seems to ha,ve been written rather about than by Moses" ("Videtur Pentateuchus potius de Mose quam a Mose eeriptus "), though doubtless it was based upon originals from his hand. About the beginning of the eighteenth century Vitringa, in his 'Observationes Sacrm,' propounded the view that Moses had employed sketches written by the patriarchs: "Schedas et ecrinia Patrum (or b1roµvf,µara Patriar- charum) o.pud Israelitas conservata Mosen opinamur, collegisse, digessisse, ornassc, et ubi deficiebant compilasse, et ex iis priorem librorum suorum confecisse." Plausible and probable as this conjecture was, it seems to have attracted little attention to the subject of the composition of the Book of Genesis beyond causing written sources to be assumed by one or two subsequent writers, such as Clericus and Richard Simon. In 1753 the well-known theory of two principal documents, an Elohistic and a J ehovistic, was broached by Astruc, a Pa1isian doctor and professor of medicine, who believed ten additional but smaller memoirs to have been also employed by Moses. A few years later (1780) substantially the same view was espoused and recommended to public favour by the German scholar Eichhorn. Jn the hands of Ilgen (1798) and his follower Hupfeld (1853) the two original or primary documents were subdivided into three, a first Elohist, a second Elohist, and a Jehovist, all of whicl1 were manipulated and pieced together by ~n editor or redactor. In 1815 Vater, and in 1818 •Hartmann, adopted the idea that the Pentateucb, and in particular Genesis, was composed of a number of disconnected fragments; but this was so obviously erroneous that in due time (1830) it was followecl by the supple- mentary hypothesis of De Yi[ette, Bleek, Stahelin, Tuch, Lengerke, Knobel, Bunsen, Delitzsch, and others, which recognised two documents, of which the older and the rrincipal, that of the Elohist, was a continuous narr-a.tive, extendin~ from th:e creation to the close of the conquest as recorded in the Book of Joshua; while the other, that of the Jehovist, was the work of a later writer, who made use of the eadier as the foundation of his composition. Th11 latest form of the theory is that of Ewald, who claims for the Great Book of Origins at least seven different authors (thus reducing the Pentateuch, 8.lj Keil observes, into atoms), and assigns 'the Book of Genesis, in its present state, to an author whom he designates as "the fourth or fifth nurrator of original history," who must have lived in the eighth century in the kingdom of Judah. The supposed basis of this hypothesis of supplements is-1. The alternate use of the Divine names Elohim and Jehovah: e. g. Gen. i. 1-ii. 3; v. l - 29a, 30-32; vi. 9-22; vii. 11-viii. 16a, 17-19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; x.; xi. 10-32; xii. 5, 6, Ba,- xiii.18; xvii.; xix. 29; ~xx. 1-17; xxi. 2-32; xxii. 1-13, 19-24; xxiii.; xxv. 1-20, 24--34; xxvi. 34, 35; xxvii. 46; xxviii. 1-12, 17-2la, 22; xxix.; xxx. 1-13, 17-24a; xxxi. 4-48, 50-64; xxxii .. 1--12,•14, 33; xxxiii.; xxxvi.; xxxvii. 2-36; xxxix. 6-20; xl.-1., are distinguished by the employment of the first of these Divine names, and o.re supposed to belong to the Elohistic document; while ii. 3-iv. 26; v, 29b; vi. 1-8; vii. 1-10, 16b; viii. 20-22; ix. i2 INTRODUCTION TO
18-27; xi. 1--9; xii. 1-4, 7, 8b, 9-20; xiii. 1-17; xiv.-xvi.; X'VtlL 1-rix. 28, 30--38; xx. 18; xxi. 1, 33, 34; xxii. 14-18; xxiv.; xxv. 21- 23 j :a:ri. 1--33; xxvii. 1-45; xxviii. 13-16, 21b; XXX. 14-16, 24b- 43; n:xi. 1-3, 19; xxxii. 13, 15-32 (t); xxxvii. 1 (i); xxxviii.; xxxix. 1--5, 21-23, -are constituent parts of the supplementary o'r Jehovistic docu- ment, being characterised by the use of that particular name for the Deity. 2. Contradictory accounts of the same event: ns, e. g., the narratives of (1) the Creation (cf. i., ii. 4-25); (2) the Flood (cf. vi. 9-22 with vii. 1-10, and in particular note the apparent discrepancy between the numbers of the animals to be ta.ken into the ark; (3) the boundaries of the promised land (cf. xv. 18 with Num. xxxiv. 1-12). 3. Variations in the same legend or story: as, e. g., (1) the Abrahamic covenant (cf. xv. with xvii., xviii.); (2) the taking of Sarah (cf. xii. 10-19 with u. 1 and xxvi. 1-11); (3) the story of Hagar and Ishmael (cf. xvi. 9-21 with xxi. 9-21); (4) the covenant with Abimelech (cf. ni. 22-34 with xxvi. 26-33); (5) the successive consecrations of Bethel (cf. rrviii. 18, 19; xxxv. 14, 15); (6) the story of Esau and his birthright (cf. xn. 27-33; i:xvii. 1-40). 4. Diversity of language and ~ideas in the two documents-the Elohist generally depicting the simple and inartificia.l manners of primeval times, and the Supplementer or J ehovist moving in a circle of ideas that belong to the era. of Mosaic laws and Levitica.l institutions. Cf. for Elohistic ideas, the longevity of the patriarchs, v. ; the consecration of pillars, xxviii. 18f; mv. 14/; the giving or setting up of a covenant, vi. 18; ix. 9, 11, instead of the cutting of a covenant, as in Exod. xxiv. 8; and for Elohistic words and phrases-" possession, property," xvii. 8; xlviii. 4 ; "kind, sort," i. 11, 12, 21, 24, 25; vi 20; vii. 14; "in the self-same day," vii. 13; xvii. 23; "the land of wanderings," xvii. 8; xxviii. 4 ;-for Jehovistie ideas, iv. 17-24 (the arts and handicrafts of civilisation); iii. 8-24; xviii. 1 (Theophanies); iv. 3, 4; viii. 20; xv. 9 (sacrificial worship); xii. 7; xiii. 4; xxi. 33 (the erection of altars); vii. 2, 8; viii. 20 (the distinction between clean and unclean animals); v. 29; iL 25-27 (the prophetic element); and Jehovistic words and phrases-~ ii. 7, instead of~ i. I; 'ir-1~ W"~ vii. 2, instead of ro;,:i:, I' TT I • : .~ T ••.: