The book of Genesis

Front matter

GqpghtM

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT.

AN

Introduction

I. The Name Genesis.

The Jews grouped all the books of the Old Testament under the main divisions: the Law, npfa, torah, the Prophets, WTO^ nebi'im, and the Writings, Dpirp, kethubim. The Law comprised the first five books ; the Prophets, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor Prophets ; the Writings, the remainder of the Old Testament, including Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

The Pentateuch, the designation of the first five books of the Bible, is the transliteration of the name given them in the Septuagint translation (v TrevTarevxos, sc, PtfAios) or the fivefold book or volume. In like manner the first book, called by the Jews rvEW*}3, bereshith, from its first word, was designated yeVeo-t?, Genesis, in the Septuagint, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew word flT^lfl, toledhoth, of 2 :4. This word, meaning generation or progeny, was thought to describe the contents of the book, and has been handed down as its name in our English Bible.

II. Its Conception.

Genesis is preeminently the book of origins and generations. After the account of the origin of all things in 1 : 1 to 2 : 4a, its whole plan is genealogical. It is really an introduction to the history of the Hebrew people. It seeks to trace the relation of this race to the rest of the world, as its history roots itself down into that of mankind in general in that remote antiquity when families were springing from individuals derived from a single original pair, and these families were growing into the early tribes and nations. As the background of human history, it depicts the relation of man to the lower orders of life, the relation of this life to the world, of the world to the universe, and of the universe to God ; as all that exists has come forth through his creative fiat and formative energy. Man, as the crown of all that was brought into being, gives unity to creation as its end. The springing of all nations from a single ancestry unites mankind in a common brotherhood. Both man and nature having their origin in God constitute a system, a unity of which he is the source and center. The conception of Genesis is a grand one.

Why the history of Israel should have a cosmogony as its introduction and background is not far to seek. It is to be a religious history. It is to embody divine laws. It is to trace God's method in the religious culture of a people until they were prepared to be the apostles of monotheism. The record, of the history itself, in its advancing stages, was to be one of the means of their training for this high purpose. To give a broad culture in religious thought, true ideas of God and of his relations to all things must be instilled. Especially must false notions of the origin of the universe be dispelled, and the personal might and majesty of the one true God be set over against the inanities of polytheism and pantheism. Because

ix

INTRODUCTION it was to be a religious history, it was also needful to explain the general sinful condition of mankind and Israel's special relation to the other tribes and nations. We have, therefoie, not only the direct line of Israel traced back to Adam, but also the beginning of general history, as reference is made to the ancestors of other peoples.

III. Its Plan and Contents.

The book covers four great eras : creation, the antediluvian world, the post-diluvian world until the birth of Abram, including a notice of the progenitors of other nations, the progenitors of the Israelites especially — Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and his twelve sons, particularly Joseph — to the end of the patriarchal age. When the curtain lifts at the beginning of Exodus, Israel has grown into a nation.

Creation is outlined in 1 : 1 to 2 : 4a in its six progressive stages until man appears as its crown and lord. The succeeding history is genealogical, in which the incidents in the lives of patriarchs and in the early experiences of the race are fitted into their place in the ten generations which form the framework of Genesis, and give it coherency and unity. These generations are : (1) Of the heavens and the earth, chap. 2 : 4 to 4 : 26 ; (2) Of Adam, 5 : 1 to 6 : 8 ; (3) Of Noah, 6 : 9 to 9 : 29 ; (4) The sons of Noah, 10 : 1 to 11 : 9 ; (5) Shem, 11 : 10-26 ; (6) Terah, 11 : 27 to 25 : 11 ; (7) Ishmael, 25 : 12-18 ; (8) Isaac, 25 : 19 to 35 : 29 ; (9) Esau, 36 : 1 to 37 : 1 ; (10) Jacob, 37 : 2 to 50 : 24.

Under the first generation are given the fitting up of the garden of Eden for the abode of man, a more particular account of the creation of Adam and Eve, their life of innocence and communion with God in the garden, their temptation and fall, their expulsion with the promise of a deliverer, the awful outbreak of depravity in Cain, leading through jealousy to fratricide, and in Lamech to murder. Under the second, the increasing wickedness of the race is outlined through the intermarriage of the purer descendants of Seth with the evil stock of Cain, until, notwithstanding the godly example of Enoch and Noah, the race became so incurably bad that the only recourse was to sweep it off the earth. Under the third is narrated the building of the ark, through which Noah and his family are saved when the flood destroyed the rest of mankind, the covenant made with him no more to sweep away the race with a flood, the sin of Ham with the consequent curse upon his descendants, and the blessing upon Shem and Japheth. Under the fourth is given what has been called the genealogical table of the nations, and the confusion of tongues. The fifth is purely genealogical. Under the sixth the special history of the progenitors of the Israelites is begun, including the call of Abram, his coming to Canaan, his experience in Egypt, the separation from Lot, his defeat of the four kings, the long trial of his faith as to a son, the various . renewals of the covenant, the account of Hagar and the birth of Ishmael, the destruction of the cities of the Plain, with the sparing of Lot and his incest, the repetition of Abram' s subterfuge as to Sarah with Abimelech, the birth of Isaac, the supreme trial of his faith in the command to sacrifice him, the marriage of Isaac, and Abraham's second marriage and death. The seventh gives only the genealogy of Ishmael as being nearly related to the Israelites. The eighth, that of Isaac, narrates the birth of Jacob and Esau, the evil means taken by Jacob and Rebekah to secure the birthright and blessing of Isaac, the deceiving of Abimelech as to

INTRODUCTION xi

Rebekah, the flight of Jacob to Padan-ararn, his marriage, his prosperity, the birth of the twelve patriarchs, God's covenants with him, his return to Canaan after having made peace with Esau, the rape of Dinah, and the destruction of Shechem. The ninth, that of Esau, is strictly genealogical. The tenth, that of Jacob, gives the history of Joseph, leading to the settlement in Egypt, and the death of Jacob with his prophecy of the future of his children.

IV. The Date and Authorship.

1. It has been decided to consider the question of the authorship of Genesis in connection with that of the Pentateuch in which it is involved. In the brief space of this Introduction no attempt can be made to follow the discussion into its maze of microscopic details. By confining attention to the broader issues between the two chief schools of criticism, a juster judgment may perhaps be reached than by considering minutiae which are often better fitted to perplex than to enlighten.

2. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was accepted almost without dissent until the middle of the seventeenth century, when it was successively questioned for different reasons by Hobbes, Peyrere, Spinoza, LeClerc, and others, whether portions of it were not by another hand. The germ of the present documentary theory, of what is technically called the higher criticism, was planted by Astruc in 1753. It was not, however, until the theory of evolution was applied to the religion of Israel by Reuss and Graf, and received the powerful support of Kuenen and Wellhausen, that the higher critical view became very generally accepted. Before proceeding, it will be necessary to give a brief summary of the general features of the two chief beliefs as to the authorship of the Pentateuch.

3. The more conservative view holds to the Mosaic origin of the legislation of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic authorship in the broad sense that Moses was generally responsible for it. It does not deny but asserts, in view of the fact that writing was in common use for centuries before Moses, that he used documents coming down from the past in the composition of Genesis. He may also have employed others to assist him. The most of those who hold this view also concede that notes and minor portions by later hands may have found a place in our present text. But the Pentateuch is trusted as giving a substantially true account of the events recorded and of the legislation, the Levitical preceding the Deuteronomic.

4. Agreement is had among the more radical critics only along more general lines. The Hexateuch — the Pentateuch with Joshua added — is comprised of four chief documents with the additions of an indefinite number of redactors. The Jehovistic document, so called from its predominant use of Jehovah as the name of God, and designated J, and that called the Elohistic, from its use of Elohim for God, and designated E, were written somewhere between 900 and 750 b. c. and about a century apart, some thinking J the earlier and others E, while some suppose J to have been written in Israel and E in Judah, and others the reverse. They represented traditions which had come down from lip to lip from the centuries stretching back into the dimmest antiquity. These, after each had undergone several revisions, were united into one before 650 b. c. by a process of fusing and piecing together. In 622 b. c. the nucleus of Deuteronomy, which may have been prepared somewhat earlier, was given forth. It received various revisions and xii INTRODUCTION additions up to about 540 b. c, the middle of the exile, when it was combined with the united J E to form JED. About this time the nucleus of the legislation of Leviticus and Numbers consisting, the most hold, of Lev. chap. 17 to 26 was prepared in Babylon. This was fitted with a framework, partly historical and partly legislative, and had additions made to it by an indefinite number of writers ; it is called the Priest's Code, and designated P. This was brought by Ezra from Babylon in 458, but was not given forth until 444 b. c. (Neh. chap. 8). About forty years after, as J and E had been at first and then J E and D, this document and JED were combined to form J E D P, our present Hexateuch. The present tendency is to regard what men formerly thought distinct documents, each by its single author, as the work of schools of writers who wrought during indefinitely long periods. These are the general outlines of the two views which represent the two chief schools whose claims are to be considered.

