See other formats

Full text of "The Book of Genesis : with introduction and notes"

Westminster Commentaries 

Edtted by Walter Lock D.D. 

IRELAND PROFESSOR OF THE EXEGESIS 
OF HOLT SORIPTURB 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS 



V 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS 



WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES 

BY 

S. E. DMVEB, D.D. 

REGIUS PROFES80R OE HEBREW AND CANON OE CHRIST CHURCH, OXEORD, 

HON. D.LITT. CAMBRIDGE AND DUBLIN, HON. D.D. GLASGOW AND ABERDEEN, 

EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LATE BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL, 

JTELLOW OE THE BRITISH ACADEMY. 



TENTH EDITION 



522699 



METHUEN & CO. LTD. 

36 ESSEX STREET W.O. 

LONDON 



First Published January 1Q04 

Second Edition March IQ04 

Third Edition October 1904 

Fourth Edition May IQ05 

Fifth Edition Sept. igo6 

Sixth Edition March iqoj 

Seventh Edition August igog 

Eighth and Revised Edition . . . January igu 

Ninth Edition April IQ13 

Tenth Edition January ig/6 



PREFATORY NOTE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. 

THE primary object of these Commentaries is to be exe- 
getical, to interpret the meaning of each book of the 
Bible in the light of modern knowledge to English readers. 
The Editors will not deal, except subordinately, with questions 
of textual criticism or philology ; but taking the English text 
in the Revised Version as their basis, they will aim at com- 
bining a hearty acceptance of critical principles with loyalty to 
the Catholic Faith. 

The series will be less elementary than the Cambridge Bible 
for Schools, less critical than the International Critical Com- 
mentary, less didactic than the Expositor's Bible ; and it is 
hoped that it may be of use both to theological students and to 
the clergy, as well as to the growing number of educated laymen 
and laywomen who wish to read the Bible intelligently and 
reverently. 

Each commentary will therefore have 

(i) An Introduction stating the bearing of modern criticism 
and research upon the historical character of the book, and 
drawing out the contribution which the book, as a whole, makes 
to the body of religious truth. 

(ii) A careful paraphrase of the text with notes on the 
more difficult passages and, if need be, excursuses on any points 
of special importance either for doctrine, or ecclesiastical or- 
ganization, or spiritual life. 

But the books of the Bible are so varied in character that 
considerable latitude is needed, as to the proportion which the 



VI NOTE 

various parts should hold to each other. The General Editor 
will therefore only endeavour to secure a general uniformity in 
scope and character: but the exact method adopted in each 
case and the final responsibility for the statements made will 
rest with the individual contributors. 

By permission of the Delegates of the Oxford University 
Press and of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press 
the Text used in this Series of Commentaries is the Revised 
Version of the Holy Scriptures. 



THIS Commentary will be found to differ in some respects 
from the previous volumes of the series, but the differences 
are of a kind which arise necessarily from the subject-matter of 
the book. 

Greater attention is paid to matters of archaeology, ancient 
history, and modern science, especially in estimating the histo- 
rical and scientific value of the earlier chapters of the book ; 
and more notice has been taken of literary criticism and of 
the analysis of the sources out of which the book has been 
composed. 

Both of these points have been found necessary; for the 
Book of Genesis touches science, archaeology, and history at 
more points than any other book of the Old Testament, and 
it is essential that in a Commentary for educated readers 
these points should be freely illustrated and discussed. Much 
study has also been bestowed during recent years on the literary 
analysis of the book, and many conclusions have been reached 
which have commended themselves to a large number of scholars, 
and these it would be unfair to withhold from the general 
reader. 

There is too another reason why a fuller treatment of such 
subjects has been found necessary in the present volume than, for 
instance, in the Commentary on Job. That book also touches 
many points of science, but they are there presented in a form 
obviously poetical ; here the form is apparently that of sober 



NOTE VII 

history, and the book has often been treated as though it were 
a manual of scientific fact and of exact history. But, as such, 
it must be submitted to the ordinary tests which apply to 
scientific and historical knowledge. That must be the first 
step in the interests of truth and in the reverent attempt to 
define Inspiration, whatever considerations we may feel have 
afterwards to be added to supplement it. The scientific student 
is therefore free to say, or rather bound to say, at times, in the 
light of modern knowledge, " This is not science, its value must 
be found elsewhere " ; and the historical student is free to say, 
or rather is bound to say, "This is pre-historic ; this has not 
adequate contemporary support ; if I found it in another litera- 
ture, I should not venture to build upon this as ascertained 
fact ; the value of the book must be found elsewhere." Such 
a frank discussion will be found in this Commentary. There 
will also be found a very strong insistence on the evidence 
which the moral and spiritual tone of the book offers of its 
Inspiration. 

These are the two surest starting-points. There are other 
points that lie beyond. Thus, while the editor of this Com- 
mentary has urged various historical arguments (pp. xliii. ff., 
lvii.) in support of the general trustworthiness of the patriarchal 
narratives, many readers may feel that one or all of the 
following considerations strengthen his position. (1) The extra- 
ordinary truthfulness to human nature and to Oriental life 
creates an impression in favour of such trustworthiness ; (2) the 
consistency of this book with the subsequent history and re- 
ligious thought of later Judaism helps to confirm this impression ; 
(3) the fact of Inspiration, once admitted on the higher level of 
moral and spiritual tone, may well carry its influence over into 
details of fact, and turn the balance, when otherwise uncertain, 
on the side of trustworthiness. For the truest historian is not 
the accumulator of the largest number of ascertained facts, 
but the best interpreter of the spirit of the age which he 
describes, he who is best able to pick out the thread of purpose 
in the tangle of details. In other words, the ultimate decision 
on the value of the book has to be based on its context, and on 
its connexion with the whole of Holy Scripture. 



VIII NOTE 

These, however, are considerations which will appeal differ- 
ently to different minds : the first steps necessary are a careful 
test of the book by the ordinary canons of scientific and historical 
investigation, and a tracing of the clear marks of a higher spirit 
in its religious tendency. It is because both of these steps 
are taken so steadily and securely here, that I feel that this 
Commentary will meet a very real need of the present day. 

WALTER LOCK. 



V 



PEEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

THE present Commentary is an expansion of lectures which 
I have given for some years past to students reading for 
the School of Theology at Oxford. Its aim is firstly to explain 
the text of Genesis, and secondly to acquaint readers with the 
position which, in accordance with our present knowledge, the 
Book holds, from both a historical and a religious point of view. 
The most recent English Commentary upon Genesis, of any 
considerable size, appeared in 1882; and since then many dis- 
coveries have been made which have a bearing upon the Book, 
much fresh light has been thrown upon it, and new points of 
view have been gained, from which, if its contents and the place 
taken by it in the history of revelation are to be rightly under- 
stood, it must be judged. It has been my endeavour, while 
eschewing theories and speculations, which, however brilliant, 
seem to rest upon no sufficient foundation, to place the reader, 
as far as was practicable, in possession of such facts as really 
throw light upon Genesis, and in cases where, from the nature 
of the question to be solved, certainty was unattainable, to 
enable him to form an estimate of the probabilities for himself. 

In the explanation of the text, while I have not been able 
entirely to avoid the use of Hebrew words, and of technical 
expressions belonging to Hebrew grammar, I have endeavoured 
so to express myself that the reader who is unacquainted with 
Hebrew may nevertheless be able to follow the reasoning, and 
to understand, for instance, why one rendering or reading is 

preferable to another. The margins of the Revised Version 

D- a 



X PREFACE 

where they do not merely repeat the discarded renderings of the 
Authorized Version very frequently contain renderings (or 
readings) superior to those adopted in the text: hence they 
always deserve careful attention on the part of the reader ; 
and though the instances in which this is the case are not so 
numerous in Genesis as in some of the poetical and prophetical 
books of the Old Testament, I have made a point, where they 
occur, of indicating them in the notes. Hebraists are, moreover, 
well aware that, superior as the Revised Version is to the 
Authorized Version in both clearness and accuracy, it does not 
always, either in the text or on the margin, express the sense of 
the original as exactly as is desirable ; and I have naturally, 
in such cases, given the more correct renderings in the notes. 

The field of knowledge with which, at one point or another, 
the Book of Genesis comes in contact is large ; archaeology, 
ancient history and geography, modern travel and exploration, 
for instance, all in their turn supply something more or less 
substantial to its elucidation. Naturally, where the subjects 
are so varied and wide, and the period concerned so remote 
from that at which we at present live, points of interest or 
difficulty occur, which I should have been glad to explain or 
discuss more fully than my limits of space permitted me to do, 
and on which therefore I have been obliged to content myself 
with brief statements of fact or probability, as the case might 
be 1 ; I have, however, in such cases nearly always added references 
to some standard work in which the reader will find further 
information or discussion. I have found Hastings' Dictionary 
of the Bible, and the Encyclopcedia Biblica particularly useful 
for this purpose ; but naturally other works have often been 
referred to as well. I have in some cases multiplied references 
in the hope that readers who might not have access to one book 
that was mentioned might be able, if they desired it, to refer to 
another. 

1 See, for instance, many of the notes on ch. x. 



PREFACE XI 

The critical and historical view of the Book of Genesis which 
extended to Scripture generally, appears to me to be the only 
basis upon which the progressive revelation contained in the 
Bible can be properly apprehended l , and the spiritual authority 
of the Bible ultimately maintained has been assumed through- 
out : but a minute discussion of critical questions has not seemed 
to me to be necessary ; and I have confined myself as a rule 
to brief statements of the general or principal grounds upon 
which the more important of the conclusions adopted rest. 
There are of course some points, on which the data them- 
selves being ambiguous, or slight divergent conclusions may 
be, and have been, drawn : in such cases I can only say that 
I have endeavoured to decide as well as my knowledge and 
judgement permitted me. 

The Commentaries in the present series are not intended to 
be homiletic or devotional ; but I have always endeavoured, as 
occasion offered, to point out the main religious lessons which 
the Book of Genesis contains, and the position taken by it in the 
history of revelation. There are parts of the Book in which, 
judged by the canons of historical method, it must be evident 
that we are treading upon uncertain ground: but that in no 
degree detracts from the spiritual value of its contents ; and 
the presence in the writers of the purifying and illuminating 
Spirit of God must be manifest throughout. In view of the 
many problems which, to modern readers, the Book of Genesis 
suggests, it will be a satisfaction to me if I may have succeeded 
in making my volume a contribution, however slight, to that 
adjustment of theology to the new knowledge of the past, which 
has been called a ' crying need ' of the times 2 . 

Among the Commentaries upon Genesis which I have con- 
sulted, I feel bound to record my special indebtedness to that 

1 Compare the paper read by the Bishop of Winchester at the Bristol 
Church Congress, 1903 {Guardian, Oct. 21, 1903, p. 1590). 

2 The Guardian, Dec. 19, 1900, p. 1784. 

a * 



XII PREFACE 

of August Dillmann, an admirable scholar, whose writings were 
always distinguished by learning, ability, and judgement. It has 
been translated into English; but it can hardly be said to be 
well adapted to the ordinary English reader, as it contains much 
technical matter, which, though interesting and valuable to 
special students, is superfluous for the general reader, while, 
on the other hand, it does not always contain the kind of 
information which an English reader would expect to find in 
a Commentary. I have only, in conclusion, to acknowledge my 
obligations to the Warden of Keble College, the editor of the 
series, who has taken much trouble in reading all the sheets, 
and who has on many occasions given me the benefit of his 
judgement, and offered suggestions to which I have very grate- 
fully given effect. 

S.RD. 



Christ Church, Oxford, 
October 6, 190& 



PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. 

The present edition does not differ in any substantial respect 
from the preceding ones : I have only been obliged to make 
some small alterations, due to the advance of knowledge, in 
certain matters relating to chronology and archaeology. In 
consequence of the discovery in 1907 of a cuneiform chronicle 
shewing that the Second Babylonian dynasty was in part con- 
temporary with the First (see the note in the Addenda on 
p. 156), the date of the First dynasty, and with it that of its 
sixth king, Hammurabi, have had to be lowered ; and I have 
now, throughout the volume, altered the date of Hammurabi to 
B.C. 2130 2088. For the reasons stated partly on p. xxix n., 
and partly in the note on this page in the Addenda, I am also 
now persuaded that the astronomer Mahler's date for Ramses II, 
B.c. 1348 1281, which has been adopted by Professor Sayce, 
rests upon mistaken data, and that he must be placed 
c. 1300 1234 B.c. : the probable date of the Exodus becomes thus 
c. 1230 B.C. I have moreover revised the Chronological Table 
(opposite p. i of the Introduction), in accordance with the latest 
and best authorities ; and I have added two notes in the 
Addenda (on p. xxxiii, and p. 156 respectively), which I hope 
may help readers to understand the difficulties of early Egyptian 
and Babylonian chronology, and explain to them the reasons for 
the differences between the dates that have been proposed for 
the early periods of Egyptian and Babylonian history. I have 
also made some other additions to the Addenda. Apart from 
the standing correction in the date of Hammurabi, the other 
principal changes in the body of the work will be found on 
pp. xxix, xxx, 11. 5 9, xxxiii, xlviii last line, and xlix, 11. 1 3 
and n. 2 (correction of the error in the supposed early occur- 
rence of the name Ab$-ramu), 34 n. 2, 52 n. 5, 90, 128 (note 
on x. 22), 137 with n. 3 (the site of fi-sagil), 156, 229 (the 
date of Ramses II), 347 (the date of Ramses II, and of 
the Hyksos). Except in two or three strongly conservative 



XIV PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION 

quarters, in which the need of adjusting some of the current 
views regarding the Old Testament to the enlarged knowledge 
of modern times has not yet made itself felt, the Commentary, 
in the five and a half years that have elapsed since it first 
appeared, has been most favourably received ; and the appre- 
ciation elicited by it has been to me a gratifying indication that 
the line taken in it is a sound one, and that my endeavour to 
present the Book of Genesis as it ought to be read in modern 
light has not been altogether in vain. 

S. R. D. 

June 24, 1909. 

PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION. 

The unexpected death of Dr Driver in 1914 has prevented 
any further revision of this Commentary, as he has left no 
materials available for the purpose. It is however worth 
mentioning that since the ninth edition appeared Dr Driver 
published a revised edition of his Introduction to the Lite- 
rature of the Old Testament (9th Ed. 1913) and in the 
Addenda to that volume (pp. xxvi xxxiii) will be found a few 
notes bearing on Genesis, and particularly his last and fullest 
discussion of the controversy about the value of the Names of 
God as a clue to the sources of the Pentateuch. He there 
refers with approval to articles in the Expositor by Dr Skinner, 
since republished in book form ('The Divine Names' in Genesis, 
Hodder and Stoughton, 1914) : and also to the Appendix in 
the Rev. D. C. Simpson's Pentateuchal Criticism (Hodder and 
Stoughton, 1914), which was written at Dr Driver's suggestion 
and had the benefit of his revision. 

The ninth edition, of which this is a reprint, consequently 

represents the final form of this Commentary. The progress of 

Old Testament Criticism and of Oriental archaeological studies 

will doubtless modify particular statements in it, but the wide 

range of Dr Driver's knowledge, the accuracy of his scholarship 

and the sanity of his judgment cannot fail to secure a permanent 

value for all his work. 

WALTER LOCK 

Novembsr, 1915. 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Addenda XVII 

Principal abbreviations employed L 

Note on the Chronology LIII 

Chronological Table LIV 

Introduction 

f 1. Structure of the Book of Genesis, and Characteristics of 

its component parts i 

2. The Chronology of Genesis xxv 

3. The Historical Value of the Book of Genesis : 

a. The prehistoric period (chaps. L xl) . xxxi 

b. The patriarchal period (chaps, xn. l.) . . xliii 
4. The Religious Value of the Book of Genesis . . lxi 

Text and Commentary . l 40 1 

Additional Notes 

The Cosmogony of Genesis 19 

The Sabbath 34 

On the narrative EL 4 b in. 24 51 

The site of Paradise ......... 57 

The Cherubim 60 

On chap. rv. ... 71 

On Enoch 78 

On the figures in chap. v. 79 

On the Names in chaps, iv. and v., and their possible Babylonian 

origin SO 

The Historical Character of the Deluge 99 

Noah's judgement on his three sons Ill 

Nimrod and Babylon . . .122 

The Tower of Babel 136 



XVI CONTENTS 

PAGB 

Ur and the Hebrews 142 

On Melchizedek 167 

The Vale of Siddim and the Dead Sea. The probable site of 

the Cities of the Kikkar 168 

The Historical Character of the narrative contained in Gen. xiv. 171 

The Angel of Jehovah 184 

Circumcision 189 

The destruction of the Cities of the Kikkar .... 202 

Lot 205 

The Sacrifice of Isaac ......... 221 

The Cave of Machpelah .,....,. 228 

The 'Hittites' in Hebron 228 

The Ishmaelite Tribes . 243 

Stone-worship 267 

Gilead and Laban 290 

Jacob's struggle at Peuuel 296 

On the sites of Mizpah, Mafranaim, Penuel, and Succoth . 300 

The narrative of Jacob's dealings at Shechem (chap, xxxiv.) . 306 

Famines in Egypt The date of Joseph 347 

Land-tenure in Egypt 374 

The Character of Joseph , . 400 

Excursus I. The Names of God in Genesis . . , .402 

Excursus II. On Gen. xlix. 10 ('Until Shiloh come 1 ) . 410 

Index , .416 



ADDENDA. 

P. xxviii. The attempt which is sometimes made to harmonize the Biblical 
narrative with an earlier date for the first appearance of man than B.C. 4157, 
by denying that the genealogy in Gen. v. supplies any basis for a chronology, 
does patent violence to the terms used. Had indeed the language of Gen. v. 
been simply that A begat B, and B begat C, &c, it might have been conceiv- 
able, as in Mt. i., that links were omitted : but when the age of each patriarch 
at the birth of his first-born is expressly stated, such a supposition is mani- 
festly out of the question. 

P. xxix n. The date c. 1300 1234 for Ramses II is supported by the fact 
that, if Thothmes III is rightly assigned to B.C. 1501 1447, the known regnal 
years of the intervening kings require an interval of at least 26 + 8 + 36 + 25 + 
34 + 2 + 21 = 152 years between them (Breasted, Hist, of Egypt, 1906, p. 599). 

P. xxxiii. Egyptian chronology rests upon four principal bases: (1) the list 
of 31 dynasties, with the numbers, and, in most cases, the names of the kings in 
each, and the years which they reigned, drawn up by Manetho, a priest 
of Sebennytus, c. 280 B.C. The Egyptian history of Manetho has perished: 
but his list is quoted by Africanus, Eusebius, and (in part) by Josephus. 
(2) Native lists, all either partial, or, unhappily, mutilated, the principal of 
which are the Turin papyrus, the Tablets of Abydos, Sakkara, and Karnak, 
and the Palermo Stone, first published in 1906 1 . (3) The highest years of 
kings mentioned in the inscriptions. These notices are naturally not of a 
character to yield a complete chronology: but they yield minimum dates 
for the reigns of many kings, and often supply us with the means of checking 
or correcting other statements. (4) Astronomical occurrences assigned in the 
inscriptions to the reigns of particular kings, the dates of which can be 
determined by astronomical calculation. The Egyptian calendar year con- 
sisted of 365 days; and began on 1 Thoth (properly, our July 19), the day on 
which the dog- star, Sirius or Sothis, rose with the sun in the morning. But 
the year thus annually marked by the rising of Sothis with the sun is virtually 

1 See a synopsis of Manetho's list, as quoted by different ancient writers, and of 
the first three of the native lists mentioned, in Sayce's Egypt of the Hebrews 
( 3 1902), pp. 287 ff. The Palermo Stone dates from the 5th dynasty, and is of 
importance as shewing how carefully, even at this early date, the annals of every 
king had been kept, probably from the time of Menes. For an account, and trans- 
lation, of the inscription, see Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906), 
i. 51 ff. 



XVIII ADDENDA 

identical with the astronomical year of (approximately) 365| days : hence iu 
the Egyptian calendar year a quarter of a day was dropped every year ; every 
four years, therefore, the calendar reached the end of the year, and began 
the next year, one day too soon, so that the new year began a day before the 
one on which Sirius rose with the sun; and as this process continued, the 
calendar new year, and with it the calendar months of the Egyptian year, all 
began earlier and earlier, till after 1460 years they had shifted back an entire 
year, and all began a year too soon. The rising of Sothis with the sun co- 
incided with 1 Thoth, the calendar New Year's Day, in b.c. 4241/04238/7, 
2781/02778/7, 1321/01318/7: if, therefore, we found a statement that the 
* heliacal ' rising of Sothis took place in a given year (say) 30 days later than 
1 Thoth, we should know, in virtue of what has been said, that that year was 
30 x 4 = 120 years after one of these dates b.o. 

From the 18th dynasty onwards there is little difference in the dates 
arrived at by different modern Egyptologists, two fixed points, consistent 
with each other, being capable of determination by astronomical calculation 1 . 
(1) A papyrus states that in the 9th year of Amen-hdtep I, the 2nd king of this 
dynasty, Sothis rose with the sun on the 9th of Epiphi, i.e. 308 days after 
1 Thoth: 4x308 = 1232; the 9th year of Amen-hdtep I was thus 1232 years 
after 2781/0 2778/7, or (taking the earliest of these alternatives) was 1549 
B.C., and his first year was 1557 B.C. (2) In a document dating from the reign 
of Thothmes III, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sirius is said to have 
taken place on the 28th of Epiphi, i.e. 19 days later than in 1550/49 1547/6. 
As 4 x 19 = 76, the year referred to will have been 76 years later than 1550/49 
1547/6, or 1474/31471/0. One of the years 1474/31471/0 fell consequently 
during the reign of Thothmes III, which by means of notices respecting the 
appearance of the new moon is fixed more closely to B.C. 1501 1447. This 
date for Thothmes III will make the 18th dynasty begin c. 1587 b.c 

Manetho's reporters give confused and discrepant accounts of the state- 
ments respecting the five dynasties preceding the 18th: but according to 
Josephus he stated that for 511 years before the 18th dynasty, Egypt was 
ruled by the foreign invaders called the Hyksos: these (Petrie 2 ) were partly 
contemporary with native Egyptian dynasties, and they were preceded by the 
453 years of the 13th dynasty: thus Petrie makes the 12th dynasty end 
B.C. 2565, and (adding the 213 years assigned to it by the Turin papyrus) 
begin b.c 2778. But a document (one of the Kahun papyri) discovered in 
1899 contains a statement that in the 7th year of Usertesen 3 III of this 
dynasty, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sothis fell on the 15th of Phar- 
muthi, or 225 days after 1 Thoth: 4x225 = 900; the 7th year of Usertesen 
was consequently 900 years after B.C. 2781/0 2778/7, or B.C. 1881; his first 
year was thus 1887 B.C.; and the dynasty ruled (adding, before and after 
Usertesen, the regnal years known) b.c. 2000 1788. It follows from this 

1 Comp., with what follows on this subject, Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 
i. 25 48 (with a table of dynasties, and dates of reigns), 221 3. 

3 History of Egypt, i (1903), p. 204 f. 

8 Or, as the name is now read (Meyer, p. 245), Senwosret (the prototype of 
1 Sesostris '). 



ADDENDA XIX 

lower date for the 12th dynasty, that, if it be correct, Manetho's 511 years 
for the Hyksos must be far too great; accordingly those who accept it allow 
for the whole of the 13tb to the 17th dynasties only about 200 years (b.c. 1788 
1580), and for the Hyksos only a 16801580. 

Such is the explanation of the great divergence between Petrie on the one 
hand, and Meyer and Breasted on the other, as regards the date of the 
12th dynasty. The cogency of the astronomical argument is admitted by 
Petrie: the correctness of the Sinus datum in the 12th dynasty is, he points 
out, confirmed by two independent testimonies from monuments in Sinai 
{Researches in Sinai, 1906, pp. 168170): but Meyer and Breasted's reduction 
of the length of the 13th to the 17th dynasties, he argues, does great violence 
to the combined testimony of Manetho and the Turin papyrus, Manetho 
assigning to this whole period 1590 years, and the Turin papyrus so far sup- 
porting him that it gives the names of 100 or more kings belonging to the 
13th and 14th dynasties {ibid. 171 6). Petrie accordingly now (p. 175) has 
recourse to the other possible alternative of reckoning Usertesen's 7th year 
as 900 years, not from the Sothic period which began 2781 B.C., but from the 
previous Sothic period which began (see above) 4241 b.c. He thus gives now 
{I.e.) as the date of the 12th dynasty B.C. 3459 3246, and as the date of 
Menes b.c 5510. Against such a high date Meyer and Breasted argue that 
Manetho's figures are not trustworthy. The sixty kings of the 13th dynasty 
had only short reigns, the early Hyksos were partly contemporary even 
with the 13th dynasty, and the sparsity of monuments belonging to the 13th 
17th dynasties is unfavourable to the supposition that the period was such 
along one (see Meyer, Aeg. Chron. 60 65, Nachtrdge, 31 39, Gesch. d. Alt? 
I. ii. 276 286, 293). The future must shew which of these three divergent 
chronologies will ultimately be found to accord best with the available data. 

For the purposes of the present note, it is not necessary to pursue the 
subject of Egyptian Chronology further : those who desire fuller information 
may be referred to Petrie, Hist, of Egypt, i. 6 (1903), 1457, 2005 (on the 
Hyksos period), 248 254 (the date of Merenptah, p. 251, modified in iii. p. 2), 
ii. 25 34 (for p. 32, comp. Meyer, Nachtrdge, p. 43 f.; and on the other side, 
Petrie, Sinai, pp. 177 181), iii. pp. vi viii; Budge, Hist, of Eg. (1902), i. 
Ill 161; Ed. Meyer's masterly treatise Aegyptische Chronologie in the 
Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1904, with the Nachtrdge, ibid., 1907 ; 
Breasted's invaluable Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents from 
the earliest times to the Per dan conquest, collected, edited, and translated 
with Commentary (5 vols.; Chicago, 1906), i. 25 48, 221 3; Petrie, Re- 
searches in Sinai (1906), pp. 163 181 ; Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums 2 , I. ii. 
(1909), pp. 2838, cf. 5356, 95102, 276286, 293 ; more briefly, Breasted, 
Hist, of Egypt (1906), pp. 13 f., 2123, with Table of Dynasties, pp. 597 ff. 

Pp. xlii n. 2, 24 w. 2 (second paragraph). I rejoice to see substantially 
the same criticisms made independently by the Rev. G. S. Streatfeild on pp. 
15 17 of his pamphlet cited below (p. lxviii). 

P. xlix. On the supposed occurrence of the name Yahiceh in Babylonian, 
see the recent discussions of Rogers in his Relig. of Bab. and Ass., especially 
in its relations to Israel (New York, 1908), pp. 89 ff., and of Langdon in the 



XX ADDENDA 

Expositor, Aug. 1910, p. 137 f., both of whom agree that it does so occur. 
Assyriologists are not, however, agreed that it is read rightly in all the 
passages that have been alleged : see further below, p. XL 1 1. 

P. xlix n. 2. It is interesting to find, in the list of places in Palestine 
taken by Shishak (c. B.C. 930), one (No. 712), which is considered now by 
Egyptologists to correspond to a Semitic D"QN bpn, ' Field of Abram ' (hdlcal 
being an Aramaic word, the one found in '^4M-dama' = ND*7 t>pn, and also 
occurring eight times besides in the same list) : see Breasted, in Amer.Journ. 
o/Sem. Lang. xxi. (1904), p. 36, Hist, of Eg., p. 530 ; and cf. Spiegelberg, 
Aegypt. Randglossen zum AT., 1904, p. 14, and Meyer, Die Israeliten und 
ihre Nachbarstamme, 1906, p. 266. If the critical view of the dates of the 
Pentateuchal sources is correct, this will be the earliest occurrence of the 
name Abram : the site of 'Abram's Field,' it may be reasonably presumed, was 
at or near Hebron (cf. below, on xiii. 18). 

Pp. xlix liii. See further, on the true bearings of archaeology on the 
O.T., the excellent and lucid article of Stanley A. Cook in the Expositor, 
June, 1906, esp. pp. 529 ff., 534 ff., where it is shewn, among other things, that 
the idea, still current in some quarters, that archaeology has overthrown many 
of the conclusions of literary and historical criticism, is based simply upon 
a misconception of the facts. Similarly, Prof. A. S. Peake, in an instructive 
and discriminating lecture on 'The Present Movement of Biblical Science' 
(published in Inaugural Lectures by Members of the Faculty of Theology of 
Manchester University, 1905, edited by A. S. Peake), p. 31, after referring 
to the many services rendered to Biblical science by archaeology, says, ' But 
while archaeology has done all this, it remains true that, so far as Old 
Testament scholarship is concerned, it has not confirmed a single position 
doubted by sober criticism.' To the same effect, also, with many pertinent 
illustrations, Prof. W. H. Bennett, in an article on 'Archaeology and Criticism' 
in the Contemporary Review for April, 1906, pp. 518 ff. 

P. Hi. Whether the Egyptian name quoted really contains the name 
'Joseph,' experts appear to be more and more doubtful (Spiegelberg, Rand- 
glossen, p. 13 n. ; cf. Meyer, op. cit. p. 292) : W. M. Miiller now adopts as its 
Semitic equivalent Yashub-el (see Journ. of Bibl. Lit. 1909, p. 31 ; and cf. 
EncB. ii. 2582, n. 1 end). 

P. lvi, footnote. Readers of the Dean of Canterbury's The Bible and 
Modern Investigation, should be aware that Dillmann's views are seriously 
misrepresented in it. The Dean, namely, seeks to shew there (pp. 30 47) that 
Dillmann, the man of ' strong sense and historical capacity ' (p. 33), arrived at 
far more conservative conclusions with regard to the historical character of 
the Pentateuch than Prof. G. A. Smith and myself had done. But the Dean 
has misread Dillmann. So far as Genesis is concerned, Dillmann does not 
' accept the historical truth ' of the patriarchal narratives (p. 42), in the sense 
in which any ordinary reader would understand the expression. It is true, he 
argues against the opinion that these narratives rest upon no foundation in 
fact; but the historical substratum which he finds in them is almost entirely 
tribal, the actual personal element which he recognizes in them is very small : 
not only Lot and Ishmael, but also Isaac and his descendants are the personi- 



ADDENDA XXI 

fixations of tribes 1 : in Abraham there is an indeterminate personal element, 
but most of the details about him are due either to popular 'Sage,' or to the 
narrators. Thus the details, even of such a chapter as Gen. xxiii. (P), are 
the 'free composition of the narrator' (Genesis, p. 296); J in particular con- 
tains numerous examples of the free expansion or development of a traditional 
nucleus; and the many conversations in his narratives ('e.g. Gen. xviii. xix., 
xxiv., xliii. xliv., and elsewhere ') can be only regarded as peculiarly his own 
work 2 . Dillmann's Theologie des AT.s, published posthumously, represents 
probably to some extent an earlier stage of his conclusions on the subject; but 
even here (p. 77) his view is that the traditions about the patriarchs, which 
were 'first written down in the post- Mosaic and prophetic age,' have been 
'greatly transformed and idealized under the influence of the Mosaic and pro- 
phetic religion, that in particular tribal history has been largely recast into 
family history, and that it is now for us very difficult, and in fact impossible, 
to distinguish the actual facts from the ideal truth which has been put into 
them.' None of the conclusions thus reached by Dillmann can be said with 
any truth to be more conservative than mine (pp. xliv xlvii, lv lix) ; and 
the opinion that any of the principal patriarchs represent tribes I have 
expressly rejected (p. lvii). See further a paper in the Expository Times, 
March, 1906, pp. 282 ff., where I have shewn further, by citation of Dillmann's 
actual words, that his views with regard to the sources of J, E, and 
Deuteronomy, the dates of J and E, and the historical character of the 
representations of P, &c, so far from being, as alleged, more conservative 
than mine, are, to all intents and purposes, the same. 

P. 3, on i. 1. With a language as largely unknown in England as Hebrew 
is, it is possible for an amateur or theorist to perform extraordinary feats. 
Thus Mr Fenton, in a work called The Bible in Modern English, translates 
the first verse of Genesis in this way, ' By Periods God created that which 
produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the earth.' To say 
nothing about the rest of this rendering, what, we may ask, would be thought 
of a Latin scholar who, having before him the words In principio, gravely 
informed his readers that principi um was a plural word, and meant 'periods'? 
Yet this would be an exact parallel to what Mr Fenton has done. Other parts 
of the Old Testament are translated in the same fashion : thus Dt. xxxiii. 20 
1 Let the horseman (! ), Gad, be blest ! ' and Daniel becomes (Daniel iv. 9) ' Chief 
of the Engineers ' (! ). 

P. 24 n. 2 (cf. p. xlii n. 2). It is extraordinary how anyone can seriously 
regard Mr Capron's book as containing a real solution of the problems raised 
by a comparison of the Bible with science. In confirmation of the position 

1 Commentary on Genesis, in the last ed. of 1892, p. 218 f. (cf. pp. 316, 403). 
In the English translation, vol. ii. p. 3 bottom, the sentence beginning with 'As' 
should read : ' As in the case of Lot, Ishmael, Esau, and their sons, it is sufficient 
to regard them [i.e. Isaac, and Jacob, p. 3 bottom] as ideal personal names, taken 
from particular groups within the limits of the nation, or from the whole at 
different stages of its development.' 

2 Comm. on Num., Deut. t Jos. (in Dillmann's final discussion of the composition 
of the Hexateuch), p. 629. 



XXII ADDENDA 

taken in the two notes referred to, the Dean of Christ Church (Dr T. B. 
Strong) permits me to print the following, as it appears to me, eminently 
sound criticism: 'It seems to me that there are serious and fundamental 
objections not only to details in Mr Capron's book, but to the whole method 
of it. In the first place, it is plain upon the surface that Mr Capron has put 
upon the author of Genesis, whoever he was, a purpose which cannot have 
been before him. He is trying to extract from the book a scientific interpre- 
tation of the world in a modern sense. Now the scientific interpretation of 
the world in a modern sense is a comparatively late product, and may be said 
to have developed out of a condition in which the religious and scientific 
aspects of the world were fused. The writer of Genesis ascribes the origin and 
conduct of the world to God, and so far as that explains why the world came 
into existence it may be said to have the germ of the scientific explanation 
in it. But the scientific explanation strictly so called belongs to a later stage 
of the history of the human mind than the author of Genesis. 

'Secondly, Mr Capron hopes to find Genesis anticipating the form of philo- 
sophy in which he himself appears to believe, namely the philosophy of Herbert 
Spencer. Here he seems to me to be unconsciously doing the author of 
Genesis a serious wrong. The philosophy of Herbert Spencer is not in- 
fallible, and is already sharply criticized. Precisely therefore in proportion 
as Mr Capron has success in finding this philosophy in Genesis he involves 
Genesis in all the risks of refutation and modification which beset the 
Spencerian philosophy. If Genesis is shewn to speak in terms of Herbert 
Spencer, and Herbert Spencer should then prove unsatisfactory, he involves 
Genesis in his own collapse; and this is particularly unreasonable, as there is 
no clear evidence that the author wished to set forth Spencerianism. 

* Once more, the position can be maintained only by violent exegesis. No 
one could seriously maintain that the words e.g. of the Creation-story natur- 
ally have the meaning which Mr Capron puts upon them. In other words he 
starts with the interpretation he wants to extract from them, and forces them 
into harmony with it. This is a method which has been pursued before in 
the history of interpretation, but which is now completely discredited. It is 
in fact a modern form of the Alexandrine method of allegorical interpretation, 
such as we find in Philo Judaeus. In Philo's day a prevalent philosophy, which 
he himself thought satisfactory, was a kind of syncretism, combining elements 
of Stoicism and Platonism. This philosophy Philo felt bound to extract 
somehow from the Pentateuch. He was applying to the Old Testament the 
method which the Greeks were applying to Homer. But though his appli- 
cation of his principle is highly ingenious, no one in the world supposes that 
it was successful. The whole of it disappears when it is recognized, as it must 
be, that the author did not mean that or anything like it. Mr Capron appears 
to be doing a similar thing in the interest of the philosophy of Spencer with 
a similar lack of success.' 

P. 24 n. 3. Canon Bonney has reaffirmed recently, in greater detail, the 
opinion here expressed by him respecting the irreconcilability of Gen. i. with 
science, in an article in the Church Family Newspaper, Oct. 9, 1908, p. 862. 
Prof. Hull, in the article which Canon Bonney here criticizes, only reconciles 



ADDENDA XXIII 

them by disregarding all the points in which they differ ! Prof. Hull confines 
himself" virtually to pointing out (what is, of course, perfectly true) that 
Genesis affirms, and nature exhibits, the realization of a divine plan in the 
development and structure of the physical universe ; but that is something 
very different from proving that the order of events, as described in Genesis, 
and as taught by science, is the same. 

P. 26. Dr McCosh, in his Religions Aspect of Evolution, pp. 93 ff., who 
has been recently brought forward as an 'authority' for the harmony ol 
Genesis i. with geology, simply, as he himself expressly avows (p. 93), follows 
Guyot, Dana, and Dawson, especially Guyot, whose attempted reconciliations 
have been sufficiently dealt with on pp. 22 25 of the present volume. The 
correspondence exhibited by his table, pp. 96 98, is as illusory as that 
exhibited by Sir J. W. Dawson's Tables (below, p. 23 note), and contains the 
misstatements which in one form or another are inseparable from all such 
'harmonies.' Thus science does not teach that 'there must have been light 
nourishing plants before the sun was condensed' (see, on the contrary, the 
quotation from Prof. Pritchard, below, p. 25 note), or that the moon was 
'thrown off' from the earth after the appearance of vegetation upon it (on 
the contrary, when the moon was thrown off, the earth, or at least the outer 
envelope of it, must have been molten, ' twenty-seven miles in depth going to 
its [the moon's] formation': see Prof. Sollas, The Age of the Earth, p. 8); and 
Gen. i. 16, 17 speaks not of the sun, moon, and stars as ' becoming visible' on 
the Fourth Day, but, as plainly as language can do, of their being ' made ' and 
'set' in the heavens on that day (below, p. 25). And Romanes' remark, quoted 
on p. 99 from a review {Nature, Aug. 11, 1881, p. 334), that the order in which 
the flora and fauna are represented as appearing in Genesis agrees with the 
evidence of science, must have been made in forgetfulness of the facts ; for it 
is contradicted by what is taught in every geological manual (Dana, Dawson, 
Geikie, &c. : see below, p. 22, &c, and the quotation from Prof. Bonney, 
p. 24, note 3). Professors Dana and Dawson, it should be remembered, are 
the only men of scientific eminence who have even attempted, during recent 
years, to harmonize Gen. i. with the teachings of science ; and it is disin- 
genuous to quote them as authorities for their agreement without at the same 
time acquainting the reader, who certainly would not otherwise suspect what 
they were, with the methods by which, respectively, the supposed 'reconcilia- 
tion' was accomplished by them. The 'accuracy' which, in a passage that has 
been recently quoted, Sir J. W. Dawson extols in Genesis, is in reality non- 
existent; it is obtained, partly by ignoring or obscuring the facts which 
conflict with it, and partly by forcing upon the words of Genesis senses which 
they do not bear. Thus, in addition to what has been pointed out below 
(pp. 23, 25), Sir John Dawson understands the ' deep ' of v. 2 not, as probably 
every other reader has always understood it, of an abyss of water, but 
non-naturally of a 'vaporous or aeriform mass' enveloping the earth, which 
ultimately became the atmosphere ; and v. 3 is interpreted by him not of the 
first beginning of light, but of the intensification of previously existing light 
by the concentration of the luminous matter which emitted it, to form the 



XXIV ADDENDA 

sun {Origin of the World, &c. pp. 105, 113, 120 f.). Surely, if Gen. i. were 
really accurate, it would bear its accuracy upon its face : it would not have to 
be wrung from it by means of exegetical tours deforce, such as are unheard of 
in the interpretation of any other literature (cf. below, p. 24 (4), with nn?> 3 , 
and p. 25). Enlightened Roman Catholic scholars admit the truth candidly : 
see Pere Lagrange, Revue Bibl. 1896, p. 381 ff. (on Gen. i.), esp. p. 388 f. ; 
Minocchi, La Genesi, 1908, p. 22 ff. 

Nor, it may be worth adding, is it correct to say, at least without material 
qualifications, that Gen. i. agrees with science in placing the creation of light 
before the formation of the sun. For according to Gen. i. light was created 
(v. 3) after water already existed upon the earth (v. 2) : according to science, 
however, light was already given out by the luminous gaseous nebula, if not, 
also, by many other nebulae as well, which ultimately, after untold ages had 
passed, was condensed into the bodies forming the solar system. If, therefore, 
it is stated that Genesis agrees with science in placing the creation of light 
before the formation of the sun, truthfulness demands that it should be stated 
at the same time that it also disagrees with science in placing its creation 
after the formation of the earth, with water upon it ; whereas in fact, according 
to science, light existed unnumbered ages before the primitive nebula could 
have condensed to form either the earth or water. 

It will be understood that, as is pointed out at greater length below 
(pp. 26 ff.), this and other disagreements with science, though their existence 
ought not to be denied, in no way detract from the religious value of the 
cosmogony of Genesis, or obscure the clearness with which it gives expression 
to such general truths as those of an ordered sequence in the process of 
creation, and of stages moving upwards towards man. 

A word may perhaps be permitted on the subject of ' Evolution.' Evolu- 
tion may be true or false, or partially true and partially false : but in either 
case it is not taught in the first chapter of Genesis : the language used in this 
chapter does not suggest, whether directly or indirectly, either a transition 
from vegetable to animal life, or a transition from one species, whether 
vegetable or animal, to another. For a statement of what appears to him to 
be the right attitude for the theologian to adopt towards this principle of 
science, the writer may be permitted, perhaps, to refer to the first of his 
Sermons on the OT. (1892), on 'Evolution compatible with Faith.' 

P. 34 n. 2. Out of 356 tablets belonging to the period of the first Bab. 
dynasty, examined by Mr Johns, 5 are dated on the 7th day of the month, 
5 on the 14th, 8 each on the 21st and the 28th, and only 2 on the 19th. As 
the average, after deducting 39 for the first day of the month, would be about 
11, there seems thus to have been at this period in Babylonia a marked 
abstention from secular work on these five days, especially on the 19th. In 
the 8th and 7th centuries, on the contrary, out of 356 dated documents, 40 
are dated on the first of the month, 12 on the 7th, 11 on the 14th, 16 on the 
21st, 11 on the 28th, and only 2 on the 19th: in this period, the only day 
marked by such abstention was the 19th (Johns, Exp. Times, Sept. 1906, 
p. 567; cf. Dec. p. 141). In the neo-Babylonian period contracts appear to 



ADDENDA XXV 

have been signed as frequently on the 19th day of the month as on the other 
days (Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the OT. 1905, pp. 176 8, with statistics 
respecting 2764 tablets dating from B.C. 604 449). Out of 2554 tablets 
examined by R. D. Wilson {Princeton Theol. Rev. Apr. 1903, p. 246), and for 
which therefore the average would be 85, 54 are dated on the 7th of the 
month, 88 on the 14th, 180 on the 21st, 67 on the 28th, and only 8 on the 
19th: but it is not stated to what period or periods these tablets belong. 

P. 34 n. 3. In a recently discovered lexical tablet, the word shapattu, 
'sabbath/ is used in explanation of the Sumerian Ud-huia-kam (the '15th 
day, 5 i.e. the day of the full moon): see Zimmern, ZDMG. 1904, pp. 199 ff. See 
a translation of the tablet in Pinches, OT. in the light of the hist, records 
and legends of Ass. and Bab. 3 (1908), p. 527 : it explains different expressions 
in which the word Ud ('day ') occurs. 

Both Zimmern (p. 201) and Pinches (p. 27 f.) are of opinion that though 
one of the characters is mutilated, shapattu occurs also in the fifth of the 
Creation-tablets. Line 14, viz., as given below (p. 29), is followed by five lines, 
of which the last four are addressed to the moon ; and the fourth of these is 
read by Zimmern and Pinches as here rendered (the rest in Uuguad's trans- 
lation, in Gressmann's Texte u. Bilder zum AT. 1909, i. 20): 

' He exalted him monthly, without fail, in a tiara : 
"At the beginning of the month shalt thou rise over the land, 
With horns shalt thou shine, to determine six days : 
On the seventh day, [shew thou] a half-tiara, 
On the [sa]bbath thou shalt be equal [in both] halves."' 

'Sabbath' will here denote the 14th (or 15th) day of the month. 

P. 51 ff. See further, on Gen. iii., the very full discussion in Tennant, The 
Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, 1903 (including the 
history of these doctrines in later Jewish and Christian hands). 

P. 52 n. 4. But see R. C. Thompson, as cited in the Exp. Times, Nov. 
1903, p. 50 f., who contends that no sacred garden is here referred to at all. 

P. 72. With the views respecting Cain here referred to, comp. Foakes- 
Jackson, The Biblical History of the Hebrews (1903), pp. 7, 363 f. 

P. 106. The fact that the Babylonian narrative of the Flood exhibits 
agreements with both J and P has been used lately as an argument for 
impugning the critical conclusion that the Biblical narrative is composite. It 
is difficult to take this argument seriously. The critical view is (p. 107) that 
the story, with of course such Babylonian features as were included in it, 
was current in Palestine, that it was committed to writing in two slightly 
different forms, and that excerpts from the two texts thus produced were 
combined to form the existing Biblical narrative. If the Biblical narrative 
arose in this way, the marvel surely would be if both its component parts, 
derived, as ex hyp. they both are, from a story containing Babylonian features, 
did not exhibit resemblances with the Babylonian narrative. 

P. 107 f. Siiss's discussion of the Babylonian story of the Flood is 
accessible now to English readers in the English translation of his Face of 
the Earth (1904), i. 2040 (esp. pp. 30 ff.), 57, 6365, 69, 71 f. See, however, 

D. b 



XXVI ADDENDA 

also the criticism of Sollas, The Age of the Earth, p. S16, who points out that 
in view of the now known elevation of the point at which the Zab enters the 
Assyrian plain above the sea, some 600 ft., no recorded combination even of 
a cyclone with an earthquake could have driven a storm-wave even remotely 
as far ; it would not have driven it up the Tigris even as far as Bagdad 
(154 ft. above the sea). If, therefore, this is the true explanation of the 
Babylonian Flood-story, there must, in so far as IJasisadra's ship is repre- 
sented as grounding on Nisir, be considerable exaggeration of the facts. 

P. 125. Interesting additions to our knowledge of the Hittites have been 
made lately by the excavations of Prof. Winckler in 1906 7 at Boghaz-keui, 
the old capital of the Hittites, in the modern province of Angora, the ancient 
Cappadocia. Here, in what seem to have been the archives of the ancient 
Hittite kings, an extensive collection of cuneiform inscriptions, expressed in 
partly the language of Babylonia, partly the native language of the country, 
has been discovered, giving much information about the history and political 
condition of the Hittites and neighbouring peoples, and also testifying to the 
brisk political correspondence earned on at this distant period between the 
Hittite kings and other nations, including even Egypt, in Babylonian. It is 
striking evidence of the wide-reaching influence of Babylonia in the ancient 
world, to find Cappadocia and Egypt corresponding in its language and 
script Among other notable discoveries made at Boghaz-keui were portions 
of the Babylonian version of the famous treaty, concluded by Ramses II 
with the Hittites in his 21st year, c. 1280 1270 B.C., of which previously only 
the Egyptian text had been known. See the Mitteilungen der Deutschen 
Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 35 (Berlin, Dec. 1907). 

P. 131, note on x. 29, 1. 8. This identification, which was originally Lassen's, 
is suggested by the fact that 'algum,' and the Heb. words for ivory, apes, and 
peacocks, are apparently Indian : see Max Miiller, Lectures on the Science of 
Language, first series, ed. 1864, pp. 208 S. (who accepts it). It is objected 
(Keane, The Gold of Ophir, 46 f.) that Abhira is not the name of a people, but 
means simply a region where the Abhirs, a widespread caste of * cowherds,' 
were settled. Still Ptolemy mentions a district Aberia in precisely the same 
locality: and Josephus {Ant. viii. 6. 4) identified 2<e(pa [lxx. for 'Ophir' has 
in 1 K. ix. 28 Scarpa] with Chryse (i.e. Malacca), 'which belongs to India.' 

P. 131 n. 4, on x. 29, Ophir. It should have been stated that Prof. Keane, 
though he identifies Ophir with Dhofar on the S. coast of Arabia, considers 
that the 'gold of Ophir' was found in Mashonaland, and only brought to 
'Ophir' as an emporium. Dr Oarl Peters discusses the question of Ophir 
at great length in his Eldorado of the Ancients (1902), pp. 289 369. Peters, 
however, distinguishes between the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 and the Ophir of 
Solomon, whence the gold came : for the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 he follows 
(p. 293) the view adopted by Glaser (below, p. 131 n. 4), upon grounds developed 
with much learning, but not cogent, that it was on the Arabian coast of the 
Persian Gulf; the Ophir of Solomon he finds (p. 341 f.) in Mashonaland between 
the Zambesi and tne Sabi. There certainly were anciently very extensive 
gold-workings in Mashonaland, as Bent {The Rained Cities of Mashonaland, 



ADDENDA XXVII 

1892), and especially Hall and Neal (The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia, 1902), 
have abundantly shewn. It is contended by Peters that the ruins of tiie 
great Zimbabwe ( = ' House of Stone ') and other places in Rhodesia are of a 
character shewing that they were constructed by Phoenicians and Sabaeans 
(pp. 353 ff., 364; cf. Keane, The Gold of Ophir, pp. 160 ff. [but see below, 
p. XLII]). Keane places even the Havilah of Gen. ii. 11 in Rhodesia, the 
Pishon being, seemingly, the Zambesi (p. 192); and supposes Tarshish to have 
been the seaport Sofala (20 S.). The grounds on which these positions 
rest require to be carefully tested: but as it is not affirmed by either 
of these writers that the Ophir of Genesis was in Mashonaland, a con- 
sideration of their arguments lies beyond the scope of the present com- 
mentary. The hypothesis of two Ophirs should clearly be only a last resort. 
In view of the connexion in which Ophir stands in Gen. x., 'the burden of 
proof,' as Mr Twisleton said long ago (Ophir, in Smith, DB. ii. 1863, p. 640), 
'lies on anyone who denies Ophir to have been in Arabia': at the same time 
difficulties undoubtedly arise, partly from the apparently Indian origin of the 
Heb. words referred to above, partly from the fact that Arabia does not seem 
to have been a country capable of producing gold in such quantities as 
Solomon (even allowing for some hyperbole) appears to have obtained from 
it (1 K. ix. 28; cf. x. 14 ff.). Hence the view that Ophir, though in Arabia, 
was an emporium for gold brought to it from elsewhere ; though even so, as 
Palestine was a comparatively poor country, it is difficult to think what com- 
modities Solomon would have had to offer in exchange for the gold obtained 
by him, and the inference has accordingly been drawn that the Israelites 
must have mined the gold themselves (Keane, p. 57 f.). This inference, it 
correct, would seem to imply that it was procured from some country other 
than Arabia. See further EncB. s.v. ; Budge, Hist, of Egypt, ii. 132 4 ; 
Glaser, Zwei Publikationen [those of Keane and Peters] ilber Ophir (1902). 

P. 138. It is conjectured by Prof. Sayce {Exp. T. Feb. 1907, p. 232 f.) 
that ( Eber is from ibira, a 'commercial traveller' (from eberu, to cross over), 
and denoted originally the trader who 'crossed' the Euphrates from its W. 
to its E. bank. The conjecture rests upon a slender basis: for ibira is 
apparently an extremely rare word, occurring only on two lexical tablets as 
a Sumerian gloss on the Ass. damkaru, 'merchant.' Deut. xxvi. 5 lends no 
support to the conjecture: for 'wandering' (RVm.) does not, as Prof. Sayce 
seems strangely to suppose, mean 'travelling' like an itinerant commercial 
agent, but ' wandering ' like one who has lost his way, and is on the point 
of perishing (see 1 S. ix. 3, Ps. cxix. 116, Jer. 1. 6, where the same word, 
lit. perishing, is used of a ' lost ' animal). 

P. 156 n. 4. Babylonian chronology for all the earlier period of the 
history is founded upon the tablet published first by Mr Pinches in 1884, 
containing a list (A), unfortunately mutilated in parts, of the kings from the 
First dynasty to the 7th cent. B.C.: by the side of each king's name is given 
the number of years of his reign, and at the end of each dynasty the sum of 
the years of reign of all the kings of that dynasty. The kings of the First 
dynasty are all missing from this tablet ; but they could happily be supplied 

62 



XXVIII ADDENDA 

from another (B), which had been published by Mr Pinches, four rears pre- 
viously, in 1880, and which contained a list of the kings of the First and 
Second dynasties 1 . These lists may be read most conveniently in Records 
of the Past, second series, vol. i. pp. 13 19; in KB. ii. 286 9; and, cor- 
rected and supplemented from other sources, in Gressmann, Altorientalische 
Texte und Bilder zum AT. (1909), i. 103 5; or Meyer's Gesch. d. Alter- 
tums 2 , i. ii. (1909), on the chart opposite p. 334. The data contained even 
in list A do not enable us to determine directly the dates B.C. of the earlier 
Babylonian dynasties : but help is afforded in doing this by statements made 
by several of the later Bab. and Ass. kings of the intervals which had elapsed 
between certain of the earlier kings and themselves. Unfortunately, however, 
these statements are not all consistent with each other, and do not con- 
sequently lead to the same results. (See a synopsis of the statements, and 
a discussion of the problems to which they give rise, in Rogers' Hist, of Bab. 
and Ass. 1900, i. 312 348.) There is however a general agreement among 
Assyriologists that the Third, or Kasshite dynasty (see on Gen. x. 8), which 
is said in the list to have remained in power for 576 years, began about 
B.C. 1760 (Rogers, 1782). The First dynasty is said in the list to have 
lasted 304 years, and the Second 368 years; upon the assumption, therefore, 
which seemed to follow naturally from the manner in which the list was 
arranged, that these dynasties were consecutive, the First dynasty was 
generally supposed to have begun c. 2440 b.c. (Rogers, 2454). In 1907, how- 
ever, Mr L. W. King 2 published, from the tablets stored in the British 
Museum, a chronicle shewing that the Second dynasty did not follow the 
First, but was partly contemporary with both the First and the Third, 
Ilima-ilu, the first king of the Second dynasty, being a contemporary of 
Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshuh, the 7th and 8th kings of the First dynasty, 
and Ea-gamil, the last king of the Second dynasty, being contemporary with 
Bitiliash, or, as the name is now read, Kashtiliash, to all appearance the 
3rd king of the Third dynasty. The discovery of this chronicle of course 
modified the dates which had commonly been assumed previously for the 
First dynasty, and with it the date of its 6 th king, Hammurabi. 

Here is a list of the kings of the first three Babylonian dynasties, with 
the dates assigned to them by Ungnad 3 , the scholar who, with Thureau- 
Dangin 4 , has been the latest to discuss them. The principal chronological 
statements made by various later kings are appended in footnotes : it will be 
seen that they do not all lead to consistent results : 



1 The names, and lengths of reign, of the kings of the First dynasty are also 
now known independently from chronicles that have been discovered since. 

2 Chronicles of Early Bab. Kings, 1907, ii. 1 ft. See pp. 2224. 

8 Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1908, p. 13 f. (cf. 1907, p. 638) ; and in 
Gressmann's Texte u. Bilder (1909), quoted above, i. 103 f. Thureau-Dangin differs 
from Ungnad only in giving for the Third dynasty b.c. 1761 1186 (so also Meyer) 
instead of b.c 17571182. 

4 Journal des Savants, 1908, pp. 190 fi. (with Table, p. li>9) ; and in Z.filr Ass. 
1908, pp. 176 fi. (with Table, p. 186). 



ADDENDA 



XXIX 



First Dynasty. 

1. Sumtt-abu (14 1 ), b.c. 22322219*. 

2. Sumu-la-el (36), 22182183. 

3. Zabum (14), 21822169. 

4. Abil-Sin (18), 21682151. 

5. Sin-muballit (20), 21502131. 

6. Hammurabi (43), 2130 2088 3 . 

7. Samsu-iluna (38), 20872050. 

8. Abi-eshu' (28), 20492022. 

9. Ammi-ditana (37), 20211985. 

10. Ammi-zaduga (21), 19841964. 

11. Samsu-ditana (31), 19631933. 

11 Kings. [300] years. 

Third Dynasty 
(The Kasshites). 

1. Gandash (16 4 ), b.o. 17571742. 

2. Agum I (22), 17411720. 

3. Kashtiliasb (22), 17191698. 

4. Ushshi (8), 16971690. 



Second Dynasty 

(of tbe Country of the Sea, i.e. Lower 

Babylonia). 

1. Ilima-ilu (60 5 ), B.C. 2085 2026 6 . 

2. Itti-ili-nibi (55), 20251971. 

3. Damki-ilishu (36), 19701935. 

4. Ishkibal (15), 19341920. 

5. Shushshi (27), 19191893. 

6. Gulkishar (55), 1892 1838 7 . 

7. Peshgal-daramash (50), 1837 

1788. 

8. Adara-kalama (28), 17871760. 

9. Ekur-ulanna (26), 17591734. 

10. Melamma-kurkura (7) , 17331727. 

11. Ea-gamil (9), 1726 1718 8 . 

11 Kings. 368 years. 



1 The regnal years of the kings of this dynasty (as far as Ammi-ditana) are 
supplied not from List B (the figures in which are inexact), but from a recently 
discovered Chronicle of the First dynasty, based upon two contemporary documents 
dating from the reign of Ammi-zaduga (see King, Letters and Inscriptions of 
Hammurabi, iii. (1900), pp. 213 ff., where the Chronicle is printed at length). 

2 Contemporary, according to Chronicle K (King, Chronicles, i. 14; Gressroann, 
i. 107), with 'Ilu-shumma, king of Assyria.' Now, Irishum, 'priest of Asshur,' and 
1 son of Ilu-shumma,' according to Shalmaneser I (c. 1300 b.c), restored a temple 
159 years before Shamshi-Adad, who did so again 580 years before Shalmaneser 
himself: according to Esarhaddon (b.c. 680 668), Irishum restored the temple 
126 years before Shamshi-Adad, who did so again 404 years before Shalmaneser I 
(King, i. 121 f.). If, then, this Ilu-shumma who is also elsewhere called i patesi 
(priest-king) of Asshur' (Mitteil. d. Orient-Gesellschaft, Nos. 20, p. 28, 26, p. 54) 
is the same as 'Ilu-shumma, king of Assyria,' the contemporary of Sumu-abu, the 
date of Sumu-abu will be, according to Shalmaneser I, c. 2100 b.c, and according 
to Esarhaddon, c. 1900 b.c 

3 Lived, according to Nabu-na'id (b.c 559 539), 700 years before Burnaburiash 
(13991365 b.c : see below, No. 19), i.e. c. 2100 b.c See Rogers, i. 317. 

4 The regnal years in this dynasty, as given in List A. The names and regnal 
years enclosed in square brackets are not preserved on the tablet, but are supplied 
from other sources (cf. Meyer, op. cit, chart opposite to p. 334). See, for some 
differences in the dates and arrangement of Nos. 19 28, Langdon, Exp. Times, 
July, 1909, p. 456 f. 

6 The regnal years in this dynasty, as given in List A. 

8 Waged war with Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshu'. See the words of the Chronicle 
shewing this in King, ii. 20 f. , or Gressmann, i. 107. 

7 Beigned, according to a boundary-stone dated the 4th year of Bel-nadin-apli 
(c. 1125 b.c), 696 years before Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1100 b.c), i.e. c. 1850 b.c 
See Rogers, i. 316. 

8 An older contemporary of Kashtiliash, the Kasshite. The words of the 
Chronicle are (King, ii. 22 f. ; Texte u. Bilder, i. 107), ' Ea-gamil, king of the 
Country of the Sea, [marched] against Elam. After him (i.e. after his death, 
Thureau-Dangin), the Kasshite, Ulam-Buriash, brother of Kashtiliasb, assembled 
his army, and conquered the Country of the Sea.' 



XXX ADDENDA 

5. Abi-rattash (-), 1689 [1670]. 

6. Tazzigurmash (-), [16691650]. 

7. Agum II (-) [16491620]. 

8-15. [The names of 8 kings missing : 
c. 16191430.] 

16. [Karaindash, 14291415 ?] 

17. [Kadashman-harbe, 1414 1405 V] 

18. [Kurigalzu I, 14041400.] 

19. [Burnaburiash, 1399 1365 3 .] 

20. [Karahardash, 1364.] 
21 3 . [Nazibugash, 1363.] 

22. [Kurigalzu II] (32 ?) , 13621331. 

23. [Nazimaruttash] (26), 13301305. 

24. [Kadashman-Turgu] (17), 1304 

1288. 

25. Kadash[man-harbe] (6?), 1287 

1282. 

26. Kutur-Ellil(8?), 1281 1274. 

27. Shagarakti-shuriash (13), 1273 

1261*. 

28. Kashtiliash (8), 12601253. 

29. Ellil-nadin-shumi (6 mo.), 1252. 

30. Kadashman-harbe (6 mo.), 1251 

1250. 

31. Ramman-shum-iddina (6), 1249 

1244. 

32. Ramman-shum-usur (30), 1243 

1214. 

33. Meli-shipak (15), 12131199. 

34. Marduk-ablu-iddina (13), 1198 

1186. 

35. Zamama-shum-iddina (1), 1185*. 

36. Bel-nadin[-ahi] (3), 11841182. 
36 Kings. 576 years, 9 mo. 

The Second dynasty, it is supposed, reigned in Babylon itself during 
the 176 years that intervened between the First and Third dynasties. 

Poebel (Z. fur Ass. 1908, pp. 162 ff.: see the Table, p. 175) agrees with 

1 In the Tel el-Amarna letters corresponds with Amenh6tep III (b.c. 1414 1383). 
Called Kallimasin by Petrie, and Winckler (KB. v. 1 13) ; Knudzton (Die el- 
Amarna-Tafeln, 1907, pp. 60 ff.) reads the name as it is given here. 

2 In the Tel el-Amarna letters corresponds with Amenhotep IV (b.c. 1383 1365, 
Petrie). 

3 Contract-tablets dated in the reigns of Nos. 21 28 exist (Meyer, I.e.). 

4 Said by Nabu-na'id to have lived 800 years before himself, i.e. c. b.c. 1350 
(Rogers, i. 318). This date is not consistent with the one given in the next note : 
TJngnad is guided by that date, Poebel by this (so also Radau and Langdon). 

* Waged war with Ashur-dan, king of Assyria. Ashur-dan reigned 60 years 
before Tiglath-Pileser I (Rogers, i. 326), who, Sennacherib says (Rogers, i. 320), 
reigned 418 years before himself fa. a, 705 681), i.e. c. 1110 B.C., so that Ashur- 
dan's date would be c. 1170 B.C. 



ADDENDA XXXI 

Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad in the place which he assigns to the Second 
dynasty, relatively to the First and Third dynasties, i.e. he supposes the 
First and Third dynasties to be separated by the same interval ; but, as he 
takes Nabu-na'id's 800 years for the interval between Shagarakti-shuriash and 
himself as exact, he places that king, and with him the whole Kasshite 
dynasty, 80 years earlier than Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad do, making it 
begin 1841 B.C., and assigning correspondingly higher dates to the First 
dynasty (b.c. 23002000), and to Hammurabi (b.c. 21982155). 

King (i. 101 113) and Meyer (Gesch. d. Altertums 2 , I. ii. (1909), pp. 339, 
340 1 ; cf. the Table, p. 585), urging the facts that the kings of the Second 
dynasty are called not kings of Babylon, but kings of the * Country of the Sea' 
(i.e. Lower Babylonia), and also that no inscriptions of the Second dynasty 
have been found in or near Babylon, eliminate the Second dynasty altogether 
from the succession of Babylonian dynasties, and make the Third dynasty 
follow immediately after the First. The date for the First dynasty, according 
to these scholars, is thus B.C. 2060 1761, and for Hammurabi, B.C. 1958 1916. 
This date, it is pointed out, agrees with that which would follow for Sumu-abu 
(c. 2100) from the statements of Shalmaneser I (p. XXIX n.). As Ilima-ilu, the 
first king of the Second dynasty, synchronizes with Samsu-iluna, the Second 
dynasty will now begin c. 1910 B.C., and end (King) 368 years afterwards, 
i.e. c. 1542 b.c. : Kashtiliash, the contemporary of Ea-gamil, is thus, according 
to King, not as it seems natural to suppose the third Kasshite king of 
that name, but an at present otherwise unknown king, who lived after the 
7th Kasshite king, Agum II. Meyer, on the contrary, arguing that 368 years 
is an improbably long period for a dynasty of 11 kings, reduces it to 200 
years: beginning c. 1910 B.C., it thus ends c. 1710 B.C.; and Kashtiliash, the 
contemporary of Ea-gamil, is the third Kasshite king of that name. In 
making the Third dynasty continuous with the First, King thus abandons 
the synchronism of Ea-gamil with Kashtiliash: Meyer retains this syn 
chronism, but reduces all the reigns of the kings of the Second dynasty. 
We must await future discoveries ; but meanwhile the view of Thureau-Dangin 
and Ungnad seems to do better justice to the data we at present possess. 
FMeyer now (1913), upon fresh astronomical data, agrees with it.] 

P. 156 n. 5. It is considered now that Kudur-mabuk had two sons ; and 
that Arioch is to be identified not with Rim-sin, but with his brother Arad-sin, 
'Arioch' corresponding to Eri-agu, the Sumerian equivalent of Arad-sin. 
I quote from a letter received from Dr Stephen Langdon, Reader of Assyrio- 
logy in the University of Oxford: 'The fact that Kudur-mabuk had two 
sons, Eri- d agu, and Rim- d agu l or Rim- ilu Sin, was discovered by Bezold 
some years ago, and established by Thureau-Dangin in his Die Sumerischen 
u. Akkadischen Inschriften (1907), p. 210, note*. Arad- ilu Sln is Semitic for 
the Sumerian Eri- d agu. Arad- ilu Sin in Semitic means "Servant of Sin" 
(the Moon-God): and in Sumerian Eri- d agu means "Man of the Crown" 

1 d agu stands for d ^ n oi r agu, the Sumerian for ' God of the Crown' (agu meaning 
* crown,' and being the Sumerian name of the Moon-God, and dingir being the 
determinative of 'God') : it is thus the Sumerian equivalent of the Semitio **Sin, 
the 'Moon-God. 1 ' Elm-Sin' means the 'Wild-ox (DS1) of the Moon-God.' 



XXXII ADDENDA 

(i.e. of the Moon-God); the two names are thus equivalent in meaning to each 
other; and Eri- d agu is just the Sumerian name of Arad- ilu Sin, the elder son 
of Kudur-mabuk. The Elamite mabuk seems to replace lagomar in the 
equation Kudur-mabuk = Kudur- lagomar. It appears to me that Kudur- 
mabuk of the Larsa inscriptions (mostly Sumerian) is identical with the Biblical 
Kudur-lagomar (" Chedorla'omer").' 

The inscriptions which were formerly all regarded as relating to Rlm-sin 
are now referred partly to Arad-sin, and partly to Rim-sin. See Thureau- 
Dangin, op. cit. pp. 211 221 (where six inscriptions of Arad-sin are translated, 
and six of Rim-sin 1 ); and, for the history, Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums\ 
I. ii. (1909), pp. 550556. 

Here are two of the inscriptions, as translated by Thureau-Dangin : 

(Brick A, from Mukayyar=Ur.) 'To Nannar, his king, Kudur-mabuk, 
adda of the land of Martu, son of Simti-shilhak, when Nannar had received 
his prayer, built the...?... of Nannar, for his own life, and for the life of 
Arad-sin, his son, king of Larsa.' 

(Brick B, also from Mufcayyar.) Arad-sin, the mighty man, whom as a 
righteous shepherd (king) En-lil (Bel) has appointed, who cares for Ur, king of 
Larsa, king of Shumer and Akkad son of Kudur-mabuk, the adda of 
Yamutbal, am I. That I might enlarge Ur, and have an exalted name, have 
I humbly prayed ; Nannar, my king, has heard me : a great wall, which, like 
a lofty mountain, cannot be undermined, which shines like the glow of terror, 
have I built him. May his city be firmly established ! This wall, " Nannar 
makes sure the soil of the land " is its name.' 

In a third inscription Arad-sin speaks of himself as one who fulfils the decisions 
of Eridu, restores Lagash and Girsu 2 , and renovates the city and the land; and 
says that when the God of the new moon had let him behold his favourable 
sign, and commanded him to rebuild and restore his temple, he had built the 
temple in which the god delighted, for his own life, aad for the life of Kudur- 
mabuk, his father and begetter. 

It seems that Kudur-mabuk appointed first his son Arad-sin king in Larsa, 
and after Arad-sin's death his other son Rim-sin 3 . Both speak of the various 
temples which they had built. Arad-sin states that he has enlarged Ur, and 
surrounded it with a strong wall, and restored Lagash, and boasts that he has 
been appointed a 'righteous shepherd' of the god Ellil of Nippur, and that he 
executes the decisions of Eridu (i.e. of the god Ea, whose temple was in 
Eridu : below, p. 52). Rim-sin seems to have extended the kingdom of 
Arad-sin. He not only calls himself 'shepherd of the whole land of Nippur,' 
and boasts of his care for Eridu, Ur, Larsa, and Lagash, but also says that 
Anu, Ellil, Ea, and all the great gods have given Uruk (Erech) into his 

1 These translations supersede the more tentative and incomplete translations 
of seven of these inscriptions given in 1892 by Winckler in KB. hi. 1, pp. 93 99. 

2 The rifxeuos of the Temple of Lagash (Meyer, p. 553). 

8 'Arad-sin in all his inscriptions mentions his father Kudur-mabuk as still 
alive. Rim-sin names him twice only : in his other inscriptions, in which he does 
not mention him, his own name has the divine determinative ; probably, therefore, 
Arad-sin died before his father; Rim-sin succeeded him, and after his father's death 
assumed divine honours ' (Thureau-Dangin, p. 210 n. fc ). 



ADDENDA XXXIII 

hands, and that he has built a temple there. He also mentions other 
successes. 

It will be interesting if Dr Langdon's identification of Chedorla'omer 
with Kudur-mabuk should be confirmed. It is remarked by Mr Ball {Exp. 
Times, Oct. 1907, p. 41) that the name of the deity Lagamal (no doubt, the 
same as Lagarnar) occurs in a number of proper names on some tablets of the 
First dynasty, recently acquired by St John's College, Oxford. 

P. 157 n. 3. The uncertainty of the reading arises from the 'polyphony* of 
the cuneiform script, i.e. from the remarkable, but well-established fact that 
the same character may denote different sounds 1 . In the three inscriptions 
referred to, the name which has been supposed to correspond to Chedorla'omer 
is written in characters which, read phonetically, would give 

(1) KU-KU-KU-MAL 

(2) KU-KU-KU-MAL 

(3) KU-KU-KU-KU- 

The last character in (3) is obliterated. Mr King, having stated these 
facts, continues, 'The three names are said to be identical, and to be a 
fanciful way of writing Chedorla'omer. Assuming that (3) is to be restored 
from (2), which is by no means certain, we get two forms of the name, one 
beginning with KU written three times, the other with it written four times. 
As the character has also the value dur, and Kudur is a well-known com- 
ponent of Elamite names, the second occurrence in each name is probably to 
be transliterated dur, so that the names can be reduced to Ku-dur-ku-mal, and 
Ku-dur-ku-ku-mal. In order to get the names more like that of Chedor- 
la'omer, it was suggested by Mr Pinches that the character in question had on 
its third occurrence the value lah or lafr, and the names were transliterated 
by him as Ku-dur-lag-mal and Ku-dur-la^-gu-mal, the former being de- 
scribed by him as " defectively written." But there is little justification for 
assigning the new value lah or lag to the character used ; and, though Ku- 
dur-ku-ku-mal is styled a king of Elam, there is no reason for supposing him 
a contemporary of Hammurabi. He might have occupied the throne at any 
period before the 4th century B.C. Although however Chedorla'omer's name 
has not yet been identified in any Babylonian inscription, there is no reason at 
all why it should not be found in one.' Mr King then proceeds to point out 
(cf. below, p. 157 f.) 'that Chedorla'omer is in form a purely Elamite name, 
Kudur-Lagamar, and that a joint expedition, such as that described in 
Gen. xiv., might have taken place, consistently with what we know of the 
politics of the age, in the early part of Hammurabi's reign. Thus it would 
not be surprising if the name Chedorla'omer should be found as that of a 
king of Elam in an inscription of the Old Babylonian period. Up to the 
present time, however, no such discovery has been made. 7 Comp. Johns in 
the Expositor, Oct. 1903, pp. 282 7, who after a discussion of the names of 
all the four kings from the East concludes (p. 286), ' The cuneiform originals 
suggested for the names in Gen. xiv. are therefore only ingenious conjectures. 
They may all be right, but as yet not one is proved.' 

1 See Evett's New Light on the Bible (1892), pp. 119 ff., 4524. 



XXXVI ADDENDA 

Gen. aw., actually took place. And this up to the present time (Mar. 1913) 
archaeology has not done. [See further pp. XLVIII, XLIX.] 

Dr Orr (pp. 411 413, 531 f.) expresses himself very confidently that the 
narrative of Gen. xiv. is not a 'Midrash.' The present writer has not main- 
tained that it is. But in spite of the archaeological facts which Dr Orr has 
amassed in support of his position, a historian as conversant with antiquity as 
Ed. Meyer, writing in 1909, has no hesitation in giving it that character 
(Gesch. d. Alt. 2 , i. ii. 551 f.). It may be inferred that the argument founded 
by Dr Orr upon the facts is not as cogent as he would desire it to be. 

P. 180. It has been argued lately that the patriarchs 'lived under the law 
of Hammurabi 1 / and moreover that the laws implied in the narratives of 
Genesis are those actually current in the patriarchal age, and such as no post- 
Mosaic writer could have imagined or invented. Supposing this conclusion to 
be sound, it would not be inconsistent with the position taken in the present 
volume, in which it is maintained that the patriarchal narratives contain a 
genuine historical nucleus (pp. lvii, lviii, 143). The conclusion is, however, a 
very doubtful one. The resemblances appealed to are not sufficiently distinc- 
tive to prove what is alleged. Most of the parallels that have been adduced 
are too slight to merit any attention (e.g. Hammurabi's code, 108 and Gen. 
xlvii. 16, 117 and xlvii. 19, 185 and xv. 3 : the law, also, of 8, prescribing 
death as the penalty for theft from a temple or palace, is surely not needed to 
explain the words either of Laban in xxxi. 32, or of Joseph's brethren in xliv. 9). 
What at first sight appears to be a stronger case is supplied by 146, which 
prescribes that if a man's wife 2 has given him a concubine, and the concubine 
afterwards bears children, and makes herself equal with her mistress, because 
she has borne children her mistress may not sell her, she may reduce her to 
bondage (lit. put fetters upon her), and count her among her women-slaves: 
she may only be sold ( 147) if she has not borne children. Comp. Gen. xvi. 
2, 6, where Sarah gives Abraham a concubine, Hagar, who, when she finds that 
she has conceived, is arrogant towards her mistress, who then 'deals hardly' 
with her (also xxx. 3, where Rachel gives Laban a concubine). The action of 
Rachel, and even that of Sarah, can, however, be quite naturally explained 
without calling in Hammurabi's law. The custom of having concubine-slaves, 
to say nothing of other countries, was, and still is, common in the Semitic 
East; it is implied for Israel in the law of Ex. xxi. 7 9; and it prevails 
among the Arabs to the present day. A custom so widely diffused as this, 
and attested for Israel itself by Ex. xxi., obviously does not require the code of 
Hammurabi to explain it. Even moreover though it were true that Sarah 
could not sell Hagar, the operation of Hammurabi's law would not be neces- 

1 See, on Hammurabi, p. 156 n. 4, with the references. 

2 'If a man has married a wife,' &c. So Peiser, Harper, and others. Mr Johns, 
ho\vever,in 144 7 renders 'a votary' for ' a wije,' and adheres to that rendering : 
the sign used, he tells me, never has the value of a58atu, 'a wife,' and can only be 
so read upon the assumption of an error on the part of the engraver. In its actual 
wording, therefore, Hammurabi's law will apply not to wives in general, but only 
to married 'votaries' ; though it is possible, as Mr Johns suggests, that its intention 
is to extend to married votaries a provision already in force for other married 
women. 



ADDENDA XXXVII 

sarily presupposed. In Mohammedan countries, a concubine-slave who has 
borne children to her master is entitled to her freedom, if not immediately, 
yet at her master's death: if he lias not already the four wives allowed by 
Mohammedan law, he generally marries her; if he does not do this, though he 
may continue to employ her as a slave, he cannot sell her; at least, if he does 
so, it is accounted a disgrace to him 1 . The feeling against selling a concubine- 
slave who has given her master a child is thus not peculiar to Hammurabi's 
code; and the argument that would prove the patriarchs to have lived under 
Hammurabi's law would prove Mohammedans to live under it likewise. 
Probably indeed both Hammurabi and Mohammed merely codified an already 
existing Semitic custom. There is nothing however in Gen. xvi. which im- 
plies that Sarah could not sell Hagar. Sarah naturally resented her slave- 
girl's behaviour, and took measures of her own to reduce her to submission, 
so that she fled : there is nothing to suggest that she desired to sell her, so 
that we are not entitled to say that she acted as she did, because the law did 
not allow her to sell her: in fact, the words (xvi. 6) 'do to her that which is 
good in thine eyes,' imply that she was at liberty even, if she pleased, to sell 
her. In no case, therefore, is the hypothesis that the patriarchs lived under 
the law of Hammurabi required for an explanation of the facts. 

P. 180 n. 1. On the supposed N. Arabian 'land of Musri,' of which 
Winckler and others have recently made so much, see now also the criticism 
of Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten und Hire Nachbarstamme (1906), pp. 455 ff. 

P. 225. Prof. Sayce {Exp. T. June, 1907, p. 419) says that DT&K MM is a 
literal translation of the Babylonian ishshak ildni, 'viceroy of the deified king,' 
patesi or ishshak being a title borne by the governors of Babylonian provinces 
and subject-cities down to the end of the Hammurabi dynasty. It would 
be interesting, if true, to find that Abraham held an official position under 
irlammurabi, as governor of a province or city : at the time of Sarah's death 
he had, according to the chronology of Genesis (see p. xxvi), lived in or near 
Palestine for 52 years ; and it would be still more interesting if we could dis- 
cover in what part of the country his official residence was. But it must not 
be forgotten that DWN N" 1 ^ is also perfectly good Hebrew for 'prince of 
God': so Prof. Sayce's explanation is in no case necessary. 

With regard to the rest of this article, it must be remembered that the 
various words, or expressions, occurring in Gen. xxiii., stated in it to be similar 
to, or borrowed from, those current in Babylonia, are also one and all perfectly 
good Hebrew ; and hence their occurrence in this chapter is no evidence that 
it was based (ib. p. 421 f.) upon early Babylonian documents. This is shewn 

1 Cf. Burckhardt, Arabia, i. 341, 342 (in Mecca) ; Snouck-Hurgronje, MehJca, ii. 
134 f.; Hughes, Diet, of Islam, pp. 59, 597; Kohler, Rechtsvergleichende Studien, 
p. 15 f. (cited by S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, p. 168). 
See also the quotation from Lane in the note on Gen. xvi 1 (where, like Sarah, 
the wife herself gives the husband his concubine). 

The contract-tablet from the 12th year of Hammurabi, translated by Pinches 
{OT. in the light, dtc. p. 185), though not bearing directly upon Gen. xvi., is of 
interest, as illustrating at least what might happen in Babylonia : a husband and 
wife jointly buy a daughter from her father, to be the wife's slave, and the husband's 
concubine ; if she disowns her mistress, she may be sold. 



XXXVIII ADDENDA 

below (p. 230) with regard to several of the expressions used ; and it could be 
shewn with equal readiness of the others. Thus ktseph mdle\ 'full price 
(lit. full silver^ may correspond to the Bab. kaspu gamirtu, 'full price'; but 
1 Ch. xxi. 22, 24 are evidence that the expression is likewise good Hebrew, 
and also that it could be used in Hebrew as late as the time of the 
Chronicler, c. 300 B.C. The endeavour to shew that the Heb. text of vv. 17, 18 
is a translation of a Babylonian sale of land in the form in which it was drawn 
up in the age of Hammurabi is anything but convincing: no parallel at all 
resembling it is quoted; and Pinches (OT. in the light, &c. p. 238), after 
quoting two examples of contracts for the sale of land belonging to that age, 
which he says are 'types of hundreds of others known to Assyriologists,' 
remarks that they shew 'noteworthy differences' from the transaction re- 
corded in Gen. xxiii. 

P. 239 n. 2. Dr Orr (p. 107 n. 5) says that Wellliausen conjectures 'quite 
arbitrarily ' father for mother in xxiv. 67. But if there are grounds for a 
conjecture, even though they may be insufficient to make it a certainty, the 
conjecture cannot justly be stigmatized as 'arbitrary.' Or does Dr Orr think 

that the syntax of 1EX tVW iTPilKn in v. 67 is so ordinary and normal as to 
arouse no suspicion that 'of Sarah his mother' is a gloss ? And how comes it 
that, whereas throughout the chapter down to v. 56 the servant's 'master' has 
been Abraham, in v. 65 it suddenly becomes Isaac 1 ? The conjecture that a 
notice of Abraham's death once stood after v. 62 would at once explain this 
change in the person denoted by 'master'; and if, as the syntax strongly 
suggests, 'of Sarah his mother' should disappear from v. 67, then his father 
(lOK) would naturally be read for his mother (1DN) in v. 67. 

P. 262. Dr Orr (pp. 105 w., 493 f.) makes very light of the chronological 
difficulty discussed in the note on this page: the objection, he says, 'is an old 
one, and has frequently been replied to.' No doubt it has been : but it is 
necessary sometimes to consider the value of a 'reply.' Dr Orr implies that 
if Isaac, at the blessing of Jacob and Esau (Gen. xxvii.) were, as ' ordinarily 
assumed and as the remaining data combine to shew, 139 years old,' the 
difficulty would disappear. Let us grant, provisionally, this premise, and see 
how it works. Esau, we are told (xxvi. 34 f., P), was 40 years old when he 
married his two Hittite wives, who were a 'grief of mind ' to his father and 
mother : as Isaac was 60 at the birth of Esau and Jacob (xxv. 26 f., P), he 
would, at the time of Esau's marriage, be 100. Is it, now, credible, or in 
accordance with human nature, that a parent, apprehensive (xxvii. 46, cf. xxvi. 
35) lest his son, aged 40, should imitate his brother in making an undesirable 
match, would wait thirty-nine years, till he was 79, before taking steps to 
prevent it (see xxviii. 1, 2, 6, P) ? That is what Dr Orr's explanation credits 
Isaac and Rebekah with having done. 

P. 325. Dr Orr (p. 237 n.) finds nothing but ' misplaced ingenuity' in the 
supposition that two discrepant narratives are woven together in chap, xxxvii. 
Not to repeat what is said in the note about L Midianites ' (not ' the Midian- 
ites') on xxxvii. 28, it is strange that he sees nothing surprising in its being said 
by (ex hyp.) one and the same writer that Joseph was sold to Potiphar by 
'Midianites' in xxxvii. 36, and bought by Potiphar from 'lshmaelites' in 



ADDENDA XXXIX 

xxxix. 1 ! It is also remarkable that in the text of the same page ho seems to 
think it quite possible that the ' narrator of the life of Joseph ' may have found 
the merchants to whom Joseph was sold described ' in one of his sources as 
Ishmaelites and in another as Midianites'! But how does this supposition 
differ in principle from the 'critical' theory which he thinks so baseless? It 
is simply the same theory in other words. 

P. 344, on 'Abrek.' Spiegelberg (Aegypt. Randglossen zum AT., 1904, 
pp. 15 flf.) objects to the explanation of Brugsch and Renouf that 'thy command 
is our desire ' is neither an Egyptian expression, nor suitable in the mouth of 
a herald ; and explains ' Abrek ' as an Egyptian word meaning ' Give heed ! ' 
' Attention !' 

P. 365 n. Dr Orr (p. 366 f.) again tries to persuade his readers that the 
chronological discrepancy pointed out in the note is imaginary, and that there 
is really no difficulty in the chapter whatever. The difficulty caused by the 
inclusion of Hezron and Hamul disappears, he thinks, entirely upon the 
' ordinary solution ' that they are introduced as the ' legal representatives and 
substitutes of Er and Onan, who are said to have died in the land of Canaan.' 
But in the first place this supposition is artificial and arbitrary in the ex- 
treme : Perez represented Er alone, not Er and Onan (notice the terms of 
xxxviii. 8); and secondly, even allowing, for the sake of argument, that Hezron 
and Hamul did represent Er and Onan, nothing is gained : the list, as it stands, 
and Dr Orr will have nothing to do with it in any other form, expressly 
purports to be, not a list of Jacob's descendants as such, but (w. 8, 26) a list 
of Jacob's descendants who came into Egypt : Hezron and Hamul, therefore, 
even though they appear as the representatives of Er and Onan, can only be 
included in it because they came into Egypt. The chronological difficulty 
(explained in the footnote on p. 365) thus remains exactly as before. 

It is impossible to discuss the whole question again ; but the principal in- 
consistencies may be briefly placed again before the reader. (1) The list 
purports to be one of the 'children of Jacob' (v. 8), or of the 'souls belonging 
to Jacob that came out of his loins ' (v. 26), who ' came into Egypt ' : Jacob, 
therefore, ought to be occluded : but in v. 8 his name is included. (2) The 
'sons and daughters' of Leah are said in v. 15 to be 33 : if the actual names 
in w. 8 15 are counted, there will be found to be 34, or, excluding Er and 
Onan, who are said to have died in Canaan, and who consequently cannot have 
come into Egypt, 32. (3) In w. 19 22 Manasseh and Ephraim are included 
among the 14 sons of Rachel, who, with the 33 of v. 15, the 16 of v. 18, and 
the 7 of v. 25, make up the 70, who (Ex. i. 5, as well as v. 27 end here) came 
down with Jacob into Egypt ; in v. 27 a they are plainly preluded. (4) In 
v. 26, after the whole number of Jacob's descendants who came into Egypt 
is said to have been 33 + 16+14 + 7 (i.e. 70), it is suddenly said that they 
were 66; this figure being raised to 70 (v. 27) by the addition of Manasseh 
and Ephraim, and seemingly Joseph (who have all been mentioned before), 
and Jacob (inconsistently with v. 26 a ). There are thus a series of distinct 
and separate inconsistencies in the list. Clearly, therefore, it presents some 
'problem' which claims solution. Can a list containing so many inconsistencies 
be throughout the work of one hand? Must not corrections have been in- 



XXXVIII ADDENDA 

below (p. 230) with regard to several of the expressions used ; and it could be 
shewn with equal readiness of the others. Thus ktseph male', 'full price 
(lit. full silver),' may correspond to the Bab. kaspu gamirtu, 'full price'; but 
1 Ch. xxi. 22, 24 are evidence that the expression is likewise good Hebrew, 
and also that it could be used in Hebrew as late as the time of the 
Chronicler, c. 300 B.C. The endeavour to shew that the Heb. text of vv. 17, 18 
is a translation of a Babylonian sale of land in the form in which it was drawn 
up in the age of Hammurabi is anything but convincing: no parallel at all 
resembling it is quoted; and Pinches (OT. in the light, &c. p. 238), after 
quoting two examples of contracts for the sale of land belonging to that age, 
which he says are 'types of hundreds of others known to Assyriologists,' 
remarks that they shew * noteworthy differences' from the transaction re- 
corded in Gen. xxiii. 

P. 239 n. 2. Dr Orr (p. 107 n. 5) says that Wellliausen conjectures 'quite 
arbitrarily ' father for mother in xxiv. 67. But if there are grounds for a 
conjecture, even though they may be insufficient to make it a certainty, the 
conjecture cannot justly be stigmatized as 'arbitrary.' Or does Dr Orr think 

that the syntax of 1BX tVW n?nxn in v. 67 is so ordinary and normal as to 
arouse no suspicion that 'of Sarah his mother' is a gloss ? And how comes it 
that, whereas throughout the chapter down to v. 56 the servant's 'master' has 
been Abraham, in v. 65 it suddenly becomes Isaac? The conjecture that a 
notice of Abraham's death once stood after v. 62 would at once explain this 
change in the person denoted by 'master'; and if, as the syntax strongly 
suggests, 'of Sarah his mother' should disappear from v. 67, then his father 
(V3N) would naturally be read for his mother (1BN) in v. 67. 

P. 262. Dr Orr (pp. 105 n., 493 f.) makes very light of the chronological 
difficulty discussed in the note on this page: the objection, he says, 'is an old 
one, and has frequently been replied to.' No doubt it has been : but it is 
necessary sometimes to consider the value of a 'reply.' Dr Orr implies that 
if Isaac, at the blessing of Jacob and Esau (Gen. xxvii.) were, as ' ordinarily 
assumed and as the remaining data combine to shew, 139 years old,' the 
difficulty would disappear. Let us grant, provisionally, this premise, and see 
how it works. Esau, we are told (xxvi. 34 f., P), was 40 years old when he 
married his two Hittite wives, who were a 'grief of mind ' to his father and 
mother : as Isaac was 60 at the birth of Esau and Jacob (xxv. 26 f., P), he 
would, at the time of Esau's marriage, be 100. Is it, now, credible, or in 
accordance with human nature, that a parent, apprehensive (xxvii. 46, cf. xxvi. 
35) lest his son, aged 40, should imitate his brother in making an undesirable 
match, would wait thirty-nine years, till he was 79, before taking steps to 
prevent it (see xxviii. 1, 2, 6, P)? That is what Dr Orr's explanation credits 
Isaac and Rebekah with having done. 

P. 325. Dr Orr (p. 237 n.) finds nothing but ' misplaced ingenuity' in the 
supposition that two discrepant narratives are woven together in chap, xxxvii. 
Not to repeat what is said in the note about " Midianites' (not ' the Midian- 
ites') on xxxvii. 28, it is strange that he sees nothing surprising in its being said 
by (ex hyp.) one and the same writer that Joseph was sold to Potiphar by 
'Midianites' in xxxvii. 36, and bought by Potiphar from ' lshniaelites ' in 



ADDENDA XXXIX 

xxxix. 1 ! It is also remarkable that in the text of the same page ho seems to 
think it quite possible that the ' narrator of the life of Joseph ' may have found 
the merchants to whom Joseph was sold described ' in one of his sources as 
Ishmaelites and in another as Midianites'! But how does this supposition 
differ in principle from the ' critical ' theory which he thinks so baseless ? It 
is simply the same theory in other words. 

P. 344, on 'Abrek.' Spiegelberg (Aegypt. Randglossen zum AT., 1904, 
pp. 15 ff.) objects to the explanation of Brugsch and Renouf that 'thy command 
is our desire ' is neither an Egyptian expression, nor suitable in the mouth of 
a herald ; and explains ' Abrek ' as an Egyptian word meaning ' Give heed ! ' 
' Attention!' 

P. 365 n. Dr Orr (p. 366 f.) again tries to persuade his readers that the 
chronological discrepancy pointed out in the note is imaginary, and that there 
is really no difficulty in the chapter whatever. The difficulty caused by the 
inclusion of Hezron and Hamul disappears, he thinks, entirely upon the 
1 ordinary solution ' that they are introduced as the ' legal representatives and 
substitutes of Er and Onan, who are said to have died in the land of Canaan.' 
But in the first place this supposition is artificial and arbitrary in the ex- 
treme : Perez represented Er alone, not Er and Onan (notice the terms of 
xxxviii. 8); and secondly, even allowing, for the sake of argument, that Hezron 
and Hamul did represent Er and Onan, nothing is gained : the list, as it stands, 
and Dr Orr will have nothing to do with it in any other form, expressly 
purports to be, not a list of Jacob's descendants as such, but (w. 8, 26) a list 
of Jacob's descendants who came into Egypt : Hezron and Hamul, therefore, 
even though they appear as the representatives of Er and Onan, can only be 
included in it because they came into Egypt. The chronological difficulty 
(explained in the footnote on p. 365) thus remains exactly as before. 

It is impossible to discuss the whole question again ; but the principal in- 
consistencies may be briefly placed again before the reader. (1) The list 
purports to be one of the 'children of Jacob' (v. 8), or of the 'souls belonging 
to Jacob that came out of his loins' {v. 26), who 'came into Egypt': Jacob, 
therefore, ought to be occluded : but in v. 8 his name is deluded. (2) The 
'sons and daughters' of Leah are said in v. 15 to be 33 : if the actual names 
in w. 8 15 are counted, there will be found to be 34, or, excluding Er and 
Onan, who are said to have died in Canaan, and who consequently cannot have 
come into Egypt, 32. (3) In iw. 19 22 Manasseh and Ephraim are deluded 
among the 14 sons of Rachel, who, with the 33 of v. 15, the 16 of v. 18, and 
the 7 of v. 25, make up the 70, who (Ex. i. 5, as well as v. 27 end here) came 
down with Jacob into Egypt ; in v. 27 a they are plainly excluded. (4) In 
v. 26, after the whole number of Jacob's descendants who came into Egypt 
is said to have been 33 + 16+14 + 7 (i.e. 70), it is suddenly said that they 
were 66; this figure being raised to 70 (v. 27) by the addition of Manasseh 
and Ephraim, and seemingly Joseph (who have all been mentioned before), 
and Jacob (inconsistently with v. 26 a ). There are thus a series of distinct 
and separate inconsistencies in the list. Clearly, therefore, it presents some 
'problem' which claims solution. Can a list containing so many inconsistencies 
be throughout the work of one hand? Must not corrections have been in- 



XL ADDENDA 

troduced into it, which brought with them these inconsistencies? I have 
offered one solution. I do not say that it is the right one ; and shall be only 
too happy to accept a better one, if it should be produced. But Dr Orr 
renders no help. He says that the omissions which I suggest 'create difficulties 
and remove none.' But they do remove some difficulties, as will be seen, if 
the list is read carefully with the omissions suggested. And they do not 
'create' difficulties, though they leave some which are in the list already: for, 
in the list itself, the sum 33 in v. 15 can be harmonized with w. 8 15 only 
at the cost of one of two inconsistencies: either Er and Onan must be 
included (though they were never in Egypt), and Dinah omitted as a later 
insertion (see on v. 15 a ); or (Dr Orr's alternative) Er and Onan must be 
occluded, and Jacob and Dinah included, which implies that the writer of 
the list reckoned Jacob as one of his own sons (see v. 15 b )! With what 
justice am I blamed by Dr Orr for accepting one of these inconsistencies, 
when he himself accepts the other? According to Dr Orr, the table 'is 
evidently one of heads of families, and includes in its enumeration, not only 
Jacob himself and his daughter Dinah, but Er and Onan, who died in Canaan 
(represented by Hezron and Hamul), and Joseph's two sons, who, though ex- 
pressly mentioned as born in Egypt (v. 20), are embraced in " the souls that 
came with Jacob into Egypt."' But this view not only misreads the table, but 
removes no difficulty. The table is not a mere list of heads of families; it is 
a list of heads of families who came into Egypt {w. 8, 26). I have indeed 
suggested myself that, in its original form, it was perhaps a list of Jacob's 
descendants, as such, ' drawn up without reference to the migration into Egypt, 
and afterwards not quite consistently adjusted to its present place'; but Dr 
Orr is not entitled so to understand the list, unless he excludes the clauses in 
vv. 8, 26, which speak of the migration into Egypt, as later additions (which he 
does not do). And the difficulties about Jacob being reckoned as one of his 
own sons, and Hezron and Hamul being (according to the chronology of JE) 
not even born at this time, remain as before, unremoved by his hypothesis. 

P. 383, 1. 16 f. Kur, to dig, is, however, an uncertain root {Lex. 468 b ); and 
it would form not m e kherdh, but m e khordh. M e kherdh must come from 
karar, prob. to turn round; hence Dillm. suggests a curved knife, or sabre. 

P. 392, on xlix. 24 d . In view of the names by which it has been supported 
the interpretation of this difficult clause obtained by vocalizing T\V"\ for nyi 
ought not perhaps to have been left unmentioned. Adopting this vocalization, 
Ewald (/&*. i. 409),Tuch, and Dillmann render the clause, 'From there (where 
is) the Shepherd of the Stone of Israel,' i.e. from heaven, whence the Shepherd- 
God [' Shepherd's God' in Ewald, I. c. n. 2, is a mistranslation] (Gen. xlviii. 15, 
Ps. xxiii. 1, lxxx. 1), revered at the sacred stone of Bethel (ch. xxviii. 21), 
stretches out His hands to support Joseph in the battle. The 'Shepherd of 
the Stone of Israel,' if this reading of the passage is correct, will thus be 
virtually a synonym of the ' God of Bethel ' (xxxi. 13). Gunkel, combining this 
reading with that of the Peshitta, mentioned on p. 392, renders 'By the 
name of the Shepherd of Israel's Stone,' understanding the expression to 
mean the Divine Shepherd, who was regarded (cf. below, pp. 267, 268) as 
dwelling in the sacred stone of Bethel. But Gunkel allows that the correct- 



ADDENDA XLI 

ness of the text is open to suspicion; and the 'shepherd' of a 'stone' 
certainly implies a strange combination of figures. Prof. G. F. Moore {EncB. 
iii. 2977, n. 14) proposes, ' By the arm {or arms) of the Stone of Israel ' 
(ITi-Tp or *tf>|P for r\^ D^D): this would form a good parallel to 'hands' in 
clause c\ but would hardly be possible, unless the ' Stone of Israel' had come 
to be a mere title of Yahweh, the figure of the ' stone ' being forgotten. 

Various arguments and positions adopted in the present volume, in 
addition to those referred to above, are adversely criticised in Dr Orr's 
The Problem of the Old Testament (1906): but I find no occasion to alter 
substantially anything that I have written in consequence. On particular 
points, as I have more than once remarked before, there is scope for difference 
of opinion, on account of the insufficiency or ambiguity of the data-, but Dr 
Orr does not appear to me to have shaken any of the main conclusions reached 
by critics; and in his attempt to explain the facts of the OT. in accordance 
with what is virtually the traditional view, he has not shewn himself more 
successful than his predecessors. There is nothing substantially new in his 
volume : critics are quite familiar with the objections which he has marshalled 
against them ; the present writer, at any rate, and he cannot believe that he 
stands alone in this respect, has examined and considered them again and 
again, and has always found himself brought to the same conclusion regarding 
them : they are not cogent, and they are far outweighed by the numerous and 
insuperable difficulties and inconsistencies attaching to the traditional view. 
Dr Orr does his best to explain away these difficulties and inconsistencies, 
and produces probably upon many readers the impression that he has done 
so : but those who have learnt not to rely upon confidently expressed asser- 
tions, but to examine passages and arguments for themselves, will, it is 
believed, soon discover how imperfect 'his explanations are. It is also to be 
remembered that divergence of opinion among critics does not necessarily 
shew, as Dr Orr seems often tacitly to argue, that there is no problem to 
solve, and that the traditional view may therefore be reinstated : it may 
equally be an indication that the problem is complicated, or the criteria am- 
biguous, and that more solutions of it than one are, with our present know- 
ledge, possible or tenable. Except in the exact sciences, there is no branch 
of investigation in which, from the causes indicated, divergences of opinion 
among experts are not met with. 

With regard to one point, the fault that Dr Orr finds with me (pp. 221, 
238) for suggesting what is contrary to the fact in saying (below, p. xi) that 
the term Jehovah is 'uniformly' employed in Gen. xii. 10 20, whereas in 
fact it occurs there only once, I may say that my intention was to group 
together ch. xviii. xix. (mentioned in the same sentence) and xii. 10 20, and 
to say that in both together (except in the verse, xix. 29, specified as excluded) 
the term was 'uniformly' employed (which is correct). In so far as the words 
'in the similar narrative' before ' xii. 10 20' seem to suggest (what in writing 
the sentence I did not notice) that the two narratives were treated by me 
separately, I have not the least objection to omit them. The correction is 
a verbal one, and the general accuracy of the statement made is not affected 
by it. 

d. e 



ADDENDA IL 

(Nov. 1910.) 

For fuller information on various questions discussed in the present 
volume, the reader may now consult Dr Skinner's Genesis (1910), in the 
* International Critical Commentaries.' 

On p. XXVII, above, 1. 5 6. According to Randall- Maciver, however 
{Mediaeval Rhodesia, 1906, pp. vii viii, 59 ff., 85 f., 92 f., 99, 102), the 
Zimbabwe and other similar buildings in Rhodesia are not the work of 
ancient peoples from the East, but are of native African workmanship, and 
are not earlier than c. 14 1500 a.d. 

P. iii ff. On the composite structure of Genesis, comp. Prof. A. A. Bevan's 
essay on ' The Historical Methods of the OT. ' in Cambridge Biblical Essays 
(1909), pp. 1 19 (including parallels from Arabic authors). 

The composition of Genesis according to Eerdmans. Prof. B. D. 
Eerdmans, Kuenen's successor at Leiden, has propounded lately a theory of 
the composition of Genesis, which, as it is now sometimes referred to, may be 
briefly described here. Critical problems, Eerdmans considers 1 , have in recent 
years attracted so much attention that the exegesis of Genesis has been 
neglected. Hence conclusions have been reached which are inconsistent with 
a sound exegesis. It is the great fault of Wellhausen and his followers that 
they have not recognized the polytheism of Genesis. Already in 1893 Eerdmans 
saw that Elohim in the 'Book of the Covenant' (Ex. xxi. 6, 13, xxvii. 8, 9), 
must mean, not ' God,' but ' the gods ' : afterwards he became more and more 
convinced that a sound exegesis shewed that behind our text of Genesis there 
lay a background of polytheistic traditions, the existence of which had become 
obscured by the monotheistic sense imposed upon them afterwards through 
the influence of Deuteronomy. The analysis of Genesis into J, E, and P 
starts with the assumption that Genesis is, and substantially always was, 
monotheistic : this assumption does not do justice to the original sense of the 
narratives in it, and leads consequently to false results: hence the analysis 
which depends upon it must be rejected. Genesis is composite : but the clue 
to the analysis is to be found not in the criteria usually followed by critics, but 
in exegesis. Eerdmans himself however starts with a literary clue. He 
divides the Joseph-narratives into two recensions, one an Israel-recension, in 
which Joseph's father is called ' Israel,' the other a Jaco&-recension, in which 
he is called 'Jacob' (cf. below, on xxxv. 21, xliii. 6 ; and LOT. p. 19) 2 . 

1 Die Ko7nposition der Genesis (1908), pp. 1 2, and Preface. 
3 P. 70 f. It is unnecessary to give here the passages referred to each recension : 
they will be found in Skinner, p. 439. 



ADDENDA II XLIII 

With each of these narratives is connected a series of passages from the 
earlier parts of Genesis (pp. 87 9). The Jacob-recension, with the narratives 
belonging to it, is the longer, and forms the fundamental narrative of the book, 
the compiler having collected various legends, and combined them into a 
history; the Israel-recension, with the other narratives belonging to it, was 
worked in afterwards. In the course of the combination of these two 
narratives into our Genesis, numerous successive expansions and redactional 
adjustments were introduced. The most characteristic feature of Eerdmans' 
theory is, however, the polytheism, which except in a few late, post- 
Deuteronomic additions, such as ch. i. (in its present form) ; xv. 1 6 ; xvii. 
(4 cent. B.c), xxi., xxxv. 9 1 5, he considers as having dominated originally 
all the narratives of which the book is composed. In some passages, as i. 26, 
xx. 13, the original polytheism is still apparent; other passages consist of 
legends which merely recognize Yahweh as one among other gods, as ch. iv., 
ix. 18 27, xxii., xxvii., xxviii. 11 22, xxix. xxxi., xxxix. ; in other cases 
polytheistic legends have been transferred to the one God, Yahweh, as 
chs. ii. iii., vi. 1 8, xi. 1 9, xvi., xviii. xix., xxiv., xxvi. In all the pre- 
Deuteronomic passages in which Elohim, occurs, it was meant originally in 
a polytheistic sense ('gods'); by the later redactors, it was understood in 
a monotheistic sense ('God'), the text being altered, where necessary, to 
express this sense: thus (p. 75) xiii. 10 'garden of Yahweh' was originally 
'garden of the gods' (LXX deos), and (p. 71) xix. 24 read originally 'And the 
gods caused fire and brimstone to rain down from Yahweh ' : Amos himself in 
iv. 1 1 meant Elohim in the same sense. The theory, it will be apparent, is a 
bouleversement, alike of the current critical, and of the traditional, view of 
Genesis. But it is, in details, to say nothing of the polytheism which it 
postulates in Genesis, much too complicated and arbitrary to be probable ; 
and though Dr Orr 1 welcomes warmly its rejection of the Divine names as a 
guide to the analysis, it may be doubted whether even this position can be 
ultimately maintained apart from the other elements of the theory with 
which it is so intimately connected. For criticisms of the theory, the reader 
may consult Volz, Theol. Lit.-zeit. 1908, col. 667 9 ; Skinner, Genesis, 
pp. xliif., 439; Holzinger, ZATW. 1910, p. 245 ff.; cf. A. R. Gordon, 
Expositor, Sept. 1910, p. 244 f. 

Pp. iv, xi, xii. As we have just seen, Eerdmans rejects the Divine names 
in Genesis as a criterion of authorship ; and the question has also been raised 
recently in other quarters what their value is for analytical purposes. As the 
subject is one on which some misconception is prevalent, and language is 
sometimes used implying that the varying use of the Divine names is the sole, 
or at least 2 the 'chief,' ground on which the analysis of even the entire (!) 
Pentateuch rests, it may be worth while to say here a few words about it 
In considering the question two cases must be distinguished. (1) In the 
separation of P from JE in Genesis, it must be remembered, Elohim is but one 

1 The Life of Faith, Sept. 29, 1909, p. 1097 ; cf. The Faith of a Modem Christian, 
p. 23 (both with several misstatements and exaggerations of fact). 
8 Cf. l)v Orr, in the passages referred to in the last note. 



XLIV ADDENDA II 

out of more than 30 phraseological criteria alone (below, pp. viii xi ; comp., 
for the whole Hex., LOT. p. 131 ff.) to say nothing here of other criteria 
(below, pp. vi vii, xxii xxv), which point to the conclusion that the 
passages in which they occur are by a different writer from the rest of the 
book. And if we take into account the entire Hexateuch, the criterion ceases 
with Ex. vi. 2 (p. xi, n. 1), Yahweh being henceforth employed in the sections 
assigned to P in place of Elohim. Thus, in regard to the separation of P from 
the rest of the narrative of Genesis it is not Elohim alone, but the totality of 
distinctive features, characteristic of a certain group of passages, which leads 
critics to assign them to a separate source, viz. the one now usually called ' P ' 
(comp. p. xi, with n. 1). If P had used Yahweh in Genesis, as he does after 
Ex. vi. 2, the grounds for the separation of P from JE would have been sub- 
stantially not less strong than they are now. But ' Elohim ' alone is not an 
absolute criterion of P : for passages in which it is not accompanied by any of 
the other features just referred to, are not assigned by critics to P (see p. xi f.). 

(2) In the analysis of JE, the case is different. In 'JE' i.e. in the 
narrative which remains in Gen. Nu. after the separation of P the constancy 
with which in certain passages Elohim is used, while Yahweh is used in 
other, often contiguous passages (see below, p. xi) certainly suggests somewhat 
strongly diversity of authorship ; and the suspicion thus arising is confirmed, 
when it is found that there are other indications, which suggest independently 
that the passages of JE in which Elohim is used are by a different writer from 
those in which Yahweh is used. But here also the use of the Divine names is 
not an absolute criterion of authorship: there are passages, especially in the 
books after Genesis, in which Yahweh is used, which have been assigned by 
critics, upon grounds other than the use of the name Elohim, to E : and what 
is said below (p. xii) is, not that Elohim is a uniform criterion of E, but that it 
is 'preferred' by E, though 'not exclusively' (p. xiii). And a ' preference,' if 
sufficiently marked, may be an indication of authorship (cf. LOT. p. 132 n.). 
In view of the smaller number of criteria distinguishing J and E, the varying 
use of the Divine names is of relatively greater importance for the analysis of 
JE than it is for the separation of JE from P ; but there are many cases in 
which it is not the only criterion on which critics rely for the purpose. 

It has, in addition, been maintained recently that the uncertainty of the 
Heb. text of Genesis makes the use of the Divine names an insecure criterion 
for the analysis. In Gen. i. 1 Ex. iii. 12, according to Schlogl {Exp. Times, 
xx. 563), the name Yahweh (alone) occurs 148 times, Elohim (alone) 179 
times, and Yahweh Elohim 20 times (Gen. ii. iii.). It is true, now, that, 
according to Redpath (Amer. Journ. of Theol. 1904, pp. 295 8) and Eerdmans 
(p. 34 f.) the Sept. has in some 50 l of these passages a different Divine name 
(e.g. o 0e6s, or Kvptos 6 6e6s, for Yahweh) : Mr Wiener (Essays on Pentateuchal 
Criticism, 1909, pp. 14 40) has also pointed out that in many other places in 
Gen. one or more MSS of the LXX have a different Divine name from the Heb 
text, and that in 16 passages (pp. 14 f., 36 f.) one or two Heb. MSS (also once 

1 Neither Redpath's nor Eerdmans' list is exact. 



ADDENDA II XLV 

four, and one* fire MSS) agree with the Greek variant 1 ; and according to 
Schlogl {I.e.) ' other texts ' he does not specify either the passages in which 
the variants occur, or the ' texts ' ; but by the latter he presumably means the 
LXX, and MSS of the LXX, perhaps also other versions and MSS of versions 
have, for 118 of the 148 occurrences of Yahweh in Gen. i. Ex. iii. 12, either 
6 6c6s or Kvpios 6 Beus, for 59 of the 179 occurrences of Elohim, 6 Kvpcos 
or Kvpws 6 8e6s, and for 19 of the 20 occurrences of Yahweh Elohim, either 
6 6e6s or 6 Kvpios. Mr Wiener, now, argues that in all these cases the Greek 
variant depends upon a various reading in the Heb. MS used by the translators, 
and that the existence of these variants in Heb. MSS renders the Massoretic 
text so uncertain that no presumption as to authorship can be built upon the 
varying use of the Divine names in it. Schlogl even goes further, and would 
correct in Gen. i. 1 Ex. iii. 12 not only the (118 + 19 = ) 137 passages of 
the Mass. text in which his 'other texts' have God for Yahweh or Yahweh 
Elohim, but even the 31 other occurrences of Yahweh, for which no variant 
is attested, thus eliminating Yahiceh from Gen. i. Ex. iii. 12 a together ! 

Schlogl's violent and arbitrary treatment of the text condemns itself 2 ; and 
more need not be said about it. With regard to Mr Wiener's conclusion, it 
will be evident, after what has been said above, that, even if it were granted, 
it would leave untouched what is after all the most important element in the 
critical analysis, viz. the separation of P from JE. But in fact it is impossible 
to grant it If every variant or even a majority of variants from the 
Massoretic text to be found in the LXX, or in particular MSS of the LXX, 
were to be regarded as casting doubt upon the reading of the Hebrew, the 
number of doubtful passages in the OT. would indeed be extensive. The 
Massoretic text has a claim to be preferred till good cause has been shewn 
against it. For though the Hebrew variants presupposed by the LXX or 
other version are unquestionably often superior to the readings of the 
Massoretic text, in the great majority of cases they are as unquestionably 
inferior. Hence before a variant in the LXX or other version can be regarded 
as casting doubt on the Massoretic text, it must be shewn that it really comes 
into competition with it : in particular, it must be shewn, or at least rendered 
probable, (1) that the variant is not due to a paraphrase or loose rendering on 
the part of the translator, but really depends upon a various reading in the 
Heb. MS used by him; and (2) that this variant reading in the Heb. has 
substantial claims to be preferred to the Massoretic text, as being the 
original reading of the Hebrew. The principal grounds upon which a variant 
reading presupposed by a version has a claim to be preferred to the Massoretic 

1 Sam. agrees with the Greek variant thrice (twice with Heb. support). 

2 It seems however to be approved by Dr Orr. At least, Dr Orr quotes with 
approval {The Life of Faith, Sept. 29, 1909, p. 1097) Schlogl's concluding words, 
' It is consequently quite unscientific to determine the analysis of a source by the 
names of God.' But the word 'consequently' shews that this conclusion is a 
deduction from the conclusion, expressed in the preceding sentence, that (on the 
grounds mentioned above) ' the name Yahweh did not [originally] occur in Gen. i. 1 
Ex. iii. 12': any one, therefore, who does not accept Schlogl's premises is not 
entitled to quote his authority for a conclusion based upon them. 



XLVI ADDENDA II 

text are its yielding a better sense, and its being preferable for philological 
or grammatical reasons 1 . Jt is impossible to think that, with at most two or 
three exceptions, in the instances adduced by Mr Wiener these conditions are 
satisfied, or that there is any reason for supposing that the variants contained 
in them cast doubt upon the readings of the Massoretic text. A variation in 
a Divine name makes, as a rule, no appreciable difference in the sense : there 
may be an isolated instance, here and there, where the LXX or other version 
has a name which may be held to agree better with the context than the one 
in the Massoretic text, and may thus be regarded as the more original reading: 
but in the great majority of cases in which there is a divergence between the 
Massoretic text and a version in the Divine name used, there is no sufficient 
reason for supposing it to point to a different reading in the Hebrew 2 . 

P. xlix. Other occurrences of a name which to all appearance corresponds 
to the Heb. Yahweh have recently come to light in Babylonian. Thus, 
neglecting some 3 , the reading of which, for one reason or another, has been 
questioned by some Assyriologists, we have, from the Hammurabi period, 
Ya-u-um-ilu (already cited on p. xlix), meaning ' Ya-u (Yahweh) is God,' and 
Ya-ma-e-ra-ah\ ' Yama or, as m and w readily interchange in Babylonian, 
Yawa is the moon'; from c. 15 1400 b.o. (in the Kasshite period), upon 
tablets found at Nippur, Ya-u-ba-ni (' Ya-u is creator '), Ya-u-a [ = ' Jehu,' on 
the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, B.C. 842], Ya-ai-u, Ya-a-u, and Ya-a-u-tum 
(with the caritative ending -turn 5 ) ; and from Taanach, in Canaan itself 6 , 
c. 1350 B.C., Ahi-yami, i.e. to all appearance 'Yah is a brother (or, my brother)/ 
corresponding to the Heb. Ahijah (Abiyahu). There is however no evidence 

1 On the precautions which have to be observed in deciding whether a rendering 
found in a version may be regarded as a safe guide for the correction of the 
Massoretic text, see more fully Swete, OT. in Greek, pp. 444, 445 ; or the present 
writer's Notes on the Heb. Text of Samuel (1890), pp. xxxix xl : and cf. his Book of 
Jeremiah (1906), p. xxv. For examples of the emendation of the Massoretic text 
with the help of the ancient versions, see also the two last-mentioned works, passim. 

2 In view of the large number of Heb. MSS known, the Hebrew corroboration of 
the LXX variants, referred to above, is very slight. On the other hand, the 
agreement of the Samaritan text with the Hebrew on this point in all but (according 
to Dr Skinner) eight or nine cases, counts strongly in favour of the general 
correctness of the Hebrew. See further on the subject Skinner, Genesis, p. xxxvf., 
and on Dahse's Textkritische Materialien zur Hexateuchfrage (1912), see Dr Skinner's 
cogent criticisms, now appearing in the Expositor (from April 1913). 

3 Including Ya-'-ve-ilu and Ya-ve-ilu (cited below, p. xlix): see Zimmern, KAT? 
(1903), p. 468 n. ; Sayce, Expos. Times, Oct. 1910, p. 41* ; Langdon, Expositor, 
Aug. 1910, p. 137. See also the Exp. Times, Dec. 1910, p. 139 (on the lexical 
tablet quoted as containing the name). Yawum, adduced formerly by Dr Johns, 
is now doubted by him (see a forthcoming art. in the PSBA. 1911). Prof. Sayce's 
principal recent statements on the subject will be found in the Exp. Times, xviii. 
(19067), 26 f., xix. 424, 425, xxii. (Oct. 1910), 40 f. 

4 Johns, Exp. Times, xv. (1903 4), 560 b : cf. Eanke, Early Bab. Personal Names 
of the Hammurabi Dynasty (in Series D, vol. iii., of the Bab. Exped. of the Univ. of 
Pennsylvania), 1905, p. 113 ; Burne.v, Journ. of Theol. Studies, 1908, p. 343. 

6 So Daiches, Z.f. Ass. xxii. (1908), p. 134 (against Sayce's view that -turn is a 
fern, term.), and Langdon (verbally) : for examples of such names, see Ranke, p. 14 f. 
6 See the writer's Schweich Lectures, p. 83. 



ADDENDA II XLVII 

that the * Ya-u,' mentioned in these texts, belonged to the Babylonian pantheon : 
and Assyriologists are agreed that the Babylonian names, in which 'Ya-u' 
appears, are not those of native Babylonians, but names borne by West- Semitic, 
or ' Amorite/ settlers. The occurrences are at present isolated : but they 
seem sufficient to shew that there was a West-Semitic deity, Ya-u, known as 
early as c. 2100 B.C. Nothing, however, is at present known about the character 
and attributes associated with Ya-u. And even though future discoveries 
should shew clearly that the Heb. name ' Yahweh' was derived from 'Ya-u,' 
it must be remembered (cf. below, p. 409) that the source from which either 
this or any other divine name is ultimately derived matters little or nothing : 
the question of importance is, What does the name come to mean to those 
who use it ? What are the character and attributes of the Being whom it 
actually denotes in the mouths of those who use it? Whatever may have 
been the ultimate historical origin of the name Yahweh, all that concerns the 
reader of the Old Testament is to know the nature and the character and the 
attributes of the Being whom it denotes there. And these he must, and can, 
discover from the OT. itself 1 . 

P. 106. Prof. Hilprecht has discovered recently a fragment of yet another 
Babylonian version of the Deluge story, which, in his translation, runs thus 
[Expos. Times, May 1910, p. 366) : 

1 thee 

2 1 will loosen ; 

3 it shall sweep away all men together: 

4 life before the deluge cometh forth ; 

5. ...as many as there are, I will bring overthrow, destruction, annihilation. 

6 build a great ship, and 

7 total height shall be its structure. 

8 it shall be a houseboat carrying what is saved of life. 

9 with a strong deck cover (it). 

10 which thou shalt make, 

11 the beast of the field, the bird of the heavens, 

12 instead of a number. 

