A companion to the book of Genesis

Preface

The Author of the following work does not hesitate to acknowledge, that he offers it to the public with some solicitude. Apart from any personal considerations, which it would be affectation wholly to disclaim, there are others of a nature entirely different and vastly higher, which must make a strong impression on every writer who feels himself to be a moral and responsible agent. To comment on the sacred Scriptures is to interpret what God formerly revealed ; and therefore, the attempt should be made with due seriousness of mind, and suitable intellectual preparation. The expositor should possess a competent acquaintance with the principles and laws of interpretation, and also with the various facts which bear, either directly or indirectly, on the points to be illustrated. He should exercise a proper care and judgment in selecting from the sources of information, and in applying his knowledge to the obscurities which are to be cleared up, and the difficulties which are to be removed. Whether these requisitions shall appear to be met,

IV PREFACE.

in any degree, in the subsequent pages, must be decided by the candid and intelligent examiner.

It may be proper to inform the reader, that it was not my intention to write a complete commentary on the book of Genesis, or, in any sense, a practical one. He need not therefore be surprised, if many things are here passed oyer which could not properly have been omitted in a more voluminous work, composed on a more extensive plan. The book now submitted to his inspection is intended as a companion to the first part of the Pentateuch. Far from being designed to lessen the importance or supersede the use of the inspired record, it does but accompany it as a servant and attendant. It is expected, therefore, that the reader will peruse it, and especially the Analysis, with the sacred volume open before him. Those who are acquainted with the original Hebrew, will, of course, prefer the fountain head of the truth. Others will find our admirable and generally accurate English translation among the very best and purest of the streams.

In the preparation both of the Analysis and the Notes, it has been my object to illustrate the book of Genesis by a constant reference to the original text, to other portions of Scripture, and to the best sources and aids of interpretation. In the hope, that, of those who may favor this volume with their attention, a considerable number will be competent to examine original authorities for themselves, it appeared to be due to that class of readers,

PREFACE.

not to leave them without the means of determining on the correctness of the Author's representations. It is with this view, that I have occasionally introduced the authorities appealed to in their original language. It is hoped, however, that this will not deter the merely English reader from giving his attention to this work, as, in every instance, the original passages are accompanied by a translation, which, if not always literal, is yet sufficiently so to put him in possession of the writer's meaning. He will not object, because to one class of readers an advantage is afforded, of which it is his misfortune that he cannot avail himself.

It will be perceived that the literal sense of the words is adhered to, when there is no sufficient reason for adopting a figurative meaning. And when a passage is susceptible of more expositions than one, I have thought it most in accordance with that candor which should govern the expositor, not to limit the reader to that, which to my own mind may be most satisfactory: being well assured of this, that uniformity of opinion respecting the meaning of difficult passages of Scripture is not to be expected, both on account of the nature of the grounds whereon such passages ought to be interpreted, and the character and habits of the mind, varying, as they do, in consequence of different natural capacity, and also from the influence of education and incidental circumstances. If the data whereby to form a judgment respecting the

VI PREFACE.

meaning of a passage have not appeared sufficiently clear or complete to settle the true and necessary sense, Ihave purposely avoided the expression of a decided opinion, being of nothing more strongly persuaded than of this, that an affectation of knowledge merely displays ignorance, and that an attempt to shroud in mystery what is clear, or to explain what is to us unintelligible, necessarily tends either to superstition or infidelity.

Page

15,

—

68,

-

72,

—

83,

—

86,

—

102,

—

121, 131,

—

380,

ERRATA line 4 from bottom, for In read in.

— 11 from bottom, for 60 read 40.

— 7, for He read The.

— 1, for xi. read ix.

— 7 from bottom, for her reac? his.

— 6 from bottom, for might reac? dignity.

— 7 from bottomj/or idolatrise re<z<i idololatrise.

— 6, /or rhb^' read rfrlB. 380, — 19, for adapted, read adopted. 385, — 16, for scareely, read scarcely.

