GENESIS
■78
GENESIS
ham's life, the main stream of tlie narrative may flow 1 in tlie cliannel of Isaac's fortunes. j
(IV.) Isaac. — Isaac's life (xxv, 19-xxxv, 29), a life in itself retiring and uneventful. But in his sons the tinal separation takes place, leaving the field clear for the great story of the chosen seed. Even when Na- hor's family comes on the scene, as it does in ch. xxix, we hoar only so much of it as is necessary to throw light on Jacob's history-.
(V^.) Jacob. — The history of Jacob and Joseph(xxxvi, 1). — Here, after Isaac's death, we have (1) the geneal- ogy of Esau (ch. xxxvi), who then dro))* out of the narrative, in order that (2) the history of the jjatriarchs may be carried on without interruption to the death of Joseph (ch. xxxvii-1).
Thus it will be seen that a specific plan is preserved throughout. The main purpose is never forgotten. God's relation to Israel holds the first place in the writer's mind. It is this which it is his object to con- vey. The history of that chosen seed who were the heirs of the promise, and the guardians of the divine oracles, is the only historj' which interprets man's re- lation to God. By its light all others shine, and maj' be read when the time shall come. Meanwhile, as the different families drop off here and there from the prin- cipal stock, their course is briefly indicated. A hint is given of their parentage and their migrations ; and then the narrative returns to its regular channel. Thus the whole book may be compared to one of those vast American rivers which, instead of being fed by tribu- taries, send oft" here and there certain lesser streams or ba3-ous, as they are termed, the main current mean- while flowing on with its great mass of water to the sea.
Bc3'ond all doubt, then, we may trace in the book of Genesis in its present form a sj'stematic plan. It is no hasty compilation, no mere collection of ancient fragments without order or arrangement. It coheres by an internal princi]ile of unity. Its whole structure presents a very definite and clearly marked outline. But does it follow from chis that the book, as it at present stands, is the work of a single author ?
III. Unify of Composition. — This, which is a point in dispute among the critics with regard to all the books of the PentateucJi, has been particularly questioned in the case of Genesis. The question was raised wheth- er the sources from which the writer of Genesis drew his information were written documents or oral tradi- tion. Writers as early as Vitringa (^Obs. Sac. i, 4), Richard Simon, Clericus, and others, though they were of opinion that Genesis is founded on written sources, did not undertake to describe the nature and quality of those sources. Another opinion, advanced by Ot- mar in Ilenke's Magaz. ii, that Egyptian pyramids and other monuments of a similar nature were the sources of Genesis, was but transient in the critical world ; while the attempt of some critics not only to renew the previous assumption that Genesis is founded on written sources, but also to determine more closely the character of those sources, has gained more lasting approval among the learned. "Why different names of God are prevalent in different portions of Genesis is a question much discussed Iw early theologians and rabbis. Astruc, a Belgian physician, in his Conjectures surles Mi-moires orif/inaux, etc. (Bruxelles,1753-8\ was the first to apply the two Hebrew names of God, Je- liovdh and E/oliim, to the subject at issue. Astruc as- sumed that there had originally existed a numlier of isolated documents, some twelve in all, which had sub- sequently, by the fatdt of transcribers, been joined and strung together in the present form of (ienesis. Eich- horn's critical genius procured for this hypothesis a favorable reception almost throughout the whole of Germany. See Astkuc. Eichhorn ])runed away its excrescences, and confined hisn)wn view to the apsum(> tion (if only two different documents, respectively char- acterized by the two diflferent names of Jehovah and
Elohim. Other critics, such as Illgen (Urhinden del Jerusalem TeiirpeUArchivs, 1798),Gramberg {Adumbra- tio libri Geneseos secundum fontes, 1828), and others, went still farther, and presupposed three different docu- ments in Genesis. Vater went much beyond Eiihhorn. He fancied himself able to combat the authenticity of the Pentateuch by producing a new hypothesis. He substituted for Eichhorn's "document-hypothesis" his own " fragment-hj'pothesis," which obtained great au- thority, especially on account of its being adopted by De Wette. According to this opinion. Genesis, as well as the greater part of the Pentateuch, consists of a great number of very small detached fragments, inter- nally unconnected with each other, but transcribed seriatim, although originating in verj' different times and from different authors. This "fragment-hypoth- esis" has now been almost universally given up. Even its zealous defenders, not excepting De Wette himself, have relinquished it. In its place the former "docu- ment-hj'pothesis" has been resumed by some critics, sinqdified, however, and supported by new and better arguments. There is at present a great variety of opinion among divines concerning this hj'pothesis. The leading features of this diversity may be comprised in the following summary. According to the view of Stahelin, De Wette, Ewald,Von Bohlen, Tuch, Kno- bel, Delitzsch, and others, Genesis is founded on two principal original documents. That oi Ehhim is close- ly connected in its parts, and forms a whole, while that of Jehovah is a mere complementary document, supplying details at those points where the former is abrupt and deficient, etc. These two documents arc said to have been subsequentlj' combined bj' the hand of an editor, so ably as often to render their separation I difficult, if not altogether impossible. But Ranke, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Havernick, Baumgarten, Keil, and others, maintain that Genesis is a book close- ly connected in all its parts, and composed by only one author, while the use of the two different names of God is not owing to two different sources on which Genesis is founded, but solely to the different significations of these two names. The great weight of probability lies on the side of those who argue for the existence of different documents, but only as sources to some ex- tent which, together with original materials, wei'e wrought by the author into one homogeneous whole.