13 and the family 

The tablet has been assigned to c. 2200 B.C. The inferences which have 
been drawn from the fragment are far in excess of what the data warrant. In 
particular, the resemblances with Gen. vi. 20 (P), which have been found in it, 
depend partly upon a very doubtful explanation of kumminu in 1. 12, rendered 
' instead of a number,' and supposed in its second part to correspond to the 
Heb. min (which, however, means not ' number,' but kind), and partly upon a 
passage not in the Babylonian text at all, but inserted conjecturally by Prof. 
Hilprecht himself in the first part of 1. 12, viz. [and the creeping things, two 
of everything}. See the criticisms in the Expos. Times, Aug. 1910, p. 504, 
Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang. July 1910, pp. 303, 307 f., Jburn. of the Arner. 
Oriental Soc. Dec. 1910, p. 30 ff., and by Marti, ZATPF.IMQ,?. 298 ff. 

1 Cf. Rogers, op. cit. p. 97. 



XLVIII ADDENDA II 

P. 172f. In the Churchman for Sept. 1910, pp. 654662, Prof. Sayce has 
an article on ' Abraham in the Cuneiform Inscriptions/ in which, on the basis 
of the inscriptions, he draws a picture of Babylonia and Western Asia in the 
period of Hammurabi, working into it some of the Biblical notices respecting 
Abraham. No doubt from inadvertence, he does not always sufficiently 
distinguish between statements based upon the monuments, and those derived 
from the Bible, so that an unguarded reader might easily carry away the 
impression that a good deal more was mentioned in the inscriptions than is 
actually the case. In spite, therefore, of the title, 'Abraham in the Cuneiform 
Inscriptions,' it may not be superfluous to remind the reader that no mention 
of Abraham has hitherto been found in the inscriptions ; nor does Prof. Sayce's 
article bring any fresh arguments for the historical character of the expedition 
of Chedorlaomer and his allies, mentioned in Gen. xiv. It may also be pointed 
out that the explanation (p. 661) of ' prince of God' in Gen. xxiii. 6 as meaning 
'Viceroy of the deified [Babylonian] king' (cf. above, p. XXXVII), and the 
translation of Ex. xxii. 28 [Heb. 27], 'Thou shalt not revile the elohim (or 
Babylonian king), nor curse his viceroy among thy people/ are both extremely 
problematical. 

On p. 662 ff. Prof. Sayce complains that in my criticism (above, pp. XXXIV 
XXXVI) I have done him an injustice in not quoting Noldeke's other article 
{Z.filr wiss. Theol 1870, p. 213 ff.), which he had referred to in his note. I 
had read this article before writing the criticism in question ; and only did 
not refer to it, because it did not appear to me to express a view materially 
different from that expressed in the article which I did quote. In the extract 
from the second article given by Prof. Sayce, Noldeke appears to me to concede 
and deny exactly what he had conceded and denied, respectively, in his first 
article (cf. the extract above, p. XXXIV V). Here, put briefly, are the 
points : 

(1) The names of Chedorlaomer, Amraphel, and Arioch have been shewn 
by archaeology, with great probability, to be historical. Their historical 
character was not denied by Noldeke 1 . 

(2) The names of the five Canaanite kings were regarded by Noldeke as 
fictitious. The historical character of these kings has not been established by 
archaeology. 

(3) That a king of Elam might rule over the land of the Jordan and make 
a military expedition to it, has been shewn by archaeology to be possible. The 
possibility of this was not denied by Noldeke in either article. 

(4) The historical character of the expedition narrated in Gen. xiv. was 
denied by Noldeke not upon archaeological grounds, but on account of the 
internal improbabilities which he considered it to exhibit. Its historical 
character has not been proved by archaeology. 

1 'One or two/ at the top of p. 664, is not to be taken literally : the German 
expression, ' ein Paar/ is used idiomatically to denote a small number, but not a 
number limited necessarily to two. It would have been better rendered by Dx Orr, 
'a few.' In the passage enumerating the names which Noldeke considered unhis- 
torical (omitted in the translation, but indicated by the asterisks in line 2 of the 
excerpt, p. 663), the names of the four kings from the East are not included. 



ADDENDA II XLIX 

Prof. Sayce appears not to have sufficiently noticed the words * as narrated ' 
in his extract from Noldeke's second article ('The expedition of the kings 
cannot have taken place as narrated' [italics mine]). The entire dispute 
hinges on these words. Noldeke nowhere denied the possibility of an expe- 
dition into Canaan having been made by a king of Elam : what he denied was 
the historical character of this particular expedition, with all the details as 
described in Gen. xiv. His arguments on this point may, or may not, in Prof. 
Sayce's opinion, be sufficient : but (what is the point at issue) they have not 
been refuted by archaeology. 

Prof. Sayce also finds fault with me for implying that he had attributed 
falsely to Noldeke the derivation of the names of Chedorlaomer and his 
allies from the Sanskrit. But if the reader will refer back to p. XXXIV 
(where the entire paragraph is quoted verbatim), I think he will agree with 
me that the words ('eminent Semitic scholars had,' &c.) imply of necessity 
(notice ' had,' in oblique narration) that it was Noldeke's own view which he 
was stating. The footnote mentions Renan's name ; but in terms which do 
not in the least suggest that his opinion was not endorsed by Noldeke. 

See further on Gen. xiv. Dr G. B. Gray's discussion in the Expositor, May 
1898, pp. 342 6; the brief but exact summary given by W. H. Bennett, 
Genesis (in the Century Bible), 1904, p. 185 f. ; S. A. Cook in Cambr. Bibl. 
Essays (1909), p. 79 (where it is remarked that 'the discovery of historical 
personages, and the probability of an invasion of Palestine from the east, do 
not remove the internal difficulties ' of the narrative), and in the Expositor, 
June 1906, p. 538; Barton, 'Abraham and Archaeology' in the Journ. of 
Bibl. Lit. 1909, p. 152 ff.; and the fresh and independent treatment of the 
question by Skinner, Genesis (1910), pp. 271 6. To prevent misconception 
I may add that what I deny is, not the historical character of Abraham, but 
the fact that his historical character has been proved by the monuments ; 
and while I have great difficulty in thinking that the expedition can have 
taken place, with the details as stated in Genesis xiv., I have never denied 
(cf. below, p. 172) that an expedition without such of these details as are 
improbable, though not at present in any way attested by the monuments, 
may have taken place at the time in question. Nor do I deny that Abraham, 
as a historical character, may have come into some conflict with this expe- 
dition : I only maintain that at present our sole authority for supposing this 
is the narrative of Gen. xiv. itself. 

Pp. 215, 224. In Babylonian (the god) Four,' and ' (the god) Seven' were 
names of the moon-god, suggested of course by the four quarters of seven days 
each, of which the lunar month consists : hence Winckler's explanation (Gesch. 
Isr. ii. 39 n., 44) of 'Kiriath-arba' as meaning properly 'City of (the god) Four,' 
if not also of ' Beer-sheba,' as meaning ' Well of (the god) Seven ' (see on this 
Bab. deity, Jastrow, Rel. Bab. u. Ass. 1905, i. 173 f.), is not improbably to be 
preferred to those here adopted. See Burney, Journ. of Theol. Studies, 
Oct. 1910, p. 118 L 



LIST OF PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED. 

AHT. Fritz Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition (1897). 

BR. {or Rob.). Edw. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the 
adjacent regions: a Journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 
(ed. 2, 1856). 

CIS. Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Parisiis 1881 f ). 

DB. (except when preceded by 'Smith'). A Dictionary of the Bible, edited 
by J. Hastings, D.D. (4 vols., 1898 1902 ; a fifth, supplementary volume 
appeared in 1904). 

Del. Franz Delitzsch. Neuer Commentar vber die Genesis, 1887 (Engl, tr., in 
2 vols., Edinb., 1888-9). 

Dillm. {or Di.). Aug. Dillmann, Die Genesis erklart, ed. 3, 1892 (EngL tr., in 
2 vols., Edinb., 1897). Ed. 1 (1875) appeared as the third edition, for 
the most part rewritten, of Knobel's Commentary (see below). 

E. See p. xii. 

EHH. A. H. Sayce, The Early History of the Hebrews (1897). 

EncB. Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., and 
J. Sutherland Black, M.A., LL.D. (4 vols., 18991903). 

p]VV. English Versions (used in cases where A.V. and R.V. agree). 

Exp. Times. Expository Times (a monthly periodical on Biblical and 
Theological subjects, ed. by J. Hastings, D.D.; T. and T. Clark, Edinb.). 

G.-K. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, as edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 
Professor of Theology in tlie University of Halle. Translated from the 
26th German edition by the Rev. G. W. Collins, M.A., and A. E. Cowley, 
M.A. (Oxford, 1898). 

Gunk. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis ubersetzt und erklart (1901). 

HG. G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (ed. 4, 1896;. 

Holz. H. Holzinger, Genesis erklart (1898). 

J. See p. xii. 

KAT? Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Von Eb. Schrader 
(ed. 2, 1883). Translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions 
and the O.T. by Owen C. Whitehouse, 1885, 1888. The references are to 
the pages of the original, which are given on the margin of the English 
translation. 

KAT* Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Neu bearbeitet von 
Dr H. Zimmern und Dr H. Winckler (1903). Not a revised edition of 
KAT.\ but a completely new work. Contains a very large amount of 
fresh material, but does not entirely supersede KA T. 2 

KB. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Baby- 
lonian and Assyrian inscriptions, by various scholars, under the editorship 
of Eb. Schrader). Six volumes have at present [1909] appeared, vols. I in 



LIST OF PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS LI 

(1889 92) containing inscriptions of Babylonian and Assyrian kings, vol. iv. 
(1896) contract-tablets, &c, vol. v. (1896) the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, 
and vol. vi., Part i (1900-1) mythological poems (including the Creation- 
and Deluge-epics). Extremely valuable. 
Knob, (or Kn.). Aug. Knobel, Die Genesis erkldrt (ed. 2, 1860). 

L. & B. The Land and the Book ; or Biblical illustrations drawn from the 
manners and customs, the scenes and scenery of the Holy Land. By 
W. M. Thomson, D.D., forty-five years a missionary in Syria and Palestine. 
Three large volumes, Southern Palestine and Jerusalem (1881), being 
referred to as L. & B. I.; Central Palestine and P/ioenicia (1883) as 
L. & B. il; and Lebanon, Damascus, and Beyond Jordan (1886) as 
L. & B. in. There is also an edition in 1 vol. (718 pp. small 8vo., 1898, 
1901, &c), the title-page of which differs from that of the larger edition 
only in having 'thirty years' instead of 'forty-five years.' This is 
apparently a reprint of the original edition (in 2 vols.) published in 
1859 at New York. Much perhaps most of the matter contained in 
it is incorporated in the 3 vol edition. 

Lex. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament based on the 
Lexicon of William Gesenius. By Francis Brown, D.D., with the 
co-operation of S. R. Driver, D.D., and C. A. Briggs, D.D. (Clarendon 
Press, Oxford, 1906.) 

LOT. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 
1891, ed. 8, 1909. 

Masp. i. G. Maspero, The Dawn of Civilization. Egypt and Chaldaea (1894. 

ed. 4, 1901). 
Masp. ii. G. Maspero, The Struggle of the Nations (1896). 
Masp. in. G. Maspero, The Passing of the Empires 850 b.o. to 330 B.O. (1900). 
These three large and brilliantly-written volumes are at present the 
standard authority on the ancient history of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and 
neighbouring countries. 

Mon. A. H. Sayce, The 'Higher Criticism 1 and the Verdict of the Monu- 
ments (1894). 

NHB. H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible, ed. 2, 1868. 

Onom. Onomastica Sacra, ed. by P. de Lagarde, 1870, ed. 2, 1887. Contains 
Eusebius' Glossary of the names of places mentioned in Scripture, with 
descriptions of their sites (p. 207 ff.), together with Jerome's translation 1 
(p. 82 ff.). The references are to the pages of ed. 1, which are repeated 
on the margin of ed. 2. 

P. See p. iv. 

Par ad. Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? (1881). Important, not 
on account of the theory of the site of Paradise advocated in it (which has 
not been generally accepted by scholars), but on account of the abundant 

1 See the Dictionary of Christian Biography, n. 336. 



LII LIST OF PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS 

information on the geography of Babylonia and adjacent countries collected 
in it from the Inscriptions. 

Pesh. Peshi^ta (the Syriac Version of the O.T.). 

PEFM. Palestine Exploration Fund. Memoirs of the Survey (i. m. 
Western Palestine; rv. Eastern Palestine). 

PEFQS. Palestine Exploration Fund. Quarterly Statements. 

PSBA. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. 

R. Redactor (or compiler). See p. xvi f. 

Rel Sem. W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, 1889, ed. 2, 1894. 

RVm. Margin of the Revised Version. 

S. & P. Sinai and Palestine in connexion with their history. By A. P. 

Stanley, D.D., F.R.S. (ed. 1864). 
Tuch. Fr. Tuch, Gommentar ilber die Genesis, ed. 2, 1871. 
TW. Tent Work in Palestine. By C. R. Conder, R.E. (ed. 1887, in 1 vol.). 
ZATW. Zeitschrift filr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (from 1881). 
ZDP V. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina- Vereins. 

A small ' superior ' figure, attached to the title of a book (as KA T. 2 ), or 
author's name, indicates the edition of the work referred to. 

In citations, the letters * and b (or a and b) denote respectively the first and 
second parts of the verse cited, "Where the verses consist of three or four 
clauses (or lines) the letters * b c d (or a, b, c, d) are employed sometimes to 
denote them similarly. 

A dagger (t), appended to a list of references, indicates that it includes all 
instances of the word or phrase referred to, occurring in the Old Testament. 

It has been found difficult to preserve entire consistency in the translitera- 
tion of foreign names ; but it is hoped that the reader will not be seriously 
misled in consequence. It has seemed sometimes worth while to distinguish 
the Hebrew letters which are commonly confused in English (as h and h, 
t and f) ; but even this has not been done uniformly, and in the case of some 
very familiar proper names, not at all. Where distinctions have been made, 
' = K; *=y, c; gh = ; h = r\, p-; ch (in Arabic words) = ^; dh-h; # = p; 
* or *=; f = B. 



NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY. 

The Chronological Table on the next page is added for the convenience of 
readers. Alternative dates are in some cases given, in order that the reader may 
be aware of the amount of agreement and difference between different authori- 
ties. References to the principal authorities on which the Table is based, 
together with some explanation of the grounds for the differences, will be 
found in the notes in the Addenda-, those for Egyptian chronology in the note 
on p. xxxiii.; and those for Babylonian chronology in the note on p. 156, n. 4 
(add to those here mentioned Hilprecht, The Babylonian Expedition of the 
University of Pennsylvania, I. ii. (1896), pp. 24, 43). For the dates included 
in the Table, authorities earlier than those mentioned are mostly antiquated. 

The First Dynasty of Babylon 1 . 





LIST OF KINGS. 


CHRONICLE. 


B.C. 3 


Sumu-abu 


15 years 


14 years 


22322219 


Sumu-la-el 


35 


j> 


36 


22182183 


Zabum 


14 


> 


14 


21822169 


Abil-Sin 


18 


j> 


18 


21682151 


Sin-muballit 


30 


5 


20 


21502131 


Hammurabi 


55 


?> 


43 


21302088 


Samsu-iluna 


35 


n 


38 


20872050 


Abi-eshu' 


25 


a 


P* 


20492022 


Ammi-ditana 


25 





37 


20211985 


Ammi-zaduga 


21 





10 [unfinished] 


19841964 


Sams u-di tana 


31 







19631933 



304 years 300 years 

Assyria does not come into prominence during the period covered by the 
Table ; the following dates may however be mentioned : 

B.C. 

Ushpia, priest of Asshur, builder of temple in the ' city 

of Asshur' (see on Gen. ii 14) c. 2300 

Ilu-shumma, the first king 3 of Assyria at present 

(1909) known c. 2225 

Shalmaneser I, the builder of Calah (Gen. x. 10) ... c. 1300 
The names of many early Assyrian pafesfs (priest-kings) and kings have 
been recovered recently in the course of the excavations by the Germans of 
Kal'at Sherkat, the site of the 'city of xVsshur.' 

1 From King's Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, iii. (1900), p. lxx f. The 
first column gives the regnal years of the several kings according to the List of 
Kings (B) published by Mr Pinches in 1880 (above, p. XXVIII) ; the second gives 
their regnal years according to the recently discovered Chronicle of the First 
Dynasty, which is based upon two contemporary documents dating from the reign 
of Ammi-zaduga (above, p XXIX, n. 1). 

a According to Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad. 

3 L. W. King, Chronicles concerning Early Bab. Kings (1907), i. 116, ii. 14. 
Elsewhere he is styled patesi (cf. p. XXIX, n. 2). 



CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 



First appearance of man 

Diffusion of mankind over the earth 

Gradual growth of racial distinctions 

Formation of principal families of languages 

Palaeolithic age 

Earlier part of Neolithic age, and development of 
civilization to the level reached when the earliest j 
historical monuments appear in Babylonia and j 
Egypt 



(Not determinable in years B.C. ; but 
{ must have extended over many 
I millennia before c. b.c. 60005000 



Babylonia 

B.C. 

Estimated date of foun- 
dation of Temple of Bel 
at Nippur (Hilprecht) before 6000 



Many vases, inscriptions, 
&c. in the British Mu- 
seum c. 4500 

Lugal-zaggisi, king of 
Uruk (p. xxxii) e. 4000 



Sargon of Agade (pp. 

xxxii, 173 n.) 3800 

Many kings of Lagash, 

Ur, and Uruk c. 2800 

First dynasty of Babylon (TJngnad) 22321933 
(Poebel) 23002000 



Hammurabi (6th king of 
First dynasty) 

The Kasshite dynasty (p. 
120) 



(Meyer) 20601761 

(Ungnad; 2130-2088 
(Poebel) 21982155 
(Meyer) 19581916 

17571182 



Burnaburiash (corre- 
sponds with Amenh6- 
tep IV) 

Nazi-maruttash (p. 122) 



(Ungnad) 13991365 
(Meyer) 13821358 

(Ungnad) 13301305 
(Meyer) 13341309 



Nebuchadreszar I 



e. 1140 



Egypt 

Remains of predynastic civili- 
zation in Egypt 



B.C. 

before 5000 



Introduction of the 

Calendar 
Menes, first king of 
Egypt mentioned 
by Manetho 



Fourth dynasty 

Cheops, builder of the 
Great Pyramid 



Twelfth dynasty 

Rule of the Hyksos 

Eighteenth dynasty 

Thothmes III 

Amenhdtep III 

Araenh&tep I V (Khu- 

n-aten) 
Nineteenth dynasty 

Ramses II 

Merenptah (probably 
the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus) 

Twentieth dynasty 

Ramses III 



Petrie* Meyer Breasted 



4777 



3928 
3721 

3969 
3908 



2778 
2565 



2098 

1587 
1587 

1327 
1503- 

1449 
1414- 

1383 
1383 

1365 
1328 

1202 
1300- 

1234 



1234 
1214 

1202- 
1102 

1202- 
1171 



4241 
3315 



2840- 
26S0 

2816 
2093 



2000 
1788 



c. 1680 
1580 
1600 

1501 

1447 
1415- 

1380 



c. 1310 

1244 



1244 



c. 1200 
1169 



4241 
c. 3400 



2900 
2750 

2900 
2877 



2000 

1788 



1680 

1580 
1580 

1350 
1501 

1447 
1411 

1375 
1375 

1358 
1350 

1205 
1292 

1225 







INTRODUCTION. 

1. The Structure of the Book of Genesis, and characteristics of 

its component parts. 

The Book of Genesis is so called from the title given to it in the 
lxx. Version, derived from the Greek rendering of ii. 4 a avny rj fiifiXos 
yvo-(o? oipavov kcu yfjs. It forms the first book in the Hexateuch, 
as the literary whole formed by the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua 
is now frequently termed 1 , the general object of which is to describe 
in their origin the fundamental institutions of the Israelitish theocracy 
(i.e. the civil and the ceremonial law), and to trace from the earliest 
past the course of events which issued ultimately in the establishment 
of Israel in Canaan. The Book of Genesis comprises the introductory 
period of this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors of the 
Hebrews, and ending with the death of Joseph in Egypt. The aim 
of the book is, however, more than merely to recount the ancestry 
of Israel itself : its aim is, at the same time, to describe how the earth 
itself was originally prepared to become the habitation of man, to give 
an outline of the early history of mankind upon it, and to shew how 
Israel was related to other nations, and how it emerged gradually intc 
separate and distinct existence beside them. Accordingly the narrative 
opens with an account of the creation of the world ; the line of Israel's 
ancestors is traced back beyond Abraham to the first appearance of 
man upon the earth ; and the relation in which the nations descended 
from the second father of humanity, Noah, were supposed to stand, 
both towards one another and towards Israel, is indicated by a genea- 
logical scheme (ch. x.). The entire book may thus be divided into 
two parts, of which the first, chs. i. xi., presents a general view of 

1 The Book of Joshua is composed of three well-marked distinct strands ; and 
the literary affinities of each of these are with corresponding strands running 
through part or all of the five preceding books. The literary affinities of Joshua 
with the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are much less strongly marked. 



ii INTRODUCTION [ 1 

the Early History of Mankind, as pictured by the Hebrews, including 
the Creation (ch. i.), the origin of evil (ch. iii.), the beginnings of 
civilization (ch. iv.), the Flood (chs. vi. ix.), the rise of separate 
nations (ch. x.), and the place taken by the Semites, and particularly by 
the Hebrews, among them (xi. 10 26); while the second, chs. xii. L, 
beginning with the migration of the Terahites, comprehends in par- 
ticular the History of Israel's immediate ancestors, the Patriarchs, 
viz. Abraham (xii. 1 xxv. 18), Isaac (xxv. 19 xxxvi.), and Jacob 
(xxxvii. L). 

The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, 
marked by the recurring formula, These are the generations (lit. be- 
gettings) of 1 .... This phrase is one which belongs properly to a 
genealogical system: it implies that the person to whose name it is 
prefixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genealogical 
series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the 
section which follows, until another name is reached prominent enough 
to form the commencement of a new section. 

The formula appears ten times in the Book of Genesis : viz. ii. 4 a (the 
generations of heaven and earth), v. 1 (of Adam), vi. 9 (of Noah), x. 1 (of the 
sons of Noah), xi. 10 (of Shem), xi. 27 (of Terah), xxv. 12 (of Ishmael), xxv. 19 
(of Isaac), xxxvi. 1, cf. 9 (of Esau), xxxvii. 2 (of Jacob). In ii. 4 a it is applied 
metaphorically; and as it clearly relates to the contents of ch. i., it is very 
possible that it stood originally before i. 1 (see p. 19). In the other cases, it 
introduces each time a longer or shorter genealogical account of the person 
named and of his descendants, and is followed usually by a more detailed 
narrative about them. 

With which of the component parts of Genesis the scheme thus 
indicated was originally connected will appear subsequently. The 
entire narrative, as we now possess it, is accommodated to it. The 
attention of the reader is fixed upon Israel, which is gradually dis- 
engaged from the nations and tribes related to it: at each stage in the 
history, a brief general account of the collateral branches having been 
given, they are dismissed, and the narrative is limited more and more 
to the immediate line of Israel's ancestors. Thus after ch. x. (the 
ethnographical Table) all the descendants of Noah disappear, except 
the line of Shem, xi. 10 ff. ; after xxv. 12 18 Ishmael disappears, and 
Isaac alone remains; after ch. xxxvi. Esau and his descendants dis- 
appear, and only Jacob and his sons are left. The same method 
is adopted in the intermediate parts : thus in xix. 30 38 the relation 

1 Once (v. 1), This is the book of the generations o/.... 



1] COMPOSITE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS iii 

to Israel of the cognate peoples of Moab and Ammon is explained ; in 
xxii. 20 24 (sons of Abraham's brother, Nahor), and xxv. 1 4 (sons 
of Abraham's concubine, Keturah) the relation to Israel of certain 
Aramaean tribes is explained. 

The unity of plan thus established for the Book of Genesis, and 
traceable in many other details, has long been recognized by critics. 
It is not, however, incompatible with the use by the compiler of 
pre-existing materials in the composition of his work. And as soon 
as the book is studied with sufficient attention, phaenomena disclose 
themselves, which shew that it is composed of distinct documents 
or sources, which have been welded together by a later compiler 
(or ' redactor ') into a continuous whole. These phaenomena are very 
numerous ; but they may be reduced in the main to the two following 
heads: (1) the same event is doubly recorded; (2) the language, and 
frequently the representation as well, varies in different sections. 
Thus i. 1 ii. 4* and ii. 4 b 25 contain a double narrative of the origin 
of man upon earth. No doubt, in the abstract, it might be argued 
that ii. 4 b ff. is intended simply as a more detailed account of what 
is described summarily in i. 26 30; but upon closer examination 
differences reveal themselves which preclude the supposition that both 
sections are the work of the same hand: the order of creation is 
different, the phraseology and literary style are different, and the 
representation, especially the representation of Deity, is different 1 . 
In the narrative of the Deluge, vi. 9 13 (the wickedness of the earth) 
is a duplicate of vi. 5 8; vii. 1 5 is a duplicate of vi. 18 22, with 
the difference, however, that whereas in vi. 19 (cf. vii. 15) two animals 
of every kind, without distinction, are to be taken into the ark, in vii. 2 
the number prescribed is two of every unclean animal, but seven of 
every clean animal : there are also several other duplicates, all being 
marked by accompanying differences of representation and phraseology, 
one group of sections being akin to i. 1 ii. 4 a , and displaying through- 
out the same phraseology, the other exhibiting a different phraseology, 
and being conceived in the spirit of ii. 4 b iii. 24 s . In xvii. 16 19 
and xviii. 9 15 the promise of a son for Sarah is twice described, 
the terms used in xviii. 9 15 clearly shewing that the writer did not 
picture any previous promise of the same kind as having been given to 
Abraham, with an accompanying double explanation of the origin of 
the name Isaac. The section xxvii. 46 xxviii. 9 differs appreciably 
in style from xxvii. 1 45, and at the same time represents Kebekah 
1 See particulars on p. 35 f. 8 See the notes, p. 86 S. 

D. d 



iv INTRODUCTION [ 1 

as influenced by a different motive from that mentioned in xxvii. 
42 45 in suggesting Jacob's departure from Canaan 1 . Further, in 
xxviii. 19 and xxxv. 15 we find two explanations of the origin of 
the name Bethel \ in xxxii. 28 and xxxv. 10, two of Israel; in xxxii. 3 
and xxxiii. 16 Esau is described as already resident in Edom, whereas 
in xxxvi. 6 f. his migration thither is attributed to causes which could 
not have come into operation until after Jacob's return to Canaan. 
In short, the Book of Genesis presents two groups of sections, 
distinguished from each other by differences of phraseology and style, 
and often also by accompanying differences of representation, so marked, 
so numerous, and so recurrent, that they can only be accounted for by 
the supposition that the groups in which they occur are not both the 
work of the same hand. 

The sections homogeneous in style and character with i. 1 ii. 4 a 
recur at intervals, not in Genesis only, but in the following books to 
Joshua inclusive ; and if read consecutively, apart from the rest of the 
narrative, will be found to form a nearly complete whole, containing 
a systematic account of the origines of Israel, treating with particular 
fulness the various ceremonial institutions of the Hebrews (Sabbath, 
Circumcision, Passover, Tabernacle, Sacrifices, Feasts, &c), and dis- 
playing a consistent regard for chronological and other statistical data, 
which entitles it to be considered as the framework of our present 
Hexateuch. The source, or document, thus constituted, has received 
different names, suggested by one or other of the various characteristics 
attaching to it. From its preference, till Ex. vi. 3, for the absolute use 
of the name God (' Elohim ') rather than Jehovah (' Yahweh '), it has 
been termed the Elohistic narrative, and its author has been called the 
Mohist; but these names are not now so much used as they were 
formerly; by more recent writers, on account of the predominance in 
it of priestly interests, and of the priestly point of view, it is commonly 
called the priestly narrative, and denoted, for brevity, by the letter P 
(which is also used to denote its author). 

The following are the parts of Genesis which belong to P : 

i. 1 ii. 4 a (creation of heaven and earth, and God's subsequent rest upon 
the sabbath); v. 1 28, 30 32 (the line of Adam's descendants through Seth 
to Noah); vi. 922, vii. 6, 11, 1316% 17% 1821, 24, viii. 12% 3 b 5, 13% 
1419, ix. 117, 2829 (the story of the Flood); x. 17, 20, 2223, 3132 
(list of nations descended from Japhet, Ham, and Shern) ; xi. 10 26 (line of 
Shem's descendants to Tera^); xi. 27, 31 32 (Abraham's family); xii. 4 b 5, 

1 See p. 262. 



1] THE PRIESTLY NARRATIVE (P) v 

xiii. 6, ll b 12* (his migration into Canaan, and separation from Lot); xvi. l a 
3, 15 16 (birth of Ishrnael); xvii. (institution of circumcision); xix. 29 
(destruction of the cities of the Kikkar)-, xxi. l b , 2 b 5 (birth of Isaac); 
xxiii. (purchase of the family burial-place in Machpelah) ; xxv. 7 ll a (death 
and burial of Abraham); xxv. 12 17 (list of 12 tribes descended from 
Ishmael); xxv. 19 20, 26 b (Isaac's marriage with Rebekah); xxvi. 34 35 
(Esau's Hittite wives) ; xxvii. 46 xxviii. 9 (Jacob's journey to Paddan-aram) ; 
xxix. 24, 28 b , 29, xxx. 22 a (perhaps), xxxi. 18 b , xxxiii. 18 a (Jacob's marriage 
with Rachel, and return to Canaan); xxxiv. 1 2 a , 4, 6, 8 10, 13 18, 20 24, 
25 (partly), 27 29 (refusal of his sons to sanction intermarriage with the 
Shechemites) ; xxxv. 9 13, 15 (change of name to Israel at Bethel); xxxv. 
22 b 29 (death and burial of Isaac); xxxvi. in the main (Esau's migration into 
Edom; the tribes and tribal chiefs of Edom and Seir); xxxvii. 1 2 a , xli. 46 
(Joseph's elevation in Egypt); xlvi. 6 27, xlvii. 5 6 a , 7 11, 27 b , 28 (migration 
of Jacob and his family to Egypt, and their settlement in the 'land of 
Rameses'); xlviii. 3 6, 7 (Jacob's adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh); 
xlix. l a , 28 b 33, 1. 12 13 (Jacob's final instructions to his sons, and his burial 
by them in the cave of Machpelah). 

For convenience of reference, and also in order to enable the reader 
to judge of the character of the source as a whole, a synopsis of the 
parts of Ex. Josh, belonging to it is here added : 

Exodus i. 15, 7, 1314. ii. 23 b 25. vi. 2 vii. 13. vii. 19 20 a ,21 b 22. 
viii. 57, 15 b 19. ix. 812. xi. 910. xii. 120, 28, 37 a , 4041,4351. 
xiii. 12, 20. xiv. 14, 89, 1518, 21 a , 21 c 23, 26 27 a , 28% 29. 
xvi. 13, 624, 3136. xvii. 1*. xix. 1 2 a . xxiv. 15 18 a . xxv. 1 
xxxi. 18 a . xxxiv. 29 35. xxxv. xl. 

Leviticus i. xvi. xvii. xxvi. (these ten chapters embodying considerable 
excerpts from an older source, now generally called, from its leading principle, 
the ' Law of Holiness') 1 , xxvii. 

Numbers i. 1 x. 28. xiii. 1 17% 21, 2526* (to Paran\ 32 a . xiv. 1 2 2 , 
5 7, 10, 26 30, 34 38 2 . xv. xvi. l a , 2 b 7 a , (7 b ll) 3 , (16 17) 3 , 18 24, 27 a , 
32 b , 35, (36 40) 3 , 4150. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. l a (to month), 2, 3 b I, 
613, 2229. xxi. 4 a (to Hor), 1011. xxii. 1. xxv. 618. xxvi. xxxi. 
xxxii. 1819, 28 32 4 . xxxiii. xxxiv. xxxvi. 

Deuteronomy i. 3. xxxii. 4852. xxxiv. l aS , 5 b , 79. 

Joshua iv. 13, 19. v. 1012. vii. 1. ix. 15 b , 1721. xiii. 1532. xiv. 
15. xv. 113, 2044, (45-^7) 3 , 4862. xvi. 48. xvii. l a 34, 7, 9 a , 
9 C 10*. xviii. 1, 1128. xix. 146, 48, 51. xx. 13 (except '[and] 
unawares'), 6 a (to judgement), 7 9 6 . xxi. 142. (xxii. 9 34) 3 . 

The groundwork of P's narrative in Genesis is ' a series of inter- 

1 See the writer's Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 43 & 
(ed. 6 or 7, p. 47 ff.). 

2 In the main. 

3 The parentheses indicate later additions to P (there are probably others as 
well ; but it is not necessary to indicate them in the present synopsis). 

* With traces in xxxii. 117, 2027. 6 See LOT. 105 (112). 

d2 



vi INTRODUCTION [ l 

connected genealogies viz. Adam (v. 1 28, 30 32), Noah (vi. 9 10), 
Noah's sons (x. 17, 20, 2223, 3132), Shem (xi. 1026), Terah 
(xi. 27, 3132), Ishmael (xxv. 1217), Isaac (xxv. 1920, 26 b ), 
Esau (xxxvi.), Jacob (xxxv. 22 b 26, xxxvii. 2). These are constructed 
upon a uniform plan : each bears the title, "This is the genealogy of..." ; 
each often begins with a brief recapitulation connecting it with the 
preceding table (see on vi. 10); the method is the same throughout. 
The genealogies are made the basis of a systematic chronology; and 
short historical notices are appended to them, as in the case of Abraham 
and Lot, xii. 4 b 5, xiii. 6, ll b 12 a , xvi. l a , 3, 1516, xix. 29' (Moore, 
EncB. n. 1670 f.). The narrative is rarely more detailed, except in 
the case of important occurrences, as the Creation, the Deluge, the 
Covenants with Noah (ix. 1 17) and Abraham (ch. xvii.), or the 
purchase of the family sepulchre at Hebron (ch. xxiii.). Nevertheless, 
meagre as it is, it contains an outline of the antecedents and patriarchal 
history of Israel, sufficient as an introduction to the systematic view 
of the theocratic institutions which is to follow in Ex. Nu., and which 
it is the main object of the author of this source to exhibit. In the 
earlier part of the book the narrative appears to be tolerably complete ; 
but elsewhere there are evidently omissions (e.g. of the birth of Esau 
and Jacob, and of the events of Jacob's life in Paddan-aram, pre- 
supposed by xxxi. 18). But these may be naturally attributed to the 
compiler who combined P with the other narrative used by him, and 
who in so doing not unfrequently gave a preference to the fuller and 
more picturesque descriptions contained in the latter. If the parts 
assigned to P be read attentively, even in a translation, and compared 
with the rest of the narrative, the peculiarities of its style will be 
apparent. Its language is that of a jurist, accustomed to legal particu- 
larity, rather than that of a historian, writing with variety and freedom ; 
it is circumstantial, formal, and precise. The narrative, both as a 
whole and in its several parts, is articulated systematically 1 ; a formal 
superscription and subscription regularly mark the beginning and close 
of an enumeration*. Particular words and expressions recur with 
great frequency. Sentences are also cast with great regularity into the 
same mould: as Mr Carpenter has remarked, 'when once the proper 
form of words has been selected, it is unfailingly reproduced on the 

1 E.g. i. 5 b , 8 b , 13, 19, 23, 31 b ; v. 68, 911, 1214 &c; xi. 1011, 
1213 &o. 

2 'These are the generations of...' (above, p. ii.); i. 5 b , 8 b , 13 &c. ; x. 5 [see 
the note], 20, 31, 32, xxv. 13, 16, xxxvi. 29, 30 b , 40 a , 43 b &o. (see below, p. x., 
No. 26) : cf. also vi. 22 (see p. ix., No. 12), comp. with Ex. vii. 6 &o. 



1] LITERARY STYLE OF P vii 

next occasion 1 .' In descriptions, emphasis 2 and completeness 8 are 
studied; hence a statement, or command, is often developed at some 
length, and in part even repeated in slightly different words*. There is 
a tendency to describe an object in full each time that it is mentioned 6 ; 
a direction is followed, as a rule, by an account of its execution, usually 
in nearly the same words 6 . It will now, moreover, be apparent that 
the scheme into which (p. ii.) the Book of Genesis is cast, is the work 
of the same author, the formula by which its salient divisions are 
marked constituting an essential feature in the sections assigned to P. 
Here is a select list of words and expressions characteristic of P, 
most, it will be observed, occurring nowhere else in the entire OT., 
though a few are met with in Ezekiel, the priestly prophet (who has 
moreover other affinities with P), and a few occur also in other late 
OT. writings. Only words and expressions occurring in Genesis are 
cited; the list would be considerably extended, if those characteristic 
of the parts of Ex. Josh, belonging to P were included as well 7 . 

The dagger (t), both here and elsewhere, indicates that all passages of the Old 
Testament, in which the word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to ; 
and the asterisk (*) indicates that all passages of the Hexateuch, in which the 
word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to. 

1. God, not Jehovah, Gen. i. 1, and uniformly, except xvii. 1, xxi. l b , until 
Ex. vi. 2, 3. 

It is the theory of P, expressed distinctly in Ex. vi. 3, that the name 
'Jehovah' was not in use before the Mosaic age : accordingly until Ex. vi. 2 3, 
he consistently confines himself to God. J, on the other hand, uses Jehovah 
regularly from the beginning (Gen. ii. 4 b , 5, 7 &c). In the OT. generally, 

1 Oxf. Hex. i. 125 (ed. 2, p. 235). Mr Carpenter instances the use of the 
migration formula, Gen. xii. 5, xxxi. 18, xxxvi. 8, xlvi. 6, and the description of 
Machpelah, xxiii. 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13 : cf. also xii. 4 b , xvi. 16, xvii. 24, 25, 
xxi. 5, xxv. 26 b , xii. 46; Ex. vii. 7. 

9 Comp. Gen. i. 29, vi. 17, ix. 3. 

3 Notice the precision of description and definition in Gen. i. 24, 25, 26 b , 28 b , 
vi. 18, 20, vii. 1314, 21, viii. 17, 1819; x. 5, 20, 31, 32, xxxvi. 40; xxiii. 17; 
xxxvi. 8, xlvi. 6 7 ; Ex. vii. 19 &c. 

* Gen. ii. 23, ix. 911, 1217, xvii. 1014, 2327, xxiii. 1720, xlix. 29 
30, 32 ; Ex. xii. 18 20 &c. In this connexion, there may be noticed particularly 
an otherwise uncommon mode of expression, producing a peculiar rhythm, by 
which a statement is first made in general terms, and then partly repeated, for the 
purpose of receiving closer limitation or definition: see, for instance, Gen. i. 27 
'and God created man in his own image ; in the image of God created he him : male 
and female created he them, 1 vi. 14 (Heb.), ix. 5, xxiii. 11 'the field give I thee &c. ; 
in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee,' xlix. 29 b 30; Ex. xii. 4, 8, 
xvi. 16, 35, xxv. 2, 11, 18, 19, xxvi. 1; Lev. xxv. 22; Nu. ii. 2, xviii. 18, xxxvi. 11 
12 (Heb.), &g. 

6 Comp. Gen. i. 7 beside v. 6, v. 12 beside v. 11, viii. 18 f. beside viii. 16 f. 

8 See Gen. i. 67; 1112; 2425; vi. 1820 and vii. 1316; viii. 1617 
and 1819 ; Ex. viii. 1617; ix. 810 &c. 

7 See LOT. pp. 1268 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 1335). 



viii INTRODUCTION [ 1 

Jehovah is much more common than God ; and to this fact is due no doubt its 
having been accidentally substituted for an original God in the two passages, 
Gen. xvii. 1, xxi. l b . 

The statement in Ex. vi. 3 that God appeared to the patriarchs as EL 
Shaddai is in agreement with the use of this title in xvii. 1, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, 
xlviii. 3. The following words, * but by my name Jehovah I was not known 
unto them,' are additional proof, if such be needed, that Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 
13, as also the numerous passages in Gen. in whic"h the patriarchs make use of 
this name, cannot have been written by the same author. 

2. Kind (po): Gen. i. 11, 12 bis, 21 bis, 24 bis, 25 ter, vi. 20 ter, 7, 14 
quater; Lev. xi. 14, 15, 16, 19 [hence Deut. xiv. 13, 14, 15, 18 J 22 quater, 29; 
Ez. xlvii. 10f. 

3. To swarm (Y~lW): Gen - * 20 > 21 > . 21, viii. 17; Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 
43, 46; Ez. xlvii. 9. Fig. of men: Gen. ix. 7; Ex. i. 7t. Once in J, Ex. 
vii. 28 [hence Ps. cv. 30]. 

4. Swarming things (Y^) : Gen. i. 20, vii. 21 ; Lev. v. 2, xi. 10, 20 [hence 
Deut xiv. 19], 21, 23, 29, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, xxii. 5 [see p. 12 w.]f. 

5. To be fruitful and multiply (rimi HID): Gen. i. 22, 28, viii. 17, ix. 1, 
7, xvii. 20 (cf. vv. 2, 6), xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlvii. 27, xlviii. 4; Ex. i. 7j Lev. 
xxvi. 9 : also Jer. xxiii. 3; and (inverted) iii. 16, Ez. xxxvi. llf. 

6. To creep (B>p) : Gen. i. 21 (EVV. moveth), 26, 28, 30, vii. 8, 14, 21, 
viii. 17, 19, ix. 2; Lev. xi. 44, 46 (EVV. moveth), xx. 25. Also Deut. iv. 18*. 

7. Creeping things, reptiles (SPDJ): Gen. i. 24, 25, 26, vi. 7, 20, vii. 14, 23, 
viii. 17, 19, ix. 3 (used here more generally : EVV. moveth)*. 

8. For food (n^xS): Gen. i. 29, 30, vi. 21, ix. 3; Ex. xvi. 15 ; Lev. xi. 39, 
xxv. 6 ; Ez xv. 4, 6, xxi. 37, xxiii. 37, xxix. 5, xxxiv. 5, 8, 10, 12, xxxix. 4f- 
(In Jer. xii. 9 r63&6 is an infin.) 

9. Generations (nn^in> lit. begettings) : 

(a) in the phrase These are the generations of...: Gen. ii. 4% v. 1 (This is 
the book of the generations of..), vi. 9, x. 1, xi. 10, 27, xxv. 12 [hence 1 Ch. i. 29], 
19, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2; Nu. iii. 1; Ruth iv. 18f. 

(b) in the phrase their generations, by their families: Nu. i. 20, 22, 24 &c. 
(12 times in this chapter) f. 

(c) in the phrase according to (^) their generations ( = their parentage, or 
their ages): Gen. x. 32, xxv. 13; Ex. vi. 16, 19, xxviii. 10 (d)j 1 Ch. v. 7, vii. 2, 
4, 9, viii. 28, ix. 9, 34, xxvi. 31. 

10. To expire (yi3): Gen. vi. 17, vii 21, xxv. 8, 17, xxxv. 29, xlix. 33; 
Nu. xvii. 12, 13, xx. 3 bis, 29 ; Josh. xxii. 20f. (Only besides in poetry: Zech. 
xiii. 8 ; Ps. lxxxviii. 16, civ. 29 ; Lam, i. 19 ; and 8 times in Job.) 

11. With thee (him &c.) appended to an enumeration : Gen. vi. 18, vii. 7, 
13, viii. 16, 18, ix. 8, xxviii. 4, xlvi 6, 7; Ex. xxviii. 1, 41, xxix. 21 bis; Lev. 
viii. 2, 30, x. 9, 14, 15, xxv. 41, 54; Nu. xviii. 1, 2, 7, 11, 19 bis*. Similarly 
after you (tliee &c.) appended to seed: Gen. ix. 9, xvii, 7 bis, 8, 9, 10, 19, 
xxxv. 12, xlviii. 4 ; Ex. xxviii. 43 ; Nu. xxv. 13. 



1] LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P ix 

12. And Noah did (so); according to &c: Gen. vi. 22 : exactly the same 
form of sentence, Ex. vil 6, xii. 28, 50, xxxix. 32 b , xl. 16; Nu. i 54, ii. 34, 
viii. 20, xvii. 11 (Heb. 26) : cf. Ex. xxxix. 43 ; Nu. v. 4, ix. 5. 

13. This selfsame day (ntn DVD DVJ/): Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23, 26 ; Ex. xii. 17, 
41, 51; Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, 28, 29, 30; Dt. xxxii. 48; Jos. v. 11, x. 27 (not P: 
probably the compiler) ; Ez. ii 3, xxiv. 2 Ms, xl. 1 f. 

14. After their families (DHS DmnDt^D^): Gen. viii. 19, x. 5, 20, 31, 
xxxvi. 40 ; Ex. vi. 17, 25, xii. 21 ; Nu. i. (13 times), ii. 34, iii iv. (15 times), 
xxvi. (16 times), xxix. 12, xxxiii. 54; Jos. xiii. 15, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31 ; xv. 1, 12, 
20, xvi. 5, 8, xvii. 2 bis, xviii. 11, 20, 21, 28, xix. (12 times), xxi. 7, 33, 40 (Heb. 
38) ; 1 Ch. v. 7, vi. 62, 63 (Heb. 47, 48 : from Josh. xxi. 33, 40). Once in J, 
Nu. xi. 10 ; and once also in one of the earlier historical books, 1 S. x. 21 f. 

15. An everlasting covenant: Gen. ix. 16, xvii. 7, 13, 19 ; Ex. xxxi. 16 ; 
Lev. xxiv. 8; cf. Nu. xviii. 19, xxv. 13*. 

16. Exceedingly (-jnd 1KD3 [not the usual phrase]): Gen. xvii. 2, 6, 20; 
Ex. i 7; Ez. ix. 9, xvi. 13f. 

17. Substance, goods (fc*>i:n): Gen. xii. 5, xiii 6*, xxxi 18 b , xxxvi. 7, xlvi 6; 
Nu. xvi. 32 end, xxxv. 3. Elsewhere (not P): Gen. xiv. 11, 12, 16 bis, 21, xv. 14; 
and in Chr. (8 times), Ezr. (4 times), Dan. xi. (3 times) f. 

18. To amass, gather (5JO"i cognate with 'substance'): Gen. xii. 5, xxxi. 
18 bis, xxxvi 6, xlvi 6 (RV. had gotten) f. 

19. Soul (B>QJ) in the sense of person: Gen. xii. 5, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 15, 18, 
22, 25, 26, 27 ; Ex. i 5, xii. 4, 16 (RV. man), 19, xvi. 16 (RV. persons) ; Lev. 
ii. 1 (RV. any one), iv. 2, 27, v. 1, 2 ; and often in the legal parts of Lev. Num. 
(as Lev. xvii. 12, xxii 11, xxvii. 2); Nu. xxxi. 28, 35, 40, 46 ; Josh. xx. 3, 9 (from 
Nu. xxxv. 11, 15). See also below, No. 24 a. A usage not confined to P, but 
much more frequent in P than elsewhere. 

20. Throughout your (their) generations (DDTIYT^, DlVvi?) : Gen. xvii 7, 
9, 12; Ex. xii 14, 17, 42, xvi. 32, 33, xxvii. 21, xxix. 42, xxx. 8, 10, 21, 31, 
xxxi. 13, 16, xi 15; Lev. iii. 17, vi. 11, vii. 36, x. 9, xvii. 7, xxi 17, xxii. 3, 
xxiii. 14, 21, 31, 41, xxiv. 3, xxv. 30 (his) ; Nu. ix. 10, x. 8, xv. 14, 15, 21, 23, 38, 
xviii. 23, xxxv. 29 f. 

21. Sojournings (DH13D): with land, Gen. xvii 8, xxviii. 4, xxxvi. 7, 
xxxvii 1 ; Ex. vi 4 ; Ez. xx. 38 ; with days, Gen. xlvii. 9 bis. Only besides 
Ps. cxix. 54 : and rather differently, lv. 15 (sing.) ; Job xviii. 19 f. 

22. Possession (iljnX): Gen. xvii. 8, xxiii. 4, 9, 20, xxxvi. 43, xlvii 11, 
xlviii. 4, xlix. 30, 1. 13 ; Lev. xiv. 34, xxv. 10 46 (13 times), xxvii. 16, 21, 22, 
24, 28 ; Nu. xxvii. 4, 7, xxxii. 5, 22, 29, 32, xxxv. 2, 8, 28 ; Dt. xxxii 49 ; Josh, 
xxi. 12, 41, xxii. 4 (Deuteronomic), 9, 19 bis. Elsewhere only in Ezekiel 
(xliv. 28 bis, xiv. 5, 6, 7 bis, 8, xlvi. 16, 18 ter, xlviii. 20, 21, 22 bis); Ps. ii 8 ; 
1 Ch. vii 28, ix. 2 ( = Neh. xi. 3), 2 Ch. xi. 14, xxxi If. 

23. The cognate verb to get possessions (tntO), rather a peculiar word : 
Gen. xxxiv. 10, xlvii. 27 ; Nu. xxxii 30, Josh. xxii. 9, 19f. 



x INTRODUCTION [ 1 

24. Father's kin (DW), a peculiar usage (see on Gen. xvii. 14): 

(a) that soul (or that man) shall be cut off from his father's kin : Gen. 
xvii. 14; Ex. xxx. 33, 38, xxxi. 14; Lev. vii. 20, 21, 25, 27, xvii. 9, xix. 8, 
xxiii 29 ; Nu. ix. 13f. 

(b) to be gathered to one's father's kin: Gen. xxv. 8, 17, xxx v. 29, xlix. 33 
(c on v. 29) ; Nu. xx. 24, xxvii 13, xxxi. 2 ; Dt. xxxii. 50 bisf. 

(c) Lev. xix. 16, xxi. 1, 4, 14, 15 ; Ez. xviii. 18 : perhaps Jud. v. 14; Hos. 
x. 14. 

25. Sojourner (BVV.), better settler (nt?in): Gen. xxiii. 4 (hence fig. 
Ps. xxxix. 13, 1 Ch. xxix. 15); Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 23 (fig.), 35, 
40, 45, 47 bis; Nu. xxxv. 15 ; 1 K. xvii. 1 (but read rather as RVm.)f. 

26. The methodical form of subscription and superscription : Gen. x. [5,] 
20, 31, 32, xxv. 13 a , 16, xxxvi. 29 a , 30 b , 40 a , 43 b , xlvi. 8, 15, 18, 22, 25 j Ex. i. 1, 
vi. 14, 16, 19, 25, 26 ; Nu. i. 44, iv. 28, 33, 37, 41, 45, vii. 17, 23, 29 &c, 84, 
xxxiii. 1 ; Josh. xiii. 23, 28, 32, xiv. 1, xv. 12, 20, xvi. 8, xviii. 20, 28, xix. 8, 16, 
23, 31, 39, 48, 51 [cf. Gen. x. 31, 32], xxi. 19, 26, 33, 40, 4142. (Not a 
complete enumeration.) 1 

27. As those acquainted with Hebrew will be aware, there are in Heb. 
two forms of the pron. of the 1st pers. sing, 'dni and 'dnoki, which are not by 
all writers used indiscriminately : P now uses 'dni nearly 130 times ('dnoki 
only once, Gen. xxiii. 4: comp. in Ezekiel 'dni 138 times, 'dnoki once, 
xxxvi. 28). In the rest of the Hexateuch 'dnoki is preferred to 'dni, and in 
the discourses of Deut it is used almost exclusively. 

28. For hundred P uses a peculiar grammatical form (m*'ath in the 
constr. state, in cases where ordinarily me'dh would be said): Gen. v. 3, 6, 18, 
25, 28, vii. 24, viii 3, xi. 10, 25, xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 17, xxxv. 28, xlvii. 9, 28; 
Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20, xxxviii 25, 27 ter; Nu. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31, xxxiii. 39. So 
besides only Neh. v. 11 (probably corrupt : see Ryle ad loc), 2 Ch. xxv. 9 Qre, 
Est. i. 4. P uses me'dh in such cases only twice, Gen. xvii. 17, xxiii. 1. 

29. For to beget P uses regularly T^lll, Gen. v. 332 (28 times), vi. 10, xi. 
10 27 (27 times), xvii. 20, xxv. 19, xlviii. 6 ; not *f?\ which is used by J, Gen. 
iv. 18 ter, x. 8, 13, 15, 24 bis, 26, xxii. 23, xxv. 3. 

30. For the idea of making a covenant, P says always D^H (establish), 
Gen. vi 18, ix. 9, 11, 17, xvii. 7, 19, 21, Ex. vi. 4 (so Ez. xvi 60, 62) f; not 
r03 (lit. cut, EVV. make: see on xv. 18), as in Gen. xv. 18, xxi. 27, 32, xxvi 28, 
xxxi. 44, and generally in the OT. 

31. To express the idea of Jehovah's being in the midst of His people, P 
says always "pro (13 times: Ex. xxv. 8 &c.), JE 2^p2 (13 times: Ex. iii. 20 &c). 

32. Hebron is denoted in P (except Josh. xxi. 13) by giriath-arba 1 (said 
in Josh. xiv. 15 = Jud. i 10 [J] to have been its old name): Gen. xxiii. 2, 
xxxv. 27 ; Josh. xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. 11. So Neh. xi 25 f. 

1 The subscriptions in J are much briefer: ix. 19, x. 29, xxii. 23, xxv. 4. 



1] LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P xi 

The following geographical terras are found only in P : 

33. Machpelah: Gen. xxiil 9, 17, 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, L 13 f. 

34. Paddan-aram : Gen. xxv. 20, xxviii. 2, 5, 6, 7, xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18 b , 
xxxv. 9, 26, xlvi. 15 ; cf. xlviii. 7 (Paddan alone). J says Aram-naharaim, 
Gen. xxiv. 10 : so Dt xxiii. 4, Jud. iii. 8, Ps. lx. title f. 

Some other expressions might be noted; but these are the most 
distinctive. If the reader will be at the pains of underlining them in 
all their occurrences, he will see that they do not occur in the Hexateuch 
indiscriminately, but that they are aggregated in particular passages, 
to which they impart a character of their own, different from that of 
the rest of the narrative 1 . The literary style of P is very strongly 
marked : in point of fact, it stands apart not only from that of every 
other part of the Hexateuch, but also from that of every part of Judges, 
Samuel, and Kings 2 , whether the strictly narrative parts, or those 
which have been added by the Deuteronomic compiler; and has sub- 
stantial resemblances only with that of EzekieL 

The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P have 
next to be considered. These also shew indications of not being 
homogeneous in structure. Especially from ch. xx. onwards the 
narrative exhibits marks of compilation; and the component parts, 
though not differing from one another in diction and style so widely 
as either differs from P, and being so welded together that the lines 
of demarcation between them frequently cannot be fixed with certainty, 
appear nevertheless to be plainly discernible. Thus in xx. 1 17 the 
consistent use of the term God is remarkable, whereas in ch. xviii. 
xix. (except xix. 29 P), and in the similar narrative xii. 10 20, the 
term Jehovah is uniformly employed. The term God recurs similarly 
in xxi. 6 31, xxii. 1 13, and elsewhere, particularly in chs. xl. xlii., 
xlv. For such a variation in similar and consecutive chapters no 
plausible explanation can be assigned except diversity of authorship 8 . 
At the same time, the fact that Elohim is not here accompanied by 
the other criteria of P's style, forbids our assigning the sections thus 

1 After Ex. vi. 2 Elohim for Jehovah disappears ; but a number of even more 
distinctive expressions appear in its place. It is a serious mistake to suppose, as 
appears to be sometimes done, that the use of Elohim for Jehovah is the only 
criterion distinctive of P. 

2 For points of contact in isolated passages, viz. parts of Jud. xx. xxi., 1 S. 
ii. 22 b , IK. viii. 1, 5, see LOT. p. 136 (ed. 7, p. 143 f.). 

3 It is true that Elohim and Yahweh represent the Divine Nature under 
different aspects, viz. as the God of nature and the God of revelation respectively; 
but it is only in a comparatively small number of instances that this distinction 
can be applied, except with great artificiality, to explain the variation between the 
two names in the Peutateuoh. 



xii INTRODUCTION [ l 

characterized to that source. Other phraseological criteria are slight ; 
there are, however, not unfrequently differences of representation, 
which point decidedly in the same direction (e.g. the remarkable ones 
in ch. xxxvii.). It seems thus that the parts of Genesis which remain 
after the separation of P are formed by the combination of two 
narratives, originally independent, though covering largely the same 
ground, which have been united by a subsequent editor, who also 
contributed inconsiderable additions of his own, into a single, con- 
tinuous narrative. One of these sources, from its use of the name 
Jahweky is now generally denoted by the letter J ; the other, in which 
the name Elohim is preferred, is denoted similarly by E ; and the work 
formed by the combination of the two is referred to by the double 
letters JE. The method of the compiler who combined J and E 
together, was sometimes, it seems, to extract an entire narrative from 
one or other of these sources (as xx. 1 17, xxi. 6 31 from E; 
ch. xxi v. from J); sometimes, while taking a narrative as a whole 
from one source, to incorporate with it notices derived from the other 
(as frequently in chaps, xl. xlv.); and sometimes to construct his 
narrative of materials derived from each source in nearly equal pro- 
portions (as chaps, xxviii., xxix.). 

The passages assigned to E in the present volume are : xv. 1 2, 5, xx., 
xxi. 621, 22 32 a , xxii. 114, 19, xxviii. 1112, 1718, 2022, xxix. 1, 
1523, 2528* 30, xxx. 13, 6, 17 20*-, 2123, xxxi. 2, 4 18 a , 1945, 
5155, xxxii. 1, xxxiii. 18 b 20, xxxv. 1 8, xxxvii. 5 11, 19 20, 22 25 a , 
28* *, 29 30, 36, xl. xlii. (except a few isolated passages), xlv. (with similar 
exceptions), xlvi. 15, xlviii. 1 2, 822, 1. 1526. 

It may suffice to indicate the principal longer passages referred to J : 
ii. 4 b iii., iv. ; the parts of vi. x. not referred above to P ; xi. 1 9 ; and 
(except here and there a verse or two, rarely, a few verses more, belonging 
to E or P) xii., xiii., xv., xvi, xviii. xix., xxi v., xxv. 21 34, xxvi, xxvii. 1 45, 
xxix. 2 14, xxix. 31 xxx. 24 (the main narrative), xxx. 25 43, xxxii., xxxiii., 
xxxiv. (partly), xxxvii. (partly), xxxviii, xxxix., xliii., xliv., xlvi. 28 34, xlvii., 
xlix., L 111, 14. 

The criteria distinguishing J from E are fewer and less clearly 
marked than those distinguishing P from JE as a whole; and there 
is consequently sometimes uncertainty in the analysis, and critics, 
interpreting the evidence differently, sometimes differ accordingly in 
their conclusions. Nevertheless the indications that the narrative is 
composite are of a nature which it is not easy to gainsay; and the 
difficulty which sometimes presents itself of disengaging the two 
sources is but a natural consequence of the greater similarity of style 



1] CRITERIA DISTINGUISHING J AND E xiii 

subsisting between them, than between JE, as a whole, and P\ At 
the same time the present writer is ready to allow that by some critics 
the separation of J from E is carried further than seems to him to be 
probable or necessary: no doubt, the criteria which are relied upon 
exist; the question which seems to him to be doubtful, is whether 
in the cases which he has in view they are sufficient evidence of 
different authorship. But the general conclusion that the narrative 
here called ' JE ' is composite does not appear to him to be disputable : 
and the longer and more clearly defined passages which may reasonably 
be referred to J and E respectively, have been indicated by him accord- 
ingly throughout the present volume. In important cases, also, the 
grounds upon which the distinction rests have generally been pointed 
out in the notes. 