5. It must be remembered that the more radical criticism, rather more than the more conservative, depends wholly upon the Pentateuch itself in its connection with the Old Testament generally for all the facts upon which to build its theory of authorship. The first inquiry then is, what do the Pentateuch and the 0. T. writers say on this question ? As any one can see, all the legislation of the Pentateuch is directly said to have been given through Moses. It is also in a historical setting which declares it given forth to Israel during his life. All the legislation of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers is said to have been given on Sinai and during the subsequent sojourn in the wilderness. Many of the laws are said to have grown out of specific events. The Deuteronomic legislation is said to have been given by Moses in a farewell address on the plains of Moab.

6. The Pentateuch also explicitly declares that Moses put some of it into written form. This comprises the Book of the Covenant, Exod. chap. 20 to 23 (cf. 24 • 4) ; the form in which this covenant was renewed, Exod. 34 : 10-26 (cf. ver. 27) ; the Deuteronomic Code, including at least Deut. chap. 12 to 26, and probably chap. 1 to 31 (cf. 31 : 9) ; the Song of Moses, Deut. 32 : 1-43 (cf. 31 : 22); the sentence upon Amalek (Exod. 17 : 14) ; and the " goings out according to their journeys " of the Israelites during their forty years in the wilderness (Num. 33 : 2). Some scholars think the expression "wrote this law," Deut. 31 : 9, broad enough to cover the whole Pentateuch, 1 and that it may have been this whole book which Moses directed the Levites to place in the ark (Deut. 31 : 24-26). In Exod. 17 : 14 "in a book " may be equally well rendered "in the book," and may instruct Moses to record this event in the book he was writing. At least Moses is regarded as the one best qualified to record what should be preserved. Doctor Briggs is not justified, "High. Crit. Hexateuch," p. 10, in concluding that, because Moses was instructed to write down certain parts of the Hexateuch, he wrote only these ; may it not rather be concluded that he would record all that was of equal importance, and that the special command of Exod. 17 : 14 was to make sure that this should not be omitted. The whole history and the legislation are so interwoven that they give the definite impression of a common authorship.

7. It is likewise conceded that the Mosaic origin and authorship of the Law

1 Green, "Higher Crit. of the Pent.," p. 37, note; Bissell, "The Pent., its Orig. and Structure," p. 51, note.

INTRODUCTION xiii was the unchallenged and persistent belief of the Israelites as represented in the O. T. and their other writings during all their history. In the book of Joshua the Lord is represented as commanding Joshua to "observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee," and this law was in a written book which was copied (Josh. 1 : 7, 8 ; 8 : 31-35 ; 23 : 6). In Judges reference is made to "the commandments of the Lord which he had commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses" (3 : 4). In the book of Kings David is said to have exhorted Solomon "to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses " (1 Kings 2 : 3, cf. 8 : 9, 53, 56, where the same belief is attributed to Solomon himself). This belief is said to have been held as a matter of course in the reigns of Joash, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah (2 Chron. 23 : 18 ; 2 Kings 14 : 6 ; 18 : 6 ; 21 : 8 ; 23 : 25). Ezra and Nehemiah are most emphatic (Ezra 3:2; 6 : 18 ; Neh. 8 : 1, 14 ; 9 : 13, 14) as are the authors of Apochryphal books (1 Esdras 1 : 6, 11 ; 7:6; Eccles. 24 : 23 ; Baruch 2 : 28 ; 2 Mac. 7 : 30). Philo and Josephus also declare the Mosaic authorship of the law. So universal and unquestioned was this belief among the Jews that all non- Jewish writers who refer to their Law ascribe it to Moses. 1 Whether the 0. T. writers thought him the author of the whole Pentateuch will depend somewhat upon the time when it all came to be designated " the Law."

8. Our Lord and N. T. writers also accepted the Mosaic origin and authorship of the whole legislation of the Pentateuch. Our Lord declares that "Moses gave the law " (John 7 : 19). John says, "the law was given by (or through) Moses " (John 1 : 17). Our Lord refers to various laws of the Pentateuch as being commanded by Moses, not as exceptional, but because all were by him ; of the leper (Matt. 8 : 4), of divorce (Matt. 19 : 7, 8), of circumcision (John 7 : 23, 24), treatment of parents (Mark 7 : 10). The reader may be referred further to Luke 5 : 14, Heb. 7 : 14; 9 : 19, etc. The expressions "the law of Moses," "the book of Moses" so frequently used by N. T. writers do not mean, then, the law attributed to Moses or the book in which he is the chief personage, but the law or book he actually gave. As the whole Pentateuch was at this time designated "the Law," we can scarcely escape the conclusion that it was all attributed to him. This is not denied by the more radical critics, but the authority of our Lord in this realm is repudiated. As Kuenen put it, "We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of the N. T. in the domain of the exegesis of the Old." 2

