Admitting, however, that these principles are true, how far may they be adopted in explanation of tlie patriarchal narratives ? Are .Tacob and his twelve sons, Esau, and Laban simply the personi- fications of corresponding peoples, Israel and the 12 tribes, Edom, and Syria (like Hellen, with his sons, Dorus and .lEolus, and his grandsons, Achaius and Ion, among the Greeks), the characteristic features of each being reflections of the circum- stances and relations of the age which gave them birth (cf. Wellh. ffist. 318-325)?* An unsub- stantial figure, like Canaan, might be an example of such personification ; but the abundance of personal incident and detail makes such a view improbable in the case, at least, of the principal patriarchal characters. May they then nprcsent tribes and sub-tribes? in other words, may the movements, and mutual relations, of tribes and sub-tribes have been expressed in a personal and individual form? This is Ewald's view. Abra- ham, Isaac, and Jacob represent the successive migratory movements of Hebrew tribes from the original common home of the Hebrew and Ara- majan nationalities in Aram-naharaim across the Euphrates. Jacob's father was a Hebrew already settled in Canaan : his mother was an AranLTan (Gn25^'); he marries two Arama^an wives: after a long contest with his uncle (and father-in-law) Laban, 'the Arama;an ' (25=<' 28" Sl^"- "), 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 Hebrew race migrated from its original home in Aram-naharaim, piished 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 : tilt," 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,'
* See the full discussion of this view in Ktienen, Th'l\ May 1871. p. 228(1. : and cf. Smend, AT TfuoL 12, 9af. ; Meinhold, U'id/T dtn Kleinglauben CIS9d), 19, 2S.
but at the same time his younger brother, ai arrivint; later in Canaan, — though, as he became afterwards the more powerful nation, he is de- scribed as having wrested from him his birthright : bimilailj . Jacob's wives and sons represent tha existence of dillurent elements in the original com- munity, and the growth of tribal distinctions within it.* Ewald, howrver, holds at the sam« time that Abraham, Isiuit, .Jacob, and Joseph are historical characters, prominent leaders of the nation at successive stages of its history (pp. 301, 305 f., 340, 342, 345, 382). t Again, the amount of personal incident and detail in the patriarchal narratives seems to constitute an objection to thij explanation of their meaning : would the move- ments of tribes be represented in this veiled manner on such a large scale as would be the case if this explanation w'ere the true one? No doubt, there are elements of truth in both these explanations: each w ill account rea.sonably for some traits in the patriarchal narratives : the question is, whether they will account for all.
Ihe view which on the whole may be said best to satisfy the circumstances of the case is the view that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are historical persons, and that the accounts which we have of them are in outline historically true, but that their characters are idealized, and their biographies in many respects coloured by the feelings and asso- ciations of a later ago. ' J,' says Mr. Ottley,Jand 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 tlie light of a subsequent age. We have here to do with the earliest form of history — traditional folk-lore about primitive per- sonages and events, worked up according to some preconceived design by a devout literary artist.' The basis of the narratives in Genesis is in fact popular oral tradition ; and that being so, we may expect them to display the characteristics which popular oral tradition does in other cases. They may well include a substantial historical nucleus : but details may be due to the involuntary action of popular invention or imagination, oper- ating during a long period of time ; characteristic anecdotes, reflecting the feelings, and explaining the relations, of a later age may thus have become attached to the patriart-lis ; phraseology and ex- pression will nearly always be ascribed rightly to the narrators who cast these traditions into tlieir present literary shape. One very conspicuous interest in these narratives is the explanation of existing facts and institutions — the fact, for instance, that Edom, though an older nation than Israel (36^'), was nevertheless politically its in- ferior, the sanctity of Bethel and its famous monolith, the names borne both by Israel itself and by its twelve tribes, the origin of the great border-cairn on Gilead, the names of places, as Bethel, Mahanaim, Fennel, Succoth, Allon-ba-