Genesis

GENESIS

The first of the sacred books in the Old Testament; so called from the title given to it in the Septuagint, signifying “the book of a generation,” or production of all things. Moses is generally admitted to have been the writer of this book; and it is supposed that he penned it after the promulgation of the law. Its authenticity is attested by the most indisputable evidence, and it is cited as an inspired record thirty-three times in the course of the Scriptures. The history related in it comprises a period of about 2,369 years, according to the lowest computation, but according to Dr. Hales, a much larger period. It contains an account of the creation; the primeval state and fall of man; the history of Adam and his descendants, with the progress of religion and the origin of the arts; the genealogies age, and death of the patriarchs until Noah; the general defection and corruption of mankind, the general deluge, and the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark; the history of Noah and his family subsequent to the time of the deluge; the repeopling and division of the earth among the sons of Noah; the building of Babel, the confusion of tongues, and the dispersion of mankind; the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. The book of Genesis was written, like the rest of Scripture, “by inspiration of God.” Yet many of the facts it records must have been of the facts it records must have been well known among the Jews; the account given by Adam himself may have been verbally transmitted through seven of the patriarchs to Moses, and he may also have had ancient historical writings to consult. The book of Genesis lays the foundation for all the subsequent books of the Bible; and its value in the history of the earth, of man, and of religion, is inestimable.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Genesis

(Greek: origin)

The first Book of the Bible, containing an account of the origin of the world, of the human race and of the chosen people. The general divisions of the book are as follows:

the creation of the world and early history of mankind (1-11), including the Fall, the promise of a Redeemer, and the Deluge;

the early history of the Jews (12-50), including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

The Prophecy of Jacob (49) contains one of the most important Messianic prophecies in favor of the tribe of Juda, which will be the cradle of the Redeemer. The Biblical Commission, 30 June 1909, forbade the denial of the historical character of the first three chapters.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Genesis

(Sept. , generation), the first book of the Law or the Pentateuch, is in Hebrew called , Bereshith’, from the word with which it be. gins. SEE LAW.

I. General Character. The book of Genesis has an interest and an importance to which no other document of antiquity can pretend. If not absolutely the oldest book in the world, it is the oldest which lays any claim to being a trustworthy history. There may be some papyrus-rolls in our museums which were written in Egypt about the same time that the genealogies of the Shemitic race were so carefully collected in the tents of the patriarchs. But these rolls at best contain barren registers of little service to the historian. It is said that there are fragments of Chinese literature which, in their present form, date back as far as 2200 years B.C., and even more (Gfrorer, Urgeschichte, 1:215); but they are either calendars containing astronomical calculations, or records of merely local and temporary interest. Genesis, on the contrary, is rich in details respecting other races besides the race to which it more immediately belongs; and the Jewish pedigrees there so studiously preserved are but the scaffolding whereon is reared a temple of universal history.

If the religious books of other nations make any pretensions to vie with it in antiquity, in all other respects they are immeasurably inferior. The Mantras, the oldest portions of the Vedas, are, it would seem, as old as the 14th century B.C. (see Colebroke, Asiat. Res. 7:283, and professor Wilson’s preface to his translation of the Rig-Veda). The Zendavesta, in the opinion of competent scholars, is of very much more modern date. Of the Chinese sacred books, the oldest, theYihking, is undoubtedly of a venerable antiquity, but it is not certain that it was a religious book at all; while the writings attributed to Confucius are certainly not earlier than the 6th century B.C. (Gfrrer, 1:270).

But Genesis is neither like the Vedas, a collection of hymns more or less sublime; nor like the Zendavesta, a philosophic speculation on the origin of all things; nor like the Yih-king, an unintelligible jumble whose expositors could twist it from a cosmological essay into a standard treatise on ethical philosophy (Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, III, 1:16). It is a history, and it is a religious history. The earlier portion of the book, as far as the end of the eleventh chapter, may properly be termed a history of the world; the latter is a history of the fathers of the Jewish race. But from first to last it is a religious history: it begins with the creation of the world and of man; it tells of the early happiness of a paradise in which God spake with man; of the first sin and its consequences; of the promise of redemption; of the gigantic growth of sin, and the judgment of the Flood; of a new earth, and a new covenant with man, its unchangeableness typified by the bow in the heavens; of the dispersion of the human race over the world. It then passes to the story of redemption; to the promise given to Abraham, and renewed to Isaac and to Jacob, and to all that chain of circumstances which paved the way for the great symbolic act of Redemption, when with a mighty hand and a stretched out arm Jehovah brought his people out of Egypt.

It is very important to bear in mind this religious aspect of the history if we would put ourselves in a position rightly to understand it. Of course the facts must be treated like any other historical facts, sifted in the same way, and subjected to the same laws of evidence. But if we would judge of the work as a whole we must not forget the evident aim of the writer. It is only in this way we can understand, for instance, why the history of the Fall is given with so much minuteness of detail, whereas of whole generations of men we have nothing but a bare catalogue. Only in this way, too, can we account for the fact that by far the greater portion of the book is occupied, not with the fortunes of nations, but with the biographies of the three patriarchs or it was to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob that God revealed himself. It was to them that the promise was given, which was to be the hope of Israel till “the fulness of the time” should come. Hence to these wandering sheiks attaches a grandeur and an interest greater than that of the Babels and Nimrods of the world. The minutest circumstances of their lives are worthier to be chronicled than the rise and fall of empires. This is not merely from the patriotic feeling of the writer as a Jew, but from his religious feeling as one of the chosen race. He lived in the land given to the fathers; he looked for the seed promised to the fathers, in whom himself and all the families of the earth should be blessed. SEE ABRAHAM.

II. Unity of Design. This venerable monument, with which the sacred literature of the Hebrews cominences, and which forms its real basis, is divided into two main parts; one universal, and one special. The most ancient history of the whole human race is contained in chapters 1-11, and the history of Israel’s ancestors, the patriarchs, in chapters 12-50. These two parts are, however, so intimately connected with each other that it would be erroneous to ascribe to the first merely the aim of furnishing a universal history. That a distinct plan and method characterize the work is now generally admitted. This is acknowledged, in fact, quite as much by those who contend for, as by those who deny the existence of different documents in the book. Ewald and Tuch are no less decided advocates of the unity of Genesis, as far as its plan is concerned, than Ranke or Hengstenberg. Ewald, indeed (in his Composition der Genesis), was the first who established it satisfactorily, and clearly pointed out the principle on which it rests.

What, then, is the plan of the writer? First, we must bear in mind that Genesis is, after all, but a portion of a larger work. The five books of the Pentateuch form a consecutive whole: they are not merely a collection of ancient fragments loosely strung together, but, as we shall prove elsewhere, a well-digested and connected composition. SEE PENTATEUCH.

The great subject of this history is the establishment of the theocracy. Its central point is the giving of the law on Sinai, and the solemn covenant there ratified, whereby the Jewish nation was constituted “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to Jehovah.” With reference to this great central fact all the rest of the narrative is grouped.

Israel is the people of God. God rules in the midst of them, having chosen them to himself. But a nation must have laws, therefore he gives them a law; and, in virtue of their peculiar relationship to God, this body of laws is both religious and political, defining their duty to God as well as their duty to their neighbor. Further, a nation must have a land, and the promise of the land and the preparation for its possession are all along kept in view. The book of Genesis then (with the first chapters of Exodus) describes the steps which led to the establishment of the theocracy. In reading it we must remember that it is but a part of a more extended work; and we must also bear in mind these two prominent ideas, which give a characteristic unity to the whole composition, viz. the people of God, and the promised land.

We shall then observe that the history of Abraham holds the same relation to the other portions of Genesis that the giving of the law does to the entire Pentateuch. Abraham is the father of the Jewish nations to Abraham the land of Canaan is first given in promise. Isaac and Jacob, though also prominent figures in the narrative, yet do but inherit the promise as Abraham’s children, and Jacob especially is the chief connecting link in the chain of events which leads finally to the possession of the land of Canaan. In like manner, the former section of the book is written with the same obvious purpose. It is a part of the writer’s plan to tell us what the divine preparation of the world was, in order to show, first, the significance of the call of Abraham, and, next, the true nature of the Jewish theocracy. He does not (as Tuch asserts) work backwards from Abraham till he comes, in spite of himself, to the beginning of all things. He does not ask, Who was Abraham? answering, of the posterity of Shemn; and who was Shem? a son of Noah; and who was Noah, etc. But he begins with the creation of the world, because the God who created the world and the God who revealed himself to the fathers is the same God. Jehovah, who commanded his people to keep holy the seventh day, was the same God who, in six days, created the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh day from all his work. The God who, when man had fallen, visited him in mercy, and gave him a promise of redemption and victory, is the God who sent Moses to deliver his people out of Egypt. He who made a covenant with Noah, and through him with “all the families of the earth,” is the God who also made himself known as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. In a word, creation and redemption are eternally linked together. This is the idea which, in fact, gives its shape to the history, although its distinct enunciation is reserved for the N.T. There we learn that all things were created by and for Christ, and that in him all things consist (Col 1:16-17); and that by the Church is made known unto principalities and powers the manifest wisdom of God. It would be impossible, therefore, for a book which tells us of the beginning of the Church, not to tell us also of the beginning of the world. The book of Genesis has thus a character at once special and universal. It embraces the world; it speaks of God as the God of the whole human race. But, as the introduction to Jewish history, it makes the universal interest subordinate to the national. Its design is to show how God revealed himself to the first fathers of the Jewish race, in order that he might make to himself a nation who should be his witness in the midst of the earth. This is the inner principle of unity which pervades the book. Its external framework we are now to examine. Five principal persons are the pillars, so to speak, on which the whole superstructure rests, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

(I.) Adam. The creation of the world, and the earliest history of mankind (Genesis 1-3). As yet, no divergence of the different families of man.

(II.) Noah. The history of Adam’s descendants to the death of Noah (Genesis 4-9). Here we have

(1) the line of Cain branching off while the history follows the fortunes of Seth, whose descendants are

(2) traced in genealogical succession, and in an unbroken line as far as Noah, and

(3) the history of Noah himself (chapter 6-9), continued to his death.

(III.) Abraham. Noah’s posterity till the death of Abraham (Gen 35:18). Here we have

(1) the peopling of the whole earth by the descendants of Noah’s three sons (Gen 11:1-9). The history of two of these is then dropped, and

(2) the line of Shem only pursued (Gen 11:10-32) as far as Terah and Abraham, where the genealogical table breaks off.

(3) Abraham is now the prominent figure (Gen 12:1 to Gen 25:18). But as Terah had two other sons, Nahor and Haran (Gen 11:27), some notices respecting their families are added. Lot’s migration with Abraham into the land of Canaan is mentioned, as well as the fact that he was the father of Moab and Ammon (Gen 19:37-38), nations whose later history was intimately connected with that of the posterity of Abraham. Nahor remained in Mesopotamia, but his family is briefly enumerated (Gen 22:20-24), chiefly, no doubt, for Rebekah’s sake, who was afterwards the wife of Isaac. Of Abraham’s own children, there branches off first the line of Ishmael (Gen 21:9, etc.), and next the children by Keturah; and the genealogical notices of these two branches of his posterity are apparently brought together (Gen 25:1-6, and Gen 25:12-18), in order that, being here severally dismissed at the end of Abraham’s life, the main stream of the narrative may flow in the channel of Isaac’s fortunes.

(IV.) Isaac.-Isaac’s life (Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29), a life in itself retiring and us-eventful. But in his sons the final separation takes place, leaving the field clear for the great story of the chosen seed. Even when Nahor’s family comes on the scene, as it does in chapter 29, we hear only so much of it as is necessary to throw light on Jacob’s history.

(V.) Jacob. The history of Jacob and Joseph (Gen 36:1). Here, after Isaac’s death, we have

(1) the genealogy of Esau (chapter 36), who then drops out of the narrative, in order that

(2) the history of the patriarchs may be carried on without interruption to the death of Joseph (chapters 37-50).

Thus it will be seen that a specific plan is preserved throughout. The main purpose is never forgotten. God’s relation to Israel holds the first place in the writer’s mind. It is this which it is his object to convey. The history of that chosen seed who weae the heirs of the promise, and the guardians of the divine oracles, is the only history which interprets man’s relation to God. By its light all others shine, and may be read when the time shall come. Meanwhile, as the different families drop off here and there freom the principal stock, their course is briefly indicated. A hint is given of their parentage and their migrations; and then the narrative returns to its regular channel. Thus the whole book may be compared to one of those vast American rivers which, instead of being fed by tributaries, send off here and there certain lesser streams or bayous, as they are termed, the main current meanwhile flowing on with its great mass of water to the sea.

Beyond all doubt, then, we may trace in the book of Genesis in its present form a systematic plan. It is no hasty compilation, inc mere collection of ancient fragments without order or arrangement. It coheres by aee internal principle of unity. Its whole structure presents a very definite and clearly marked outline. But does it follow from this that the book, as it at present stands, is the work of a single author?

III. Unity of Composition. This, which is a point in dispute among the critics with regard to all the books of the Pentateuch, has been particularly questioned in the case of Geasesis. The question was raised whether the sources from which the writer of Genesis drew his information were written documents or oral tradition. Writers as early as Vitringa (Obs Joe 1:4), Richard Simon, Clericus, and others, though they were of opinion that Genesis is founded on written sources, did not undertake to describe the nature and quality of those sources. Another opinion, advanced by Otmar in Henke’s Magaz. 2, that Egyptian pyramids and other monuments of a similar nature were the sources of Genesis, was but transient in the critical world; while the attempt of some critics not only to renew the previous assumption that Genesis is founded on written sources, but also to determine more closely the character of those sources, has gained more lasting approval among the learned. When different names of God are prevalent in different portions of Genesis is a question much discussed by early theologians and rabbis. Astruc, a Belgian physician, in his Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux, etc. (Bruxelles, 1753-8), was the first to apply the two Hebrew names of God, Jehovah and Elohim, tothe subject at issue. Astruc assuened that there had originally existed a number of isolated documents, some twelve in all, which had subsequently, by the fault of transcribers, been joined and strung together in the present form of Genesis. Eichhorn’s critical geaniss procured for this hypothesis a favorable reception almost throughout the whole of Germany. SEE ASTRUC.

Eichhorn pruned away its excrescences, and confined his own view to the assumption of only two different documents, respectively characterized by the two different names of Jehovah and Elohim. Other critics, such as Illgen (Urkunden des Jerusalem Tempel-Archivs, 1798), Gramberg (Adumbratio libri Geneseos secundum fontes, 1828), and others, went still farther, and presupposed three different documents in Genesis. Vater went much beyond Eichborn. He fancied himself able to combat the authenticity of the Pentateuch by producing a new hypothesis. He substituted for Eichhorn’s “document-hypothesis” his own “fragment-hypothesis,” which obtained great authority, especially on account of its being adapted by De Wette. According to this opinion, Genesis, as well as the greater part of the Pentateuch, consists of a great number of very small detached fragments, internally unconnected with each other, but transcribed seriatim, although originating in very different times and from different authors. This “fragment-hypothesis” has now been almost universally given up. Even its zealous defenders, not excepting De Wette himself, have relinquished it. In its place the former “document-hypothesis” has been resumed by some critics, simplified, however, and supported by new and better arguments. There is at present a great variety of opinion among divines concerning this hypothesis. The leading features of this diversity may be comprised in the following summary. According to the view of Stabelin, De Wette, Ewald, Von Bohlens, Tuch, Knobel, Delitzsch, and others, Genesis is founded on teo principal original documents. That of Elohissi is closelv connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while that of Jehovah is a mere complementary document, supplying details at those points where the former is abrupt and deficient, etc. These two documents are said to have been subsequently combined by the hand of an editor, so ably as often to render their separation difficult, if not altogether impossible. But Ranke, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Hulmernick, Baumgarten, Keil, and others, maintain that Genesis is a book closely connected in all its parts, and composed by only one author, while the use of the two different names of God is not owing to two different sources on which Genesis is founded, but solely to the different significations of these two names. The great weight of probability lies on the side of those who argue for the existence of different documents, but only ass sources to some extent which, together with original materials, were wrought by the author into one homogeneous whole.

1. It is almost impossible to read the book of Genesis with anything like a critical eye without being struck with the great peculiarities of style and language which certain portions of it present. Thus, for instance, Gen 2:3 to Gen 3:24 is quite different both from chapter 1 and from chapter 4. Again, chapter 14 and (according to Jahn) chapter 23 are evidently separate documents, transplanted in their original form without correction or modification into the existing work. In fact, there is nothing like uniformity of style till we come to the history of Joseph.

2. We are led to the same conclusion by the inscriptions which are prefixed to certain sections, as Gen 2:4; Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 11:27, and seem to indicate so many older documents.

3. The resumptive form of some of the narratives, e.g. the repetition of the account of the creation of man in chap. ii, with additional particulars, is evidence of the same character. We may eveen hazard the conjecture that the pure cosmogony of chapter 1 may have been one of the mysteries of the Egyptian theosophy, while the more distinct accounts of the subsequent chapters may have been derived from the early traditions of the Hebrews and cognate nations. SEE MOSES.

4. Lastly, the distinct use of the divine names, Jehovah in some sections, and Elohim in others, is characteristic of two different writers; and other peculiarities of diction it has been observed fall in with this usage, and go far to establish, the theory. All this is quite in harmony with what we might have expected a priori, viz., that if Moses or any later writer were the author of the book, he would have availed himself of existing traditions, either oral or written. That they might have been written is now established beyond all doubt, the art of writing having been proved to be such earlier than Moses. That they were written we infer from the book itself. Yet these peculiarities are not so absolute as to show that the same writer did not embody them all into one composition, for they are sometimes found blended in the same piece.

The evidence alluded to is strong; and nothing can be more natural than that an honest historian should seek to make his work more valuable by embodying in it the most ancient records of his race; the higher the value which they possessed in his eyes, the more anxious would he be to preserve them in their original form. Those particularly in the earlier portion of the work were perhaps simply transcribed. In one instance we have what looks like an omission (Gen 2:4), where the inscription seems to promise a larger cosmogony. Here and there throughout the book we meet with a later remark, intended to explain or supplement the earlier monument. In some instances there seems to have been so complete a fusion of the two principal documents, the Elohistic and the Jehovistic, that it is no longer possible accurately to distinguish them. The later writer, the Jehovist, instead of transcribing the Elohistic account intact, thought fitto blend and intersperse with it his own remarks. We have an instance of this, according to Hupfeld (Die Quellen der Genesis), in Gen 7:1-10 are usually assigned to the Jehovist; but whilst he admits this, he detects a large admixture of Elohistic phraseology and coloring in the narrative. But this sort of criticism, it must be admitted, is very doubtful. Many other instances might be mentioned where there is the same difficulty in assigning their own to the several authors. Thus in sections generally recognized as Jehovistic, Genesis 12, 13, 19, here and there a sentence or a phrase occurs which seems to betray a different origin, as Gen 12:5; Gen 13:6; Gen 19:29. These anomalies, however, though it may be difficult to account for them, can hardly be considered of sufficient force entirely to overthrow the theory of independent documents which has so much, on other grounds, to recommend it. Certainly when Keil, Hengstenberg, and others, who reject this theory, attempt to account for the use of the divine names on the hypothesis that the writer designedly employed the one or the other name according to the subject of which he was treating, their explanations are often of the most arbitrary kind. As a whole, the documentary character of Genesis is so remarkable when we compare it with the later books of the Pentateuch, and is so exactly what we might expect, supposing a Mosaic authorship of the whole, that, whilst contending against the theory of different documents in the later portions, we feel convinced that this theory is the only tenable one in Genesis.

Of the two principal documents, the Elohistic is the earlier. So far as we can detach its integral portions, they still present the appearance of something like a connected work. This has been very well argued by Tuch (Die Genesis, Allgem. Einl. 51-65), as well as by Hupfeld (Die Quellen der Genesis), Knobel, and Delitzsch. This whole theory of a double origin of the book, however, is powerfully opposed by Tiele in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, 1.

Hupfeld, however, whose analysis is very careful, thinks that he can discover traces of three original records, an earlier Elohist, a Jehovist, and a later Elohist. These three documents were, according to him, subsequently united and arranged by a fourth person, who acted as editor of the whole. His argument is ingenious and worthy of consideration, though it is at times too elaborate to be convincing.

The following table of the use of the divine names in Genesis will enable the reader to form his own judgment as to the relative probability of the hypotheses above mentioned. Much as commentators differ concerning some portions of the book, one pronouncing passages to be Elohistic which another, with equal confidence, assigns to the Jehovist, the fact is certain that whole sections are characterized by a separate use of the divine names. (See Quarry, Genesis, page 400 sq.)

(1.) Sections in which Elohim is found exclusively, or nearly so: Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3 (creation of heaven and earth); Genesis 5 (generations of Adam), except verse 29, where Jehovah occurs; Gen 6:9-22 (generations of Noah); Gen 7:9-24 (the entering into the ark), but Jehovah in verse Genesis 16; Gen 8:1-19 (end of the flood); Gen 9:1-17 (covenant with Noah); Genesis 17 (covenant of circumcision) where, however, Jehovah occurs once in verse 1, as compared with Elohim seven times; Gen 19:29-38 (conclusion of Lot’s history); Genesis 20 (Abraham’s sojourn at Gerar), where again we have Jehovah once and Elohim four times, and Ha- elohim twice; Gen 21:1-21 (Isaac’s birth and Ishmael’s dismissal), only Gen 21:1, Jehovah; Gen 21:22-34 (Abraham’s covenant with Abimelech), where Jehovah is found once; Gen 25:1-18 (sons of Keturah, Abraham’s death, and the generations of Ishmael), Elohim once; Gen 27:46 to Gen 28:9 (Jacob goes to Haran, Esau’s marriage), Elohim once, and El Shaddai once; Genesis 31 (Jacob’s departure from Laban), where Jehovah twice; Genesis 33-37 (Jacob’s reconciliation with Esau, Dinah and the Shechemites, Jacob at Bethel, Esau’s family, Joseph sold into Egypt). It should be observed, however, that in large portions of this section the divine name does not occur at all. (See below.) Genesis 40-50 (history of Joseph in Egypt): here we have Jehovah once only (Gen 49:18). [Exodus 1-2 (Israel’s oppression in Egypt, and birth of Moses as deliverer).]

(2.) Sections in which Jehovah occurs exclusively, or in preference to Elohim: Genesis 4 (Cain and Abel, and Cain’s posterity). where Jehovah ten times and Ehlohim only once; Gen 6:1-8 (the sons of God and the daughters of men, etc.); Gen 7:1-9 (the entering into the ark), but Elohim once, Gen 7:9; Gen 8:20-22 (Noah’s altar and Jehovah’s blessing); Gen 9:18-27 (Noah and his sons); 10 (the families of mankind as descended from Noah); Gen 11:1-9 (the confusion of tongues); Gen 12:1-20 (Abram’s journey first from Haran to Canaan, and then into Egypt); Genesis 13 (Abram’s separation from Lot); Genesis 15 (Abram’s faith, sacrifice, and covenant); Genesis 16 (Hagar and Ishmael), where once; Gen 18:1 to Gen 19:28 (visit of the three angels to Abram, Lot, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah); Genesis 24 (betrothal of Rebekah and Isaac’s marriage); Gen 25:19 to Gen 26:35 (Isaac’s sons, his visit to Abimelech, Esau’s wives); Gen 27:1-40 (Jacob obtains the blessing), but in Gen 27:28 Ha-elohim; Gen 30:25-43 (Jacob’s bargain with Laban), where, however, Jehovah only once; Genesis 38 (Judah’s incest); Genesis 39 (Jehovah with Joseph in Potiphar’s house and in the prisaon). [Exo 4:18-31 (Moses’s return to Egypt); 5 (Pharaoh’s treatment of the messengers of Jehovah).]

(3.) The section Gen 2:4 to Gen 3:24 (the account of Paradise and the Fall) is generally regarded as Jehovistic, but it is clearly quite distinct. The divine name as there found is not Jehovah, but Jehovah Elohim (in which form it only occurs once beside in the Pentateuch, Exo 9:33), and it occurs twenty times; the name Elohim being found three times in the same section, once in the mouth of the woman, and twice in that of the serpent.

(4.) In Genesis 14 the prevailing name is El-Elyon (Auth. Vers. “the most high God”), and only once, in Abranm’s mouthe “Jehovah, the most high God,” which is quite intelligible.

(5.) Some few sections are found in which the names Jehovah and Elohim seem to be used promiscuously. This is the case in Gen 22:1-19 (the offering up of Isaac); Gen 28:10-22 (Jacob’s dream at Bethel); Gen 29:31 to Gen 30:24 (birth and naming of the eleven sons of Jacob); and 32 (Jacob’s wrestling with the angel). [Exo 3:1 to Exo 4:17 (the call of Moses).]

(6.) It is worthy of notice that of the other divine names Adonai is always found in connection with Jehovah, except Gen 20:4; whereas El, El- Shaddai, etc., occur most frequently in the Elohistic sections.

(7.) In the following sections neither of the divine names occur: Gen 11:10-32; Gen 22:20-24; Genesis 23; Gen 25:27-34; Gen 27:40-45; Gen 29:1-30; Genesis 34; Genesis 36; Genesis 37; Genesis 40 [Exo 2:1-22].

IV. The historical character of the contents of Genesis forms a more comprehensive subject of theological discussion. It is obvious that the opinions regarding it must be principally influenced by the dogmatical views and principles of the respective critics themselves. Hence the great variety of opinion that still prevails on that subject. Some, as Vatke, Von Bohlen, and others, assert that the whole contents of Genesis are unhistorical. Tuch and others consider Genesis to be interwoven with mythical elements, but think that the rich historical elements, especially in the account of the patriarchs, can be clearly discerned. Some, again, limit the mythological part to the first two chapters only; while others perceive in the whole book a consistent and truly historical impress. The field of controversy is here so extensive, and the arguments on both sides are so numerous, that we must content ourselves in this article with a very few remarks on the subject. Genesis is a book consisting of two contrasting parts: the first introduces us into the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the creation and the fall of man; and the second into the quiet solitude of a small, defined circle of families. In the former, the most sublime and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity; while in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occurrences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the principal actors in it prototypes for a whole nation and for all times. Not the least trace of mythology appears in it. Genesis plainly shows how very far remote the Hebrew mode of thinking was from mythical poetry, which might have found ample opportunity of being brought into play when the writer began to sketch the early times of the Creation. It is true that the primeval wonders, the marvelous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one common leading idea, and all are related to the counsel of God for the salvation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams through the whole of Genesis; therefore the wonders therein related are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation of the divine theocratic institution throws a strong light upon the early patriarchal times; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.

Luther used to say, “Nihil pulchrius Genesi, nihil utilius.” But hard critics have tried all they can to mar its beauty and to detract from its utility. In fact, the bitterness of the attacks on a document so venerable, so full of undying interest, hallowed by the love of many generations, makes one almost suspect that a secret malevolence must have been the mainspring of hostile criticism. Certain it is that no book has met with more determined and unsparing assailants. To enumerate and to reply to all objections would be impossible. We will only refer to some of the most important.

1. The story of Creation, as given in the first chapter, has been set aside in two ways: first, by placing it on the same level with other cosmogonies which are to be found in the sacred writings of all nations; and next, by asserting that its statements are directly contradicted by the discoveries of modern science. (a.) Now when we compare the Biblical with all other known cosmogonies, we are immediately struck with the great moral superiority of the former. There is no confusion here between the divine Creator and his work. God is before all things, God creates all things; this is the sublime assertion of the Hebrew writer. On the contrary, all the cosmogonies of the heathen world err in one of two directions: either they are dualistic, that is, they regard God and matter as two eternal co-existent principles; or they are pantheistic, i.e., they confound God and matter, making the material universe a kind of emanation from the great Spirit which informs the mass. Both these theories, with their various modifications, whether in the more subtle philosophemes of the Indian races, or in the rougher and grosser systems of the Phoenicians and Babylonians, are alike exclusive of the idea of creation. Without attempting to discuss in anything like detail the points of resemblance and difference between the Biblical record of creation and the myths and legends of other nations, it may suffice to mention certain particulars in which the superiority of the Hebrew account can hardly be called in question. First, the Hebrew story alone clearly acknowledges the personality and unity of God. Secondly, here only do we find recognized a distinct act of creation, by creation being understood the calling of the whole material universe into existence out of nothing. Thirdly, there is here only a clear intimation of that great law of progress which we find everywhere observed. The order of creation, as given in Genesis, is the gradual progress of all things, from the lowest and least perfect to the highest and most completely developed forms. Fourthly, there is the fact of a relation between the personal Creator and the work of his fingers, and that relation is a relation of love; for God looks upon his creation at every stage of its progress, and pronounces it very good. Fifthly, there is throughout a sublime simplicity which of itself is characteristic of a history, not of a myth or of a philosophical speculation. SEE CREATION.

(b.) It would occupy too large a space to discuss at any length the objections which have been urged from the results of modern discovery against the literal truth of this chapter. One or two remarks of a general kind must here suffice. It is argued, for instance, that light could not. have existed before the sun, or, at any rate, not that kind of light which would be necessary for the support of vegetable life; whereas the Mosaic narrative makes light created on the first day, trees arid plants on the third, and the sun on the fourth. To this we may reply, that we must not too hastily build an argument upon our ignorance. We do not know that the existing laws of creation were in operation when the creative fiat was first put forth. The very act of creation must have been the introducing of laws; but when the work was finished, those laws must have suffered some modification. Men are not now created in the full stature of manhood, but are born and groan. Similarly, the lower ranks of being might have been influenced by certain necessary conditions during the first stages of their existence, which conditions were afterwards removed without any disturbance of the natural functions. Again, it is not certain that the language of Genesis can only mean that the sun was created on the fourth day. It may mean that then only did that luminary become visible to our planet.

With regard to the six days, many have thought that they ought to be interpreted as six periods, without defining what the length of those periods is. No one can suppose that the divine rest was literally a rest of twenty-four hours only. On the contrary, the divine Sabbath still continues. There has been no creation since the creation of man. This is what Genesis teaches, and this, geology confirms. But God, after six periods of creative activity, entered into that Sabbath in which his work has been, not a work of creation, but of redemption (Joh 5:17). No attempt, however, which has as yet been made to identify these six periods with corresponding geological epochs can be pronounced satisfactory. SEE GEOLOGY. On the other hand, it seems rash and premature to assert that no reconciliation is possible. What we ought to maintain is, that no reconciliation is necessary. It is certain that the author of the first chapter of Genesis, whether Moses or some one else, knew nothing of geology or astronomy. It is certain that he made use of phraseology concerning physical facts in accordance with the limited range of information which he possessed. It is also certain that the Bible was never intended to reveal to us knowledge of which our own faculties, rightly used, could put us in possession. We have no business, therefore, to expect anything but popular language in the description of physical phenomena. Thus, for instance, when it is said that by means of the firmament God divided the waters which were above from those which were beneath, we admit the fact without admitting the implied explanation. The Hebrew supposed that there existed vast reservoirs above him corresponding to the “waters under the earth.” We know that by certain natural processes the rain descends from the clouds. But the fact remains the same that there are waters above as well as below. Further investigation may perhaps throw more light on these interesting questions. Meanwhile it may safely be said that modern discoveries are in no way opposed to the great outlines of the Mosaic cosmogony. That the world was created in six stages, that creation was by a law of gradual advance, beginning with inorganic matter, and then advancing from the lowest organisms to the highest, that since the appearance of man upon the earth no new species have come into being; these are statements not only not disproved, but the two last of them at least amply confirmed by geological research.

2. To the description of Paradise, and the history of the Fall and of the Deluge, very similar remarks apply. All nations have their own version of these facts, colored by local circumstances, and embellished according to the poetic or philosophic spirit of the tribes among whom the tradition has taken root. But if there be any one original source of these traditions, any root from which they diverged, we cannot doubt where to look for it. The earliest record of these momentous facts is that preserved in the Bible. We cannot doubt this, because the simplicity of the narrative is greater than that of any other work with which we are acquainted. This simplicity is an argument at once in favor of the greater antiquity, and also of the greater truthfulness of the story. It is hardly possible to suppose that traditions so widely spread over the surface of the earth as are the traditions of the Creation, the Fall, and the Deluge, should have no foundation whatever in fact. It is quite as impossible to suppose that that version of these facts, which in its moral and religious aspect is the purest, is not also, to take the lowest ground, the most likely to be true.

(1.) Opinions have differed whether we ought to take the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 to be a literal statement of facts, or whether, with many expositors since the time of Philo, we should regard it as an allegory, framed in child-like words as befitted the childhood of the world, but conveying to us a deeper spiritual truth. But in the latter case we ought not to deny that spiritual truth. Neither should we overlook the very important bearing which this narrative has on the whole of the subsequent history of the world and of Israel. Delitzsch well says, “The story of the Fall, like that of the Creation, has wandered over the world. Heathen nations have transplanted and mixed it up with their geography, their history, their mythology, although it has never so completely changed form, and color, and spirit that you cannot recognize it. Here, however, in the Law, it preserves the character of a universal, human, world-wide fact; and the groans of Creation, the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and the heart of every man, conspire in their testimony to the most literal truth of the narrative.” SEE FALL OF MAN.

(2.) The universality of the Deluge, it may be proved, is quite at variance with the most certain facts of geology. But then we are not bound to contend for a universal deluge. The Biblical writer himself, it is true, supposed it to be universal, but that was only because it covered what was then the known world: there can be no doubt that it did extend to all that part of the world which was then inhabited; and this is enough, on the one hand, to satisfy the terms of the narrative, while, on the other, the geological difficulty, as well as other difficulties concerning the ark, and the number of animals, disappears with this interpretation. SEE DELUGE.

3. When we come down to a later period in the narrative, where we have the opportunity of testing the accuracy of the historian, we find it in many of the most important particulars abundantly corroborated.

(1.) Whatever interpretation we may be disposed to put on the story of the confusion of tongues, and the subsequent dispersion of mankind, there is no good ground for setting it aside. Indeed, if the reading of a cylinder recently discovered at Birs Nimruid may be trusted, there is independent evidence corroborative of the Biblical account. But, at any rate, the other versions of this event are far less probable (see these in Josephus, Ant. 1:4, 3; Euseb. Praep. Ev. 9:14). The later myths concerning the wars of the Titans with the gods are apparently based upon this story, or rather upon perversions of it. But it is quite impossible to suppose, as Kalisch does (Genesis, page 313), that “the Hebrew historian converted that very legend into a medium for solving a great and important problem.” There is not the smallest appearance of any such design. The legend is a perversion of the history, not the history a comment upon the legend. The incidental remark concerning the famous giants, the progeny of the “sons of God” and the “sons of men” (Gen 6:4), seems to be the true key to the demigod heroes of ancient mythology.

(2.) As to the fact implied in this dispersion, that all languages had one origin, philological research has not as yet been carried far enough to lead to any very certain result. Many of the greatest philologists (Bopp, Lepsius, Burnouf, etc.; Renan, Histoire des Langues Semitiques, 50:5, 100:2, 3) contend for real affinities between the Indo-European and the Shemitic tongues. On the other hand, languages like the Coptic (not to mention many others) seem at present to stand out in complete isolation. The most that has been effected is a classification of languages into three great families. This classification, however, is in exact accordance with the threefold division of the race in, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, of which Genesis tells us. SEE PHILOLOGY (COMPARATIVE).

(3.) Another fact which rests on the authority of the earlier chapters of Genesis, the derivation of the whole human race from a single pair, has been abundantly confirmed by recent investigations. For the full proof of this, it is sufficient to refer to Prichard’s Physical History of Mankind, in which the subject is discussed with great care and ability. SEE ADAM.

(4.) One of the strongest proofs of the bona-fide historical character of the earlier portion of Genesis is to be found in the valuable ethnological catalogue contained in chapter 10. Knobel, who has devoted a volume (Die Vlkertafel der Genesis) to the elucidation of this document, has succeeded in establishing its main accuracy beyond doubt, although, in accordance with his theory as to the age of the Pentateuch, he assigns to it no greatqrsantiquity than between 1200 and 1000 B.C. SEE ETHNOLOGY.

Of the minute accuracy of this table ce have abundant proof: for instance (Gen 10:4), Tarshish is called the son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient inhabitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erroneously considered to be a Phoenician colony like those of other towns in its neighborhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus (1:163). Also (Gen 10:8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, which is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent (comp. Diodor. Sic. 1:28, 81; Pausanias, 4:23, 5). Sidon alone is mentioned (Gen 10:15), but not Tyrus (comp. 49:13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Jos 19:29); and that Sidon was an older town than Tyrus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by, a number of ancient reports (Comp. Hengstentberg, De Rebus Tyrioussi, page 6, 7).

4. With the patriarchal history (12 sq.) begins a historical sketch of a peculiar character. The circumstantials details in it allow us to examine more closely the historical character of these accounts. The numerous descriptions of the mode of life in those days furnish us with a very vivid picture. We meet everywhere a sublime simplicity quite worthy of patriarchal life, and never to be found again in later history. One cannot suppose that it would have been possible in a later period, estranged from ancient simplicity, to invent such a picture.

The authencity of the patriarchal history could be attacked only by analogy, the true historical test of negative criticism; but the patriarchal history has no analogy; while a great historical fact, the Mosaical theocracy itself, might here be adduced in favor of the truth of Genesis. The theocracy stands without analogy in the history of the human race, and is, nevertheless, true above all historical doubt. But this theocracy cannot have entered into history without preparatory events. The facts which led to the introduction of the theocracy are contained in the accounts of Genesis. Moreover, this preparation of the theocracy could not consist in the ordinary providential guidance. The race of patriarchs advances to a marvelous destination: the road also leading, to this destination must be peculiar and extraordinary. The opponents of Genesis forget that the marvelous events of patriarchal history which offend them most, partake of that character of the whole by which alone this history becomes consmensurate and possible.

(1.) There are also many separate vestiges warranting the antiquity of these traditions, and proving that they were neither invented nor adorned; for instance, Jacob, the progenitor of the Israelites, is introduced not as the first-born, which, if an unhistorical and merely external exaltation of that name had been the aim of the author, would have been more for this purpose.

(2.) Neither the blemishes in the history of Abrahams, nor the gross sins of the sons of Jacob, among whom even Levi, the progenitor of the sacerdotal race, forms no exception, are concealed.

(3.) The same author, whose moral principles are so much blamed by the opponents of Genesis, on account of the description given of the life of Jacob, produces, in the history of Abraham, a picture of moral greatness which could have originated only in facts.

(4.) The faithfulness of the author manifests itself also especially in the description of the expedition of the kings from Upper to Western Asia; in his statements concerning the person of Melchizedek (Genesis 14); in the circumstantial details given of the incidents occurring at the purchase of the hereditary burial-place (chapter 23); in the genealogies of Arabian tribes (chapter 25); in the genealogy of Edoac (chapter 36); and in many remarkable details which are interwoven with the general accounts.

(5.) Passing on to a later portion of the book, we find the writer evincing the most accurate knowledge of the state of society in Egypt. The Egyptian jealousy of foreigners, and especially their hatred of shepherds; the use of interpreters in the court (who, we learn from other sources formed a distinct caste); the existence of caste; the importance of the priesthood; the use of wine by the kings (Wilkinson, 2:142-158); the fact that even at that early time a settled trade existed between Egypt and other countries, are all confirmed by the monuments or by later writers. So again Joseph’s priestly dress of fine linen, the chain of gold round his neck, the chariot on which be rides, the bodyguard of the king, the rites of burial (though mentioned only incidentally), are spoken of with a slitnue accuracy which can leave no doubt on the mind as to the credibility of the historian. In particular, the account given (Gen 47:13-26) of the manner in which the Pharaohs became proprietors of all the lands, with the exception of those belonging to the priests, is confirmed by Herodotus (2:109), and by Diodorus Siculus (1:73). The manner of embalming described in Genesis 1 entirely agrees with the description of Herodotus, 2:84, etc. For other data of a similar kind, compare Hengstenberg (Die Bucher Mosns und Aegypten, page 21 sq.). SEE EGYPT.

5. It is quite impossible, as has alread had been said, to notice all the objections made by hostile critics at every step as we advance. But it may be well to refer to one more instance in which suspicion has been cast upon the credibility of the narrative. Three stories are found in three distinct portions of the book, which in their main features no doubt present a striking similarity to one another, namely, the deliverances of Sarah and Rebekah from the harems of the Egyptian and Philistine monarchs (Gen 12:10-20; Gen 26:1-11). These, it is said, besides containing certain improbabilities of statement, are clearly only three different versions of the same story.

It is of course possible that these are only different versions of the same story. But is it psychologically so very improbable that the same incident should happen three times in almost the same manner? All men repeat themselves, and even repeat their mistakes; and the repetition of circumstances over which a man has no control is sometimes as astonishing as the repetition of actions which he can control. Was not the state of society in those days such as to render it no way improbable that Pharaoh en one occasion, and Abimelech on another, should have acted in the same selfish and arbitrary manner? Abraham, too, might have been guilty twice of the same sinful cowardice; and Isaac might, in similar circumstances, have copied his father’s example, calling it wisdom. To say, as a recent expositor of this book has done, that the object of the Hebrew writer was to represent an idea, such as “the sanctity of matrimony,” that “in his hands the facts are subordinated to ideas,” etc., is to cut up by the very roots the historical character of the book. The mythical theory is preferable to this, for that leaves a substratum of fact, however it may base been embellished or perhaps disfigured by tradition. If the view of Delitzch is correct, that Gen 12:10-20 is Jehovistic; 20, Elobhistic (with a Jehbomistic addition, Gen 12:18); Gen 26:1-13, Jehovistic, but taken from written documents, this may to some minds explain the repetition of the story.

There is a further difficulty about the age of Sarah, who at the time of one of the occurrences must have been 65 years old, and the freshness of her beauty, therefore, it is said, long since faded. In reply it has been argued that as she lived to the age of 127, she was then only in middle life; that consequently she would have been at 65 what a woman of modern Europe would be at 35 or 40, an age at which personal attractions are not necessarily impaired.

But it is a minute criticism, hardly worth answering, which tries to cast suspicion on the veracity of the writer, because of difficulties such as these. The positive evidence is overwhelming in favor of his credibility. The patriarchal tent beneath the shade of some spreading tree, the wealth of flocks and herds, the free and generous hospitality to strangers, the strife for the well, the purchase of the cave of Machpelah for a burial-place we feel at once that these are no inventions of a later writer in more civilized times. So again, what can be more life-like, more touchingly beautiful, than the picture of Hagar and Ishmael, the meeting of Abraham’s servant with Rebekah, or of Jacob with Rachel at the well of Haran ? There is a fidelity in the minutest incidents which convinces us that we are reading history, not fable. Or can anything more completely transport us into patriarchal times than the battle of the kings and the interview between Abraham and Melchizedek? The very opening of the story, “In the days of Amraphel,” etc., reads like the work of some old chronicler who lived not far from the time of which he speaks. The archaic forms of names of places, Bela for Zoar; Chatsatson Tamar for Engedi; Emek Shaveh for the King’s Vale; the Vale of Siddim, as descriptive of the spot which was afterwards the Dead Sea; the expression “Abram the Hebrew;” are remarkable evidences of the antiquity of the narrative. So also are the names of the different tribes who at that early period inhabited Canaan; the Rephaim, for instance, of whom we find in the time of Joshua but a weak remnant left (Jos 13:12), and the Zuzim, Emim, Chorim, who are only mentioned besides in the Pentateuch (Deu 2:10; Deu 2:12). Quite in keeping with the rest of the picture is Abraham’s “arming his trained servants” (14:14) a phrase which occurs nowhere else and, above all, the character and position of Melchizedek: “Simple, calm, great, he comes and goes the priest-king of the divine history.” The representations of the Greek poets, says Creuzer (Symb. 4:378), fall very far short of this; and, as Havernick justly remarks, such a person could be no theocratic invention, for the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the same person was no part of the theocracy. Lastly, the name by which he knows God, “the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth,” occurs also in the Phoenician religions, but not amongst the Jews, and is again one of those slight but accurate touches which at once distinguishes the historian from the fabulist. SEE MELCHIZEDEK.

V. Author and Date of Composition. It will be seen, from what has been said above, that the book of Genesis, though containing different documents, owes its existing form to the labor of a single author, who has digested and incorporated the materials he found ready to his hand. A modern writer on history, in the same way, might sometimes transcribe passages from ancient chronicles, sometimes place different accounts together, sometimes again give briefly the substance of the older document, neglecting its form.

But it is a distinct inquiry who this author or editor was. This question cannot properly be discussed apart from the general question of the authorship of the entire Pentateuch. Under that head we shall show that this could have been no other than Moses, and that the entire work was finished when he deposited a copy of the law within the “sides” of the sacred Ark (Deu 10:5). SEE PENTATEUCH.