9. The more recent archeological discoveries have thrown much light upon the question of the possibility or probability of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

They have undeniably annihilated some objections. It was said by Wellhausen and others that Moses could not have composed the Pentateuch, because writing for literary purposes did not come into use until long after his day. But discoveries in Susa, Tel el-Amarna, Nippur, Crete, and elsewhere, show that all over Western Asia and in Egypt there was an extensive literature centuries before Moses ; that not only the nobles, but the men of business, the overseers of workmen, the wealthier farmers, petty sheiks, and even workmen were able to read and

1 " Lex Mosaica," p. 41 ; Stanley Leathes, " The Law in the Prophets "; Rawlinson, " Hist. Evidences.'' 2 " The Proph. and Prophecy in Israel," p. 487.

xiv INTRODUCTION write ; and that in the age before Moses, Syria and Canaan were centers of literary activity. 1 Under these circumstances, for a man of such mark as to be able to impress himself upon the after ages as did Moses, to be unable to read and write, is almost inconceivable. The kindred objection as to the framing of a code of laws as early as the age of Moses, on the ground that nothing of the kind was then in existence, has also been swept away by the discovery of the Code of Khammurabi at Susa — a code which had been issued in the age of Abraham. "The codification of the law, therefore, was no new thing in the days of Moses. On the contrary, it was a very old thing in the history of Western Asia, a fact too, with which Abraham and Jacob must alike have been acquainted." 2

10. It is also true that the fuller light on the conditions existing at the time has been in a remarkable manner confirmatory of the biblical account of the age of the patriarchs and of the exodus. The whole setting of Gen. chap. 14, which was once thought to stamp it a late fiction, has been found strikingly accurate. Amraphel and Arioch were the kings of the countries named in ver. 1 at the time of Abraham. While Chedorlaomer and Tidal have not been so certainly identified, the former is found to be an Elamite name, and the king of Elam before that time had conquered Babylon and the other countries named, and would be the leader in any earlier expedition. The sovereign of Elam about this time claimed lordship over Canaan. Amraphel later threw off subjection to Elam, and Babylon became supreme. Sayce and Gunkel regard Melchizedek as a real personage. Allusions to the Hittites which were thought to cast suspicion upon the historicity of the Pentateuch have been found to be correct. The Amorites and other tribes appear in the setting given in the Pentateuch. The time when the Israelites are said to have taken possession of Canaan was when neither Babylon nor Egypt had it under control — the only period when they could conquer it and grow to power without trying conclusions with the overwhelming might of those great monarchies.

11. The incidental allusions and local coloring of which the narratives of the Pentateuch are so full are also found by contemporary records, which have been disinterred, to be wonderfully accurate. It is noticeable that this is especially true of references to Egypt. To quote, the Pentateuch " touches on public and private matters, personal habits, customs of society, modes of living, the products, resources, and seasons of the country, the condition, occupations, food and drink of its inhabitants, to some degree their language, and other miscellaneous matters and implications." 3 It may be added that reference is made to the geography of Egypt, which was much changed before the date of the alleged post-Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. All these references are woven into the texture of the narrative in the most natural way ; all have been confirmed even in their minute details by contemporary evidence, and old charges of errors swept away. 4

12. There is also no small harmony between the account of the legislation and the general situation given in the history and learned from outside sources. A great host, disorganized and spiritless through long bondage, was to be consolidated into a nation. It was also soon to possess a land where it would be

1 Sayce, "Monumental Facts," etc., pp. 8-43 ; " Higher Crit. and the Monuments," etc., p. 47 ; Petrie, " Researches in Sinai."

2 " Monumental Facts," etc., pp. 70, 71. 3 Bartlett, "The Veracity of the Hexateuch," p. 86.

4 Sayce, " Monumental Facts."

INTRODUCTION xv surrounded by peoples who had for ages been under a code of laws which was steeped in polytheistic notions. If the Israelites were to be knit together into a people that would maintain its separate identity and its monotheism, it must be by organizing around a code of laws of its own, and which would put Jehovah in the place of the false gods of other peoples. Under these circumstances it is not strange that Moses should at once give them legislation, although he may have expected the stay in the wilderness to be short. As soon as possible the training must begin to fit them to endure the various forms of stress which was soon to be upon them. It was also natural, as they were, about to enter Canaan, that Moses should modify and add to the old legislation to adapt it to the new conditions there, as in Deuteronomy is said to have been done. Especially did the situation demand, as never after, insistence upon a central sanctuary which is a marked feature of the Deuteronomic code. What better fitted to unify them and safeguard them against idolatry than to come together at a common center to worship Jehovah and keep his feasts ?

