancient critics also tried their hands in this vi-aj. Thus from a passage of Por- phyrj^, quoted by Warburton, Divine Legation, B. II., sect. 3, we learn that this writer, a great collector of such ciiriosities, was accustomed thus to deal with what he has transmitted to later times. In the passage referred to, which has been pre- served by Eusebius, Porphyry declares to God, that the ancient oracles, which he collected, he gave without addition or sub- traction as regards their meaning, though he corrected erroneous readings, used clearer for more obscure expressions, filled up defective metres, and drew his pen through what seemed irrelevant to the writer's purpose.^ Now thoiigh he adds that he preserved the sense imaltered, under fear of the punishment due to sacrilege,- it is plain that remains thus dealt with can have very little weight as authorities in regard to questions of moment. What Porphyry did others may have done likewise, without even their own attestation of fidelity. We are not only obliged to trust the honesty and good judgment of the corrector, without being able to compare the amended with the corrupted text, but we are also deprived of all opportunity of judging whether the quotation belongs to its pretended date by the evidence of a phraseology corresponding or not with such an age. The diction being modernised, we must take the genuine- ness of the fragment on the sole authority of the writer who cites it. We need not say how precarious conclusions drawn from such authorities, and mainly depending on them, must necessarily be thought, especially when it is on the diction itself that these conclusions rest. It is plain that such precarious inferences, and weakly supported conjectures, can never be justly allowed to disturb the existing belief on any subject of moment. ETTfJ Kayu Ti eeovs fiapTvpouat, ws ovSev ovre irpoa-TidnKa, ovTe a(pe7\ov rwv Xp-n\ &d. per volume. A selection of six or more volumes from the list may also be had at the Sub- scribers price, or Is. per volume. In the Press. Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions, Vol. IT. Pfleiderer's Philosophy of Religion, Vol. II. Vickers (J.) The History of Herod ; or, Another Look at a Man emerging from Twenty Centuries of Calumny. 388 pp. Crown 8vo, cloth. 65. "What I have taught my Children. Ey a Member of the Theistic Church. 12mo, cloth. 2s. Qd. Williams (Dr. Eowland) The Hebrew Prophets. Translated afresh and illustrated for English Eeaders. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 22**. 6d Zellcr (Dr. E.) The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apos- tles, critically investigated. Preceded by Dr. Fn. Overbeck's Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles from De Wette's Handbook. Translated by Joseph Dare. 2 vols, 8vo, cloth. 21s. • Vide Theological Translation Fund Library, PAMPHLETS. Athanasian Creed. Two Prize Essays. By C. Peabody and C. S. Kenny. 1.?. Beard (C) William Ellery Channing. In Memoriam. A Sermon. 12mo. Qd. Beard (C.) The Kingdom of God. A Sermon. 6d. Beard (C.) The House of God, and two Sermons by Rev. E. A. Armstrong. Is. Butler's Analogy : A Lay Argument. By a Lancashire Manufacturer. Is. Hopgood (Jas.) Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England. 6