The Book of Genesis derives its name from the history of the creation, in Greek yhe<fis, with which it commences. The Jews designate the several books of the Pentateuch by the words with which they respectively begin ; this book, therefore, is known by the name Bereshith, or Bereshith bara,

Although the book is a part of the Pentateuch, and consequently not in all respects an entire work, it is still sufficiently complete in itself to admit of its being examined independently of the four books which succeed it. It may be divided generally into two portions. The first, chap, i — xi. 26, contains the principal events from the creation to the birth of | Abraham, with genealogical lists of such of the ancestors of that patriarch as had preserved a due regard for religion and good morals. The second portion, comprehending the remainder of the book, furnishes a more detailed history of \ Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, continuing to the death of Jo- I seph ; and in this portion the promises made to the patriarchs ^form everywhere the most conspicuous object.

After an account of the creation, of the original state of man, and of the fall, the first portion proceeds to relate the : increase of irreligion and immorality, until, about the year I 235, (iv. 26 ; v. 3, 6,) the true worshippers of the Deity were distinguished by the appellation " sons of God," whilst those who disregarded the divine instructions and were led by merely human propensities, were called children " of men." 2

Of the former class were the ancestors of Noah, who are consequently here introduced, (chap, v.) although the genealogy, like a long parenthesis, interrupts the close connexion between iv. 26 and vi. 1. For the same cause the extraordinary piety of Enoch and his translation are mentioned in v. 22 ss. The intermarriages or illicit union of these two classes of persons produced at last so general a corruption of religion and morals, that God destroyed by a flood all living creatures except Noah and his family, and the various animals which were preserved along with them in the ark. On account of the importance of this terrific event, it is related with more than usual particularity, (vi. 9 — ix. 29.) This is followed by a genealogical and geographical account of settlements made in the world, (chap, x.) and then, (xi. 1 — 9,) the attempt to build the tower of Babel is related, which, as it gave rise to the dispersion, is intimately connected with the account of that event. The posterity of Shem, with whom religion and morals were preserved longest and in the greatest purity, are then introduced, (xi. 26,) down to the birth of Abraham.

The second portion of the book contains a more particular account of facts in which the Israelites were interested. As the family of Terah were idolatrous, (Josh. xxiv. 2 ; Gen. xxxi. 30, xxxv. 2,) Abraham is divinely called to go to Canaan, where a numerous posterity is promised him, and the settlement of his descendants through Isaac, after a residence of four hundred years in a foreign land ; and also, that, in his posterity " all nations should be blessed," (xii. 2, 3 ; xiii. 14 — 17 ; xv. 4, 5, 7, 13 — 18 ; xvii. 4 — 8 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii 17, 18 ;) all which has in view the preservation of the knowledge of God and true religion, together with the coming of a spiritual deliverer to bring the blessing of salvation to mankind. These promises, which are repeated to Isaac, (xxvi. 1 — 5,) and to Jacob, (xxviii. 13 — 15,) are the principal point

>n which every thing in this domestic history turns, the account of Joseph not excepted, as this includes the descent of Jacob's family into Egypt, where they became exceedingly numerous. Whatever is introduced in relation to other families and nations, has some bearing on the history of these patriarchs, or concerns some collateral branches of their families. See chap. xiv. 17 ss.; xxv. 1 — 4, 12 — 16; xxxvi.*

That the Pentateuch, and consequently the Book of Genesis as a constituent part of it, is the genuine work of Moses, is supported by the tradition of the whole church, both Jewish and Christian, which, with unanimous consent, ascribe it to this most extraordinary man, whose deeply religious character, natural talents, and profound and extensive learning, abundantly qualified him, under that inspiration of the Holy Spirit by which he was guided, to prepare the work, and to rule over the people of God, for whose use it was originally designed. In the earlier ages of the primitive Christian church, some of the Gnosticks and certain other heretics did indeed oppose the genuineness of the Pentateuch ; but their efforts were directed chiefly against the divine origin of the law which it contained, and some of the historical narratives which it recounted, which appeared to them unworthy of the Divine Being. j- The fathers considered the Pentateuch as the original work of Moses, restored through inspiration by Ezra, after its loss in consequence of the Babylonian captivity. The notion of this fabulous restoration originated with the Jews themselves.

The suspicion that the Pentateuch contains interpolations, may also be traced to the same source. Isaac Ben Jasus,

* Jahn's Introduction, Part II. § 2.

f On this ground they are said in the Clementines to be false. See Homily II, chapters 41 — 44, 52, in Le Clerc's edition of Cotelerius, > Ant. 1700, vol. I. p. 632, 634.

a Spanish Jew,* in the beginning of the eleventh century, suggested the idea that some portions of the Pentateuch were composed after the time of Moses. The 36th chapter of Genesis, for instance, he ascribed to the age of Jehoshaphat. Aben Ezra, who mentions this opinion with disapprobation, still admits that some interpolated passages occur. This learned writer is generally considered as the first who opposed the genuineness of the Pentateuch. Spinoza appeals to his authority, and endeavours thereby to support his own opinion, that the Pentateuch owes its present form to the labours of Ezra. Tract. Theol. Polit. Cap. 8. See Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, by H. A. Ch. Haevernick, Erlangen, 1836, vol. I. p. 634—636.

It is unnecessary to mention various writers, who, in some form or other, have denied the genuineness of the Pentateuch, and consequently of the Book of Genesis. However great may have been the influence of their productions within a limited time and space, their objections have always been met by solid answers, and the genuineness of the Pentateuch as the authentic work of Moses has been vindicated to the satisfaction of the candid and intelligent. The reader will find a masterly discussion of this subject in Jahn's Introduction, Part II. § 3 — -14. And in defending the genuineness of the five books of Moses, he comprehends also of course that of Genesis. For, as he remarks,! ' the events herein related are alluded to in the time of Joshua and in all; the following ages, as well known equally with those in th< remaining books ; whence it may justly be inferred, that Geniesis, from the time of Joshua downward, having been coirw prehended under the general titles of the L^aw, the Law of

* See Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebraja, Tom. I. p. 339, No. 15, and p. 662, No. 1208. f P. 190, 191.

ehovah, the Law of Moses, and the Book of the Law of !oses, was attributed to Moses. There is the less room for doubting this, inasmuch as Genesis and the first chapters of Exodus form a necessary introduction to what follows,* and, on the contrary, in the remaining books of the Pentateuch, there are frequent references to the events narrated in Genesis and the first chapters of Exodus ; so that both parts are closely connected in such a manner that neither would be perfect without the other. The Hebrews, degraded during their residence in Egypt so as to worship creatures, and, as had been foreseen by Moses, thenceforward continually prone to idolatry, needed the instruction given in Genesis and the former part of Exodus, respecting the nature of the deity whom they at Mount Sinai had ac- ' knowledged as their king, whose laws they had received, and to whom they proffered their reverence and gratitude tor his mercies, by their Sabbaths and solemn feasts, by tpeir sacrifices and first fruits, by their obedience to his laws, and by all their acts of homage and worship. If they had been unacquainted with this part of the Pentateuch, they must have been ignorant of the nature of the Deity whom they professed to worship ; they could not at that remote period have known their king as God the Creator and Governor of the Universe ; they could not have undei> stood his frequently recurring titles, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob ; they could not have been able to

* The connexion of Genesis with the subsequent books, as introductory their contents, and in some measure serving as an explanation and lefence of the proceedings which they relate, will be evident upon an inspection of the following passages, all of which contain matter either alluded to in subsequent books, or else corresponding with some particulars therein developed. Chap. ii. 3; ix. 1 — 17, 20 — 27; xii. 1 — 3; xiii, / 14 — 17; xv.; xvii. ; xix. 30 — 38; xxi. 1 — 20; xxiv. 2—8; xxv. 1—6, 19 — 34; xxvii. ; xxviii. ; xxxv. 9 — 15; xxxvi. 6; xlvi. 1 — 7; xlviii. ; xlix. 1, 7—13.