13. What is the bearing of this mere outline of some of the more evident facts upon the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch ? Neither in the Pentateuch itself nor in the remainder of the 0. T. is it explicitly stated that Moses prepared either Genesis or all non-legislative portions of the whole Pentateuch, unless the phrase * the book of the law of Moses" was used as a designation of the whole Pentateuch. But this silence furnishes no argument against its authorship by him. Whenever the authorship of any portion of it is stated, it is always attributed to him. As early as when the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole is mentioned, and ever after, Moses is declared to have prepared it. His authorship is ever spoken of in that matter-of-course way which makes it plain that the writers were but expressing the unquestioned belief coming down from the past. Many traditions which, it was once thought, might be brushed aside almost contemptuously as utterly unreliable, have had a fashion of confirming their probability or historicity in the face of attack ; witness those of the authorship of the Iliad and of the Gospels, and those about Menes and others. The consensus of tradition to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch cannot be lightly rejected.

14. So far as evidence is at hand, the history of the patriarchs and of the Mosaic age is found true to the environment revealed by the contemporary history as unearthed by archeological research. While it may be said this evidence is not extensive, it is all on one side, and cannot be a mere coincidence between a narrative largely fictitious, and true history. Should a map be found of an unknown island, it would not require more than that here a cape, and there a bay, and yonder a river be found to agree in place and outline with the chart, to be convinced of its general correctness. Most significant of all, in its bearing on the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch, is the minute accuracy of incidental allusions, details, etc. , as stated above in respect to Egypt and the desert of the exodus. Nowhere else are they quite so numerous and marked as here. And they are not attached to the surface of the narratives in an artificial way, but are woven in the most natural manner into their inner texture. It must also be remembered that literature was not in circulation and that communication between countries was comparatively scant. What was gained of accurate knowledge of the more minute setting of xvi INTRODUCTION events in the manners and customs, etc. , of a people must be chiefly by personal observation. Under these conditions, to give, if anything, more details and a richer local coloring in connection with what happened in Egypt and the desert of the exodus, is just what we should not expect a writer in Canaan, even in the age of Moses, much less centuries after, to attempt ; and did he do so, we should not expect him to escape blunders.

We should expect that only a writer who had spent his life on the ground would even attempt to do this — a most difficult and delicate task at best — and it w r ould be only he who could accomplish it so that the numerous charges of inaccuracy made by the scrutiny of unfriendly criticism, should be found by the late discovery of contemporary evidence to prove only the ignorance of those who made them. But if we seem to be compelled to believe that the portions relating to Egypt and the desert of the exodus must have come down to us from one living in these lands, everything points to Moses as that one. He had spent his life there. He had had advantages which peculiarly fitted him for the work. In writing down or attending to the recording of the wonderful events in which he bore the chief part, he would be but following a familiar custom ; since in Egypt from long before his time, not only the kings, but many of the common people kept a record of the chief occurrences of their lives. Believing as he did, if our present Pentateuch has any historic basis, that the events were of religious and divine significance, he would have a motive, superadded to the custom of his training, to induce him to record them. It is true, the part of the Pentateuch whose theater is in Egypt and the desert of the exodus does not include the first thirty-eight chapters of Genesis ; but as these chapters are linked, both in alleged covenant as well as in the closest historical and literary connection, with what follows, whatever evidence there may be of the authorship of the latter covers that of the former as well. As the learned leader of Israel at the time when God's purposes were culminating, what more natural than that he should use the materials coming down from the remote past, and gather them along the line of their progressive development. All this would be in harmony with the tradition of his authorship of the Pentateuch which persisted ever after. It would also explain how the law which is directly ascribed to him is so intermeshed in the history as to appear inseparable and of the same authorship. Most of all, it would be in accord with the views of our Lord and the inspired teachers of the New Testament. All the lines of evidence from the whole Bible as we have it, from the Pentateuch itself, from the other books of the 0. T., from the attestations of archeological discovery, from the consistency of the legislation with the situation which is said to have called it forth, and from the testimony of our Lord and the N. T. converge upon Moses as the source of the Pentateuch, and its author in a broad but true sense. Before all this evidence should be rejected, a better explanation of the Pentateuch in view of all the facts involved ought to be found — one more self-consistent and one more inherently probable. Have we such a one in the complicated theory of the radical criticism ?