We shall here confine ourselves to a notice of the attempt of some critics to ascertain the period when Genesis was composed, from a few passages in it, which they say must be anachronisms, if Moses was really the author of the book (e.g., Tuch, Commentar uber Genesis, page 85 sq.). A distinction, it is obvious, must be made between anachronisms of a subjective character, originating merely in dogmatic preconceptions, and such as relate to matters of fact. Thus the rejection of prophecy leads critics like Vater, Von Bohlen, and Kalisch to conclude that passages of Scripture declaratory of matters realized in the history of Israel must have been written subsequent to such events. But even as regards matters of fact, the existence of anachronisms requires to be placed beyond doubt, before they can have any weight in such a case, just because of the improbability of a writer who wished his work to pass as that of an earlier age allowing such contradictions. To notice, however, a few examples: Hebron (Gen 13:18; Gen 23:2), it is alleged from Jos 14:15; Jos 15:13, was not so named until the entrance into Canaan, its ancient name being Kirjath-Arba (Gen 23:2). That Hebron was the original name appears from the fact that on its first mention it is so designated. In Abraham’s time it was also called Maamre (Gen 23:19), from an Amoritish prince of that name (Gen 13:18; Gen 14:13). Subsequently, but prior to the Mosaic age, the Anakim possessed the place, when it received the name of Kirjath-Arba, or the city of Arba, “a great man among the Anakim” (Jos 14:15). The place Dan (Gen 14:14), it is also alleged, received that name only in the time of the judges from the tribe of Dan, its original name being Laish or Leshem (Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:29). The localities, however, are by many thought to be quite distinct; the former being Dan-Jaan, between Gilead and the country round about Zidon (2Sa 24:16), the adjunct Jaan being intended to distinguish it from Dan-Laish in the same neighborhood. SEE DAN.

In Genesis, these critics further add, frequently occurs the name Bethel (Gen 12:8; Gen 28:19; Gen 35:15); while even in the time of Joshua, the place was as yet called Luz (Jos 18:13). But the name Bethel was not first given to the place by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, there being no occasion for it, since Bethel was the old patriarchal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites. The explanatory remarks added to the names of certain places, as “Bela, which is Zoar” (Gen 14:2; Gen 14:8); “En-mishpat, which is Kadesh” (Gen 14:7), and some others, the opponents of the genuineness regard as indications of a later age, not considering that these explanations were required even for the Mosaic age, as the ancient designations were forgotten or rarely used. For proving them to be anachronisms, it must be shown that’ the new names were unknown in the time of Moses, though with the exception of “the king’s dale” (Gen 14:17), which does not again occur till 2Sa 18:16, all the names are referred to as well known in the books of the period immediately succeeding. The notice that “the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7), is thought to imply that the Canaanites were still in possession of Palestine, and so could not have been written till after their expulsion. But such is not the import of the passage. The descent of the Canaanites from Ham, and their progress from the south towards Palestine, had been described (Gen 10:15-19), and they are now represented as in possession of the land to which the “sons of Eber” were advancing from an opposite point. Standing in connection with the promise of the land to Abraham, this notice contrasts the present with the promised future. The passage (Gen 15:18) where the land of Israel is described as extending from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the great river (Euphrates), it is alleged, could only have been penned during the splendid period of the Jews, the times of David and Solomon. Literally taken, however, the remark is inapplicable to any period, since the kingdom of the Jews at no period of their history extended so far. That promise must, therefore, be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing the central point of the proper country as situated between the two rivers. The remark, ‘Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” (Gen 36:31), could not have been made, it is maintained, until the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy-an assumption which overlooks the relation of this statement to the promises of a royal posterity to the patriarchs, and especially “that in an immediately preceding passage (Gen 35:11). It stands in a relation similar to Deu 17:14, where the erection of a kingdom is viewed as a necessary step in Israel’s development. This explanation will of course not satisfy those who hold that in a simple historical style, a statement having such prophetical reference “is not only preposterous, but impossible” (Kalisbch, Genesis, page 601); but against rationalistic prepossessions of this kind there is no arguing.

VI. Commentaries. The following are expressly on the whole of this book, the most important being designated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Commentaria (in Opp. 2:1); also Homiliae (ib. 2:52); Chrysostom, Homilie (in Opp. 4:3; also [Spuria] ib. 6:619); and Sermones (ib. 4:746, 796); Jerome, Quaestiones (in Opp. 3:301); Escherius, Commentaria (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 6); Isidore, Commentaria (in Opp. page 283); Damianus, Expositio (in Opp. 3:889); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. 4:19); also Quaestiones (ib. 8:78); Alcuin, Interrogationes (Haguenau, 1529, 8vo; also in Opp. I, 2:303); Angelomus, Commentarius (in Pez, Thesaur. IV, 1:45); Remigius, Commentarius (ib. IV, 1:1); Hugo, Annotationes (in Opp. 1:8); Rupert, Commentarri (in Opp. 1:1); Aquinas, Expositio (Antwerp, 1572, Lugd. 1573, Smo; Paris, 1641, fo.).; OEcolampadius, Adnotationes (Basil. 1523, 1536, 8vo); Zwingle, Adnotatianes (Tigur. 1527; also in Opp. 3:4); Zeigler, Commentarri (Basil. 1540, fol.); Frusius, Adsertiones (Romans 1541, fol.); *Luther, Enarrationes (by different eds., part 1, Vitemb. 1544, fol.; 2-4, Norib. 1550-4; together, Francof. 1545-50, 8vo, and later; also in Op. Exeg. I, 2; in English, London, 18555 8vo); Melanchthon, Commentarius (in Opp. 2:377); Musclus, Commentaria (Basil. 1554, 156l, 1600, fol.); Honcala, Commentarius (Complut. 1555, fol.); Chytraeus, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1557, 1558 1590, 8vo); *Marloratus, Expositio (Par. 1562; Morg. 1568, 1580, 1584, fol.; Genev. 1580, 8vo); *Calvin, In Genesim (in Opp. 1; also tr. Lend. 1578, 4to; also ib. 1847-50, 2 volumes, 8vo); Strigel, Scholia (Lips. 1566, 1574, 8vo); Selnecker, Commentarius (Lips. 1569, fol.); Martyr, Commentarius (Tigur. 1572, 1579, 1595; Heidelb. 1606, fol.); Brentius, Commentarii (in Opp. 1); Brocard, Interpretatio [mystical] (L, B. 1580, 8vo; ib. 1584, 4to; Bremen, 1585, 1593, 4to); Fabricius, Commentarius (Lips. 1584, 1592, 8vo; 1596, Argent. 1584, 4to); *Pererius [Romanist], Commentarius (Romans 1589- 1598, 4 volumes, fol.; Colon. 1601, 1606, Ven. 1607, fol.; Lugd. 1616, 4 volumes, 4to; and later); Museus, Ausleung (Magdeb. 1595, fol.); Martintengus, Glossa (Patav. 1597, 2 volumes, fol.); Daabitz, Predigten (Lpz. 1597, 8vo); Maercer, Commentarius (Genev. 1598, fol.); Kalmankas, (Lublin, s.a. fol.); Hammelmann, Adnotationes (Lips. 1600, fol.); Stella, Commentaria (Romans 1601, fol.); Schmuck, Auslegung (Lpz. 1603-9, in 8 parts. 4to); Gesner, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1604, 1613, 1629, 4to); Lyser, Commentarius (in 6 pts., Lips. 1604 sq., 4to); *Willet, Sixfold Commentary (London, 1605, fol.); Delrio, Commentarii (Lugd. 1608, 4to); Runge, Praelectiones (Vitembi. 1608, 8vo) Pareus, Commentarius (Francof. 1609; i614, 4to); Gedick, Auslegung (Lpz. 1611, 1632, fol.); De Petiglian, Commentaria (Ven. 1616, 4to); Ferdindez, Commentationes (Lugd. 1618-28. 3 volumes, fol.); Babington, Notes (in Works, 1); Mersennus, Quaestiones [polehmical] (Par. 1623, fol.); Garzia, Discussuo (Caesaraug. 1624, fol.); Bohme, Erklarung [Emsytical] (s.1. 1624; also in his other works), Rivetus, Exercitationes (L. B. 1633. 4to); Gerbard, Commentarius (Jen. 1637, 1654, 1693, 4to); De la Haye, Commentarri (Lugd. 1638, Par. 1651, 1663, 2 volumes, fol.); Syilvius, Commentarius (Duaci. 1639, gto); Lightfoot, Observations (Lond. 1642; also in Works, 2:329); and Annotationes (ib. 10:532); Gaudentius, Conatus (Pisis, 1644, 4to); Cartwright, Adnotationes [from Targums] (Lonad. 1648, 8vo; also in Critici Sacri, 1); Rivet, Exercitationnes (in Opp. 1:1); Terser, Adtotationes (Upsal. 1657, fol.); Chemnitz, Disputationes (Jen. 16605, Lips. 1711; Vitemb. 1716, 4to), Calov, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1671, 4to); Hughes, Exposition (Lond. 1.672, fol.); Cocceius, Commentarius (in Opp. 1:1); also Cure (ib. 2:1); Anonymoas, Traduction, etc. [patristic] (Paris, 1682, 12mo); Masson, Quaestiones (Paris, 1685-8, 3 volumes, 12mo); Bomparte, Notae [from profane sources] (Amst. 1689); Akiba-Bar, [Esabbinical] (Sulzb. 1690, 1700, 4to, and later); *Patrick, Commentary (Lond. 1695, 4to; afterwards embodied in Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, and Whitbly’s Commentary on the Bible); Schmid, Adnotatiaones (Argent. 1697, 4mo); Giuetzburg, (Amst. 1713, 4to); Baruch ben-Isaak, [polemical] (Halle, 1714, 4to); Von Sanden, Quaestiones (Regiom. 1716, 4to); Duquet, Explication (Paris, 1732, 6 volumes, 12mo); Sandus, Lectiones (Ven. 1733, 4to); Hagemann, Betrachtungen (in 3 parts, Brunswick, 1734-6, 4to); Lookup, Translation (1740, 8vo); Haitsma, Cura (Franeck. 1753, 4to); Dawson, Notes (Lond. 1763-87, 3 volumes, 4to); Murray, Lectures (Newc. 1777, 2 volumes, 8vo); Dubnos, , etc. (is Mendelssohn’s Pentateuch, Berl. 1781-3 8vo, and later); Giesebrecht, Erklarung (Rostock, 1784 sq., 2 volumes, 4to); Sosmans, Notes, etc. (London, 1787, 8vo); Rudiger, Erklarung (Stendal, 1788, 8vo); Harwood, Annotations (Lond. 1789, 8vo); Ilgen, Urkunde, etc. (Halle, 1798, 8vo); Franks, Remarks (Halif. 1802, 8vo); Dimock, Notes (Gloucester. 1804, 4to); Rosenmller, Scholia (Lips. 1821, 8vo); Fuller, Discourses (London, 1825, 1836, 12mo); Close, Discourses (London, 1828, 12mo); Rundge, Lectures (Loasdon, 1828, 2 vols. So); Schumann, Annotatio (Lips. 1829, 8vo); Seltmann, Uebers. (Hasems, 1831, 8vo); Coghlan, Commentary (London, 1832, 2 volumes, Smo); *Von Bohlen, Erklautarung (Konigsb. 1835, 8vo); Von Schrank, Commentarius (Salzburg, 1835, 8vo); Sibthorp, Observations (Lond. 1835, 8vo); *Tiele, Commentar (Erl. 1836, 8vo, vol. 1); Warner, Exposition (Lond. 1838, 8-o); *Tuch, Commentar (Haile, 1838, 8vo); Priaulx, Comparison, etc. [antiquarian] (London, 1842, 8vo); *De Sola and others, Notes (Lond. 1844, 8vo); Heim, Lehre (Stuttg, 1845, 8vo); *Turner, Companion (N.York, 1846, So); Trevanion, Sermons (Lond. 1847, 8vo); Sehroder, Anslegung (Beal. 1848, 8vo); Evans, Sermons (Lond. 1849, 12mo); Sirensen, Commentar (Kiel, 1851, Smo); *Knobel, Erklarung (Lpz. 1852, 8vo, in the Kuregaf. exeg. hdbk.); Candlish, Lectures (Edinb. 1852, 2 volumes 12mo; Lond. 1868, 2 volumes 8vo); Paul, Analysis (Edinb. 1852, 8vo); *Delitzsch, Auslegung (Lpz. 1852, 1853, 8vo); Jervis, Notes (Lond. 1852, Smo); *Bush, Notes (N.Y. 1852, 2 vaols. 12mo); Macgregor, Notes (London, 1853, 8vo); Cumining, Readings (Lond. 1853, 8vo); Preston, Notes (London, 1853, 8vo); Putnam, Gosp. in Genesis (N.Y. 1854, 8mo); Howard, Tr. from Sept. (Cambr. 1855, So); *Kalisch, Commentary (London, 1859, 8vo); Wright, Notes (Lond. 1859, 8vo); Groves, Commentary (Cambr. 1861, 12mo); Mandelstames, Erklrung (Berl. 1862, 4to); Bhmer, Commentarius (Halle, 1860, 8vo); also Uebers. etc. (Hal. 1862, 8vo); Raeumer, Quaestiones (Breslau, 1863, 8vo); *Murphy, Commentary (Belfast, 1863; Andover, 1866, 8vo); Jacobus, Notes (N.York, 1865, 2 volumes, 12mo); Quarry, Authorship of Genesis (Lond. 1866, 8Smo); Conant, Revised Version (N.Y. 1868, 8vo); *Tambler Lewis, Conzmientary (in the Am. ed. of Lange’s Bibelwerk, ed. Dr. Schaff, New York, 1868, 8vo). SEE OLD TESTAMENT.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Genesis

The five books of Moses were collectively called the Pentateuch, a word of Greek origin meaning “the five-fold book.” The Jews called them the Torah, i.e., “the law.” It is probable that the division of the Torah into five books proceeded from the Greek translators of the Old Testament. The names by which these several books are generally known are Greek.

The first book of the Pentateuch (q.v.) is called by the Jews Bereshith, i.e., “in the beginning”, because this is the first word of the book. It is generally known among Christians by the name of Genesis, i.e., “creation” or “generation,” being the name given to it in the LXX. as designating its character, because it gives an account of the origin of all things. It contains, according to the usual computation, the history of about two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine years.

Genesis is divided into two principal parts. The first part (1-11) gives a general history of mankind down to the time of the Dispersion. The second part presents the early history of Israel down to the death and burial of Joseph (12-50).

There are five principal persons brought in succession under our notice in this book, and around these persons the history of the successive periods is grouped, viz., Adam (1-3), Noah (4-9), Abraham (10-25:18), Isaac (25:19-35:29), and Jacob (36-50).

In this book we have several prophecies concerning Christ (3:15; 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10). The author of this book was Moses. Under divine guidance he may indeed have been led to make use of materials already existing in primeval documents, or even of traditions in a trustworthy form that had come down to his time, purifying them from all that was unworthy; but the hand of Moses is clearly See n throughout in its composition.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

GENESIS

Originally the first five books of the Bible were one. They were divided into their present form for convenience, and collectively are known as the Pentateuch (meaning five volumes). The books are also commonly referred to as the books of Moses, because Moses has traditionally been regarded as the author (see PENTATEUCH).

Purpose of the book

The name Genesis means origin or beginning, and comes from the title given to the book by those who first translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. The book speaks of the origins of the universe, of the human race, of human sin and of Gods way of salvation.

Although the Bible mentions matters relating to the beginnings of the universe and the early days of the human race, its main concern is not with the scientific aspect of these matters (see CREATION). The Bible is concerned rather with the relationship between God and the people he placed in the world he had made. It shows in the opening chapters of Genesis how human beings, though created sinless, rebelled against God and corrupted human nature. Their sin brought with it Gods judgment, but the judgment contained an element of mercy, as God repeatedly gave them the opportunity to start afresh. Still they rebelled, and still God did not destroy them.

This leads Genesis into its second and major section, which shows how God worked in human affairs to provide a way of salvation. God chose to work through Abraham, one of the few surviving believers. He promised to make from Abraham a nation, to make that nation his people, and to give them Canaan as a national homeland. From that nation God would bring a Saviour, through whom the blessings of Gods salvation would go to all peoples of the world (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 13:14-16). The book goes on to record the birth of this nation and the events that helped prepare it for its occupation of the promised land.

Outline of contents

Genesis begins with the story of creation (1:1-2:3) and the rebellion of Adam and Eve (2:4-4:26). As the human race spread, so did human sin (5:1-6:4), till the rebellion became so widespread and so resistant to reform that God sent a flood that destroyed the entire generation, except for a few believers (6:5-8:19). From these believers, God made a new beginning and repopulated the devastated earth (8:20-10:32), but as people became more secure and independent, so did they become more rebellious against God (11:1-9). Judgment inevitably followed, but in his grace God again preserved the faithful. One of these was a man from Mesopotamia named Abram, later renamed Abraham (11:10-26).

After God announced to Abraham his promise of blessing (11:27-12:3), Abraham and his household moved into Canaan. When a famine hit the land, they went to Egypt, but in due course they returned and settled at Hebron, west of the Dead Sea (12:4-14:24). (For a map and other details relevant to Abrahams varied experiences see ABRAHAM.)

God made a covenant with Abraham, in which he promised to give him a multitude of descendants (15:1-21); but the birth of Ishmael had no part in the fulfilment of that promise (16:1-16). God then confirmed the covenant with Abraham, giving the rite of circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant (17:1-27). Some time later the promised son Isaac was born (18:1-21:34). God tested the faith and obedience of Abraham, but Abraham proved himself totally committed to God, no matter what the circumstances (22:1-23:20).

Isaac married and produced two sons, Esau and Jacob (24:1-25:26). In accordance with Gods will, the blessing of Abraham passed to Jacob instead of to Esau. That, however, was no excuse for Jacobs ruthlessness and deceit in obtaining the blessing (25:27-28:9).

Jacob moved from Canaan to Mesopotamia to obtain a wife among his parents relatives. He stayed in Mesopotamia for twenty years, during which he built up a large family. He then left to settle again in Canaan (28:10-31:55). But first he had to be reconciled to his brother Esau, who by this time had developed a prosperous settlement in neighbouring territory to the south-east (32:1-36:43).

Troubles arose among Jacobs twelve sons, with the result that one of them, Joseph, was sold as a slave and taken to Egypt. But God was controlling the affairs of his people, and through a series of remarkable events, Joseph eventually became governor over Egypt. When the entire region was devastated by a famine, his wise administration saved the nation (37:1-41:57). More than twenty years after Josephs brothers had sold him as a slave, they met him in Egypt when they went there to buy food. The result was that the whole of Jacobs household migrated to Egypt and settled in the fertile Nile Delta (42:1-47:26).

In the specially marked-off area that Pharaoh had given them, Jacobs large family could live together and multiply without being corrupted by Egyptian ideas. Jacob saw that a prosperous future lay ahead for his descendants and announced his blessings on them before he died (47:27-49:33).

Years later Joseph died, but before his death he expressed his unwavering faith in Gods promises. He knew that just as Gods promise to Abraham of a nation had been largely fulfilled, so his promise of a homeland would also be fulfilled. The Israelites increasing prosperity in Egypt was rapidly preparing them for the day when they would be strong enough to move north and take possession of the promised land (50:1-26).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Genesis

GENESIS

1. Name, Contents, and Plan.The name Genesis, as applied to the first book of the Bible, is derived from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , in one or two MSS of which the book is entitled Genesis kosmou (origin of the world). A more appropriate designation, represented by the heading of one Greek MS, is The Book of Origins; for Genesis is pre-eminently the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a collection of the earliest traditions of the Israelites regarding the beginnings of things, and particularly of their national history; these traditions being woven into a continuous narrative, commencing with the creation of the world and ending with the death of Joseph. The story is continued in the book of Exodus, and indeed forms the introduction to a historical work which may be said to terminate either with the conquest of Palestine (Hexateuch) or with the Babylonian captivity (2Kings). The narrative comprised in Genesis falls naturally into two main divisions(i) The history of primeval mankind (chs. 111), including the creation of the world, the origin of evil, the beginnings of civilization, the Flood, and the dispersion of peoples. (ii.) The history of the patriarchs (ch. 1250), which is again divided into three sections, corresponding to the lives of Abraham (Gen 12:1 to Gen 25:18), Isaac (Gen 25:19-34), and Jacob (3750); although in the last two periods the story is really occupied with the fortunes of Jacob and Joseph respectively. The transition from one period to another is marked by a series of genealogies, some of which (e.g. chs. 5, Gen 11:10 ff.) serve a chronological purpose and bridge over intervals of time with regard to which tradition was silent, while others (chs. 10, 36, etc.) exhibit the nearer or remoter relation to Israel of the various races and peoples of mankind. These genealogies constitute a sort of framework for the history, and at the same time reveal the plan on which the book is constructed. As the different branches of the human family are successively enumerated and dismissed, and the history converges more and more on the chosen line, we are meant to trace the unfolding of the Divine purpose by which Israel was separated from all the nations of the earth to be the people of the true God.

2. Literary sources.The unity of plan which characterizes the Book of Genesis does not necessarily exclude the supposition that it is composed of separate documents; and a careful study of the structure of the book proves beyond all doubt that this is actually the case. The clue to the analysis was obtained when (in 1753) attention was directed to the significant alternation of two names for God, Jahweh and Elohim. This at once suggested a compilation from two pre-existing sources; although it is obvious that a preference for one or other Divine name might be common to many independent writers, and does not by itself establish the unity of all the passages in which it appears. It was speedily discovered, however, that this characteristic does not occur alone, but is associated with a number of other features, linguistic, literary, and religious, which were found to correspond in general with the division based on the use of the Divine names. Hence the conviction gradually gained ground that in Genesis we have to do not with an indefinite number of disconnected fragments, but with a few homogeneous compositions, each with a literary character of its own. The attempts to determine the relation of the several components to one another proved more or less abortive, until it was finally established in 1853 that the use of Elohim is a peculiarity common to two quite dissimilar groups of passages; and that one of these has much closer affinities with the sections where Jahweh is used than with the other Elohistic sections. Since then, criticism has rapidly advanced to the positions now held by the great majority of OT scholars, which may be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Practically the whole of Genesis is resolved into three originally separate documents, each containing a complete and consecutive narrative: (a) the Jahwistic (J [Note: Jahwist.] ), characterized by the use of Jahweh, commencing with the Creation (Gen 2:4 b ff.) and continued to the end of the book; (b) the Elohistic (E [Note: Elohist.] ), using Elohim, beginning at ch. 20; (c) the Priestly Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), also using Elohim, which opens with the first account of the Creation (Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4 a). (2) In the compilation from these sources of our present Book of Genesis, two main stages are recognized: first, the fusion of J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] into a single work (JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ); and second, the amalgamation of the combined work JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] with P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] (an intermediate stage; the combination of JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] with the Book of Deuteronomy, is here passed over because it has no appreciable influence on the composition of Genesis). (3) The oldest documents are J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] , which represent slightly varying recensions of a common body of patriarchal tradition, to which J [Note: Jahwist.] has prefixed traditions from the early history of mankind. Both belong to the best age of Hebrew writing, and must have been composed before the middle of the 8th cent. b.c. The composite work JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] is the basis of the Genesis narrative; to it belong all the graphic, picturesque, and racy stories which give life and charm to the book. Differences of standpoint between the two components are clearly marked; but both bear the stamp of popular literature, full of local colour and human interest, yet deeply pervaded by the religious spirit. Their view of God and His converse with men is primitive and childlike; but the bold anthropomorphic representations which abound in J [Note: Jahwist.] are strikingly absent from E [Note: Elohist.] , where the element of theological reflexion is come-what more pronounced than in J [Note: Jahwist.] . (4) The third source, P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , reproduces the traditional scheme of history laid down in JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ; but the writers unequal treatment of the material at his disposal reveals a prevailing interest in the history of the sacred institutions which were to be the basis of the Sinaitic legislation. As a rule he enlarges only on those epochs of the history at which some new religious observance was introduced, viz., the Creation, when the Sabbath was instituted; the Flood, followed by the prohibition of eating the blood; and the Abrahamic Covenant, of which circumcision was the perpetual seal. For the rest, the narrative is mostly a meagre and colourless epitome, based on JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , and scarcely intelligible apart from it. While there is evidence that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] used other sources than JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] , it is significant that, with the exception of ch. 23, there is no single episode to which a parallel is not found in the older and fuller narrative. To P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , however, we owe the chronological scheme, and the series of genealogies already referred to as constituting the framework of the book as a whole. The Code belongs to a comparatively late period of Hebrew literature, and is generally assigned by critics to the early post-exilic age.