The following are some examples of words or expressions characteristic of 
E, as distinguished from J. E prefers God (though not exclusively) and angel 
of God where J prefers Jehovah and angel of Jehovah; E uses Amorite as the 
general name of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, while J uses 
Canaanite ; E uses Horeb, J Sinai ; in E the name of Moses' father-in-law is 
Jethro, in J it is Hobab; for bondwoman E prefers amah, J prefers shiphhbdh; 
B speaks of God's coming in a dream (xx. 3, xxxi. 24; Nu. xxii. 9, 20), an 
expression not found at all elsewhere ; E also uses sometimes unusual words, 
as D^b times Gen. xxxi. 7, 41 1, kesifah (a piece of money) xxxiii. 19, Jos. xxiv. 32 
(only besides Job xlii. ll)f, mn to rejoice Ex. xviii. 9 (otherwise rare and 
poet.), ntn to see, v. 21 (very uncommon in prose), T\WOT\ weakness xxxii. 18, 
DiTDpi flD5j6 for a whispering among them tliat rose up against them 
(poet) v. 25, n*3 in a local sense ('here,' not, as usually, 'thus'); and he has 
peculiar forms of the inf., Gen. xxxi. 28, xlvi 3, xlviii. 11, 1. 20. Of expressions 
characteristic of J, we can only notice here Behold, now, Gen. xii. 11, xvi. 2, 
xviii. 27, 31, xix. 2, 8, 19, xxvii. 2 9 ; to call with the name of Jehovah, iv. 26, 
xii. 8, xiii. 4, xxi. 33, xxvi. 25 2 ; he {was) the father of.., iv. 20, 21, xix. 37, 38 2 
(c ix. 18, x. 21, xi 29, xxii. 21 2 ; observe also (NIC) Kin D2 in the same 
contexts, iv. 22, 26, x. 21, xix. 38, xxii. 20, 24) ; to find favour in the eyes of 
(14 times in Gen.); forasmuch as (p-^yo, a peculiar expression), xviii 5, 
xix. 8, xxxiii 10, xxxviii. 26, Nu. x. 31, xiv. 43 2 ; the land of Goshen (see on 
xlv. 10); a preference for Israel (as the personal name of Jacob) after 
xxxv. 22 (cf. p. 353 ; E prefers Jacob throughout) ; nrWDK (peculiar word for 
sack, 15 times in xlii. 27 xii v. 12 ; not elsewhere). 

1 In a harmony of the four Gospels, the parts belonging to the Fourth Gospel 
would, as a rule, be separable from the rest without difficulty : but those belonging 
to the First and Second, it would often be scarcely possible to distinguish. J and 
E differ from P in having stylistically a considerable general resemblance (though 
there are differences: see, for instance, LOT. p. 174 f., ed. 6 or 7, p. 184 f.) to 
the narratives (apart from the 'Deuteronomio' additions) of Judges, Samuel, and 
the earlier parts of Kings. 

Not elsewhere in the Hexateueh. 



xiv INTRODUCTION [ l 

For longer lists of characteristic expressions, reference must be made to 
the Oxf. Hex. I. 185192 (in the reprint of vol. I., p. 384 ff.). The expressions 
quoted there are not indeed all of equal value ; and some may occur in short 
passages assigned to J or B (as the case may be) upon slight grounds ; but 
when all deductions have been made on these accounts, the reader who will be 
at the pains of examining the two lists attentively will find that J and E shew 
each a decided preference for particular expressions, which, though not so 
strongly marked as the preferences shewn by P, nevertheless exists, and is a 
reality. It is also to be borne in mind that words and expressions, which may 
be insignificant in themselves, nevertheless, when they recur repeatedly \ may 
be evidence of the line of thought along which a given writer moves most 
familiarly, or of the subjects in which he is chiefly interested. 

Of all the Hebrew historians whose writings have been preserved 
to us, J is the most gifted and the most brilliant. He excels in the 
power of delineating life and character. His touch is singularly light : 
with a few strokes he paints a scene, which impresses itself indelibly 
upon his reader's memory. In ease and grace his narratives are un- 
surpassed : everything is told with precisely the amount of detail 
that is required ; the narrative never lingers, and the reader's interest 
is sustained to the end. He writes without effort, and without 
conscious art. 

' That some of his narratives are intentionally didactic can hardly 
be questioned: the first man, the woman, the serpent, and Yahweh, 
all play their part in the Eden drama with a profound purpose under- 
lying it: yet the simplicity of the story and the clearness of the 
characterization are unmarred. But there are others, like the account 
of the mission of Abraham's steward in Gen. xxiv., which have no 
such specific aim, and are unsurpassed in felicitous presentation, 
because they are unconsciously pervaded by fine ideas. The dialogues 
especially are full of dignity and human feeling; the transitions in 
the scenes between Abraham and his visitors in ch. xviii., or between 
Joseph and his brethren, are instinctively artistic; for delicacy and 
pathos, what can surpass the intercession of Judah (xliv. 18 ff.), or 
the self-disclosure of Joseph (xlv. Iff.)? The vivid touches that call 
up a whole picture, the time-references from daybreak through the 
heat to evening cool and night, the incidents that circle round the 
desert wells, the constant sense of the place of cattle alike in the land- 
scape and in life, the tender consideration for the flock and herd, 
all these belong to a time when the pastoral habit has not ceased, 
and the tales that belong to it are told from mouth to mouth. The 
breath of poetry sweeps through them; and though they are set in 



1] LITERARY STYLE OF J AND E xv 

a historic frame that distinctly implies a reflective effort to conceive 
the course of human things as a whole, they have not passed into 
the stage of learned arrangement; they still possess the freshness of 
the elder time 1 / 

E in general character does not differ widely from J. But he does 
not as a writer exhibit the same rare literary power, he does not 
display the same command of language, the same delicacy of touch, 
the same unequalled felicity of representation and expression. His 
descriptions are less poetical; and his narratives do not generally 
leave the same vivid impression. As compared with P, both J and E 
exhibit far greater freshness and brightness of style; their diction is 
more varied; they are not bound to the same stereotyped forms of 
thought and expression ; their narratives are more dramatic, more life- 
like, more instinct with feeling and character. 

The question of the dates of the sources of which the Book of 
Genesis is composed, cannot be properly answered from a consideration 
of this book alone, as many of the most important criteria upon 
which the answer depends are afforded by the subsequent parts of 
the Pentateuch. There are indeed passages in Genesis which cannot 
reasonably be supposed to have been written until after Israel had 
been settled in Canaan, as xii. 6, xiii. 7; xiv. 14 ('Dan'); xxi. 32, 34 
and xxvi. 1 (the Philistines, if what is stated on x. 14 is correct, were 
not in Palestine till the age of Ramses III., considerably after the 
Exodus); xxxvi. 31 (a verse which obviously presupposes the existence 
of the monarchy in Israel); xl. 15 (Canaan called the 'land of the 
Hebrews'); and ch. xlix., at least if the considerations advanced on 
p. 380 are accepted: but these are isolated passages, the inferences 
naturally authorized by which might not impossibly be neutralized 
by the supposition that they were later additions to the original 
narrative, and did not consequently determine by themselves the date 
of the book as a whole. The question of the date of the Book of 
Genesis is really part of a wider question, viz. that of the date of the 
Pentateuch, or rather Hexateuch, as a whole; and a full considera- 
tion of this wider subject obviously does not belong to the present 
context. It must suffice, therefore, here to say generally, that when 
the different parts of the Hexateuch, especially the Laws, are com- 
pared together, and also compared with the other historical books of 
the Old Testament, and the prophets, it appears clearly that they 

1 Carpenter, The Oxford Hexateuch, i. 102 f. (ed. 2, p. 185 f.). 



xvi INTRODUCTION [ 1 

cannot all be the work of a single man, or the product of a single 
age : the different strata of narrative and law into which, when closely 
examined, the Hexateuch is seen to fall, reveal differences of such a kind 
that they can only be adequately accounted for by the supposition that 
they reflect the ideas, and embody the institutions, which were character- 
istic of widely different periods of Israelitish history. The general con- 
clusions to which a consideration of all the facts thus briefly indicated 
has led critics, and which are adopted in the present volume, are that 
the two sources, J and E, date from the early centuries of the monarchy, 
J belonging probably to the ninth, and E to the early part of the 
eighth cent. B.c. {before Amos or Hosea); and that P, at least in its 
main stock (for it seems, as a whole, to have been the work of a school 
of writers rather than of an individual, and particular sections, espe- 
cially in Exodus and Numbers, appear to be of later origin), belongs 
to the age of Ezekiel and the Exile 1 . Chap. xiv. is clearly not part 
of either J, E, or P, but belongs to a special source. There is, how- 
ever, no sufficient foundation for the idea that it is of foreign origin, 
whether translated from a cuneiform original, or based upon an ancient 
Canaanitish source; for the narrative is genuinely Hebraic in style and 
colouring. Its date is uncertain: but it has some points of contact 
with P; and, as Prof. G. F. Moore remarks (EncB. h. 1677), the 
impression which the contents and style of the chapter make as a 
whole is of affinity with the later rather than with the earlier Heb. 
historical writing. It will scarcely be earlier than the age of the 
Exile. 

The Book of Genesis assumed its present form, it is probable, by 
two main stages. First, the two independent, but parallel, narratives 
of the patriarchal age, J and E, were combined into a whole by a com- 
piler, who sometimes incorporated long sections of each intact (or 
nearly so), and at other times combined elements from each into 
a single narrative, introducing occasionally in the process short ad- 
ditions of his own (e.g. in xxvi. 1 5, xxxix. 1, xl. 1, 3, 5). The whole 
thus formed (JE) was afterwards combined with the narrative P by 
a second compiler, who, adopting P as his framework, accommodated 
JE to it, omitting in either what was necessary to avoid needless 

1 On the general question of the date of the Hexateuch, and for a fuller 
statement of the grounds on which these conclusions rest, see F. H. Woods' art. 
Hexateuch in DB. (cf. also the art. Law in OT.); the present writer's Introduction 
to the Lit. of the OT. pp. 115150 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 122159) ; or the very compre- 
hensive discussion of the subject by J. E. Carpenter in the Oxford Hexateuch, vol. i. 
passim (ed. 2, under the title The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902). 



1] DATE OF GENESIS xvii 

repetition, and making sneh slight redactional adjustments as the 
unity of his work required. One chapter (xiv.), the literary style of 
which distinguishes it from both JE and P, he incorporated from 
a special source. The Book of Genesis is not a conglomerate of dis- 
connected fragments; the three main sources, or documents, of which 
it consists, once formed independent wholes, and the portions selected 
from each have been combined together in accordance with a de- 
finite plan. 

It remains to consider the other leading characteristics of the 
several sources. Here also, as in their literary features, J and E have 
many similarities, though there are at the same time differences; 
while P displays marked contrasts to both. J and E may be regarded 
as having reduced to writing the traditions respecting the antecedents 
and beginnings of their nation, which were current in the early 
centuries of the monarchy. In view of the principles and interests 
which predominate in both these narratives, and in contradistinction 
to those which determine the form and contents of the priestly narra- 
tive (p. iv.), JE, treated as a whole, may be termed the propketical 
narrative of the Hexateuch: the ideas and points of view which are 
so conspicuous afterwards in a more developed form in the writings 
of the great prophets appearing in it in germ, and the general religious 
spirit being very similar. 

Among the characteristics of J, one that is very prominent is his 
tendency to trace back to their beginnings, even in the primitive 
history of mankind, many existing customs, institutions, or facts of 
life and society. Thus in ii. 4 b iii. he explains the origin of the 
distinction of the sexes, the institution of marriage, the presence of sin 
and toil in the world, the custom of wearing clothing, the gait and 
habits of the serpent, the subject condition of woman, and the pain of 
child-bearing. As, however, is pointed out on p. 36, the explanations 
offered of these facts are not historical or scientific explanations, but 
explanations prompted by religious reflection upon the facts of life. 
In ch. iv. he describes, in accordance with the beliefs current among 
the Hebrews, the origin of pastoral life and agriculture, of city-life, 
polygamy, music, metallurgy, and the public worship of Yahweh ; in 
ix. 20 26 that of the culture of the vine ; and in x., xi. 1 9 that of 
the division of mankind into different nations, and of diversities of 
language. He explains the origin of a common proverb or saying in 
x. 9 and xxii. 14, of a remarkable pinnacle of salt overlooking the 
Dead Sea in xix. 26, of the custom of not eating a particular part of 



xviii INTRODUCTION [ l 

an animal in xxxii. 32, of the Egyptian system of land-tenure in 
xlvii. 26, and of a great many names of persons 1 and places 2 , at least 
according to the etymologies current at the time. Explanations of the 
last-named kind are also found in E ; but much less frequently than 
in J 8 . J explains also, in accordance with contemporary beliefs, the 
origin of various nations and tribes, especially of those which were 
more or less closely related to Israel, as x. 8 12, 13 19, 24 30; 
xix. 37 f. (Moab and Ammon), xxii. 20 24 (the Nahoridae), xxv. 1 4 
(the Keturaean tribes), xxv. 21 26 a (Edom). By prophetic words 
attributed, in most cases, to their respective ancestors, he accounts for 
the character and political position of many of the peoples of his own 
day, ix. 25 27 (Canaan), xvi. 12 (Ishmael), xxv. 23, xxvii. 28 f., 
39, 40 (Edom and Israel), ch. xlix. (the twelve tribes) : cf. in E xlviii. 
14, 19 (Manasseh and Ephraim), 22 (Shechem). In other respects 
also J loves to point to the character of nations or tribes as fore- 
shadowed in their beginiiings (ix. 22 24, xvi. 12, xxv. 25 f., 33 ; and 
perhaps xix. 30 38, xxxv. 22 [see the notes] : cf. also xlix. 3 4, 5 7). 
In J the knowledge and worship of Jehovah go back to primitive 
times : Cain and Abel already make their * presents ' to Him (iv. 3), 
which may be either of the fruits of the ground or of the firstlings of 
the flock. Under Sheth (Gen. iv. 24) men begin, it may be supposed, 
in some more formal and public manner, to 'call with the name of 
Jehovah.' A distinction between * clean' and 'unclean' animals is 
recognized under Noah (vii. 2), who also builds an altar, and offers 
'clean' animals as burnt offerings to Jehovah (viii. 20). The same 
usages prevailed during the whole patriarchal period : the patriarchs 
are repeatedly spoken of as building altars, and ' calling with the name 
of Jehovah' (see pp. xix, xx) 4 . 

1 Eve (iii. 20), Cain (iv. 1), Seth (iv. 25), Noah (v. 29), Peleg (x. 25), Ishmael 
(xvi. 11), Isaac (xviii. 12 15, but not explicitly), Moab and Amnion (xix. 37, 38), 
Esau, Jacob, and Edom (xxv. 25, 26, 30), most of the names of Jacob's sons in 
xxix. 31 xxx. 24, Israel (xxxii. 28), Ben-oni and Benjamin (xxxv. 18), Perez and 
Zerah (xxxviii. 29, 30) ; cf. ii. 7 (' man '), 23 ('woman '), xli. 45 (Zaphenath-Pa'neah). 

2 Enoch (iv. 17), Babylon (xi. 9), Beer-lahai-roi (xvi 14), Zo'ar (xix. 22), Yahweh- 
yir'eh (xxii. 14), the wells 'Esek, Sitnah, andBehoboth (xxvi. 20, 21, 22), Beer-sheba' 
(xxvi. 33), Bethel (xxviii. 19), Gilead and Mizpah (xxxi. 48, 49), Penuel (xxxii. 30), 
Succoth (xxxiii. 17), Abel-mizraim (1. 11), Marah (Ex. xv. 23) : cf. also the allusions 
to Seir xxv. 25, Mahanaim xxxii. 7, 10, Jabbok xxxii. 24, and Penuel xxxiii. 10. 

3 Isaac (xxi. 6), Dan (xxx. 6), Issachar (xxx. 18), Zebulun (xxx. 20- c ), Joseph 
(xxx. 23), Manasseh and Ephraim (xli. 51 f.); Beer-sheba' (xxi. 31), Bethel (xxviii. 
17, 22), Mahanaim (xxxii. 2), and Allon-bachuth (xxxv. 8): cf. also xxxiii. 20, 
xxxv. 7. The meaning of 'Ishmael' is alluded to in xxi. 17. 

4 This is J's representation : but it can scarcely be doubted that in his use of the 
name Jehovah (Yahweh) he in reality merely transfers, without conscious reflection, 
the usaqe of his own age to primitive, if not also to patriarchal times. The total 



1] CHARACTERISTICS OF J AND E xix 

E, however, seems to describe a threefold stage of religious develop- 
ment. What picture, indeed, he had formed of the primitive history 
of mankind we do not know : though Gen. xx. 13, Josh. xxiv. 2 
appear to shew that he carried back the story of Abraham to his 
ancestral connexions in Haran, the first traces of his narrative which 
remain are to be found in ch. xv. But Israel's ancestors, he declares, 
'beyond the River ' (i.e. in Haran), were idolaters (Josh. xxiv. 2, 14, 15); 
Jacob's wives accordingly bring their ' foreign gods ' into Canaan with 
them (Gen. xxxv. 2 4) ; and Rachel in particular steals her father's 
teraphim (xxxi. 19). By what means Abraham learnt the higher 
truth, the existing narrative does not state. But he appears as a 
consistent monotheist (xx. 11, 17, &c.) ; and Jacob, though his mono- 
theism, at least in xxviii. 20 22, is of an immature and rudimentary 
type, still calls upon his family and household to bury their l foreign 
gods ' under the terebinth at Shechem (xxxv. 4). The name Yahweh 
is in this source first expressly revealed in Ex. iii. 14 f. 

In the Book of Genesis, both narratives deal largely with the 
antiquities of the sacred sites of Palestine. Thus an altar is built by 
Abraham, as soon as he enters the country, at Shechem, close to th3 
1 Directing Terebinth ' (xii. 7), another between Bethel and Ai (xii. 8 
cf. xiii. 4), a third at Hebron, by the terebinths of Mamre (xiii. 18), 
and a fourth on (apparently) the site of the later Temple (xxii. 9) : 
other altars are built by Isaac at Beer-sheba (xxvi. 25) and by Jacob 
at Shechem (xxxiii. 20 ; but perhaps ' pillar ' should be read here : see 
the note), and at Bethel (xxxv. 1, 3, 7) : Jacob also sacrifices at Beer- 
sheba on his way to Egypt (xlvi. 1). A sacred standing-stone, or 
'pillar,' is set up and anointed by Jacob at Bethel on his journey from 
Canaan in E (xxviii. 18, 22 : cf. xxxi. 13), and on his return to Canaan 
in J (xxxv. 14) ; perhaps also he sets one up at Shechem (xxxiii. 20 : 
see the note) : by another pillar he marks Rachel's grave (xxxv. 20) : 
a pillar, also, marking a boundary, is erected by Jacob and Laban in 
Gilead (xxxi. 45, 51, 52) ; on the last-mentioned occasion, moreover, 
Jacob offers sacrifice, and a sacred meal, accompanying the sacrifice, is 

absence of proper names compounded with Yahweh in the patriarchal period makes 
it probable that, though not absolutely new in Moses' time (cf. p. xlvii), it was still 
current previously only in a limited circle, possibly, as has been suggested, in the 
family of Moses (Ewald, n. 158; Wellh. Hist. 433; Konig, Hauptprobleme, 27), or 
among the Kenites (Stade, Gesch. I. 130; Budde, The Religion of Israel to the 
Exile, 1899, pp. 17 25). Even till the age of Samuel such compounds are rare 
(Jochebed, Joshua, Joash, Jotham, Jonathan, Jud. xviii. 30); see Gray, Heb. Pr. 
Names, 257 9 (on Ahijah, 1 Ch. ii. 25, see ibid. p. 36). (The time is hardly ripe 
yet for drawing inferences from the facts mentioned on p. xlix.) 

D. 



xx INTRODUCTION [ 1 

said to have been partaken of by him and Laban (v. 54). An oracle, 
perhaps at Beer-sheba, appears to be alluded to in xxv. 22. Sacred 
trees (mostly terebinths), which, it may be supposed, were pointed to 
in the narrators' own times, are mentioned at Shechem (xii. 6, xxxv. 4 ; 
cf. Jos. xxiv. 26), Hebron (xiii. 18, xviii. 1 ; cf. xiv. 13), Beer-sheba 
(xxi. 33 ; a tamarisk), and near Bethel (xxxv. 8) 1 . Abraham is farther 
described as 'calling with the name of Jehovah' by the altar near 
Bethel in xii. 8, xiii. 4, and by the tamarisk tree at Beer-sheba, xxi. 33 ; 
and Isaac as doing the same by the altar at Beer-sheba (xxvi. 25). 
The passages just cited may be taken to give a picture of the forms of 
worship which, as tradition told, the patriarchs had been accustomed 
to use 2 . In several cases, also, like many of those cited in footnotes a 
and 8 on p. xviii, they seem to embody traditional explanations of the 
origin of the places, or objects, held sacred at the time when the 
narratives in question were written, though in a later age, when religion 
became more spiritualized, they fell into disrepute : they were con- 
secrated by theophanies, or they commemorated other incidents in the 
lives of the patriarchs. 

It is characteristic of J that his representations of the Deity are 
highly anthropomorphic. He represents Jehovah not only (as the 
prophets generally, even the latest, do) as expressing human resolutions 
and swayed by human emotions (e.g. being pained, or repenting, vi. 6 f., 
swearing, xxiv. 7, &c), but as performing sensible acts. Thus in 
ii. 4 b iii. Jehovah moulds man out of the clods of the ground, 
breathes into his nostrils the breath of life, plants, places, takes, sets, 
brings, builds, closes up, walks in the garden in the cool of the day, 
makes coats of skin ; elsewhere He shuts Noah into the ark (vii. 16), 
smells the savour of a sacrifice (viii. 21 : cf. 1 S. xxvi. 19), comes doivn 
for various purposes to examine the tower built by men (xi. 5), and 
again (v. 7) to frustrate their purpose, to investigate on the spot the 
truth of the report about the sin of Sodom (xviii. 21), or to deliver 
Israel from its bondage (Ex. iii. 8), visits Abraham and Lot in a 
human form, and performs before them the actions of ordinary men 
(xviii. xix.), wrestles with Jacob (xxxii. 24 f.), meets Moses at his 
lodging-place, and seeks to slay him (Ex. iv. 24 f.), and takes off the 
chariot wheels of the Egyptians (xiv. 25). Such anthropomorphic 
representations are not found in E. In E, Elohim does not perform 
sensible acts, or visit the earth in personal form : He only ' comes ' 

1 Cf. Jud. iv. 11, vi. 11, 19, ix. 6, 37, 1 S. x. 3, xxii. 6, xxxi. 13. 

3 The sabbath is not mentioned, though J uses the term 'week, 1 xxix. 27, 28. 



1] CHARACTERISTICS OF J xxi 

and 'speaks' in a vision or a dream (xv. 1, xx. 3, 6, xxi. 12 [see the 
note], xxii. 1 [notice v. 3 a ], xxxi. 11, 24, xlvi. 2, Nu. xxii. 9 [see vv. 8, 
13], 20) ; or His angel calls out from heaven (xxi. 17, xxii. 11) : even 
in Jacob's dream at Bethel, while in J the patriarch sees Jehovah 
standing beside him, in E angels ascending and descending are the 
medium of communication between heaven and earth. 

In J the prophetical element is particularly prominent. Hi 
narratives, more than those of any other historical writer of th 
Old Testament, are the vehicle of moral and religious teaching. He 
explains the origin of evil in the world, and expounds the moral 
significance of human labour and suffering (ch. iii.). In his narratives 
of Eve and Cain, he presents, in a few but effective strokes, two typical 
examples of the manner in which temptation assails, and too often 
overcomes, the soul. He depicts the growth of evil which accompanies 
progress in the arts of life (iv. 17 ff.) ; he calls attention to the 'evil 
imagination' inherent even in the descendants of righteous Noah 
(viii. 21) ; and notices the growth of wickedness and arrogance, and 
the depravation of manners (vi. 5, ix. 22, xi. 4, xiii. 13, xix. 4 ff., 31 ff.). 
He depicts the patriarchs not indeed as men without fault, but never- 
theless as, on the whole, maintaining a lofty standard of faith, con- 
stancy, and uprightness of life, both among the heathen in whose 
land they dwelt, and also amid examples of worldly self-indulgence, 
duplicity, and jealousy, afforded sometimes by members of their own 
family. The shades, sometimes dark shades, on the characters of 
Lot and Laban, Rebekah, Jacob, and Rachel, throw into clearer relief 
the more noble and unselfish personalities of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Joseph. The patriarchs are men, chosen by God (xii. 1, xxi v. 7), and 
trained and educated under His providence, firstly to live as godlike 
men themselves, and then to teach their families to follow in their 
steps, that so in the end a holy people of God may be established on 
the earth (xviii. 18 f.). The patriarchal history is, in his hands, 
instinct with the consciousness of a great future : Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, are vouchsafed in succession glimpses of the divine plan : 
their descendants are to be as countless as the sand of the sea, or the 
stars of heaven ; they are to possess the land which in the patriarchs' 
own days the ' Canaanite and the Perizzite ' occupy (xiii. 7 ; cf. xii. 6, 
xxiv. 3) : the spiritual privileges enjoyed by them are to attract the 
envy of all the nations of the world (xxii. 18, xxvi. 4), even if their 
actual extension to them is not contemplated (xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxviii. 
14, see the note on xii. 3). Though the actual words are not used, 

82 




xxii INTRODUCTION [ 1 

Jehovah is first described as 'choosing* Israel in Deuteronomy 
(iv. 37 aL), J has thus a clear consciousness of Israel's ' election J 
and ' vocation.' He is further ' penetrated by the thought of Jehovah's 
mercifulness, long-suffering, and faithfulness ' (Gen. vi. 8, viii. 21 f., 
xv. 6, xviii. 23 ff., xxiv. 7, xxxii. 12 ; cf. Ex. xxxii. 9 14, xxxiii. 12 ff.) ; 
and frequently by his narratives, if not in express words (cf. xxvi. 
2, 24), he illustrates the providence with which Jehovah watches over 
and protects His faithful worshippers. The latter is however a thought 
which is perhaps more frequently and distinctly expressed in E (comp. 
xx. 7, xxi. 12, 17 20, xxxi. 5, 7 9, 11, 24, 42, xxxii. 1, xxxv. 3, 
xli. 39, xlv. 5, 7, 8, xlvi. 3, xlviii. 15, 21, L 20, 24). 

P is in method and point of view hardly less different from both 
J and E than he is in style. P is not satisfied to cast into a literary 
form what may be termed the popular conception of the patriarchal 
and Mosaic ages : his aim is to give a systematic view, from a priestly 
standpoint, of the origin and chief institutions of the Israeli tish 
theocracy. For this purpose, as was remarked above (p. vi.), an outline 
of the history is sufficient : the narrative of P becomes detailed only at 
important epochs, or where the origin of some existing ceremonial 
institution has to be explained. The length of a period, if not marked 
by events of any consequence, is indicated by a genealogy (ch. v., 
xi. 10 25). Similarly in the Mosaic age, the commission of Moses, 
and events connected with the exodus, are narrated with some fulness ' : 
but only the description of the Tabernacle and the ceremonial system 
(Ex. xxv. xxxi., xxxv. xl. ; Lev. ; much of Numbers) can be termed 
comprehensive : even of the incidents in the Wilderness many appear 
to be introduced chiefly on account of some law or important con- 
sequence arising out of them. 

In the arrangement of his material, system and circumstantiality 
are the guiding principles ; and their influence may be traced both in 
the plan of his narrative as a whole, and in his treatment of individual 
sections. From first to last the narrative is constructed with a careful 
and uniform regard to chronology : the days of Creation, the ages of 
the patriarchs, both in chaps, v. and xi., and subsequently, at each 
important event of their lives (p. xxvi f.), the dates of the rise and fall 
of the waters of the Flood (vii.6, 11, 24, viii.3 b , 4, 5, 13 a , 14), and in 
the Mosaic age the dates of the principal events of the exodus, are all 
exactly noted. Moreover, the history advances along a well-defined 

1 See the passages in the synopsis on p. v. 



1] CHARACTERISTICS OF P xxiii 

line, marked by a gradually diminishing length of human life ; by the 
revelation of God under three distinct names, Elohim, El Shaddai 
(Gen. xvii. 1), and Jehovah (Ex. vi. 2, 3); by the blessings of Adam and 
Noah (Gen. i. 28 30, ix. 2 6), each with its characteristic conditions ; 
and by the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel, each with its 
special ' sign,' the rainbow, the rite of circumcision, and the Sabbath 
(Gen. ix. 12 f., xvii. 11, Ex. xxxi. 13, 17). In P's picture of the 
Mosaic age the minute description of the Tabernacle, sacrifices, and 
other ceremonial institutions, the systematic marshalling of the nation 
by tribes and families, and the unity of purpose and action which in 
consequence regulates its movements (Nu. i. iv., x. 11 28, &c), 
are the most conspicuous features. Wherever possible, P seeks to set 
before his readers a concrete picture, with definite figures and pro- 
portions : observe, for example, his exact account of the dimensions of 
the ark, of the height to which it rose above the highest mountain- 
tops (vii. 20) ; and afterwards, the care taken by him to particularize 
the exact dimensions of the Tabernacle, sacred vessels, and other 
furniture belonging to it, the exact numbers of the various tribes 
(Nu. i., xxvi.), and the precise amount of spoil taken from the 
Midianites (Nu. xxxi.). It is probable that in this systematized 
picture of antiquity there is a considerable artificial, or ideal, element 1 . 
The same desire to produce a concrete picture is no doubt a con- 
tributory cause of the consistent regard to chronology displayed by P, 
as also to other statistical data : comp. for instance the lists and 
enumerations in Gen. xlvi. 8 27, Ex. vi 14 27, Nu. i. iv., vii., 
xiii. 1 15, xxvi., xxxiii., xxxiv. 

P's treatment of the entire period covered by the Book of Genesis 
is very different from that of either J or E. He evinces scarcely any 
interest in the explanation either of names, or of the facts and in- 
stitutions of human life and society 3 . No inventions are attributed by 
him to the antediluvian patriarchs : they form a mere list of names 
and ages. He narrates the leading events in the lives of the patriarchs, 
but, except at a few crucial points, as mere facts : on the conflicts of 
interest and feeling which led Abraham, for instance, to acquiesce in 
the expulsion of Ishmael, or Rebekah and Jacob to outwit Isaac, he is 

1 Compare Ottley's Bampton Lectures for 1897 (on * Aspects of the Old Testa- 
ment'), pp. 120 5, where this feature of P's narratives is well described and 
illustrated. 

a In Genesis the only names of which the origin is stated or explained by P, 
are Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac (xvii. 5, 15, 19, see v. 17), Israel (xxxv. 10), and 
Bethel (xxxv. 15) : cf. the allusion to the meaning of ' Ishmael ' in xvii. 20. 



xxiv INTRODUCTION [ 1 

silent; the dramatic movement, and the abundance of incident and 
colloquy, which are such conspicuous features in the narrative of J and 
even in that of E, are almost entirely lacking in those of P l . There is 
also a singular absence of geographical detail. Abraham dwells ' in the 
land of Canaan,' Lot * in the cities of the Kikkar ' (xiii. 12 ; cf. xix. 29) ; 
but the various places visited by the one, the particular city which was 
the home of the other, are not indicated. The altars, wells, sacred 
trees, and stones, the centres of so many picturesque scenes in J and E, 
are unnoticed in P : one place only, Mamre, or Hebron, is named with 
repeated emphasis on account of the adjacent family sepulchre of 
Machpelah (p. xi, No. 33) ; Bethel also is referred to once (xxxv. 15). 

In his religious theory of the patriarchal age, P differs also 
markedly from both J and E. The name Yahweh is unknown : it is 
first revealed in the age of Moses (Ex. vi. 2 f.). Altars, sacrifices, 
sacred pillars are equally unknown; the only ceremonial institutions 
recognized by him as pre-Mosaic are the Sabbath (observed by God at 
the end of the week of Creation, but first enjoined upon Israel in the 
Mosaic age), the prohibition to eat blood (ix. 4 f.), and circumcision : 
no act of worship seems to be thought of till the appropriate place has 
been constructed, and the right persons appointed, for its performance ; 
accordingly, the first sacrifice recorded is that of Aaron and his sons in 
Lev. viii. Primitive humanity is represented by P as subsisting wholly 
on vegetable food (Gen. i. 29) ; animal food is first permitted after the 
Flood, coupled however with the restriction against eating the blood ; 
permission is also given at the same time for capital punishment to be 
inflicted upon the murderer (ix. 3 6). In this view of primitive 
history, as in the other instances referred to above (p. xxiii), there is 
a large artificial element: it is the embodiment not of a genuine 
historical tradition, but of an ideal. The promises given to the 
patriarchs (see on xii. 2 f.), unlike those of J (see ibid.), are limited to 
Israel itself: they do not embrace other nations. The substance of 
these promises is the future growth and glory (' kings shall come out 
of thee ') of the Abrahamic clan ; the establishment of a covenant with 
its members (in J mentioned in Genesis once only, and in very different 
terms, xv. 18), implying a special relation between them and God 
(xvii. 2 21 (repeatedly), Ex. ii. 24, vi. 4 f.), and the confirmation of 
the ' land of their sojournings ' as their possession. The writer's ideal, 

1 And so JO, the particle of entreaty, I beteech thee, or now (enolitio), so common 
in colloquy, which occurs 110 times in JE in the Hexateuch, is found but twice in 
P (Nu. xvi. 8, Josh. xxii. 26). 



2] CHARACTERISTICS OF P xxv 

however, the theocracy, is not reached in Genesis ; and the culminating 
promise, declaring the abiding presence of Jehovah with His people, is 
only found in Ex. xxix. 43 46, attached to the directions for the 
construction of the Tabernacle. 

Ps representations of God are far less anthropomorphic than those 
of J, or even of E. No visions or dreams are mentioned by him ; no 
angel either calls from heaven, or walks on earth. God is indeed 
spoken of as ' appearing ' to men, and as ' going up ' from them (xvii. 1, 
22 f., xxxv. 9, 13, xlviii. 3, Ex. vi. 3), at important moments of the 
history : but no further description of His appearance is given ; nor 
is He ever represented as assuming a personal form : usually the 
revelation of God to man takes the form of simple ' speaking ' to them 
(i. 29, vi. 13, viii. 15, ix. 1, 8, Ex. vi. 2, xii. 1 al). So in the account 
of Creation, in P God is represented simply as ' speaking ' : the reader 
cannot localize Him : He acts as a spirit ; and the creative word 
realizes itself : in J, on the other hand (ii. 4 b ff.), the reader pictures 
Jehovah as walking upon the earth, and He is represented as per- 
forming a series of sensible acts (p. xx f.) : in other words, P's 
representation of the Deity is far more c transcendent ' than that of J. 
Anthropomorphic expressions are indeed in general either avoided 
by P, or ' reduced to these harmless figures without which it is hardly 
possible to speak of a personal God at all ' ; and anthropopathisms are 
almost uniformly eschewed by him. 

2. The Chronology of Genesis. 

Under this head two questions have to be considered : (1) is the 
chronology of Genesis consistent with itself? and (2) if, and in so far 
as, it is consistent with itself, is it consistent with such external data 
as we possess for fixing the chronology of the period embraced in the 
Book? 

(1) The first of these questions need not detain us long. It is 
shewn, in the notes on xii. 11, xxi. 15, xxiv. 67, xxxv. 8, and pp. 262, 
365 n., 368, that there are a number of points in the Book at which 
the statements made about one or other of the patriarchs in J or E are 
not consistent with the ages or families ascribed to them in P : in other 
words, that in several instances J and E pictured the patriarchs as 
being aged differently from what they must have been, if the ages 
noted in P are correct, and that consequently the chronology of P is 
not consistent with that presupposed by J and E. 



xxvi INTRODUCTION [ 2 

(2) In the Book of Genesis the only systematic chronology is that 
of P. It is true, there are in J and E occasional notes or other 
indications of time 1 ; but they are not sufficient to form a continuous 
chronology : they authorize no inference as to the length of the ante- 
diluvian period; and as to the patriarchal period, though they state 
that Abraham and Sarah had both reached a great age when Isaac was 
born, they do not mention what their ages were ; and they contain 
nothing to suggest that the period from the birth of Abraham to the 
death of Jacob was materially in excess of what it would be if measured 
by the ordinary standards of human life : in other words, all that they 
suggest about it is that it embraced some 180 years, instead of ex- 
tending, as the figures of P give it, to 307 years. And the data 
contained in J and B include, at least in Genesis, no synchronism with 
external history : they contain nothing, for instance, enabling us to 
infer with what Babylonian or Egyptian kings, Abraham, Isaac, or 
Jacob was contemporary. 

In P however there is a systematic chronology running through 
the Book from the beginning almost to the end, so carefully and 
methodically constructed, that every important birth, marriage, and 
death, has its assigned place in it. This chronology may be thus 
summarized : 

Heb. text Sam. LXX. 

From the Creation of man to the Flood 

(Gen. v., vii. 11) 1656 1307 2262 2 

From the Flood to the Call of Abraham 

(Gen. xi. 1026, xii. 4) 365 1015 1145 3 
From the Creation of man to the Call 

of Abraham 2021 2322 3407 

In the rest of Genesis P has the following notes* : 

75 Age of Abraham, at call (xii. 4). 

marriage with Hagar (xvi 3). 

birth of Ishmael (xvi. 16). 

promise of Isaac (xvii. 1). [Sarah 89, xvii. 18.] 

birth of Isaac (xxL 5). 

,, death of Sarah, aged 127 (xxiii. 1). 

death (xxv. 7). 

1 See xv. 13, 16; xxxi. 38, 41; xii. 1, 47, 53, 54, xlv. 6; 1. 22, 26; and such 
notices as that Isaac, Joseph, and Benjamin were, respectively, born in their fathers' 
'old age' (xxi. 2; xxxvii. 3; xliv. 20). 

3 See particulars of this period on p. 79. 

3 See p. 138. The 'two years' of Gen. xi. 10 are disregarded: see v. 32, vii. 11. 

4 The figures enclosed in brackets are not actually stated, but inferred. 



[85] 








86 


> 





99 





n 


100 


> 


> 


[137] 








175 





n 



2] CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS xxvii 

13 Age of Ishmael at circumcision (xvii. 25). 
137 ,, ,, death (xxv. 17). 

40 Age of Isaac at marriage (xxv. 20). 
60 H birth of Jacob and Esau (xxv. 26). 

[75 death of Abraham.] 

[100] marriage of Esau, aged 40 (xxvi. 34). 

180 death (xxxv. 28). [Jacob would be now 120.] 

130 Age of Jacob at arrival in Egypt (xlvii. 9). 
147 ,, death (xlvii. 28). 

17 Age of Joseph when sold (xxxvii. 2). 

30 promoted in Egypt (xli. 46). 

Taking account of those notices only which give the length of the 
period, we get : 

From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac 25 years 

Age of Isaac at birth of Jacob and Esau 60 

Age of Jacob when he went down into Egypt 130 

The period of the patriarchs' sojourn in Canaan was thus 215 

We obtain accordingly, for the number of years from the Creation 
to the Exodus : 

From the Creation of man to the Call 

of Abraham 
The period of the patriarchs' sojourn in 

Canaan 
The period of the Israelites' sojourn in 

Egypt according to Ex. xii. 40, 41 (P) 

From the Creation of man to the Exodus 2666 2752 3S37 

Now, 1 K. vi. 1 equates the fourth year of Solomon, the year in 
which the Temple was founded, with the 480th year from the Exodus. 
Accepting, then, Ussher's date for the reign of Solomon, b.o. 1014 
975, it ought probably, the chronology of the kings being corrected 
from Assyrian data, to be really 40 or 50 years later 3 , we get B.C. 1491 
for the Exodus, and so we obtain the following Table of the principal 
earlier Biblical dates, in years b.o. : 

1 Sam. and lxx. read in Ex. xii. 40 'The sojourning of the children of Israel in 
the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years,' reducing the period of 
the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in the Hebrew text (cf. Gal. iii. 17; 
Jos. Ant. ii. 15. 2). 

3 See DB. i. 401; and cf. the writer's Isaiah, hit life and times, p. 13. 



Heb. 


Sam. 


LXX. 


2021 


2322 


3407 


215 


215 


215 


430 


215 1 


215 1 



xxviii INTRODUCTION [ 2 





Heb. 


Sam. 


LXX. 


Creation of man 1 


4157* 


4243 


5328 


The Deluge 


2501 


2936 


3066 


Call of Abraham 


2136 


1921 


1921 


Jacob's migration into Egypt 


1921 


1706 


1706 


The Exodus 


1491 


1491 


1491 



It follows from what is said on pp. 79, 138, that the higher dates in the 
lxx. for the Creation of man, and the Deluge, are chiefly a consequence of 
the fact that in the lists in Gen. v. and xi. 10 26, the age of each patriarch at 
the birth of his firstborn is in the lxx. in many cases 100 years more than it 
is in the Hebrew text 

It is impossible now that these figures, or, at least, the majority 
of them, can be historical. (1) As will be shewn in the following 
section, it is certain that man existed upon the earth long before either 
B.C. 4157 or (lxx.) 5328 3 . (2) The ages to which the several patriarchs, 
in the two lists of Gen. v. and Gen. xi. 10 26, lived, and at which, at 
least in the majority of cases in Gen. v., their eldest sons are stated to 
have been born, are incompatible with the constitution of the human 
body ; and could only have been attained if that constitution had differed 
from what it now is, to an extent which we are entirely unwarranted 
in assuming to have been the case (cf. p. 75). (3) We possess no 
independent information as to the date of the local inundation in 
Babylonia, which, if the assumption made on p. 108 is correct, will 
have formed the basis of both the Babylonian and the Biblical 
narratives of the Flood: in the abstract, either 2501, 2936, or 3066 B.C., 
would be possible for it. (4) The question of the dates of Abraham 
and the Exodus, and of the interval between them, is a more difficult 
one, and must be considered at greater length. The date of Ham- 
murabi, king of Babylon, cannot at present be fixed exactly ; but with 

1 Here and elsewhere the expression 'creation of man 1 has been used designedly 
in order to leave open the possibility that the 'days' of Gen. i. denote periods. 
There is however little doubt that the writer really meant ' days ' in a literal sense, 
and that Pearson was right when he inferred from the chapter that the world was 
represented as created '6000, or at farthest 7000,' years from the 17th cent. a.d. 
(cf. pp. 19, 2022, 26). 

2 Ussher's date, as is well known, is B.C. 4004 : but he (1) interpolates, most 
unnaturally, 60 years in Gen. xi. 26 (see the footnote, p. 142) ; and (2) he adopts in 
Ex. xii. 40 the computation implied in the reading of Sam. and lxx., which the 
rendering of AV., forced and artificial though it is, seems to make possible even for 
the Hebrew (contrast K V.). And 4157 + 60 - 215 * 4002 (the odd 2 years are the two 
neglected in Gen. xi. 10, p. xxvi, footnote 8 ). 

8 Or, calculating back from the probable actual date of the Exodus, c. 1230 b.u. 
^see p. xxix), b.o. 3896 or (lxx.) 5067. 



2] CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS xxix 

our present knowledge, the most probable date for his reign appears 
to be B.c. 2130 2088 l : if, therefore, he is the Amraphel of Gen. xiv. 
I, and if, further, the role assigned to Abraham in this chapter is, at 
least substantially, historical, this fixes Abraham's date to c. 2100 b.c. 
Can, now, the date of the Exodus be determined upon external 
grounds? (a) The Tel el-Amarna letters shew that, at the time 
when they were written, which, from the names of the kings men- 
tioned in them, viz. Amen-h6tef IV. of Egypt, and Burna-buriash of 
Babylon, Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed, must have been 
c. 1400 b.c, Palestine was still an Egyptian province, under the rule 
of Egyptian governors : the entry of the Israelites into Canaan could 
not, consequently, have taken place till after B.c. 1400. (6) It is 
stated in Ex. i. 1 1 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the Pharaoh 
two store-cities, Pithom and Raamses. The excavations of M. Naville 
have, however, shewn that Ramses II., of the 19th dynasty, was the 
builder of Pithom ; and the name of the other city, though it is still 
not certainly identified, is sufficient evidence that he was its founder 
likewise. Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect ; but Petrie, 
Breasted, and Meyer agree in assigning to Ramses II. dates varying 
only from B.c. 13101244 to B.c. 1292 1225 2 . But if Ramses II. 
was the Pharaoh of the oppression, the Pharaoh of the Exodus may 
be naturally assumed (cf. Ex. ii. 23) to have been his successor, i.e. 
Merenptah; and so the Exodus will have taken place between c. 1240 
and c. 1220 b.c. Thus, according to the best available authorities, the 
interval between Abraham and the Exodus will be some 900 years. 
It is however evident that such a period is inconsistent with the 
Biblical figures, whether the 645 of the Heb. text, or the 430 of 
the Sam. and lxx. (5) There is no external evidence enabling us to 

That the probable absolute date of the Exodus differs from the Biblical 
date, b.c. 1491, is not a serious difficulty: the date 1491 rests essentially upon 
the 480 (lxx. 440) years of 1 K. vi. 1, which is open to the suspicion of not 
being really traditional, but as having been arrived at by computation (e.g. of 
12 generations of 40 years each). 



1 See the note on p. 156 in the Addenda. 

2 Professor Sayce's date for Kamses II., b.c. 1348 1281 (Mon. 230, 242), quoted 
here in previous editions, is that fixed by the astronomer Mahler in 190: but 
though it is true that a 'Sothic' period (see the note on p. xxxiii in the Addenda) 
began in b.c. 1318, it seems that Mahler was mistaken in supposing that a certain 
horoscope in the Ramesseum connected the beginning of this period with Ramses' 
30th year (Eisenlohr, PSBA. 1895, p. 282; Meyer, Aeg. Chronol., 1904, p. 38). 
The date 13481281 for Ramses II., and with it Prof. Sayce's date for the Exodus, 
b.c. 1277, consequently fall through altogether. 



xxx INTRODUCTION [2 

fix the date of Jacob's migration into Egypt: the personal name of 
the Pharaoh with whom Joseph and Jacob had to do is not mentioned ; 
and there is nothing in the Book of Genesis which enables us either 
to conjecture his identity or even to judge of the dynasty to which 
he belonged. All that we can say is that, if the Israelites were 430 
years in Egypt, and the Exodus took place c. 1230 B.C., the Pharaoh of 
Joseph will have been one of the Hyksos kings (who ruled, according 
to Petrie, from b.c. 2098 to 1587, or, according to Meyer and Breasted, 
from c. b.c. 1680 to 1580). (6) The 430 years of Ex. xii. 40, 41 (Heb. 
text) are in substantial agreement with the 400 years of Gen. xv. 13. 
If however (see 4) a period as long as 900 years intervened between 
Abraham and the Exodus, it is evident that the Israelites must have 
been in Egypt for much more than the 430 years of the Heb. text, 
to say nothing of the 215 years of the Sam. and lxx. And the 
'fourth generation' of Gen. xv. 16 cannot even embrace as much as 
400 years; for though (cf. the note, and Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20, vii. 7 P) 
it might perhaps have been assumed that a generation in the later 
patriarchal period equalled 100 years, it is not credible that it should 
have done so in reality 1 . 

The only conclusion which the facts thus summed up justify is 
that the chronology of the Book of Genesis, which is, in effect, P's 
chronology, in spite of the ostensible precision of its details, has no 
historical value. The sole value which it possesses is that it sets before 
us the manner in which the author himself viewed the chronology of 
the period, and the perspective in which he placed the various person- 
ages who figure in it. It is an artificial system, which must have been 
arrived at in some way by computation ; though the data upon which 
it was calculated have not at present been ascertained 9 . For the 
entire period, the only synchronisms with external history which we 
at present possess, are those of Abraham with Amraphel (supposing 
the ordinary view of ch. xiv. to be accepted), and of the building of 
Ra'amses and Pithom with Ramses II. And if, as there seems no 
sufficient reason for doubting, the dates assigned to these kings are 
approximately correct, and there is an interval between them approach- 

1 It is remarkable that P's genealogies (see on xv. 16) should assign just four 
generations for the same period (Levi, Kohath, 'Amram, Moses; Levi, Kohath, 
Izhar, Korah; Reuben, Pallu, Eliab, Dathan and Abiram: the somewhat longer 
one in Nu. xxvi. 28 33, xxvii. 1, Jos. xvii. 3, including Gilead, the name of a 
country, must be artificial: cf. p. liv). It is possible that the 'fourth generation,' 
though incorrect in fact, had nevertheless, when the actual period had been 
forgotten, acquired a conventional currency in tradition. 

2 For a conjecture as to part of it, see below, p. 80. 



3] CHRONOLOGY OF GENESIS xxxi 

ing 900 years, the period between Abraham and Moses must be far 
greater than is allowed for by the chronology of the Pentateuch 1 . 



3. The Historical Value of the Book oj Genesis, 
a. The prehistoric period (chs. i. xi.). 

On the Biblical narrative of the Creation (Gen. i.) enough has been 
said on pp. 19 33. It has been there shewn that while the progress 
of scientific discovery in modern times has left the theological value of 
this sublimely-conceived narrative unimpaired, it has made it evident 
that it possesses no claim to contain a scientific account of the origin 
of the world, or to describe, even in popular language, the process 
by which actually the universe was constituted in its present order, 
and the earth was gradually adapted to become the home of its 
wondrous succession of ever-progressing types of life. For our know- 
ledge of the stages, so far as they can be determined, advancing with 
slow and measured steps through unnumbered ages, by which in the 
providence of God these effects were produced, and of the movements, 
on the one hand of colossal magnitude, on the other of far more than 
microscopic minuteness, by which the existing fabric of the universe 
has been marvellously built up, we must go to the mathematical and 
physical sciences, not to the Bible. 

It remains now to consider the historical value of the statements of 
Genesis, so far as they relate to the early history of mankind. And 
as we have seen, the date fixed by them for the creation of man is 
equivalent to B.C. 4157, or (according to the higher figures of the lxx.) 
ac. 5328. It is however certain that man existed upon the earth long 
before even the earlier of these dates, and that the vicissitudes through 
which the human race passed have been far more diversified, and must 
have occupied a far longer period to accomplish, than is allowed for by 
the Biblical narrative. 

The great antiquity of man upon the earth is apparent from the 
following considerations. 

1. It is the unanimous opinion of Assyriologists that in Babylonia 
the beginnings of civilization are to be found long before B.c. 4000. 
Thus Professor R,. W. Rogers, a most cautious and guarded American 

1 Cf. Sayce, EJIH. 143 146, who, after a discussion of the subject, arrives at 
the conclusion that the chronology of the OT. is of no value until we reach the 
time of David. 



xxxii INTRODUCTION [ 3 

Assyriologist, writes 1 , *If we call up before us the land of Babylonia, 
and transport ourselves backward until we reach the period of more 
than 4000 years before Christ, we shall be able to discern here and 
there signs of life, society, and government in certain cities. Civiliza- 
tion has already reached a high point, the arts of life are well 
advanced, and men are able to write down their thoughts and deeds 
in intelligible language and in permanent form. All these presuppose 
a long period of development running back through millenniums of 
unrecorded time.' And he proceeds to give particulars of some of the 
kings at this early date, for instance, of Lugal-zaggisi, who at about 
b.c. 4000 made Uruk (the Erech of Gen. x. 10) his capital, whose 
inscriptions engraved on vases have been found among the de'bris of 
the temple at Nippur (50 m. SE. of Babylon), and who claims to have 
been invested with the 'kingdom of the world,' and to have ruled 
1 from the lower sea of the Tigris and the Euphrates to the upper sea ' 
(the Mediterranean Sea). Sargon of Accad, who (p. 173 n.) conquered 
the 'land of the Amorites/ lived, according to Nabu-na'id, the last 
native king of Babylon (b.c. 555 538), 3200 years before himself 3 , 
i.e. at about b.c. 3800. The kings of Lagash now Telloh, about 
80 miles SE. of Nippur have left monuments of themselves, 
sculptured stones, with inscriptions, belonging substantially to the 
same age. Mr Boscawen 8 , upon the basis of M. de Morgan's excava- 
tions, concludes that civilization began in Susa before b.c. 5000 ; and 
after citing part of an inscription of more than 2000 lines, carved on 
the four faces of a granite obelisk found at Susa, and containing an 
account of payments made by a king called Manishtu-irba, in con- 
nexion with certain estates, remarks upon the striking evidence 
afforded by it of the antiquity of civilization in these parts : 'Here, 
in an inscription more than 6000 years old, we have a complete system 
of commerce, land estimated at corn value, and a currency and system 
of weights based on the sexagesimal scale. This alone is proof of long 
and continued usage.' It must indeed be evident that, if empires 
were founded, public buildings constructed, and writing, even in the 
difficult cuneiform script, and other arts familiarly practised, as early 

1 Hist, of Bab. and Ass. (New York, 1900), i. 349 f. 

2 The correctness of this statement has been questioned ; but it is accepted by 
most Assyriologists (e.g. Sayce, Eocp. Times, x. 25; L. W. King, EncB. i. 437; 
Maspero, i. 599 n.; cf. Bogers, i. 318 f., 337). 

3 Asiatic Quarterly Review, Oct. 1901, pp. 333 f., 350, 352. The inscriptions 
found by M. de Morgan are published, with translations, in Scheil's Textes Elamitea- 
Semitiques, n. (1900). 



3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxiii 

as B.C. 4000, the beginnings of civilization in Babylonia must have 
preceded this date by a period which, if impossible to estimate pre- 
cisely by years, must nevertheless have been very considerable. It is 
also to be noticed that already at this early date two distinct races, 
speaking two distinct languages, meet in Babylonia : the old Sumerian 
population of the country, and the Semitic immigrants, who are 
gradually superseding them 1 . 

The same lesson has been taught by exploration in Egypt. Menes, 
the founder of the first of the 31 dynasties enumerated by Mangtho, 
is assigned by Petrie to B.C. 4777, and by Meyer and Breasted to 
c. b.c. 3400 8 . But in 1897 the tomb of Menes was discovered by 
M. de Morgan at Nakada, about 30 miles N. of Thebes; and the 
objects of art, incised ivory, vases, statuettes, &c, and hiero- 
glyphics, found in it 3 , shew that the civilization of Egypt was already 
far advanced. The huge and skilfully- constructed pyramids of the 
fourth dynasty, beginning B.C. 3998 (Petrie), or B.c. 2900 (Meyer) 
and the remarkable finish of the sculptures, paintings, and other 
works of art 4 , belonging to this dynasty, support the same conclusion. 
Nor is this all. Between 1894 and 1901 excavations, carried on 
principally by Petrie, Amelineau, and de Morgan, in the tombs at 
Nakada and Gebel^n (in the same neighbourhood) brought to light 
remains of a ' pre-dynastic ' period (i. e. of a period preceding Menes), 
extending at least 7 800 years before Menes, in which the inhabitants 
of the Nile Valley, though they had not yet developed the arts 
practised in the early ' dynastic ' period 5 , displayed a marvellous skill 
in fashioning flint into weapons, tools, and implements of all kinds; 
they were also clever in the manufacture of pottery, although the 

1 Other authorities give similar dates for the earliest known kings of Babylonia, 
as Hommel, DB. i. 224 (before b.c. 4000), King, EncB. i. 442; Pinches, OT. in the 
light, etc. p. 124 (cf. 150). In the galleries of the British Museum, many objects 
and inscriptions are marked with a date 4500 B.C. See also the very instructive 
shilling Guide to the Bab. and Ass. Antiquities of the Brit. Museum (1900), pp. xi, 
3, 80, 124. 

* In explanation of these divergences, see the note in the Addenda. 

3 See Masp. i. ed. 4 (1901), pp. 232 b, 233 ; Budge, Hist, of Eg. i. 171, 
177192. 

4 See in Masp. i. 359 379 illustrations of the pyramids, and contemporary 
diorite statues, of the kings of this dynasty. 

6 See the careful comparison of pre-dynastic and early dynastic civilization in 
Egypt, as illustrated by objects found in tombs, with a summary of results, in G. A. 
Reisner's The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Der (in the University of Cali- 
fornia Publications), Leipzig, 1903, pp. 126 135. The earliest tombs at present 
explored are dated by Reisner 7800 years before Menes (Meyer's date). Copper 
implements first appear in the middle of the pre-dynastic period (pp. 114 7). 



xxxiv INTRODUCTION [ 3 

potter's wheel was unknown to them 1 . The flint implements belong to 
the ' neolithic ' stage of civilization (see p. xli) : but numerous imple- 
ments belonging to the earlier *' palaeolithic ' age have also been found 
in Egypt 2 . Sir John Evans, the leading authority in England upon 
archaic stone implements, after a review of the evidence, concludes 
(on the basis of Petrie's dates) that the 'neolithic' age cannot have 
come to its close later than b.c. 5000, 'fully a thousand years before 
the date which many of us in our childhood were taught to assign 
for the Creation of the Universe 3 .' And the perfection of work- 
manship, shewn by the flaked and fluted flint knives, would seem to 
indicate that this age must have begun in Egypt long previously 4 . 

2. The evidence afforded by the differences of language and race 
points to the same conclusion, and shews indeed that the antiquity of 
man upon earth must extend far beyond even the dimmest beginnings 
of either Babylonian or Egyptian civilization. As is shewn on p. 133 f., 
the narrative of the Tower of Babel cannot give an historically true 
account of the origin of different languages : for (1) we possess in- 
scriptions of a date greatly earlier than that at which the confusion of 
tongues is placed, in fact as early, at least, as B.C. 4000, written in 
three entirely distinct languages, the pre-Semitic Sumerian, the Semitic 
Babylonian, and the Egyptian ; (2) to take but one of these languages, 
the Babylonian : as Prof. J. F. McCurdy points out 5 , it has already 
at this date assumed the form which it exhibits 3000 years later ; 
i.e. it exhibits signs of 'advanced phonetic degeneration,' and differs 
from Hebrew, Aramaic and the other Semitic languages almost exactly 
as it does afterwards : how many thousands of years must we con- 
sequently go back beyond b.c. 4000, before we reach the time when the 
common ancestors of all the Semitic peoples lived together, and spoke 
a common language ! (3) radical differences of language, i.e. not such 
differences as have developed by gradual differentiation from a com- 
mon parent-tongue, but differences distinguishing languages entirely 
unrelated to each other (as, for instance, Latin and Chinese), are 

1 Budge, i. 49 ft., 84 ff., 92 ff., 101 f. (with illustrations): comp. p. 102 ft. (the 
contents of their graves). The flint implements (with other objects) are found 
interred with the dead, no doubt with the idea, widely prevalent among peoples of 
primitive culture, that they would be of use in a future life. 

2 Budge, i. 87 f ., Ill f . ; King and Hall, Egypt and West. Asia (1907), pp. 514. 

3 The Antiquity of Man, with especial reference to the Stone Age in Egypt (an 
Address delivered in the Town Hall, Birmingham, Oct. 25, 1899, before the 
Birmingham and Midland Institute), pp. 18, 14. 

4 Ibid. pp. 10, 11. 6 DB. v. 88. 



3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxv 

dependent npon differences of race, which are not accounted for by 
the Biblical narrative. 

Something like 100 families of language are known, all entirely unrelated to 
each other, i.e. all so differing from each other that none could have arisen out 
of any of the others by either development or decay, and each comprising 
mostly a variety of individual languages or groups of languages 1 . Languages 
belonging to different families, now, differ from each other not only radically 
in vocabulary and grammar, but also, very frequently, in a manner which it is 
more difficult for those, like ourselves, familiar with only one type of language, 
to realize, viz. 'morphologically,' or in the manner in which ideas are built up 
into a sentence. Different races do not think in the same way; and con- 
sequently the forms taken by the sentence in the languages spoken by them 
are not the same. The five main morphological types of language are the 
'inflectional' (W. Asia and Europe), the ' agglutinative ' (Turkey, Central Asia, 
Pacific Islands, many parts of Africa), the ' incorporating ' (Basque), the 
'isolating' (B. Asia), and the ' polysynthetic ' (America) 8 . These morphological 
types are characteristic of particular races: thus the different families of 
language spoken in America, though utterly unrelated to each other, are 
nevertheless all ' polysynthetic.' It will follow, also, from what has been said 
respecting the nature of 'families' of language, that they must either have 
arisen independently, in virtue of the faculty of creating language possessed 
by man (below, p. 55), at different centres of human life 3 , or more probably, 
perhaps, have been developed gradually, at the same time that races were 
developed, out of some very primitive, inorganic type of speech 4 . 

