The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 77

~ i. 27; the inf. absol. for emphasis, ii 16, 17; iii. 4., 16 ; xvi. 10; xxx, -c 1r; the suffix ix. 26, 27; the Divine name 7;,,;:i., xiv. 18-20, 22. But, without replying t-0 these so-called arguments seriatim, "it may be answered, as against the entire hypothesis, that it is-1. Unnec&sanJ, not being required for e. perfectly satisfactory elucidation of either the use of the Divine names, or the so-called contradictions, variations, and peculiarities that have been detected by the microscopic criticism to which the Book has been subjected (vid. the exposition of the text in the body of the work). 2. Unproved. (I) As to the existence of the documents,-though admitted to be probable, the use of such writings by the author of Genesis is at the best inferential and problematical. (2) As to t~e supposed eyidence in support of tl1ie conjecture,-jt ill i1np0Rsibl9 tq nppot,  'l'HE BOOK OF GENESIS. ., tion tho narrative into Elohistic and J chovistic sections, so that even Lhe former shall compose ono continuous narrative, without the expenditure of a vast amount of ingenuity, and the exercise of a high degree of arbitrarineas in fint disintegrating the body of the Book, and then recombining the piecca, with the assistance of sundry self-invented supplements-the so-called contradictions in event and legend existing solely in the imagination of the critic, not in the work of the author, and the alleged peculiarities in thought and diction of each document having parallels in the other, except in cases which admit of easy explanation. 3. Incomplete; that is to say, not accounting for all the facts of the case that require to be explained, as, e. g.-(1) The employment of the name Jehovah Elohim in ii. 4; iii. 24. (2) The omission in the fundamental or Elohistic document of sections that are indispensable not only to the continuity of the narrative, but to the right apprehension of its meaning, as, c. IJ., between ii. 3 and v. I, the incident of the Fall, thus rendering vL 9-13 an enigma; between v. 32 and vi. 9, the corruption of the human race, without which the Deluge remains inexplicable; between vi. 22 and vii. 11, the Divine com- munication which advertised Noah of the exact moment when the Flood should commence; between xvii. 27 and xix. 29, the story of the deatruction of the cities of the plain, which alone renders the laUer verse intelligible. (3) Allusions in the fundamental document to events and incidents recorded in the Supplementer, as, e. g., v. 3 to iv. 25 ; v. 29 to iii. 17 ; xviL 20 to xvi. 10 ; xix. 29 to :xiii. 10-13; xviii. 17-32, and xix. 1-25; xxi 9 to xvi. 5. If these difficulties are not sufficient in themselves to discredit the hypothesig of documents altogether, they are at least of weight enough to show that, whil~ the original conjecture of Vitringa may be true, the modern critical theory of an Elohistic ond a J ehovistic author of the Book of Genesis has not yet been placed beyond the region of debate. 2. Its authorship. Principally on the ground of certain traces of a later age (1. The formula "unto this day "-xix. 37, 38; x.xvL 33; x.xxii. 32; x.xx.v. 20; xlvii. 26. 2. Statements that~ seem to presuppose the occupation of the lanJ.- xii. 6; xiii. 7; xxxvi. 31; xl. 15. 3. The Palestinian standpoint of the writer -xii. 8; l. ll. 4. The explanation of ancient names of cities by the in trod uc- tion of names of a later origin-xiv. 2, 8, 7, 17; xxiii. 2 ; x.xxv. 19. 5. The mention of usages and customs that are alleged to belong to o. bter perioJ.- iv. 3, 4, 14; vii. 8; viii. 20; xvii. 26; xxiv. 22, 30; xxv. 22; xxxvii. 3, 23), the claims of Moses to be regatd.ed as the author of the Book of Genesis, am.I indeed of the Pentateuch generally, have since the Reformation been vigorously assailed. Prior to that profound theological and religious awakening, it is but fair to acknowledge that certain grave doubts had been expressed as to wheth6r the great Book of the Law should be attributed, either in whole or in part, to thu Hebrew lawgiver, Ptolemams, the Vo.lentinian, in the second century, ascribcll only a portion of the work to Moses; the Nazarenes, an ascetic sect spoken of by John Damo.scenus (' De Herresibus,' eh. xix.), rejected the entire compositioa ,-j lNTRODUCTION TO