3. Nature of the material.That the contents of Genesis are not historical in the technical sense, is implied in the fact that even the oldest of its written documents are far from being contemporary with the events related. They consist for the most part of traditions which for an indefinite period had circulated orally amongst the Israelites, and which (as divergences in the written records testify) had undergone modification in the course of transmission. No one denies that oral tradition may embody authentic recollection of actual occurrences; but the extent to which this is the case is uncertain, and will naturally vary in different parts of the narrative. Thus a broad distinction may be drawn between the primitive traditions of chs. 111 on the one hand, and those relating to the patriarchs on the other. The accounts of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Dispersion, all exhibit more or less clearly the influence of Babylonian mythology; and with regard to these the question is one not of trustworthy historical memory, but of the avenue through which certain mythical representations came to the knowledge of Israel. For the patriarchal period the conditions are different: here the tradition is ostensibly national; the presumed interval of oral transmission is perhaps not beyond the compass of the retentive Oriental memory; and it would be surprising if some real knowledge of its own antecedents had not persisted in the national recollection of Israel. These considerations may be held to justify the belief that a substratum of historic fact underlies the patriarchal narratives of Genesis; but it must be added that to distinguish that substratum from legendary accretions is hardly possible in the present state of our knowledge. The process by which the two elements came to be blended can, however, partly be explained. The patriarchs, for instance, are conceived as ancestors of tribes and nations; and it is certain that in some narratives the characteristics, the mutual relations, and even the history, of tribes are reflected in what is told as the personal biography of the ancestors. Again, the patriarchs are founders of sanctuaries; and it is natural to suppose that legends explanatory of customs observed at these sanctuaries are attached to the names of their reputed founders and go to enrich the traditional narrative. Once more, they are types of character; and in the inevitable simplification which accompanies popular narration the features of the type tended to be emphasized, and the figures of the patriarchs were gradually idealized as patterns of Hebrew piety and virtue. No greater mistake could be made than to think that these non-historical, legendary or imaginative, parts of the tradition are valueless for the ends of revelation. They are inseparably woven into that ideal background of history which bounded the horizon of ancient Israel, and was perhaps more influential in the moulding of national character than a knowledge of the naked reality would have been. The inspiration of the Biblical narrators is seen in the fashioning of the floating mass of legend and folklore and historical reminiscences into an expression of their Divinely given apprehension of religious truth, and so transforming what would otherwise have been a constant source of religious error and moral corruption as to make it a vehicle of instruction in the knowledge and fear of God. Once the principle is admitted that every genuine and worthy mode of literary expression is a suitable medium of Gods word to men, it is impossible to suppose that the mythic faculty, which plays so important a part in the thinking of all early peoples, was alone ignored in the Divine education of Israel.

J. Skinner.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Genesis

The first book of Moses; so called because it contains the genealogy of the patriarchs. The original name in Hebrew is Berescheth, beginning. It includes a period of near two thousand four hundred years, from the beginning of the world to the death of Joseph.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Genesis

jene-sis:

I.General Data

1.The Name

2.Survey of Contents

3.Connection with Succeeding Books

II.Composition of Genesis in General

1.Unity of the Biblical Text

(1)The Toledhoth

(2)Further Indication of Unity

2.Rejection of the Documentary Theory

(1)In General

(a)Statement of Theory

(b)Reasons Assigned for Divisions

(c)Examination of the Documentary Theory

(i)Style and Peculiarities of Language

(ii)Alleged Connection of Matter

(iii)The Biblico-Theological Data

(iv)Duplicates

(v)Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together

(vi)Criticism Carried to Extremes

(2)In View of the Names for God

(a)Error of Hypothesis in Principle

(b)False Basis of Hypothesis

(c)Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance

(d)Real Purpose in Use of Names for God

(i)Decreasing Use of Yahweh

(ii)Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him

(iii)Other Reasons

(iv)Systematic Use in History of Abraham

(e)Scantiness of the Materials for Proof

(f)Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position

(g)Different Uses in the Septuagint

III.Structure of the Individual Pericopes

1.The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1 through 2:3)

2.Structure of the 10 Toledhoth

IV.The Historical Character

1.History of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12 through 50)

(1)Unfounded Attacks upon the History

(a)From General Dogmatic Principles

(b)From Distance of Time

(c)From Biblical Data

(d)From Comparison with Religion of Arabia

(2)Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age

(a)Explanation Based on High Places

(b)The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times

(c)The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi

(d)Different Explanations Combined

(3)Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis

2.The Primitive History of Genesis 1 through 11

(1)Prominence of the Religious Element

(2)Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research

(3)Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science

(4)Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies

Babylonian and Biblical Stories

V.Origin and Authorship of Genesis

1.Connection with Mosaic Times

2.Examination of Counter-Arguments

(1)Possibility of Later Additions

(2)Prophecy after the Event Idea

(3)Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date

VI.Significance

1.Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation – Creation, Fall, Man in Image of God, Sin, etc.

2.Preparation for Redemption – Promises and Covenants

Literature

I. General Data

1. The Name

The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, , bere’shth, i.e. in the beginning (compare the , Bresith of Origen). In the Septuagint it is called , Genesis, because it recounts the beginnings of the world and of mankind. This name has passed over into the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) (Liber Genesis). As a matter of fact the name is based only on the beginning of the book.

2. Survey of Contents

The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first human beings (Gen 1); of paradise and the fall (Gen 2 f); of mankind down to the Deluge (Gen 4 f; compare Gen 4, Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself (Gen 6 through 9); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs (Gen 10:1 through 11:26; compare Gen 11:1, the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (Gen 11:27 through 25:18); of Isaac and his house (Gen 25:19 through 37:2); of Jacob and of Joseph (Gen 37:2-50:26). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down to the beginning of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (Gen 1:1 through 11:26) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (Gen 11:27 through 50:26) the history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with Ex 1. Though the introduction, Gen 1-11, with its universal character, includes all mankind in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3), it is from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart one man and his family (Gen 12 through 50), and after that a single nation (Ex 1ff), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.

3. Connection with Succeeding Books

By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history of the chosen people, which begins with Ex 1ff, at the very outset and with a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare Exo 1:1-6, Exo 1:8 with Gen 46:27; Gen 50:24; and see EXODUS, I, 3), although hundreds of years had clasped between these events; which years are ignored, because they were in their details of no importance for the religious history of the people of God. But to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3 the promise had been given, not only that he was to be the father of a mighty nation that would recognize him as their founder, and the earliest history of which is reported in Exodus and the following books of the Pentateuch, but also that the Holy Land had been promised him. In this respect, the Book of Joshua, which gives the story of the capture of this land, is also a continuation of the historical development begun in Genesis. The blessing of God pronounced over Abraham, however, continued to be efficacious also in the later times among the people who had descended from him. In this way Genesis is an introduction to all of the books of the Old Testament that follow it, which in any way have to do with the fate of this people, and originated in its midst as the result of the special relation between God and this people. But in so far as this blessing of God was to extend to all the nations of the earth (Gen 12:3), the promises given can be entirely fulfilled only in Christ, and can expand only in the work and success of Christian missions and in the blessings that are found within Christianity. Accordingly, this book treats first of beginnings and origins, in which, as in a kernel, the entire development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is contained (compare VI below).

II. Composition of Genesis in General

1. Unity of the Biblical Text

(1) The toledhoth

The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has, at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2 and 3). This impression is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation of the world (1:1-2:3) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case bear the name toledhoth, or generations. For this word never signifies creation or generation as an act, but always the history of what has already been created or begotten, the history of generations; so that for this reason, Gen 2:4, where mention is made of the toledhoth of heaven and of earth, cannot possibly be a superscription that has found its way here from Gen 1:1. It is here, as it is in all cases, the superscription to what follows, and it admirably leads over from the history of creation of the heavens and the earth in Gen 1 to the continuation of this subject in the next chapter. The claim of the critics, that the redactor had at this place taken only the superscription from his source P (the priestly narrator, to whom 1 through Gen 2:3 is ascribed), but that the section of P to which this superscription originally belonged had been suppressed, is all the more monstrous a supposition as Gen 2:4 throughout suits what follows.

Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term toledhoth can the fact be finally and fully explained, that the toledhoth of Terah contain also the history of Abraham and of Lot; the toledhoth of Isaac contain the history of Jacob and Esau; the toledhoth of Jacob contain the history of Joseph and his brethren. The ten toledhoth are the following: I, Gen 2:4-4:26, the toledhoth of the heavens and the earth; II, 5:1 through 6:8, the toledhoth of Adam; III, 6:9 through 9:29, the toledhoth of Noah; IV, 10:1 through 11:9, the toledhoth of the sons of Noah; V, 11:10-26, the toledhoth of the sons of Shem; VI, 11:27 through 25:11, the toledhoth of Terah; VII, Gen 25:12-18, the toledhoth of Ishmael; VIII, 25:19 through 35:29, the toledhoth of Isaac; IX, 36:1 through 37:1, the toledhoth of Esau (the fact that Gen 36:9, in addition to the instance in Gen 36:1, contains the word toledhoth a second time, is of no importance whatever for our discussion at this stage, as the entire chapter under any circumstances treats in some way of the history of the generations of Esau; see III, Gen 2:9); X, 37:2 through 50:26, the toledhoth of Jacob. In each instance this superscription covers everything that follows down to the next superscription.

The number 10 is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles EXODUS, LEVITICUS, DAY OF ATONEMENT, also in EZEKIEL, it has been shown what role the typical numbers 4, 7, 10 and 12 play in the structure of the whole books and of the individual pericopes. (In the New Testament we meet with the same phenomenon, particularly in the Apocalypse of John; but compare also in Matthew’s Gospel the 3 X 14 generations in Mat 1:1, the 7 parables in Mat 13:1, the 7 woes in Mat 23:13.) In the same way the entire Book of Lev naturally falls into 10 pericopes (compare LEVITICUS, II, 2, 1), and Lev 19 contains 10 groups, each of 4 (possibly also of 5) commandments; compare possibly also Lev 18:6-18; Lev 20:9-18; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 21, VI. Further, the number 10, with a greater or less degree of certainty, can be regarded as the basis for the construction of the pericopes: Ex 1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16 (10 plagues); 13:17-18:27 (see EXODUS, II, 2:1-3); the Decalogue (Exo 20:1); the first Book of the Covenant (21:1 through 23:13; Exo 23:14-19), and the whole pericope 19:1 through 24:18a, as also 32:1 through 35:3 (see EXODUS, II, 2, 4, 6). In the Book of Genesis itself compare further the 10 members from Shem to Abraham (11:11-26), as also the pericopes 25:19 through 35:29; 37:2 through 50:26 (see III, 2, 8, 10 below), and the 10 nations in Gen 15:19. And just as in the cases cited, in almost every instance, there is to be found a further division into 5 X 2 or 2 X 5 (compare, e.g. the two tables of the Decalogue); thus, too, in the Book of Genesis in each case, 5 of the 10 pericopes are more closely combined, since I-V (toledhoth of Shem inclusive) stand in a more distant, and VI-X (treating of the toledhoth of Terah, or the history of Abraham) in a closer connection with the kingdom of God; and in so far, too, as the first series of toledhoth bring into the foreground more facts and events, but the second series more individuals and persons. Possibly in this case, we can further unite 2 toledhoth; at any rate I and II (the primitive age), III and IV (Noah and his sons), VII and VIII (Ishmael and Isaac), IX and X (Esau and Jacob) can be thus grouped.

(2) Further Indication of Unity

In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development. Cain’s history (Gen 4:17) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (Gen 4:25 f J; Gen 5:3 P); Japheth’s and Ham’s genealogy (Gen 10:1 P; Gen 10:8 P and J) before that of Shem (Gen 10:21 J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah (Gen 9:24); the further history of Lot (Gen 19:29 P and J) and of Ishmael’s genealogy (Gen 25:12 P and J) before that of Isaac (Gen 25:19 P and J and E); Esau’s descendants (Gen 36:1 R and P) before the toledhoth of Jacob (Gen 37:2 P and J and E).

In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history that begins with Ex 1ff, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis (compare, e.g. Gen 3:8; Gen 7:16; Gen 11:5 J; Gen 17:1, Gen 17:22; Gen 35:9, Gen 35:13 P; Gen 18:1; Gen 32:31 J), afterward ceases; and that in Ex, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than in the Book of Genesis (see EXODUS, III, 2); that Genesis contains rather the history of mankind and of families, while Exodus contains that of the nation (see I, 2 above); that it is only in Exodus that the law is given, while in the history of the period of the patriarchs we find only promises of the Divine grace; that all the different sources ignore the time that elapses between the close of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus; and further, that nowhere else is found anything like the number of references to the names of persons or things as are contained in Genesis (compare, e.g. Gen 2:23; Gen 3:20; Gen 4:1, Gen 4:25, etc., in J; Gen 17:5, Gen 17:15, Gen 17:17-20, etc., in P; Gen 21:9, Gen 21:17, Gen 21:31, etc., in E; Gen 21:6; Gen 27:36, etc., in J and E; Gen 28:19, etc., in R; Gen 49:8, Gen 49:16, Gen 49:19, etc., in the blessing of Jacob); that the changing of the names of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah from Gen 17:5, Gen 17:15 goes on through all the sources, while before this it is not found in any source. Finally, we would draw attention to the psychologically finely drawn portraits of Biblical persons in Genesis. The fact that the personal pronoun hu’ and the noun naar are used of both masculine and feminine genders is characteristic of Genesis in common with all the books of the Pentateuch, without any difference in this regard being found in the different documents, which fact, as all those cited by us in number 1 above, militates against the division of this book into different sources. Let us now examine more closely the reason assigned for the division into different sources.

2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory

(1) In General

(A) Statement of Theory

Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P), Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed the following greater and connected parts: 1:1-2:4a; 5; a part of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Gen 11:10; 17; 23; Gen 25:12; Gen 35:22 ff; the most of 36. As examples of the parts assigned to J we mention 2:4b-4:26; the rest of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Gen 11:1; 12 f; 16; 18 f, with the exception of a few verses, which are ascribed to P; chapter 24 and others. Connected parts belonging to the Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters 20 and 21 (with the exception of a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that, beginning with chapter 22, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of Joseph (25:19-50:26), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener, and the author of the present article.

(B) Reasons Assigned for Divisions

As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the two names of God, namely Yahweh (Jehovah) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g., Gen 1 is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article PENTATEUCH. In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis, and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates are found, e.g., Gen 1:1 through 2:4a the Priestly Code (P), and Gen 2:4 ff J, containing two stories of creation; Gen 12:9 J; Gen 20:1 E; Gen 26:1 J; with the narrative of how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters 15 J and 17 the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded His covenant with Abraham; Gen 21:22 E and Gen 26:12 J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters 16 J and 21 E, the Hagar episodes; Gen 28:10 J and E and Gen 35:1 E and the Priestly Code (P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt (Gen 37:25; Gen 39:1); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material, as in Gen 5:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 25:12; Gen 36:6 (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau); P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to Exo 6:1. Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according to J Yahweh is said to have conversed with mankind personally. In regard to the peculiarities of language used by the different sources, it is impossible in this place to enumerate the different expressions, and we must refer for this subject to the different Introductions to the Old Testament, and to the commentaries and other literature. A few examples are to be found under (c) below, in connection with the discussion of the critical hypothesis. Finally, as another reason for the division of Genesis into different sources, it is claimed that the different parts of the sources, when taken together, can be united into a smooth and connected story. The documents, it is said, have in many cases been taken over word for word and have been united and interwoven in an entirely external manner, so that it is still possible to separate them and often to do this even down to parts of a sentence or to the very words.

(C) Examination of the Documentary Theory

(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language

It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts that are no less systematic than those of P (compare Gen 4:17; Gen 10:8; Gen 22:20-24); or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (Gen 7:2,Gen 7:7; or Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12, Gen 7:17; Gen 8:6; or Gen 7:4; Gen 8:8, Gen 8:10, Gen 8:12), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible. In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb bara’, create, in Gen 1:1 is used to prove that this was written by the Priestly Code (P), but the word is found also in Gen 6:7 in J. The same is the case with the word rekhush, possession, which in Gen 12:5; Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7 is regarded as characteristic of the Priestly Code (P), but in Gen 14:11 f,16, 21 is found in an unknown source, and in Gen 15:14 in J. In Gen 12:5; Gen 13:12; Gen 16:3; Gen 17:8 it is said that ‘erec kenaan, land of Canaan, is a proof that this was written by P; but in chapters 42; 44 f; 47; 50 we find this expression in Jahwist and Elohist, in Num 32:32 in J (R) ; compare also Num 33:40 (PR) where Num 21:1-3 (JE) is quoted; shiphhah, maid servant, is claimed as a characteristic word of J in contrast to E (compare Num 16:1); but in Num 16:3; Num 29:24, Num 29:29 we find this word not only in P but in Num 20:14; Num 30:4, Num 30:7, 18; in E Mn, kind, is counted among the marks of P (compare e.g. Num 1:11), but in Deu 14:13, Deu 14:14, Deu 14:18 we find it in Deuteronomy; rather remarkably, too, in the latest find on the Deluge made by Hilprext and by him ascribed to 2100 bc. Compare on this subject my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, and Orr, POT, chapter vii, section vi, and chapter x, section i; perhaps, too, the Concordance of Mandelkern under the different words. Even in the cases when the characteristic peculiarities claimed for the sources are correct, if the problem before us consisted only in the discovery of special words and expressions in the different sources, then by an analogous process, we could dissect and sever almost any modern work of literature. Particularly as far as the pieces are concerned, which are assigned to the Priestly Code (P), it must be stated that Gen 1 and 23 are, as far as style and language are concerned, different throughout. Gen 1 is entirely unique in the entire Old Testament. Gen 23 has been copied directly from life, which is pictured with exceptional fidelity, and for this reason cannot be claimed for any special source. The fact that the story of the introduction of circumcision in Gen 17 in many particulars shows similarities to the terminology of the law is entirely natural: The same is true when the chronological accounts refer one date to another and when they show a certain typical character, as is, e.g., the case also in the chronological parts of any modern history of Israel. On the other hand, the method of P in its narratives, both in matter and in form, becomes similar to that of Jahwist and Elohist, just as soon as we have to deal with larger sections; compare Gen 28:1; Gen 35:9; Gen 47:5, and all the more in Exodus and Numbers.

Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts in Gen 1; 17 and 23, of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would, according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, Gen 11:27, Gen 11:31 f; Gen 12:4 f; Gen 13:6 11b, 12a; Gen 16:1, Gen 16:3, Gen 16:15 f; Gen 19:29; Gen 21:1, Gen 21:2-5; Gen 25:7-11; and in its later parts P would become still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see III below). No author could have written thus; at any rate he would not have been used by anybody, nor would there have been such care evinced in preserving his writings.

(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter

The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics, constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination, and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge (see III, 2, in each case under (2)).

(iii) the Biblico-Theological Data

The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes with mankind only in the beginning (Gen 2 f; 16ff; Gen 11:5; 18 f), but not afterward. In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare Gen 17:1, Gen 17:22; Gen 35:9, Gen 35:13). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not only in E, (Gen 21:17, ‘Elohm), but also in J (Gen 16:7, Gen 16:9-11). In Gen 22:11 in E, the angel of Yahweh (not of the ‘Elohm) calls from heaven; theophanies in the night or during sleep are found also in J (compare Gen 15:12; Gen 26:24; Gen 28:13-16; Gen 32:27). In the case of the Priestly Code (P), the cult theory, according to which it is claimed that this source does not mention any sacrifices before Exo 6:1, is untenable. If it is a fact that theocracy, as it were, really began only in Ex 6, then it would be impossible that P would contain anything of the cults before Ex 6; but we have in P the introduction of the circumcision in Gen 17; of the Sabbath in Gen 2:1; and the prohibition against eating blood in Gen 9:1; and in addition the drink offerings mentioned in Gen 35:14, which verse stands between Gen 35:13 and Gen 35:15, and, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), is only in the interests of this theory attributed to the redactor. If then theory here outlined is not tenable as far as P is concerned, it would, on the other hand, be all the more remarkable that in the story of the Deluge the distinction between the clean and the unclean (Gen 7:2.8) is found in J, as also the savor of the sacrifice, with the term reah ha-nhoah, which occurs so often in P (compare Gen 8:21 with Num 15:3, Num 15:7, Num 15:10, Num 15:13 f, 24; Num 18:17); that the sacrifices are mentioned in Gen 8:20, and the number 7 in connection with the animals and days in Gen 7:4; Gen 8:8, Gen 8:10, Gen 8:12 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Lev 8:33; Lev 13:5 f, 21, 26 f, 31, 33, 10, 54; Lev 14:8 f, 38 f; Lev 14:7, Lev 14:51; Lev 16:14 f; Num 28:11; Num 29:8, etc.); further, that the emphasis is laid on the 40 days in Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12, Gen 7:17; Gen 8:6 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), Exo 24:1-8; Lev 12:2-4; Num 13:25; Num 14:34), all of which are ascribed, not as we should expect, to the Levitical the Priestly Code (P), but to the prophetical J. The document the Priestly Code (P), which, according to a large number of critics, was written during the Exile (see e.g. LEVITICUS, III, 1, or EZEKIEL II, 2) in a most surprising manner, instead of giving prominence to the person of the high priest, would then have declared that kings were to be the greatest blessings to come to the seed of Abraham (Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16); and while, on the critical assumption, we should have the right to expect the author to favor particularistic tendencies, he, by bringing in the history of all mankind in Gen 1 through 11, and in the extension of circumcision to strangers (Gen 17:12, Gen 17:23), would have displayed a phenomenal universality. The strongest counter-argument against all such minor and incorrect data of a Biblical and a theological character will always be found in the uniform religious and ethical spirit and world of thought that pervade all these sources, as also in the unity in the accounts of the different patriarchs, who are pictured in such a masterly, psychological and consistent manner, and who could never be the result of an accidental working together and interweaving of different and independent sources (see III below).