ascertain what was meant by the frequent references to th promises made to the patriarchs ; and they must have been entirely in the dark, as to the number and nature of those wonderful works, which are so frequently mentioned in the remaining books of Moses. On all these subjects, oral tradition must, by the general lapse into idolatry, have become exceedingly depraved, if not totally obliterated, in the course of ages. The same writer, therefore, who, in his care for the information of the Hebrews even of remote periods, committed the Pentateuch to writing, would not have left instruction so necessary for that people, especially those of them who lived in later ages, as that contained in the book of Genesis and the former part of Exodus, to be supplied by oral tradition ; neither is it credible that he did/

But if the book of Genesis were written by Moses, agreeably to all ancient tradition and scriptural reference, inasmuch as the work contains narrations of events which took place long before the time of the author, the question arises, whence did he obtain his information ? He must have derived his knowledge of the facts recorded either from immediate divine revelation, or from oral tradition, or from written documents or other monuments. The nature of many of the facts and the minuteness of the narration, render it quite improbable that such detailed accounts were communicated by immediate revelation. That all his knowledge should have been derived from oral tradition, appears morally impossible, when we consider the great number of names, of ages, of dates, and of minute events, which ar$ recorded. It remains, then, that he must have obtained! some information from written documents, coeval, or nearly so, with the events which they recorded, and composed by I persons intimately acquainted with the subjects to which they relate. That these were few in number, appears

>robable from the simple and uncultivated habits and the tumble occupations of the Hebrews previously to their removal to Egypt, and from their oppressed and degraded state while there, all of which are unfavourable alike to \ literary pursuits and historical research. It is probable, ] therefore, that the history given by Moses in Genesis is , derived principally from short memoranda and genealogical tables written by the patriarchs, or under their superintendence, and preserved by their posterity until the time of Moses, who made use of them, with additions from authentic tradition or existing monuments, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and thus prepared his work. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Hebrew legislator introduced some patriarchal narrations into his book with little or no alteration. The existence of written documents anterior to the time of Moses is unquestionable.* The au^ thority of the book of Job, (xix. 23, 24,) and the late Egyptian disclosures, place this beyond a doubt. And it is difficult to think that documents were not used in preparing such narratives as that of Joseph, and some parts of the history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is remarked by Ewald, in ' his work on the composition of Genesis, respecting the

* The subject of the early use of writing in reference to its bearing on the antiquity and genuineness of the Pentateuch, is carefully investigated by Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg, in his work on the authenticity of the Pentateuch (Die Authentic des Pentateuches,) vol. I. p. 415-502, Berlin, 1836. As I shall hereafter refer to this work, it may be well to state, that it is the second part of the author's contributions towards an introduction to the Old Testament, of which his work on the Authenticity of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah constitute the first, and was published at Berlin, 183 L. His Christology of the Old Testament has keen translated by Professor Keith of Alexandria, and was published Jn /hree 8vo. volumes, the first at Alexandria, D. C. in 1836, and the

< remaining two at Washington, D. C. in 1839. This work ought to be

• in the hands of every student of theology.

narrative of the flood,* that, although indeed it might hav< been abbreviated and some collateral circumstances omitted, yet the writer evidently intends to show the divine agency even in the details, that he is under the influence of strong feeling, and describes the tragic event with minuteness and particularity, as if he had himself been an eye-witness. This is, as he adds, strikingly characteristic of Hebrew history, and is by no means confined to the account of the flood, but pervades the whole book of Genesis. The artist draws from the life, and delineates the vivid scene with all the freshness of nature and reality. It is not to be questioned, that this might be done by a writer who lived long after the facts related ; but the opinion, that Moses employed certain patriarchal accounts composed by some one who,, had himself beheld the scene related, or else had heard il from an eye-witness, is probable, to say the least. On su< a theory, the credibility, historic accuracy, and inspire authority of the book, derive additional strength: for the original author becomes an eye-witness, or either contemporaneous or nearly so with the facts related ; and some of the facts are of such a nature that they could have been derived only from immediate revelation ; and the whole being compiled by an inspired writer, have received the sanction of the Holy Spirit in an equal degree with his original productions. f

* Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, von Dr. H. A Ewald. Braunschweig, 1823, p. 85.

f The reader will perhaps observe a striking verbal correspondence between some portions of this paragraph and parts of pages xxxiii and xxxiv of Professor Bush's Introduction to his Notes on the Book Jf Genesis. As I do not wish it to be supposed that I would quote the Professor's language without the ordinary marks of acknowledgment, I think proper to state that the corresponding portions were written by» me, and published as notes to Jahn's Introduction, translated by Pro- \ fessor Whittingham and myself. See p. 204, 205. The notes of Mr. , Bush were published in 1839, Jahn's Introduction in 1827.

The book of Genesis then appears as the work of Moses, fai preparing which, he was assisted by divine inspiration, suggesting what could not otherwise be known ; by documents previously written ; by standing monuments raised to commemorate historical or domestic facts ; and by oral tradition handed down from early ages. On this last mentioned mode of conveying truth, the more reliance will be placed in proportion as we rightly consider the longevity of human life at the period in question, the vast importance of the topics transmitted, and the deep interest felt in their preservation.

The theory of pre-exi stent documents was first cautiously advanced by Vitringa, who speaks of " scrolls and docu-

. ments of the patriarchs preserved among the Israelites, and i collected, digested, and arranged by Moses, and filled up wherein they were defective."* It was soon after proposed again by Le Cene - )-, and to a moderate extent, adopted by 0&lmet,J and Bishop Gleig.§ Astrtjc was the first who attempted to mark out the various documents of which the book of Genesis consists. In his work on this subject,|| he

I supposed them to be twelve in number. He contended also

f Bible de Le Cene, Tom. I. p. ix. Col. 2, and p. x. Col. 1 and 2, which, however, was not printed until 1741. See an able dissertation u La Bible de Vence, Tom. I. p. 266 ss. ed. 2.

t Commentaire Litterale, Tom. I. P. I. p. xiii.

§ Introduction to Stackhouse's History of the Bible. See also Horne's Introduction, vol. I. p. 54, 55, 6th edition. A list of writers by jwhom this opinion has been supported may be seen, with accurate preferences, in Holder on the Fall, chap. II. p. 32, 33.

|| Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de Genese. Paris, 1753, 8vo. 3 that the first chapters of Exodus were likewise derived from them. This, however, no judicious person will allow. \ Eichhorn, in his Introduction,* modified this hypothesis so as \ to limit the number of primitive documents to two, the one remarkable for using the term Jehovah as the name of God, while the other employs Elohim. Whatever is not derived from these two, he considers as original with the author. IlgenI makes the distinction of three documents, two of which employ the word Elohim, and the other Jehovah ; one of the former approximating both in language and character to the latter. These hypotheses are all ingeniously devised, but not one of them has received universal approbation. Each system rests upon far-fetched and arbitrary assumptions, and supposes the collector of the documents to resemble its framer in views and dispositions. Other theories of the same sort might be contrived, and, h fact, a new one was proposed by Kelle,J in 1811-12, ai yet none will be universally acceptable ; and after all, if any one were capable of being established by more ingenious arguments than all the rest, the only advantage to be derived would be, that then the documents employed in preparing the book of Genesis might be enumerated. § But such a designation of original documents incorporated into the book cannot

* Einleitung ins A. T. Theil II. § 416-427.

f In his Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs, 1798.

t In his Vorurtheilsfreye Wiirdigung der Mosaischen Schriften. The author afterwards retracted his views, in his work entitled, DU heiligen Schriften in ihrer Urgestalt, Deutsch und mit neuen Ai merkungen, von K. G. Kelle, Freyberg, 1817, where he maintains that Genesis consists of a single genuine work of Moses, much interpolated by the priests of the race of Ithamar, and takes great pains to separate the supposed interpolations from the original work. A refutation of his hypothesis may be seen in Rosen Mueller's Scholia, > p. 52 ss.

f

>e made. Even Rosenmiiller maintains the impossibility of pointing out any certain distinction between the several doc-

f uments of which the book of Genesis is composed. This assertion he maintains at some length, examining the different

' criteria, showing their want of certainty, and proving the futility of all attempts to discover, after a lapse of 3,000

i years, the precise nature and extent of the records used by Moses in the preparation of his work.

Before the authorship of the book of Genesis became a subject of discussion, numerous interpolations were supposed to be found in it ; and this opinion was maintained by some writers of distinction, both Jewish and Christian. Afterwards the hypothesis of documents was advanced ; and

■ s some of its advocates, not content with admitting the fact that Moses did really employ such written sources of historical truth, undertook to ascertain their number, to determine their commencing and terminating points, to settle their character, and to pass judgment on their style, demonstrating that Moses, the learned and gifted Hebrew legislator, could not so have written. The theory of documents prepared the way for that of fragments.* Phenomena on which that theory was supposed to be founded, appeared, it was thought, in many smaller sections, even of the supposed documents, and the book of Genesis was subdivided into a multitude of portions, the larger were reduced to smaller,

1 connected parts to disjointed fragments. It would be useless to mention, and very idle to examine, all the alleged reasons for such a procedure. But the principal allegations, on the ground of which the book of Genesis has been said to consist of independent documents and disconnected fragments,

* The fragmentary character of the book of Genesis, and particularly of the former part of it, is maintained even by Herder in his third letter on the study of Theology, Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend; Collected Works, Stutgard and Tubingen, vol. xiii. p. 41, 42.

must not be passed over without some notice. If the reader wishes any fuller discussion than what the following brieA remarks afford, he will find a very able examination of the alleged difficulties in the work of Ewald, before referred to. Havernick, in his Introduction, Part I. § 112, has made use of this acute and learned writer's labours.

1. The inscriptions are thought to indicate different documents or fragments.

But one writer may well be supposed to prefix suitable inscriptions to the respective narratives, as they are related by him. Indeed, the use of £l 1*1 5*1, occurring principally in Genesis, and, derived from this source perhaps, appearing in a few other books, rather agrees with the opinion of one author than several. I mean that the balance of proba- J bilities is in favour of this view, rather than of the contrary.! Certainty, in such matters, is not indeed to be expected ; but any one who considers how natural it would be for an author to bring forward the subdivisions of his work wi1(h introductions suited to the particular topics of such subdivisions, will hardly find in these inscriptions much evidence ol different documents. To show the usage of the orientals ^ on this subject of inscriptions, I refer the reader to Ewald's work, p. 183, ss.

2. The isolated character of the parts is appealed to in i support of the same theory. These are said to want connexion, and that harmony in the manner of representation j which characterizes a single author.

If by this nothing more is meant than that several of the narrations which the book contains are introduced some what abruptly, and without much effort to prepare the 1 reader's mind, it may be granted. And this accords with the ordinary manner of eastern writing, and harmonizes with the usual narrative style of Scripture ; and it might be expected to characterize a work of so high antiquity as the pook of Genesis. Introductions of historical events by reftnarks of a somewhat general nature, which gradually lead

/the reader's mind from preceding to subsequent accounts by observations founded on a philosophical view of things, belonged neither to the age nor the country, and therefore it

| would be unreasonable to expect them.

3. The repetitions with which it is said the book abounds, is thought to prove its fragmentary character.

As repetitions in language are frequent in ancient, oriental, and Hebrew writings, so also are repetitions of subject. The speaker pours out the theme, with which his soul is full, in repeated bursts of feeling or exhibitions of fact. And not

\only the speaker, the principal agent, the magna pars in the transaction, but the author also w T ho relates the facts, participates in the same emotions, and stamps them on his work. Thus it becomes the impress both of the author's and the agent's mind, and its repetitions only show its admirable conformity to nature. This characteristic of Hebrew history is by no means inconsistent with its well-known brevity. In general, its statements are short and compressed. The ( author directs his eye to his ultimate object, frequently passing over the intermediate portions, which he afterwards illustrates and amplifies. Thus, as might be expected, repetitions would arise, the natural result of an endeavour to fill up and complete the representation.