Comparative philology thus teaches that radical differences of 
language depend upon, and presuppose, differences of race. Differences 
of race, however, are not explained by the Biblical narrative; for 
though Gen. x. is ostensibly an explanation of the origin of different 
nations, and though Gen. xi. 1 9 might conceivably be understood as 
such, if it could be supposed that at the dispersion there described 
small groups of men, speaking the different languages which then 
arose, migrated into different quarters of the earth, and so became the 
founders of different nationalities, yet (as will appear directly) no 
adequate explanation is thereby obtained of the racial differences 
exhibited by mankind, which must, in point of fact, have had their 
starting-point in an age vastly anterior to that at which either Gen. x. 
or Gen. xi. is assigned by the Biblical chronology. 

3. The consideration of differences of race leads to the same 
conclusion. It is impossible here to particularize details ; but it may 

1 See Sayce, Science of Langzaige (1880), n. 33 64. 
9 See further particulars in bayce, op. cit. i. 118 132, 374 ft., n. 188 ft. 
Hayce, ibid. n. 322, 323. 

* Keane, Ethnology (Cambridge, 1901), pp. 159, 195, 197 f., 209215. 
D. / 



xxxvi IOTRODUCTION [ 3 

be mentioned generally that differences of race include many distinct 
features the colour of the skin, the physical structure and arrange- 
ment of the hair, the stature and proportions of the body, the shape 
of the skull, the contour of the face, the mental capabilities and 
character. They are also in many cases, as hardly needs to be pointed 
out, strongly marked : we are all familiar with the differences between 
the Chinaman, the Negro, and ourselves ; and there are many other 
races which, though they may be less familiarly known, are not less 
markedly distinguished from each other for instance, the chocolate- 
coloured Australians, the light-brown Maoris, the reddish-brown native 
tribes of America, the yellow-hued Mongolians of Central Asia and 
China, the tall Patagonians, and the diminutive Bushmen of South 
Africa 1 . With the schemes that have been proposed for classifying 
these and the other races, or sub-races, of mankind we are not here 
concerned 8 : what more concerns us is the great permanence of type 
which, so far as we can observe them, these racial varieties mostly 
exhibit : as depicted on the Egyptian monuments, Egyptian and Negro 
differed 4000 years ago as they differ now; races transplanted into new 
climates retain their former physical characteristics practically un- 
changed ; while conversely physically different races, such as the 
Negros and Bushmen in Africa, shew no tendency to approximate to 
each other, even under the influence of the same climate and the same 
general physical surroundings. 

It has, now, been much debated among ethnologists whether man 
appeared originally upon the globe at one centre or at many centres. 
The former of these alternatives is preferred by modern scientific 
authorities. Thus Mr Darwin, after reviewing the arguments on both 
sides, sums up in its favour upon the ground, stated generally, that 
the resemblances, physical and mental, between different races are such 
that it is extremely improbable that they should have been acquired 
independently by aboriginally distinct species or races 3 . But, which- 

1 See Sayce, Races of the OT. 14 24; or, in greater detail, Tylor, Anthropology , 
chap, in., Keane, Ethnology, chaps, viii. ('Physical criteria of race'), and ix. 
(' Mental criteria of race'). There are reasons for thinking that the colour of the 
Bkin in primitive man was yellowish (Keane, p. 237). 

2 See Keane, p. 163 ff. 

3 Darwin, Descent of Man, vol. i. ch. vii. (pp. 231233, ed. 1871). The argu- 
ment of course assumes that Man is the result of an evolutionary process, not of a 
special creation. The same conclusion iB expressed by Lyell, Principles of Geology 1 * 
(1875), ii. chap. 43; Huxley, Collected Essays, vn. 249 ff.; Tylor, art. Anthropology 
in the Encycl. Brit. 9 , and in his volume Anthropology (1895), p. 6; and Keane, 
ch. vn. ('The specific unity of man'), who however considers the existing races of 
mankind to have developed not from a single human pair, but from a single pair of 



3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxvii 

ever of these alternatives be adopted, it must be evident that differences 
of race are not accounted for in the Biblical narrative : the case of the 
several primary races originating independently at different centres, is 
not contemplated in it at all : if, on the other hand, racial differences 
were gradually developed by the play of natural selection upon the 
descendants of a single pair, migrating into new climatic and other 
physical conditions, then the growth of these differences is neither 
explained by the Biblical narrative, nor, in fact, reconcileable with it. 
For, taking account only of the simplest and most obvious division of 
mankind into the white, the yellow, the reddish-brown, and the black 
races 1 , even Gen. x., with the single exception of Cush (Jer. xiii. 23), 
and, possibly, of Magog (if by this are meant the Scythians), 
enumerates only tribes and nations belonging to the white race ; while 
from the observed persistency of racial types, as noticed above, it 
seems clear that, if the four mentioned races, with the many sub-races 
included in each, all differing very materially from each other, have 
been developed from a single original pair, the process must have 
occupied a greatly longer period of time than is allowed by the Book 
of Genesis, even though we adopt the view that the Deluge was a 
merely local inundation, and place the starting-point of the growth 
of racial distinctions at the Biblical date for the creation of man, 
b.c. 4157, or (lxx.) b.c. 5328 a . 

4. The high antiquity of man is attested also by evidence, which 
cannot be gainsaid, from another quarter. During the last half-century 
or so, relics of human workmanship have been found, chiefly in England, 
Belgium, and France, but also in other parts of the world, including 
America, shewing that man, in a rude and primitive stage of develop- 
ment, ranged through the forests and river-valleys of these continents, 
in company with mammals now extinct, at an age which cannot 
indeed be measured precisely in years B.C., but which, upon the most 
moderate estimate, cannot be less than 20,000 years from the present 

anthropoid ancestors, standing much further back in the evolutionary pedigree 
(pp. 2286, 229, 239 f. ; cf. the diagrams, pp. 19, 38, 224). 

1 Corresponding in general to the Caucasian, the Mongol, the native American 
and the Negro races. See in detail Keane, chap. x. (* The main divisions of the 
Hominidae'), chaps, xi. xiv. (the survey of each group in particular). 

a Comp. Sir W. H. Flower, Encycl. Brit. 9 xv. 445 ( = Flower and Lydekker, 
Hist, of Mammals, 1891, 741, 742 f.), who speaks of the ' vast antiquity of man,' 
and of the 'long ante-historic period, during which the Negro, the Mongolian, and 
the Caucasian races were being gradually fashioned into their respective types'; 
and Sayce, Races of the OT. p. 37, who expresses himself similarly. - <> 



xxxvni 



INTRODUCTION 



[S3 



day 1 . Here is an enlarged Table of the *Cainozoic' age, embracing 
the periods numbered 11 and 12 on p. 21*: 

(l. Eocene. 



Tertiary 



Post-Tertiary 

or 
Quaternary 



Orders and families of mammals now living 
(e.g. ancestral forms of the horse, the deer, 
and the hyaena) represented, but not living 
genera or species. 

Genera of mammals now living represented, 
but not species. 

Living species of mammals begin to appear, 
but are still rare: extinct species abundant. 

Living species more abundant Man appears. 
Extinct species rarer. 
5. * Prehistoric' Living species (including Man) abundant. 
Animals domesticated, and fruits culti- 
vated. Only one extinct species of mam- 
mal (the Irish elk). 

No extinct species. Historical records. 



2. Meiocene. 



3. Pleiocene. 



/4. Pleistocene. 



\6. Historic. 



In the first four of these periods the geography and climate of 
Europe both underwent many changes. Thus in the Eocene period the 
British Isles were probably united with the present Continent of Europe 
on the one side, and with the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland on 
the other ; and there was a partially enclosed sea extending from about 
the coast of Dorsetshire to Denmark. The climate of Britain was then 
tropical : the sea just spoken of teemed with sharks, rays, sea-snakes, 
&c, alligators and turtles abounded on the banks of the Thames, and the 
land was covered with a luxuriant vegetation. In the Pleiocene period 
the climate becomes colder : the elephant now appears in France, and 
the first living species of mammal, the common hippopotamus, is found 
in the same country and in Italy. The Pleistocene period is remarkable 
on account of the alternations of climate by which it was marked. At 
first there was severe cold : and thick beds of glaciers covered most of 
Scotland, Ireland, the NW. parts of England and Wales, as also the 
greater part of N. and central Europe. Then, as many think, came 
a submergence, reducing Britain to clusters of glacier-covered islands 
rising out of the sea, and surrounded by icebergs, till after a while the 
climate grew warmer and the glaciers disappeared. After this a period 

1 The late Sir Joseph Prestwich, a geologist not addicted to rash or extreme 
opinions, assigned, as a * rough approximate limit,' a period of from 20,000 to 
30,000 years from the present time {Geology, 1888, n. 534). 

2 The following statements are made on the authority of Boyd Dawkins, Early 
Man in Britain (1880), pp. 9 f., 12, 18 f., 81, 115 ff., 150 ff., 257, &c: but statements 
to the same effect will be found in any recent manual of geology, e.g. Geikie's 
Class-book of Geology (1902), pp. 394 ff., 404 ff. See also Keane's Ethnology, ch. iv. 



3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xxxix 

of cold supervened : the glaciers and icebergs reappeared ; the British 
Isles again rose above the sea, this time, however, no longer united 
to Greenland, though still forming part of a large N.- Westerly ex- 
tension of France, Holland and Denmark : finally, the climate again 
became temperate. Thus there were in Britain two ' glacial ' periods, 
and an intervening warmer * inter-glacial' period. Similar climatal 
changes took place in what is now the Continent of Europe : in the N. 
and central parts there are still numerous marks of the former presence 
of glaciers. 

Indubitable traces of man first become abundant in the later 
Pleistocene period 1 . On the slopes of river- valleys such as those of the 
Ouse or the Somme, 50 or 100 ft. above the present river-banks, there 
are beds of what is called drift-gravel, deposited by the river when 
it flowed at a much higher level than it does at present; and 
in this drift-gravel, side by side with the remains of various extinct 
mammals, have been found numerous rude implements of flint chipped 
by the hands of men, sometimes into flakes, sometimes into pear- 
shaped, or pointed, hatchets, or scrapers 2 . Geology shews that these 
drift-gravels were deposited during the middle and later Pleistocene 
period. The animals with whose remains these implements are found 
appear to shew that on the Continent of Europe man was pre-glacial 
and inter-glacial (i.e. that he advanced from the S. northwards in the 
warmer inter-glacial periods mentioned above), but that in England, 
at least N. of the Thames, he was only post-glacial (i.e. that he 
appeared in this country only after the ice had finally left it). And 
so in this remote age, palaeolithic man, or the ' river-drift hunter/ as 
he has been called, lived a rude hunter's life in the lower valley of the 
Thames, side by side with vast herds of reindeer, bisons, horses, and 
uri, the woolly rhinoceros and the elephant, the hippopotamus and 
the lion, and many other creatures, now entirely unknown in this 

1 Some authorities (among whom was Sir J. Prestwich) think that traces of a 
yet earlier race of men have been found in the 'eoliths,' or flints, very rude in shape, 
and but slightly chipped, occurring in older gravels and at yet higher levels. Others, 
however, maintain these to be natural forms. 

2 On the question whether these are really implements of human workmanship, 
see Lord Avebury (Sir J. Lubbock), Prehistoric Timet, ed. 6 (1900), p. 328. No 
geologist doubts that they are. Similar implements are made at the present day 
by savages such as the native Australians (Tylor, Anthropology, p. 186) and 
Tasmanians (Keane, p. 293). For further particulars on the subject, see Sir 
J. Evans, The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain 2 
(1897), (on their antiquity, pp. 703 9). In one of the galleries of the British 
Museum, there is a large collection of these implements, both of the earlier and 
later Stone age, arranged as far as possible chronologically : see descriptions, with 
illustrations, in the shilling Guide to these antiquities (1902). 



xl INTRODUCTION [ 3 

island 1 . And there is evidence that he lived under similar conditions 
in other parts of central and southern England, in France, Belgium, 
and elsewhere on the Continent. In particular, in a cave in Dordogne, 
in the valley of the Vezere, a little E. of Bordeaux, there has been 
found the drawing of a mammoth a huge kind of elephant, which has 
left many remains of itself, but has now been long extinct incised by 
human hands upon a piece of its own ivory, which must date from the 
same period 3 . Marks of the presence of man in the same age have 
also been found in Africa, Palestine, and India: the diffusion of the 
same stage of culture over countries so widely separated from each 
other is an indication that it must have been of long duration 8 . 

Whether, however, even palaeolithic man is rightly termed * primitive ' is 
doubted by Dr Tylor. ' The life which the men of the mammoth- period must 
have led at Abbeville or Torquay, shews on the face of it reasons against its 
being man's primitive life. These old stone-age men are more likely to have 
been tribes whose ancestors while living under a milder climate gained some 
rude skill in the arts of procuring food and defending themselves, so that 
afterwards they were able by a hard struggle to hold their own against the 
harsh weather and fierce beasts of the Quaternary period' {Anthropology, 
p. 33). 

In the later part of the palaeolithic period, a somewhat higher 
stage of culture appears, represented by the Cave man, belonging, it 
may be, to another race, perhaps (Dawkins) allied to the Eskimos. 
Relics of the workmanship of the Cave man are found, for instance, in 
caves in a valley between Derby and Nottingham, in Kent's Hole, near 
Torquay, and in different parts of Belgium, France, Germany, &c. 
Improved flint implements, bone needles and awls, harpoon heads of 
antler, and especially drawings of horses, reindeer, and other animals, 
testify to the advance in culture of the Cave man, as compared with 
the river-drift hunter of the earlier part of the palaeolithic age 4 . 

The Pleistocene period, says Mr Dawkins, was of ' vast duration ' ; 
and the river-drift man ' probably lived for countless generations before 
the arrival of the Cave-men, and the appearance of the higher culture ' 
(pp. 231, 233). 

The 'prehistoric' period is marked by the advent of neolithic 
man, i.e. of man belonging to the newer stone period, in which his 
stone implements were often polished, and in other respects also 

i Dawkins, pp. 137, 155 f., 172 f. 

2 See Dawkins, p. 105 ; Tylor, p.- 31 ; Lyell, Antiquity of Man, ed. 4, p. 139. 

3 Dawkins, pp. 1657, 172 f. 

* On Palaeolithic man, see also Keane, ch. v. (with illustrations). 



3] THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN xli 

display a higher type of workmanship. In the course of this period, 
culture considerably advanced : the soil was cultivated, animals were 
domesticated, wood was cut with stone axes fixed in wooden handles, 
spears, arrows, &c. were manufactured, and clay was moulded into 
rude cups and other vessels : the dead began also now to be buried in 
barrows or cairns. It is to this period that at least the earlier of the 
famous pile-dwellings, constructed in some of the Swiss lakes, belong : 
the inhabitants of these lake- villages cultivated many seeds and fruits 
familiar to ourselves. The neolithic men appear to have belonged to 
a different race from their predecessors, the Cave men, and entered 
Europe, it is generally agreed, from the East or South. The duration 
of the neolithic civilization varied in different countries : it main- 
tained itself, for instance, in northern and central Europe long after it 
had yielded to a higher culture in Greece and Italy, and also, it may 
be added, till long after highly organized empires had been established 
in Egypt and Babylonia 1 . 

The neolithic period was followed by the Bronze age, during which 
iron either was not known, or could not be worked, and when all 
weapons and cutting instruments were made of bronze, the only other 
metal known being gold, which was used for ornaments. Most nations 
have passed through a Bronze age, though not all at the same time : 
the Spaniards, for instance, when they conquered Mexico and Peru, 
found the natives working in bronze with some skill, but knowing 
nothing of iron. 

The Bronze age was succeeded by the Iron age, which began with 
the first introduction of iron for the manufacture of weapons and 
cutting instruments, and which has continued, with of course immense 
developments in every direction, to the present day. 

The general conclusion to which the facts mentioned in the pre- 
ceding pages point can hardly be better summed up than in the words 
of Dr Tylor : ' It is true that man reaches back comparatively little 
way into the immense lapse of geological time. Yet his first appear- 
ance on earth goes back to an age compared with which the ancients, 
as we call them, are but moderns. The few thousand years of recorded 
history only take us back to a prehistoric period of untold length, 
during which took place the primary distribution of mankind over the 
earth and the development of the great races, the formation of speech 
and the settlement of the great families of language, and the growth of 

1 On Neolithic man, comp. also Eeane, oh. vi. 



xlii INTRODUCTION [ 3 

culture up to the levels of the old world nations of the East, the fore- 
runners and founders of modern civilized life 1 .' 

In what light, then, in view of this conclusion, are we to view the 
representation contained in the early chapters of Genesis ? The facts 
cannot be denied : yet the narrative of Genesis takes no account of 
them, and, indeed, leaves no room for them. The great antiquity of 
man, the stages of culture through which he passed (comp. the note 
on iv. 17 24), and the wide distribution of the human species, with 
strongly marked racial differences, over the surface of the earth are 
all alike unexplained, and inexplicable, upon the historical system of 
Gen. i. xi. No doubt, Gen. x. and xi. 1 9 explain ostensibly the 
distribution of man ' over the face of the whole earth ' ; but after what 
has been said, it will be evident that they do not do so in reality : the 
dispersion is placed too late to account for the known facts respecting 
both the distribution of man and the diversity of races. To say that 
the Biblical writers spoke only of the nations of whom they knew is 
of course true: but the admission deprives their statements of all 
historical or scientific value : ' palaeolithic ' and ' neolithic ' man, and 
the various distinct races inhabiting Central and Eastern Asia, 
Australia, America, &c, all existed ; and any explanation, purporting 
to account for the populations of the earth, and the diversity of 
languages spoken by them, must take cognizance of them. An ex- 
planation not taking account of the facts to be explained can be no 
historically true account either of the diffusion of mankind, or of the 
origin of different races. We are forced therefore to the conclusion 
that though, as may be safely assumed, the writers to whom we owe 
the first eleven chapters of Genesis, report faithfully what was currently 
believed among the Hebrews respecting the early history of mankind, at 
the same time, as is shewn in the notes, making their narratives the 
vehicle of many moral and spiritual lessons, yet there was much which 
they did not know, and could not take cognizance of: these chapters, 
consequently, we are obliged to conclude, incomparable as they are in 
other respects, contain no account of the real beginnings either of the 
earth itself, or of man and human civilization upon it 2 . 

1 Anthropology, p. 34. 

9 Mr Capron (Conflict of Truth, 270 85) has devised an extraordinary method 
(of. below, p. 24 n.) for 'reconciling' the great antiquity of man with the statements 
of Genesis: man, he supposes, may have existed long before as a natural being; 
Genesis describes only his elevation into a spiritual being by the super-adding of 
spiritual faculties. But it is surely the intention of Genesis to describe both the 
beginnings of man, and also his beginnings as a complete being; one can hardly 



3] THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xliii 

b. The patriarcJwil period (chs. xii. /.). 

It remains to consider the historical character of Gen. xii. 1., the 
narratives of the patriarchal period. Here it must at the outset be 
frankly admitted that these narratives do not satisfy the primary 
condition which every first-class historical authority must satisfy : they 
are not contemporary (or nearly so) with the events which they purport 
to relate : even if Moses were their author, he lived many centuries 
after Abraham according to Ussher's chronology 400 years, in reality 
(p. xxix), if we adopt for Abraham's date the only fixed datum that 
we possess, the synchronism with Hammurabi (p. 156), some 900 
years; and upon the critical view of the date of these narratives, 
the interval is of course still greater, in fact, between Abraham 
and J, something like 1300 years. The supposition that the writer 
(or writers) of Genesis may have based his (or their) narratives upon 
written documents, contemporary with the events described, does not 
alter the case : there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that such 
documents were actually used as the basis of the narrative ; and upon 
a mere hypothesis, for the truth of which no positive grounds can be 
alleged, and which therefore may or may not be true, it must be 
apparent that no further conclusions of any value can be built. It is 
not denied that the patriarchs possessed the art of writing ; but the 
admission of the fact leads practically to no consequences ; for we do 
not know what they wrote, and there is no evidence that they left any 
written materials whatever behind them. 

These facts, it is evident, must seriously diminish the confidence 
which we might otherwise feel as regards the historical character of the 
patriarchal narratives. A narrative committed to writing for the first 
time, so far as we know, 1000 years or more after the events related 
in it occurred, would be regarded under ordinary circumstances as 
destitute of historical value ; we could have no guarantee that during 
such a long period of oral transmission it had not in many details 
become materially modified, sometimes accidentally, through failure 
of memory, sometimes, it may be, intentionally, by the addition, for 
instance, of embellishing traits. Are there however any considerations 
which might tend to modify this unfavourable conclusion in the case 

believe one's eyes when one reads (p. 279) that human nature is to be divided into 
four parts, and that Gen. ii. describes the beginning of two of these (material form 
and vitality), and Gen. i. the beginning of the other two (intellectuality and 
spirituality) 1 The explanation of the Fall, proffered on p. 321 f. , is not less out of 
the question. Kecouciliations of the Bible with science which depend upon forced 
exegesis can never be sound ones. 



xliv INTRODUCTION [ 3 

of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis ? We can never indeed regard 
them as historical authorities in the strictest sense of the word : but 
that, be it observed, is a claim which they never make themselves ; 
they nowhere claim, even indirectly, to be the work of eye-witnesses ; 
and there may be circumstances connected with them which may at 
least shew the position to be a tenable one that, though they cannot 
be placed in the same rank with, for example, the history of Thucydides, 
their contents are nevertheless substantially authentic. 

1. In nations possessing no written records, the memory is more 
exercised, and more tenacious than it is with us ; and popular stories 
once enshrined in the memory of a nation may have been transmitted 
substantially unaltered, from father to son, for many generations. The 
tenacity of the memory, under such circumstances, is greater than we 
can readily imagine ; and there are many surprising instances on record 
of its power 1 . And the memory might be expected to be exceptionally 
tenacious, in the case of national records, or accounts of ancient 
worthies whose memories were cherished on the part of a nation, 
which held itself aloof from its neighbours, and was proud of its 
ancestry. 

2. The critical analysis of Genesis furnishes an argument of some 
weight in favour of the general trustworthiness of the narrative. 
Disregarding P (which appears not only to contain in parts artificial 
elements, but also to be later than the other sources, so that by the 
side of J and E it can hardly claim to represent an independent 
tradition), we have two narratives of the patriarchal period, one 
written, in all probability, in Judah, the other in the Northern 
Kingdom ; and these, though they exhibit discrepancies in detail, still 
on the whole agree : though they may contain, for instance, divergent 
representations of the same events, they do not present two entirely 
contradictory traditions ; in other words, they shew that on the whole 
the traditions current in the N. and S. Kingdoms agreed with one 
another. They thus bear witness to the existence in ancient Israel of 
a 'firm nucleus of consistent tradition* (Kittel). 'The value of this 
nucleus is by no means small, for it supplies the fundamental condition 

1 'One of the most noted Rawis [reciters], Hammad by name, is said to have 
been able to recite 3000 long poems, all of the time before Mohammed ' 
(A. B. Davidson, Bibl. and Literary Essays, 1902, p. 268). See also Grote, 
Hist, of Greece, i. 526 30, 532 n. (ed. 1862), with reference to the oral preservation 
of the Homeric poems ; and Max Miiller, Hibbert Lectures (1878), 153, 156 f., on the 
oral preservation of the Hig-Veda. 



3] THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xlv 

of a real history. If the traditions were confusedly intermixed, this 
would stamp them as arbitrary creations, or the products of popular 
fancy. Their not being so, though far from proving them positively to 
be historical, justifies the presumption that we may perhaps succeed in 
finding a historic core in the patriarchal narratives 1 / 

3. The patriarchal narratives are marked by great sobriety of 
statement and representation. There are no incredible marvels, no 
fantastic extravagances, no surprising miracles : the miraculous hardly 
extends beyond manifestations and communications of the Deity to the 
earlier patriarchs, and in the case of Joseph there are not even these ; 
the events of his life move on by the orderly sequence of natural cause 
and effect. There is also great moderation in the claims made on 
behalf of the patriarchs. Only once, in a narrative taken evidently 
from a special source (ch. xiv.), is Abraham represented as gaining 
successes in war ; only once also (ch. xxxiv. ; cf. xlviii. 22) does Jacob 
come into hostile collision with the native Canaanites : elsewhere, the 
patriarchs live peaceful, quiet lives, neither claiming nor exercising 
any superiority over the native princes ; and sometimes even rebuked 
by them for their moral weakness. There is also another consideration, 
of considerable weight, urged by Ewald. 'Ewald reminds us,' says 
Kittel, 'that whilst all the accounts agree in representing it as the 
Divine purpose that Abraham and the other patriarchs shall provision- 
ally take possession of the land of Canaan, they are never represented 
as actually possessing the whole. They confine themselves to particular 
small districts in the South (Abraham and Isaac) and centre (Jacob) of 
Canaan, and these, for the most part, of minor importance. If the 
patriarchs had never actually lived in Canaan, if their abode there and 
their very personality had belonged merely to the realm of legend, it 
might have been confidently expected that the later legend would have 
provided a firmer and more lasting foundation for the Israelites' claim 
to the whole land than this mere partial possession by their fathers 2 .' 
The moderation of the prophetic outlooks (ch. xii. 2 3, &c.) into the 
future fortunes of Abraham's descendants, at least in J and E, for 
only P (see on xvii. 6) speaks of 'kings' to be sprung from him, 
might be taken also as an indication that these narrators were keeping 
themselves within the limits of a tradition which they had received, 
rather than freely creating ideal pictures of their own. 

1 Kittel, Qesch. der Hebraer (1888), i. 152 (En?, tr. i. 168). 
a Kittel, i. 154 (Eng. tr. i. 170 f.). See Ewald, Hut. i. 305 f. 



xlvi INTRODUCTION [ 3 

4. Do the patriarchal narratives contain intrinsic historical im- 
probabilities ? or, in other words, is there anything intrinsically 
improbable in the lives of the several patriarchs, and the vicissitudes 
through which they personally pass? In considering this question a 
distinction must be drawn between the different sources of which these 
narratives are composed. Though particular details in them may be 
improbable (e.g. xix. 31 ff.), and though the representation may in 
parts be coloured by the religious and other associations of the age 
in which they were written (cf. p. lviii ff.), it cannot be said that the 
biographies of the first three patriarchs, as told in J and E, are, 
speaking generally, historically improbable : the movements, and per- 
sonal lives, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are, taken on the whole, 
credible. It is true, the chronology of Genesis cannot, as it stands, be 
maintained (see p. xxx) ; but the inconsistencies in it arise out of the 
combination of JE with P; and the critical conclusion that the 
narrative of P was originally entirely distinct from that of JE, and 
that its chronology is artificial and late, leaves the narratives of J and 
E free from difficulty upon this score. Chapter xiv. belongs to a 
special source ; so that, whatever verdict be ultimately passed upon it, 
our estimate of J and E would remain unaffected. 

It is true, of course, that in parts of J and E we have what seem to 
be different versions of the same occurrence ; but this is a fact not in- 
consistent with the general historical character of the narrative as a 
whole. Only the Joseph-narratives stand in some respects in a position 
by themselves. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that improba- 
bilities attach to some of the details of these narratives, especially 
(p. lx) to some of those relating to the famine : but these, again, do 
not affect the substance of the narratives. It also might be felt by 
some that the Joseph-narratives contain more dramatic situations than 
are likely to have happened in real life : both Joseph and his brethren 
pass through a series of crises and adventures, any one of which might 
easily have closed the drama, though all, in fact, lead on happily to 
the final denoument. On the other hand, truth is proverbially stranger 
than fiction ; and Joseph's biography may not have been more remarkable 
than many other biographies in history. The changes in Joseph's 
fortunes are of a kind quite natural in Oriental countries : in the general 
fact of a foreigner, by a happy stroke of cleverness, winning the favour 
of an Eastern despot, and rising in consequence to high power, there 
is nothing unprecedented ; and in the case of Egypt in particular the 
monuments supply examples of foreigners attaining to positions of 



3] THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVES xlvii 

political distinction (see p. 344). It is also worthy of notice that the 
biography is in itself entirely free from anything which would tempt a 
reader to regard it as legendary : no Deus ex machind appears at any 
point of it; if the hand of God is an overruling power in the back- 
ground, human motives and human actions are the only overt agencies 
by which the web of incident is woven. Of course, in view of the fact 
that the Joseph-narratives are plainly not the work of a contemporary 
hand, but were, so far as we know, only committed to writing many 
hundred years afterwards, these considerations afford no guarantee of 
their being a literal record of the facts ; particular episodes or details 
may, for instance, have been added during the centuries of oral 
transmission : but they do supply reasonable grounds for concluding 
that the narratives are in substance historical. 

5. As Wellhausen has observed, it cannot be doubted that to 
Moses Jehovah was the God of Israel, and Israel the people of Jehovah ; 
and also that this truth, though it assumed in Moses' hands a new 
national significance, was not promulgated by him for the first time 1 . 
'The religious position of Moses stands before us unsupported and 
incomprehensible unless we believe the tradition (Ex. iii. 13 E) that 
he appealed to the God of their fathers. Moses would hardly have 
made his way amongst the people, if he had come in the name of a 
strange and hitherto unknown god. But he might reasonably hope for 
success, if a fresh revelation had been made to him by the God of 
Abraham, who was still worshipped in some circles and still lived in 
the memory of the people.' We may also ask, Why, unless there had 
been positive historical recollections forbidding it to do so, did not 
Israelite tradition concentrate all the glory of founding the national 
Church and State upon Moses ? If, in spite of the great deliverance 
undoubtedly achieved by Moses, Israelitish tradition nevertheless goes 
back beyond Moses, and finds in the patriarchs the first roots not only 
of the possession of the land, but also of the people's higher worship of 
God, this can only be reasonably accounted for by the assumption that 
memory had retained a hold of the actual course of events 8 . 

1 Wellhausen, Hist, of 1st. 433. 

2 With this paragraph, comp. Kittel, p. 174. The undeveloped character of the 
patriarchs' religious beliefs their childlike attitude towards God, for instance, the 
freedom and familiarity with which they are represented as approaching Him, their 
absence (till xxxix. 9) of a clear sense of sin, or of the need of penitence, and the 
fact that such truths as the unity of God, the love of God to man and of man to 
God, and the holiness of God, though throughout implied, are not explicitly taught 
has also been pointed to (Watson, The Book Genesis a true History, 1892, 



xlviii INTRODUCTION [ 3 

These are virtually all the considerations of any weight which 
(apart from theological grounds) can be alleged in favour of the 
historical character of the patriarchal narratives. Probabilities of 
greater or less weight may be adduced : but with our present know- 
ledge, it is impossible to do more 1 . The case would of course be 
different, if there existed contemporary monumental corroboration of 
any of the events mentioned in Genesis. But unfortunately no such 
corroboration has at present been discovered. With the exception of 
the statement on the stele of Merenptah that ' Israel is desolated,' 
which may indeed be the 'Egyptian version' of the Exodus, but certainly 
does not 'confirm' the Hebrew account of it, the first event con- 
nected with Israel or its ancestors which the inscriptions mention or 
attest is Shishak's invasion of Judah in the reign of Rehoboam, and 
the first Israelites whom they specify by name are Omri and his son 
Ahab'. Upon the history and civilization of Babylonia, Egypt, and 
to a certain extent of other countries, including Palestine, in the 
centuries before Moses, the monuments have indeed shed an abundant 
and most welcome light; but nothing has hitherto been discovered 
sufficiently specific to establish, even indirectly or inferentially, the 
historicity of the patriarchs themselves. Thus contemporary inscrip- 
tions, recently discovered, have shewn that there were Amorite settlers 
in Babylonia, in, or shortly after, the age of Hammurabi, and that 
persons bearing Semitic names identical, or nearly so, with those of 
some of the patriarchs were resident there in the same age : but these 
facts, interesting as they are in themselves, are obviously no corro- 
boration of the statements that the particular person called Abraham 
lived in Ur and migrated thence to Haran and afterwards to Canaan, 
as narrated in Gen. xi. 28, 31. 

On the 'Amorite quarter' in Sippar (80 m. NW. of Babylon), in the reign 
of Animi-zaduga, the fourth successor of Hammurabi, see the footnote, p. 142; 
and on the mention of Amorites in Bab. contract-tablets of the same age, 
Pinches, 07! in the light of the records of Ass. and Bab. (1902), 157, 170. 
In other contract-tablets of the same period there occur the names Ya'kub 

p. 105 ff.), as tending to establish the historical character of the patriarchal 
narratives, at least of J and E. Just as Dr Watson's characterizations are, 
however, it may be doubted whether his argument proves more than that these 
narratives reached their present form at the time supposed by critics (p. xvi), 
which, it will be remembered, was before the age at which the canonical prophets, 
Amos, Hosea &c, began to emphasize and develope beliefs and truths such as those 
referred to. 

1 Cf. Kittel's Bab. Excavations and Early Bible History (1903), p. 37. 

8 See iiogarth's Authority and Archaeology, pp. 87 f. f 89, 93. 



3] ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS xlix 

( = Jacob), and Ya'kub-ilu ( - Jacob el) 1 , as well as others of Heb. or Canaauite 
form; according to Sayce, also, the name Ishmael occurs on a marble slab 
from Sippar, which is as early as about 4000 b.o. The persons bearing these 
names appear to possess all the rights and privileges of Babylonian citizens 2 . 
The names are interesting as testifying to the intercourse between Babylonia 
and the West at this early date, and also as showing that persons of ap- 
parently either Hebrew or Canaanite extraction were settled then in Baby- 
lonia; but they obviously prove nothing as to the historical character of 
Abraham or the other patriarchs. 

It is remarkable that a proper name if not three proper names com- 
pounded apparently, with the Divine name, Yahweh, has been found recently, 
dating from the period of Hammurabi. The writer of a letter now in the British 
Museum bears the name Ya-u-um-ilu, the other names are Ya-a'-ve-ilu 
and Ya-ve-ilu, all apparently meaning 'Yah is God' ( = 'Joel,' at least as 
usually explained). The names are not Babylonian, and must therefore have 
belonged to foreigners, whether Canaanites, or ancestors of the Hebrews. 
See Sayce, Exp. Times, Aug. 1898, p. ;"22, Relig. of Anc. Eg. and Bab. 
(1902), 4847, Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel (1902), 46 f. (Eng. tr. 71, and esp. 
133 141). The names are at present, however, too isolated for inferences to 
be drawn from them with any confidence: though they might, for instance, 
indicate that the Heb. 'Yahweh' was already worshipped, they still would not 
tell us what character or attributes were associated with him. Mr C. H. W. 
Johns, of Queens' College, Cambridge, permits me to add ' The reading of the 
names has been questioned without sufficient ground.' The interpretation 
is open to question, as Yau-ilu or Ya'oe-ilu may mean " God is, or does, 
something'" (see further his art. in the Expositor, Oct. 1903, p. 289 ff., and the 
note in the Addenda). 

The monuments, again (as is pointed out on p. 172 f.), though they 
have thrown some light on the kings' names mentioned in Gen. xiv. 1, 
and have shewn that it would be no impossibility for a Babylonian or 
Elamite king of the 22nd cent. b.c. to undertake an expedition to 
the far West, make no mention of the particular expedition recorded 
in Gen. xiv. : they consequently furnish no independent corroboration 
of it; nor do they contribute anything to neutralize the improbabilities 
which, rightly or wrongly, have been supposed to attach to details of 
it (p. 171 f.). They thus fall far short of demonstrating its historical 

1 A name of the same form as Ishmael, May God hear! ' Jerahmeel, ' May God 
be compassionate!' &c. : cf. pp. 182, 295. The statement made here in former 
editions, on the authority of Hommel (AHT. 74 n., 96 n.), Sayce (EHH. 1314, 
38, 128), and Pinches (p. 148), that the name Abe-ramu ( = 'Abram') appears on 
a contract-tablet of the Hammurabi-age, was incorrect : the name was misread by 
Hommel; and it is really Abi-erah: see A. H. Clay, Light on the OT. from Babel 
(Philadelphia, 1907), p. 142 ; Ranke, Personennamen, p. 58. In Pinches 8 (1908), 
p. 148, the comparison is withdrawn. At a much later date, however, Abu-ramu 
( = Abram) does occur as the name of the Ass. official who gave his name to the 
5th year of Esarhaddon (b.c 677): see KAT? p. 479. 

* Pinches, pp. 157, 183, 243; Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians, pp. 187190. 



] INTRODUCTION [ 3 

character 1 . And still less do they demonstrate that the r6le attributed 
to Abraham in the same chapter is historical. The evidence for both 
these facts rests at present solely upon the testimony of the Book of 
Genesis itself. Upon the same testimony we may believe Melchizedek 
to have been a historical figure, whose memory was handed down by 
tradition : but no evidence of the fact is afforded by the inscriptions 
(see p. 167 f.). 

The case is similar in the later parts of Genesis. The argument 
which has been advanced, for instance, to shew that the narrative of 
the purchase of the cave of Machpelah (ch. xxiii.) is the work of a 
contemporary hand, breaks down completely : the expressions alleged 
in proof of the assertion are not confined to the age of Hammurabi ; 
they one and all (see p. 230) occur, in some cases repeatedly, in the 
period of the kings, and even later : they consequently furnish no 
evidence that the narrative was written at any earlier date. There is 
no antecedent reason why Abraham should not have purchased a plot 
of ground near Hebron from the native inhabitants of the place : but 
to suppose that this is proven, or even made probable, by archaeology, 
is completely to misinterpret the evidence which it furnishes. As 
regards the Joseph-narratives, it is undeniable that they have an 
Egyptian colouring : they contain many allusions to Egyptian usages 
and institutions, which can be illustrated from the Egyptian monu- 
ments. Moreover, as Kittel has pointed out, this colouring is common 
to both J and E : as it is improbable that two writers would have 
added it independently, it may be inferred that it was inherent in 
the common tradition which both represent. This is a circumstance 
tending to shew that in its origin the Egyptian element was consider- 
ably anterior to either J or E, and increases the probability that it 
rests ultimately upon a foundation in fact. On the other hand the 
extent of the Egyptian colouring of these narratives must not be over- 
estimated, nor must the conclusions drawn from it be exaggerated. 
The allusions are not of a kind to prove close and personal cognizance 
of the facts described : institutions, officials, &c. are described in 
general terms, not by their specific Egyptian names 2 . Egypt, it must 
be remembered, was not far distant from Canaan ; and, as the 
prophecies of Isaiah, for instance, shew, there was frequent intercourse 

1 Mr Grote long ago pointed out the fallacy of arguing that because a given 
person was historical, therefore a particular action or exploit attributed to him by 
tradition was historical likewise (Hist, of Greece, Part i., ch. xvii., ed. 1862, vol. I., 
p. 391 f., with reference to legendary exploits attributed to Charlemagne). 

2 Contrast the long lists of specific titles in Brugsch's Aegyptologie, pp. 206 232. 



3] 



ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS 11 



between the two countries during the monarchy : Isaiah, in the single 
chapter (xix.) which he devotes to Egypt, shews considerable acquaint- 
ance with the peculiarities of the country. It is a complete illusion to 
suppose that the Joseph-narratives can be shewn by archaeology to be 
contemporary with the events recorded 1 , or (as has been strangely 
suggested) translated from a hieratic papyrus : the statement 8 that the 
Egypt which these narratives bring before us is in particular that of 
the Hyksos age is destitute of foundation 8 . 

Among the names of the places in Palestine conquered by Thothmes III. 
of the 18th dynasty (Petrie, b.o. 15031449; Meyer, Breasted, 15011447), 
which are inscribed on the pylons of the Great Temple at Karnak, there occur 

1 Notice in this connexion the absence of particulars in the narrative, which a 
contemporary would almost naturally mention, such as the personal name of the 
Pharaoh, and the place in Egypt at which he held his court. The names Potiphar, 
Poti-phera', Zaphenath-Pa'neah and Asenath can hardly be genuine ancient 
names: see the note on xli. 45. 

The Hebrew of the Joseph-narratives is perfectly idiomatic and pure, and shews 
no traces whatever of having been translated from a foreign original. It contains 
(besides proper names) four or five Egyptian words ; but they are all words which 
were naturalized in Hebrew ; they occur in other parts of the Old Testament, and 
consequently afford no clue as to the date of the narratives in which they are found. 
They are Pharaoh (see on xii. 15); y e, br, xli. 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, the common Heb. name 
for the Nile (Is. vii. 18, and frequently); dhu, 'reed-grass,' xli. 2, 18 (also Job 
viii. 11); shesh, 'fine linen,' xli. 42 (also Ex. xxv. 4, and often in Ex. xxvi. xxviii., 
xxxv. xxxix. [all P], Ezek. xvi. 10, 18, xxvii. 7, Prov. xxxi. 22); perhaps also 
sohar, the name of the prison into which Joseph was cast (see on xxxix. 20), and 
hartummim, 'magicians' (see on xli. 8); and possibly rabid, 'chain,' xli. 42 and 
Ezek. xvi. 11 (see on this word the note * in DB. n. 775 b : it is quite uncertain 
whether it is really Egyptian). 

2 Sayce, EHH. p. 90; cf. p. 93. 

* Egyptian institutions were of great fixity; and there is no allusion in these 
narratives to any institution or custom known to be characteristic of the Hyksos 
age, and not to occur in any later age. Comp. the judgment of Ebers, as cited in 
EncB. n. 2594. 

Prof. Sayce, it is to be observed, though he comes forward ostensibly as an 
enemy of criticism, nevertheless makes admissions which shew that he recognizes 
many of its conclusions to be true. Thus he not only asserts the compilatory 
character of the Pentateuch (EHH. 129, 134, 203), but in Genesis he finds 
(p. 132 f.) two groups of narratives, and 'two Abrahams,' the one 'an Abraham 
born in one of the centres of Babylonian civilization, who is an ally of Amorite 
chieftains, and whom the Hittites of Hebron address as a "mighty prince"' [the 
Abraham of Gen. xiv. and of P], the other ' an Abraham of the Bedawin camp-fire, 
a nomad whose habits are those of the rude independence of the desert, whose wife 
kneads the bread while he himself kills the calf with which his guests are enter- 
tained' [the Abraham of J and E], The former narrative he considers, though 
upon very questionable grounds, to have been based upon contemporary documents, 
the latter to have been 'like the tales of their old heroes recounted by the nomad 
Arabs in the days before Islam as they sat at night round their camp-fires. The 
details and spirit of the story have necessarily caught the colour of the medium 
through which they have passed' (p. 62). All the principal details of the patriarchs' 
lives are contained in J and E : but if these narratives were handed down for 
generations by 'nomad reciters' round their camp-fires, what better guarantee of 
their historical truth do we possess than if their memory had been preserved in the 
manner supposed above ? 

D. 9 



lii INTRODUCTION [ 3 

(Nos. 78 and 102) the names Y- l -k-b-d-ru and Y-sh-p-d-ru ; as the Egyptian / 
stands also for r, these names would represent a Canaanitish or Hebrew 
Yakob-el, and Yoshep-el; and we learn consequently that places bearing these 
names 1 existed in Palestine, apparently in the central part 2 , in the 16th or 
15th cent. b.o. The name Jacob itself is thought by many to be an elliptical 
form of Jacob-el 3 ; but whether that be correct or not, it is at least remarkable 
to find a place-name, including the name of the patriarch Jacob, in Palestine 
at this date. But the information which the name brings us is too scanty to 
enable us to found further inferences upon it: if Jacob was a historical person, 
his name may have clung to this place in Palestine; on the other hand, the 
name may have arisen independently of the patriarch altogether, in which 
case it would obviously have no bearing on the question whether he was a 
historical person or not ; there are also other conceivable ways in which the 
name of the patriarch (whether that of a real person or not) might have been 
connected with the place. In Yoshep-el, the sibilant does not properly 
correspond to that in Joseph : so that it is doubtful here whether the names 
are really the same. However, W. Max Mtiller allows the identification to be 
'possible' 4 : if it is correct, it is certainly a singular coincidence to find the 
names of both patriarchs embodied in place-names in Palestine, though it may 
be difficult to determine with confidence how the fact is to be explained. 

In lists of towns in Palestine belonging to the age of Seti I. and his 
successor, Ramses II. (the Pharaoh of the oppression), mention is made of a 
* mountain of User' or 'Aser,' between Tyre and Shechem, and between 
Kadesh (on the Orontes) and Megiddo, and approximately, therefore, in the 
position occupied afterwards by the tribe of Asher 8 . W. Max Muller, Sayce, 
and Hommel, accordingly, do not doubt that the tribe of Asher, or at least 
what was reckoned afterwards as the tribe of Asher, was settled in Palestine 
before the other tribes of Israel had even left Egypt. The statement hardly 
has a bearing on the historical character of Jacob's son Asher; though it 
ought not to surprise us, if it should ultimately prove that the number of the 
sons of Jacob (some of whom, as individuals, play no part in the patriarchal 
narratives, and are really nothing more than mere names) was artificially 
raised to twelve, because there were in historical times twelve tribes of Israel, 
and also that the immigration of the entire nation into Canaan was accom- 
plished in reality a good deal more gradually than is represented as having 
been the case in Nu. xxxii., Dt. i. iii., and Joshua i. xii. 

1 Cf. for the form (compounded with El, 'God') the place-names Jezre'el, 
Jabne'el, Jos. xv. 11 ( = Jabneh, 2 Oh. xxvi. 6), Jiphtah-el, Jos. xix. 14, 27, 'God 
sows, builds, opens,' respectively; see also Gray, Heb. Pr. Names, 214 f. 

2 W. Max Muller, Asien u. Europa nach Altdgypt. Denkmalern (1893), pp. 159, 
161 f. 

3 In which case, 'el would be the subject of the verb, and the real meaning of 
the name would be May God follow (or search out) ! or May God reward ! or May 
God overreach (sc. our foes)/ according as the sense of the root in Aramaic, Arabic, 
or Hebrew be adopted. 

4 Op. cit. pp. 159, 162 f. ; and as cited in EncB. n. 25812. 

6 W. Max Muller, op. cit. 2369; Sayce, Monuments, 244, Patr. Pal. 219, 
EHH. 78 f. ; Hommel, ART. 228, 266. Cf. Authority and Archaeology, p. 69 t 
(with the references) ; and Asher in EncB. 



3] ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENESIS liii 

The accuracy of the topography, and the truthfulness of the 
descriptions to Eastern life even in modern times, have also some- 
times been appealed to as confirmatory of the historical character of 
the patriarchal narratives. But the argument, as a little reflection 
will shew, is inconclusive. The exactness in these respects of the 
narratives of Genesis is only what would be naturally expected from 
the circumstances under which they were written. The relative 
situations of places do not alter from age to age ; and manners and 
customs in the East remain unchanged from generation to generation. 
The narratives of Genesis, upon the view taken of them by critics, were 
written by men, whose own home was Canaan, who were acquainted 
personally with its inhabitants, and familiar with the customs, for 
instance, of tent-life and of travel in the desert ; and such men would 
as a matter of course describe correctly the relative positions and 
situations of places in Palestine mentioned by them, and represent 
their characters as adopting the manners and customs which were 
usual at the time. The narratives of Genesis are wonderful photo- 
graphs of scenery and life ; but they carry in themselves no proof that 
the scenery and life are those of the patriarchal age and not those of 
the age of the narrators 1 . 

Prof. G. A. Smith, in his Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the 
Old Testament, expresses conclusions substantially identical with those reached 
in the preceding pages. Thus, after illustrating the nature of the light thrown 
by archaeology on the ages before Moses, he continues (p. 101), 'But, just as 
we have seen that in all this archaeological evidence there is nothing to prove 
the early date of the documents which contain the story of the patriarchs, but 
on the contrary even a little which strengthens the critical theory of their 
date, so now we must admit that while archaeology has richly illustrated the 
possibility of the main outlines of the Book of Genesis from Abraham to 
Joseph, it has not one whit of proof to offer for the personal existence or 
characters of the patriarchs themselves.' Formerly, the world in which the 
patriarchs moved seemed to be almost empty; now we see it filled with 
embassies, armies, busy cities, and long lines of traders, passing to and fro 
between one centre of civilization and another : * But amidst all that crowded 
life we peer in vain for any trace of the fathers of the Hebrews : we listen in 
vain for any mention of their names. This is the whole change archaeology 
has wrought : it has given us an atmosphere and a background for the stories 
of Genesis ; it is unable to recall or certify their heroes 2 .' 

1 To the same effect, G. A. Smith, HG. 108 ; Modern Criticism dtc. 6770. 

3 The results proved by archaeology have, in their bearing upon Biblical 
criticism, been greatly exaggerated, especially by Prof. Sayce. See Hogarth's 
Authority and Archaeology, 143 ff., 149 f.; G. B. Gray, Expositor, May 1898, 
p. 337 ff. ; and G. A. Smith, op. cit. p. 56 ff. o 



liv INTRODUCTION [ 3 

It is remarkable how in Genesis, as also, sometimes, in other parts 
of the Old Testament, individuals and tribes seem to be placed on the 
same level, and to be spoken of in the same terms, and how, further, 
individuals seem frequently to be the impersonation of homonymous 
tribes. Thus Bethuel is mentioned as an individual (Gen. xxii. 23, 
xxiv. 15, &c), but his brothers 'Uz and Buz are tribes (see on xxii. 21). 
Keturah, again, is spoken of as Abraham's second wife (xxv. 1) ; but 
her sons and grandsons are tribes (xxv. 2 4). In Gen. x. nations are 
quite manifestly represented as individuals : the same chapter also 
illustrates well the Hebrew custom of representing the tribes dwelling 
in, or near, a given country, as ' sons ' of a corresponding homonymous 
ancestor (as v. 12 the Ludim, 'Anamim, &c. 'begotten' by Mizraim, 
i.e. Egypt; v. 16 the Jebusite, Amorite, &c. 'begotten' by Canaan). 
So Machir, in Gen. 1. 23 an individual, but in Nu. xxxii. 40 a clan, in 
Nu. xxvi. 29 ' begets ' (the country) Gilead (cf. the note on 1. 23) ; and 
in Jud. xi. 1 Gilead (the country) begets ' Jephthah. Again, Canaan, 
Japheth, and Shem, in Noah's blessing (Gen. ix. 25 27), represent 
three groups of nations ; Ishmael (xvi. 12) is in character the personi- 
fication of the desert tribes whose descent is traced to him ; Esau ' is 
Edom' (xxv. 30, xxxvi. 1, 8, 19), and Edom is the name of a people, as 
'Esau' also is in Ob. 6, Jer. xlix. 8. Jacob and Israel, also, both 
names of the patriarch, are likewise national names, the latter a 
standing one, the former a poetical synonym (Gen. xlix. 7 ; Nu. xxiii. 
21, 23 ; Am. vii. 2, 5, and frequently) : Isaac and Joseph are some- 
times national names as well, Isaac in Am. vii. 9, 16, and Joseph in 
Am. v. 15, vi. 6, Ps. lxxx. 1, lxxxi. 5, and elsewhere 1 . This peculiarity 
is, at least largely, a consequence of the fact that in the Semitic 
languages, the names of nations and tribes are very frequently not, as 
with ourselves, plurals, but singulars, Asshur (Is. x. 5 RVm.), Israel, 
Moab, Edom, Midian, Aram (Gen. x. 22 : see the note), Kedar (xxv. 
13), Sheba, Cain or Kain (Nu. xxiv. 22, Jud. iv. 11, RVm. : cf. p. 72), 
Judah, Simeon, Levi, &c. : all these are names of nations or tribes, 
but they might be, and in some cases actually also are, the names of 
individuals 8 . 

1 So in 1 Ch. vii. 20 24 ' Ephraim,' though spoken of as if an individual, must 
be in reality the tribe ; cf. Bebiah in DB. 

2 When it is desired to speak of the individual members of a tribe or nation, 
'sons' ('children') is commonly used, as in 'children of Israel.' Some tribes are 
also designated by gentilic adjectives, as Hiwwi, the 'Hivite,' 'Emori, the 'Amorite,' 
YebUsi f the 'Jebusite,' &c. 

It is in agreement with the usage explained in the text that the singular 
pronoun (generally concealed in E VV.) is used often of a nation : as Ex. xiv. 25, 



3] TRIBES REPRESENTED AS INDIVIDUALS Iv 

The question arises, How far this principle of tribes and nations 
being represented as individuals is to be extended ? Can it be applied 
in explanation of the patriarchal narratives ? and if so, in what sense ? 
It is the opinion of many modern scholars that it can be so applied. 
According to many modern scholars, nearly all the names in the 
patriarchal narratives, though they seem to be personal names, repre- 
sent in reality tribes and sub-tribes : a woman, for example, representing 
a smaller or weaker tribe (or clan) than a man ; a marriage representing 
the amalgamation of two tribes, if the wife be a slave or a concubine, 
the tribe represented by her being of foreign origin or otherwise 
inferior, the birth of a child representing the origin of a new family 
or tribal subdivision, the firstborn being the one which acquires supre- 
macy over the rest, and an early death, or unfruitful marriage, 
representing the disappearance of a family : the movements, changes 
of fortune, and mutual relations, of tribes and sub-tribes being thus 
expressed in a personal and individual form. This was Ewald's view. 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the successive migratory move- 
ment of Hebrew tribes from the original common home of the Hebrew 
and Aramaean nationalities in Aram-naharaim across the Euphrates. 
Jacob's father, Isaac, was already settled in Canaan: his mother was 
an Aramaean (Gen. xxv. 20) ; he marries two Aramaean wives : after a 
long contest with his uncle (and father-in-law) Laban, ' the Aramaean ' 
(xxv. 20, xxviii. 5, xxxi. 20, 24), he ultimately comes to terms with 
him, returns to Canaan with great wealth, and finally gives his name 
to the people settled there : this means that a new and energetic 
branch of the Hebraeo- Aramaic race migrated from its home in Aram- 
naharaim, pushed forward into Canaan, amalgamated there with the 
Hebrews (' Isaac ') already on the spot (becoming thereby Isaac's 
'son'), and, in virtue of the superior practical abilities displayed by 
it, acquired ultimately supremacy over all its kin; the contest with 
Laban ' represents the struggle which continued, probably for centuries, 
between the crafty Hebrews on the opposite banks of the Euphrates, 
showing how in the end the southern Hebrews gained the upper hand 
and the northern were driven off in derision ' : Edom was a branch 
(' son ') of the tribe represented by ' Isaac ' ; ' Jacob/ becoming fused 
with this tribe, is Esau's ' brother,' but at the same time his younger 

'And Egypt said, Let me flee,' Nu. xx. 18, 'And Edom said (sing.) to him (Israel), 
Thou shalt not pass through me, lest I come forth to meet thee with the sword,' 
Josh. xvii. 14, Jud. i. 3. So Israel (the nation) and Edom, for instance, are 
spoken of as each other's ' brother,' Am. i. 11, Nu. xx. 14 al. 



lvi INTRODUCTION [ 3 

brother, as arriving later in Canaan, though, as he became afterwards 
the more powerful nation, he is described as having wrested from him 
his birthright ; similarly Jacob's wives and sons represent the existence 
of different elements in the original community, and the growth of 
tribal distinctions within it 1 . Ewald, however, held at the same time 
that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were historical characters, prominent 
leaders of the nation at successive stages of its history 8 . In the same 
way, Joseph (who was likewise a real person) was a leader or dis- 
tinguished member of a portion of the nation consisting of the two 
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (which afterwards separated) : these 
tribes migrated into Egypt before the rest ; Joseph there rose to power, 
and conferred great benefits both upon his own people and upon the 
country, and in the end also attracted the remaining and stronger part 
of his people to the Eastern frontier of Egypt. Joseph's personality 
was a remarkable one : and in after ages it was transfigured in the 
memory of his people ; under the influence of the religion of Israel it 
became an ideal of filial and fraternal affection, a high example of good- 
ness, devotion to duty, sincerity, and love 3 . The views of Dillmann 
and Kittel are similar to that of Ewald 4 . Other recent scholars have 
however gone further, and denied the presence of any personal element 
in the patriarchal narratives ; the narratives represent throughout, 
even, it is sometimes said, according to the intention of the narrators, 
tribal movements and tribal relations : the patriarchs and most of the 
other figures in Genesis are the eponymous ancestors of corresponding 
tribes, created after Israel had become a united nation and was settled 
in Canaan ; and the histories about them partly express phases in the 
early history of Israel and its neighbours, and are partly reflections of 
the circumstances and relations of the same tribes in the age in which 
the narratives themselves originated 8 . 

1 Ewald, Hist. i. 273 f., 287, 309317, 338, 341344, 346, 348350, 363, 
371376, 378381. 

2 Pp. 301, 305 f., 340, 342, 345. 

Ewald, Hist. i. 363, 382, 405, 4079, 41220. 

4 Dillmann, Alttest. Theologie, 77 81 (the patriarchs were the leaders of large 
migratory bodies of Semites, pressing forward from Haran into Canaan, where 
Moab and Ammon, the Ishmaelites, the Keturaean tribes (Gen. xxv. 1 4), and the 
Edomites branched off from them ; the Hebrews in the narrowest sense of the term, 
i.e. the Israelites (corresponding to 'Jacob'), being the latest arrival among them), 
Comm. on Gen. pp. 218, 219, 316, 403 (Engl. tr. n. 25, 190, 353) ; Kittel, Hist, of 
the Hebrews, i. 153, 157, 168 f. (Engl. tr. i. 170, 174 f., 1868). Cf. Ottley, Hist. 
of the Hebrews, 4952; Wade, OT. Hist. 81 f. [See further the Addenda.] 

B See further on this view Reuss, L'Hist. Sainte et la Loi (1879), i. 98 ff. ; 
Stade, Gesch. 2830, 127 f., 145 ff.; Wellh. Hist. 318 ff.; Cornill, Hist, of Isr. 
(1899), p. 29 ff.; the commentaries of Holzinger and Gunkel; Guthe, Gesch. des 
Volkes Israel (1899), pp. 16, 25, 41 f., 479, 55 f., 1618; and the articles 



3] HISTORICITY OF THE PATRIARCHS Mi 

No doubt Ewald's theory rests upon the observation of real facts, 
and is also, within limits, true ; but applied upon this very compre- 
hensive scale, it cannot be deemed probable. An unsubstantial figure, 
such as Canaan (Gen. ix. 25 7), might be an example of a personified 
group of peoples ; there are also no doubt other cases, especially those 
occurring in genealogies, in which what seem to be individuals stand 
for tribes, and there are besides (cf. p. lixf.) particular cases in which 
the relations or characteristics of a later age appear to have been 
reflected back upon the patriarchs: but the abundance of personal 
incident and detail in the patriarchal narratives as a whole seems to 
constitute a serious objection to this explanation of their meaning : 
would the movements of tribes be represented in this veiled manner 
on such a large scale as would be the case if this explanation were the 
true one ? Moreover, as the Canaanites actually remained in the land 
till a much later period than that at which the patriarchs (ex hyp.) 
lived, it is difficult to understand how large bodies of immigrants, such 
as Ewald's hypothesis postulates, could have swept across it, or found 
room to settle in it, without many hostile conflicts with the natives, of 
which nevertheless the patriarchal narratives, except in the isolated 
case of Shechem (ch. xxxiv. ; xlviii. 22), are silent : individuals, with 
a relatively small body of retainers, would be more likely than large 
tribes, to pass unmolested through the land, and find a home in it. 
It is also much more difficult to think of Joseph as a tribe rising to 
power in Egypt, than of Joseph as an individual. The explanation 
may be adopted reasonably in particular instances (pp. liv, lx) ; but 
applied universally, it would seem to create greater difficulties and 
improbabilities than it removes. 

Although, however, as has been shewn (p. xliii f.), the evidence for 
the historicity of the patriarchs is not such as will satisfy the ordinary 
canons of historical criticism, it is still, all things considered, difficult 
to believe that some foundation of actual personal history does not 
underlie the patriarchal narratives 1 . And in fact the view which on 
the whole may be said best to satisfy the circumstances of the case is 
the view that the patriarchs are historical persons, and that the 
accounts which we have of them are in outline historically true, but 

on the names of the Israelitish tribes in EncB. It is criticized by Konig 
in Neueste Prinzipien der AT. Kritik (1902), pp. 3669, and in an art. in the 
Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), Dec. 14, 1901 (see a summary in the Exp. 
Times, Mar. 1902, p. 243 f.). There being no tribe corresponding to Abraham, 
Cornill (pp. 21, 34), and Guthe (pp. 164, 167), regard Abraham as a historical 
person, with a definitely marked religious character. 
1 So also G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism &a., p. 106 f. 



Iviii INTRODUCTION [ 3 

that their characters are idealized, and their biographies not un- 
frequently coloured by the feelings and associations of a later age. 
'J,' says Mr Ottley 1 , and his remarks are equally true of E, 'describes 
the age of the patriarchs as in some essential respects so closely similar 
to later periods, that it can only be regarded as a picture of primitive 
life and religion drawn in the light of a subsequent age. We have 
here to do with the earliest form of history traditional folk-lore about 
primitive personages and events, worked up according to some pre- 
conceived design, by a devout literary artist.' The basis of the 
narratives in Genesis is in fact popular oral tradition : J and E give 
us pictures of these traditions as they were current in the early 
centuries of the monarchy ; in P, it can scarcely be doubted, we have 
a later and more artificial form, by no means so directly and freshly 
transcribed from the living voice of the people. Popular tradition 
being, however, what it is, we may naturally expect it to display in 
Genesis the same characteristics which it does in other cases. It may 
well include a substantial historical nucleus, even though we may not 
always be in a position to ascertain precisely how far this extends : for 
details may readily be due to the involuntary action of popular in- 
vention or imagination, operating during a long period of time : from 
a religious point of view the characters and experiences of the 
patriarchs may have been accommodated to the spirit of a later age ; 
while in the form, also, something will be due to the narrators who 
cast the traditions into their present literary shape. 

How far, in the existing narratives, the original historical nucleus 
has been modified or added to by the operation of each of these three 
causes, it is of course impossible to determine exactly : an objective 
criterion is seldom attainable ; and subjective impressions of what is 
probable or not are mostly all that we have to guide us. There are 
however some narratives in which the feeling that we have before us 
the record not of actual historical fact, but of current popular belief, 
forces itself strongly upon us. As has already been pointed out 
(p. xvii ff.), one very conspicuous interest in these narratives is the 
explanation of existing facts and institutions, for instance, many 
names of persons and places, the sanctity of Bethel and its famous 
monolith, the origin of the great border-cairn in Gilead, a current 
proverb or custom, the ethnological or political relations subsisting 
between Israel and its neighbours, or the characteristics of different 

1 Bampton Lectures, p. 209. 



3] IDEAL ELEMENT IN GENESIS lix 

peoples, the Ishmaelites, Edom, &c. In some of these cases, notably 
in xix. 30 38, it is next to impossible that we can be reading 
accounts of the actual historical origin of the names or facts referred 
to, and not rather explanations due to popular imagination or suggested 
by an obvious etymology : other cases it is but consonant with analogy 
to regard as similar ; in some instances, also, it will be remembered, 
we find duplicate and inconsistent traditions respecting the same 
occurrence. Uncertainty on subordinate points of this kind need 
not however affect our general estimate of the narrative as a whole. 

Another respect in which the histories of the patriarchs have 
probably been coloured in the course of oral transmission is by later 
tribal relations being imported into them : the patriarchs and their 
descendants, though it is going too far to say that they are mere 
reflections of the tribes descended, or reputed to have been descended, 
from them, do nevertheless appear upon occasion invested with the 
characteristics of these tribes ; and it is even possible that sometimes 
episodes of tribal life are referred back to them in the form of incidents 
occurring within the limits of their own families. Ishmael, for instance, 
in xvi. 12 may be the personal son of Abraham : but if he is this, he 
is also something more ; he impersonates the Bedawin of the desert. 
Jacob and Esau, in their struggles for supremacy, are more than the 
twin pons of Isaac; they impersonate two nations; and the later 
relatiors subsisting between these two nations colour parts of the 
representation, especially, for instance, the terms of the oracle in 
xxv. 23, and of the blessings in xxvii. 28 f., 39 f. Jacob and Laban, 
when fixing on the mountains of Gilead the border which neither will 
pass, seem likewise to be types of the later Israelites and Aramaeans 
who often in the same region contended with one another for mastery. 
It is extremely difficult not to think that, as a whole, the narratives 
about Joseph are based upon a personal history : at the same time, it 
is quite possible that they have been coloured in some of their details 
by later events, and even that particular episodes may have originated 
in the desire to account for the circumstances and relations of a 
later age. 

The hostility of the brethren to Joseph, the leadership in one narrative (E) 
of Reuben, in the other (J) of Judah, the power and pre-eminence of Joseph, 
like that of the double tribe (especially Ephraim) descended from him, as 
compared with his brothers, the fact that Benjamin, afterwards the smallest 
tribe, is the youngest brother, the adoption of Joseph's two sons by Jacob 
(i.e. their elevation to the same rank as his own sons), and the priority so 



lx INTRODUCTION [ 3 

pointedly bestowed by him upon the younger, are, for instance, points at which 
it is at least possible that popular imagination has been at work, colouring or 
supplementing the historical elements of the Joseph-tradition by reference to 
the facts and conditions of later times. The improbabilities which certainly 
attach to some of the details connected with the famine, and the measures by 
which it was relieved, may be accounted for in the same way: popular tradition 
magnifies the achievements of the famous heroes of antiquity, and the Oriental 
mind loves hyperbole 1 . 

It is also not impossible that episodes or movements of tribal life, 
sometimes belonging to the patriarchal period itself, sometimes re- 
flected back into it from the later history, are occasionally narrated in 
the form of events in the lives of individuals, as in ch. xxxiv. (Shechem 
and Dinah : see p. 307 f.), xxxviii. (Judah and Tamar : see p. 331 f.), 
and in different tribal genealogies, as xxii. 20 24, xxv. 1 4, 12 16, 
ch. xxxvi. (Edom), &c. ; cf. on xi. 29. 

The biographies of the patriarchs seem, thirdly, to have been 
idealized from a religious point of view. In the days of the patriarchs, 
religion must have been in a relatively rudimentary stage 2 ; there are 
traces of this in the idea, for instance, of the revelations of deity being 
confined to particular spots, and in the reverence paid to sacred 
trees and pillars : but at the same time the patriarchs often express 
themselves in terms suggesting much riper spiritual capacities and 
experiences, and in some eases indeed borrowed evidently from the 
phraseology of a much later age. It is difficult here not to trace the 
hands of the narrators, who were men penetrated by definite moral and 
religious ideas, and who, while not stripping the patriarchs of the 
distinctive features by which they were traditionally invested, never- 
theless unconsciously coloured their pictures of them by the feelings 
and beliefs of their own age, and represented them as expressing the 
thoughts, and using the phrases, with which they were themselves 
familiar 3 . To the narrators, also, will be due the literary form of the 

1 In Gen. xli. 47 9, 54, 56, 57, for instance, there must be some exaggeration; 
and in xlvii. 14 26, though the system of land-tenure described undoubtedly 
existed in the age of the narrator, yet, as Dillm. remarks, the details, such as the 
connexion with the seven years of famine, the exhaustion of the Egyptians' money, 
the sale of their cattle &c, will be due to the naivete of the tradition. 

a Cf. Wade, OT. History, p. 84 ff. 

3 It is thus possible that both the ' call,' and the other religious experiences of 
Abraham may have been less definite and articulate than they are represented as 
being in the existing narrative; they may have taken, for example, in his con- 
sciousness, the form of religious dissatisfaction with his surroundings, a sense that 
God was directing his steps elsewhere, aud a presentiment borne in upon him that 
his adopted country would in time become the home of his descendants. Comp. 
Bruce, Apologetic*, p. 199 ; Ottley, Bampt. Led. p. 111. 



4] IDEAL ELEMENT IN GENESIS lxi 

patriarchal narratives the delicacy of expression and charm of style 
characteristic of J (especially) and of E, not less than the very 
differently constructed phrases and periods of P. The narratives of P 
we shall hardly be wrong in regarding, even in details, aa far more the 
author's own creation than those of J or E. 



4. The Religious Value of the Book of Genesis. 

Our survey of the contents and historical character of the Book of 
Genesis is ended. We have analysed it into the main sources of which 
it is composed, we have considered the leading characteristics of each 
of these sources, and we have done our best to estimate the historical 
value of the narratives contained in them. We have found that in 
the first eleven chapters there is little or nothing that can be called 
historical in our sense of the word : there may be here and there dim 
recollections of historical occurrences ; but the concurrent testimony of 
geology and astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, and comparative 
philology, is proof that the account given in these chapters of the 
creation of heaven and earth, the appearance of living things upon the 
earth, the origin of man, the beginnings of civilization, the destruction 
of mankind and of all terrestrial animals (except those preserved in 
the ark) by a flood, the rise of separate nations, and the formation of 
different languages, is no historically true record of these events as 
they actually happened. And with regard to the histories contained 
in chs. xii. L, we have found that, while there is no sufficient reason 
for doubting the existence, and general historical character of the 
biographies, of the patriarchs, nevertheless much uncertainty must be 
allowed to attach to details of the narrative: we have no guarantee 
that we possess verbally exact reports of the events narrated; and 
there are reasons for supposing that the figures and characters of the 
patriarchs are in different respects idealized. And, let it be observed, 
not one of the conclusions reached in the preceding pages is arrived at 
upon arbitrary or a. priori grounds : not one of them depends upon any 
denial, or even doubt, of the supernatural or of the miraculous ; they 
are, one and all, forced upon us by the facts ; they follow directly from 
a simple consideration of the facts of physical science and human 
nature, brought to our knowledge by the various sciences concerned, 
from a comparison of these facts with the Biblical statements, and from 
an application of the ordinary canons of historical criticism. Fifty or 



Ixii INTRODUCTION [ 4 

sixty years ago, a different judgment, at least on some of the points 
involved, was no doubt possible : but the immense accessions of know- 
ledge, in the departments both of the natural sciences and of the 
early history of man, which have resulted from the researches of 
recent years, make it impossible now : the irreconcilability of the 
early narratives of Genesis with the facts of science and history 
must be recognized and accepted. To be sure, particular points might 
probably be found, at which, by the adoption of forced interpretations 
of the words of Genesis, such as are both unnatural in themselves, and 
also obviously contrary to the intention of the writer, the conclusion in 
question could, in appearance, be evaded : but this method is at once 
unsound in principle and ineffectual : a forced exegesis is never 
legitimate; passages remain to which the method itself cannot be 
applied; nor, probably, has anything done more to bring the Bible 
into discredit than the harmonistic expedients adopted by apologists, 
which by those whom they are intended to satisfy and convince are 
seen at once to be impossible 1 . And to turn for a moment to another 
consideration, it is realized now, more distinctly than it was by a past 
generation, that a historical document, if it is to lay claim to credibility, 
must be contemporary, or virtually so, with the events described in it ; 
this is a primary principle of modern historical science. But the Book 
of Genesis, whatever view be taken of its authorship, does not satisfy 
this condition : none of the documents of which it is composed either 
claims to be, or has as yet been shewn to be, contemporary with the 
events narrated in it. 

It follows that the Bible cannot in every part, especially not in its 
early parts, be read precisely as it was read by our forefathers. We 
live in a light which they did not possess, but which it has pleased the 
Providence of God to shed around us ; and if the Bible is to retain its 
authority and influence among us, it must be read in this light, and 
our beliefs about it must be adjusted and accommodated accordingly. 
To utilize, as far as we can, the light in which we live, is, it must be 
remembered, not a privilege only, but a duty. And to take but a 
single example of the gain to be derived from so doing : it is certain 
that an infinitely more adequate conception of the astonishing breadth 
and scope of creation, and of the marvellously wonderful and compre- 
hensive plan by which the Creator has willed both to organize and 
develope life upon the earth, and afterwards gradually to civilize and 

1 Comp. the just remarks of Kautzsch in his lecture on Die bleibende Bedeutung 
des ATs. (1902), p. 9 ff. 



4] RELIGIOUS VALUE OF GENESIS lxiii 

educate human beings upon it, can be obtained from a study of the 
sciences of astronomy, geology, and anthropology than from the early 
chapters of Genesis : on the other hand, these chapters of Genesis do 
seize and give vivid and forcible expression to certain vital and funda- 
mental truths respecting the relation of the world and man to God 
which the study of those sciences by themselves could never lead to ; 
the Bible and human science thus supplement one another : but we 
must go to human science for the material facts of nature and life, 
and to the Bible for the spiritual realities by which those facts are 
illuminated, and (in their ultimate origin) explained. The only science 
and early history known to the Biblical writers were both imperfect : 
but they made a superb use of them ; they attached to them, and en- 
shrined in forms of undying freshness and charm, the great spiritual 
truths which they were inspired to discern. It is impossible, if we 
compare the early narratives of Genesis with the Babylonian narratives 
from which in some cases they seem plainly to have been ultimately 
derived, or with the pictures of prehistoric times to be found in the 
literatures of many other countries, not to perceive the controlling 
operation of the Spirit ot God, which has taught these Hebrew writers 
to make a right use of the materials which came to their hands, to 
' take the primitive traditions of the human race, to purify them from 
their grossness and their polytheism, and to make them at once the 
foundation and the explanation of the long history that is to follow 1 .' 
Our duty, then, is to recognize this double aspect of these narratives ; 
and to read them accordingly in such a way as to seize and retain the 
spiritual truths of which they are the expression, while discarding, at 
least as an object of intellectual belief, the material fabric which was 
once necessary to give them substance and support, but which is now 
seen to have in itself no value or reality 2 . 

The position that the Book of Genesis may contain statements not 
historically true may appear to some readers surprising and question- 
able. It must, however, be remembered that the doctrine that the 
Bible contains nothing but what is historically true is one for which 
there is no foundation either in the Bible itself, or in the formularies 
of our Church. This doctrine is intimately connected with, if not 
directly dependent upon, a particular theory of inspiration. As is 

1 Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament, p. 97. 

5 On the distinction between the external form, and the inner or spiritual 
substance, of a narrative, see also the Bishop of Ripon's excellent Introduction to 
the Temple Bible, pp. 17, 18, 4246. 



Ixiv INTRODUCTION [ 4 

well-known, the Chnrch of England has formulated no definition of 
inspiration : nevertheless, a theory has become prevalent, both within 
and without the pale of our own communion, which conceives of in- 
spiration as operating mechanically, and maintains accordingly the 
verbal exactitude of every statement contained in Scripture, on 
points, for instance, of science, or history, or psychology, not less 
than on points of spiritual doctrine and duty. The present is not 
the place to discuss at length the subject of inspiration 1 : it must 
suffice therefore to point out that such a theory is entirely without 
scriptural authority : we read indeed (2 Tim. iii. 16) that every 
scripture inspired of God' is * profitable' for certain moral and 
spiritual ends, but nothing is said, either there or elsewhere, of the 
other conditions to which an ' inspired ' book must conform ; nor is 
any claim to immunity from error made on its behalf in any part 
of Scripture. The doctrine of the verbal inspiration and verbal 
exactitude of Scripture is in fact an a priori theory, framed not upon 
the basis of any warrant contained in Scripture itself, but upon an 
antecedent conception of what an ' inspired ' book must necessarily be. 
It is however a complete mistake of principle and method to frame 
first an d, priori theory of inspiration, and then to insist that the 
Bible must conform to it : the Bible is the only inspired ' book that 
we know of; and as no independent definition of inspiration exists, 
the only sound method is to study the facts presented by the Bible, 
and to formulate our theory of inspiration accordingly. If, then, in 
the course of our inquiry we should find in the Bible statements, or 
representations, which, after an impartial survey of the facts, should 
prove to be unhistorical, our only legitimate conclusion would be that 
the existence in it of such statements or representations is not in- 
compatible with its inspiration, and the & priori definition, which 
would exclude them, must be modified accordingly. 

A consideration which has no doubt been largely responsible for the 
reluctance of theologians to admit the presence of unhistorical elements in the 
Bible is apprehension of the consequences to which the admission may lead, 
especially with regard to the historical character of the Gospel records. It is 

1 The writer has dealt with it more fully in the seventh of his Sermons on the 
Old Testament (p. 143 ff.); comp. also the preceding Sermon (p. 119 fir.) on 'The 
Voice of God in the Old Testament,' with particular reference to the different kinds 
of literature represented in the OT. And see besides Sanday's Bampton Lectures 
for 1893 (on 'Inspiration'), p. 155 ff., and Lect. vin.; Kirkpatrick's Divine Library 
of the OT. (1891), Lect. iv. ; Farrar, The Bible, its meaning and supremacy, passim; 
Watson, The Book of Genesis, pp. 256 265; and the Bishop of Ripon's Introd. to 
the Temple Bible, pp. 83101. 



4] INSPIRATION !xv 

difficult not to think that such apprehensions are groundless. We must trust, 
as we do in all other histories, to the application of sound historical methods. 
It is however certain that the historical character of the Gospel records is far 
more endangered by their credibility being made to depend upon the axiom 
of the exact and equal historical truth of every part of Scripture, than by this 
axiom, as such, being unconditionally abandoned, and the credibility of the 
Gospel narratives being left to be established by the historical evidence which 
they themselves afford, interpreted in the light of the indirect testimony 
supplied by other parts of the New Testament, by the early Church, and by 
the Old Testament, regarded generally (apart from the exact and equal 
historical value of every part of it) as a preparation for Christ No competent 
student of the Old Testament can deny that there are elements in it which, 
though they may have a high value religiously, are not historical; they 
describe, for instance, not things as they actually happened, but things as they 
were viewed, in an idealized form, by writers living long afterwards ; but to 
rest the truth of Christianity upon an axiom as baseless as the one referred 
to above, is the height of unwisdom. Nothing therefore is lost that can be of 
service to Christianity, nothing is given up which forms a real bulwark of the 
faith, when that axiom is abandoned. It is a responsibility which, if they 
realized it, few would surely take upon themselves, to weight Christianity with 
a view of the Old Testament, which has no authority or support either in the 
Bible itself or in the formularies of the Church, which will not bear examina- 
tion, but on the contrary, when confronted with the facts, is at once seen to be 
refuted by them. 

The nemesis on doctrines of verbal inspiration is not far to seek. 
Mr Laing, in chap. viii. of his Modern Science and Modern Thought, 
lays it down that an inspired book is one ' miraculously dictated by an 
infallible God, and therefore absolutely and for all time true'; and 
then proceeds to refer to some of the statements contained in the early 
chapters of Genesis, which are now known to be not historically true : 
the conclusion follows, and from the premises respecting the nature 
of inspiration follows logically and necessarily, that the Bible is not 
inspired, and consequently has no claim to contain a revelation to man. 
But where is it anywhere said in the Bible that the historical state- 
ments made in it are ' dictated ' by God? The whole conception of 
inspiration implied in the words quoted is a figment, a figment, no 
doubt, devised in the first instance for the purpose of supporting and 
fortifying a good cause, but not the less, as a result of the progress of 
knowledge, capable of being employed with disastrous effect to ruin 
and destroy it. But, if we modify our conception of inspiration, and 
by making proper allowance for the human element cooperating with 
the Divine, bring it into agreement with the phaenomena to be ex- 
plained, then all those facts which are fatal to the authority of the 



lxvi INTRODUCTION [ 4 

Bible upon the theories referred to above are adequately accounted for, 
and the Bible becomes a consistent whole, inspired throughout, though 
not ' dictated,' and with its authority firmly established upon a sound 
and logical basis. 

See further, on the same subject, the very pertinent remarks of Prof. 
G. A. Smith, in his Modern Criticism and Preaching of the Old Testament, 
where, after commenting (pp 2628) upon the often disastrous effects of the 
dogmas of a verbal inspiration and of the equal validity of all parts of 
Scripture, and of the refusal to accept what is legitimately involved in the 
truth of a ' progressive Revelation,' he describes what he learnt from a perusal 
of the correspondence of the late Henry Drummoud, who was often consulted 
upon religious difficulties : his correspondents, he says, ' one and all tell how 
the dogma that the entire Bible stands, historically and morally, upon the 
same level the faith which finds in it nothing erroneous, nothing defective, 
and (outside of the sacrifices and Temple) nothing temporary is what has 
driven them from religion.' 

In the Book of Genesis we have to do with scientific and historical, 
more than with moral difficulties. And certainly it can occasion little 
surprise that, when a man of scientific culture is told, for this, though 
not the Church's teaching, and though many individual teachers have 
of course abandoned it, is nevertheless still the current theological 
teaching of the day, that an acceptance of the literal truth of the 
early chapters of Genesis is an integral part of the Christian faith, he 
should turn with repugnance from a creed which seems to him to be 
thus associated with a series of beliefs which his own studies prove to 
him to be impossible. But, as was said before, with a better-grounded 
theory of inspiration, all these difficulties disappear; and the man of 
science who gives due weight to the religious instincts of his nature 
will be ready to recognize the religious truthfulness, as distinct from 
the scientific truthfulness, of these narratives of Genesis 1 . 

Nor, upon antecedent grounds, can any valid objection be raised 
against the view that the Bible may contain elements more or less 
unhistorical. We are dealing confessedly in Genesis with narratives 

1 It ought assuredly to be possible so to teach the historical parts of the OT. 
to those who have reached the age of 15 or 16 that, when thev enter into manhood, 
they may have nothing to unlearn on the ground of either science or history. 
Comp. a paper by the present writer on ' The Old Testament in the Light of 
To-day' in the Expositor, Jan. 1901, p. 45 ff. ; and on the often lamentable conse- 
quences of failing to do this, Archdeacon Wilson in the Gontemp. Rev., March, 
1903, p. 303 f . The danger of teaching as practically de fide things which are 
directly contradicted by what may be learnt from any Encyclopaedia or other work 
of secular information has been felt also by thoughtful Roman Catholics in France: 
see Alb. Houtin, La Question Biblique chez les Catholiques de France au xix e Steele 
(1902), pp. 189 f., 206 ft. Cf. also the Guardian, Oct. 14, 1903, p. 1523. 



4] SCOPE OF INSPIRATION lxvii 

committed to writing long after the events narrated took place, and 
in some cases relating to periods so remote that it is certain no 
genuine historical recollections could have been handed down from 
them. Why should narratives relating to such a more or less distant 
past not exhibit among the Hebrews characteristics similar to those 
which narratives written down under similar circumstances among 
other nations would unquestionably exhibit? The former do indeed, 
on their spiritual side, exhibit very different characteristics ; but these 
are accounted for by the inspiration of their authors : why, however, 
should they be different, on their material side ? We should naturally 
expect them on their material side to exhibit the work of the 
imagination, and display an element of legend, filling up a gap in 
the past with a web of fancy, and presenting the dimly-seen heroes of 
antiquity as ideal figures. Where nothing is defined as to the nature 
or limits of the inspiring Spirit's work, have we the right to limit it 
by arbitrary canons of our own ? Many perhaps all forms of the 
national literature of Israel are represented in the Bible, and made 
channels through which 'in many parts, and in many modes' (Heb. 
i. 1) God manifested Himself to His people : upon what principle, or 
by what right, is a form of narrative which is common to almost every 
nation, and which appeals with peculiar force to the comprehension of 
men in particular stages of national development and intellectual 
growth, to be excluded ? 1 The imagination, as all must allow, is an 
instrument of extraordinary efficacy for instruction and edification ; it 
has exerted in the past, and it exerts still, a powerful influence in 
education : why, then, should it be deemed incapable of consecration 
to the service of God ? If the poems of Homer were an educational 
force in ancient Greece, why should it be deemed incredible that 
legends of primitive history, and idealized traditions of national heroes, 
only inspired by a higher and purer religious spirit, and exemplifying 
not the conflicts and jealousies of gods and goddesses, but the purposes 
and character of the One God, and His dealings with His children, 
especially when moulded as they are into forms of singularly impressive 
dignity and grace, should exert a similar power in Israel, and should 
be incorporated by the prophets and teachers of the nation as a 
treasured heirloom in their sacred books? 

1 Comp. the late Archbishop Benson, as cited by Kirkpatrick, The Divine 
Library of the OT. p. 104 ; and Bishop Westcott, who says (Life, 1903, ii. 69), 
' I never could understand how any one reading the first three chapters of Genesis 
with open eyes could believe that they contained a literal history, yet they disclose 
to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.' Cf. Westcott'a Gospel of Life, 
p. 187 f. 

D. * 



lxviii INTRODUCTION [ 4 

See further, in this connexion, in the Bill. Sacra, Jan. 1901, p. 103 ff., an 
address by Prof. Ives Curtiss, of Chicago, on "The Book, the Law, and the 
People ; or Divine Revelations through ancient Israel,' delivered after a visit 
of some length to the Holy Land, where it is pointed out that while on the 
one hand observation of Oriental character makes it impossible to believe that 
the Bible is a merely natural product of the Oriental mind, on the other hand 
it warns us that we have no right to theorize a priori upon the ways in which 
God could or could not speak through it; a revelation addressed to an Oriental 
people would naturally be clothed in forms of thought and expression with 
which they were familiar. ' The Oriental is least of all a scientific historian. 
He is the prince of story-tellers : narratives, real and imaginative, spring from 
his lips, which are the truest portraiture of composite rather than individual 
Oriental life, though narrated under forms of individual experience.' Comp. 
also a paper by R. Somervell on 'The Historical Character of the OT. 
narratives' in the Exp. Times, Apr. 1902, p. 298 ff. ; and the many admirable 
words spoken by the Rev. G. S. Streatfeild in A Parish Clergyman's Thoughts 
about the Higher Criticism (Midland Educational Co., Birmingham ; reprinted, 
with additions, from the Expositor, Dec. 1902), p. 11 ff., on the interpretation 
of the early chapters of Genesis, and on the value of a critical and historical 
appreciation of the Old Testament, in illuminating many parts of it, and in 
removing difficulties. Cf. Westcott, Lessons from Work, pp. 32 f., 178, 179. 

If, now, upon the basis of the considerations advanced in the 
preceding pages, we proceed to the question which after all is of the 
most immediate interest not only to the theologian in the technical 
sense of the word, but also to the man of general religious sympathies, 
we shall find that the religious value of the narratives of Genesis, while 
it must be placed upon a different basis from that on which it has 
hitherto been commonly considered to rest, remains in itself essen- 
tially tmchanged. It is true, we often cannot get behind the narratives, 
in chaps, i. xi., as we have seen, the narratives cannot be historical, 
in our sense of the word, at all, and in chaps, xii. 1., there are at 
least many points at which we cannot feel assured that the details are 
historical : we are obliged consequently to take them as we find them, 
and read them accordingly. And then we shall find that the narratives 
of Genesis teach us still the same lessons which they taught our fore- 
fathers. The drama which begins with the tragedy of Eden and ends 
with the wonderful biography of Joseph is still enacted before our eyes 
as vividly as ever. Eve and Cain still stand before us, the immortal 
types of weakness yielding to temptation, and of an unbridled temper 
leading its victim he knows not whither ; Noah and Abraham are still 
the heroes of righteousness and faith; Lot and Laban, Sarah and 
Rebekah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, in their characters and experiences, 
are still in different ways twoi ij/xw*', and still in one respect or another 



4] INSPIRATION OF GENESIS lxix 

exemplify the ways in which God deals with the individual soul, and 
the manner in which the individual soul ought, or ought not, to 
respond to His leadings. And what, if some of these figures pass 
before us as on a stage, rather than in real life? Do they on that 
account lose their vividness, their truthfulness, their force? On the 
contrary, not only do they retain all these characteristics unimpaired, 
but, if it be true that the figures in Genesis, as we have them, are 
partly, or even, in some cases, wholly, the creations of popular 
imagination, transfigured in the pure, 'dry' light which the inspired 
genius of prophet or priest has shed around them, the Book of Genesis 
is really more surprising than if it were even throughout a literally 
true record of events actually occurring. For to create such characters 
would be more wonderful than to describe them. The Book of Genesis 
is a marvellous gallery of portraits, from whatever originals they may 
have been derived. There is no other nation which can shew for its 
early history anything in the least degree resembling it. There is 
nothing like it in either Babylonia, or Egypt, or India, or Greece. 
The mythology of Greece, especially as it stands before us in the 
two great epics with which Greek literature opens, and as particular 
episodes of it are made the vehicles of splendid lessons in the great 
tragedies of a later age, is indeed a wonderful creation of the human 
mind, and an abiding monument of the intellectual genius of the 
nation which produced it : but the Book of Genesis stands on a 
different plane altogether; and even though it be not throughout 
what our fathers understood it to be, a verbally exact record of actual 
fact, this very difference, which distinguishes it so strikingly from 
the corresponding literature of any other nation, remains still the 
strongest proof of the inspiration by its authors : the spirituality of 
its contents, the spiritual and moral lessons which are continually 
exemplified by it, and which, though they are often expressed in a 
simple and even childlike external garb, are nevertheless to all intents 
and purposes the same as those taught afterwards by the great prophets, 
constitute a cogent ground for inferring the operation of a spiritual 
agency differing specifically from that which was present when the 
mythology of Egypt or Babylonia, of India or Greece, was in process 
of formation. St Paul does not point his readers to the Old Testament 
Scriptures for instruction in science or ancient history, but he says 
that they are profitable 'for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction which is in righteousness' (2 Tim. iii. 16); and the Book 
of Genesis, even though it be understood in parts as parable 

| A2 



lxx INTRODUCTION [ 4 

rather than as history, is most assuredly 'profitable' for all these 
purposes. 

Let us endeavour, then, to sum up in outline the religious value of 
Genesis. On the first eleven chapters little can be added substantially 
to what has been said in the notes 1 . From the beginning the history is 
penetrated with religious ideas. The narrative of the Creation sets 
forth, in a series of dignified and impressive pictures, the sovereignty 
of God; His priority to, and separation from, all finite, material 
nature ; His purpose to constitute an ordered cosmos, and gradually 
to adapt the earth to become the habitation of living beings ; and His 
endowment of man with the peculiar, unique possession of self- 
conscious reason, in virtue of which he becomes capable of intellectual 
and moral life, and is even able to know and hold communion with his 
Maker. In chs. ii. 4 b iii. we read, though again not in a historical, 
but in a pictorial or symbolical form, how man was once innocent, 
how he became, as man must have become, whether in 'Eden' or 
elsewhere, at some period of his existence, conscious of a moral law, 
but how temptation fell upon him, and he broke it. The Fall of man, 
the great but terrible truth, which history, not less than individual 
experience, only too vividly teaches each one of us, is thus impressively 
set before us. Man, however, though punished by God, is not forsaken 
by Him, nor left, in his long conflict with evil, without hope of victory. 
In chap, iv., the increasing power of sin, and the fatal consequences to 
which, if unchecked, it may lead, is vividly portrayed in the tragic 
figure of Cain. The spirit of vindictiveness, and of brutal triumph in 
the power of the sword, is personified in Lamech. In the narrative of 
the Flood, God's just wrath against sin, and the divine prerogative of 
mercy, are alike exemplified : Noah is a standing illustration of the 
truth that ' righteousness delivereth from death ' ; and God's dealings 
with him after the Flood form a striking declaration of the purposes 
of grace and goodwill, with which He regards mankind. The narrative 
of the Tower of Babel (xi. 1 9) emphasizes Jehovah's supremacy over 
the world ; and teaches how the self-exaltation of man is checked 
by God. 

In passing to chaps, xii. 1. we may notice first the teaching about 
God. If in chaps, i. xi. God appears chiefly as the Creator and 
Judge of the world, in chaps, xii. 1. He appears more particularly 



1 On these chapters the small but helpful volume by Professor (now Bishop) 
Ryle, called The Early Narratives of Genesis (which has been several times quoted 
in the notes), is much recommended to the reader. 



4] RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF GENESIS lxxi 

as One who has a care and love for men. Naturally, He hates and 
punishes sin (xiii. 13, xv. 16, xviii. 20 f., xix., xxxix. 9, xliv. 16 ; 
cf. xx. 6, 11, xlii. 21, 28); but these chapters contain principally 
revelations of His regard for man, not only in the promises disclosing 
His gracious purposes towards the patriarchs and their seed (see on 
xii. 2 f.), but also on many other occasions : for instance, in the 
manner in which righteousness receives His approval and blessing 
(xxi. 22, xxiv. 1, 27, 35, xxv. 11, xxvi. 28, 29 end, xxxix. 2, 21, 23, 
and indirectly elsewhere), in the regard shewn by Him to the solitary 
Hagar in the wilderness (xvi. 9 If., xxi. 17 ff.), to Lot in Sodom (xix.), 
to the heathen, but guileless, Abimelech (xx. 6), to Jacob in his 
solitude at Bethel (xxviii. 12 ff. : cf. p. 268), or in a foreign land 
(xxxi. 3, 5, 13, 24, 42, xxxv. 3, xlviii. 15 f.), and to Pharaoh (xli. 25, 
32). His mercy is also illustrated by xviii. 23 ff., xix. 16 ; His 
providence, overruling the events of life for good, by xxiv., xlv. 5, 7, 
1. 20, and other passages ; and His justice is appealed to in xvi. 5, 
xviii. 25, xx. 4, xxxi. 49, 50, 53. In ch. xxii. the meaning of 'pro- 
bation,' and the nature of the sacrifice which is pleasing in God's sight, 
are both strikingly exemplified 1 . 

In the sphere of human conduct, the drama of an entire life takes 
in chaps, xii. 1. the place of the single, isolated episodes characteristic 
of chaps, i. xi. ; and principles and motives find accordingly fuller 
and more vivid expression. The patriarchs vary considerably in 
character ; there is no monotony in the delineation. Nor are they 
without their faults, especially Jacob, and the subordinate characters 
(as Lot and Laban) : the women, in particular, are often jealous, 
imperious, and designing. All have more or less a typical character. 
Abraham is not only conspicuous for such virtues as courtesy, 
hospitality, high-mindedness, generosity ; he is also the primary Old 
Testament example of obedience, and devotion to God ; spirituality of 
thought and aim, not austere, but attractive and winning, is the 
leading motive of his life. He is 'an historic personage, but he is 
also a spiritual type : he is the ideal representative of the life of faith 
and of separation from the idolatries of an evil world : he prefigures 
the ideal character and aims of the people of GodV Isaac lives a 
quiet, uneventful life : he is the ideal son : he ' impersonates the 
peaceful, obedient, submissive qualities of an equable trust in God, 
distinct alike from the more heroic faith of Abraham, and the lower 

1 See also above, p. xxi f. * Ottley, Bampton Lectures, p. 125 f. 



Ixxii INTRODUCTION [ 4 

typo which in Jacob was learned through discipline and purged of 
self-will 1 .' Jacob is a mixed character: he possesses the good qualities 
of ambition and perseverance, though he employs them at first, with 
great unscrupulousness, for selfish and worldly ends : after his great 
spiritual struggle at Penuel, however, his lower self is left behind, and 
in his old age his character appears still further mellowed by the 
discipline of trial and bereavement. Joseph is an example of a stable, 
upright character, faithful to his trusts, proof against temptation, led, 
under God's providence, through many perils and many sorrowful and 
discouraging experiences, to a situation of exaltation and dignity, in 
which he employs his talents to promote the welfare of his fellow-men, 
and in which he displays an even Christian spirit of magnanimity and 
forgiveness towards those who once had bitterly wronged him. The 
biographies of the patriarchs present to us spiritual types, repre- 
sentative examples of the varied experiences, the hopes and fears, the 
disappointments and the pleasures, the sorrows and the joys, the 
domestic trials and successes, which may be the lot of any one of us ; 
and they exemplify the frame of mind, the trust, or resignation, or 
forbearance, or gratitude, with which, as the case may be, they should 
be received, and the countless ways in which, under God's hand, the 
course of events is overruled for good 8 . 

There is also another point of view from which we ought not to 
omit to regard the Book of Genesis. It was a primary function of the 
Hebrew historians not merely to narrate facts as such, but also to 
interpret them, and in particular to interpret their religious signi- 
ficance, and to shew their bearing upon the religious history of Israel 
as a whole. This aspect of the work of the Hebrew historians is 
particularly conspicuous in Genesis. Be the details history or legend, 
or be they, as in some cases it is quite possible that they may be, an 
intermixture of both, all are subordinated to this point of view. 
Historically, the narrators may have been on some points imperfectly 
informed ; but nevertheless what they all aim at shewing is how 
* throughout the period of obscure beginnings God was forming a 
people whose destiny it was to give to the world the true religion.' 
From Gen. iii. 14 onwards a redemptive purpose irradiates the entire 
narrative, shining forth at certain definite epochs with particular 

1 Eyle, DB. s.v. (ii. 48 4 b ). 

2 The typical religious value of the patriarchal narratives, even with the 
admission that they contain ideal elements, is well brought out by Mr Ottley, 
Bampt. Led. p. 126 f. See also Kautzsch, Bibelwissenschaft und Religionsunter- 
richt (1900), p. 41 f., and Die bleibende Bedeutung des ATs., p. 24 ff. 



4] RELIGIOUS VALUE OF GENESIS lxxiii 

brightness, and of course continuing to display itself in subsequent 
parts of the Old Testament. This is one of the features which gives 
the narrative its unique character and unique value. The history of 
the beginnings of the earth and man, and the story of Israel's ancestors, 
might both have been told very differently. They might have been 
told from a purely secular point of view. The narratives might have 
been impregnated with foolish superstitions. The legends respecting 
the beginnings of other nations are sometimes grotesquely absurd. 
But in the hands of Israel's inspired teachers the Hebrew legend is 
from the beginning suffused with pure and ennobling spiritual ideas ; 
and they trace in it the beginnings of the same Providential purposes 
which they find also in the Hebrew history into which afterwards it 
insensibly merges. 

Nor, finally, in estimating the religious value of the Book of 
Genesis should we forget the character of the age to which it relates, 
and the intellectual and spiritual capacities of those to whom in the 
first instance it was addressed. In the Bible we have the record of a 
progressive revelation, in each stage of which the measure of truth 
disclosed is adapted to the mental and spiritual level which has been 
reached by those who are to be its recipients. The Book of Genesis 
gives a picture of the infancy and childhood of the world : it was also 
primarily, at least in its principal and larger part (J and E), addressed 
to men who, though far from uncivilized, and enjoying the advantages 
of settled life and organised government, were nevertheless in many 
respects spiritually immature : the teaching of Amos and Hosea, Isaiah 
and Jeremiah, for example, was still unknown to them. In contents 
and style alike it is accordingly naturally fitted to the comprehension 
of those for whose use and instruction it was primarily designed. In 
an artless but attractive dress, and in forms adapted to impress and 
delight those who read them, the story of Israel's ancestors is told in 
it. Without any conscious moral purpose pervading the narrative, 
elementary lessons about right and wrong, and God and man, are 
taught through the simple experiences and vicissitudes of four 
generations in an Eastern home. In Genesis, more than in any other 
part of the Bible, God talks with men, as a father with his child. 
Need we be surprised, therefore, that there should in this book be 
some accommodation to the habits and modes of thought with which 
children are familiar ? From tales a child may learn many a lesson, 
without stopping to ask either himself or his teacher whether every 
particular tale is true or not. And the tales of Genesis, whether 



lxxiv INTRODUCTION [ 4 

history or parable, are in either case inimitable, and full of lessons. 
Truths and duties, especially those belonging to the ' daily round and 
common task,' such as we all need to learn, and continually through 
our lives have occasion to practise, are illustrated and enforced in it 
by anecdotes and narratives, which the youngest can understand, from 
which the oldest can still learn, and which never cease to fascinate and 
enthral those who have once yielded themselves to their spell. ' The 
power of the Patriarchal narratives on the heart, the imagination, the 
faith of men can never die : it is immortal with truthfulness to the 
realities of human nature, and of God's education of mankind 1 .' 

1 G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the OT. p. 109. Prof. 
Smith's estimate of the historical character of the narratives of Genesis is sub- 
stantially the same as that adopted in the preceding pages. Comp. also, on 
the general question of both the historical and the religious value of the narratives 
of Genesis, the very useful Introduction to Dr Wade's Book of Genesis (1896), 
pp. 37 ff., 49 ff., 61 ff. 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 

PART I. THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD. 
CHAPTERS I. XL 

The Book of Genesis begins with an account of the creation of the universe, 
and of the early history of man upon the earth. It describes, in accordance 
with the beliefs current among the Hebrews, the process by which the earth 
assumed its present form, and was adapted to become the habitation of man 
(ch. i.) ; the situation of man's original dwelling-place, and the entrance of sin 
and trouble into the world (ch. ii. iii.); the beginnings of civilization (ch. iv.); 
the growth of population (ch. v.) ; the increasing prevalence of wickedness, and 
destruction of the whole human race, with the exception of a single family, by 
a flood (ch. vi. ix.) ; and lastly the re-peopling of the earth, and the rise of 
separate nations, and of the Hebrews in particular, out of the descendants 
of this family (ch. x. xi.). Though in parts of these chapters there may be 
dim recollections of historical occurrences, the narrative, as a whole, cannot 
be regarded as an historical record of actual events. The reasons for this 
conclusion will appear more fully in the sequel : it must, however, be almost 
self-evident that trustworthy information respecting periods so remote as those 
here in question could not have been accessible to the Biblical writers ; and it 
is also certain that there are statements in these chapters inconsistent with 
what is known independently of the early history of the earth, and of mankind 
upon it. The narrative of these chapters consists rather of * a series of infer- 
ences relating to times which are pre-historic. It represents the explanations, 
arrived at in ways that it is now impossible to trace, which reflection furnished 
of the many questions spontaneously occurring to a primitive race respecting 
themselves and their surroundings 1 .' Similar narratives are found in the early 
literature of many other peoples. The nearest parallels to the Biblical records 
are afforded (as will shortly become apparent) by Babylonia, a country with 
which the Hebrews were once closely connected ; and recent discoveries have 
shewn 'that certain common beliefs concerning the beginnings of the earth 
and of man must have prevailed in the circle of nations to which both Baby- 
lonians and Hebrews belonged 2 .' The distinguishing characteristics of the 
Biblical narrative are however the lofty religious spirit by which it is dominated, 
and the spiritual lessons of which it is the expression : these remain, even 
though the seemingly historical narratives with which they are associated 
should prove to be no record of actual events, but to represent merely the 
course of the past as it was pictured by the Biblical writers. To us, the 
principal value of the narrative consists in the spiritual teaching thus implicit 
in it ; and this it will be an object of the following commentary to point out 

1 Wade, Old Test. Hist. (1901), p. 37. Ibid. 

D. 1 



2 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

Chapters I. 1 II. 4\ 

The Creation of the World, 

The Book of Genesis opens with a sublime and dignified narrative, describ- 
ing the creation of heaven and earth, and the stages by which, as the narrator 
pictured it, the latter was gradually fitted to become the habitation of man. 
Starting with a state of primaeval chaos, in which the earth is represented as 
enveloped in a huge mass of surrounding waters, shrouded in darkness, yet 
brooded over by the Spirit of God, the writer describes successively (1) the 
production of light ; (2) the division of this mass of primaeval waters into 
two parts, an upper and a lower, by means of a 'firmament ' ; (3) the emergence 
of the dry land out of the lower waters ; (4) the clothing of the dry land with 
grass, herbs, and trees ; (5) the creation of sun, moon, and stars ; (6) the pro- 
duction of fishes and birds ; (7) the appearance of terrestrial animals ; (8) the 
creation of man ; (9) God's rest after His work of creation. There are thus 
eight distinct creative works, which, with God's rest at the close, are adjusted 
with remarkable symmetry to the week of seven days. The six days of creation 
fall into two sections of three days each ; and the third and the sixth days have 
each two works assigned to them. The first three days, moreover, are days of 
preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment. On the first day 
light is created, and on the fourth day comes the creation of the luminaries 
which are for the future to be its receptacles ; on the second day the waters 
* below the firmament/ and (as we should say) the air, appear, and on the fifth 
day fishes and birds are created to people them ; on the third day the dry land 
appears, and the earth is clothed with vegetation ; on the sixth day terrestrial 
animals and man are created, who are to inhabit the dry land, and (vv. 29, 30) 
to live upon food supplied by its vegetatioa In the order in which the different 
creative works are arranged there is an evident gradation, each work as a rule 
occupying the place in which it might be naturally regarded as the condition, 
or suitable forerunner, of the work next following, and in the case of living 
things, there being an obvious ascent from lower to higher, the climax of the 
whole being formed by man. 

The narrative belongs to the Priestly source of the Hexateuch (see p. iv), 
the literary characteristics of which it displays in a marked degree. It will 
be sufficient to notice here the use throughout of the name God (not Jehovah), 
and the methodical articulation of the narrative into sections, each marked by 
the recurrence of stereotyped formulae. Thus each creative act is introduced 
by the words And God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26); and it was so is 
found six times (vv. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30); the mark of Divine approval, and God 
saw that it was good, is repeated seven times (in lxx. eight times, once after 
each work), vv. 4, 8 (lxx.), 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31 (the last time, with a significant 
variation); and the close of each day's work is marked by the standing 
formula, and evening came, and morning came,.. .day (vv. 5, 8, 12, 19, 23, 31). 

On some general questions arising out of the narrative, see p. 19 & 



L.t,] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 3 

I. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the P 
earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void ; and darkness was 

1. 1. Introduction. The verse (as rendered in EW.) gives 
a summary of the description which follows, stating the broad general 
fact of the creation of the universe ; the details of the process then 
form the subject of the rest of the chapter 1 . 

In the beginning. Not absolutely, but relatively : at the begins 
ning of the order of things which we see, and in the midst of which 
human history unfolds itself (Perowne, Expositor, Oct. 1890, p. 248). 

God. On the Heb. word, see the Excursus at the end of the volume. 

created. The root signifies to cut (see, in the intensive conjug., 
Josh. xvii. 15, 18 ; Ez. xxiii. 47) : so probably the proper meaning of 
N"0 is to fashion by cutting, to shape. In the simple conjugation, 
however, it is used exclusively of God, to denote viz. the production 
of something fundamentally new, by the exercise of a sovereign 
originative power, altogether transcending that possessed by man. 
Although, however, the term thus unquestionably denotes a super- 
human, miraculous activity, it is doubtful whether it was felt to 
express definitely the idea of creatio ex nihilo*; and certainly, as 
Pearson (On the Creed, fol. 52) points out, this doctrine cannot be 
established from it. The word is very frequent in the Second Isaiah 
(as xl. 26, 28, xlii. 5, xlv. 7, 12, 18). In Ps. civ. 30 it is used of the 
ever-recurring renovation of life upon the earth. Its figurative ap- 
plications are also noticeable : as of the formation of a nation by 
Jehovah, Is. xliii. 1, 15 ; and of the production of some surprising 
or striking effect, or of some new condition or circumstances, beyond 
the power of man to bring about, as Ex. xxxiv. 10 (RVm.); Nu. xvi. 30 
(RVm.) ; Jer. xxxi. 22 ; Is. xlv. 8, lxv. 17. 

the heaven and the earth. I.e. the universe, as it was known to the 
Hebrews, in its completed state. 

2. The writer now turns at once to the earth, in which, as the 
future home of man, and the theatre of human activity, he is more 
particularly interested ; and proceeds to describe what its condition 
was when God 'spake,' as described in v. 3. 

the earth. As the sequel shews, the term here denotes the earth, 
not as we know it now, but in its primitive chaotic, unformed state. 

was without form and void. Heb. tohu wa-bohu an alliterative 
description of a chaos, in which nothing can be distinguished or 
defined. Tohu is a word which it is difficult to express consistently 
in English : but it denotes mostly something unsubstantial, or (fig.) 

1 Many modern scholars, however (including Dillmann), construe w. 1 3 in 
this way : 'In the beginning of God's creating the heaven and the earth, now the 
earth was without form, &c. [v. 2], God said, Let there be light,' &c. So already 
the celebrated Jewish commentator Eashi (a.d. 1040 1105), and similarly Ibn 
Ezra (10921167). 

3 ovk % ovtojv, 2 Mace. vii. 28. Cf. the Shepherd of Hennas, i. i. 6 with the 
parallels from Ecclesiastical writers collected in the note in Gebhardt and Harnack's 
edition. On Heb. xi. 3, see Westcott's note. 

12 



4 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [i. i 

unreal 1 ; cf. Is. xlv. 18 (of the earth), 'He created it not a tohu, he 
fashioned it to be inhabited,' v. 19 'I said not, Seek ye me as a tohu 
(i.e. in vain). 1 Bohu (only twice besides), as Arabic shews, is rightly 
rendered empty or void. Comp. the same combination of words to 
suggest the idea of a return to primaeval chaos in Jer. iv. 23, and 
Is. xxxiv. 11 ('the line of tohu and the plummet of bohu')*. 

upon the face of the deep. Heb. thorn. Not here what the 'deep' 
would denote to us, i.e. the sea, but the primitive undivided waters, the 
huge watery mass which the writer conceived as enveloping the chaotic 
earth. Milton (P. L. vh. 276 if.) gives an excellent paraphrase : 

The earth was formed, but, in the womb as yet 
Of waters, embryon immature, involved, 
Appeared not, over all the face of earth 
Main ocean flowed. 

In the Babylonian cosmogony, also, as reported by Berossus (see DB, 
I. 504 b ; or KAT. 3 (1902), p. 488), all things began in darkness and 
water; and tfhom recalls at once the Bab. Tidmat (see p. 28). 

the spirit of God &c. In the OT. the 'spirit' of man is the 
principle of life, viewed especially as the seat of the stronger and more 
active energies of life ; and the ' spirit ' of God is analogously the 
Divine force or agency, to the operation of which are attributed 
various extraordinary powers and activities of men, as also super- 
natural spiritual gifts (see e.g. Gen. xli. 38; Ex. xxxi. 3; Num. xi. 17; 
1 S. xi. 6, xvi. 13 ; Mic. iii. 8; Is. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lix. 21, lxi. 1 ; Ez. xxxvi. 
27); in the later books of the OT., it appears also as the power which 
creates and sustains life (cf. Ez. xxxvii. 14; Is. xli v. 3 f. ; Job xxxiii. 4; 
Ps. civ. 30 3 ). It is in the last-named capacity that it is mentioned 
here. The chaos of v. 2 was not left in hopeless gloom and death ; 
already, even before God 'spake' (v. 3), the spirit of God, with its 
life-giving energy, was ' brooding ' over the waters, like a bird upon its 
nest, and (so it seems to be implied) fitting them in some way to 
generate and maintain life, when the Divine fiat should be pronounced 4 . 

1 The following are its occurrences (besides those noted above) : Is. xxix. 21 
'that turn aside the just [from their right] with a thing of nought ,' i.e. by baseless 
allegations, xl. 17 'are counted by him as made of nothing and tohu (RV. vanity),'' 
23 (RV. vanity, || nothing), xli. 29 (RV. confusion, |j wind), xliv. 9 (vanity, marg. 
confusion), xlix. 4 for nought (=tn vain), lix. 4 vanity (i.e. moral unreality, 
falsehood); Job xxvi. 7 (RV. empty space); 1 S. xii. 21, of idols (RV. vain things); 
Is. xxiv. 10 (RV. confusion). It is also used sometimes poetically of an undefined, 
untracked, indeterminable expanse, or waste : Dt. xxxii. 10, Job vi. 18 RV., 
xii. 24 = Ps. cvii. 40. The ancient Versions usually render it by words signifying 
emptiness, nothingness, vanity (as nevbv, ov84v, fidratov, inane, vacuum, vanum). 

2 lxx. render here dbparos icai d/carctcr/cei/ao-ros. Cf. Wisd. xi. 17 (18) rj iravTobtivaubs 
ffov x ei P Ka -l tcriaaaa rbv Kba/xov e dpi.bp4>ov v\rjs. 

3 Comp. in the NT. John vi. 63 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; and in the Nicene 
Creed to Ktipiov nal toio-woLow. 

4 Comp. Milton (P. L. xli. 233 ff.) : Darkness profound 

Cover'd the abyss ; but on the watery calm [see 1. 216] 
His brooding wings the Spirit of God outspread, 
And vital virtue infus'd, and vital warmth, 
Throughout the fluid mass.' 



i. *- 5 ] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 5 

upon the face of the deep : and the spirit of God * moved upon p 
the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light : 
and there was light 4 And God saw the light, that it was 
good : and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And 

1 Or, was brooding upon 

moved. Was brooding (RVm.). The word occurs besides only 
in Dt. xxxii. 11, where it is used of an eagle (properly, a griffon- 
vulture) hovering over its young. It is used similarly in Syriac. 

It is possible that its use here may be a survival, or echo, of the 
old belief, found among the Phoenicians, as well as elsewhere (Euseb. 
Praep. Ev. I. 10. 1, 2 ; Arist. Ayes 693 ff. : Dillm. pp. 4, 7, 20), of a 
world-egg, out of which, as it split, the earth, sky, and heavenly bodies 
emerged ; the crude, material representation appearing here trans- 
formed into a beautiful and suggestive figure. 

3 5. The First Day, and the first work. Light. 

Light is the first work, because it is the indispensable condition of 
all order, all distinctness, all life, and all further progress. 

3. And God said. So at the beginning of each work of creation, 
including the two providential words of vv. 28, 29, ten times in all 
(hence the later Jewish dictum, 'By ten sayings the world was created/ 
Aboth v. 1). As Dillm. has pointed out, in the fact that God creates 
by a wora, there are several important truths implicit. It is an 
indication not only of the ease with which He accomplished His work, 
and of His omnipotence, but also of the fact that He works consciously 
and deliberately. Things do not emanate from Him unconsciously, 
nor are they produced by a mere act of thought, as in some pantheistic 
systems, but by an act of will, of which the concrete word is the 
outward expression. Each stage in His creative work is the realization 
of a deliberately formed purpose, the 'word' being the mediating 
principle of creation, the means or agency through which His will 
takes effect. Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9; also cvii. 20, cxlvii. 15, 18, in which 
passages the word is regarded as a messenger between God and His 
creatures. This usage of the OT. is a preparation for the personal 
sense of the term ' The Word ' which appears in the NT. (John i. 1), 
though doubtless this usage is in part, also, dependent upon Philo. 

4. that it was good. The Divine approval is signified seven times 
in the chapter, after each work, except the second where, however, 
the lxx. have it (v. S\ The formula used marks each work as one 
corresponding to the Divine intention, perfect, as far as its nature 
required and permitted, complete, and the object of the Creator's 
approving regard and satisfaction. 

and God divided &c. Light and darkness are henceforth to have 
each its separate sphere, and special time of appearance (v. 5). The 

And (i. 19 ff.) : 

'Thou from the first 
Wast present, and, with mighty wings outspread 
Dove-like, sat'st brooding on the vast abyss, 
And mad'st it pregnant.' 



6 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [1.5,6 

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. P 
And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 

6 And God said, Let there be a Armament in the midst of 

1 Heb. expanse. 

origin of darkness, like that of chaos, is not mentioned : chaos dis- 
appears by being converted gradually into an ordered cosmos ; darkness, 
though neither called into being by a creative word, nor described as 
1 good/ is nevertheless by this act of separation recognized as having 
equally with light its place in the ordering of the world. 

In this Reparation' of the light from the darkness there seems, 
however, to be something more involved than their mere alternation, or 
successive appearance, by day and night. Not only is light created 
before the luminaries (v. 16), but in Job light and darkness seem to be 
represented as having eacn its separate and distinct dwelling-place 
(xxxviii. 19 'Where is the way to the dwelling of light, And as for 
darkness, where is the place thereof?' 20 ; xxvi. 10 'He hath circum- 
scribed a boundary [the horizon] upon the face of the waters, Unto the 
confines of light and darkness [i.e. the border between them]'). It 
seems thus that, according to the Hebrew conception, light, though 
gathered up and concentrated in the heavenly bodies, is not confined 
to them (Perowne) ; day arises, not solely from the sun, but because 
the matter of light issues forth from its place and spreads over the 
earth, at night it withdraws, and darkness comes forth from its place, 
each in a hidden, mysterious way (Dillm.). An idea such as this may 
seem strange to us : but the expositor has no right to read into the 
narrative the ideas of modern science ; his duty is simply to read out 
of it the ideas which it expresses or presupposes. 

5. And God called &c. God designed the distinction to be 
permanent, and therefore stamped it with a name. An indirect way 
of saying that a distinction which all men recognize, and express in 
language, was part of the Divine purpose and a Divine ordinance 
(similarly w. 8, 10). The alternation is a beneficent one ; and already 
the future adaptation of the earth to the needs of men and animals is 
in view (see Ps. civ. 20 23). 

And evening came, and morning came [= cyevero, not rjv\ one day. 
The chaotic darkness is antecedent to all reckoning : the creation of 
light marks the beginning of the first day, so the first full day closes 
with the following morning. This is indicated by saying, in accordance 
with the distinction just established between 'Day' and 'Night,' that 
first evening came, and then morning came. 

6 8. Second Day, and second work. The division of the primitive 
chaotic waters into two parts, an upper and a lower, by means of a 
* firmament.' 

6. a firmament. Vulg. firmamentum, from the lxx. orcpcw/na, i.e. 
something made solid. The Heb. is rdkia', something pressed down 
firm, and so beaten out (the cogn. verb means to stamp, Ez. vi. II 1 ; 

1 In the Syriac Version of Lk. vi. 38 it stands for iremea/xivou, 'pressed down.' 



r. 6-s] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 7 

the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And 
God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were 
under the firmament from the waters which were above the 
firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament 

applied to metals, to beat out (Nu. xvi. 39 ; Jer. x. 9), fig. of the earth, 
Is. xlii. 5, xliv. 24 [RV. spread abroad], Ps. cxxxvi. 6), i.e. a firm and 
solid expanse 1 capable of supporting the masses of water confined 
above. The dome or canopy of heaven, which we, of course, know 
to be nothing but an optical illusion, was supposed by the Hebrews 
to be a solid vault (cf. Job xxxvii. 18 ' Canst thou like him beat out the 
skies, which are strong as a molten mirror V and Prov. viii. 28 a ), 
supported far off by pillars resting upon the earth (Job xxvi. 11 ; 
Amos ix. 6 ; cf. 2 S. xxii. 8) 2 : above this vault there were vast 
reservoirs of water, which came down, in time of rain, through opened 
sluices (v. 7, vii. 11 ; Ps. civ. 3 'who layeth the beams of his upper- 
chambers in the waters'; 13 'who watereth the mountains from his 
upper-chambers'; Am. ix. 6 'whobuildeth his upper-chambers in the 
heaven, and hath founded his vault upon the earth ') ; and above these 
waters Jehovah sat enthroned. The present verse shews how this was 
supposed to have been brought about. By the Divine word, a solid 
1 firmament ' was created, which separated the huge mass of primitive 
waters enveloping the earth into two parts, one being above the 
firmament, and the other below it. 

let it divide. More exactly, 'let it be dividing, the participle 
denoting that the division is to be permanent. 

the waters from the waters. I.e. the waters below the firmament 
from the waters above it. 

7. the waters which were above the firmament. Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 4. 
and it was so. The clause is apparently misplaced. According to 

the analogy of the other cases in which the words are used (vv. 9, 11, 
15, 24, 30), and in which they immediately follow the woras spoken 
by God, they should stand at the end of v. 6, where the lxx. actually 
have them. 

8. And God called &c. Cf. v. 5. lxx. add here (as the Heb. 
text does at the conclusion of all the other works, w. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 
25, cf. v. 31) 'And God saw that it was good.' It is true, the words 
may have dropped out here accidentally ; on the other hand, it has 
also been supposed that they were not placed here by the original 
writer, because the separation of the waters by a firmament was only a 
preliminary and imperfect stage in what was completed only on the 
Third Day, viz. the gathering together of the lower waters into seas 
and the emergence of dry land. 

1 EVm. * expanse' (alone) suggests a false sense : the word means an expanded 
or extended thing. 

2 Homer speaks similarly of the heaven as of bronze (Od. xv. 329 al.) or iron 
{II. xvu. 425) 



8 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [i. 8-10 

Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a P 
second day. 

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered 
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear : and it 
was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth ; and the 
gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and God saw 

And evening came, and morning came &c. As v. 5. 

9 13. Third Day ; third and fourth works. The emergence of 
the dry land out of the lower waters; and its being clothed with 
vegetation. 

9, 10. The part of the chaotic waters, which remained below the 
'firmament/ and for the present still enveloped the earth, is now 
gathered into seas ' the plural referring probably to the aggregate of 
waters which the ancients generally (cf. the Gk 'fixcou/os) pictured as 
encircling the earth and the surface of the earth appears. The idea 
is that, whether by the earth rising, or by room being made around and 
under it, the waters flowed away from its surface, and the dry ground 
appeared. It must be remembered that to the Hebrews the earth was 
not a large globe, revolving through space round the sun, but a 
relatively small flat surface, in shape approximately round, supported 
partly, as it seemed, by the encircling sea out of which it rose, but 
resting more particularly upon a huge abyss of waters underneath, 
whence hidden channels were supposed to keep springs and rivers 
supplied, and also the sea (cf. Dt. viii. 7 [read deeps for depths] ; Pr. iii. 
20* ' by his knowledge the deeps were cleft open ' with allusion to the 
formation of these channels) 1 . These vast subterranean waters are 
often alluded to, as vii. 11, xlix. 25 (see the notes) ; Ex. xx. 4 ('the 
waters under the earth') ; Job xxxviii. 16 ; Pr. viii. 28 b ; Ps. xxxiii. 7 b , 
xxxvi. 6; cf. Ps. xxiv. 2 'For he hath founded it upon the seas, And he 
maketh it fast upon the streams' \ cxxxvi. 6 'To him that spread abroad 
the earth upon the waters. 1 There is a graphic poetical description of 
this part of the Third Day's work in Ps. civ. 6 8 : 

Thou coveredst it with the deep [ie. with the primitive waters] like as 
with a vesture; 

The waters stood above the mountains: 
At thy rebuke they fled, 

At the voice of thy thunder they sped in alarm 
The mountains rose, the valleys sank 

Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them. 

Confining the sea within its barriers is spoken of as a work of Divine 
omnipotence also in Jer. v. 22, Job xxxviii. 8 11. 

10. And God called &c. Cf. on v. 5. 

Earth. The word is used here in a somewhat different sense from 
v. 2 : there it denoted the chaotic earth, enveloped in water, Milton's 



1 See the illustration in DB. i. 503. 



i. 10-14] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 9 

that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth P 
grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree bearing fruit after its 
kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth : and it was so. 
12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after 
its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after 
its kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was 
evening and there was morning, a third day. 

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the 

'embryon immature ' ; here it denotes the land, as we know it, in 
opposition to the sea. 

11, 12. The clothing of the earth with vegetation. Three of the 
more conspicuous descriptions of vegetable produce are mentioned, 
which may be regarded as representing the whole. 

11. grass. Heb. deshe\ often rendered tender grass (i.e. young, 
fresh grass, such as appears after rain (2 S. xxiii. 4 ; Job xxxviii. 27) ; 
and so used suitably of the fresh young verdure, which the narrator 
pictured as first brought forth by the earth. 

herb. I.e. larger plants, especially such as vegetables and cereals : 
cf. v. 29, iii. 18 ; Ps. civ. 14. 

yielding seed. I.e. possessing the means of self-propagation, and 
also furnishing products often useful for man. 

fruit tree. The writer thinks more particularly of trees producing 
food for man. 

after its kind. Rather, after its kinds (the word being collective), 
i.e. according to its various species : so w. 12, 24, 25. The addition 
calls attention to the number and variety of the different species 
included under each head. The point is one often emphasized in the 
technical enumerations of *P' : see the Introduction, p. viii: and cf. vi. 
20, vii. 14; Lev. xi. 1416, 19, 22, 29. 

wherein is the seed thereof. I.e. containing in itself the means of 
self-propagation. The object of the v. is to shew how all vegetation 
originated in the command of God, how the earth produces its multitu- 
dinous species by His appointment, and how further these species 
contain within themselves the means of continuous reproduction. 

14 19. Fourth Day, and fifth work. The creation of luminaries 
in heaven. 

14. lights. Heb. m e 'oroth, places (or instruments) of light, i.e. 
luminaries. 

in the firmament of the heaven. I.e. fastened to it (cf. v. 17), and 
below the ' waters above the firmament ' of v. 7. The Hebrews were 
unconscious of the immense (and varying) distances by which the 
heavenly bodies are separated from the earth ; and supposed them 
to have their positions, and courses, in some way assigned to them 
in the solid 'firmament,' which seems to the spectator to extend, as 
a huge cupola, above him. 



10 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [i. r 4 , 15 

heaven to divide the day from the night ; and let them be for P 
signs, and for seasons, and for days and years : 15 and let them 
be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon 

The luminaries are described as subserving three purposes : 

1. to divide the day from the night or (v. 18) to divide the light 
from the darkness, and to rule over the day and over the night i.e. to be 
the permanent regulators of the distinction laid down in vv. 4, 5 ; the 
sun serving to distinguish the day from the night, and by the splendour 
and potency of its rays 'ruling' over it; and the moon, though of 
course equally visible by day, being more conspicuous by night, and 
so, with the stars, serving to distinguish it from the day, and ' ruling ' 
over it by imparting to it a character of its own. 

2. to be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, 
(a) for signs, e.g. as helping to fix what we should call the points 
of the compass, or by their appearance betokening the future state 
of the weather, perhaps also, by extraordinary phenomena, as eclipses, 
portending (as antiquity believed) extraordinary occurrences 1 , (b) for 
seasons, i.e. not the four seasons of the year (though these may 
be included! but fixed times (Heb. mo'adim, from ya ( ad, to fix, 
appoint), whether secular or sacred : as months and weeks, deter- 
mined oy the moon (cf. Ps. civ. 19 'he made the moon for fixed 
times'), periods of human occupation, as agriculture and navigation 2 , 
or of animal life (cf. Jer. viii. 7 'the stork in the heaven knoweth 
her fixed time,' viz. for migration), or of the flowering and seed-time 
of plants, and similarly the fixed periods of the year which we call 
' seasons ' ; and also sacred seasons the festivals and other sacred 
occasions in the Jewish calendar being fixed for definite days in the 
week, month, or year (see esp. Lev. xxiii.), and the same word mo l adlm 
being frequently applied to them (see ibid., where ten such mo'adlm 3 
are enumerated), (c) for days and years, determining their length, and 
regular succession. 

3. to give light upon the earth (v. 15). A necessary condition of 
life, and progress ; and essential for the existence and development of 
the human race. The various functions assigned here to the heavenly 
bodies have all, it is to be noticed, reference to the earth and especially 
to the earth as a habitation for living beings : in Job xxxviii. 33 they 
are summed up in the expression, ' the dominion of the heavens over 
the earth.' For darkness and night, as having their place in the 
Divinely-appointed economy of nature, see Ps. civ. 20. 

1 Comp. the manner in which the prophets sometimes represent extraordinary 
darkenings of the heavenly bodies as accompanying great political catastrophes 
(Am. viii. 9 ; Ez. xxxii. 7 ; Is. xiii. 10) ; see also Joel ii. 31, Luke xxi. 25. How- 
ever, an undue regard to such signs of heaven ' is condemned in Jer. x. 2. 

2 Determined often in ancient times by the heliacal risings and settings of the 
fixed stars : see Astronomia in Smith's Diet, of Antiquities. 

8 RV. set feasts (RVm. appointed seasons) ; elsewhere also appointed feasts, as 
Is. i. 14; Hos. ii. 11 (RVm.). (The word rendered 'feast' simply, and meaning 
properly & pilgrimage (Ex. xxiii. 14 17 al.) t is quite different.) 



1. 15-10] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 11 

the earth : and it was so. 16 And God made the two great P 
lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light 
to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set 
them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the 
earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to 
divide the light from the darkness : and God saw that it was 
good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a 
fourth day. 

20 And God said, Let the waters * bring forth abundantly the 

1 Heb. swarm with swarms of living creatures. 

16 18. The manner in which God gave effect to His command. 
The luminaries are first 'made' (v. 16), and then 'set' (v. 17) in the 
firmament. 

16. And God made. 'And,' following the command of vv. 14, 15, 
is equivalent virtually to Thus, or So. Similarly vv. 21, 25. 

to rule &c. Hence Ps. cxxxvi. 7 9. Cf. also Jer. xxxi. 35. 

he made the stars also. The stars hold a subordinate place, because, 
so far as the earth and life upon it are concerned, they are of less 
importance than the sun or moon. The Hebrews had no idea that the 
'stars' were in reality, at least in many cases, far vaster and more 
wonderful in their structure than the sun. Even the questions in 
Job xxxviii. 31, 32, have a far fuller meaning to us than they had 
to the poet who framed them. 

17. set them in the firmament. Cf. on v. 14 (p. 9). 

* This whole description of the creation of the heavenly bodies is 
written from the ancient geocentric standpoint : and it is vain to 
attempt to bring it into scientific agreement with the teachings of 
modern astronomy. But the object of the writer is a religious one ; 
and for the religious point of view it is sufficient to know that the 
heavenly bodies are marvels of the creative power of God, and in 
other respects to consider them according to what they are for us. 
They subserve human needs, in accordance with God's ordinance, in 
the manifold ways indicated in the narrative ; and they are thus a 
means of filling our minds with a profound sense of the wonderful 
harmony of the universe, and of the might and wisdom of the Creator 
(cf. Pss. viii., xix., civ.)' (Dillm.). There is at the same time a tacit 
opposition to the wide-spread belief of the ancients that the heavenly 
bodies were themselves divine, and to be treated as objects of worship 
(Dt. iv. 19 &c; Job xxxi. 26 j Wisd. xiii. 2). 

20 23. Fifth Day and sixth work. The water and air peopled 
with living beings. 

20. Let the waters swarm with swarming things, (even) living 
souls. The RV. here, unfortunately, fails entirely to give the reader 
a clear idea of what is intended ; and even RVm. only partially supplies 



12 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [L^n 

moving creature that hath life, and let fowl fly above the earth P 
2 in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the 
great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, which 
the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kinds, and 
every winged fowl after its kind : and God saw that it was good. 

1 Heb. on the face of the expanse of the heaven. 

the deficiency. * Swarming things' (Heb. sherez) is a technical ex- 
pression, and is applied to creatures that appear in swarms whether 
(as here) those that teem in the waters (both fishes and other small 
aquatic creatures) 1 , or those which swarm on the ground or in the air 
(i.e. creeping and flying insects, small reptiles, and small quadrupeds, 
as the weasel and the mouse: see Lev. xi. 20 23, 29 31) 2 . 

(even) living souls. A soul ' (nephesh) in the psychology of the 
Hebrews is not peculiar to man ; it is the principle of life and sensibility 
in any animal organism, and is then transferred to the sentient organism 
itself. The rendering ' creature ' obliterates a distinctive characteristic 
of Hebrew thought. Here the term denotes all kinds of aquatic 
organisms, including even the lowliest. Comp. Ez. xlvii. 9 ' all soul that 
swarmetk,' of fish ; and of other sentient things, ch. i. 21, 24, ix. 10, 
12, 15, 16; Lev. xi. 10, 46, &c. (RV. each time, 'creature'), xxiv. 18 
(Heb. he that smiteth the soul of a beast/ and then 'soul for soul'). 

fowl. Or, flying things. As Lev. xi. 20, 21, 23 (Heb.) shews, the 
term may include insects. 

in front of the firmament of heaven. I.e. in the air, in front of the 
firmament, as a spectator standing upon the earth looks up towards it. 
The RV. is incorrect, the Hebrew words not admitting of the rendering 
given ; and the firmament, moreover, according to Hebrew ideas, not 
being anything of which ' open ' could be predicated. The lxx. adds 
at the end of this verse 'And it was so ' (as vv. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30). 

21. The creatures thus produced specified somewhat more par- 
ticularly. 

sea-monsters. Heb. tannin, a long reptile, applied sometimes to 
land-reptiles (Ex. vii. 9 [see RVm.], 10, 12; Dt. xxxii. 33 [EVV. 
dragon] ; Ps. xci. 13 [R V. serpent ; PBV. dragonj) ; but usually 
denoting the crocodile (Is. xxvii. 1, li. 9 ; Ez. xxix. 3, xxxii. 2 ; 
Ps. lxxiv. 13 [EVV. in all, dragon]), or other aquatic monster (Jer. li. 
34 ; Ps. cxlviii. 7 [see RVm.] ; Job vii. 12 [RV. sea-monster]). Here 
it means sea- (and river-) monsters generally. 

and every living soul (v. 20) that creepeth [or glideth], where- 

1 So Lev. xi. 10 (read 'swarm ' for 'move') ; Ez. xlvii. 9. 

2 So vii. 21 (see RVm.), Lev. v. 2 (RV., unhappily [see on vv. 21, 24], 'creeping 
things '). See especially Lev. xi. 2023, 2931, 41 44, 46 : the reader who 
desires to understand properly the distinctions referred to in this chapter should 
mark on the margin of his Revised Version 'swarm,' 'swarmeth,' 'swarming' 
against 'creep,' 'creepeth,' 'creeping' each time in these verses (as also against 
'move' in v. 10), and 'creepeth' against 'moveth' in vv. 44, 46. 



i.22- H ] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 13 

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and P 
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 

23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living 

creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of 

with the waters swarm (v. 20). I.e. fishes, as well as other aquatic 
creatures, which either glide through the water, or creep along its bed. 
The word rendered 'creep' is used mostly of land-creatures (see on 
v. 24) : it is used of aquatic creatures, as here, in Lev. xi. 46 ; 
Ps. lxix. 34 (read 'creepeth,' or 'glideth,' for RV. movetk); cf. the 
corresponding subst. in Ps. civ. 25 ('wherein are things creeping 
innumerable '). 

22. As animate beings, the creatures just produced receive, not 
only the customary mark of Divine approval (v. 21 end), but a blessing, 
the terms of which shew that it is part of the Divine plan that they 
should increase and multiply in the earth. The purpose was similar in 
the creation of plants (v. 11) ; but no such permission is addressed to 
them, their growth and movement being spontaneous, and not controlled 
by a conscious will, as is the case, in a greater or less degree, with 
animate beings. 

Be fruitful, and multiply. A combination characteristic of P : 
cf. v. 28, viii. 17, ix. 1, 7, xvii. 20 al. (see the Introd. p. viii, No. 5). 

24 31. The Sixth Day ; the seventh and the eighth works. The 
creation of land-animals, and of man. 

24. bring forth the living creature. Bring forth living soul 
(collectively) : see on v. 20. 

kind (twice). Kinds : so v. 25. In this, and the next verse, three 
prominent classes of terrestrial animals are specified, as representing 
the whole (cf. v. 11). 

cattle. Heb. b'hemah (lit., as Eth. shews, that which is dumb), i.e. 
large quadrupeds, sometimes (esp. when opposed to ' man ') including 
wild animals (as vi. 7, 20, vii. 23) ; but often, as here, referring more 
particularly to domestic animals (cf. xxxiv. 23, xlvii. 18). 

creeping thing. Heb. r ernes, i.e. things which 'move along the 
ground either without feet, or with imperceptible feet' (Dillm.;, i.e. 
reptiles (lizards, snakes, &c), a class of animal very abundant in the 
East, and small creatures with more than four feet. So w. 25, 26, vi. 
7, 20, vii. 14, 23, viii. 17, 19 ; 1 K. iv. 33 ; Hos. ii. 18 al. ; cf. the cognate 
verb, Lev. xi. 44 (read ' creepeth ' for RV. moveth) \ xx. 25 (RVm. ). 

beast of the earth. Lit. 'living things (~wa) of the earth,' i.e. 
which roam on the wide earth, = wild animals : so w. 25, [26], 30, 
ix. 2, 10; 1 S. xvii. 46; Ps. lxxix. 2 al. In ii. 19, 20, iii. 1, 14, the 
expression used is 'beast (living thing) of the field.' 

1 But RV. 'creep' in Lev. xi. should throughout be ' swarm': see the footnote 
on p. 12 ; and cf. Creeping things in DB. 



14 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [1.24-26 

the earth after its kind : and it was so. 25 And God made the P 
beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, 
and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind : 
and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make 
man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have 

25. How God gave effect to His command. The verse is related 
to v. 24, as v. 21 to v. 20, w. 16 18 to vv. 14, 15, and v. 7 to v. 6. 

26, 27. The creation of man. The creation of man is introduced 
with solemnity : it is the result of a special deliberation on the part of 
God, and man is a special expression of the Divine nature. 

Let us make man. The plural in God's mouth (which occurs other- 
wise in the entire OT. only xi. 7 ; Is. vi. 8 for ch. iii. 22 is evidently 
different) is remarkable and has been variously explained. (1) The 
general Jewish interpretation, and also that of some Christians (notably 
Delitzsch), is that God is represented as including with Himself His 
celestial court (1 K. xxii. 19 f. ; Is. vi. 8 ; Ps. lxxxix. 5, 6, &c), and 
consulting with them, before creating the highest of His works, man \ 
The words of the text seem however clearly to imply that those who 
are included in the 1st pers. pi. are invited to take part in the creation 
of man, which, if they are angels, is not probable : Delitzsch's 
argument that it is not their co-operation, but only their sympathy, 
which is invited, implies a strained limitation of the expression used. 
(2) Others, especially the Fathers, have regarded the plural as ex- 
pressing a plurality of persons in the Godhead, and so as suggesting, at 
least by implication, the doctrine of the Trinity. But this is to 
anticipate a much later stage in the history of revelation. (3) Hebrew 
possesses what is called a 'plural of majesty' : the words for 'lord/ 
1 master,' even when applied to a single person, are often, for instance, 
plural (see e.g. xxxix. 20 ; Ex. xxi. 29, 34 ; Is. xix. 4), for the purpose 
of conveying the ideas of dignity and greatness ; the usual Hebrew word 
for ' God ' ^Elohirn) is similarly, as a rule, plural (indicative, no doubt, 
of the fulness of attributes and powers conceived as united in the 
Godhead) : hence (Dillm., Perowne) it might well be that, on a solemn 
occasion like this, when God is represented as about to create a being 
in His own 'image,' and to impart to him a share in that fulness of 
sovereign prerogatives possessed by Himself, He should adopt this 
unusual and significant mode of expression. 

in our image, after our likeness. Of the two words used, ' image ' 
(1 S. vi. 5 ; Dan. iii. 1, &c. ; but not used elsewhere in the sense of 
'resemblance,' except in the parallels, v. 27, v. 3, ix. 6) suggests, 
perhaps, more particularly the idea of material resemblance, ' likeness ' 
(Ez. i. 5, 10, 13, 16, &c. ; and ch. v. 1, 3), that of an immaterial 

1 Cf. Pesikta 34 a (ed. Buber), 'God took counsel with the ministering angels, 
and said unto them, Let us make,' &o. : similarly in the Targ. Ps.-Jon. on this 
verse. Comp. the later Jewish saying (Edersheim, Life and Times, n. 749), 'God 
never does anything, without first consulting the family above.' 



I. ,6] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 15 

dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, P 
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every 

resemblance : but the distinction cannot be pressed 1 : both words refer 
here evidently to spiritual resemblance alone ; and the duplication of 
synonyms is intended simply to emphasize the idea of resemblance 
(cf. the duplications in x. 5, 20, 31, 32, xxv. 161 

What however is meant by the ' image of God, which man is thus 
said to bear ? It is (1) something which evidently forms the ground 
and basis of his entire preeminence above animals ; (2) it is something 
which is transmitted to his descendants (v. 1, 3, ix. 6), and belongs 
therefore to man in general, and not solely to man in a state of 
primitive innocence ; (3) it relates, from the nature of the case, to 
man's immaterial nature. It can be nothing but the gift of self- 
conscious reason, which is possessed by man, but by no other animal. 
In all that is implied by this, in the various intellectual faculties 
possessed by him ; in his creative and originative power, enabling him 
to develop and make progress in arts, in sciences, and in civilization 
generally ; in the power of rising superior to the impulses of sense, of 
subduing and transforming them, of mounting to the apprehension of 
general principles, and of conceiving intellectual and moral ideals ; in 
the ability to pass beyond ourselves, and enter into relations of love 
and sympathy with our fellow-men ; in the possession of a moral sense, 
or the faculty of distinguishing right and wrong ; in the capacity for 
knowing God, and holding spiritual communion with Him, man is 
distinguished fundamentally from other animals 3 , and is allied to the 
Divine nature ; so that, wide as is the interval separating him from 
the Creator, he may nevertheless, so far as his mental endowments are 
concerned, be said to be an l image,' or adumbration, of Him. From 
the same truth of human nature, there follows also the possibility 
of God being revealed in man (John i. 1 14). Comp. in the NT. 
1 Cor. xi. 7, Jas. iii. 9 ; and the application of the same figure to the 
spiritual formation of the 'new man/ Col. iii. 10 (cf. Eph. iv. 24). 
See also Ecclus. xvii. 3 ff. ; Wisd. ii. 23. 

and let them have dominion &c. In virtue of the powers implied in 
their being formed in God's ' image,' all living beings upon the earth 
are given into their hand. Cf. Ps. viii. 5 ff., ' For thou hast made him 
lack but little of (being) God [viz. by the powers conferred upon him], 
and thou crownest him with glory and state : Thou makest him to rule 
over the works of thy hands ; thou hast put all things under his feet.' 

and over all the earth. Pesh. ' and over all the beasts of the earth ' 

1 Notice in v. 27, ix. 6 'image' alone, and in v. 1 'likeness' alone, lxx., 
inserting Kal, accentuate the distinction unduly, and led some of the Fathers to 
endeavour fruitlessly to distinguish eUuv from dfioiuais. Cf. Oehler, Theol. of OT. 
68. 

2 It is true, some of the faculties mentioned are possessed, in a limited degree, 
by animals : but in none of them are they coupled with self-conscious reason ; and 
hence they do not form a foundation for the same distinctive character. 



16 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [i. *6- 3 o 

creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 And God P 
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he 
him ; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed 
them : and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and 
replenish the earth, and subdue it ; and have dominion over the 
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living 
thing that ^oveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, 
I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the 
face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of 
a tree yielding seed ; to you it shall be for meat : 30 and to 
every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to 
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is 2 life, 

1 Or, creepeth * Heb. a living soul. 

(v. 25). The word (rvn) has probably dropped out accidentally (Del., 
Dillm. al.)\ 

28. The Blessing on man. The blessing is analogous to the one 
in v. 22 (see also ix. 1 7), but ampler in its terms : man may not only 
'be fruitful and multiply,' but, in accordance with the Creator's 
purpose (v. 26), ' subdue ' the earth, and subject to himself its living 
inhabitants. 

replenish. Fill, which indeed was the meaning of ' replenish ' in 
Old English, and is what is intended here. In the Heb. the word is 
exactly the same as the one rendered 'fill' in v. 22. So ix. 1. 

subdue. The word (kdbash, properly tread down) is used of the 
subjugation of a conquered territory, Nu. xxxii. 22 ; Josh, xviii. 1. 

29, 30. Provision made for the food of men (v. 29), and other 
terrestrial animals and birds (v. 30) : men are to have as food the seed 
and fruit of plants ; terrestrial animals and birds are to have the leaves. 
The food of men and animals is thus part of a Divine order. The 
details are however given in only the broadest outline ; nothing for 
instance is said respecting the food of aquatic animals, or of milk and 
honey ; the aim of the verse is simply to define, with reference to 
v. 11 f., how the different kinds of plants there mentioned may be 
utilized for food. 

29. for meat. For food. 'Meat' in Old English was not re- 
stricted, as it is with us, to the flesh of animals ; it meant food in 
general. The archaism has been sometimes elsewhere retained in E.V., 
as 1 K. xix. 8 ; Ps. lxix. 21 ; Is. lxii. 8 ; Joel i. 16. 

30. life. A living soul. See on v. 20. 

1 Ovid's description of the creation of man (Met. i. 76 ff .) is worth quoting : 
4 Sanctius his animal mentisque capacius altae Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in 
caetera posset.... Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum. Pronaque quum 
spectent animalia caetera terram, Os homini sublime dedit ; caelumque videre 
Iussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.' 



T . 30 , 3I ii. i, ,] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 17 

/ have given every green herb for meat : and it was so. 31 And P 
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very 
good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth 
day. 

II. 1 And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all 
the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his 

every green herb for meat. Rather, all the green of herbs (i.e. 
the leaves; for food. 

The condition of things presupposed in v. 30 is inconsistent with 
the evidence of palaeontology, which makes it certain that carnivorous 
animals existed upon the earth long before the appearance of man, and 
that these ' preyed upon one another, precisely as the same species or 
their successors do now.' The truth is, the writer portrays an ideal. 
'Animal food can only be had at the cost of animal life, and the 
taking of animal life seemed to him to be a breach of the Divine order, 
which from the beginning provides only for the continuance and main- 
tenance of life' (Perowne, Expositor, Feb. 1891, p. 129). Hence he 
represents both men and animals as subsisting at first only on vegetable 
food (animal food, according to the same writer, is first permitted to 
man in ix. 2) 1 . 

31. The closing verdict on the entire work of creation. The work 
of each particular day is good : the combination of works, each dis- 
charging rightly its own function, and at the same time harmonizing as 
it should do with the rest, is characterized as very good. As has 
been remarked, a note of Divine satisfaction runs through the whole 
narrative, and it reaches its climax here ; but the severe simplicity and 
self-control of the writer does not allow it to find any stronger ex- 
pression than this. Contrast the more exuberant tone of Ps. civ. 31. 
Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 4 (' for every creature of God is good,' &c). 

II. 13. The Seventh Day. The rest of God. 

1. host. The word means an army (xxi. 22 &c.) ; and the ex- 
pression 'host of heaven' occurs frequently, denoting sometimes the 
stars (Dt. iv. 19), sometimes the angels (1 K. xxii. 19), both being 
conceived as forming an organized and disciplined body. The term is 
used here, exceptionally, with reference to the earth, by a species of 
attraction. The ' host ' of heaven and earth means all the component 
items of which they consist, whether mentioned expressly or not in 
ch. i., conceived as constituting an organized whole. 

2. finished. The 'finishing' is regarded as a separate, substantive 
act, and assigned accordingly to a separate day : God formally brought 
His work to its close by not continuing it on the seventh day, as He 
had done on each of the preceding days. 

1 The idea that in the 'Golden Age' the first men lived only on vegetable food is 
found also in classical writers: see e.g. Plato, Legg. vi. 782c; Ovid, Met. i. 103 6, 
xv. 96103, Fasti iv. 395 ff. 

D, 2 



18 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [n. *, 3 

work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day P 
from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the 
seventh day, and hallowed it : because that in it he rested from 
all his work which God had created and made. 

his work which he had made [twice]. Better, his business which 
he had done, i.e. the work of creation which He had set Himself. 
M'ldchah means work appointed, or imposed (e.g. Nu. iv. 3) ; it is the 
word used regularly of the 'work' or 'business' forbidden on the 
sabbath (Ex. xx. 9, 10, xxxv. 2 ; Jer. xvii. 22, 24, al). 

rested. Better, desisted. Shdbath means (see viii. 22 ; Is. xiv. 4) 
to desist, cease (cf. Arab, sabata, to cut off, interrupt) : so that what 
the verse predicates of God is not the positive 'rest' of relaxation 
(Heb. nuah) but the negative ' cessation ' from activity 1 . The former 
idea is however found elsewhere in the same connexion, as in the 
Decalogue (Ex. xx. 11), 'and rested on the seventh day,' and Ex. xxxi. 17 
(P), 'and on the seventh day he desisted and was refreshed [lit. took 
breath].' In the verb used (shdbath) there is an evident allusion to 
the ' sabbath ' (properly shabbdth). 

3. blessed... and hallowed it. Distinguished it from ordinary days 
(Sir. xxxiii. 7 9), by attaching special blessings to its observance, 
and by setting it apart for holy uses. Cf. Ex. xx. 8, ll b ; Jer. xvii. 
22, 24, 27 ; Is. lviii. 13. The remark is made in view of the later 
institution of the sabbath (Ex. xx. 8 11 &c.) as a day sacred to 
Jehovah ; for there is no indication or hint of its being observed as 
such in pre-Mosaic times. 

because that in it he desisted from all his business, in doing 
which God had created, i.e. which he had creatively done. The ex- 
pression characterizes God's work as a creative work. 

The formula which marks the close of each of the first six days is 
absent in the case of the seventh day : and hence it has been sometimes 
supposed that the 'rest' of the seventh day was to be regarded as ex- 
tending indefinitely through the whole of history. It is doubtful however 
whether this view is correct. The ' day,' to which in v. 2 the ' rest ' is 
distinctly assigned, will be understood naturally in the same sense as 
in the case of the six preceding 'days,' and the work from which God 
is represented as 'resting' or 'desisting' is not work in general, but 
only creative work. The idea of the writer seems to have been that 
God's sabbath intervened between the close of His work of creation 
and the commencement of what, in modern phraseology, is usually . 
termed His sustaining providence. The sabbath by which God is said 
to have closed His work of creation is thus a type of the weekly 
recurring sabbath of the later Israelites. The truth that God's 
sustaining providence is operative on the sabbath, not less than on 

1 Cf. Ex. xxiii. 12 (E) On the seventh day thou shalt desist, that thy ox and thy 
ass may rest, and the son of thy bondwoman, and thy sojourner [resident foreigner], 
may be refreshed [lit. may take breathy ; xxxiv. 21 (both times 'desist'). 



n. 4 ] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 19 

4 These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth p 
when they were created, 

other days (Jn. v. 17), is of course tacitly presupposed by the writer, 
but he does not explicitly refer to it. See further on the Sabbath 
p. 34 f. 

4 a . These are.. .created. The subscription to the preceding nar- 
rative, supposed by many critics to have originally stood, perhaps 
without ' when they were created,' as the superscription to i. 1, and to 
have been transferred here by the compiler of the book 1 . See further 
the Introd. pp. ii, vi, viii (No. 9). 

generations. Lit. begettings (quite a different word from the one 
used in xvii. 7, 9, &c.) ; hence (successive) generations, especially as 
arranged in a genealogy (v. 1, x. 1, xi. 10), also, somewhat more 
generally, particulars about a man and his descendants (vi. 9, xi. 27, 
xxv. 19). Here the word is applied metaphorically to 'heaven and 
earth ' ; and it will denote, by analogy, particulars respecting heaven 
and earth and the things which might be regarded metaphorically as 
proceeding from them, i.e. just the contents of ch. i. 

The student should examine, and compare with the preceding narrative, 
other passages of Scripture containing thoughts or lessons suggested by the 
religious contemplation of nature : for instance, Am. iv. 13, v. 8, ix. 6 ; Jer. 
xxxii. 17 ; n Isaiah xl. 1214, 212, 26, 28, xlii. 5, xlv. 7, 12, 18 ; Jer. x. 12 f.; 
Ps. viii., xix. 1 6, xxxiii. 6 9, cii. 25, civ. (the 'Poem of Creation'), cxxxvi. 
59, cxlviii. ; Pr. iii. 19 f, viii. 2231 ; Job ix. 8 f., xxvi. 5 13, and especially 
the two magnificent chapters, xxxviii. xxxix. ; Wisd. xiii. 3 5 ; Jn. i. 1 5 ; 
Rom. i. 20 ; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2, 3, xi. 3 ; Kev. iv. 11. 



The Cosmogony of Genesis 2 . 

It remains to consider some important questions to which the cosmogony 
which we have just been studying gives rise. We have to ask, namely, 
(i) Does the picture which it affords of the past history of the world agree 
with that which is disclosed by science ? (ii) What is the origin of the 
cosmogony? and (iii) What is its true value and import to us? 

(i) Those who have read Pearson On the Creed may remember how at the 
end of his exposition of Art. I. (fol. 68) he says that heaven and earth were created 
1 most certainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years,' 
from the age in which he was writing. That was the 17 th century. But since 
Pearson's time geology has become a science, and has disclosed, by testimony 

1 'These' may point indifferently forwards (as x. 1) or backwards (as x. 32); 
but the corresponding formula stands everywhere else as the superscription to the 
section which follows (see v. 1, vi. 9, x. 1, xi. 10, 27, <fec). 

2 The following pages are adapted in the main, with some abridgment, from an 
article contributed by the present writer to the Expositor, Jan. 1886, pp. 23 45, 

2-2 



20 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

which cannot be gainsaid, the immense antiquity of the earth. The earth, as 
we now know, reached its present state, and acquired its rich and wondrous 
adornment of vegetable and animal life, by a gradual process, extending over 
countless centuries, and embracing unnumbered generations of living forms. 
Those white cliffs which rise out of the sea on our southern coasts, when 
examined by the microscope, are seen to consist mostly of the minute shells of 
marine organisms, deposited at the rate of a few inches a century at the bottom 
of the ocean, and afterwards, by some great upheaval of the earth's crust, lifted 
high above the waves 1 . Our coal measures are the remains of mighty forests, 
which have slowly come and gone upon certain parts of the earth's surface, 
and have stored up the energy, poured forth during long ages from the sun, 
for our consumption and enjoyment 2 . These and other formations contain 
moreover numerous fossil remains ; and so geologists have been able to 
determine the order in which, during the slowly passing ages of their growth, 
higher and higher types of vegetable and animal life were ever appearing upon 
the globe. Nor is this all. Astronomers, by the study and comparison of the 
heavenly bodies, have risen to the conception of a theory explaining, by the aid 
of known mechanical and physical principles, the formation of the earth itself. 
The solar system i.e. the sun, earth, and other planets with their satellites 
existed once as a diffused gaseous mass, or nebula, of immense dimensions, 
which gradually condensed, and became a rotating sphere ; and from this in 
succession the different planets were flung off, while the remainder was more 
and more concentrated till it became what we call the sun. One of these 
planets, the earth, in process of time, by reduction of temperature and other 
changes, developed the conditions adequate for the support of life 3 . The time 
occupied by all these processes cannot of course be estimated with any 
precision ; but it will in any case have embraced millions of years : a recent 
work on astronomy places the time at which the moon was thus flung off from 
the then liquid earth, at about 57,000,000 years ago*. 

Is now the teaching of geology and astronomy on the subjects referred to 
in the preceding paragraph consistent with what we read in Gen. i. ? 

Obviously it is not consistent with it, if by 'day' is meant a period of 
24 hours. It is, however, conceivable that the writer, in spite of his regular 
mention of ' evening ' and ' morning,' may have used the word in a figurative 
sense, as representing a period, aware indeed that the work of the Creator 
could not be measured by human standards, but at the same time desirous of 
artificially accommodating it to the period of the week. Let us, now, at least 
provisionally, grant this metaphorical use of the term 'day': the following 
questions will then arise. Do the * days' of Genesis correspond with well- 
defined geological periods ? and does the order in which the different living 
things and the heavenly bodies are stated to have been created agree with the 

1 See Huxley's striking lecture 'On a Piece of Chalk' in his Lay Sermons (re- 
printed in his Collected Essays, vol. viii.). 

2 Comp. two fine passages on the ' Slowness of the Creative Process ' in 
Pritchard's Analogies in the Progress of Nature and Grace, 1868 (the Hulsean 
Lectures for 1867), pp. 11 ff., 19 ff.; also Bonney's Old Truths in Modem Lights, 
p. 89 ff. 

3 See Sir R S. Ball's The Earth's Beginnings (1901), esp. p. 246 ff. 
* Prof. H. H. Turner, Modern Astronomy (1901), p. 277. 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 



21 



facts of geology and astronomy ? To both these questions candour compels 
the answer, No. Here is a table of the succession of life upon the globo, taken 
(with some modification of form) from Sir J. W. Dawson's Chain of Life in 
Geological Time 1 : 



Eozoio 



Palaeozoic -l 



PERIODS. 

1. Laurentian. 

2. Huronian. 

3. Gambrian. 

4. Silurian. 

5. Devonian. 

6. Carboniferous, 



Mesozoic 



Cainozoic 



* 7. Permian. 

( 8. Triassic. 

9. Jurassic. 

,10. Cretaceous. 

11. Tertiary. 

12. Post-Tertiary. 



ANIMAL LUTB. 

Eozoon Canadensc*. 

Age of Protozoa (low- 
liest marine animals). 

Invertebrata : Age of 
molhisks, corals, and 
crustaceans. In 4 
fishes begin. 

Fishes abundant (but 
no modern species). 

Earliest insects*. 

Amphibians begin (spe- 
cies allied to frogs, 
newts, and water - 
lizards, some of the 
last large crocodile- 
like creatures). 

Insects (spiders, beetles, 
cockroaches, <fec). 

Earliest true reptiles. 

Earliest marsupial 

mammals. 

Age of monster reptiles 
and of birds. 

Age of extinct mam- 
mals. First living 
invertebrates. 

Age of modern mam- 
mals and man. 



VEGETABLE LIFE. 

Doubtful 8 . 

Indications of plants 
not determinable. 

Marine plants (sea- 
weeds, Ac). 

Earliest land plants. 



Goal plants ; chiefly 
tree-ferns and large 
mosses (flowerless 
plants), pines, and 
cycads. 



Earliest modern trees. 



Age of palms and dicoty- 
ledonous Angiosperms. 



The earliest organic forms appear in the remains belonging to the period 
first named, marked, as its name implies, by the ' dawn of life.' 

In Genesis the order is : 

Third Day. Grass, herbs (i.e. vegetation more generally), trees. 

(Fourth Day. Luminaries.) 

Fifth Day. Aquatic animals, both small (pK>, * swarming things') and 
great (D"0^n, 'sea-monsters'), and winged creatures (birds; also probably 
such insects as usually appear on the wing). 

Sixth Day. Land animals, both domesticable and wild, and creeping 
things (small reptiles; perhaps also creeping insects). Man. 

The two series are evidently at variance. (1) The geological record con- 
tains no evidence of clearly defined periods, such as {ex hyp.) are represented 



1 Ed. 3 (1888). See the Table opposite to p. 1 ; and (on No. 6) pp. 142157. 
Cf. the same writer's Relics of Primaeval Life (1897), p. 2. 

2 If this be of organic origin, a question on which geologists still differ. Comp. 
Geikie's Text Book of Geology (1893), p. 694 f.; Bonney, Geol. Mag. 1895, p. 292. 

s Perhaps to be assumed from the large quantity of graphite (carbon) present in 
these rocks : see Geikie, p. 696, with note 1 ; Prestwich, Geology (1888), n. 21 f. 
4 E.g. a kind of May-fly, as well as other forms (Chain of Life, p. 139 ff.). 



22 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

by the ' days ' of Genesis. This, however, may perhaps be considered a minoi 
discrepancy. (2) In Genesis vegetation is complete two 'days,' i.e. two 
periods, before animal life appears: geology shews that they appear 
simultaneously even if animal life does not appear first. The two are found 
side by side in humble forms; and they continue side by side, advancing 
gradually till the higher and more complete types are reached : one does not 
appear long before the other. (3) In Genesis fishes and birds appear together 
(Fifth Day), and precede all land-animals (Sixth Day); according to the 
evidence of geology, birds appear long after fishes, and they are preceded by 
numerous species of land-animals (including in particular ' creeping things '). 

The second and third of these discrepancies are formidable. To remove 
them, harmonists have had recourse to different expedients, of which the 
following are the principal. 

(1) It has been supposed that the main description in Genesis does not 
relate to the geological periods at all, that room is left for these periods 
between v. 1 and t>. 2, that the life which then flourished upon the earth was 
brought to an end by a catastrophe the results of which are alluded to in v. 2, 
and that what follows is the description of a second creation, immediately 
preceding the appearance of man. This, implying as it does a destruction and 
subsequent restoration, is called the ' restitution-hypothesis.' It labours under 
most serious difficulties. The assumption of an interval between v. 1 and v. 2, 
wide enough to embrace the whole of geological time, though in the 
abstract exegetically admissible, is contrary to the general tenor of the 
opening verses of the narrative ; the existence of the earth, together with the 
whole flora and fauna of the geological periods, prior to the creation of light 
and formation of the sun is scientifically incredible ; and the existing species 
of plants and animals are so closely related to those which immediately 
preceded man, that the assumption of an intervening period of chaos and ruin 
is in the last degree improbable. Arbitrary in itself, and banned by science, 
the restitution-hypothesis, though advocated in the last century by Kurtz and 
Dr Chalmers, has otherwise been seldom adopted by modern apologists. 

(2) The vision-theory. Upon this view the narrative is not meant to 
describe the actual succession of events, but is the description of a series of 
visions, presented prophetically to the narrator's mental eye, and representing 
not the first appearance of each species of life upon the globe, but its 
maximum development. The * drama of creation,' it is said, is described not 
as it was enacted historically, but optically, as it would present itself to a 
spectator, in a series of pictures, or tableaux, embodying the most character- 
istic and conspicuous feature of each period, and, as it were, summarizing in 
miniature its results. The Third Day is identified with the Carboniferous 
period (No. 6 in the Table), the mar me life of the preceding periods, copious 
though it was, being supposed to be not visible in the tableaux, and con- 
sequently disregarded. This theory was attractively expounded in Hugh 
Miller's Testimony of the Rocks (1857), a work which was for many years 
extremely popular in this country. The objections to it are enumerated by 
Delitzsch 1 . The revelation of the unknown past to a historian, or even to 

1 Gorrjn. iiber die Genesis, ed. 4 (1872), p. 18 f. 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 23 

a prophet, by means of a vision, is unexampled in the OT., and out of analogy 
witli the character and objects of prophecy ; the narrative contains no indica- 
tion of its being the relation of a vision (which in uther cases is regularly noted, 
e.g. Am. vii. ix.; Is. vi.; Ez. i. &c); it purports to describe not appearances 
('And I saw, and behold...'), but facts ('Let the earth... And it was so'), and 
to substitute one for the other is consequently illegitimate ; the resemblances 
between Gen. i. and other cosmogonies especially the Babylonian shew that 
the writer has before him ' not a vision, but a tradition.' There is also the 
material difficulty that, while marine animals, small as well as great, were not 
hidden from view in the tableau of the Fifth Day, the fishes so characteristic 
of the Devonian period (which precedes the Carboniferous period) are not 
described : in accordance with the hypothesis itself, these should have been 
noticed before the vegetation of the Third Day. Indeed this last difficulty 
may be stated more generally : if the past was expressly revealed in the form 
of a vision, is it likely that the picture as a whole would be so widely different 
from the reality as it unquestionably is 1 

(3) Sir J. W. Dawson 1 , a distinguished Canadian geologist of the last 
century, rejecting (p. 193) the hypothesis of Hugh Miller, as Hugh Miller 
before him had rejected that of Kurtz, adopted another method of reconcilia- 
tion, assigning nearly the whole of the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic periods (Nos. 4 
to 9 in the Table) to the Fifth Day, and supposing Nos. 2 and 3 to contain such 
relics as survive of the work of the Third Day. The objections to this scheme 
are : (a) it brings together fishes and birds, which nevertheless are in reality 
widely separated (Nos. 4 and 9 in the Table) ; (b) Genesis places the appear- 
ance of 'creeping things' on the Sixth Day (Nos. 11 and 12), while in fact they 
appear in what Sir J. W. Dawson assigns to the Fifth Day (Nos. 6 and 7) 2 ; 
(c) in Genesis vegetation, including trees, is complete on the Third Day 
(Nos. 2 and 3), whereas prior to the Silurian period (No. 4) nothing but the 
humblest forms of marine vegetation is observable. Sir J. W. Dawson is 
conscious of the last difficulty; and he allows that the existence before the 
Silurian period of vegetation that would satisfy the language of Genesis awaits 
proof. He is sanguine himself that in time this proof may be forthcoming; but 
the fact that vegetable life is admitted to have advanced progressively from 
lower to higher forms is not favourable to the expectation, and it is certain 
that no other geologist shares it 3 . 

1 Origin of the World according to Revelation and Science 3 (1886), pp. 192 5. 

2 To escape this difficulty Sir J. W. Dawson (Expositor, Apr. 1886, p. 297) 
limits remes (see on i. 24) to * small quadrupeds ' ; but the limitation is arbitrary ; 
for it is impossible to exclude reptiles from the expression. 

3 The harmony represented as existing between Gen. i. and science, in the 
Table facing p. 1 of Sir J. W. Dawson's Modern Science in Bible Lands* (1895) is 
purely illusory: 'vegetation,' for instance, in the Biblical column means entirely 
land-plants, whereas the ' Protogens in graphite beds ' which correspond ostensibly 
in the column headed ' Vegetable life ' consist entirely of marine plants, to the 
exclusion of land-plants ; and reptiles actually appear long before birds, not 
simultaneously with them, as they are represented as doing in the column headed 
Animal life.' The Table on p. 353 of the Origin of the 'arid is illusory also upon 
similar grounds. Comp. the note on p. 26 in the Addenda. 

The reader of Sir J. W. Dawson's works should be aware that his statements on 
Biblical matters, especially where questions relating to science or criticism are 
involved, are to be received with much caution and distrust. 



24 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

(4) Professor Dana 1 , accepting the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the 
solar system, begins by seeking to accommodate it to the first five verses of 
Gen. i. Accordingly, following substantially Prof. Guyot 2 , he considers that the 
terms 'earth ' and 'waters' in v. 2 do not denote anything which we should call 
by those names, but matter in that unimaginable condition in which it was not 
yet endowed with force or the power of molecular action : the creation of 
' light ' {v. 3) was in reality the endowment of this ' inert ' matter with these 
capacities; m>. 6 8 (the Second Day) describe the making of the earth, 
'water* there not denoting what the Hebrews knew as water, but the 
attenuated substance of the universe, while yet diffused, in a nebulous or 
vaporous form, through space, and v. 7 describing the separation of the earth 
from this diffused matter; and when it is said that on the Third Day the 
earth brought forth grass, herbs, and fruit-trees, the meaning really is, that it 
brought forth different species of sea-weed, and the lowest, seedless types of 
land-vegetation (these being all the forms of vegetation which geology recog- 
nizes before fishes, which are assigned by Genesis to the next day : see Nos. 3, 
4 in the Table). Prof. Dana was a most eminent geologist ; but the fact that, 
in order to harmonize the cosmogony of Genesis with the teachings of science, 
he was obliged to have recourse to such extraordinary and unnatural interpre- 
tations of the words of Genesis, is the best proof that the two are in reality 
irreconcilable 3 . 

So much for the geological difficulties of the cosmogony of Genesis. Let 
us now consider the astronomical difficulties presented by it. (1) The creation 
of the sun, moon, and stars, after the earth. The formation of the heavenly 
bodies after the earth is inconsistent with the entire conception of the solar 
system and indeed, if we think also of the stars, with that of the whole 

1 In the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1885, p. 201 f. 

a Creation (1884), p. 36: 'The Heb. word maim does not necessarily mean 
waters, but applies as well to a gaseous atmosphere' (!). And 'earth ' is similarly 
explained as denoting (pp. 35, 38) a formless sphere of gas the ' primordial cosmie 
material,' out of which the universe was ultimately formed. 

The solution of the discrepancies proposed recently by Mr Capron (The Conflict 
of Truth, 1901, pp. 170 E., 194), viz. that the text speaks only of the order in which 
the creative words were uttered, not of that in which the resulting effects were 
produced, yields a sense which is contrary to the obvious intention of the writer. 
Mr Capron argues also (p. 205 fL) that by 'earth' and 'water' in Gen. i. 1, 2 
is denoted gaseous matter; but the sense which he supposes to be expressed by 
these two verses (pp. 136 ff., 213) is not credible (v. 2 'And matter was then in 
a gaseous condition; for it was formless, homogeneous, and invisible, and the 
Spirit of the Almighty agitated with molecular vibrations the fluid mass '). 

3 When therefore Prof. Dana's authority is quoted for the opinion that Gen i. is 
in harmony with science, it must be carefully remembered how this harmony was 
obtained by him, viz. by imposing upon the words of Genesis meanings which it is 
simply impossible that they can ever have been intended to convey. 

See further, on Prof. Dana's theory of reconciliation, the critique of the 
present writer in the Andover (U.S.A.) Review, Dec. 1887, pp. 641 9; and 
President Morton's articles referred to below (p. 33). Comp. also Prof. T. G. 
Bonney at the Norwich Church Congress (Report of the Norwich Church Congress, 
p. 311 ; or in the Guardian, Oct. 16, 1895, p. 1588) : * The story of Creation in 
Genesis, unless we play fast and loose either with words or with science, cannot 
be brought into harmony with what we have learnt from geology.' Canon Bonney 
permits the writer to add that the statements on geological subjects contained in 
the preceding pages are in his opinion correct. [See further the Addenda.] 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 25 

celestial universe as revealed by science. Both the stars in their far-distant 
courses, and the planetary system with which this globe is more intimately 
connected, form a vast and wonderfully constituted order, so marked by 
correlation of structure, by identity of component elements (as revealed by the 
spectroscope), and by unity of design, as to forbid the supposition that a 
particular body (the earth) was created prior to the whole, of which it is 
a single and subordinate part (2) The commonly accepted theory (Laplace's) 
of the formation of the solar system by the gradual condensation of a nebula, 
does not permit the consolidation of the earth, the appearance upon it of water, 
and the growth of vegetation, before the sun was 'made,' i.e. while the substance 
of the sun was still in a diffused gaseous state. At such a period, it is doubtful 
if the earth itself would not also have been in a gaseous state ; certainly, it 
would not have cooled sufficiently for water to exist upon it, and trees to 
grow 1 . The solution usually offered of these difficulties is that be in v. 14 
means appear, and made in v. 16 means not formed, but either (Dana) made to 
appear^ or (Dawson) appointed, viz. to their office and work : the luminaries, 
it is argued, may thus have existed long previously, but it was only on the 
Fourth Day that they ' appeared ' (the thick vapour around the earth having 
previously concealed them), and were ' appointed ' to the functions enumerated 
in vv. 14 18. But this explanation is quite untenable. Hebrew is not such 
a poverty-stricken language as to have no word expressing the idea of 'appear' 
(see v. 9) ; and had the writer intended appear,' it may be safely affirmed that 
he would have said so. The sense attached to * made ' is also illegitimate : in 
the very few passages where i"l>y means appointed, either this sense is at 
once apparent from the context 2 , or the word is followed by a specification of 
the office or function intended 3 : used absolutely, it can be only a synonym of 
'formed 4 .' Verses 14 18 cannot be legitimately interpreted except as implying 
that, in the conception of the writer, luminaries had not previously existed ; 
and that they were ' made,' and set ' in their places in the heavens, after the 
separation of sea and land, and the appearance of vegetation upon the earth 
(vv. 6 8, 9 13). No reconciliation of this representation with the data of 
science has as yet been found. 

One discrepancy more, of a different kind, remains still to be noticed. 
From the injunction in v. 30 it is a legitimate inference that the narrator 
considered the original condition of animals to be one in which they subsisted 
solely on vegetable food. This is not merely inconsistent with the physical 
structure of many animals (which is such as to require animal food), but is 

1 Cf. Prof. Pritchard, late Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, Expositor, 
Jan. 1891, p. 49 f. : 'The existence of water [on the earth] before the concentration 
of the sun into the form of a sun is inconceivable with a competent knowledge of 
the facts of nature. So too is the existence of grass and fruit trees, antecedent to 
the same, or even under the condition of the invisibility of the sun as a sun ' (cf . 
p. 53). To the same effect, Occasional Notes oj an Astronomer, p. 262 f. 

a As, 'He made priests from among all the people' (1 K. xii. 31) ; 2 S. xv. 1 
and 1 K. i. 5 (where 'prepared' is lit. made); 2 K. xxi. 6 (EVm.). But really in 
these passages 'made' means more than 'appointed'; it means instituted, 
organized, i.e. it is merely a metaphorical application of the proper sense of 'made.' 

8 As Ps. civ. 4 ; 1 S. viii. 16. 

4 As v. 26, v. 1 ; Am. v. 8 ; Job ix. 9 ; Ps. cxv. 15, and regularly. 



26 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

contradicted by the facts of palaeontology, which afford conclusive evidence 
that animals preyed upon one another long before the date of man's appearance 
upon the earth. 

From all that has been said, only one conclusion can be drawn. Read 
without prejudice or bias, the narrative of Gen. i. creates an impression 
at variance with the facts revealed by science : the efforts at reconciliation 
which have been reviewed are but different modes of obliterating its character- 
istic features, and of reading into it a view which it does not express. The 
harmonistic expedients adopted by Sir J. W. Dawson and Prof. Dana are in 
reality tantamount to the admission that, understood in the natural sense of 
the words and we have no right to impose any other sense upon them it 
does not accord with the teachings of science. While fully bearing in mind 
the immediate design of the writer, to describe, viz. in terms intelligible to 
the non-scientific mind, how the earth was fitted to become the abode of man, 
it is impossible not to feel that, had he been acquainted with its actual past, 
he would, while still using language equally simple, equally popular, equally 
dignified, have expressed himself in different terms, and presented a different 
picture of the entire process. It will also, further, be now apparent that the 
admission, granted provisionally above (p. 20), that ' day ' might be interpreted 
as representing a period, is of no avail for bringing the narrative into harmony 
with the teaching of science ; and that consequently there is no occasion to 
understand the word in any but its ordinary sense. 

(ii) What then may we suppose to have been the source of the cosmogony 
of Genesis 1 In answering this question, we must bear in mind the position 
which the Hebrews took among the nations of antiquity. In the possession of 
aptitudes fitting them in a peculiar measure to become the channel of revela- 
tion and the exponents of a spiritual religion, the Hebrew nation differed 
materially from its neighbours ; but it was allied to them in language, it shaded 
with them many of the same institutions, the same ideas and habits of thougnt. 
Other nations of antiquity made efforts to fill the void in the past which begins 
where historical reminiscences cease, and framed theories to account for the 
beginnings of the earth and man, or to solve the problems which the observation 
of human society suggested. It is but consonant with analogy to suppose that 
the Hebrews were conscious of the same needs ; and either formed similar 
theories for themselves, or borrowed those of their neighbours. Thus many, 
perhaps most, nations, where they had no knowledge of science to guide them, 
have given the reins to their imagination, and framed cosmogonies 1 . These 
cosmogonies reflect partly the impressions made upon the nation framing it by 
the physical world, partly the general mental characteristics of the nation, 
partly the conception of deity current in it. That the physical element in such 
cosmogonies was usually erroneous, and often grotesque, was a natural conse- 
quence of the ignorance of physical science possessed by those who constructed 
them. The theological element varied according as the conceptions of deity 
current in a particular nation were more or less spiritual : where, for instance, 
polytheism prevailed, places had to be found in the process for the various 
divine beings, and the cosmogonies consequently became often theogonies. 

1 See particulars in the art. Cosmogony in the Encycl. Britannica, ed. 9. 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 27 

The cosmogony of Genesis seems, in its arrangement, to have been deter- 
mined ultimately by the observation that there is a rank and order in natural 
products, and by the reflexion that one part of nature is in various ways 
dependent upon, or supported by, another. 

The more immediate source of the Biblical cosmogony, however, there can 
be little doubt, has been brought to light recently from Babylonia. Between 
1872 and 1876 that skilful collector and decipherer of cuneiform records, the 
late Mr George Smith, published, partly from tablets found by him in the 
British Museum, partly from those which he had discovered himself in Assyria, 
a number of inscriptions containing, as he quickly perceived, a Babylonian 
account of Creation. Since that date other tablets have come to light ; and 
though the series relating to the Creation is still incomplete, enough remains 
not only to exhibit clearly the general scheme of the Cosmogony, but also 
to make it evident that the cosmogony of the Bible is dependent upon it. 
The tablets themselves come from the Library of Asshurbanipal (668 626 b.o.) 
at Kouyunjik (Nineveh); but Asshurbanipal's Library is known to have 
included many transcripts of earlier texts ; and Assyriologists entertain no 
doubt that the contents of the tablets are much more ancient than the 7th 
cent. B.C., and are probably (Sayce) as old as the 22nd or 23rd cent. B.C. 

There is no occasion to give here a translation of the whole of the tablets 
which have been discovered 1 ; but the reader cannot properly estimate their 
bearing upon the Biblical narrative without having the characteristic parallels 
placed before him, and being made acquainted with the general outline of 
their contents. It should only be premised that some particulars of the 
Babylonian cosmogony were known before these discoveries from extracts 
which had been preserved from Berossus a Babylonian priest, who lived 
about 300 B.C., and compiled a work on Babylonian history and Damascius 
(6th cent. a.d.); and the accuracy of these particulars (apart from certain 
textual corruptions) has been fully established by the inscriptions 2 . 

The inscriptions preserved on these tablets are written in a rhythmical 
form ; and form in reality a kind of epic poem, the theme of which is the 
glorification of Marduk (Merodach, Jer. 1. 2), the supreme god of Babylon, 
declaring how, after a severe conflict, he had overcome the powers of chaos 
and darkness, and had so been enabled to create a world of light and order. 
The poem is conceived polytheistically ; but this fact does not neutralize 
the underlying resemblances with Gen. i. The first tablet (of which only 

1 See, for a translation, Ball's Light from the East (1899), pp. 2 18; KB. vi. 
(1900), p. 3ff. (by Jensen), with notes, p. 302 ff.; L. W. King's The Seven Tablets of 
Creation (1902), i. 3 ff. [vol. h. has cuneiform texts only], with many important 
new fragments; or Gressmann's useful Altorientalische Texte u. Bilder zum AT. 
(1909), i. 4 ff. (by Ungnad). See also Jastrow's Religion of Bab. and Ass. (Boston, 
U.S.A., 1898), pp. 407453 ; and Zimmern in KAT. 9 (1902), pp. 491 ff., 5846. 

2 See the Greek text of Damascius in KAT. Z p. 490, or in Jensen's Kosmologie 
der Bab. p. 270 ; and translations in G. Smith, Ghald. Gen. p. 49 f., Lenormant, 
Origines de Vhistoire 2 (1880), i. 493 f., Gunkel's Schopfung und Chaos (1895), 
p. 17; KAT. 9 I.e.: cf. also KAT.' 2 p. 12. It is parallel to the first extract from the 
Creation epic, cited below. For the Greek text of Berossus, see Muller, Fragm. 
Hist. Graec. n. 497 f., KAT. 9 48890 ; and for translations, G. Smith, op. cit. 
pp. 4042, Lenormant, p. 506 f., Gunkel, pp. 1720, DB. i. 504 b , KAT. 9 I.e. : cf. 
also KAT. 2 pp. 69, 1214, and EncB. art. Creation, 15. 



28 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

a fragment is preserved) describes how, before what we call earth or heaven 
had come into being, there existed a primaeval watery chaos (Tidmat, corre- 
sponding to the Heb. fhom, the 'deep' of Gen. i. 2), out of which the 
Babylonian gods were evolved: 

When above | the heaven was not yet named, 

And the land beneath | yet bare no name, 

And the primaeval Apsu (the abyss), | their begetter, 

And chaos (?), Tiamat, | the mother of them both 
5 Their waters | were mingled together, 

And no field was formed, | no marsh was to be seen ; 

When of the gods | still none had been produced, 

No name had yet been named, | no destiny yet [fixed]; 

Then were created | the gods in the midst of [heaven ?] 
10 Lachmu and Lachamu | were produced, 

Long ages passed .... 

Anshar and Kishar | were created, and over them .... 

Long were the days, then there came forth .... 

Anu, their son .... 
15 Anshar and Anu .... 

And the god Anu .... 

Ea, whom his fathers, [his] begetters .... 

Different Babylonian deities thus gradually came into being. Tiamat, or 
the deep, represents ' a popular attempt to picture the chaotic condition that 
prevailed before the great gods obtained control, and established the order of 
heavenly and terrestrial phaenomena ' : in the sequel she is personified as a 
gigantic monster. The belief that the world originated out of water was a 
consequence, Assyriologists hold, of the climatic conditions of Babylonia. 
During the long winter, the Babylonian plain, flooded by the heavy rains, looks 
like a sea (Bab. tiamtu, tidmat). Then comes the spring, when the clouds and 
water vanish, and dry land and vegetation appear. So, thought the Babylonian, 
must it have been in the first spring, at the first New Year, when, after a fight 
between Marduk and Tiamat, the organized world came into being 1 . 

The subsequent parts of the first tablet describe how Apsu, disturbed at 
finding his domain invaded by the new gods, induced Tiamat to join with him 
in contesting their supremacy : he was, however, subdued by Ea ; and Tiamat, 
left to carry on the struggle alone, provides herself with a brood of strange and 
hideous allies 8 . 

The second, third, and fourth tablets, describe how the gods, alarmed at 
Tiamat's preparations, having taken counsel together, appointed Marduk 
as their champion, and how Marduk equips himself with winds and lightnings 
for the fray. The account of the combat, in the fourth tablet, is told with 
dramatic force and vividness. Armed with his weapons, Marduk advances; 
he seizes Tiamat in a huge net, and transfixes her with his scimitar. The 

1 Jastrow, op. cit. pp. 411 f., 429 f., 432 f. ; Zimmem, Cbeation ( 4) in EncB. 

2 Alluded to also in the extract from Berossus (see DB. i. 504 b ; and cf. Jastrow, 
pp. 414, 419). They are a further symbol of the disorder which ruled in chaos, 
and which had to be overcome before an ordered world could be produced. 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 29 

carcase of the monster he split into two halves, one of which he fixed on high, 
to fonn a firmament supporting the waters above it : 

137 He cleft her like a flat(?) fish | into two parts, 

The one half of her he set up, | and made a covering for the heaven, 

Set a bar before it, | stationed a guard, 
140 Commanded them not | to let its waters issue forth. 

He marched through the heaven, | surveyed the regions thereof, 

Stood in front of the abyss, | the abode of the god Ea. 

Then Bel 1 measured | the structure of the abyss, 

A great house, a copy of it, | he founded E-sharra; 
145 The great house E-sharra, | which he built as the heaven, 

He made Anu, Bel, and Ea, | to inhabit as their city. 

*It is evident that the canopy of heaven is meant Such is the enormous 
size of Tiamat that one-half of her body, flattened out so as to serve as a 
curtain, is stretched across the heavens to keep the "upper waters" the 
" waters above the firmament " as the Book of Genesis puts it from coming 
down ' (Jastrow) 2 . The ' abyss ' was the huge body of waters on which the earth 
was supposed to rest (cf. on vv. 9, 10). E-sharra ('house of fulness or fertility,' 
Jensen) is a poetical designation of the earth, which was conceived by the 
Babylonians as a hollow hemisphere, similar in appearance to the vault of 
heaven, but placed beneath it (with its convex side upwards), and supported 
upon the 'abyss' of waters underneath (Jastrow, p. 431). 

The fifth tablet (still incomplete) describes the formation of the sun and 
moon, and afterwards the appointment of years and months : 

1 He made the stations | for the great gods, 
As stars resembling them | he fixed the signs of the zodiac, 
He ordained the year, | defined divisions, 
Twelve months with stars, | three each, he appointed. 

5 After he had .... the days of the year | . . . . images, 

He fixed the station of Nibir (Jupiter), | to determine their limits, 
That none (of the days) might err, | none make a mistake. 

8 The station of Bel and Ea, | he fixed by his (Jupiter's) side. 



12 He caused the moon-god to shine forth, | entrusted to him the night; 
Appointed him as a night-body, | to determine the days. 

The opening lines of tablet VII., where Marduk is hailed as the ' Bestower 
of planting,' and ' Creator of grain and plants, who caused the green herb to 
spring up,' shew that the poem mentioned the creation of vegetation ; and it is 
probable that this was recorded in the lost parts of tablet V. (King, p. l). 

The sixth tablet (the opening and closing lines of which have been 
recovered by Mr King) describes the creation of man : 

1 I.e. Lord, a title of Marduk (cf. Is. xlvi. 1 ; Jer. li. 44). 

2 According to Berossus, the other half of the monster's carcase was made into 
the earth. However, that is not stated in the present tablet. 



30 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

When Marduk heard the word of the gods, 
His heart prompted him and he devised [a cunning plan]. 
He opened his mouth, and unto Ea [he spake], 
[That which] he had conceived in his heart he imparted [unto him]: 
5 'My blood 1 will I take, and bone will I [fashion], 
I will make man, that man may . . . . 
I will create man who shall inhabit [the earth?], 
That the service of the gods may be established, and that [their] shrines 
[may be built] 2 .' 

The seventh tablet consists of a hymn, addressed by the gods to Marduk, 
celebrating his deeds and character, and representing him as all-powerful, 
beneficent, compassionate, and just 3 (cf. King, pp. lxiii ff., lxxxix). 

The differences between the Babylonian epic and the first chapter of 
Genesis are sufficiently wide : in the one, particularly in the parts not here 
repeated, we have an exuberant and grotesque polytheism; in the other, 
a severe and dignified monotheism : in the one, chaos is anterior to Deity, the 
gods emerge, or are evolved, out of it, and Marduk gains his supremacy only 
after a long contest ; in the other, the Creator is supreme and absolute from 
the beginning. But, in spite of these profound theological differences, there 
are material resemblances between the two representations, which are too 
marked and too numerous to be explained as chance coincidences. The outline, 
or general course of events, is the same in the two narratives. There are in 
both the same abyss of waters at the beginning, denoted by almost the same 
word, the separation of this abyss afterwards into an upper and a lower ocean, 
the formation of heavenly bodies and their appointment as measures of time, 
and the creation of man. In estimating these similarities, it must further be 
remembered that they do not stand alone : in the narrative of the Deluge 
(see p. 104 f.) we find traits borrowed unmistakably from a Babylonian source ; 
so that the antecedent difficulty which might otherwise have been felt in 
supposing elements in the Creation-narrative to be traceable ultimately to the 
same quarter is considerably lessened. In fact, no archaeologist questions 
that the Biblical cosmogony, however altered in form and stripped of its 
original polytheism, is, in its main outlines, derived from Babylonia. Nor 
ought such a conclusion to surprise us. The Biblical historians make no 
claim to have derived their information from a supernatural source : their 

1 Cf. Berossus, I.e. The emendation adopted in EncB. i. 946 n. 4 is seen no\r 
to be unnecessary (King, pp. lvi, lvii). 

2 The passage cited in Auth. and Arch. 13 does not belong here (King, 202 f.). 

3 There seem also to have been some points of contact between the Heb. and 
the Phoenician cosmogony. The Phoenician cosmogony (as reported by Eus. Praep. 
Ev. i. 10. 1, 2), placed at the beginning of all things an a^p o<pudr)S nai irvev/xarw- 
8ys and a x^os OoXepbv ipe/Uddes, both being &irtipa ; after an indefinite period of 
time, the irveD/ia t acting upon the x<* 05 > 8 ave r i se * Mwt i.e. perhaps (see 
Creation in EncB., 7) rb Mwr= niDilH the deeps a watery, muddy mass (Xi/s), 

containing the germs of all subsequent existence (-rraaa vicopb. /cHo-ews), which 
assumed the form of a huge egg. See further Dillm. ; Lenormant, i. 532 ff . ; EncB. 
I.e. (also on the Phoen. Baav [ bohu], said in Eus. 4 to mean 'night,' and to 
be the mother of Ai<bv (the world?) and Upurdyovos) ; DB. i. 504 a . 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 31 

materials, it is plain (cf. Luke i. 1 4), were obtained by them from the 
best human sources available ; the function of inspiration was to guide 
them in the disposal and arrangement of these materials, and in the use to 
which they applied them. And so, in his picture of the beginnings of the 
world, having nothing better available, the author has utilized elements derived 
ultimately from a heathen source, and made them the vehicle of profound 
religious teaching. 

We have said ' derived ultimately ' ; for naturally a direct borrowing from 
the Babylonian narrative is not to be thought of: it is incredible that the 
monotheistic author of Gen. i., at whatever date he lived, could have borrowed 
any detail, however slight, from the polytheistic epic of the conflict of Marduk 
and Tiamat. The Babylonian legend of Creation must have passed through a 
long period of naturalization in Israel, and of gradual assimilation to the spirit 
of Israel's religion, before it could have reached the form in which it is presented 
to us in the first chapter of Genesis. How, or when, it was first introduced 
among the Hebrews, must remain matter of conjecture. Its introduction may 
reach back to the time when the ancestors of the Hebrews lived side by side 
with the Babylonians in Ur (xi. 28) \ or when they * dwelt beyond the River' 
(the Euphrates), in Mesopotamia, and 'served other gods' (Jos. xxiv. 2). 
Since, however, the Tel el-Amarna letters (c. 1400 B.C.) have shewn how strong 
Babylonian influence must have been in Canaan, even before the Israelitish 
occupation, this has been thought by many 2 to have been the channel by which 
Babylonian ideas penetrated into Israel ; they were first, it has been supposed, 
naturalized among the Canaanites, and afterwards, as the Israelites came 
gradually to have intercourse with the Canaanites, they were transmitted to 
the Israelites as well. But, whether one of these or some other explanation is 
the true one, the fact remains that we have in the first chapter of Genesis the 
Hebrew version of an originally Babylonian legend respecting the beginnings 
of all tilings. But in the Biblical narrative, the old Semitic cosmogony appears 
in a form very different from that in which we read it in the Babylonian 
Creation-epic It appears 'in the form which it received at the hands of 
devout Israelites moved by the Spirit of God, and penetrated with the pure 
belief in the spiritual Jehovah. The saints and prophets of Israel stripped 
the old legend of its pagan deformities. Its shape and outline survived. 
But its spirit was changed, its religious teaching and significance were 
transformed, in the light of revelation. The popular tradition was not abolished ; 
it was preserved, purified, hallowed, that it might subserve the Divine purpose 
of transmitting, as in a figure,' to future generations, ' spiritual teaching upon 
eternal truths' (Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis, p. 12 f.) 3 . 

(iii) It remains only to indicate in outline the nature of this teaching. 

1 Jastrow, Jewish Quart. Rev. 1901, p. 653. 

2 E.g. by Sayce, Gunkel, Winckler, Zimmern. 

3 That Heb. folk-lore told of a conflict of Jehovah with a dragon is apparent 
from Job ix. 13, xxvi. 12 (Rahab, 'boisterousness,' though in Is. xxx. 7, Ps. lxxxvii. 4, 
a poetical name of Egypt, being here manifestly the name of some monster). The 
context in Ps. lxxiv. 13 17, lxxxix. 9 12, where there follow allusions to .Jehovah's 
creative work, seems even to shew that the victory over Eahab, as an aboriginal 
monster symbolizing chaos, was pictured as having preceded the work of creation : 



32 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

(1) The Cosmogony of Genesis shews, in opposition to the conceptions 
widely prevalent in antiquity, that the world was not self-originated ; that it 
was called into existence, and brought gradually into its present state, at the 
will of a spiritual Being, prior to it, independent of it, and deliberately planning 
every stage of its progress. The spirituality, not less than the dignity, of the 
entire representation is indeed in marked contrast to the self- contradictory, 
grotesque speculations of which the ancient cosmogonies usually consist ' It 
sets God above the great complex world-process, and yet closely linked with it, 
as a personal intelligence and will that rules victoriously and without a rival ' 
(Whitehouse, art. Cosmogony in DB., p. 507 b ). 

(2) Dividing artificially the entire period into six days, it notices in order 
the most prominent cosmical phaenomena; and groups the living creatures 
upon the earth under the great subdivisions which appeal to the eye. By this 
means it presents a series of representative pictures, none, indeed, corre- 
sponding, in actual fact, to the reality, but all standing for, or representing 
it, of the various stages by which the earth was gradually formed, and peopled 
with its living inhabitants ; and it insists that each of these stages is no product 
of chance, or of mere mechanical forces, but is an act of the Divine will, 
realizes the Divine purpose, and receives the seal of the Divine approval 1 . It 
is uniformly silent on the secondary causes through which in particular cases, 
or even more generally, the effects described may have been produced ; it 
leaves these for the investigation of science ; it teaches what science as such 
cannot discover (for it is not its province to do so), the relation in which they 
stand to God. The slow formation of the earth as taught by geology, the 
gradual development of species by the persistent accumulation of minute 
variations, made probable by modern biology, are but the exhibition in detail 
of those processes which the author of this cosmogony sums up into a single 
phrase and apparently compresses into a single moment, for the purpose of 
declaring their dependence upon the Divine will. 

(3) It insists on the distinctive pre-eminence belonging to man, implied in 
the remarkable self-deliberation taken in his case by the Creator, and signified 
expressly by the phrase ' the image of God.' By this is meant, as was shewn 
above, man's possession of self-conscious reason, an adumbration, we may 
suppose, however faint, of the supreme reason of God, enabling him to know, 
in a sense in which animals do not know, and involving the capacity of 
apprehending moral and religious truth (see more fully on v. 26). Whether, 
as a matter of fact, man appeared originally as the result of an independent 
creative act, or whether, as modern biologists commonly hold, he appeared 
as the result of a gradual evolution from anthropoid ancestors, does not affect 
the truth which is here insisted on : however acquired, rational faculties are 
still his ; and whether this opinion of modern biologists be true or not, there 
can at least be no theological objection to the supposition that, as God has 
undoubtedly endowed the organism of the individual with the power of 

cf. Is. li. 9, 10*, where the same cosmogonic myth of the destruction of the monster 
of disorder, and the formation of dry land by the drying up of the 'great t e hom y 
(above, p. 4), appear to be alluded to. Gf. Zimmern, The Bab. and Heb. Genesis, 
pp. 812 ; KAT* 507 ff. ; and art. Eahab in DB. 
1 Comp. above on vv. 3, 4. 



THE COSMOGONY OF GENESIS 33 

developing mind out of antecedents in which no sign or trace of mind is 
discernible, it may also have pleased Him, by the workings of His providence 
in a far-distant past, to endow certain forms of organized being with the 
capacity of developing, in His good time, under the action of a suitable 
environment, the attributes distinctive of man. 

It is important to have a clear and consistent view of the first chapter of 
Genesis. It stands upon the threshold of the Bible; and to all who have 
anything more than a merely superficial knowledge of the great and far- 
reaching truths which science has brought to light, it presents the greatest 
difficulties. These difficulties are felt now far more acutely than they used to 
be : 70 or 80 years ago there was practically no geology ; but the progress of 
science has brought the Cosmogony of Genesis into sharp and undisguised 
antagonism with the Cosmogony of science. The efforts of the harmonists 
have been well-intentioned; but they have resulted only in the construction 
of artificial schemes, which are repugnant to common sense, and, especially 
in the minds of students and lovers of science, create a prejudice against 
the entire system with which the cosmogony is connected. The Cosmogony of 
Genesis is treated in popular estimation as an integral element of the Christian 
faith. It cannot be too earnestly represented that this is not the case. A 
definition of the process by which, after the elements composing it were 
created, the world assumed its present condition, forms no article in the 
Christian creed. The Church has never pronounced with authority upon the 
interpretation of the narrative of Genesis. It is consequently open to the 
Christian teacher to understand it in the sense which science will permit; 
and it becomes his duty to ascertain what that sense is. But, as the 
Abb6 Loisy has justly said, the science of the Bible is the science of the 
age in which it was written ; and to expect to find in it supernatural in- 
formation on points of scientific fact, is to mistake its entire purpose. And 
so the value of the first chapter of Genesis lies not on its scientific side, 
but on its theological side. Upon the false science of antiquity its author 
has grafted a true and dignified representation of the relation of the world 
to God. It is not its office to forestall scientific discovery; it neither 
comes into collision with science, nor needs reconciliation with it. It must 
be read in the light of the age in which it was written; and while the 
spiritual teaching so vividly expressed by it can never lose its freshness or 
value, it must on its material side be interpreted in accordance with the 
place which it holds in the history of Semitic cosmological speculation 1 . 

1 See, further, on the subject of the preceding pages, Huxley, Collected Essays, 
rv. 64 ft*., 139200; Eiehm, Der Biblische Schopfungsbericht, Halle, 1881 (a lecture 
pointing out the theological value, at the present day, of the cosmogony of 
Genesis) ; C. Pritchard, Occasional Notes of an Astronomer on Nature and Revela- 
tion, 1889 (a collection of sermons and addresses, often very suggestive), p. 257 ff. 
(' The Proem of Genesis,' reprinted from the Guardian, Feb. 10, 1886) ; Dr Ladd, 
What is the Bible ? (New York, 1890), chap. v. (* The Bible and the Sciences of 
Nature') ; Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis (1892), chaps, i., ii. ; H. Morton, The 
Cosmogony of Genesis and its Reconcilers, reprinted from the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
April and July, 1897 (a detailed criticism, by a man of science, who has also 
theological sympathies, of the schemes of the reconcilers. President Morton's 
general conclusions are the same as those adopted above. See a note by the 
present writer in the Expositor, June, 1898, pp. 464 9); Whitehouse, art. 

D. 3 



34 THE BOOK OF GENESIS 

The Sabbath. 

The sabbath, it is not improbable, is an institution ultimately of Babylonian 
origin. In a lexicographical tablet (n Rawl. 32, 1. 16), there occurs the equa- 
tion Hm nilh libbi shabattum, or ' day of rest of the heart ' (i.e. as parallel 
occurrences of the same phrase shew, a day when the gods rested from their 
anger, a day for the pacification of a deity's anger) = sabbath. Further, in 
a religious calendar for two of the Assyrian months which we possess 1 , 
prescribing duties for the king, the 7th, 14th, 19th a , 21st and 28th days, are 
entered as 'favourable day, evil day' (i.e. a day with an indeterminate 
character, which might become either one or the other, according as the 
directions laid down for its observance were followed or not), while the 
others are simply ( favourable days.' On the five specified days, certain acts 
are forbidden : the king is not, for instance, to eat food prepared by fire, not 
to put on royal dress or offer sacrifice, not to ride in his chariot or hold court, 
&c. ; on the other hand, as soon as the day is over, he may offer a sacrifice 
which will be accepted. The days, it is evident, are viewed superstitiously: 
certain things are not to be done on them, in order not to arouse the jealousy 
or anger of the gods. It is not however known that the term shabattum was 
applied to these days; nor is there at present [1909] any evidence that a con- 
tinuous succession of 'weeks,' each ending with a day marked by special 
observances, was a Babylonian institution 3 . Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly 
a decided similarity between the Babylonian and the Hebrew institution ; and 
it is more than possible that Schrader, Sayce, and other Assyriologists are 
right in regarding the sabbath as an institution of Babylonian origin. Many 
other institutions of the Jewish law (cf. on ch. xvii.) were common to Israel's 
neighbours, as well as to Israel itself, though the Israelites, in appropriating 
them, stamped upon them a new character ; so there is no a priori objection to 
the same having been the case with the sabbath as well. If this view of its 
origin be correct, the Hebrews, in adopting it, detached it from its connexion 
with the moon (fixing it for every seventh day, irrespectively of the days of the 
calendar month), they extended and generalized the abstinence associated with 
it, they stripped it of its superstitious and heathen associations, and made 
it subservient to ethical and religious ends 4 . 

Cosmogony in DB.; Zimmern and Cheyne, art. Creation in EncB.; Zimmern, The 
Bab. and Heb. Genesis (in a series of short, popular brochures, called 'The Ancient 
East'), 1901, pp. 1 28; the Abb6 Loisy, Les Mythes Babyloniens et les premiers 
chapitres de la Genese (1901), pp. 1 102; Jastrow, Jewish Quart. Rev. July, 1901, 
pp. 620 654 ; L. W. King, Bab. Religion and Mythology (popular), pp. 53 146. 

1 See Jastrow, Religion of Bab. and Ass, 376 ff. 

2 Perhaps the 49th (i.e. the 7 x 7th) day from the 1st of the preceding month. 
The contract-tablets seem to shew that in the Hammurabi-age (p. 156) there was a 
marked abstention from work in Babylonia : see the note in the Addenda. 

3 Shabattum is at present known to occur only three or four times altogether in 
the Inscriptions. The terms in which Prof. Sayce speaks (Monuments, 74 77 ; 
EHH. 19S) would lead a reader to suppose that the resemblance between the 
Babylonian and the Hebrew institution was greater than it is. 

4 See further the writer's art. Sabbath in DB. (especially ii.), with the 
references : in iii., iv., also, there will be found some notice of references to the 
sabbath in the Mishna, and other post-Biblical Jewish writings, in the NT,* and 
in early Christian writers. See also now KA T. 3 592 ff . 



THE BOOK OF GENESIS 35 

Gen. ii. 1 3, it will be observed, does not name the sabbath, or lay down 
any law for its observance by man : all that it says is that God ' desisted ' on 
the seventh day from His work, and that He 'blessed' and 'hallowed' the day. 
It is, however, impossible to doubt that the introduction of the seventh day is 
simply part of the writer's representation, and that its sanctity is in reality 
antedated : instead viz. of the seventh day of the week being sacred, because 
God desisted on it from His six days' work of creation, the work of creation 
was distributed among six days, followed by a day of rest, because the week, 
ended by the sabbath, existed already as an institution, and the writer wished 
to adjust artificially the work of creation to it In other words, the week, 
ended by the sabbath, determined the ' days ' of creation, not the days of 
creation the week. 

Chapters II. 4 b IIL 24. 

The Creation and Fall of Man. 

With ii. 4 b we enter into an atmosphere very different from that of 
i. 1 ii. 4*. That the narrator is a different one is so evident as not to need 
detailed proof: it will be sufficient to notice here some of the more salient 
points of difference, ii. 4 b ff. differs then firstly from ch. i. in style and form. 
The style of ch. i is stereotyped, measured, and precise ; that of ii. 4 b ff. is 
diversified and picturesque ; there are no recurring formulae, such as are so 
marked in ch. i. ; the expressions characteristic of ch. i. are absent here (e.g. 
to create); and where common ground is touched (as in the account of the 
formation of man), the narrative is told very differently, and without even 
any allusion to the representation of ch. i. (e.g. to the 'image of God'). 
Ch. i. displays, moreover, clear marks of study and deliberate systematiza- 
tion : ii. 4 b ff. is fresh, spontaneous, and, at least in a relative sense, primitive : 
we breathe in it the clear and free mountain air of ancient Israel. The present 
narrative differs secondly from ch. i. in representation. Both the details and 
the order of the events of creation (in so far as they are mentioned in it for 
the narrator deals briefly with everything except what relates directly to man) 
differ from the statements of ch. i The earth, instead of emerging from the 
waters (as in i. 9), is represented as being at first dry (ii. 5), too dry, in fact, to 
support vegetation : the first step in the process of filling it with living forms 
is the creation of man (ii. 7), then follows that of beasts and birds (v. 19), and 
lastly that of woman (v. 21 f.); obviously a different order from that of ch. i. 1 
Another, in some respects, even more vital difference, is that in ii. 4 b ff. the 
conception of God is much more anthropomorphic than it is in ch. i. : whereas 
there God accomplishes His work of creation by a series of words, or by per- 
forming other acts (as creating, dividing, making, setting), which (taken in 
connexion with the objects on which they are performed) imply nothing local 

1 The separation between the creation of man and woman, if it stood alone, 
might indeed be reasonably explained by the supposition that ii. 4 b ff. was intended 
simply as a more detailed account, by the same hand, of what is described 
summarily in i. 26 30 ; but this explanation does not account for the many other 
differences subsisting between the two narratives. 

32 



36 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [11.4,5 

or sensible in the Divine nature, Jehovah here, for instance, moulds, breathes 
into man the breath of life, plants, places, takes, sets, brings, builds, closes up, 
walks in the garden (which is evidently regarded as His accustomed abode), so 
that even the sound of His footsteps is heard, and makes coats of skin (ii. 7, 8, 
15, 19, 21, 22, iii. 8, 21) ; in other words, He performs various sensible acts, and 
is evidently conceived as locally determined within particular limits in a 
manner in which the author of ch. i. does not conceive Him 1 . 

An interest conspicuously prominent in the entire narrative is the desire to 
explain the origin of existing facts of human nature, existing customs and 
institutions, especially those which were regarded as connected with the loss 
by man of his primaeval innocence. Thus among the facts explained are, for 
instance, in ch. ii. the distinction of the sexes, and the institution of marriage, 
and in ch. iii. the presence of sin in the world, the custom of wearing clothing, 
the gait and habits of the serpent, the subject condition (in the ancient world) 
of woman, the pain of child-bearing, and the toilsomeness of agriculture. The 
explanations offered of these facts are, however, not historical or scientific 
explanations, they are explanations prompted by religious reflection upon the 
facts of life. The narrative ' purports to account for the entrance into the 
world of sin, suffering, and shortened life. In carrying out this purpose, it 
is less faithful to historical than to moral and religious truth. The evidence of 
archaeology, geology, biology, and allied sciences points to the conclusion that 
man, so far from having begun his existence upon the globe in the happy 
surroundings of an Eden, has slowly emerged from a state of savagery, in 
which he was, externally at least, little removed from the brute creation. His 
primitive condition was not one of harmony and happiness, but of fierce 
conflict against opposing forces. Pain and death prevailed upon earth before 
man made his appearance, and have, it would seem, been prime factors in his 
evolution. The narrative is valuable, therefore, not as a description of 
historical events, but as a declaration of certain important ideas 2 .' See 
further the remarks, p. 51 ff. 

II. 4 b . . .in the day that Hhe Lord God made earth and heaven. J 
5 And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of 

1 Heb. Jehovah, as in other places where Lord is put in capitals. 

II. 4 b 7. The formation of man. 

4 b , 5. In the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven, no 
shrub (xxi. 15 ; Job xxx. 4, 7 1) of the field was yet, &c. 8 The words, 
taken in connexion with the sequel (v. 7), are intended to describe the 

1 The same contrasted conceptions of the Divine nature recur in many subse- 
quent parts of the same two documents. 

2 Wade, Old Test. History (1901), p. 50 f. 

8 Dillm. and others, however, render In the day that Jehovah God made earth 
and heaven when no shrub of the field was yet, &c. [vv. 5, 6] Jehovah God 
formed,' &c. (cf. the footnote on i. 1). If this construction (here and i. 1 3) is 
correct, it may, as Hommel has remarked, be more than an accidental coincidence 
that the Bab. account of creation (p. 28) begins also with a long sentence 
containing a parenthesis. 



ii. 5-7] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 37 

the field had yet sprung up : for the Lord God had not caused J 
it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till 
the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and 
watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the Lord 
God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living 

condition of the earth at the time when man was created : no shrub 
or herb, and ct fortiori, no tree, had yet appeared upon it, for it was 
not sufficiently watered to support vegetation. According to i. 11 f., 
plant- and tree-life was complete three 'days' before the creation of 
man : obviously the present writer views the order of events differently. 

in the day. I.e. at the time, Heb. usage compressing often what 
may have been actually a period of some length into a ' day/ for the 
purpose of presenting it vividly and forcibly : see e.g. Jer. xi. 4, xxxiv. 13. 

Jehovah God. An unusual combination, recurring throughout 
ii. 4 b hi. 24, but found elsewhere in the Hex. only Ex. ix. 30, and 
generally uncommon. It is usually supposed that in ii. 4 b iii. 24 the 
original author wrote simply Jehovah ; and that God was added by the 
compiler, with the object of identifying expressly the Author of life of 
ii. 4 fe 25, with the Creator of ch. i. On the name ' Jehovah ' (properly 
' Yahweh '), see the Excursus at the end of the volume. 

5. and there was not a man to till the ground, and, it is to be 
understood, to supply the deficiency of rain by artificial irrigation. 

6. but a mist used to go up..., and water &c, and so at least 
prepared the soil for the subsequent growth of vegetation. 

a mist. The word ('ed) occurs again only in Job xxxvi. 27. In 
Ass. edu means the overflow of a river, esp. of the Euphrates, such as 
annually irrigated the plains of lower Babylonia; and some recent 
scholars are of opinion that we ought to render here but a flood used 
to come up,' &c. (cf. EncB. I. 949). 

7. formed. The fig. is that of a potter (lxx. hrXao-w), moulding 
the plastic material in his hands. The word is often used of the 
Divine operation, with reference, not only to material objects (as here, 
Ps. xciv. 9, xcv. 5, civ. 26), but also more generally, as of a nation, 
Is. xxvii. 11, xliii. 1, and even of shaping, or pre-ordaining, events of 
history, Is. xxii. 11, xxxvii. 26, xlvi. 11. 

man of the dust of the ground. The words contain a point not 
reproducible in English ; for in Heb. ' ground (addmdh) is in form 
the fern, of ' man ' (dddm) : thus to the Hebrews man by his very 
name seemed to be connected with the 'ground,' and to find his 
natural occupation in working it (y. 5, iii. 19, 23). Cf. xviii. 27 ; 
Ps. ciii. 14 ; Job iv. 19, viii. 19, xxxiii. 6 ; Wisd. vii. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47. 
See also p. 53 n. 2. 

breath of life. Cf. (of animals generally) vii. 22 (see note) ; also 
spirit of life in vi. 17, vii. 15 (both P). Breath is evidently, in the 
great majority of animals ordinarily known, the physical accompaniment 



38 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [il 7 -d 

soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward, in J 
Eden ; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And 
out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that 

and condition of life ; and so the meaning of the clause is, endowed 
him with the faculty of life : cf. Is. xlii. 5 ; Job xxvii. 3 (where ' life ' 
= ' breath' here : Heb. n'sharnah), xxxiii. 4 b , xxxiv. 14. 

a living soul. As explained on i. 20, a ' soul ' is in Heb. psychology 
common to both animals and men ; hence no pre-eminence of man is 
declared in these words: they simply state that he became a living 
being. Man's pre-eminence, according to this writer, is implied in the 
use of the special term breathed, which is not used of the other animals 
(v. 19), and which suggests that in his case the ' breath of life ' stands 
in a special relation to the Creator, and may be the vehicle of higher 
faculties than those possessed by animals generally. Cf. Ez. xxxvii. 9 ; 
and, in a spiritual sense, Jn. xx. 22. Note also the contrast with the 
'life-giving spirit' (p. 4 n.) of the 'last Adam ' in 1 Cor. xv. 45 (RV.). 

8 17. God does not leave man to himself: He places him in a 
garden specially prepared for him, and assigns to him specific duties. 

8. a garden. Rather what we should call a park. lxx. (both here 
and elsewhere) 7rapa8i<ros (= Paradise : a Pers. word signifying properly 
an enclosure, and then in particular a park), which hence became the 
usual name in the Christian Church for the ' garden ' planted in Eden. 

eastward. The original home of man is placed in the far- 
distant East, in a region in or near Babylonia, the seat of the most 
ancient and influential civilization known to the Hebrews. 

'Eden. As a Heb. word, 'eden would mean pleasure, delight (see 
cognate words in Is. xlvii. 8 ; Neh. ix. 25), and this sense was no doubt 
suggested by it to the Hebrews (cf. lxx., in iii. 23, 24, and generally, 
6 7rapaSctoros rfjs Tpv<f>r}s) : if it be the true original meaning of the 
word, we must suppose 'Eden' to be an abbreviation for 'land of 
Eden.' But ' Eden ' is the name, not of the garden itself, but of the 
region in which it lay, so that there is no particular appropriateness 
in such a meaning ; and it is possible that it is the Sumerian edinu, 
a word explained in Ass. word-lists as meaning ' plain, prairie, desert,' 
in which case it will denote simply the great alluvial plain watered by 
the Tigris and the Euphrates 1 . Elsewhere the 'garden of Jehovah' 
(or 'of God'), or the 'garden of Eden,' is alluded to as the type of a 
fertile, well-watered place, abounding in noble trees : see ch. xiii. 10 ; 
Ez. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 8 f., 16, 18, xxxvi. 35 ; Is. li. 3 ; Joel ii. 3. 

9. Emphasis is laid on the trees with which the garden was stocked 
(cf. Ez. xxxi. 8 f, 16, 18), partly on account of the two which are 
singled out for special mention, but partly also, it would seem, because, 
according to the conception of the writer, man was originally intended 

1 Cf. Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 79 f.; KAT* 26 f. ; Sayce, 
Monuments, 95; Zimmern, KAT? 529; Pinches, The OT. in the light of the hist, 
records of Ass. and Bab. (1902), 70 72; and see Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Lex. p. 21. 



ii. 9-i*] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 39 

is pleasant to the sight, and good for food ; the tree of life also J 
in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of 
good and evil. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the 
garden ; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 
11 The name of the first is Pishon : that is it which compasseth 
the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold ; 12 and the gold 
of that land is good : there is bdellium and the 1 onyx stone. 

1 Or, beryl 

to subsist on the fruit of trees (cf. v. 16) ; he is not condemned to live 
on herbs till iii. 18. 

the tree of life. Cf. on iii. 24. The expression occurs also, in a fig. 
sense, in Pro v. iii. 18, xi. 30, xiii. 12, xv. 4. 

10 14. Provision made for the irrigation of the garden. The 
reference is implicitly to a system of canals, such as existed in 
Babylonia, from at least the time of Hammurabi (c. 2300 B.C.) onwards 1 , 
conveying the water from a main stream to different parts of the land. 
The river arose in Eden, outside the garden ; it passed through the 
garden, providing water for its irrigation ; and from thence, i.e. as 
it issued from the garden, it was divided, and became four heads, i.e. 
(cf. Ez. xvi. 25, xxi. 19; and the use of the expression 'heads of 
rivers ' in Arabic of the parting-point of two streams, cited by Del.) 
the heads of four streams, each taking its separate course, as described 
in w. 11 14. The representation gives an idea of the magnitude of 
the river flowing through the garden : even after leaving it, it could 
still supply four large streams 8 . 

11. Pishon. Not elsewhere mentioned. See p. 58 ff. 

Hamlah. Most probably (see on x. 29) a region in the NE. of 
Arabia, on the W. coast of the Persian Gulf. The gold of Arabia was 
famed in antiquity. 

12. bdellium. Heb. b'ddlah, mentioned also Nu. xi. 7, where 
the manna is compared to it, so that it must have been a well-known 
substance. Most probably it was what the Greeks called ftSeWa or 
P&Wlov, a transparent, wax-like gum, valued for its fragrance, and 
soothing medicinal properties (Diosc. I. 80; Pliny, UN. xn. ix. ; 
Plaut. Cure. 101, in a list of perfumes). The best came from Arabia 
(Diosc), or Bactria (Pliny) ; but it was found also in Gedrosia 
(Beloochistan), India, and other places. See further the art. in EncB. 

onyx. Heb. shoham, the name of a precious stone, much esteemed 
by the Hebrews (Job xxviii. 16 ; cf. Ex. xxviii. 9, 20), though there is 

1 See Maspero, n. 43 f. ; and cf. below, p. 156 n. 5. 

2 This is the obvious and generally accepted interpretation of the verse : there 
is however another view according to which it describes, not four streams diverging 
from one, but four streams converging into one (see below, p. 58 f.). But the 
narrator is manifestly following in his description the downward course of the 
stream ; it is most unnatural to suppose that by the words 'from thence it was 
parted ' he means to describe its upward course, above the garden. 



40 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [n. 13-15 

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon : the same is it J 
that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of 
the third river is 1 Hiddekel : that is it which goeth 2 in front of 
Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15 And the Lord 
God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress 

1 That is, Tigris. 9 Or, toward the east of 

some uncertainty what it was, philology throwing no light upon the 
word, and the ancient versions varying much in their renderings 
(lxx. onyx, beryl, sardius, emerald, &c. ; Pesh. and Targ. beryl; Vulg. 
usually onyx). Either beryl or onyx seems most probable (see Beryl 
in EncB., and Onyx in DB.\ According to Pliny (HN. xxxvn, 
86 ff.) the onyx was obtained specially from India and Arabia. 

In Ass. there is a gem sdmtu, often mentioned ; but it is at present 
unfortunately quite uncertain what it is : 'turquoise' (Sayce), and 
'pearl' (Haupt), are both conjectural renderings. 

13. Gihon. Not mentioned elsewhere in the OT. 1 : see p. 58 ff. 
Cush. The usual Heb. name of Ethiopia : see on x. 6. 

14. Hiddekel (also Dan. x. 4). The Tigris : Ass. Idiglat, Aram. 
Deklath, Arab. Dijlat*. 

in front of. The expression might mean in front of (from the 
standpoint of the narrator), i.e. in reality, west of: 'in front of,' 
however, means commonly in Heb. (cf. iv. 16, xii. 8 ; 1 S. xiii. 5 
Heb.) east of; but this rendering is open to the objection that Assyria 
extended far to the East of the Tigris : hence, if it is adopted, it must 
either be supposed that the description is a vague and inexact one 
(cf. Is. vii. 20) ; or (Sayce) Asshur must be taken to be the 'city of 
Asshur,' now KaVat Sherkdt, on the W. bank of the Tigris, about 
60 miles S. of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, until superseded by 
Calah and Nineveh, and a city repeatedly mentioned by the Assyrian 
kings in their inscriptions (e.g. KB. I. 29, 33, 39, 125, 127, 133, &c). 
But the fact of this city being not elsewhere referred to in the OT. 
makes it somewhat unlikely that it should be named here as a land-mark. 

Euphrates. Heb. P'rdth ; Ass. Puratu (the Gk form Euphrates 
is based upon the Old Persian Ufrdtu). 

15. Continuation of v. 9 b , after the digression, w. 10 14. Man 
is not made simply to enjoy life ; he is to labour and work. Even 
such a garden as the one described in v. 9 gives scope for man's 
activity : he is to till it, to develop its capacities, and adapt it to 
his own ends, and to keep (Is. xxvii. 3) or guard it, against the 
natural tendency of a neglected garden to run wild, and against damage 
from wild animals or other possible harm. 

1 For of course the ' Gihon ' of 1 K. i. 33 al. cannot be intended. As a Heb. 
word Gihon would mean a gushing forth : see the cognate verb in Job xl. 23 b . 

2 Tigris, Old Pers. Tigrd, means the arrow-like, i.e. the swift (cf. Strabo, xi. 14. 
8), from Old Pers. tighra, sharp, tighri, arrow. 



ii. i 5 -i 9 ] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 41 

it and to keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, J 
saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : 
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt 
not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
surely die. 

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man 
should be alone ; I will make him an help ^eet for him. 19 And 
out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, 

1 Or, answering to 

16, 17. 'But man is not designed solely to till and keep the garden. 
There are dormant in him capacities of moral and religious attainment, 
which must be exercised, developed, and tested. A command is 
therefore laid upon him, adapted to draw out his character, and 
to form a standard by which it may be tested. It is a short and 
simple command, unaccompanied even by a reason ; but it is sufficient 
for the purpose : man's full knowledge of what he must do or not do 
can be attained only as the result of a long moral and spiritual 
development, it cannot exist at the beginning. And the command 
relates to something to be avoided : the acknowledgment and observance 
of a limitation, imposed upon his creaturely freedom by his Creator and 
Lord, must be for man the starting-point of everything else ' (Dillm.). 

17. The knowledge of good and evil, implying the power of 
distinguishing them, and estimating each at its proper worth, is a 
capacity not possessed by little children (Dt. i. 39), but gradually 
acquired by them (Is. vii. 15, 16), and accordingly deficient in second 
childhood (2 S. xix. 35); it is specially necessary for a judge (1 K. iii. 9), 
and is possessed in a pre-eminent degree by divine beings (ch. iii. 5, 22), 
and angels (2 S. xiv. 17 1 ). 

18 25. The formation of animals and of woman. 

18. It is not enough to place man in the garden : further provision 
is yet required for the proper development of his nature, and satisfaction 
of its needs : a kelp, who may in various ways assist him, and who may 
at the same time prove a companion, able to interchange thought with 
him, and be in other respects his intellectual equal, is still needed. 

an help meet for him. Better, corresponding to him, i.e. adequate 
to him, intellectually his equal, and capable of satisfying his needs and 
instincts 2 . Cf. Ecclus. xxxvi. 24. 

19. First of all beasts and birds are formed, also from the ground, 
and brought to the man to see how they would impress him, and 

1 AV., EV. bad : but the Heb. is the same ; and in fact the expression includes 
what is beneficial and injurious, as well as what is morally good and evil. 

2 'Meet' is of course an archaism, meaning adapted, suitable (cf. Ex. viii. 26; 
Mt. iii. 8 [A V.], xv. 26). To speak of woman (as is sometimes done) as man's 'help* 
meet ' (absolutely) is an error implying strange ignorance of the English language. 



42 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [n. r 9 - 2I 

and every fowl of the air ; and brought them unto the man to J 
see what he would call them : and whatsoever the man called 
every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And the 
man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to 
every beast of the field ; but for x man there was not found an 
help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep 

1 Or, Adam 

whether they would satisfy the required need. Fishes are not 
mentioned ; the possibility of their proving a ' help ' to man being out 
of the question. 

In ch. i. animals are all created before man : so that it is again 
apparent that the writer of ch. ii. 4 b ff. follows a different conception 
of the order of creation. (The rend. ' had formed' is against idiom.) 

what he would call them. The name being (primarily) the 
expression of what a man thinks, this is tantamount to saying, what 
impression they would make upon him, and how he would regard them 
m relation to himself. 

living creature. Living soul (exactly as in v. 7) : see on i. 20. 

20. gave names &c. Distinguished, it is implied, their different 
characters, or appearances, and gave them corresponding names. A 
hint is here given of one of the earliest uses to which man would put 
his faculty of language (cf. p. 55) : animals, by their variety, their 
often remarkable forms and habits, their life and activity, in many 
features so singularly resembling his own, would impress him vividly, 
and quickly give him occasion to put this faculty, possessed by him, to 
practical use. 

But amongst all the animals thus surveyed by him, there was 
found no 'help, corresponding to' himself. Many animals are 
serviceable to man, and so a ' help ' ; some may even become his 
companions : but none are on an equality with him ; there are none 
with whom he can converse intelligently, or whom he can treat as his 
intellectual or social equal. ' The dignity of human nature could not, 
in few words, be more beautifully expressed' (Dillm.) : compare the 
parallel in i. 26. 

for man. The Massorites have here and iii. 17, 21 pointed D"is6 
without the article, treating it as a proper name ; but, inasmuch as, 
where the article is part of the consonantal text, it appears consistently 
till iv. 25 (see e.g. ii. 21, iii. 22, 24, iv. 1), it is better to point 
accordingly here (Id'dddm, not Fdddm), and to render for the man. 

21, 22. The need thus awakened in the man God now proceeds 
to satisfy by creating woman. 

21. a deep sleep. In order that the secret of God's operation might 
remain concealed from him. The word, as ch. xv. 12, 1 S. xxvi. 12. 

We have here a wonderfully conceived allegory, designed, by a 
most significant figure, to set forth the moral and social relation 



n.ai-i 5 ] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 43 

to fall upon the man, and he slept ; and he took one of his ribs, J 
and closed up the flesh instead thereof : 22 and the rib, which 
the Lord God had taken from the man, x made he a woman, and 
brought her unto the man. 23 And the man said, This is now 
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall be called 
2 Woman, because she was taken out of 3 Man. 24 Therefore shall 
a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his 
wife : and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both 
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. 

1 Heb. builded he into. a Heb. Isshah. 8 Heb. Ish. 

of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man, her 
close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature for the 
attachment springing up between them, and for the feelings with which 
each should naturally regard the other. The woman is formed out of 
the man's side : hence it is the wife's natural duty to be at hand, ready 
at all times to be a ' help ' to her husband, it is the husband's natural 
duty ever to cherish and defend his wife, as part of his own self. 

23. The man at once recognizes in the woman one intimately 
related to himself, and fitted to be his intellectual and moral consort. 

This is now &c. I.e. now at last, in contrast to the animals which 
had before been brought to him. The exclamation, which has almost 
a poetical rhythm, gives expression to the joyful surprise with which 
he beholds her. 

bone of my bones &c. Cf., though the expression is not so strong, 
xxix. 14 ; Jud. ix. 2 ; 2 S. v. 1. 

Woman. The assonance of the Heb. (see RVm.) is in this case 
fairly reproducible in English. Symmachus for the same purpose uses 
avSpfey Luther M'dnnin. 

24. The narrator's comment, explanatory of the later existing 
custom (cf. x. 9, xxii. 14 b , xxxii. 32) \ Therefore, viz. because man 
and woman were originally one, and hence essentially belong together, 
doth a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife ; 
and they become one flesh : the attachment between them becoming 
greater, and the union closer, even than that between parent and child. 
Marriage, and moreover monogamic marriage, is thus explained as 
the direct consequence of a relation established by the Creator. 
Cf. Mt. xix. 46 (|| Mk. x. 68); 1 Cor. vi. 16, xi. 812; Eph. v. 
2833 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1214. 

they. lxx. the twain, whence Mt. xix. 5, Mk. x. 8, 1 Cor. vi. 16. 

25. The narrative closes with a picture of their child-like innocence. 
The particular direction in which their innocence is represented as 
displaying itself, is due probably to the narrator's intention of explaining 
afterwards (iii. 7, cf. 21) the origin of clothing. 

1 The tenses used have a frequentative force : see G.-K. 107 8 , 112 m . 



44 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [m. t 

Chapter III. 

The Fall and its Consequences, 

The chapter describes how man was seduced into disobedience : and how, 
after a judicial inquiry held by God, sentence was passed successively upon the 
seducer, upon the woman, and upon the man. The sinful desire, though it has 
its real seat within the soul, is excited by an outward object, appealing to the 
senses ; and here it is stimulated into activity, and directed towards its object 
(the forbidden fruit), by the serpent. The serpent is introduced in the first 
instance simply as one of the animals which had passed before the man : it 
appears soon, however, that it is more, at any rate, than an ordinary animal : 
it possesses the faculty of speech, which it exercises with supreme intelligence 
and skill. The serpent is a creature which among primitive and semi-primitive 
peoples nearly always attracts attention : its peculiar form and habits, so differ- 
ent from those of other animals, suggest that there is something mysterious 
and supernatural about it ; the Arabs, for instance, say that in every serpent 
there lurks a jinn (or spirit). The serpent had moreover in antiquity the 
reputation of wisdom (Mt. x. 16), especially in a bad sense : it was insidious, 
malevolent, 'subtil.' And so it appears here as the representative of the power 
of temptation ; it puts forth with great artfulness suggestions, which, when 
embraced, and carried into action, give rise to sinful desires and sinful acts. 
The serpent is not, however, in the narrative identified with the Evil One. The 
OT. does not mention the being whom we call * Satan ' till the period of the 
exile; and even then he is not the 'tempter' of the NT. 1 : it was only later, 
when it had become usual to connect the power of evil with a person, that those 
who looked back upon this narrative saw in the serpent the Evil One. The 
identification appears first in Wisd. ii. 24 (' by envy of the devil death entered 
into the world'); cf. Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2. 

III. 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of J 
the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the 
woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of a any tree of the 

1 Or, all the treet 

III. 1. The serpent begins by addressing the woman, the weaker 
vessel, who moreover had not herself actually heard the prohibition 
(ii. 16 f.). It first distorts the prohibition, and then affects surprise 
at it when thus distorted ; thus it artfully sows doubts and suspicions 
in the heart of the unsuspecting woman, and at the same time 

1 See A. B. Davidson's note on Job i. 6 in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, 



in. 1-6] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 45 

garden ? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit J 
of the trees of the garden we may eat : 3 but of the fruit of the 
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall 
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the 
serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die : 5 for 
God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes 
shall be opened, and ye shall be as 1 God, knowing good and evil. 
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, 
and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was 2 to be 
desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did 

1 Or, gods a Or, desirable to look upon 

insinuates that it is itself qualified to judge of the propriety of such 
a prohibition. 

subtil. Or, wily (Jos. ix. 4), crafty (Job v. 12) ; used also in a 
good sense (=callidus), Pr. xii. 16, 23 al. 

2, 3. The woman corrects the serpent; and, to shew how fully 
aware she is of the strictness of the prohibition, adds (what is not 
contained in ii. 16 f.) that they are not even to touch the fruit of the 
tree. 

4. 5. The serpent now goes on to deny flatly the truth of the 
threat, to suggest an unworthy motive for it, and to hold out the hope 
of a great boon to be secured by disobedience. The immediate reward, 
adroitly though fallaciously put forward, thus sets out of sight the 
remoter penalty. 

5. for God doth know &c. It is not on your account, to save you 
from death, but on His account, to prevent your becoming like Him, 
that He has forbidden you to eat this fruit. The serpent attributes 
the prohibition to envy, the quality so often ascribed to the gods by the 
Greeks (e.g. Hdt. I. 32, in. 40, vn. 10, 48). 

as God. Or, as gods (RVm. = AV.). The Heb. is ambiguous (the 
Heb. for 'God' being plural in form) ; so that the marg. is quite possible 
(cf. v. 22 ; 2 S. xiv. 17). The distinction between God and divine 
oeings was not so clearly drawn by the Hebrews as it is by us (cf. 1 S. 
xxviii. 13; perhaps, also, Ps. lxxxii. 1, 6, xcvii. 7, cxxxviii. 1) : angels 
are called sometimes the ' sons of God ' (or ' of the gods ' ; cf. on v. 22, 
and p. 82 n.). 

6. The woman does not repel the suggested doubt as to God's 
truth and love, but yields to it : the prospect of the tree in 
front of her, and the thought of the boon to be so speedily and 
easily acquired, overpower her : she both eats of the fruit herself, 
and also offers it to her husband, who naturally follows the example 
which she has set. 

to make one wise. Better, though the general sense remains the 
same, for becoming wise (Ps. ii. 10, xciv. 8). To look upon (lxx., 



46 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [m. 6-9 

eat ; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did J 
eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew 
that they were naked ; and they sewed fig leaves together, and 
made themselves x aprons. 8 And they heard the 2 voice of the 
Lord God walking in the garden in the 3 eool of the day : and the 
man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord 
God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the Lord God 
called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? 

1 Or, girdles % Or, sound * Heb. wind, 

Pesh., Vulg., Ges., RVm.) is a meaning of hisTcil which is not otherwise 
known. (It occurs in Aramaic, and post-Biblical Hebrew, but only in 
the reflexive conjug., properly to shew oneself attentive.^ 

7. They had eaten of the tree of knowledge ; and so, the idea is, 
they had passed in a moment as we all pass, though only in the 
course of years from the innocence of childhood into the knowledge 
which (see on ii. 17) belongs to adult age. Their sense of guilt betrays 
itself unconsciously, before long, in their behaviour as described in v. 8. 
For the present, however, the narrator notices only their acquisition of 
another sense, in which adult age differs from childhood, and the 
absence of which had been noted in ii. 24 as a mark of innocence. 

the eyes of them both were opened. The expression is used of any 
sudden, or miraculous, enlightenment, xxi. 19, 2 K. vi. 17. The 
serpent's words (v. 5) were thus fulfilled : but the knowledge gained 
was very different from that which they had been led to anticipate. 

fig leaves. Why in particulars-leaves? Probably because among 
the leaves of Palestinian trees those of the fig-tree were the largest. 
The mention of the fig is an indication that the narrative, if Babylonian 
in origin, must have been domesticated in Palestine : for the fig-tree is 
indigenous in Syria and Palestine, and (Hdt. 1. 193) there were 'no fig- 
trees ' in Babylonia. 

aprons. Girdles, such as used to be worn round the loins, in 
later times, outside the dress. See the same word in 1 K. ii. 5, Is. iii. 24. 

8 13. God's judicial inquiry. 

8. voice. Rather, sound. The garden was one in which, it is 
implied, God and man were wont to meet and discourse together : but 
now, when they hear His footsteps, they are afraid for the voice of 
conscience tells them that they have incurred His displeasure and 
make a vain attempt to hide themselves. 

toward the cool of the day. I.e. toward evening, when in the East 
a cooling wind arises (Cant. ii. 17 = iv. 6), and the Oriental can issue 
forth from his dwelling (contrast ch. xviii. 1). 

9. Where art thou? 'The call which, after every sin, repeats 
itself to the man who seeks to deceive himself and others concerning 
his sin' (Dillm.). 



m. 10-14] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 47 

10 And he said, I heard thy 1 voice in the garden, and I was J 
afraid, because I was naked ; and I hid myself. 11 And he 
said, Who told thee that thou wast naked ? Hast thou eaten of 
the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not 
eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to 
be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the 
Lord God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done ? 
And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast 
done this, cursed art thou 2 above all cattle, and 2 above every 
beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt 

1 Or, sound 2 Or, from among 

10. Being no longer able to hide himself, but shrinking still from 
acknowledging the entire truth, the man at first alleges only his 
nakedness, as the cause of his concealment. 

11, 12. But the Judge presses for a full confession, so the man 
now owns the deed, but seeks immediately to extenuate it by casting 
the blame for it upon the woman, and even ultimately upon God 
('whom thou gavest to be with me'). 

13. The woman, when questioned, in her turn casts the blame 
upon the serpent. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; 1 Tim. ii. 14. 

The object of the questions is to elicit from both the man and the 
woman a full admission of their guilt. No such questions are put to 
the serpent, because, being not a morally responsible being, the awaken- 
ment of a sense of guilt in it is not needed, or indeed possible. 

14 19. The sentences. 

14, 15. The sentence on the serpent. The serpent, being an 
animal, is not morally responsible : but it is punished here as the 
representative of evil thoughts and suggestions ; man must recognize, 
in its punishment, how the curse of God rests upon all evil thoughts, 
such as those of which it has been the instigator. 

14. above. Lit. out of, or (RVm.) from among, i.e. selected out of 
others as cursed, and not implying (as 'above' might suggest) that 
other animals are cursed likewise. 

upon thy belly &c. The mark of the serpent's curse consists in its 
crawling gait, and dusty food (cf. Is. lxv. 25) ; not that it actually 
lived on dust, but moving as it did with its mouth upon the ground, it 
might readily be supposed to swallow more dust than other animals (cf. 
Mic. vii. 17). 

As the serpent, by the stealthiness and rapidity of its attack, and 
its often deadly bite, was a fit emblem of the destructiveness of the 
power of evil, so, by its life passed in the dust, it was to remind man 
of the prostrate condition in which it was God's design and intention 
that the power of evil should ever be held down. 



48 THE BOOK OF GENESIS [m. 14-16 

thou eat all the days of thy life : 15 and I will put enmity J 
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed: it shall * bruise thy head, and thou shalt 1 bruise his 
heel 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy 
sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth 

1 Or, lie in wait for 

all the days of thy life. The serpent is obviously identified here 
with the serpent-ractf ; and suitably so, for it represents the ever- 
reviving, ever newly active, power of evil (cf. ' seed ' in v. 15). 

15. The serpent is to be not only a grovelling creature; there is 
to be irreconcilable enmity between it and man. The terms of the 
sentence are suggested by the relation actually existing between the 
human race and (speaking generally) the serpent race ; but it is evident 
that the words used include more than this : the serpent, even more 
clearly than in v. 14, is the representative of the power of evil. 

bruise. The word recurs Job ix. 17; Ps. cxxxix. II 1 . 'Bruise,' 
however, does not properly suit the last clause (where it is used of the 
serpent) ; hence many moderns render aim at, make for (cf. lxx. 
Tr}prj(rei(s) ; Onk. watch, observe), supposing shuph to be a cognate form 
of shaaph, prop, to pant (Jer. xiv. 6), fig. to pant after, be eager for 
(in a hostile sense), Ps. lvi. 1, 2, lvii. 3 al. [RV. would swallow me up]. 
It may, however, be doubted whether this poetic, metaphorical applica- 
tion (RVm. lie in wait for is too free) is here very suitable either ; and 
it seems better, on the whole, to retain bruise, supposing it to be used 
improperly of the serpent in the last clause on account of its use of the 
woman's seed in the clause before. 

The passage has been known for long as the Protevangelium ; and 
no doubt it is that : but we must not read into the words more than 
they contain. No victory of the woman's seed is promised, but only a 
perpetual antagonism, in which each side, using the weapons which it is 
natural to it to employ, will seek to obtain the mastery of the other. 
Only from the general drift and tenor of the passage can it be inferred 
that the conflict is one in which the ' seed of the woman ' may hope 
ultimately to have the victory : as Dilhn. remarks, a conflict ordained 
by God, in which the serpent is viewed evidently as the offender and 
aggressor, cannot but end in the triumph of its opponent. The passage 
thus strikes at the outset of redemptive history the note of promise 
and of hope' (Ottley, History of the Hebrews, p. 11). See further 
p. 57. 

16. The sentence on the woman : pain, especially the pain 
attendant upon child-bearing, and evils arising out of her relation 
to her husband. 

thy pain and thy conception. I.e., probably, pain (in general), and 
especially such as is the result of pregnancy. 'Pain' (jinvy, only 

1 Here probably corrupt (read prob. ^5^!, 'screen me') : for 'darkness ' cannot 
be said naturally to ' bruise ' a person. RV. is no rendering of the Hebrew. 



hi. 16, 17] THE BOOK OF GENESIS 49 

children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall J 
rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast 
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, 
of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it : 
cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in Hoil shalt thou eat of it all 

1 Or, sorrow 

besides v. 17, v. 29) includes bodily as well as mental pain ; and is not 
to be limited to what we should now describe as ' sorrow ' (see v. 29). 

in pain &c. The Hebrews spoke proverbially of the severe pain (^n, 
not 3 JJ, as here) of child-bearing (e.g. Is. xxi. 3 ; Jer. vi. 24 ; Ps. xlviii. 
6) ; and here it is represented as the penalty for Eve's transgression. 

thy desire &c. Woman is to be dependent in two respects upon 
her husband : (1) she will desire his cohabitation, thereby at the same 
time increasing her liability to the pain of child-bearing ; (2) he will 
rule over her, with allusion to the oppressed condition of woman in 
antiquity, when she was often not more than the slave of her husband, 
and was liable to be treated by him with great arbitrariness. 

It is of course evident that the presence of sin in the world has 
been the cause of immeasurable suffering to woman in precisely many 
of the ways that are here indicated ; but it is not to be supposed that 
the physical constitution of the human frame has been so altered by it 
that a function, which would otherwise have been exercised painlessly, 
should have become a painful one : in so far, therefore, as the text 
implies this, we can only conclude that, as in other instances, the 
writer was guided by moral rather than by historical considerations 
(cf. p. 36). At the same time, even in regard to child-bearing, it 
is no doubt the case that at this critical and anxious moment of 
a woman's life, the sense of past wrong-doing weighs peculiarly 
upon her, and also that men's cruelty and women's folly have con- 
tributed to make the process more painful and perilous for women 
than it is for animals. 

17 19. The sentence on the man. Work had been appointed 
for man before (ii. 15) : the penalty is to consist in its laboriousness, 
and in the disappointments and vexations which often accompany it. 
Agriculture is specified in particular, because it