(iv) Duplicates

In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions, see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).

(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together

But it is also impossible that these sources could have been worked together in the manner in which the critics claim that this was done. The more arbitrarily and carelessly the redactors are thought to have gone to work in many places in removing contradictions, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they at other places report faithfully such contradictions and permit these to stand side by side, or, rather, have placed them thus. And even if they are thought not to have smoothed over the difficulties anywhere, and out of reverence for their sources, not to have omitted or changed any of these reports, we certainly would have a right to think that even if they would have perchance placed side by side narratives with such enormous contradictions as there are claimed to be, e.g. in the story of the Deluge in P and J, they certainly would not have woven these together. If, notwithstanding, they still did this without harmonizing them, why are we asked to believe that at other places they omitted matters of the greatest importance (see III, 2, 3)? Further, J and E would have worked their materials together so closely at different places that a separation between the two would be an impossibility, something that is acknowledged as a fact by many Old Testament students; yet, notwithstanding, the contradictions, e.g. in the history of Joseph, have been allowed to stand side by side in consecutive verses, or have even intentionally been placed thus (compare, e.g. Gen 37:25). Then, too, it is in the nature of things unthinkable that three originally independent sources for the history of Israel should have constituted separate currents down to the period after Moses, and that they could yet be dovetailed, often sentence by sentence, in the manner claimed by the critics. In conclusion, the entire hypothesis suffers shipwreck through those passages which combine the peculiarities of the different sources, as e.g. in Gen 20:18, which on the one hand constitutes the necessary conclusion to the preceding story from E (compare Gen 20:17), and on the other hand contains the name Yahweh; or in Gen 22:14, which contains the real purpose of the story of the sacrificing of Isaac from E, but throughout also shows the characteristic marks of J; or in Gen 39:1, where the so-called private person into whose house Joseph has been brought, according to J, is more exactly described as the chief of the body-guard, as this is done by E, in Gen 40:2, Gen 40:4. And when the critics in this passage appeal to the help of the redactor (editor), this is evidently only an ill-concealed example of a begging of the question. In chapter 34, and especially in chapter 14, we have a considerable number of larger sections that contain the characteristics of two or even all three sources, and which accordingly furnish ample evidence for protesting against the whole documentary theory.

(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes

All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in Gen 12:9 and in Gen 26:1, are ascribed to J, and the story as found in Gen 20:1 to E. But evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly, we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in Gen 17:17; Gen 18:12; Gen 21:6, namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But since Gen 21:9 E; Gen 26:8 J also contain references to this, and as in Gen 21:6 JE, in addition to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then, in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1 and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch, Kunen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others). Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources, except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored.

(2) In View of the Names for God

(A) Error of Hypothesis in Principle

The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in Exo 6:1, in the Priestly Code (P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by the name of Yahweh, but only as God Almighty, it seems to be the correct thing to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from Gen 20 on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E), whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a ha-‘Elohm source, an ‘El Shadday source, an ‘Adhonay source, a Mal’akh Yahweh source, a Mal’akh ‘Elohm source, etc., but unfortunately these characteristics of the sources come into conflict in a thousand cases with the others that are claimed to prove that there are different sources in the Book of Genesis.

(B) False Basis of Hypothesis

But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, Exo 6:1 P; is falsely regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses, as Exo 6:1 P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare Exo 6:20 and Num 26:59). In addition, we do not find at all in Exo 6:1 that God had before this revealed Himself as ‘Elohm, but as ‘El Shadday, so that this would be a reason for claiming not an ‘Elohm but an ‘El Shadday source for P on the basis of this passage (compare Gen 17:1; Gen 28:3; Gen 35:11; Gen 48:3 P – Gen 43:14 E! compare also Gen 49:25 in the blessing of Jacob). Finally, it is not at all possible to separate Exo 6:1 P from that which immediately precedes, which is taken from JE and employs the name Yahweh; for according to the text of P we do not know who Moses and who Aaron really were, and yet these two are in Exo 6:1 regarded as well-known persons. The new revelation of God in Exo 6:1 (P) by the side of Exo 3:1 (JE and E) is also entirely defensible and rests on a good foundation; for Moses after the failure of Ex 5 needed such a renewed encouragement (see EXODUS II, 2, 1). If this is the case, then the revelation of the name of Yahweh in Exo 6:1 cannot mean that that name had before this not been known at all, but means that it had only been relatively unknown, i.e. that in the fullest and most perfect sense God became known only as Yahweh, while before this He had revealed His character only from certain sides, but especially as to His Almighty Power.

(C) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is Without Significance

In view of the importance which among oriental nations is assigned to names, it is absolutely unthinkable that the two names Yahweh and Elohim had originally been used without any reference to their different meanings. The almost total omission of the name Yahweh in later times or the substitution of the name Elohim for it in Psalms 42 through 83 is doubtless based in part on the reluctance which gradually arose in Israel to use the name at all; but this cannot be shown as probable for older times, in which it is claimed that E was written. In the case of P the rule, according to which the name Elohim is said to have been used for the pre-Mosaic period, and the reason for the omission of Yahweh would have been an entirely different one. Then, too, it would be entirely inexplicable why J should have avoided the use of the name Elohim. The word Elohim is connected with a root that signifies to fear, and characterizes God from the side of His power, as this is, e.g., seen at once in Gen 1. Yahweh is splendidly interpreted in Exo 3:14; and the word is connected with the archaic form hawah for hayah, to be, and the word characterizes God as the being who at all times continues to be the God of the Covenant, and who, according to Gen 2:4-3:24, can manifestly be none other than the Creator of the universe in Gen 1:1 through 2:3, even if from Gen 12 on He, for the time being, enters into a special relation to Abraham, his family and his people, and by the use of the combined names Yahweh-Elohim is declared to be identical with the God who created the world, as e.g. this is also done in the section Ex 7:8 through 13:16, where, in the 10 plagues, Yahweh’s omnipotent power is revealed (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 2); and in Exo 9:30 it is charged against-Pharaoh and his courtiers, that they did not yet fear Yahweh-Elohim, i.e. the God of the Covenant, who at the same time is the God of the universe (compare also 1Ki 18:21, 1Ki 18:37, 1Ki 18:39; Jon 4:6).

(D) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God

But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.

(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh

The fact that the toledhoth of Terah, of Isaac, and of Jacob begin with the name Yahweh but end without this name. In the history of Abraham are to be noted the following passages: Gen 12:1, Gen 12:4, Gen 12:7, Gen 12:8, Gen 12:17; Gen 13:4, Gen 13:10, Gen 13:13, Gen 13:14, Gen 13:18; Gen 14:22; Gen 15:1, Gen 15:2, Gen 15:8; Gen 16:2, Gen 16:5-7, Gen 16:9, Gen 16:10, Gen 16:11, Gen 16:13; Gen 17:1; in the history of Isaac: Gen 25:21, Gen 25:22, Gen 25:23; Gen 26:2, Gen 26:12, Gen 26:22, Gen 26:24, Gen 26:25, Gen 26:28, Gen 26:29; and in the toledhoth of Jacob Gen 38:7, Gen 38:10; Gen 39:2, Gen 39:3, Gen 39:5. In these passages the beginnings are regularly made with the name Yahweh, although with decreasing frequency before the name Elohim is used, and notwithstanding that in all these sections certain selections from P and E must also be considered in addition to J. Beginning with Gen 12, in which the story of the selection of Abraham is narrated, we accordingly find emphasized, at the commencement of the history of each patriarch, this fact that it is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who is determining these things. Beginning with Gen 40 and down to about Ex 2 we find the opposite to be the case, although J is strongly represented in this section, and we no longer find the name Yahweh (except in one passage in the blessing of Jacob, which passage has been taken from another source, and hence is of no value for the distinction of the sources J, E and P; this is the remarkable passage Gen 49:18). In the same way the story of Abraham (Gen 25:1-11) closes without mention being made of the name of Yahweh, which name is otherwise found in all of these histories, except in Gen 23 (see below). The toledhoth of Isaac, too, use the name Yahweh for the last time in Gen 32:10; and from this passage down to Gen 37:2 the name is not found. It is accordingly clear that in the history of the patriarchs there is a gradual decrease in the number of times in which the name Yahweh occurs, and in each case the decrease is more marked; and this is most noticeable and clearest in the history of Joseph, manifestly in order to make all the more prominent the fact that the revelation of God, beginning with Exo 3:1, is that of Yahweh. These facts alone make the division of this text into three sources J, E and P impossible.

(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him

The fact, further, that the approach of an individual to God or his departure from God could find its expression in the different uses made of the names of God is seen in the following. In connection with Ishmael and Lot the name Yahweh can be used only so long as these men stood in connection with the kingdom of God through their relation to Abraham (compare Gen 16:7, Gen 16:9, Gen 16:10, Gen 16:11, Gen 16:13 and Gen 13:10; Gen 19:13 f, 16), but only the name Elohim can be used as soon as they sever this connection (compare Gen 21:12, Gen 21:17, Gen 21:19, Gen 21:20 and Gen 19:29). On the other hand, Elohim is used in the beginning of the history of the Gentile Abimelech (Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6, Gen 20:11, Gen 20:13, Gen 20:17; Gen 21:22 f); while afterward, when he has come into closer relations to the patriarchs, the name Yahweh is substituted (Gen 26:28, Gen 26:29). A similar progress is found in separate narratives of the patriarchs themselves, since in Gen 22:1 and chapter 28 the knowledge of Elohim is changed into that of Yahweh (compare Gen 22:1, Gen 22:3, Gen 22:9 with Gen 22:11, Gen 22:14, Gen 22:15, Gen 22:16, and Gen 28:12 with Gen 28:13, Gen 28:16).

(iii) Other Reasons

Elohim can, further, in many cases be explained on the basis of an implied or expressed contrast, generally over against men (compare Gen 22:8, Gen 22:12; in the second of these two passages the fear of God is placed in contrast to godlessness); Gen 30:2; Gen 31:50; Gen 32:2 f; compare with Gen 32:4 and Gen 32:8; Gen 32:29; Gen 35:5; or on the basis of an accommodation to the standpoint of the person addressed, as in Gen 3:1-5 (serpent); Gen 20:3, Gen 20:6, Gen 20:11, Gen 20:13, Gen 20:17; Gen 23:6; Gen 39:9 (Gentiles); or on the basis of grammar, as in Gen 23:6; Gen 32:3; Gen 28:17, Gen 28:22; because the composition with the proper name Yahweh could never express the indefinite article (a prince of God, a camp of God, a Bethel or house of prayer); or finally in consequence of the connection with earlier passages (compare Gen 5:1 with chapter 1; Gen 21:2, Gen 21:4; Gen 28:3; Gen 35:9 with chapter 17). A comparison of these passages shows that, of course, different reasons may have induced the author to select the name Elohim, e.g. Gen 23:6; Gen 28:12; Gen 32:12.

(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham

That the names for God are systematically used is finally attested by the fact that in the history of Abraham, after the extensive use of the name Yahweh in its beginning (see above), this name is afterward found combined with a large number of other and different names; so that in each case it is Yahweh of whom all further accounts speak, and yet the name of Yahweh is explained, supplemented and made clear for the consciousness of believers by the new appellations, while the full revelation of His being indeed begins only in Ex 3 and Exo 6:1, at which place the different rays of His character that appeared in earlier times are combined in one brilliant light. The facts in the case are the following. In the story of Abraham, with which an epoch of fundamental importance in the history of revelation begins, we find Yahweh alone in Gen 12 f. With the exception of chapter 23, where a characteristic appellation of God is not found, and Gen 25:1-11, where we can claim a decadence in the conception of the Divinity (concerning Gen 23:6; Gen 25:11; see above, the name of Yahweh is retained in all of these stories, as these have been marked out (III, 2, 6); but beginning with chapter 14 they do not at all use any longer only one name for God. We here cite only those passages where, in each ease, for the first time a new name for God is added, namely, Gen 14:18, ‘El Elyon; Gen 14:19, Creator of heaven and of earth; Gen 15:2, ‘Adhonay; Gen 16:7, the Angel of Yahweh; Gen 16:13, the God that seeth; Gen 17:1, ‘El Shadday; Gen 17:3, ‘Elohm; Gen 17:18, ha-‘Elohm; chapters 18 f, special relation to the three men (compare Gen 18:2 and Gen 19:1); Gen 18:25, the Judge of the whole earth; Gen 20:13, ‘Elohm constructed as a plural; Gen 21:17, the Angel of God; Gen 24:3, the God of heaven and the God of the earth; Gen 24:12, the God of Abraham.

(E) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof

If we add, finally, that to prove the hypothesis we are limited to the meager materials found in Gen 1:1 through Exo 6:1 if; that in this comparatively small number of chapters Gen 40 to Ex 2 cannot be utilized in this discussion (see above under (d); that all those passages, in which J and E are inseparably united must be ignored in this discussion; that all other passages in which J and E are often and rapidly interchanged from the very outset are suspiciously akin to begging the question; that Gen 20:18, which with its Yahweh is ascribed to R, is absolutely needed as the conclusion of the preceding Elohim story; that in Gen 21:33 with its Yahweh (Yahweh) in the Jahwist (Jahwist), on the other hand, the opening Elohim story from E, which is necessary for an explanation of the dwelling of Abraham in the south country, precedes; that the angel of Yahweh (Gen 22:11) is found in E; that 2:4 through 3:24 from J has besides Yahweh the name Elohim, and in Gen 3:1-5 only Elohim (see above); that in Gen 17:1; Gen 21:1 P Yahweh is found; that Gen 5:29, which is ascribed to J, is surrounded by portions of the Priestly Code (P), and contains the name Yahweh, and would be a torso, but in connection with chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), in reality is in its proper place, as is the intervening remark (Gen 5:24 P); that, on the other hand, in Gen 4:25; Gen 6:2, Gen 6:4; Gen 7:9; Gen 9:27; Gen 39:9 Elohim is found – in view of all these facts it is impossible to see how a greater confusion than this could result from the hypothesis of a division of the sources on the basis of the use made of the names of God. And then, too, it is from the very outset an impossibility, that in the Book of Genesis alone such an arbitrary selection of the names for God should have been made and nowhere else.

(F) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position

The modern critics, leaving out of consideration entirely their further dissection of the text, themselves destroy the foundation upon which this hypothesis was originally constructed, when Sievers demands for Gen 1 (from P) an original Yahweh Elohim in the place of the Elohim now found there; and when others in Gen 18 f J claim an original Elohim; and when in 17:1 through 21:1 the name Yahweh is said to have been intentionally selected by P.

(G) Different Uses in the Septuagint

Naturally it is not possible to discuss all the pertinent passages at this place. Even if, in many cases, it is doubtful what the reasons were for the selection of the names for God, and even if these reasons cannot be determined with our present helps, we must probably, nevertheless, not forget that the Septuagint in its translation of Genesis in 49 passages, according to Eerdman’s reckoning, and still more according to Wiener’s, departs from the use of the names for God from the Hebrew original. Accordingly, then, a division of Genesis into different sources on the basis of the different names for God cannot be carried out, and the argument from this use, instead of proving the documentary theory, has been utilized against it.

III. The Structure of the Individual Pericopes

In this division of the article, there is always to be found (under 1) a consideration of the unity of the Biblical text and (under 2) the rejection of the customary division into different sources.

The conviction of the unity of the text of Genesis and of the impossibility of dividing it according to different sources is strongly confirmed and strengthened by the examination of the different pericopes. Here, too, we find the division on the basis of the typical numbers 4, 7, 10, 12. It is true that in certain cases we should be able to divide in a different way; but at times the intention of the author to divide according to these numbers practically compels acceptance on our part, so that it would be almost impossible to ignore this matter without detriment, especially since we were compelled to accept the same fact in connection with the articles EXODUS (II); LEVITICUS (II, 2); DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, 1), and also EZEKIEL (I, 2, 2). But more important than these numbers, concerning the importance or unimportance of which there could possibly be some controversy, are the fundamental religious and ethical ideas which run through and control the larger pericopes of the [toledhoth of Terah, Isaac and Jacob in such a way that it is impossible to regard this as merely the work of a redactor, and we are compelled to consider the book as the product of a single writer.

1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1 Through 2:3)

The structure of the proemium (Gen 1:1 through 2:3) is generally ascribed to P. Following the introduction (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:2; creation of chaos), we have the creation of the seven days with the Sabbath as a conclusion. The first and the second three days correspond to each other (1st day, the light; 4th day, the lights; 2nd day, the air and water by the separation of the waters above and the waters below; 5th day, the animals of the air and of the water; 3rd day, the dry land and the vegetation; 6th day, the land animals and man; compare also in this connection that there are two works on each day). We find Exodus also divided according to the number seven (see EXODUS, II, 1; compare also Ex 24:18b through 31:18; see EXODUS, II, 2, 5, where we have also the sevenfold reference to the Sabbath idea in Ex, and that, too, repeatedly at the close of different sections, just as we find this here in Genesis); and in Lev compare chapters 23; 25; 27; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2; the VIII, IX, and appendix; and in Gen 4:17 J; 5:1-24 P; 6:9 through 9:29; 36:1 through 37:1 (see under 2, 1, 2, 3, 1).

2. Structure of the Ten Toledhoth

The ten toledhoth are found in Gen 2:4 through 50:26.

(1) The toledhoth of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4 Through 4:26)

(1) The Biblical Text

(a) Gen 2:4-25, Paradise and the first human beings; (b) 3:1-24, the Fall; (c) 4:1-16, Cain and Abel; (d) Gen 4:17-26, the Cainites, in seven members (see under 1 above) and Seth. The number 4 appears also in 5:1 through 6:8 (see under 2); 10:1 through 11:9 (see under 4); and especially 11:27 through 25:11 (under 6). Evidently (a) and (b), (c) and (d) are still more closely connected.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

(Gen 1:1 through 2:4a P and 2:4b through 4:26 J)

Ch 2 does not contain a new account of creation with a different order in the works of creation. This section speaks of animals and plants, not for their own sakes, but only on account of their connection with man. The creation of the woman is only a further development of Gen 1. While formerly the critics divided this section into 2:4 through 4:26 J, they now cut it up into J1 and J2 (see under II, 2, 1 (c) (because, they say, the tree of life is mentioned only in Gen 2:9 and Gen 3:23, while in Gen 2:17 and Gen 3:3 the Divine command is restricted to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But it is impossible to see why there should be a contradiction here, and just as little can we see why the two trees standing in the midst of the garden should not both have had their significance (compare Gen 2:9; Gen 3:3). It is further asserted that a division of J is demanded by the fact that the one part of J knows of the Fall (Gen 6:9), and the other does not know of such a break in the development of mankind (Gen 4:17). But the civilization attained by the Cainites could certainly have passed over also to the Sethites (see also Gen 6:2); and through Noah and his sons have been continued after the Deluge. Then, too, the fact that Cain built a city (Gen 4:17), and the fact that he became a fugitive and a wanderer (Gen 4:12), are not mutually exclusive; just as the beginnings made with agriculture (Gen 4:12) are perfectly consistent with the second fact.

(2) The toledhoth of Adam (Gen 5:1 Through 6:8)

(1) The Biblical Text

(a) Gen 5:1-24, seven generations from Adam to Lamech (see under 1, and Jud 1:14); (b) Gen 5:25-32, four generations from the oldest of men, Methuselah, down to the sons of Noah; (c) Gen 6:1-4, intermingling of the sons of God and the sons of men; (d) Gen 6:5-8, corruption of all mankind. Evidently at this place (a) and (b), (c) and (d) correspond with each other.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

(Genesis 5 P with the Exception of Gen 5:29 (see II, 2, 2 (e)); Gen 5:29; Gen 6:1-8 J)

Gen 6:7 J presupposes chapter 1 P; as, on the other hand, the fact that the generations that, according to chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), had in the meanwhile been born, die, presupposes the advent of sin, concerning which only J had reported in chapter 3. In the case of the Priestly Code (P), however, in Gen 1:31 it is said that everything was very good.

(3) The toledhoth of Noah (Genesis 6:9 Through 9:29)

(1) The Biblical Text

Seven sections (see 1 above) viz: (a) Gen 6:9-22, the building of the ark; (b) Gen 7:1-9, entering the ark; (c) Gen 7:10-24, the increase of the Flood; (d) Gen 8:1-14, the decrease of the Flood; (e) Gen 8:15-19, leaving the ark; (f) 8:22 through 9:17, declaration of a covenant relation between God and Noah; (g) Gen 9:18-29, transfer of the Divine blessing upon Shem.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

(Gen 7:1-5, Gen 7:7-10, Gen 7:12, Gen 7:16, Gen 7:17, Gen 7:22 f; Gen 8:2, Gen 8:3, Gen 8:6-12, Gen 8:13, Gen 8:20-22; Gen 9:20-27 J, the Rest from P)

In all the sources are found the ideas that the Deluge was the punishment of God for sin; further, the deliverance of the righteous Noah and his wife and three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives; the deliverance of the different kinds of animals; the announcement of the covenant relations between God and mankind after the Deluge; the designation of the Deluge with the term mabbul and of the ark with tebhah. In the Babylonian account, which without a doubt stands in some connection with the Biblical, are found certain measurements of the ark, which in the Bible are only in the Priestly Code (P), as also the story of the sending out of the birds when the flood was decreasing, and of the sacrifices of those who had been delivered, which in the Bible are said to be found only in J; and these facts are a very powerful argument against the division into sources. Further, the Priestly Code (P), in case the critics were right, would have contained nothing of the thanks of Noah for his deliverance, although he was a pious man; and in the case of J we should not be informed what kind of an ark it was into which Noah was directed to go (Gen 7:1); nor how he can already in Gen 8:20 build an altar, as he has not yet gone out of the ark; and, further, how the determination of Yahweh, that He would not again curse the earth but would bless it, can be a comfort to him, since only P has reported concerning the blessing (Gen 9:1). Even if the distinction is not always clearly made between clean and unclean animals, and different numbers are found in the case of each (Gen 6:19 f; Gen 7:14-16 the Priestly Code (P), over against Gen 7:2 f in J), yet this is to be regarded merely as a lack of exactness or, perhaps better, rather as a summary method of procedure. The difficulties are not even made any easier through the separation into sources, since in Gen 7:8 f in J both numbers and the distinction between the two kinds of animals are used indiscriminately. Here, too, in J we find the name Elohim used. The next contradiction that is claimed, namely that the Deluge according to J lasted only 61 days, and is arranged in 40 days (Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12, Gen 7:17; Gen 8:6) plus 3 X 7 = 21 days (Gen 8:8, Gen 8:10, Gen 8:12), while in P it continues for 1 year and 11 days (Gen 7:11, Gen 7:24; Gen 8:3-5, Gen 8:14), is really a self-inflicted agony of the critics. The report of the Bible on the subject is perfectly clear. The rain descends for 40 days (Gen 7:12 J); but as in addition also the fountains of the deep are broken up (Gen 7:11 P), we find in this fact a reason for believing that they increased still more (Gen 7:24 P and Gen 7:17 J). The 40 days in Gen 8:6 J cannot at all be identified with those mentioned in Gen 7:17; for if this were the case the raven would have been sent out at a time when the waters had reached their highest stage, and even according to J the Deluge covered the entire world. In general see above, II, 2, 1 (c).

