aJditionnl orgumcnt may be derived from the internal unity of the I>entateuch and in porticular of the Book of Genesis. It is true that in one sense this i~ the very question in dispute, whether Genesis is th,3 work of one or more authors; but, as its (alleged) composite character is always paraded as o.n argu- ment for its non-Mosaic authorship, it seems both reasonable and fair to claim ony traces of internal unity which the writing may possess as supporting ihe opposite conclusion. Now one obvious mark of unity which belongs to Genesis is the exact chronological thread running through it from the begin- ning to the eud; and another is the interdependence of all its parts, of which no section of any length can be removed without introducing into the narrati\'o an inexplicable lacuna; while a third is the similarity of language which per- Yades it throughout, no one, as Keil observes, having been able clearly to establish a twofold usus loquendi in its pages. .And this being the case, it is only a legitimate inference that such internal unity is more likely to have been impressed upon it by the hand of Moses than by that of a late redact~ And, 6. in proof of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis there is the insufficiency of evidence in support of every other hypothesis.
§ 3. lTs METHOD AND PURPOSE. l. Its method. On this point, after what already has been written (vid. p. i ), a few words will suffice. The most cursory reader of the Book of Genesis cannot foil to discern that, so far from its being open to the charge of incoherency and want of arrangement which has beon brought against it by some of its less scrupulous assailants, it is all through constructed on a simple, perfectly intelligible, and well-sustained plan. After the initial section, in which the sublime programme of the Divine cosmogony is unfolded, it divides itself into ten successive books, in each of which the story of human history is ad-vanced a stagP, till the period of the first captivity is reached. While pc,ssessing to each other the very closest of relations as parts of the same con- nected composition, it is observable that these successive subdivisions have the appearance of being each in itself a complete piece or monograph on the subject to which it relates. The cause of this, however, is not that each has been a separate document prepared without relation to the others, possibly at a different time and by a different hand, as is so commonly suggested ; it rather seems attributable to the peculiar genius of Hebrew composition, which, being governed less by logic than by dramatic interest, advances more by sketching tableaux of events and scenes than by presenting a detailed narration of each historical incident exactly in its proper time and place. A remembrance of this will go far to account for the appearance of repetition and prolixity which in some part.'i the narrative exhibits. Then it is deserving of attention that, while treating of the fortunes of the hunian race, the record, almost instantly on starting, confines its regards, in ihe earlier portion, to one particular section (the line of Seth), and, in the later, to one particular family (the childrc>-n of Abraham, in THE BOOK OF GENESIS. ix
the line of Isaac and Jacob), and deals with the other branches of the hlll:lan family only in so far as they are needful to elucidate the story of the chosen seed. And still further it ie noticeable that, in the elaboration of his plan, tlrn author is always careful to keep the reader's eye fixed upon the special line whose fortunes he has set himself to trace, by dismissing at the outset of each section with a brief notice those collateral branches, that nothing may afterward,, arise to divide the interest with the holy seed, and the narrative may flow on uninterruptedly in the recital of their story. "The materials of the history," writes Keil, "are arranged and distributed according to the law of Divine selec- tion ; the families which branched off from the main line are noticed first of all; and when they have been removed from the general scope of the history, the course of the main line is more elaborately described, and the history itself is carried forward. According to this plan, which is strictly adhered to, the history of Cain and his family precedes that of Seth and his posterity ; the genealogies of J aphet and Ham stand before that of Shem ; the histories of Ishmael and Esau before those of Isaac and Jacob; and the death of Terah before the call and migration of Abraham to Canaan ; " and "in this regularity of composition," he further adds, "the Book of Genesis may be clearly seen to be the careful production of one single author, who looked at the historical development of the human race in the light of Divine revelation, and thus exhibited it as a complete and well-arranged introduction to the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God." d 2. Its purpose. Consideration of the plan naturally leads to an examina- tion of the purpose of the Book. And here it is at once obvious that Genesis was not designed to be a universal history of mankind. But just as little was it written (by a post-Mosaic author) with the special view of glorify- ing Judaism by tracing back the roots of its institutions to a hoary antiquity. It had indeed an aim which may be said to have been J ewisb, but it bad also a design which was cosmopolitan. As an integral part of the Pentateuch, it was intended to unfold the necessity and nature of the new economy which was about to be established; to show how the theocratic institutions of salvation had been rendered indispensable in consequence of the fall and the entire corruption of the race so signally punished by the Deluge, and again so strikingly displayed by the tower-builders of Babel; and to make it clear that they were not a new departure on the part of God in his efforts at redemption, but only a further development of the line he had pursuocl from the beginning. As the opening volume of revelation in which the history of salvation was to be recorded, it was designed to exhibit the primeval condition of the human race, wiLh its melancholy lapse into sin which first of all rendered salvation necessary, and to disclose the initial movements of that Divine grace which ever since had been working for man's restoration, and of which the theocracy in Israel was only a specific manifestaUon. Thus while the Book of Genesis could not fail to be vossesscd of unrlying interest to every mell)bC'r of the Hebrew Chmch a:qq s: INTRODUCTION TO