(25''"' 3o'-^, perhaps 4'^»), and partly to introduce new notices, or new phases o! tra<iition which were not mentioned in the three chief documents (10* 32"; perhaps 2'"-'*, and in 10"; ll-si" ol"" lo' 22-, etc.). Sometimes possibly u.se wa.s also made of materials taken from other sources than J. E, and P {e.g. perhaps in ch. 14).' — Spurrell, (iriirsis-, pp. Ixi-lxiii, Whether the work of comliining the narratives of .1 and E was effected by one writer, or was the result of a gradual process directed and influenced by a group or succession of "prophetic' men, nmst be left to conjecture. Some .scholars, however, are prepared to give an unhesitating reply. 'That the compiler of JE was a Judaan is clear,' says Erip]), 'from 22-'. where he has sub- stituted " Moriah" for some Ejihraimite name ; and that he was not far removed from the Deuterono- mist we may see in ] S''-'- ^s-am^ j,i the kindred pa.s- sages 13"' 15. Ki"' 1818 22'"- '» 26* 32'-'' (cf. I)t !'» lO'^^^ 28"-), and still more jilainly in 26^ ' ( Tlie Composition of the Book of (iene.ii.i, p. 18).
V. TiiK HisTiii;u'.u, Value of the Book.— Doubtless, the views that are held upon the his- torical character of Genesis depend in great measure upon the coiu'eption which is entertained of ' in- spiration.' The book itself makes no claim to being in any way supernaturally furinshed with means of information. The writers and compilers appear to have made use of their materials in the same fashion as other writers of their day. There is no indication in this, (U- in other books ot Scripture, that Revelation communicated to man a knowledge of facts that were ascertainable by human means.
The early narratives of Genesis respecting the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood are based upon myths and traditions which the Israelites inherited in common with other branches of the Semitic family. The labours of Rawlinson. Eenormant, George Smith, Schrader, Sayce, and others have shown inilisputalily the affinity of the Israelite with the Chald;ean cosmogony. And it has often been pointed out that the Israelite version of the myth is free from the puerilities and .superstitions inalienable from the polytheism of the I5abylonian versi(m. ' Where the Assyrian or Babylonian poet,' says Sayce, 'saw the action of deiiied forces of nature, the Hebrew writer sees oidy the will of the one supreme God' {UCMp. 71). This assists us to form a judgment upon the true character of these earlj' chapters. The story of the beginnings of the world aiui of mankind is told, not with a scientific but with a religious jjurpose. The old- world myths, or tales of Semitic folk-lore, were employed for the purpose of setting forth in their true light — as discerned through the revealing spirit of J" — the unchanging verities respecting the nature of God, of :nan, and of the created universe (cf, Ryle, Early Narratives of Genesis).
The story of the Flood is doubtless drawn from the reminiscence of a fearful dev.astalion by water at some very remote period. The striking resem- blance between it and the so-called ' poem of Izdubar,' contained in the cuneiform texts tr.ans- lated by Geo. Smith (1872), illu.strates the similar treatment of semi-mythical, semi- historical material by the Israelite writers. The Genesis account presents many insuperable objections, if it were necessary to accept it as a literally accurate record. But the purpose of the narration is not scientilic, but religious ; it is obviously intended to depict the divine displeasure against sin, and the divine favour towards the upright and God-fearing, On the other hand, there seems no reason to call in question the occurrence of some terrible overthrow by water that laid waste the Euphrates Valley, or the wonderful deliverance of a few indi- viduals. The reminiscence of these events was
GENESIS
GENESIS
147
variously enshrined in versions of a common Semitic legend.
Tlie imrnuive of the jKitriarchs stands midway between tiie Kiood Ii'adition and the Mosaic his- tory. An compared with tlie former, it marks a fireat advance in llie direction of the historic; relatively to the latter, it still belongs to a pre- historic age. The narrative has come down to us through tlie medium of documents, whose com- position, in tlie form familiar to us, must have been separated by many centuries from the in- cidents which they relate. On the other hand, there is no reason to douht that the stories respect- ing the Israelite ancestors rest upon a foundation of historic fact. The attempts to resolve the patriarch.s, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, into abstract personifications of tribes, or into primitive tribal gods, have admittedly failed. Without the patriarchs 'the religious position of Mo.ses.' says Kiltel (Hist, nf the Hebrews, p. 174). 'stands before us unsupported an<l incomprehensible.' It is verj' jio.^sible, indeed most prol)able, that the picture which has been preserved of the patriarchs derives much of its colouring from the thought and cir- cumstances of a later period, and in particular from the prophetic treatment of the people's history.
Nor can it be questioned that the relationship of tribes and clans is represented in the patriarchal narrative under the symbol of a family genealogy. The [irimitive connexion of Israel with the peoples round about — .\miiioii, Moab, Amalek, Ishmael, Edom — is presented to us under the imagery of incidents occurring in the liistory of a single family during one or two generations. The stories of common folk-lore, deriving proper names from various incidents, are incorporated along with narratives of didactic purpose and deep spiritual import, c.y. the call of Abraham and the visions of Jacob. The memory of the great forefathers of the nation was idealized by the prophetic and priestly writers. ISut they preserved a living tradition of real men and actual experience.