(4) The toledhoth of the Sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1 Through 11:9)

(1) The Biblical Text

(a) Gen 10:2-5, the Japhethites; (b) Gen 10:6-20, the Hamites; (c) Gen 10:21-32, the Shemites; (d) Gen 11:1-9, the Babylonian confusion of tongues. Evidently (a) to (c) is to be regarded as in contrast to (d) (compare also Gen 11:1, Gen 11:9 J in addition to Gen 10:32 P).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

(Gen 10:1-7, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:22 f, 31 f the Priestly Code (P), the Rest Belonging to J)

The distribution of Genesis 10 between P and J is actually ridiculous, since in this case J does not speak of Japheth at all, and the genealogy of the Hamites would connect directly with the Priestly Code (P), a phenomenon which must have been repeated in Gen 10:24. The Jewish Midrash, in addition, and possibly correctly, counts 70 peoples (compare Gen 46:27; Exo 1:5; Num 11:16, Num 11:25; Luk 10:1).

(5) The toledhoth of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26)

10 generations (see under II, 1).

(6) The toledhoth of Terah (Gen 11:27 Through 25:11)

(1) The Biblical Text

After the introduction (Gen 11:27-32), theme of the history of Abraham is given in Gen 12:1-4 (Gen 12:1, the promise of the holy land; Gen 12:2, promise of many descendants; Gen 12:3, announcement of the double influence of Abraham on the world; Gen 12:4, the obedience of Abraham’s faith in his trust upon the Divine promise). In contrast to the first three thoughts which characterize God’s relation to Abraham, the fourth is placed, which emphasizes. Abraham’s relation to God (see under (d)). But both thoughts give complete expression to the intimate communion between God and Abraham. On the basis of these representations, which run through the entire story and thus contribute materially to its unification, this section can also be divided, as one of these after the other comes into the foreground. These four parts (12:4b through 14:24; 15:1 through 18:15; 18:16 through 21:34; 22:1 through 25:11) can each be divided again into four subdivisions, a scheme of division that is found also in Ex 35:4 through 40:38; Lev 11-15; 16 (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 7; LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, 1), and is suggested by Dt 12 through 26 (compare also my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, the results of the investigation of which work are there reproduced without entering upon the details of the argument).

(a) Gen 12:4b through 14:24, in which the reference to the promised land is placed in the foreground; see Gen 12:1, and the passages and statements in parentheses in the following: (i) Gen 12:4-8, Abraham’s journey to Canaan (Gen 12:5 the Priestly Code (P), 6, 7, 8 J); (ii) 12:9 through 13:4, descent to Egypt from Canaan, and return (Gen 12:9, Gen 12:10; Gen 13:1-4 J); Gen 13:5-18, separation from Lot (Gen 13:6 the Priestly Code (P), 7, 9 J, 12a the Priestly Code (P), 14 f, 17, 18 J); chapter 14, expedition against Chedorlaomer, etc. (Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of the country, and receives as homage from the products of the country bread and wine (Gen 14:18 f), while he in return gives tithes (Gen 14:20)). The division of this section (12:4b through 14:24) is to be based on the similarity of the closing verses (Gen 12:8; Gen 13:4; Gen 13:18).

(b) Gen 15:1 through 18:15, unfolding of the promise of descendants for Abraham by this announcement that he is to have a son of his own; compare Gen 12:2 and what is placed in parentheses in the following: chapter 15, Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:2, Gen 15:3 JE, 4 J, 5 E, 13, 14, 16, 18 J). The promise is not fulfilled through Eliezer, but only through an actual son (Gen 15:3, Gen 15:1); 16:1-16, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael as the son of Abraham. Hagar’s son, too, namely Ishmael, is not the genuine heir, notwithstanding the connection between Gen 16:10 and Gen 12:2 (compare Gen 17:18-20 P); chapter 17 the Priestly Code (P), promise of the birth of Isaac given to Abraham (17:2-17, Gen 17:19, Gen 17:21); Gen 18:1-15, Sarah also hears that Isaac is promised (Gen 18:10, Gen 18:12-15).

(c) Gen 18:16 through 21:34, the double influence of Abraham on the world; compare Gen 12:3 and what is in parentheses in the following: 18:16 through 19:38, the pericope dealing with Sodom; (i) 18:16-33, Abraham’s petition for the deliverance of Sodom; (ii) Gen 19:1-11, the sin of the Sodomites, while Lot shows some of the characteristics of Abraham; (iii) 19:12-28, story of the destruction, in connection with which Lot receives the benefit of his relation to Abraham (Gen 19:16, Gen 19:19, Gen 19:21, Gen 19:22); (iv) Lot ceases to be a part of this history after this destruction; 20:1-18, Abraham with Abimelech (Gen 20:6, Gen 20:9 E, 18 R, punishment; Gen 20:7, Gen 20:17, intercession); 21:1-21, Ishmael ceases to be part of this history (Gen 21:13, Gen 21:18, Gen 21:20 E); Gen 21:22-34, Abraham’s agreement with Abimelech (the latter seeks Abraham’s friendship and fears his enmity, Gen 21:27, Gen 21:23 E).

(d) Gen 22:1 through 25:11ff, Abraham’s faith at its culminating point; compare Gen 12:4 and what is in parentheses in the following: (i) 22:1-19, the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12 E, 16, 18 R); (ii) chapter 23, purchase of the place to bury the dead, which act was the result of his faith in the promised land; (iii) chapter 24 is introduced by Gen 22:20-24, which has no independent character. With the twelve descendants of Nahor compare the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve of Ishmael (Gen 25:12; Gen 17:20), and on the number 12 see Ex 24:18 through 30:10, under EXODUS, II, 2, 5; Lev 1-7 under LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, i, and under EZEKIEL, I, 2, 2. Ch 24 itself contains the story of how a wife was secured for Isaac from among his relatives (the faith in the success of this plan is transmitted from Abraham to his servant); (iv) Lev 25:1-11, the sons of the concubine of Abraham (J and R) cease to be a part of this history; transfer of the entire inheritance to the son of promise (Jahwist); burial in the ground bought for this purpose (P) (all of these concluding acts stand in close connection with Abraham’s faith). In reference to the force of the names of God in connecting Gen 11:27 through 25:11, see above under II, 2, 2 (d).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

(Gen 11:27, Gen 11:31 f; Gen 12:4, Gen 12:5; Gen 13:6, Gen 13:11, Gen 13:12; Gen 16:1, Gen 16:3, Gen 16:15 f; 17; Gen 19:29; Gen 21:1, Gen 21:2-5; 23; Gen 25:7-11 P; 14 from an unknown source; Gen 15:6; 20:1-17; 21:8-32; Gen 22:1-13, Gen 22:19 E; Gen 15:1-3; Gen 21:6 JE; Gen 20:18; Gen 22:14-18; Gen 25:6 R; all else belongs to J).

Through the passages ascribed to P breaks are caused in the text of J in Gen 11:28 f; Gen 12:4 (Lot); in chapter 16, where the conclusion is lacking; in Gen 18:1 (the reference of the pronoun); in Gen 24:67 (Sarah’s death); in Gen 25:1 (no mention of Abraham’s death). On the other hand P presupposes the text of J in Gen 11:31 f; Gen 12:4; Gen 16:1; Gen 19:29. In the case of E we need mention only the abrupt break in Gen 20:1; and, finally, the text of the Priestly Code (P), leaving out of consideration the larger sections (chapters 17 and 23), is entirely too meager to constitute an independent document.

We will here discuss also the so-called duplicates (see under II, 2, 1, a and c). The different stories concerning the danger in which the wives of Abraham and Isaac were involved in Gen 12:9 J; Gen 20:1 E; Gen 26:1 J directly presuppose each other. Thus, in Gen 20:13, the Elohist (E), Abraham regards it as a fact that such situations are often to be met with, and consequently the possibility of an occurrence of such an event could not have appeared so remarkable to an Oriental as it does to a modern critic; Gen 26:1 suggests the story in Gen 12:9. The words used here also show that the three stories in question did not originate independently of each other (compare Gen 26:7; Gen 20:5; 12:19 through 26:7; Gen 20:11; 12:12 through 26:10; Gen 20:9; 12:18 through 26:3; Gen 20:1; Gen 12:10 (gur); see under II, 2, 1, c). The two Ishmael pericopes (chapters 16 J and P and 21 E) differ from each other throughout, and, accordingly, are surely not duplicates. The two stories of the conclusion of a covenant in chapters 15 J and 17 P are both justified, especially since in Gen 17:7 the author speaks of an establishment of the covenant which already existed since chapter 15. Gen 17 P and Gen 18:1 J are certainly intended to be pendants, so that it is impossible to ascribe them to different authors; compare the analogous beginning of theophanies of Yahweh in Gen 17:1 and Gen 18:1 (even the pronoun referring to Abraham in Gen 18:1 J, unless taken in connection with chapter 17 the Priestly Code (P), is without any context), also the laughing of Abraham and of Sarah (Gen 17:17; Gen 18:12 f; see under II, 2, 1 (c)), the prominence given to their age (Gen 17:17; Gen 18:11 f), and the designation of the time in Gen 17:11; Gen 18:10, Gen 18:14.

Nor can we quote in favor of a division into sources the passage Gen 21:14 f E, on the ground that Ishmael is described here as being so small that he could be laid upon the shoulder of his mother and then be thrown by her under a shrub, while according to the Biblical text he must have been 15 years of age (Gen 16:16; Gen 21:5 P). For the original does not say that he was carried on her shoulders; and in Mat 15:30 it is even said of adults that they were thrown down. On the other hand, also according to E, Ishmael could not have been so small a child, for in Gen 21:18 he is led by the hand, and according to Gen 21:9 he already mocks Isaac, evidently because the latter was the heir of the promise.

Sarah’s age, too, according to Gen 20 E, does not speak in favor of a division into sources. That she was still a beautiful woman is not claimed here. Evidently Abimelech was anxious only for a closer connection with the powerful Abraham (compare Gen 21:23, Gen 21:17). Then, too, all the sources ascribe an advanced age to Sarah (compare Gen 21:6 J and E; Gen 18:12 f J; Gen 17:17 P).

(7) The toledhoth of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18)

Twelve princes descended from Ishmael (see under 6 (d)).

(8) The toledhoth of Isaac (Genesis 25:19 Through 35:29)

The correct conception of the fundamental thought can be gained at once in the beginning of this section (Gen 25:22 f): Yahweh’s oracle to Rebekah, that the older of the twins, with whom she was pregnant, should serve the younger; also in Rom 9:10 with reference to Mal 1:2 f; and finally, the constant reference made to Esau in addition to Jacob until the former ceases to be a factor in this history in Gen 36. Accordingly in the end everything is made dependent on the one hand on Jacob’s election, notwithstanding his wrongdoings, on the other hand, on Esau’s rejection notwithstanding his being the firstborn, or in other words, upon the perfectly free grace of God; and all the different sources alike share in this fundamental thought. But in dividing between the different parts of this section, we must particularly draw attention to this, that in all of these parts both thoughts in some way or other find their expression.

(1) The Biblical Text

Containing 10 parts (see under II, 1), namely (a) Gen 25:19-26, the birth of Esau and Jacob; (b) Gen 25:27-34, Esau despises and loses his birthright; (c) 26:1-35, Isaac receives the blessing of Abraham, which afterward is transmitted to Jacob, while Esau, through his marriage with heathen women, prepares the way for his rejection (Gen 26:34 f) ; (d) 27:1-40, Jacob steals the blessing of the firstborn; (e) Gen 27:41-45, Jacob’s flight out of fear of Esau’s vengeance; (f) 27:46 through 28:9, Jacob is sent abroad out of fear of his brother’s bad example; (g) 28:10 through 32:32, Jacob in a strange land and his fear of Esau, which is overcome in his contest of prayer in Peniel on his return: Gen 28:10-22, the ladder reaching to heaven in Bethel when he went abroad; 29:1 through 30:43, twenty years with Laban (see Gen 31:38); 31:1-54, Jacob’s departure from Mesopotamia; 32:1-32, his return home; (h) chapter 33, reconciliation with Esau, who returns to Seir (Gen 33:16; compare Gen 32:4), while Jacob becomes the owner of property in the Holy Land (Gen 33:19 f); (i) 34:1 through 35:22, Jacob remains in this land, notwithstanding the slaughter made by his sons Simeon and Levi (compare Gen 34:30; Gen 35:5); the new appearance of God in Bethel, with a repetition of the story of the changing of Jacob’s name, with which the story of Jacob’s youth is closed, and which presupposes the episode at Bethel (compare Gen 35:1, Gen 35:6, Gen 35:9-15 with Gen 28:10), and which is not in contradiction with the first change in the name of Jacob in chapter 32 (compare the twofold naming of Peter in Joh 1:43 and Mat 16:18). Esau is yet mentioned in Gen 35:1, Gen 35:7, where there is a reference made to Jacob’s flight before him; (j) Gen 35:23-29, Jacob’s 12 sons as the bearers of the promise; while Esau is mentioned only as participating in Isaac’s burial, but inwardly he has no longer any part in the history of the kingdom of God, as is seen from chapter 36, and in Gen 32:4; Gen 33:16 is already hinted at. In this section, too, evidently there are groups, each of two parts belonging together, namely (a) and (b) describing the earliest youth; (c) and (d) in which Isaac plays a prominent part; (e) and (f) both of which do not exclude but supplement each other in assigning the motives for Jacob’s flight; (g) and (h) Jacob’s flight and reconciliation; (i) and (j) Jacob both according to family and dwelling-place as the recognized heir of the promise.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

As Gen 25:29 f, Gen 25:26; Gen 26:34 f; 27:46 through 28:9; Gen 29:24, Gen 29:29; Gen 31:18; Gen 35:6, Gen 35:9-12, Gen 35:15; Gen 35:22-29; 36:6-30, Gen 36:40-43 are ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), it is clear that these are in part such ridiculously small extracts, that we should be justified in attributing them to a sensible author. The whole sojourn in Mesopotamia is ignored in the Priestly Code (P), according to the critics, except the brief notices in Gen 29:24, Gen 29:29; Gen 33:18. Further, the parts of the rest of the text cannot in many cases be dispensed with; as, e.g. we do not know in Gen 25:26 who was born; nor in Gen 26:34 f who Esau was; nor in Gen 27:46 who Jacob was; nor in Gen 29:24 who Laban was; nor in Gen 29:24, Gen 29:29 in what connection and for what purposes Leah and Rachel are mentioned. P makes no mention of any promise given to Isaac, which is, however, presupposed in Gen 35:12 and later in Exo 2:24. In Gen 28:1 P is most closely connected with J (compare Gen 12:1-3, the blessing of Abraham, and chapter 24). It is, further, impossible to separate the sources E and J in chapter 28 (ladder reaching to heaven); compare Gen 28:10-12, Gen 28:17 f, Gen 28:20-22 E; Gen 28:13-16 J; Gen 28:19, and the name of God in Gen 28:21 R, and this proposed division actually becomes absurd in chapters 29 f in the story of the birth of Jacob’s children, which are said to be divided between the sources J and E.

(9) The toledhoth of Esau (Genesis 36:1 Through 37:1)

In 7 divisions (see under 1), namely (a) Gen 36:1-5 R, Esau’s family; the different names for Esau’s wives, as compared with Gen 26:34 f; Gen 28:7-9 the Priestly Code (P), are doubtless based on the fact that oriental women are apt to change their names when they marry; and the fact that these names are without further remark mentioned by the side of the others is rather an argument against the division into sources than for it; (b) Gen 36:6-8, Esau’s change of abode to Seir, which, according to Gen 32:4; Gen 33:14, Gen 33:16, already took place before Jacob’s return. Only in case that Esau (Gen 35:29) would have afterward remained for a longer period in Canaan, could we think of a new separation in this connection. It is more probable that at this place all those data which were of importance in connection with this separation are once more given without any reference to their difference in point of time; (c) Gen 36:9-14, Esau as the founder of the Edomites (in Gen 36:9 the word [toledhoth is repeated from Gen 36:1, while the narrative of the descendants of Esau begins only at this later passage in so far as these were from Seir; compare Gen 36:9 with Gen 36:5, and above, under II, 1); (d) Gen 36:15-19, the leading line of the sons of Esau; (e) Gen 36:20-30, genealogy of the original inhabitants of the country, mentioned because of their connection with Esau (compare Gen 36:25 with Gen 36:2); (f) Gen 36:31-39, the elective kingdoms of Edom; (g) Gen 36:40-43, the Edomites’ chief line of descent, arranged according to localities. We have here accordingly geographical accounts, and not historical or genealogical, as in Gen 36:15, Gen 36:20 (30); compare also Gen 36:40, Gen 36:43, for which reason we find also names of women.

(10) The toledhoth of Jacob (Genesis 37:2 Through 50:26)

(1) The Biblical Text

The key to the history of Joseph is found in its conclusion, namely, in Gen 50:14-21, in the confession of Joseph, in the light of his past, namely, that God has ended all things well; and in Gen 50:22, in his confidence in the fulfillment of the Divine promise in the lives of those God has chosen; compare also Psa 105:16. According to the two viewpoints in Gen 50:14-26, and without any reference to the sources, this whole pericope (37:2 through 50:15) is divided into two halves, each of five subdivisions, or a total of ten (see under II, 1). In the exact demonstration of this, not only the contents themselves, but also regard for the different names for God will often render good service, which names, with good effect, are found at the close and in harmony with the fundamental thought of the entire section, namely, (a) 37:2 through 39:6a, Joseph enters Potiphar’s house (4 pieces, see under 6, 1, namely Gen 37:2-11, the hatred of the brethren, 37:12-36, selling Joseph, Gen 38:1, the Yahweh-displeasing conduct in the house of Judah, compare Gen 38:7, Gen 38:10, Gen 39:1-6, Yahweh’s pleasure in Joseph, in contrast to; (b) 39:6b-23, Joseph is cast into prison, but Yahweh was with him (Gen 39:21, Gen 39:23); (c) 40:1 through 41:52, the exaltation of Joseph, which at the end especially is shown by the naming of Ephraim and Manasseh as caused by God, but which for the present passes by the history of his family (4 pieces, namely, Gen 40:1, interpretation of the dreams of the royal officials, 41:1-36, interpretation of the two dreams of Pharaoh, Gen 41:37-46, the exaltation of Joseph, Gen 41:46-52, Joseph’s activity for the good of the country); (d) 41:55 through 46:7, Joseph becomes a blessing to his family; compare the promise of God to Jacob in Beersheba to be with him in Egypt in Gen 46:2 with Gen 45:6-9 (in four pieces, namely, Gen 41:53-57, the general famine, 42:1-38, the first journey of the brothers of Joseph, 43:14 through 43:34, the second journey (in four subdivisions, (i) Gen 43:1-14, the departure, (ii) 43:14-34, the reception by Joseph, (iii) Gen 44:1-7, final trial of the brethren, (iv) 44:18-34, the intercession of Judah); 45:1 through 46:7, Joseph makes himself known and persuades Jacob to come to Egypt); (e) 46:8 through 47:26, Joseph continues to be a blessing to his family and to Egypt (in 4 subdivisions, of which the 4th is placed in contrast to the first 3 exactly as this is done in 10:1 through 11:9 and 11:27 through 25:11, namely, (46:8-27, list of the descendants of Jacob, Gen 46:28-34, meeting with Joseph, Gen 47:1-12, Jacob in the presence of Pharaoh, Gen 47:13-26, the Egyptians who have sold themselves and their possessions to Pharaoh laud Joseph as the preserver of their lives). From this point on the attention is now drawn to the future: (f) Gen 47:27-31, Jacob causes Joseph to take an oath that he will have him buried in Canaan (compare Gen 47:30 J with chapter 23 P) ; in (e) and (f) There is also lacking a designation for God; (g) chapter 48, Jacob adopts and blesses Ephraim and Manasseh (compare also the emphasis placed on the providential guidance of God in 48:8 f, Gen 48:11, 1 48:15 f, especially Gen 48:16 and Gen 48:20); (h) 49:1-27, Jacob blesses his 12 sons and prophesies their future fate (here, Gen 49:18, appears the name of Yahweh, which had disappeared since chapter 40; see under II, 2, 2 (d), and other designations for God, Gen 49:24 f); (i) Gen 49:28-33, Jacob’s death after he had again expressed the wish, in the presence of all his sons, that he should be buried in Canaan; (j) Gen 50:1-13, the body of Jacob is taken to Canaan. In these 10 pericopes again we can easily find groups of two each, namely, (a) and (b), Joseph’s humiliation (sold, prison); (c) and (d), Joseph becomes a blessing to Egypt and to his family; (g) and (h), blessing of the, grandchildren and the sons of Jacob; (i) and (j), Jacob s death and burial; here too the name of God is lacking as in (e) and (f).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources

Here, too, the separation of P from the rest of the text as a distinct source is untenable, since in the section from Gen 37:2 through 46:34, after Gen 37:2, only the following fragments are attributed to this source, namely, Gen 41:46; Gen 46:6 f (according to some also to Gen 46:27). In the same way P abruptly sets in at Gen 47:5, Gen 47:27; Gen 49:28. Further, Gen 48:3 knows nothing of Ephraim or Manasseh, of whom P reports nothing, so that Gen 50:13 f are the only verses that could naturally connect with the preceding statements of P. In Gen 47:5 P reports entirely in the manner of ordinary narratives, and there is no sign of any systematic arrangement. But the separation between J and E cannot be carried out either. In the first place, when these two sources are actually separated by the critics, innumerable omissions in the story arise, which we cannot at this place catalogue. The contradictions which are claimed to exist here are the products of the critics’ imagination. It is claimed that according to J it is Judah who plays a prominent role, while according to E it is Reuben; but in Gen 37:21 Reuben is mentioned by J, and the role played by Judah in chapter 38 J is anything but creditable. Why cannot both of these brethren have played a prominent role, as this was also the case with Simeon (Gen 42:24, Gen 42:36; Gen 43:14) and Benjamin (Gen 42:13, Gen 42:10, Gen 42:32, Gen 42:36, 1 42:38; Gen 43:3; 44; Gen 45:14)? Just as little are the Midianites in Gen 37:28, Gen 37:36 E and the Ishmaelites of Gen 37:25, Gen 37:27, Gen 37:28; Gen 39:1 J mutually exclusive or contradictory, since the Midianites in the Gideon story, too, in Jdg 7 f; Jdg 8:24 are called Ishmaelites (compare in the German the name Prager for traveling musicians, whether they are from Prague or not). In J it is further claimed that Joseph’s master was a private gentleman (Gen 39:1), while in E he was the captain of the bodyguard (Gen 40:3 f). But in this instance the documentary theory can operate only when it calls in the assistance of R in Gen 39:1. The fact that in Gen 39:1 the name of the nationality is added to that of the office, is explained on the ground of the contrast to the Ishmaelites who sold Joseph. Finally, it is claimed to have been caused by the combination of the different sources in such a way that Benjamin in Gen 43:8, Gen 43:29; Gen 44:30, Gen 44:31, Gen 44:33 J is described as a boy, but in Gen 46:21, R or the Priestly Code (P), as the father of ten children. But evidently the author of chapter 46 has in view the number 70 (compare Gen 46:27; see Exo 1:5; Num 11:16, Num 11:25; Luk 10:1; Exo 15:27; Jdg 12:13; and in Gen 10 above, under 4, 2); and for this reason, e.g. in Gen 46:17, he mentions only one grand-daughter of Jacob; and for this he mentions all of the descendants of Jacob, even those who were born later in Egypt, but who already, as it were, had come to Egypt in the loins of their fathers, according to the view of the author. It certainly would be remarkable if no more grandchildren had been born to Jacob in Egypt, since Nu 26 does not mention a single son of any of the sons of Jacob later than those reported in Gen 46. In Gen 46:27 Joseph’s sons, too, who were born in Egypt, are included in the list, entirely in harmony with Deu 10:22. For such an arrangement and adjustment of a genealogy compare the 3 X 14 generations in Mt 1. From this point of view no conclusions, as far as the documentary theory is concerned, can be drawn from the ten sons of Benjamin.

