The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 62

characterised, in addition to the above idiosyncrasies, by the use of tho infinitive e.bso• lute for the sake of emphasis, the poetical suffix \~, tho Divine nnme )\1~~. and so on. And lastly, as if to establish this remark&ble hypothesis beyond the possibility of challenge, the author of the Elohistic writing, by affirming that the name Jehovnh was not revealed until tl1e time of Moses (Exod. vi. 2), seems to say that he could not have written those delineations of patriarchal history in which the na.me Jehovnh is employed. Now it must be admitted that, if this were in all respects an accurate representntion of the literacy structure of the Pentateuch, the documentary hypothesis might be said to be established ; but in point of fact it is a representntion which in almost ernry particular is e.ssailable. In the first place, it is not possible without the most arbitrary suppositions and the most inexplicable lacun11:1 to reconstruct even the Elohistic writing, as is partly indicated in the Special Introduction to Genesis (vide pp. ir, v); and even if it were, its accomplishment may be regarded as well-nigh hopeless, almost eveiy critic having hls own particular views as to what sections and clauses of the narrative have been written by the Elohist, and what by the Jehovist, and what by the third narrator, and so on. In the second place, the so-called con-· tradictions are without exception capable of easy resolution by the application of a little cultured common sense, not to mention critical acumen ; and the recurrence of similar events in times when manners were comparatively stereotyped ought not to occasion perplexity to minds of ordinary penetration ; while, if repetitions in a narra- tive are fate.I to its literary nni~y, many writings, amongst which it might not be impossible to detect some belonging to the higher criticism, whose authorship can be accnrately determined, will be open to suspicion as being the production of several pens. In the third place, 11 when we examine the alleged instances more closely," i. e. instances of linguistic peculiarities, 11 we everywhere discover a difference in the conception which is demanded by the sense and context of the individual passages, or else the peculiar words ascribed to the one author are really not unknown to the other, or they occnr in a few solitary places, and therefore are not entitled to be considered characteristic" ( vide Keil, 'Introduction,' vol. i. pp. 129-136, Clark's Foreign Theo- logical Library). .And, in the last place, with reference to the supposed ignorance of the term Jehovah in patriarchal times, it is now admitted by competent authorities that this cannot be successfully maintained, since in the records relating to those times it occurs not alone in the historian's account, but in language used by the patriarchs and others of the period ( vule Gen. xiv. 22 ; xv. 2 ; xvi. 2; xviii. 30 ; xx. 4 ; xxiv. 31, &c.), as well as by persons of the pre-patriarchal age (vide Gen. iv. 1; v. 29; ix. 26); since the way in which it is referred to by God himself in speaking to Moses, 11 my name," may be held as presupposing its previous revelation; and since the words in Exod. vi. 2 need not imply more than that now for the first time was the full significance of the name to be made known, that though the term was in use among the patriarchs, it was not understood by them as it was thenceforth to be revealed to their descend- ants, or even as they themselves had comprehended th.e other familiar appellation of the Deity, El-Sbaddai. Consequently it is impossible to allow that the theory of the composite structure of the Pentateuch has been made good. 2. THE ALLEGED UNHISTORICAL CHARACTER OF ITS CONTENTS. These are of such a nature, it is averred, relate so many miraculous occurrences, includo so many legend- ary and purely mythical compositions, perpetrate so many historical inaccuracie~, and commit so many geographical and other mistakes, that it is simply incredible tliat they can have been the work of Moses. Without dwelling on what appears to be here tacidy acknowledged, that if Moses could be proved the author of tho  '1'11Ii: AU'l'i-IORSHlP OF THE PENTATEUCH. V