IV. The Historical Character

1. History of the Patriarchs: (Genesis 12 Through 50)

(1) Unfounded Attacks upon the History

(a) From General Dogmatic Principles

In order to disprove the historical character of the patriarchs, the critics are accustomed to operate largely with general dogmatic principles, such as this, that no nation knows who its original founder was. In answer to this it can be said that the history of Israel is and was from the beginning to the end unique, and cannot be judged by the average principles of historiography. But it is then claimed that Abraham’s entire life appears to be only one continuous trial of faith, which was centered on the one promise of the true heir, but that this is in reality a psychological impossibility. Over against this claim we can in reply cite contrary facts from the history of several thousands of years; and that, too, in the experience of those very men who were most prominent in religious development, such as Paul and Luther.

(b) From Distance of Time

Secondly, critics emphasize the long period of time that elapsed between these events themselves and their first records, especially if these records can be accredited to so late a period as the 9th or the 8th century bc. In consequence of this, it is claimed that much of the contents of Genesis is myth or fable; and Gunkel even resolves the whole book into a set of unconnected little myths and fables. Over against this claim we can again appeal to the universal feeling in this matter. I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case in Israel. Prophets accepted the story of the destruction of the two cities in the Jordan valley, as recorded in Gen 19, as correct (compare Amo 4:11; Isa 1:9; Isa 3:9; Hos 11:8); also Abraham as a historical person (Isa 29:22; Isa 41:8; Isa 51:1; Mic 7:20; Jer 33:26; Eze 33:24; and possibly Mal 2:15); then Isaac (Amo 7:9, Amo 7:16; Jer 33:26); also Jacob (Hos 12:3; Amo 9:8; Jer 33:26); also Joseph (Amo 5:6, Amo 5:15); and these prophets evidently thought that these events and persons were regarded as historical by the people in general. In the New Testament we can cite, for Abraham, Mat 3:9; Gal 3; Gal 4:21; Rom 4:9; Rom 9:7; Heb 7:1; Heb 11:8; Jam 2:21, and especially the words of Jesus in Mat 8:11; Luk 16:22; Joh 8:52; finally in Mat 22:31 f, the whole argument for the resurrection of the dead is without a foundation if the patriarchs are not historical personages. Over against this, there was no period in the history of Israel in which it can be shown that these stories of Genesis were regarded only as myths. If these events were actual occurrences, then those things which the patriarchs experienced were so unique that these experiences were not forgotten for a long time. Then, too, we can also refer to the strength of the memory of those nations that were not accustomed to have written records of their history.

(c) From Biblical Data

Finally, the attempt has been made to discover in the Bible itself a pre-Mosaic stage in its ideas of man concerning God, which is claimed to contradict the higher development of Divine ideas in the patriarchs, for which purpose the critics appeal to Eze 23:3, Eze 23:1; Eze 20:7; Jos 24:14. But at these places it is evident that the idolatry of the people is pictured as apostasy. And when in Exo 6:2 the name of Yahweh is as a matter of fact represented as something new, it is nevertheless a fact that in these very passages the revelation given is connected with the history of the patriarchs. The same is true of Exo 3:1. The whole hypothesis that the religion before the days of Moses was polytheistic has not been derived from the Bible, but is interpreted into it, and ends in doing violence to the facts there recorded (compare my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit).

(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia

The critics further compare the pre-Mosaic religion of Israel with the low grade of religion in Arabia in the 5th century after Christ; but in order to do this, they must isolate Israel entirely, since all the surrounding nations at the time of the Tell el-Amarna Letters had attained to an altogether different and higher stage of religious development and civilization.

(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age

(a) Explanation Based on High Places

In denying the historical character of the account of the patriarchs in Genesis, the critics are forced to contrive some scheme in explanation of the existence of these stories, but in doing this they make some bad breaks. Thus, e.g., they say that the Israelites when they entered Canaan found there the high places of the heathen peoples; and since if they wanted to make use of these in the service of Yahweh they must first declare them legitimate places of worship, this was done by inventing the history of the patriarchs, who long before this are said to have already consecrated all these places to the Yahweh worship. But how is it possible on this supposition to explain the story of Joseph, which transpired in Egypt? Then, too, the reasons for the origin of the other stories of the patriarchs would be enshrouded in a remarkable mystery and would be of very inferior character. Again, it is nowhere declared in the passages of Genesis that here come into consideration that they are reporting the beginnings of a permanent cult when they give an account of how God appeared to the patriarchs or when they erected altars in His honor. And, finally, while it is indeed true that the cult localities of the patriarchs are in part identical with those of later times (compare Bethel, Beersheba) – and this is from the outset probable, because certain places, such as hills, trees, water, etc., as it were, of themselves were suitable for purposes of the cult – yet such an identification of earlier and later localities does not cover all cases. And can we imagine that a prophetical method of writing history would have had any occasion in this manner to declare the worship of calves in Bethel a legitimate service?

(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times

But we are further told that the pre-prophetic condition of affairs in Israel was in general dated back into the primitive period, and this was done in such a way that the character of Abraham was regarded as reproducing ideal Israel, and the character of Jacob the empirical Israel in the past; something that certainly is from the outset an odd speculation of too much learning! If this explanation is correct, what shall we then do with Isaac and Joseph? And why is the whole story of the condition of civilization pictured in Genesis so entirely different from that of later times? And is Abraham really a perfect ideal? Is he not rather, notwithstanding his mighty faith, a human being of flesh and blood, who can even doubt (Gen 15:2 f; Gen 17:17); who can make use of sinful means to realize the promise (Gen 16, Hagar); who tells a falsehood, although for the best of purposes, namely, to protect his wife (Gen 12:9), and for this reason must accept the rebuke of the heathen Abimelech (Gen 20:9 f)? In addition, Abraham is married to his half-sister (Gen 20:12), which, according to Deu 27:22; Lev 18:9, Lev 18:11; Lev 20:17, is forbidden with the penalty of death for the transgressor. In the same way Jacob, according to Gen 29 f, has two sisters as wives, which is also declared by Lev 18:18 to be a crime.

(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi

In the third place, it is said that the people have in the persons of the patriarchs made for themselves eponymous heroes. But why did they make so many at one time? In addition, Abraham cannot possibly be regarded as such a hero as Jacob or Israel is, and in exceptional cases also Isaac and Joseph (Amo 7:9, Amo 7:16; Amo 5:6, Amo 5:15). It is not correct to place genealogies like those in Gen 10:1; Gen 25:1,Gen 25:13 on a level with the stories concerning the patriarchs. In the latter case we are dealing with individualities of pronounced character, who in the experiences of their lives represent great fundamental principles and laws in the kingdom of God – Abraham, the principle of the grace of God, to which faith on the part of man is the counterpart; Jacob, the principle of Divine election; Joseph, that of the providential guidance of life; while Isaac, it is true, when he becomes prominent in the history, evinces no independent character, but merely follows in the footsteps of Abraham (compare Gen 26:1, Gen 26:3, Gen 26:15, Gen 26:18, Gen 26:24), but is in this very imitative life pictured in an excellent way.

(d) Different Explanations Combined

If we combine two or more of these different and unsatisfactory attempts at an explanation of the history of the patriarchs, we must become all the more distrustful, because the outcome of this combination is such an inharmonious scheme.

(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis

The individuality of the patriarchs as well as their significance in the entire development of the history of the kingdom of God, and their different missions individually; further, the truthful portraiture of their method of living, which had not yet reached the stage of permanent settlement; and, finally, the fact that the prophets, the New Testament and above all Jesus Himself regard their historical character as something self-evident (see (1b) above), make the conviction a certainty, that we must insist upon their being historical personages; especially, too, because the attacks on this view (see (1) above), as also the efforts to explain these narratives on other grounds (see (2) above), must be pronounced to be failures. To this we must add the following: If Moses were the founder of the religion of Israel, it would scarcely have been possible that a theory would have been invented and have found acceptance that robs Moses of this honor by the invention of the story of the patriarchs. Rather the opposite would be the case. Besides, this older revelation of God is absolutely necessary in order to make Moses’ work and success intelligible and possible. For he himself expressly declares that his work is based on the promises of God given to the fathers. Through this connection with the older revelation it was possible for Moses to win the attention and the confidence of the people (compare Exo 2:24; Exo 3:6, Exo 3:13; Exo 4:5; Exo 6:3, Exo 6:8; Exo 15:2; Exo 32:13 f; Exo 33:1; compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 117ff; and Strack, Genesis, 93ff).

Individuality of Patriarchs: In so far as the history of the patriarchs contains miracles, they are in perfect harmony with the entire character of sacred history (compare EXODUS, III, 2); and as far as the number of miracles is concerned, there are in fact fewer reported in the days of the patriarchs than in the times of Moses.. On the view that the history of the patriarchs, which is earlier than the period of Moses, was an invention and not history, the opposite condition of affairs could be expected. Leaving out of consideration the unsatisfactory instances cited under V, 2, below, there is to be found also in the Book of Genesis absolutely no reference to indicate events of a later period, which would throw a doubt on the historical character of what is here reported. In every direction (e.g. in connection with theophanies and the cult worship), there is a noticeable progress to be seen in going from Genesis to Exodus, a fact which again is an important argument for the historical reliability of the contents of both books. Finally, we add the following. Ch 14 (the Chedorlaomer and the Melchizedek episodes) has through recent archaeological researches been brilliantly confirmed as far as the names are concerned, as also in reference to the political conditions of the times, the general historical situation and the chronology. In the same way the religious conditions of Egypt, as described in Gen 12, and in the entire history of Joseph, are so faithfully pictured that it is absolutely impossible to regard these accounts as the work of imagination. These accounts must be the outcome, on the part of the author, of a personal knowledge of these things and conditions, as they are absolutely correct, even to the details of the coloring.

2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1 Through 11

(1) Prominence of the Religious Element

In the primitive history as recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis we must yet emphasize, more than is done elsewhere, that the chief interest for the Christian is found in the religious and moral teachings of this account; and that these teachings remain unshaken, even when chronological, historical, archaeological, physical, geographical or philological sciences would tempt us to reach negative conclusions. It is a wise thing, from the outset, not to be too timid in this direction, and to concede considerable liberty in this matter, when we remember that it is not the purpose of the Bible to give us scientific knowledge in scientific forms, but to furnish us with religious and ethical thoughts in a language which a childlike mind, that is open to Divine things, can understand.

(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research

On the other hand, it is right over against the so-called results of these different sciences to be very critical and skeptical, since in very many cases science retracts today what with a flourish of trumpets it declared yesterday to be a sure result of investigations; e.g. as far as the chronology is concerned, the natural and the historical sciences often base their computations on purely arbitrary figures, or on those which are constructed entirely upon conclusions of analogy, and are far from conclusive, if perchance the history of the earth or of mankind has not at all times developed at the same pace, i.e. has moved upward and downward, as e.g. a child in its earlier years will always learn more rapidly than at any later period of its life.

(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science

But finally the Holy Scriptures, the statements of which at this period are often regarded slightingly by theologians, are regarded much more highly by men of science. This is done, e.g., by such scientists as Reinke and K.E. von Baer, who declare that Moses, because of his story of the creation, was a man of unsurpassed and unsurpassable scientific thought; or when many geological facts point to such an event as the Deluge in the history of the earth. The history of languages, as a whole and in its details, also furnishes many proofs for the correctness of Gen 10, and that chapter has further been confirmed in a most surprising manner by many other discoveries (compare the existence of Babel at a period earlier than Nineveh, and the colonizing of Assur by Babel). Then facts like the following can be explained only on the presupposition that the reports in Genesis are correct, as when a Dutchman in the 17th century built an ark after the measurements given in Genesis and found the vessel in every particular adapted to its purposes; and when today we again hear specialists who declare that the modern ocean sailing vessel is being more and more constructed according to the relative proportions of the ark.

(4) Superiority of the Bible over Heathen Mythologies

Finally, the similarity of the Biblical and the Babylonian accounts of the creation and the Deluge, as these have been discovered by learned research (and we confine ourselves to these two most important reports) – although this similarity has been misinterpreted and declared to be hostile to the historical reliability and the originality of Gen 1 and Gen 6 through 9 – does not prove what critics claim that it does. Even if we acknowledge that the contents of these stories were extant in Babylon long before the days of Moses, and that these facts have been drawn from this source by Israel, there yet can be no question that the value of these accounts, the fact that they are saturated with a monotheistic and ethical spirit, is found only in Israel and has been breathed into them only by Israel. For the inner value of a story does not depend upon its antiquity, but upon its spirit. But even this conception of the matter, which is shared by most theologians, cannot satisfy us. When we remember how Babylonian mythology is honeycombed by the grossest superstition and heathenism, and that our ethical feelings are often offended by it in the most terrible manner, it is really not possible to see how such a system could have had any attraction for Israel after the Spirit, and how a man who thought as a prophet could have taken over such stories. If Israel has been a pathfinder in the sphere of religion, as is acknowledged on all hands, why do the critics always talk of their borrowing from others? And then, since similar stories are found also among other nations, and as the natural sciences are anything but a unit in hostility to the Biblical narratives, all these factors can find a satisfactory explanation only on the supposition that there existed an original or primitive revelation, and that in Israel this revelation was transmitted in its greater purity, while among the other nations it was emptied of its contents or was perverted. In this way the universality of these stories can be explained, as also the inferiority in character of similar stories among the other nations.

Babylonian and Biblical Stories

The particularly close connection that exists between the Babylonian and the Biblical versions of these stories is in perfect harmony with the fact that it was from Babylon that the dispersion of mankind set in. The purity of the Biblical tradition is further attested by the fact that it reports the actual history of all mankind (see under I, 2), while the mythologies of other nations are restricted nationally and locally, i.e. the beginnings of the history of the individual nations and the beginnings of the history of mankind are identical, and the earliest history is always reported as taking place in the native land of the people reporting it. The fact that in earlier times there prevailed in Babylon too a purer knowledge of God, which, however, steadily degenerated, is proved by many data, and especially by the recently discovered fragment of a Deluge story, according to which the God who destroyed the world by the Flood and the God who delivered the one family is the same God, which is in perfect agreement with the Bible, but is in contradiction to the later Babylonian story. That in earlier times a purer conception of God prevailed, seems to be confirmed also by the experiences of the missionaries. Evolutionism, i.e. the development of a higher conception of God out of a lower, is nothing but an unproved theory, which at every step is contrary to actual facts. Compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 129ff, and Schmidt, Die babylonische Religion: Gedanken ber ihre Entwicklung, a dissertation in which the fact that religion naturally degenerates is proved also as far as the Greeks, the Egyptians, the East Indians and the Chinese are concerned.

V. Origin and Authorship of Genesis

1. Connection with Mosaic Times

That the Book of Genesis stands in some kind of literary connection with the succeeding books of the Pentateuch is generally acknowledged. But if this is the case, then the question as to the origin and the time of the composition of this whole body of books can be decided only if we take them all into consideration. In this article we have only to consider those facts which are found in Genesis for the solution of this problem. It is self-evident that the conclusion we have reached with reference to the literary unity of the book is of great importance for this question (see under II and III above). The historical character of the book, as demonstrated under IV above, also speaks emphatically for this claim that the literary composition of the book must have taken place when the memory of these events was still trustworthy, and the impression and experiences were still fresh and had not yet faded. Such individualistic and vivid pictures of historical personages as are reported by Genesis, such a faithful adherence to the accounts of the civilization in the different countries and districts and at different times, such detailed accounts of foreign customs, conditions and historical events, could scarcely. have been possible, if the Mosaic age with its powerful new impressions, the period of the Judges, with its characteristic apostasy, or even the division of Israel into two kingdoms, with its dire effects on the external union of the people, had all passed by before these accounts were actually written down. On the other hand, the highly developed prophetic conception of these events, and the skillful plan of the book demand that the author must have been a religious and ethical personality of the first rank. And as, finally, it is scarcely credible that Moses would have failed to provide for a systematic report of the great past of the people, for which account, before this and as long as only family histories were involved, there was no need felt, and as the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, which are acknowledged in a literary way to be connected with Genesis, in many of their parts expressly declare that Moses was their author (compare EXODUS, IV), the Mosaic authorship of this book is as good as proved. This is not to deny that older sources and documents were used in the composition of the book, such as perhaps the genealogical tables or the events recorded in Gen 14, possibly, too, some referring to the history of the times before the Deluge and before Abraham. This is probable; but as all the parts of the book have been worked together into a literary unity (see under II and III above), and as such sources are not expressly mentioned, it is a hopeless task to try to describe these different sources in detail or even to separate them as independent documents, after the manner refuted under II and III above, as a theory and in its particulars. And for the age of Genesis, we can refer to the fact that the personal pronoun here is still used for both genders, masculine and feminine, which is true also of the word naar (youth), a peculiarity which is shared also by the other books of the Pentateuch almost throughout.

2. Examination of Counter-Arguments

(1) Possibility of Later Additions

In itself it would be possible that from time to time some explanatory and interpreting additions could have been made to the original text, in case we find indications of a later period in some statements of the book. But that in this case these additions could not have been made by any unauthorized persons, but only officially, should, in the case of a book like Genesis, be regarded as self-evident. But in our times this fact must be emphasized all the more, as in our days the most radical ideas obtain in reference to the way in which sacred books were used in former times. And then it must be said that we cannot prove as an absolute certainty that there is a single passage in Genesis that originated in the post-Mosaic period.

(2) Prophecy After the Event Idea

It is self-evident also that the fulfillment of a prophecy is not an evidence of a prophecy after the event (vaticinium post eventum), altogether independently of the fact that in this case Gen 12:1-3, which is still in process of fulfillment, could not have been written down even today (compare on this matter, perhaps, Noah’s prophecy (Gen 9:25); or the prediction of the career of Esau (Gen 25:23; Gen 27:40); or of Ishmael (Gen 16:10; Gen 21:18); or Jacob’s blessing (Gen 49)). The last-mentioned case cannot in any way be interpreted as the product of a later time; compare the curse of Levi in Gen 49:5-8 as compared with the honor bestowed on this tribe already in the Mosaic period (Exo 32:26-29; Deu 33:8-11), and in the time of the Judges (Jdg 17:7-13; 1Sa 2:27 f). Zebulun, too, according to Gen 49:13 is regarded as being settled on the coast, which is not in agreement with historical reality (compare Jos 19:10-16, Jos 19:27). In the same way the curse on Simeon in Gen 49:5-7, which declared that his tribe should be distributed among Israel, was not fulfilled in the time when the people entered Canaan (compare Jos 19:1 and 2Ch 34:6). In Gen 49:10 Shiloh cannot refer to the coming of the tabernacle to Shiloh (compare Jos 18:1); for Shiloh is, on the other hand, to be interpreted personally and Messianically. As long as Shiloh was of any importance (compare 1 Sam 1ff), Judah was not in the possession of the scepter; but when this scepter did come into the control of Judah, Shiloh had long since ceased to be of any significance (compare my book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 360 f).

(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date (Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7; Gen 22:2; Gen 36:31 Ff; Gen 13:18; Gen 23:2; Gen 14:14)

In Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7, it is claimed that it is presupposed that at the time of the author there were no longer any Canaanites in the country, so that these verses belong to a much later period than that of Moses. But on this supposition these verses would be altogether superfluous and therefore unintelligible additions. For that in the time of Abraham the Canaanites had not yet been expelled by Israel, was a self-evident matter for every Israelite. As a matter of fact, the statements in both verses can easily be interpreted. Abraham leaves his native country to go into a strange land. When he comes to Canaan, he finds it inhabited by the Canaanites (compare Gen 10:6, Gen 10:15; Gen 9:25). This could have made his faith to fail him. God, accordingly, repeats His promise at this very moment and does so with greater exactness (compare Gen 13:7 with Gen 13:1), and Abraham shows that God can trust his faith (Gen 13:7 f). The question whether the Canaanites no longer existed at the time the book was written, has nothing at all to do with the meaning of these verses. The same is true of Gen 13:7, on account of the presence of the Canaanites and of the Perizzites, which latter tribe had probably come in the meanwhile and is not yet mentioned in Gen 10, but is mentioned in Gen 15:20, and which makes the separation of Abraham and Lot only all the more necessary.

That in Gen 22:2 the land of Moriah is mentioned is claimed by the critics to be a proof that this passage was written after the times of David and even of Solomon, because according to 2Ch 3:1 the temple stood on Mt. Moriah. But as in this latter passage one particular mountain is called Moriah, but in Abraham’s time a whole country was so called, it is scarcely possible that Gen 22:2 could have been written at so late a period.

Usually, too, the list of 8 Edomite kings, who ruled before there was a king of Israel, according to Gen 36:31, is cited as a proof that this part was written only after the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, although the time down to the age of Saul would be entirely too long for only eight kings, as already in the Mosaic period there were kings in Edom (Num 20:14). Then, too, we find in the days of Solomon a hereditary kingdom in Edom (1Ki 11:14), while in Gen 36:31 we have to deal with an elective kingdom. Also it would be impossible to understand why this list of kings is carried down only so far and no farther, namely down to the time when there were kings in Israel. This statement can properly be interpreted only in the light of Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16, where the promise is given to Abraham that kings should be found among his descendants (compare also Gen 17:20 with Gen 25:16); and in the light of chapter 14, where Abraham is explicitly brought into connection with kings in a number of ways (with the four kings of the East, whom he conquers; with the five kings of the Jordan valley, whom he assists; with the King’s Vale (Gen 14:17), which prepared the way for the Melchizedek episode; and with this Priest-King himself, who blesses him and to whom he gives tithes (Gen 14:18); with the king of Sodom, whom he rebukes (Gen 14:21)). Accordingly, the statement in Gen 36:31 is not merely a dry historical notice, but is a reference to the blessing of God, which is realized in Israel at a much later time than in the kindred tribe of Esau, and which puts the faith of Israel to a new test. As the death of the last Edomite king is not mentioned (compare Gen 36:39 in contrast to the preceding passage and to 1Ch 1:50 f), but as detailed family data are given, we are doubtless dealing here with living contemporaries of Moses, in whose time already the Edomites possessed a kingdom (Num 20:14; Jdg 11:17), just as this was the case with Amalek (Num 24:7), with Moab (Num 21:26; Num 22:4) and Midian (Num 31:8). And why would a later writer have mentioned neither Selah (Petra), so important in later times (compare Isa 16:1; Jdg 1:36; 2Ki 14:7), nor Ezion-Geber (1Ki 9:26; 2Ch 8:17 f), among the places given in Gen 36:40? In Moses’ time, however, the last-mentioned place was only prairie (Num 33:35 f).

Just as little is it an argument against the Mosaic times that Hebron is mentioned in Gen 13:18; Gen 23:2, which city, according to Jos 14:15; Jos 15:13, is called Kiriath-arba, a name which Genesis also is acquainted with (compare Gen 23:2), and which in its signification of city of Arba points to an originally proper name. Hebron is the older name, which was resumed at a later period, after it had in the meanwhile been supplanted by the Canaanitic name, just as the name of Salem, which occurs already in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, for a period of time gave way to the name of Jebus, but was afterward resumed. That Hebron was an old city and that it existed at a period earlier than the Arba mentioned in Jos 14:15; Jos 15:13, and from whom its later name was derived, can be concluded from Num 13:22.

Further, the mention of Dan in Num 14:14 does not necessarily favor the view that this chapter did not originate until after Jos 19:47. Jdg 18:29, where Leshem or Laish is changed into Dan (2Sa 24:6; compare 2Sa 24:2 and 2Sa 24:15), does make the existence of another Dan probable. Since in Gen 14:2, Gen 14:3, Gen 14:7, Gen 14:17 so many ancient names are mentioned, and as the author is most fully informed as to the conditions of the political complexion of the old nations of that time (Gen 14:5-7), it would be incomprehensible if he should not have made use of the ancient names Laish and Leshem. However, if this Dan was really meant, we should at most have to deal with a revision, such as that pointed out above. Some other less important arguments against the origin of Genesis from the Mosaic times we can here ignore. The most important argument for the Mosaic origin of the book, in addition to those mentioned under 1, will now be discussed.

VI. Significance

1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation

In the history of the creation the most important feature for us is the fact that the world was created out of nothing (compare Gen 1:1 and the word bara’), which guarantees the absoluteness of God and His perfect control of the entire material world; further, the creation of man, as the crown of all creation, for which all things previously created prepare, and who is to rule over them, but who – most important of all – is created after the image of God in Gen (Gen 1:26 f), and whose body has been created by the hand of God and his soul breathed into him by God (Rev 2:7). On this fact, too, in the end, is founded the possibility of man’s redemption even after the Fall (Rev 5:1, Rev 5:3; compare Col 3:9; Eph 4:24), as also the possibility of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who also is the image of God (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4). Then, too, another all-important factor for us is the unity of the human race, for thereby is made possible and can be understood the fact that all men have become subject to sin and all can be the recipients of grace (Rom 5:12; 1Co 15:22 f, 1Co 15:45 f). Also the need of redemption is brought out strongly in the Book of Genesis. Compare in connection with the Fall, the pains that shall attend the birth of a child, the cursing of the land, death (Gen 3:15), which finds its first victim in Abel, and the monotonous and emphatic repetition of the formula, and he died, in Gen 5, as characterizing the dismal fate of mankind, and which finds its expression in the rapid decrease of the length of life in the genealogies and in the ages of the patriarchs (Gen 5:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 25:7; Gen 35:28; Gen 47:28; Gen 50:26; Psa 90:10), and in the irresistible and increasing power of death. By the side of this, sin at once assumes its most horrible form (Gen 3, doubt, pride, fear, boldness of Eve and Adam), and is propagated and increases; compare the murder and the despair of Cain (Gen 4:1), which is still surpassed by the defiant blasphemy of Lamech (Gen 4:23 f); and in the same way, death, which is coming more and more rapidly (see above), is a proof for this, that sin is being more and more intimately interwoven with the human race. Compare further, the corruption of the whole earth, which brings with it as a consequence the judgment of the Deluge (Gen 6:5), after the period of grace extending over 120 years had fruitlessly passed by; the lack of reverence on the part of Ham (Gen 9:22); the arrogance in connection with the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11:1); the Sodomitic sin in 18:16 through 19:15; the daughters of Lot (Gen 19:30). Still worse is it, that the elect also are not without blame. On Abraham, see IV, 1, 2b; then concerning Noah (Gen 9:21) and Lot’s fearful drunkenness (Gen 19:32); Isaac’s and Rebekah’s preference for Esau or Jacob (Gen 25:28); Jacob’s deceptions of various kinds, his preference for Joseph (Gen 37:3); the horrible deeds of Simeon and Levi (Gen 34:25; Gen 49:5); Reuben’s incest (Gen 35:22; Gen 49:3 f); the cruelty of the brethren of Joseph toward him and his father (chapter 37); finally, Joseph’s pride and his reporting his brethren (Gen 37:2, Gen 37:5). In short, wherever we look, we see in Genesis already a proof for the truth of Rom 3:23, All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

2. Preparation for Redemption

By the side of this need of salvation there is to be found also the longing for salvation; compare the name of Noah (Gen 5:29), and the word of blessing from the lips of Jacob (Gen 49:18); and, further, the fact that Abraham reaches out after the promised heir in Gen 15 through 18, and his desire for the possession of the land (12 through 14; 23; Gen 28:20; Gen 33:19 f); and especially from Gen 47:27 on. And in harmony with this need and this longing for redemption we find above all other things the saving and the promising grace of God. He does not cause the bodily death to follow immediately upon the Fall in Gen 3 (although the beginning of the spiritual death sets in at once with the separation from God); He provides for mankind by Himself making garments for them out of skins (Gen 3:21); even the expulsion from Paradise is not merely a punishment; God fears that man might live forever if he should eat from the tree of life (Gen 3:22). He sets enmity between the human race and the seed of the serpent, so that at least the possibility of a moral contest yet exists; He strengthens the good in Cain (Gen 4:7); He removes the pious Enoch (Gen 5:24); He saves Noah and his family and makes a covenant with him (Gen 8:21); He gives His promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) and makes a covenant with him (chapters 15; 17); He delivers Lot (Gen 19:13); He is willing even to preserve Sodom at Abraham’s prayer, if there are as many as 10 just men in the city (Gen 18:32); He bestows a blessing on Ishmael also (Gen 16:10; Gen 17:20; Gen 21:13), and permits Isaac to bless Esau (Gen 27:39); but above all He is with Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. It is indeed true that the thought runs through Genesis that not all men are capable of receiving His grace, and that not all are drawn to the Father. Cain’s sacrifice is not acceptable before God, as was Abel’s; the Cainites with their advance in civilization (Gen 4:17), to whom Lamech also belonged, are different from Seth (Gen 4:26; Gen 5:1), who continues the line of the elect. Finally, the godly, too, permit themselves to be deceived (Gen 6:1), and Noah stands alone in his piety. After that Ham is cursed in his youngest son, Canaan (Gen 9:22; compare Gen 10:6); but Shem is blessed to such a degree that his blessing is to extend to Japheth also; cf, further, the elimination from sacred history of Lot (Gen 19:29); of Ishmael (Gen 25:12), and of Esau (Gen 36:1); of Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter 19); then the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau (25:19 through 37:1); the preference of Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen 48:17); the transmission of the Messianic promises to Judah (Gen 49:10; compare my book, Messianische Erwartung, 360 f), so that at the close of Genesis we find already the hope of a personal Messiah expressed, in whom also the word (Gen 3:15) that was originally spoken to all mankind is to be entirely fulfilled, and in whom also the blessing given to Abraham shall find its significance and realization for the benefit of all mankind (Gen 12:3, and see above, 1, 2 and 3). But in the history of Abraham this fact also becomes clear, that in the end this was all grace on the part of God, and faith on the part of man; and because both grace and faith are in Genesis placed and emphasized at the very beginning of the history of mankind, and before the giving of the law (Ex 19ff); then this grace and faith cannot be abrogated through the latter or made ineffective. Not by works but by faith is man saved (compare Gal 3:2; Rom 4; Heb 11:8; Jam 2:21). But the guidance of individuals and of His people by God, the ways which He took with His elect, become clear and intelligible ultimately in the history of Joseph; and all and everything must in the end serve the good of those who are His.

Literature

Against the separation into documents we mention, of older works: Hvernick, Specielle Einleitung in den Pent; Hengstenberg, Beitrge zur Einleitung, II, III; Keil, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, and his Commentary on Gen; Ewald, Die Komposition der Genesis. Of later works: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Eerdmans, Die Komposition der Genesis; Mller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. Against the evolutionary theory: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism and Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Green, Unity of Book of Genesis; Mller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (here also further lit.). On modern archaeological researches: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; Urquhart, Die neueren Entdeckungen und die Bibel (to be used with caution; the work is reliable in the facts but not careful in its conclusions and in its account of Old Testament criticism). Further, compare the histories of Israel by Khler, Knig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen: the Commentaries on Genesis by Keil, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Lange, Strack, Gunkel, Holzinger; the Introductions to the Old Testament by Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Knig, Cornill, Driver; the Biblical Theologies by Marti, Smend, Budde, Schulz, Oehler. Finally compare Sievers, Metrische Studien, II: Die hebraische Genesis.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Genesis

Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch. This venerable monument, with which the sacred literature of the Hebrews commences, and which forms its real basis, is divided into two main parts; one universal, and one special. The most ancient history of the whole human race is contained in Genesis 1-11, and the history of Israel’s ancestors, the patriarchs, in Genesis 12-50. These two parts are, however, so intimately connected with each other, that it would be erroneous to ascribe to the first merely the aim of furnishing a universal history. The chief aim which pervades the whole is to show how the theocratic institution subsequently founded by Moses was rendered possible and necessary. The book, therefore, takes its starting-point from the original unity of the human race, and their original relation to God, and proceeds thence to the interruption of that relation by the appearance of sin, which gradually and progressively wrought an external and internal division in the human race for want of the principles of divine life which originally dwelt in man in general, but which had subsequently been preserved only among a small and separate racea race which in progress of time became more and more isolated from all the other tribes of the earth, and enjoyed for a series of generations the special care, blessing, and guidance of the Lord. The mosaical theocracy appears, therefore, by the general tenor of Genesis, partly as a restoration of the original relation to God, of the communion of man with God, and partly as an institution which had been preparing by God himself through a long series of manifestations of his power, justice, and love. Genesis thus furnishes us with the primary view and notion of the whole of the theocracy, and may therefore be considered as the historical foundation without which the subsequent history of the covenant people would be incomplete and unintelligible.

The unity and composition of the work, which is a point in dispute among the critics in regard to all the books of the Pentateuch, have been particularly questioned in the case of Genesis. Some suppose that Genesis is founded on two principal original documents, distinguished by the terms Elohim and Jehovah, the names which they respectively give to God. That of Elohim is closely connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while that of Jehovah is a mere complementary document, supplying details at those points where the former is abrupt and deficient, etc. These two documents are said to have been subsequently combined by the hand of an editor, so able as often to render their separation difficult, if not altogether impossible. Others maintain that Genesis is a book closely connected in all its parts, and composed by only one author, while the use of the two different names of God is not owing to two different sources on which Genesis is founded, but solely to the different significations of these two names. The use of each of the two names, Jehovah and Elohim, is everywhere in Genesis adapted to the sense of the passages in which the writer has purposely inserted the one name or the other. This point of view is the more to be considered, as it is the peculiar object of the author to point out in Genesis the gradual and progressive development of the divine revelations. The opponents have in vain attempted to discover in Genesis a few contradictions indicative of different documents in it; their very admission, that a fixed plan and able compilation visibly pervade the whole of the book, is in itself a refutation of such supposed contradictions, since it is hardly to be conceived, that an editor or compiler who has shown so much skill and anxiety to give unity to the book should have cared so little about the removal of those contradictions. The whole of Genesis is pervaded by such a freedom in the selection and treatment of the existing traditions, such an absence of all trace of any previous source or documents which might in some measure have confined the writer within certain limits of views and expressions, as to render it quite impracticable to separate and fix upon them specifically, even if there were portions in Genesis drawn from earlier written documents.

That first question concerning the unity of the book is closely connected with another question, respecting its authenticity, or whether Moses was the author of Genesis. We confine ourselves here to only a few remarks on the authenticity of Genesis in particular, and refer the reader for further information to the article Pentateuch. Some critics have attempted to ascertain the period when Genesis was composed, from a few passages in it, which they say must be anachronisms, if Moses was really the author of the book. Among such passages are, in particular, Gen 12:6; Gen 13:7; ‘And the Canaanite was then in the land.’ This remark, they say, could only have been made by a writer who lived in Palestine after the extirpation of the Canaanites. But the sense of the passage is not that the Canaanites had not as yet been extirpated, but merely that Abraham, on his arrival in Canaan, had already found there the Canaanites. This notice was necessary, since the author subsequently describes the intercourse between Abraham and the Canaanites, the lords of the country. According to the explanation given to the passage by the opponents, such an observation would be quite a superfluous triviality. Also the name Hebron (Gen 13:18; Gen 23:2), they say, was not introduced till after the time of Moses (Jos 14:15; Jos 15:13). This, however, does not prove anything, since Hebron was the original Hebrew name for the place, which was subsequently changed into Arba (by a man of that name), but was restored by the Israelites on their entrance into Canaan. The opponents also maintain that the name of the place Dan (Gen 14:14) was given only in the post-Mosaical period (Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:29). But the two last passages speak of quite a different place. There were two places called Dan; Dan-Jaan (2Sa 24:6), and Dan-Laish, or Leshem. In Genesis, they further add, frequently occurs the name Bethel (Gen 12:8; Gen 28:19; Gen 35:15); while even in the time of Joshua the place was as yet called Luz (Jos 18:13). But the name Bethel was not first given to the place by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, there being no occasion for it, since Bethel was the old patriarchal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites. Another passage in Genesis (Gen 36:31), ‘Before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,’ is likewise supposed to have been written at a period when the Jews had already a king over them. But the broachers of these objections forget that this passage refers to those promises contained in the Pentateuch in general, and in Genesis in particular (comp. Gen 35:11), that there should hereafter be kings among the Israelites as an independent nation. In comparing Israel with Edom (Genesis 36), the sacred writer cannot refrain from observing that Edom, though left without divine promises of possessing kings, nevertheless possessed them, and obtained the glory of an independent kingdom, long before Israel could think of such an independence; and a little attention to the sense of the passage will show how admirably the observation suits a writer in the Mosaical period. The passage (Gen 15:18) where the land of Israel is described as extending from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the great river (Euphrates), it is alleged, could only have been penned during the splendid period of the Jews, the times of David and Solomon. Literally taken, however, the remark is inapplicable to any period, since the kingdom of the Jews at no period of their history extended so far. That promise, must, therefore, be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing the central point of the proper country as situated between the two rivers.

With regard to the historical character of the book, Genesis consists of two contrasting parts: the first part introduces us into the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the Creation and the fall of man; and the second, into the quiet solitude of a small defined circle of families. In the former, the most sublime and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity; while, in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occurrences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the principal actors in it prototypes for a whole nation, and for all times. The contents in general are strictly religious. Not the least trace of mythology appears in it. It is true that the narrations are fraught with wonders. But primeval wonders, the marvelous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one common leading idea, and are all related to the counsel of God for the salvation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams through the whole of Genesis; therefore the wonders therein related are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation of the divine theocratical institution throws a strong light upon the early patriarchal times; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.

The separate accounts in Genesis also manifest great internal evidence of truth if we closely examine them. They bear on their front the most beautiful impress of truth. The cosmogony in Genesis stands unequalled among all others known in the ancient world. No mythology, no ancient philosophy, has ever come up to the idea of a creation out of nothing. All the ancient systems end in Pantheism, Materialism, emanation-theory, etc. But the Biblical cosmogony occupies a place of its own, and therefore must not be ranked among, or confounded with, any of the ancient systems of mythology or philosophy. The mythological and philosophical cosmogonies may have been derived from the Biblical, as being later depravations and misrepresentations of Biblical truth; but the contents of Genesis cannot, vice versa, have been derived from mythology or philosophy. The historical delineation also of the Creation and of the fall of man does not bear the least national interest or coloring, but is of a truly universal nature, while every mythus bears the stamp of the national features of the nation and country where it originated and found development. All mythi are subject to continual development and variations, but among the Hebrews the accounts in Genesis stand firm and immutable for all times, without the least thing being added or altered in them for the purpose of further development, even by the New Testament. What a solid guarantee must there be in this foundation of all subsequent revelations, since it has been admitted and maintained by all generations with such immovable firmness! The ancient heathen traditions coincide in many points with the Biblical accounts, and serve to illustrate and confirm them. This is especially the case in the ancient traditions concerning the Deluge (Gen 6:9), and in the list of nations in the tenth chapter; for instance (Gen 10:4), Tarshish is called the son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient inhabitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erroneously considered to be a Phoenician colony like those of other towns in its neighborhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus. Also (Gen 10:8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, which is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent. Sidon alone is mentioned (Gen 10:15), but not Tyrus (comp. Gen 49:13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Jos 19:29); and that Sidon was an older town than Tyrus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by a number of ancient reports.

With the patriarchal history (Genesis 12. sqq.) begins an historical sketch of a peculiar character. The circumstantial details in it allow us to examine more closely the historical character of these accounts. The numerous descriptions of the mode of life in those days furnish us with a very vivid picture. We meet everywhere a sublime simplicity quite worthy of patriarchal life, and never to be found again in later history. One cannot suppose that it would have been possible in a later period, estranged from ancient simplicity, to invent such a picture.

The fidelity of the author everywhere exhibits itself. Neither the blemishes in the history of Abraham, nor the gross sins of the sons of Jacob, among whom even Levi, the progenitor of the sacerdotal race, forms no exception, are concealed.

The same author, whose moral principles are so much blamed by the opponents of Genesis, on account of the description given of the life of Jacob, produces, in the history of Abraham, a picture of moral greatness which could have originated only in facts.

The faithfulness of the author manifests itself also especially in the description of the expedition of the kings from Upper to Western Asia; in his statements concerning the person of Melchizedek (Genesis 14); in the circumstantial details given of the incidents occurring at the purchase of the hereditary burial-place (Genesis 23); in the genealogies of Arabian tribes (Genesis 25); in the genealogy of Edom (Genesis 36); and in many remarkable details which are interwoven with the general accounts. In the history of Joseph the patriarchal history comes into contact with Egypt, and here the accounts given by ancient classical writers, as well as the monuments of Egypt, frequently furnish some splendid confirmations. For instance, the account given (Gen 47:13-26) of the manner in which the Pharaohs became proprietors of all the lands, with the exception of those belonging to the priests, is confirmed by Herodotus, and by Diodorus Siculus. The manner of embalming described in Genesis 50 entirely agrees with the description of Herodotus, ii. 84, etc.

For the important commentaries and writings on Genesis, see the article Pentateuch.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Genesis

Genesis (jn’e-ss). The first book of the Bible. The term signifies “beginning” or “origin.” Genesis gives us a history of the origin of the world, of the human family, of sin, of the promise of redemption, and of the Jewish people. The first eleven chapters describe the creation of things, the history of Adam, the deluge, and the confusion of tongues at Babel. With the twelfth chapter begins the history of the patriarchs and Israel. There are no good grounds for doubting that Moses was the author. With the use of older documents and traditions, he compiled, under divine direction, the history as we have it. The order of created things in Genesis is substantially the order of geology and biology. Both begin with the formation of the earth and proceed from the vegetable to animal life; both stop with man. The word translated “day” probably means an indefinite period. The “seventh day,” which has no evening, Chron. 2:2, cannot refer to a day of 24 hours, but to the long redemptive period in which we are living. Few if any existing documents have a more venerable age than has Genesis. Covering nearly 2500 years, it gives us the account of the preparation of this planet as an abode for man and the first annals of the race. Its value cannot be overestimated as a fragment of literature or as a work of history, and it has been well observed that in the first page of Genesis a child may learn more in an hour than all the philosophers in the world learned without it in a thousand years.Schaff.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Genesis

(Gr. genesis) Coming into being, particularly the coming into being of a substance through the taking on of form by matter (Aristotle.). The biblical account of creation (Book of Genesis). — G.R.M.

Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy

Genesis

a canonical book of the Old Testament, so called from the Greek , genesis, or generation, because it contains an account of the origin of all visible things, and of the genealogy of the first patriarchs. In the Hebrew it is called , which signifies, in the beginning, because it begins with that word. See PENTATEUCH.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary