‘ceded ses . Naocoec “ip ’ es a Petite ern refrain, : Rael minim Lge + fintmaram mms eee Te PND ol lea” tosh oe al eter ip deem ee ee Mirahakilirenee a _ eed NaN ade Boot eee ae Stuy 2? iinrdiaunicee ee tern sa ¥ - F NN Retinal IR. BuP tren hee <4 a3 — ~ wth + - - a indie eiricieeteana ee . / ~ Leal idee EE ee me rh napliicinin Ge 2 toca Nin We nla Yo thot pe) ena ta, * ~ . Pm ya ang atin Me Bey : r-less claritin toms ae ee ets irl aT, 4 “ 5 “ ‘ Uh lll atid ‘ct mile amok ae ae in ‘4 Sedbtintibtemiecanpe on eee Se, ‘a ts - ie Me He PT ae Preis . eI PI ark Piha fe mae, a bo : Prog m pals Pte See te ese ersrotala ellen ce rath ers: nthe amieck arc el oa eal A alin cm, _ 7 4 eter saree murine drage ie Goa poe en erin Deaege . > on rin Naten Se Tta Ry reste a tml PA AR Rate ta Pane ia oi eee tanec Re ee nt Settee = ice Dae ie ne = Teast ar ee Te Vitrmam - ” anbaliirvihedk. methane s piled rte Lieaterie n mn é A ream chads ee ne busied bintiyehincsandidins haa eg ee ae Pa oft Bed - . “ ipwtnd pubbadhede oe taal aioe iediondl ase i : ; aie SEL ite eaten rat men < lietetapeiateeg arden pte ee a ‘ / > dations . tees SN rey ls a Me Fini are, nlinaeeterae ee pcireiietina ie ee - : iin Bhisindin Gees eo Ree thtetinartinartemne area oa ee cee en nance aen —, ete ticteiitindandtctine oe a en - ietedinakateteir setae ee Pann NP a pictindnhedentdcaetnaietat ae aa eee Rinmacment acti I GT Money Pee Meg hi iadieadinics ae TE a i dliedininaiiedind ieee nee BE Pie ae Te Tee ete nea! . Atanas Ra thoy esa Snake Bertie te thet Riebeisnioene ee khtii-i athlete ancora TES aw Nem IS STS ei eatin aa Rat | See time Medians * ? Fe oD al til mtr Pi alii dies or Sebi of nites 7 Se eee eve Fe Re het abit Wtiothin te RoR: pont, tial edad te ceo a ee te a ORE ee ag atte ine - ho igmppyiegecdie nt dumbass th Saleh nore Seibel Geet eae P= he-bckpomrarcag ane ee ith tira, a i y ; “% Pee i ac i he th stkinetinethathhae? sahiodis cae tet ee oe eihetipichadhoihent ino nk ana then hop teenie te (mn, * meth nalacteciithia betcha ee ~~ ete tortor ineerennae eaonebarar ae Bar mele ee ee i eee tee” . it ee ee slits htieiabaaehsaeeitnteae ee aren ee Sellinet, tik anna stirs dined tea > iabdlipdtedic eee eae eat tet grind alba te ee bth pian ee bathed op rs i pial cha toy eae ithe eae dtintiethent thie a tae eet a ase Ratna Aes par gitar peaeom resist pares! eomlpetented ne pene ape ets erin Reins Meee rd tebe Eelinctac Medinet oo eden e~teatynibnietbctehiied+ patios petlisicatdae Metrene se he tte Sethe dine Pn Fi tenn Seis bee ee ievhinbedietipionbea tea ee ee - piapsih- diel Ipediome e titi ageerieiaticaemibne ct Ma ae Big shuieebicinamibeaiek. Cartons tee ‘eo alent on Se en Mh ete MMi hes ee pdidsalaiciedion pepe teege naee eee: belli ti itdivedoa dl ieee ee a Metal iNag! Yr igtny oat, te o- obi ea teeth enh ee Borst Sts ee Sentient deen peplictetinere ae “ ae he eben Nn Rhy earnest ALE Lvl Riedie Snelioctaeeaie ee ee ie ni en eee Renee she Sta a arte imac Bh aa Pan mee ee hg ae Fee! Sellinet il ok na at tee _ On ety me Criteria ent tet eee SAetenhvth-semielnid ah astiec ieee pte > / : BS Math hans Ma eOrshaspceietaoemrrhete tertile te idgdBeii Realyndanes ta ae te AIM eo SR Maer athe naa Ptig rire 4 eke Nahr ny a Reantitet ie MyM M-Net one pleiintaed ine ee ee “ee ag en in i hey Non a No Tea cna $e 2g ti ienlhr= for ipl nhc te neriarndn-ah ask emg Gea et higiiodeiisateda nai ee ee Le aA ey oe Fa S pietintinhy tetanic ae Sietiedicdic elie Vesac beh eee ee Riatiiedlid acide eee : FA Re en tte eGR SR ee satin My aoe Thaw een Neyhg ea the Mt ath kite rs x tacArrapditicere oe Eee i eloiie ae eae nym, ~ oy J se lentiettn adiedircieiBeach bei stiviieths etartininatin-aiedh. aedintiecaadeee ee - Sell anit allah ett at oy, pl=heythtintn ew eee “ * So I eet a cetera, tom as a SR Nar eag a hhades ntti oor ee ee Weacienibeks, despre ho tee Tagen Bn, Pree Ma Went og! setnBipticanaetanc eee PAP RP reheat Ma How Pha "hn MiP sha nerm om omens Sal wh Pel oy aw Ng an eg Bede igatintialenthn tl tan eco craetete ae ae pulietk tininth sie ierie an ge ae a Mae Pat NSA My Maa Te rey es 5 lean ce eine eee inthipattindieteens are tease, Pt eerie eek ae ee by lie altieedheeth ane Lee ee eae bcd ee ee Ts Perna etm ow a nad ait hatta ef, oy testis oti sn Ma adi sre Tag Pen hy liptiAdtnindieltediete cartier iene a Fiennes S e t +-titiipegh Aeitaad Bethe ee e Maal Ma whe etn Bie Pe ne tt pa ae aya et ig Siew ta + My MaB eRe haat. Seg hates at er Sy ieee in median beth nek oe ronnie ni adbeiie deal ee Famer, beslieetaeninar eee . ns en MT bhai iciaeea mea! a a, ae refs” < : pibciu-tiberagchieis ee Ciel se ca ar ie oth WOO ab earirameneget S Ne ino rite a - tet elon erin Bere es rae ne = hit ane Scthicipdieetaetione a ee j apietndntah uc iundeaen tone eee Wicdinbet Libba ee Peni ie ern eel thergen clita IMs . int teenie cae tate Se ee ee bvMatiaiberat ani Rieter sera s 5 = ™ 7. iteiienie’ ta ake ee ee + int aeretyy ite Ne pte ie eivintesdings Gene *- Tr er ee a ria ? " a a — eared a, a oh et gett a ya, Michie eee iain lanpaieiiiin es | ; Do Ey ee é | A , yt ’ if y va aR Mos pats 7h heey tii u A ae Ne ON! em aL wha NA in a f ae 1 4) aha or i 1 pak + ih 2 t it Way ri Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/bookofgenesiswit0Ounse THE BOOK OF GENESIS WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY S. R. DRIVER, D.D. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD, HON, D.LITT. CAMBRIDGE AND DUBLIN, HON. D.D. GLASGOW AND ABERDEEN, EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LATE BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL, FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY, NINTH EDITION 442 he ts METHUEN & CO. LTD. 36 ESSEX STREET W.C. LONDON First Published . Second Edition . Third Edition . Fourth Edition . Fifth Edition « Sixth Edition Seventh Edition .« Eighth and Revised Edition Ninth Edition . january March October May Sept. March August . January 1918 April 1904 1904 1904 1905 1906 1907 Ig09 I9IZ PREFATORY NOTE BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. HE primary object of these Commentaries is to be exe- getical, to interpret the meaning of each book of the Bible in the light of modern knowledge to English readers. The Editors will not deal, except subordinately, with questions of textual criticism or philology ; but taking the English text in the Revised Version as their basis, they will aim at com- bining a hearty acceptance of critical principles with loyalty to the Catholic Faith. The series will be less elementary than the Cambridge Bible for Schools, less critical than the International Critical Com- mentary, less didactic than the Expositor’s Bible; and it is hoped that it may be of use both to theological students and to the clergy, as well as to the growing number of educated laymen and laywomen who wish to read the Bible intelligently and reverently. Each commentary will therefore have (i) An Introduction stating the bearing of modern criticism and research upon the historical character of the book, and drawing out the contribution which the book, as a whole, makes to the body of religious truth. (ii) A careful paraphrase of the text with notes on the more difficult passages and, if need be, excursuses on any points of special importance either for doctrine, or ecclesiastical or- ganization, or spiritual life. But the books of the Bible are so varied in character that considerable latitude is needed, as to the proportion which the VI NOTE various parts should hold to each other. The General Editor will therefore only endeavour to secure a general uniformity in scope and character: but the exact method adopted in each case and the final responsibility for the statements made will rest with the individual contributors. By permission of the Delegates of the Oxford University Press and of the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press the Text used in this Series of Commentaries is the Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. HIS Commentary will be found to differ in some respects from the previous volumes of the series, but the differences are of a kind which arise necessarily from the subject-matter of the book. 3 Greater attention is paid to matters of archeology, ancient history, and modern science, especially in estimating the histo- rical and scientific value of the earlier chapters of the book; and more notice has been taken of literary criticism and of the analysis of the sources out of which the book has been composed. Both of these points have been found necessary; for the Book of Genesis touches science, archeology, and history at more points than any other book of the Old Testament, and it is essential that in a Commentary for educated readers these points should be freely illustrated and discussed. Much study has also been bestowed during recent years on the literary analysis of the book, and many conclusions have been reached which have commended themselves to a large number of scholars, and these it would be unfair to withhold from the general reader. There is too another reason why a fuller treatment of such subjects has been found necessary in the present volume than, for instance, in the Commentary on Job. That book also touches many points of science, but they are there presented in a form obviously poetical; here the form is apparently that of sober NOTE VII history, and the book has often been treated as though it were a manual of scientific fact and of exact history. But, as such, it must be submitted to the ordinary tests which apply to scientific and historical knowledge. That must be the first step in the interests of truth and in the reverent attempt to define Inspiration, whatever considerations we may feel have afterwards to be added to supplement it. The scientific student is therefore free to say, or rather bound to Say, at times, in the light of modern knowledge, “This is not science, its value must be found elsewhere”; and the historical student is free to say, or rather is bound to say, “This is pre-historic; this has not adequate contemporary support; if I found it in another litera- ture, I should not venture to build upon this as ascertained fact ; the value of the book must be found elsewhere.” Such a frank discussion will be found in this Commentary. There will also be found a very strong insistence on the evidence which the moral and spiritual tone of the book offers of its Inspiration. These are the two surest starting-points. There are other points that lie beyond. Thus, while the editor of this Com- mentary has urged various historical arguments (pp. xliii. ff, Ivii.) in support of the general trustworthiness of the patriarchal narratives, many readers may feel that one or all of the following considerations strengthen his position. (1) The extra- ordinary truthfulness to human nature and to Oriental life creates an impression in favour of such trustworthiness; (2) the consistency of this book with the subsequent history and re- ligious thought of later Judaism helps to confirm this impression ; (3) the fact of Inspiration, once admitted on the higher level of moral and spiritual tone, may well carry its influence over into details of fact, and turn the balance, when otherwise uncertain, on the side of trustworthiness. For the truest historian is not the accumulator of the largest number of ascertained facts, but the best interpreter of the spirit of the age which he describes, he who is best able to pick out the thread of purpose in the tangle of details. In other words, the ultimate decision on the value of the book has to be based on its context, and on its connexion with the whole of Holy Scripture. Vill NOTE These, however, are considerations which will appeal differ- ently to different minds: the first steps necessary are a careful test of the book by the ordinary canons of scientific and historical investigation, and a tracing of the clear marks of a higher spirit in its religious tendency. It is because both of these steps are taken so steadily and securely here, that I feel that this Commentary will meet a very real need of the present day. WALTER LOCK. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. HE present Commentary is an expansion of lectures which I have given for some years past to students reading for the School of Theology at Oxford. Its aim is firstly to explain the text of Genesis, and secondly to acquaint readers with the position which, in accordance with our present knowledge, the Book holds, from both a historical and a religious point of view. The most recent English Commentary upon Genesis, of any considerable size, appeared in 1882; and since then many dis- coveries have been made which have a bearing upon the Book, much fresh light has been thrown upon it, and new points of view have been gained, from which, if its contents and the place taken by it in the history of revelation are to be rightly under- stood, it must be judged. It has been my endeavour, while eschewing theories and speculations, which, however brilliant, seem to rest upon no sufficient foundation, to place the reader, as far as was practicable, in possession of such facts as really throw light upon Genesis, and in cases where, from the nature of the question to be solved, certainty was unattainable, to enable him to form an estimate of the probabilities for himself. In the explanation of the text, while I have not been able entirely to avoid the use of Hebrew words, and of technical expressions belonging to Hebrew grammar, I have endeavoured so to express myself that the reader who is unacquainted with Hebrew may nevertheless be able to follow the reasoning, and to understand, for instance, why one rendering or reading is preferable to another. The margins of the Revised Version— D. a ».¢ PREFACE where they do not merely repeat the discarded renderings of the Authorized Version—very frequently contain renderings (or readings) superior to those adopted in the text: hence they always deserve careful attention on the part of the reader ; and though the instances in which this is the case are not so numerous in Genesis as in some of the poetical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, I have made a point, where they occur, of indicating them in the notes. Hebraists are, moreover, well aware that, superior as the Revised Version is to the Authorized Version in both clearness and accuracy, it does not always, either in the text or on the margin, express the sense of the original as exactly as is desirable; and I have naturally, in such cases, given the more correct renderings in the notes. The field of knowledge with which, at one point or another, the Book of Genesis comes in contact is large; archeology, ancient history and geography, modern travel and exploration, for instance, all in their turn supply something more or less substantial to its elucidation. Naturally, where the subjects are so varied and wide, and the period concerned so remote from that at which we at present live, points of interest or difficulty occur, which I should have been glad to explain or discuss more fully than my limits of space permitted me to do, and on which therefore I have been obliged to content myself with brief statements of fact or probability, as the case might be!; I have, however, in such cases nearly always added references to some standard work in which the reader will find further information or discussion. I have found Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and the Encyclopedia Biblica particularly useful for this purpose; but naturally other works have often been referred to as well. I have in some cases multiplied references in the hope that readers who might not have access to one book that was mentioned might be able, if they desired it, to refer to another. 1 See, for instance, many of the notes on ch. x, PREFACE XI The critical and historical view of the Book of Genesis—which extended to Scripture generally, appears to me to be the only basis upon which the progressive revelation contained in the Bible can be properly apprehended}, and the spiritual authority of the Bible ultimately maintained—has been assumed through- out: but a minute discussion of critica] questions has not seemed to me to be necessary ; and I have confined myself as a rule to brief statements of the general or principal grounds upon which the more important of the conclusions adopted rest. There are of course some points, on which—the data them- selves being ambiguous, or slight—divergent conclusions may be, and have been, drawn: in such cases I can only say that I have endeavoured to decide as well as my knowledge and judgement permitted me. The Commentaries in the present series are not intended to be homiletic or devotional; but I have always endeavoured, as occasion offered, to point out the main religious lessons which the Book of Genesis contains, and the position taken by it in the history of revelation. There are parts of the Book in which, judged by the canons of historical method, it must be evident that we are treading upon uncertain ground: but that in no degree detracts from the spiritual value of its contents ; and the presence in the writers of the purifying and illuminating Spirit of God must be manifest throughout. In view of the many problems which, to modern readers, the Book of Genesis suggests, it will be a satisfaction to me if I may have succeeded in making my volume a contribution, however slight, to that adjustment of theology to the new knowledge of the past, which has been called a ‘crying need’ of the times2 Among the Commentaries upon Genesis which I have con- sulted, I feel bound to record my special indebtedness to that ’ Compare the paper read by the Bishop of Winchester at the Bristol Church Congress, 1903 (Guardian, Oct. 21, 1903, p. 1590). * The Guardian, Dec. 19, 1900, p. 1784, XII PREFACE of August Dillmann, an admirable scholar, whose writings were always distinguished by learning, ability, and judgement. It has been translated into English; but it can hardly be said to be well adapted to the ordinary English reader, as it contains much technical matter, which, though interesting and valuable to special students, is superfinous for the general reader, while, on the other hand, it does not always contain the kind of ‘nformation which an English reader would expect to find in a Commentary. I have only, in conclusion, to acknowledge my obligations to the Warden of Keble College, the editor of the ' geries, who has taken much trouble in reading all the sheets, and who has on many occasions given me the benefit of his judgement, and offered suggestions to which I have very grate- fully given effect. §..R. D. Curist CourcH, OXFORD, October 6, 1903. PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. THE present edition does not differ in any substantial respect from the preceding ones: I have only been obliged to make some small alterations, due to the advance of knowledge, in certain matters relating to chronology and archaeology. In consequence of the discovery in 1907 of a cuneiform chronicle shewing that the Second Babylonian dynasty was in part con- temporary with the First (see the note in the Addenda on p. 156), the date of the First dynasty, and with it that of its sixth king, Hammurabi, have had to be lowered; and I have now, throughout the volume, altered the date of Hammurabi to B.C. 2130—2088. For the reasons stated partly on p. xxix 2, and partly in the note on this page in the Addenda, I am also now persuaded that the astronomer Mahler’s date for Ramses II, B.C. 1348—1281, which has been adopted by Professor Sayce, rests upon mistaken data, and that he must be placed c. 1300—1234 B.c.: the probable date of the Exodus becomes thus c. 1230 B.c. I have moreover revised the Chronological Table (opposite p. 1 of the Introduction), in accordance with the latest and best authorities; and I have added two notes in the Addenda (on p. xxxiii, and p. 156 respectively), which I hope may help readers to understand the difficulties of early Egyptian and Babylonian chronology, and explain to them the reasons for the differences between the dates that have been proposed for the early periods of Egyptian and Babylonian history. I have also made some other additions to the Addenda. Apart from the standing correction in the date of Hammurabi, the other principal changes in the body of the work will be found on pp. xxix, xxx, ll. 5—9, xxxiii, xlviii last line, and xlix, Il. 1—3 XIV PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION and 2. 2 (correction of the error in the supposed early occur- rence of the name Abé-ramu), 34 . 2, 52. 5, 90, 128 (note on x. 22), 137 with n. 3 (the site of fi-sagil), 156, 229 (the date of Ramses IJ), 347 (the date of Ramses II, and of the Hyksos). Except in two or three strongly conservative quarters, in which the need of adjusting some of the current views regarding the Old Testament to the enlarged knowledge of modern times has not yet made itself felt, the Commentary, in the five and a half years that have elapsed since it first appeared, has been most favourably received ; and the appre- ciation elicited by it has been to me a gratifying indication that the line taken in it is a sound one, and that my endeavour to present the Book of Genesis as it ought to be read in modern light has not been altogether in vain. S. R. D. June 24, 1909. CONTENTS. DOMURMDAT faa the), PORMO eure. Kane @ PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED . . Nore ON THE CHRONOLOGY . . e« «¢ PR ROROLOGICATN: DABLB )) igh Annan euliulle s/c des INTRODUCTION . : 2 : g f . § 1. Structure of the Book of Genesis, and Characteristics of its component parts § 2. The Chronology of Genesis A ihalaes § 3. The Historical Value of the Book of Genesis : a. The prehistoric period (chaps. L—xL) .« b. The patriarchal period (chaps. xm.—L.) § 4, The Religious Value of the Book of Genesis . TEXT AND COMMENTARY .. ea ApprrionaAL Notes . . . . : The Cosmogony of Genesis . ‘ ‘ The Sabbath : , ee On the narrative 11. 4°—IlL 24 . . . The site of Paradise . ase a : ‘ The Chernbim'-\ .)') veltea es : On chap. Iv... REN 9 OR : On Enoch . . RS. 2) Re ee On the figures in chap. Vv. . e On the Names in chaps. Iv. and v., aNd their possible Bebyonian OVIGID I ae : The Historical Character of the Dauge 4 Noah’s judgement on his three sons... Nimrod and Babylon . . «© « « The Tower of Babel . = 2 8 8 122 136 XVI CONTENTS Ur and the Hebrews . paieu: , “ . es On Melchizedek . : i 4 < The Vale of Siddim and the Dead Sea. The probe site of the Cities of the Kikkar. ; The Historical Character of the narrative contains in Gen xIV. The Angel of Jehovah ; ‘ Whe Ny hes Fe (Be Circumcision. .. ‘ ° ° ‘a The Lec Rl! of the ‘Cities of ns Kikkar ‘ : \ ‘ Lot ° . ° ° ° e . ° The Sacrifice of fear a ‘ 4 “ ° . . 3 The Cave of Machpelah . i Se aN tie octane atic The ‘Hittites’ in Hebron . : * ° . ° ° : The Ishmaelite Tribes . ‘ A “ : ‘ ° , : Stone-worship : ° ° ‘ ° ° ° ° . ; Gilead and Laban d ° 4 : 3 . 5 > Jacob’s struggle at Penuel . : : : . On the sites of Mizpah, Mahanaim, Pe nnel and Buoroth The narrative of Jacob's dealings at Shechem (chap. xxxIv.). Famines in Egypt. The date of Joseph . : GBA AY ‘ Land-tenure in Egypt . : ~ ; : ° eine ant te The Character of Joseph) =. 5 ete eS . Excursus I. The Names of God in Genesis . . . . Exoursus I]. On Gen. xurx. 10 (‘Until Shiloh come’) , INDEX e ° 6 a “ ® ® s 8 om 2 ° 228 228 243 290 300 306 347 374 400 402 410 416 ADDENDA. P. xxviii. The attempt which is sometimes made to harmonize the Biblical narrative with an earlier date for the first appearance of man than B.c. 4157, by denying that the genealogy in Gen. v. supplies any basis for a chronology, does patent violence to the terms used. Had indeed the language of Gen. v. been simply that A begat B, and B begat C, &c., it might have been conceiv- able, as in Mt.i., that links were omitted: but when the age of each patriarch at the birth of his first-born is expressly stated, such a supposition is mani- festly out of the question. P. xxixn. The date c. 1300—1234 for Ramses II is supported by the fact that, if Thothmes III is rightly assigned to B.c. 1501—1447, the known regnal years of the intervening kings require an interval of at least 26+8+36+25+ 344+2+21=152 years between them (Breasted, Hist. of Egypt, 1906, p. 599). P, xxxiii. Egyptian chronology rests upon four principal bases: (1) the list of 31 dynasties, with the numbers, and, in most cases, the names of the kings in each, and the years which they reigned, drawn up by Manetho, a priest of Sebennytus, c. 280 B.c. The Egyptian history of Manetho has perished: but his list is quoted by Africanus, Eusebius, and (in part) by Josephus. (2) Native lists,—all either partial, or, unhappily, mutilated,—the principal of which are the Turin papyrus, the Tablets of Abydos, Sakkara, and Karnak, and the Palermo Stone, first published in 19061. (3) The highest years of kings mentioned in the inscriptions. These notices are naturally not of a character to yield a complete chronology: but they yield minimum dates for the reigns of many kings, and often supply us with the means of checking or correcting other statements. (4) Astronomical occurrences assigned in the inscriptions to the reigns of particular kings, the dates of which can be determined by astronomical calculation. The Egyptian calendar year con- sisted of 365 days; and began on 1 Thoth (properly, our July 19), the day on which the dog-star, Sirius or Sothis, rose with the sun in the morning. But the year thus annually marked by the rising of Sothis with the sun is virtually 1 See a synopsis of Manetho’s list, as quoted by different ancient writers, and of the first three of the native lists mentioned, in Sayce’s Egypt of the Hebrews (71902), pp. 287 ff. The Palermo Stone dates from the 5th dynasty, and is of importance as shewing how carefully, even at this early date, the annals of every king had been kept, probably from the time of Menes. For an account, and trans- lation, of the inscription, see Breasted’s Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906), i, ol @. XVIII ADDENDA identical with the astronomical year of (approximately) 3653 days: hence in the Egyptian calendar year a quarter of a day was dropped every year; every four years, therefore, the calendar reached the end of the year, and began the next year, one day too soon, so that the new year began a day before the one on which Sirius rose with the sun; and as this process continued, the calendar new year, and with it the calendar months of the Egyptian year, all began earlier and earlier, till after 1460 years they had shifted back an entire year, and all began a year too soon. The rising of Sothis with the sun co- incided with 1 Thoth, the calendar New Year's Day, in B. 4241 /0—4238/7, 2781/0—2778/7, 1321/0—1318/7: if, therefore, we found a statement that the ‘heliacal’ rising of Sothis took place in a given year (say) 30 days later than 1 Thoth, we should know, in virtue of what has been said, that that year was 30 x 4=120 years after one of these dates 8.0. From the 18th dynasty onwards there is little difference in the dates arrived at by different modern Egyptologists, two fixed points, consistent with each other, being capable of determination by astronomical calculation’. (1) A papyrus states that in the 9th year of Amen-hdétep I, the 2nd king of this dynasty, Sothis rose with the sun on the 9th of Epiphi, i.e. 308 days after 1 Thoth: 4x 308—1232; the 9th year of Amen-hdétep I was thus 1232 years after 2781/0—2778/7, or (taking the earliest of these alternatives) was 1549 B.¢., and his first year was 1557 B.c. (2) Ina document dating from the reign of Thothmes III, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sirius is said to have taken place on the 28th of Epiphi, i.e. 19 days later than in 1550/49—1547/6. As 4x 19="6, the year referred to will have been 76 years later than 1550/49— 1547/6, or 1474/3—1471/0. One of the years 1474/3—1471/0 fell consequently during the reign of Thothmes III, which by means of notices respecting the appearance of the new moon is fixed more closely to B.c. 1501—1447. This date for Thothmes III will make the 18th dynasty begin c. 1587 B.c. Manetho’s reporters give confused and discrepant accounts of the state- ments respecting the five dynasties preceding the 18th: but according to Josephus he stated that for 511 years before the 18th dynasty, Egypt was ruled by the foreign invaders called the Hyksos: these (Petrie*) were partly contemporary with native Egyptian dynasties, and they were preceded by the 453 years of the 13th dynasty: thus Petrie makes the 12th dynasty end B.0, 2565, and (adding the 213 years assigned to it by the Turin papyrus) begin B.0. 2778. But a document (one of the Kahun papyri) discovered in 1899 contains a statement that in the 7th year of Usertesen® III of this dynasty, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sothis fell on the 15th of Phar- muthi, or 225 days after 1 Thoth: 4x225=900; the 7th year of Usertesen was consequently 900 years after B.c. 2781/0—2778/7, or B.c. 1881; his first year was thus 1887 B.c.; and the dynasty ruled (adding, before and after Usertesen, the regnal years known) B.c. 2000—1788. It follows from this 1 Comp., with what follows on this subject, Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, i. 25—48 (with a table of dynasties, and dates of reigns), 221—3. 2 History of Egypt, i5 (1903), p. 204 f. 3 Or, as the name is now read (Meyer, p. 245), Senwosret (the prototype of ‘ Sesostris ’). ADDENDA XIX lower date for the 12th dynasty, that, if it be correet, Manetho’s 511 years for the Hyksos must be far too great; accordingly those who accept it allow for the whole of the 13tb to the 17th dynasties only about 200 years (B.0. 1788 —1580), and for the Hyksos only ¢. 1680—1580. Such is the explanation of the great divergence between Petrie on the one hand, and Meyer and Breasted on the other, as regards the date of the 12th dynasty. The cogency of the astronomical argument is admitted by Petrie: the correctness of the Sirius datum in the 12th dynasty is, he points out, confirmed by two independent testimonies from monuments in Sinai (Researches in Sinai, 1906, pp. 168—170): but Meyer and Breasted’s reduction of the length of the 13th to the 17th dynasties, he argues, does great violence to the combined testimony of Manetho and the Turin papyrus, Manetho assigning to this whole period 1590 years, and the Turin papyrus so far sup- porting him that it gives the names of 100 or more kings belonging to the 13th and 14th dynasties (ibid. 171—6). Petrie accordingly now (p. 175) has recourse to the other possible alternative of reckoning Usertesen’s 7th year as 900 years, not from the Sothic period which began 2781 B.c., but from the previous Sothic period which began (see above) 4241 B.c. He thus gives now (Z.c.) as the date of the 12th dynasty B.c. 3459—3246, and as the date of Menes B.c. 5510. Against such a high date Meyer and Breasted argue that Manetho’s figures are not trustworthy. The sixty kings of the 13th dynasty had only short reigns, the early Hyksos were partly contemporary even with the 13th dynasty, and the sparsity of monuments belonging to the 13th —17th dynasties is unfavourable to the supposition that the period was such along one (see Meyer, Aeg. Chron. 60—65, Nachtrdge, 31—39, Gesch. d. Alt? I. ii, 276—286, 293). The future must shew which of these three divergent chronologies will ultimately be found to accord best with the available data. For the purposes of the present note, it is not necessary to pursue the subject of Egyptian Chronology further: those who desire fuller information may be referred to Petrie, Hist. of Egypt, i.° (1903), 145—7, 200—5 (on the Hyksos period), 248—254 (the date of Merenptah, p. 251, modified in iii. p. 2), ii. 25—34 (for p. 32, comp. Meyer, Nachtrdge, p. 43f.; and on the other side, Petrie, Sinai, pp. 177—181), iii. pp. vi—viii; Budge, Hist. of Hg. (1902), i. 111—161; Ed. Meyer’s masterly treatise Aegyptische Chronologie in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1904, with the Nachtrdge, ibid., 1907 ; Breasted’s invaluable Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents from the earliest times to the Persian conquest, collected, edited, and translated with Commentary (5 vols.; Chicago, 1906), i. 25—48, 221—3; Petrie, Re- searches in Sinai (1906), pp. 163—181; Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums’, I. ii. (1909), pp. 28—38, cf. 583—-56, 95—102, 276—286, 293; more briefly, Breasted, Hist. of Egypt (1906), pp. 13 f., 21—23, with Table of Dynasties, pp. 597 ff. Pp. xlii m. 2, 24 m. 2 (second paragraph). I rejoice to see substantially the same criticisms made independently by the Rev. G. 8S. Streatfeild on pp. 15—17 of his pamphlet cited below (p. Ixvili). P, xlix, On the supposed occurrence of the name Yaheceh in Babylonian, see the recent discussions of Rogers in his Relig. of Bab. and Ass., especially in its relations to Israel (New York, 1908), pp. 89 ff, and of Langdon in the XX ADDENDA Ewpositor, Aug. 1910, p. 137f, both of whom agree that it does so occur. Assyriologists are not, however, agreed that it is read rightly in all the passages that have been alleged : see further below,-p. XLII. P. xlix n. 2. It is interesting to find, in the list of places in Palestine taken by Shishak (c. B.c. 930), one (No. 71—2), which is considered now by Egyptologists to correspond to a Semitic DIAN bpn, ‘ Field of Abram’ (Adékal being an Aramaic word, the one found in ‘ Akel-dama’= S103 2pn, and also occurring eight times besides in the same list): see Breasted, in Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang. xxi. (1904), p. 36, Hist. of Eg., p. 530; and ef. Spiegelberg, Aegypt. Randglossen zum AT., 1904, p. 14, and Meyer, Die Israeliten und thre Nachbarstdmme, 1906, p. 266. If the critical view of the dates of the Pentateuchal sources is correct, this will be the earliest occurrence of the name Abram: the site of ‘Abram’s Field,’ it may be reasonably presumed, was at or near Hebron (cf. below, on xiii. 18). Pp. xlix—liii. See further, on the true bearings of archaeology on the O.T., the excellent and lucid article of Stanley A. Cook in the Lapositor, June, 1906, esp. pp. 529 ff., 534 ff., where it is shewn, among other things, that the idea, still current in some quarters, that archaeology has overthrown many of the conclusions of literary and historical criticism, is based simply upon a misconception of the facts. Similarly, Prof. A. §. Peake, in an instructive and discriminating lecture on ‘The Present Movement of Biblical Science’ (published in Inaugural Lectures by Members of the Faculty of Theology of Manchester University, 1905, edited by A. 8. Peake), p. 31, after referring to the many services rendered to Biblical science by archaeology, says, ‘ But while archaeology has done all this, it remains true that, so far as Old Testament scholarship is concerned, it has not confirmed a single position doubted by sober criticism’ To the same effect, also, with many pertinent — illustrations, Prof. W. H. Bennett, in an article on ‘Archaeology and Criticism’ in the Contemporary Review for April, 1906, pp. 518 ff. P. li. Whether the Egyptian name quoted really contains the name ‘Joseph, experts appear to be more and more doubtful (Spiegelberg, Rand- glossen, p.13 n.; cf. Meyer, op. cvt. p. 292): W. M. Miller now adopts as its Semitic equivalent Yashub-el (see Journ. of Bibl. Lit. 1909, p. 31; and cf. EncB. ii. 2582, n. 1 end). P. lvi, footnote. Readers of the Dean of Canterbury’s Zhe Bible and Modern Investigation, should be aware that Dillmann’s views are seriously misrepresented in it. The Dean, namely, seeks to shew there (pp. 30—47) that Dillmann, the man of ‘strong sense and historical capacity’ (p. 33), arrived at far more conservative conclusions with regard to the historical character of the Pentateuch than Prof. G. A. Smith and myself had done. But the Dean has misread Dillmann. So far as Genesis is concerned, Dillmann does not ‘accept the historical truth’ of the patriarchal narratives (p. 42), in the sense in which any ordinary reader would understand the expression. It is true, he argues against the opinion that these narratives rest upon vo foundation in fact; but the historical substratum which he finds in them is almost entirely tribal, the actual personal element which he recognizes in them is very small: not only Lot and Ishmael, but also Isaac and his descendants are the personi- “ ADDENDA XXI fications of tribes!: in Abraham there is an fndeterminate personal element, but most of the details about him are due either to popular ‘Sage,’ or to the narrators. Thus the details, even of such a chapter as Gen. xxiii. (P), are the ‘free composition of the narrator’ (Genesis, p. 296); J in particular con- tains numerous examples of the free expansion or development of a traditional nucleus; and the many conversations in his narratives (‘e.g. Gen. xviiii—xix., xxiv., xliii—xliv., and elsewhere’) can be only regarded as peculiarly his own work2, Dillmann’s Theologie des ATs, published posthumously, represents probably to some extent an earlier stage of his conclusions on the subject; but even here (p. 77) his view is that the traditions about the patriarchs, which were ‘first written down in the post-Mosaic and prophetic age,’ have been ‘oreatly transformed and idealized under the influence of the Mosaic and pro- phetic religion, that in particular tribal history has been largely recast into family history, and that it is now for us very difficult, and in fact impossible, to distinguish the actual facts from the ideal truth which has been put into them’ None of the conclusions thus reached by Dillmann can be said with any truth to be more conservative than mine (pp. xliv—xlvii, lv—lix); and the opinion that any of the principal patriarchs represent tribes I have expressly rejected (p. lvii). See further a paper in the Eapository Times, March, 1906, pp. 282 ff., where I have shewn further, by citation of Dillmann’s actual words, that his views with regard to the sources of J, HE, and Deuteronomy, the dates of J and H, and the historical character of the representations of P, &c., so far from being, as alleged, more conservative than mine, are, to all intents and purposes, the same. P.3,oni.1. With a language as largely unknown in England as Hebrew is, it is possible for an amateur or theorist to perform extraordinary feats. Thus Mr Fenton, in a work called The Bible in Modern English, translates the first verse of Genesis in this way, ‘ By Periods God created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the earth.’ To say nothing about the rest of this rendering, what, we may ask, would be thought of a Latin scholar who, having before him the words Jn principio, gravely informed his readers that principiwm was a plural word, and meant ‘periods’ ? Yet this would be an exact parallel to what Mr Fenton has done. Other parts of the Old Testament are translated in the same fashion: thus Dt. xxxiii. 20 ‘Let the horseman (!), Gad, be blest!’ and Daniel becomes (Daniel iv. 9) ‘Chief of the Engineers’ (!). P. 24 n. 2 (cf. p. xlii 7. 2). It is extraordinary how anyone can seriously regard Mr Capron’s book as containing a real solution of the problems raised by a comparison of the Bible with science. In confirmation of the position 1 Commentary on Genesis, in the last ed. of 1892, p. 218 f. (cf. pp. 316, 403). In the English translation, vol. ii. p. 3 bottom, the sentence beginning with ‘As’ should read: ‘As in the case of Lot, Ishmael, Esau, and their sons, it is sufficient to regard them [i.e. Isaac, and Jacob, p. 3 bottom] as ideal personal names, taken from particular groups within the limits of the nation, or from the whole at different stages of its development.’ 2 Comm. on Num., Deut., Jos. (in Dillmann’s final discussion of the composition of the Hexateuch), p. 629. XXII ADDENDA taken in the two notes referred to, the Dean of Christ Church (Dr T. B. Strong) permits me to print the following, as it appears to me, eminently sound criticism :—‘It seems to me that there are serious and fundamental objections not only to details in Mr Capron’s book, but to the whole method of it. In the first place, it is plain upon the surface that Mr Capron has put upon the author of Genesis, whoever he was, a purpose which cannot have been before him. He is trying to extract from the book a scientific interpre- tation of the world in a modern sense. Now the scientific interpretation of the world in a modern sense is a comparatively late product, and may be said to have developed out of a condition in which the religious and scientific aspects of the world were fused. The writer of Genesis ascribes the origin and conduct of the world to God, and so far as that explains why the world came into existence it may be said to have the germ of the scientific explanation in it. But the scientific explanation strictly so called belongs to a later stage of the history of the human mind than the author of Genesis. ‘Secondly, Mr Capron hopes to find Genesis anticipating the form of philo- sophy in which he himself appears to believe, namely the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Here he seems to me to be unconsciously doing the author of Genesis a serious wrong. The philosophy of Herbert Spencer is not in- fallible, and is already sharply criticized. Precisely therefore in proportion as Mr Capron has success in finding this philosophy in Genesis he involves Genesis in all the risks of refutation and modification which beset the Spencerian philosophy. If Genesis is shewn to speak in terms of Herbert Spencer, and Herbert Spencer should then prove unsatisfactory, he involves Genesis in his own collapse; and this is particularly unreasonable, as there is no clear evidence that the author wished to set forth Spencerianism. ‘Once more, the position can be maintained only by violent exegesis. No one could seriously maintain that the words e.g. of the Creation-story natur- ally have the meaning which Mr Capron puts upon them. In other words he starts with the interpretation he wants to extract from them, and forces them into harmony with it. This is a method which has been pursued before in the history of interpretation, but which is now completely discredited. It is in fact a modern form of the Alexandrine method of allegorical interpretation, such as we find in Philo Judaeus. In Philo’s day a prevalent philosophy, which he himself thought satisfactory, was a kind of syncretism, combining elements of Stoicism and Platonism. This philosophy Philo felt bound to extract somehow from the Pentateuch. He was applying to the Old Testament the method which the Greeks were applying to Homer. But though his appli- cation of his principle is highly ingenious, no one in the world supposes that it was successful. The whole of it disappears when it is recognized, as it must be, that the author did not mean that or anything like it. Mr Capron appears to be doing a similar thing in the interest of the philosophy of Spencer with a similar lack of success.’ P. 24 n. 3. Canon Bonney has reaffirmed recently, in greater detail, the opinion here expressed by him respecting the irreconcilability of Gen. i. with science, in an article in the Church Family Newspaper, Oct. 9, 1908, p. 862. Prof. Hull, in the article which Canon Bonney here criticizes, only reconciles ADDENDA XXL them by disregarding all the points in which they differ! Prof. Hull confines himself virtually to pointing out (what is, of course, perfectly true) that Genesis affirms, and nature exhibits, the realization of a divine plan in the development and structure of the physical universe; but that is something very different from proving that the order of events, as described in Genesis, and as taught by science, is the same. P. 26. Dr McCosh, in his Religious Aspect of Evolution, pp. 93 ff., who has been recently brought forward as an ‘authority’ for the harmony oi Genesis i. with geology, simply, as he himself expressly avows (p. 93), follows Guyot, Dana, and Dawson, especially Guyot, whose attempted reconciliations have been sufficiently dealt with on pp. 22—25 of the present volume. The correspondence exhibited by his table, pp. 96—98, is as illusory as that exhibited by Sir J. W. Dawson’s Tables (below, p. 23 note), and contains the misstatements which in one form or another are inseparable from all such ‘harmonies. Thus science does noé teach that ‘there must have been light nourishing plants before the sun was condensed’ (see, on the contrary, the quotation from Prof. Pritchard, below, p. 25 note), or that the moon was ‘thrown off’ from the earth after the appearance of vegetation upon it (on the contrary, when the moon was thrown off, the earth, or at least the outer envelope of it, must have been molten, ‘twenty-seven miles in depth going to its [the moon’s] formation’: see Prof. Sollas, The Age of the Earth, p. 8); and Gen. i. 16, 17 speaks not of the sun, moon, and stars as ‘ becoming visible’ on the Fourth Day, but, as plainly as language can do, of their being ‘made’ and ‘set’ in the heavens on that day (below, p. 25). And Romanes’ remark, quoted on p. 99 from a review (Nature, Aug. 11, 1881, p. 334), that the order in which the flora and fauna are represented as appearing in Genesis agrees with the evidence of science, must have been made in forgetfulness of the facts; for it is contradicted by what is taught in every geological manual (Dana, Dawson, Geikie, &c.: see below, p. 22, &c., and the quotation from Prof. Bonney, p. 24, note 3). Professors Dana and Dawson, it should be remembered, are the only men of scientific eminence who have even attempted, during recent years, to harmonize Gen, i. with the teachings of science; and it is disin- genuous to quote them as authorities for their agreement without at the same time acquainting the reader,—who certainly would not otherwise suspect what they were,—with the methods by which, respectively, the supposed ‘reconcilia- tion’ was accomplished by them. The ‘accuracy’ which, in a passage that has been recently quoted, Sir J. W. Dawson extols in Genesis, is in reality non- existent; it is obtained, partly by ignoring or obscuring the facts which conflict with it, and partly by forcing upon the words of Genesis senses which they do not bear. Thus, in addition to what has been pointed out below (pp. 23, 25), Sir John Dawson understands the ‘deep’ of v. 2 not, as probably every other reader has always understood it, of an abyss of water, but non-naturally of a ‘vaporous or aeriform mass’ enveloping the earth, which ultimately became the atmosphere ; and 2. 3 is interpreted by him not of the first beginning of light, but of the intensification ot previously existing light by the concentration of the luminous matter which emitted it, to form the XXIV ADDENDA sun (Origin of the World, &c. pp. 105, 1138, 120 f.). Surely, if Gen. i. were really accurate, it would bear its accuracy upon its face: it would not have to be wrung from it by means of exegetical tours de force, such as are unheard of in the interpretation of any other literature (cf. below, p. 24 (4), with nn. 3, and p. 25). Enlightened Roman Catholic scholars admit the truth candidly: see Pére Lagrange, Revue Bibl. 1896, p. 381 ff (on Gen. i.), esp. p. 388 f.; Minocchi, La Genest, 1908, p. 22 ff. Nor, it may be worth adding, is it correct to say, at least without material qualifications, that Gen. i. agrees with science in placing the creation of light before the formation of the sun. For according to Gen. i. light was created (v. 3) after water already existed upon the earth (2. 2): according to science, however, light was already given out by the luminous gaseous nebula,—if not, also, by many other nebulae as well,—which ultimately, after untold ages had passed, was condensed into the bodies forming the solar system. If, therefore, it is stated that Genesis agrees with science in placing the creation of light before the formation of the sun, truthfulness demands that it should be stated at the same time that it also disagrees with science in placing its creation after the formation of the earth, with water upon it ; whereas in fact, according to science, light existed unnumbered ages before the primitive nebula could have condensed to form either the earth or water. It will be understood that, as is pointed out at greater length below (pp. 26 ff.), this and other disagreements with science, though their existence ought not to be denied, in no way detract from the religious value of the cosmogony of Genesis, or obscure the clearness with which it gives expression to such general truths as those of an ordered sequence in the process of creation, and of stages moving upwards towards man. A word may perhaps be permitted on the subject of ‘Evolution.’ Evolu- tion may be true or false, or partially true and partially false: but in either case it is not taught in the first chapter of Genesis: the language used in this chapter does not suggest, whether directly or indirectly, either a transition from vegetable to animal life, or a transition from one species, whether vegetable or animal, to another. For a statement of what appears to him to be the right attitude for the theologian to adopt towards this principle of science, the writer may be permitted, perhaps, to refer to the first of his Sermons on the OT. (1892), on ‘Evolution compatible with Faith’? P. 34 7.2. Out of 356 tablets belonging to the period of the first Bab. dynasty, examined by Mr Johns, 5 are dated on the 7th day of the month, 5 on the 14th, 8 each on the 21st and the 28th, and only 2 on the 19th. As the average, after deducting 39 for the first day of the month, would be about 11, there seems thus to have been at this period in Babylonia a marked abstention from secular work on these five days, especially on the 19th. In the 8th and 7th centuries, on the contrary, out of 356 dated documents, 40 are dated on the first of the month, 12 on the 7th, 11 on the 14th, 16 on the 2ist, 11 on the 28th, and only 2 on the 19th: in this period, the only day marked by such abstention was the 19th (Johns, Hap. Times, Sept. 1906, p. 567; cf. Dec. p. 141). In the neo-Babylonian period contracts appear to ADDENDA XXV have been signed as frequently on the 19th day of the month as on the other days (Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the OT. 1905, pp. 176—8, with statistics respecting 2764 tablets dating from B.c. 604—449), Out of 2554 tablets examined by R. D. Wilson (Princeton Theol. Rev. Apr. 1903, p. 246), and for which therefore the average would be 85, 54 are dated on the 7th of the month, 88 on the 14th, 180 on the 21st, 67 on the 28th, and only 8 on the 19th: but it is not stated to what period or periods these tablets belong. P. 34 ».3. Ina recently discovered lexical tablet, the word shapattu, ‘sabbath, is used in explanation of the Sumerian Ud-huia-kam (the ‘15th day, ie. the day of the full moon): see Zimmern, ZDMG. 1904, pp. 199 ff. See a translation of the tablet in Pinches, OT. in the light of the hist. records and legends of Ass. and Bab.? (1908), p. 527: it explains different expressions in which the word Ud (‘day’) occurs. Both Zimmern (p. 201) and Pinches (p. 27 f.) are of opinion that though one of the characters is mutilated, shapatiw occurs also in the fifth of the Creation-tablets. Line 14, viz., as given below (p. 29), is followed by five lines, of which the last four are addressed to the moon; and the fourth of these is read by Zimmern and Pinches as here rendered (the rest in Ungnad’s trans- lation, in Gressmann’s Texte u. Bilder zum AT. 1909, i. 20):— ‘He exalted him monthly, without fail, in a tiara: “ At the beginning of the month shalt thou rise over the land, With horns shalt thou shine, to determine six days: On the seventh day, [shew thou] a half-tiara, On the [sa]bbath thou shalt be equal [in both] halves.”’ ‘Sabbath’ will here denote the 14th (or 15th) day of the month. P. 51 ff. See further, on Gen. iii., the very full discussion in Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, 1903 (including the history of these doctrines in later Jewish and Christian hands). P. 52 7.4. But see R. CO. Thompson, as cited in the Lap. Times, Nov. 1903, p. 50 f., who contends that no sacred garden is here referred to at all. P. 72. With the views respecting Cain here referred to, comp. Foakes- Jackson, The Biblical History of the Hebrews (1903), pp. 7, 363 f. ~ P. 106. The fact that the Babylonian narrative of the Flood exhibits agreements with both J and P has been used lately as an argument for impugning the critical conclusion that the Biblical narrative is composite. It is difficult to take this argument seriously. The critical view is (p. 107) that the story,—with of course such Babylonian features as were included in it,— was current in Palestine, that it was committed to writing in two slightly different forms, and that excerpts from the two texts thus produced were combined to form the existing Biblical narrative. If the Biblical narrative arose in this way, the marvel surely would be if both its component parts,— derived, as ex hyp. they both are, from a story containing Babylonian features, —did not exhibit resemblances with the Babylonian narrative. P. 107 f. Siiss’s discussion of the Babylonian story of the Flood is accessible now to English readers in the English translation of his Face of the Earth (1904), i. 20—40 (esp. pp. 30 ff.), 57, 683—65, 69, 71 f. See, however, D. 6 XXVI ADDENDA also the criticism of Sollas, The Age of the Earth, p. 316, who points out that in view of the now known elevation of the point at which the Zab enters the Assyrian plain above the sea,—some 600 ft.,—no recorded combination even of a cyclone with an earthquake could have driven a storm-wave even remotcly as far; it would not have driven it up the Tigris even as far as Bagdad (154 ft. above the sea). If, therefore, this is the true explanation of the Babylonian Flood-story, there must, in so far as Hasisadra’s ship is repre- sented as grounding on Nisir, be considerable exaggeration of the facts. P. 125. Interesting additions to our knowledge of the Hittites have been made lately by the excavations of Prof. Winckler in 1906—7 at Boghaz-keui, the old capital of the Hittites, in the modern province of Angora, the ancient Cappadocia. Here, in what seem to have been the archives of the ancient Hittite kings, an extensive collection of cuneiform inscriptions, expressed in partly the language of Babylonia, partly the native language of the country, has been discovered, giving much information about the history and political condition of the Hittites and neighbouring peoples, and also testifying to the brisk political correspondence carried on at this distant period between the Hittite kings and other nations, including even Egypt, in Babylonian. It is striking evidence of the wide-reaching influence of Babylonia in the ancient world, to find Cappadocia and Egypt corresponding in its language and script. Among other notable discoveries made at Boghaz-keui were portions of the Babylonian version of the famous treaty, concluded by Ramses II with the Hittites in his 21st year, c. 1280—1270 B.c., of which previously only the Egyptian text had been known. See the Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, No. 35 (Berlin, Dec. 1907). P.131, note on x. 29,1.8. This identification, which was originally Lassen’s, is suggested by the fact that ‘algum,’ and the Heb. words for ivory, apes, and peacocks, are apparently Indian: see Max Miiller, Lectwres on the Science of Language, first series, ed. 1864, pp. 208 ff. (who accepts it). It is objected (Keane, The Gold of Ophir, 46 f.) that Abhira is not the name of a people, but — means simply a region where the Abdhirs, a widespread caste of ‘cowherds, were settled. Still Ptolemy mentions a district Aberia in precisely the same locality: and Josephus (Ant. viii. 6. 4) identified Séecpa [Lxx. for ‘Ophir’ has in 1 K. ix. 28 2@ypa] with Chryse (i.e. Malacca), ‘ which belongs to India.’ P. 131 n.4, on x. 29, Ophir. It should have been stated that Prof. Keane, though he identifies Ophir with Dhofar on the 8. coast of Arabia, considers that the ‘gold of Ophir’ was found in Mashonaland, and only brought to ‘Ophir’ as an emporium. Dr Carl Peters discusses the question of Ophir at great length in his Eldorado of the Ancients (1902), pp. 289—369. Peters, however, distinguishes between the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 and the Ophir of Solomon, whence the gold came: for the Ophir of Gen. x. 29 he follows (p. 293) the view adopted by Glaser (below, p. 131 n. 4), upon grounds developed with much learning, but not cogent, that it was on the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf; the Ophir of Solomon he finds (p. 341f.) in Mashonaland between the Zambesi and tne Sabi. There certainly were anciently very extensive gold-workings in Mashonaland, as Bent (Zhe Ruined Cities of Mashonaland, 7 ADDENDA XXVII 1892), and especially Hall and Neal (The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia, 1902), have abundantly shewn. It is contended by Peters that the ruins of the great Zimbabwe (=‘ House of Stone’) and other places in Rhodesia are of a character shewing that they were constructed by Phoenicians and Sabaeans (pp. 353 ff., 364; cf. Keane, The Gold of Ophir, pp. 160 ff. [but see below, p. XLII]). Keane places even the Havilah of Gen. ii. 11 in Rhodesia, the Pishon being, seemingly, the Zambesi (p. 192); and supposes Tarshish to have been the seaport Sofala (20°S.). The grounds on which these positions rest require to be carefully tested: but as it is not affirmed by either of these writers that the Ophir of Genesis was in Mashonaland, a con- sideration of their arguments lies beyond the scope of the present com- mentary. The hypothesis of two Ophirs should clearly be only a last resort. In view of the connexion in which Ophir stands in Gen. x., ‘the burden of proof, as Mr Twisleton said long ago (Opntr, in Smith, DB. ii. 1863, p. 640), ‘lies on anyone who denies Ophir to have been in Arabia’: at the same time difficulties undoubtedly arise, partly from the apparently Indian origin of the Heb. words referred to above, partly from the fact that Arabia does not seem to have been a country capable of producing gold in such quantities as Solomon (even allowing for some hyperbole) appears to have obtained from it (1 K. ix. 28; cf. x. 14 ff). Hence the view that Ophir, though in Arabia, was an emporium for gold brought to it from elsewhere; though even so, as Palestine was a comparatively poor country, it is difficult to think what com- modities Solomon would have had to offer in exchange for the gold obtained by him, and the inference has accordingly been drawn that the Israelites must have mined the gold themselves (Keane, p. 57f.). This inference, if correct, would seem to imply that it was procured from some country other than Arabia. See further EncB. sv.; Budge, Hist. of Egypt, ii. 132—4; Glaser, Zwei Publikationen [those of Keane and Peters] viber Ophir (1902). P. 138. It is conjectured by Prof. Sayce (Lap. T. Feb. 1907, p. 232f.) that ‘Zber is from ibira, a ‘commercial traveller’ (from ebéru, to cross over), and denoted originally the trader who ‘crossed’ the Euphrates from its W. to its EH. bank. The conjecture rests upon a slender basis: for ¢bira is apparently an extremely rare word, occurring only on two lexical tablets as a Sumerian gloss on the Ass. damkaru, ‘merchant.’ Deut. xxvi. 5 lends no support to the conjecture: for ‘wandering’ (RVm.) does not, as Prof. Sayce seems strangely to suppose, mean ‘travelling’ like an itinerant commercial agent, but ‘ wandering’ like one who has lost his way, and is on the point of perishing (see 1 S., ix. 3, Ps. exix. 116, Jer. 1, 6, where the same word, lit. perishing, is used of a ‘lost’ animal), P. 156 n. 4. Babylonian chronology for all the earlier period of the history is founded upon the tablet published first by Mr Pinches in 1884, containing a list (A), unfortunately mutilated in parts, of the kings from the First dynasty to the 7th cent. B.o.: by the side of each king’s name is given the number of years of his reign, and at the end of each dynasty the sum of the years of reign of all the kings of that dynasty. The kings of the First dynasty are all missing from this tablet ; but they could happily be supplied 62 XXVIII ADDENDA from another (B), which had been published by Mr Pinches, four years pre- viously, in 1880, and which contained a list of the kings of the First and Second dynasties! These lists may be read most conveniently in Records of the Past, second series, vol. i. pp. 18—19; in KB, ii. 286—-9; and, cor- rected and supplemented from other sources, in Gressmann, Altorientalische Toxte und Bilder zum AT. (1909), 1. 1083—5; or Meyer's Gesch. d. Alter- tums?, 1. ii. (1909), on the chart opposite p. 334. The data contained even in list A do not enable us to determine directly the dates B.c. of the earlier Babylonian dynasties: but help is afforded in doing this by statements made by several of the later Bab. and Ass. kings of the intervals which had elapsed between certain of the earlier kings and themselves. Unfortunately, however, these statements are not all consistent with each other, and do not con- sequently lead to the same results. (See a synopsis of the statements, and a discussion of the problems to which they give rise, in Rogers’ Hist. of Bad. and Ass. 1900, i. 312—348.) There is however a general agreement among Assyriologists that the Third, or Kasshite dynasty (see on Gen, x. 8), which is said in the list to have remained in power for 576 years, began about B.c. 1760 (Rogers, 1782). The First dynasty is said in the list to have lasted 304 years, and the Second 368 years; upon the assumption, therefore, which seemed to follow naturally from the manner in which the list was arranged, that these dynasties were consecutive, the First dynasty was generally supposed to have begun c, 2440 B.c. (Rogers, 2454). In 1907, how- ever, Mr L. W. King? published, from the tablets stored in the British Museum, a chronicle shewing that the Second dynasty did not follow the First, but was partly contemporary with both the First and the Third, Ilima-ilu, the first king of the Second dynasty, being a contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshuh, the 7th and 8th kings of the First dynasty, and Ha-gamil, the last king of the Second dynasty, being contemporary with Bitiliash,—or, as the name is now read, Kashtiliash,—to all appearance the 3rd king of the Third dynasty. The discovery of this chronicle of course modified the dates which had commonly been assumed previously for the First dynasty, and with it the date of its 6th king, Hammurabi. Here is a list of the kings of the first three Babylonian dynasties, with the dates assigned to them by Ungnad’, the scholar who, with Thureau- Dangin‘, has been the latest to discuss them. The principal chronological statements made by various later kings are appended in footnotes: it will be seen that they do not all lead to consistent results :— 1 The names, and lengths of reign, of the kings of the First dynasty are also now known independently from chronicles that have been discovered since. 2 Chronicles of Early Bab. Kings, 1907, ii. 1 ff. See pp. 22—24. 8 Orientalistische Litteratur-Zeitung, 1908, p. 13 f. (cf. 1907, p. 638); and in Gressmann’s Texte u. Bilder (1909), quoted above, i. 103f. Thureau-Dangin differs from Ungnad only in giving for the Third dynasty B.c. 1761—1186 (so also Meyer) instead of B.c. 1757—1182. 4 Journal des Savants, 1908, pp. 190 df. (with Table, p. 199); and in Z. jur Ass. 1908, pp. 176 fi. (with Table, p. 186). ADDENDA XXIX First Dynasty. 1. Sumu-abu (14), p.c. 2232—22192, 2. Sumu-la-el (36), 2218—2183. 8. Zabum (14), 2182—2169. 4, Abil-Sin (18), 2168—2151, | Second Dynasty 5. Sin-muballit (20), 2150—2131. (of the Country of the Sea, i.e. Lower 6. Hammurabi (43), 21830—20883, Babylonia). 7. Samsu-iluna (38), 2087—2050. 1. Ilima-ilu (60°), B.c. 2085—2026 §, 8. Abi-eshu’ (28), 2049—2022, 2. Itti-ili-nibi (55), 2025—1971. 9. Ammi-diténa (37), 2021—1985. 3. Damki-ilishu (36), 1970—1935. 10. Ammi-zaduga (21), 1984—1964. 4, Ishkibal (15), 1934—1920. 11. Samsu-ditaéna (31), 1963—1933. 5. Shushshi (27), 1919—1893. 11 Kings. [300] years. 6. Gulkishar (55), 1892—18387. 7. Peshgal-daramash (50), 1837— Third Dynasty 1788. (The Kasshites). 8. Adara-kalama (28), 1787—1760. 1. Gandash (164), B.c. 1757—1742. 9. Ekur-ulanna (26), 1759—1734. 2. Agum I (22), 1741—1720. 10. Melamma-kurkura (7), 1733—1727. 3. Kashtiliash (22), 1719—1698. 11. Ha-gAmil (9), 1726—17188. 4, Ushshi (8), 1697—1690. 11 Kings. 368 years. 1 The regnal years of the kings of this dynasty (as far as Ammi-ditana) are supplied not from List B (the figures in which are inexact), but from a recently discovered Chronicle of the First dynasty, based upon two contemporary documents dating from the reign of Ammi-zaduga (see King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, iii. (1900), pp. 213 ff., where the Chronicle is printed at length). 2 Contemporary, according to Chronicle K (King, Chronicles, i.14; Gressmann, i. 107), with ‘Ilu-shumma, king of Assyria.’ Now, Trishum, ‘ priest of Asshur,’ and ‘son of Ilu-shumma,’ according to Shalmaneser I (c. 1300 B.c.), restored a temple 159 years before Shamshi-Adad, who did so again 580 years before Shalmaneser himself: according to Esarhaddon (s.c. 680—668), Irishum restored the temple 126 years before Shamshi-Adad, who did so again 404 years before Shalmaneser I (King, i. 121f.). Jf, then, this Ilu-shumma—who is also elsewhere called ‘ patesi (priest-king) of Asshur’ (Mitteil. d. Orient-Gesellschaft, Nos. 20, p. 28, 26, p. 54)— is the same as ‘Ilu-shumma, king of Assyria,’ the contemporary of Sumu-abu, the date of Sumu-abu will be, according to Shalmaneser I, c. 2100 3.c., and according to Esarhaddon, c. 1900 B.c. 3 Lived, according to Nabu-na’id (B.c. 559—539), 700 years before Burnaburiash (1899—1365 B.c. : see below, No. 19), i.e. c. 2100 B.c. See Rogers, i. 317. 4 The regnal years in this dynasty, as given in List A. The names and regnal years enclosed in square brackets are not preserved on the tablet, but are supplied from other sources (cf. Meyer, op. cit., chart opposite to p. 334). See, for some differences in the dates and arrangement of Nos. 19—28, Langdon, Exp. Times, July, 1909, p. 456 f. 5 The regnal years in this dynasty, as given in List A. 6 Waged war with Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshu’. See the words of the Chronicle shewing this in King, ii. 20 f., or Gressmann, i. 107. 7 Reigned, according to a boundary-stone dated the 4th year of Bel-nadin-apli (c. 1125 z.c.), 696 years before Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1100 B.o.), ie. c. 1850 3.0. See Rogers, i. 316. 8 An older contemporary of Kashtiliash, the Kasshite. The words of the Chronicle are (King, ii. 22f.; Texte u, Bilder, i. 107), ‘Ha-gamil, king of the Country of the Sea, [marched] against Elam. After him (i.e. after his death, Thureau-Dangin), the Kasshite, Ulam-Buriash, brother of Kashtiliasb, assembled his army, and conquered the Country of the Sea.’ XXX ADDENDA 5. Abi-rattash (-), 1689 [—1670]. 6. Tazzigurmash (-), [1669—1650]. 7. Agum II (-) [1649—1620}. 8-15. [The names of 8 kings missing: c. 1619—1430.] 16. [Karaindash, 1429—1415 ?] 17. [Kadashman-harbe, 1414—1405! } 18. [Kurigalzu I, 1404—1400.] 19. [Burnaburiash, 1399—13652.] 20. [Karahardash, 1364.] 212, [Nazibugash, 1363.] 22. [Kurigalzu IT] (32?), 1862—1331, 23. [Nazimaruttash] (26), 1330—1305. 24. [Kadashman-Turgu] (17), 1304— 1288. | 25. Kadash{man-harbe] (62), 1287— 1282, 26. Kutur-Ellil (8?), 1281—1274, 27. Shagarakti-shuriash (13), 1273— 12614, 28. Kashtiliash (8), 1260—1253. 29. HEllil-nédin-shumi (6 mo.), 1252. 30. Kadashman-harbe (6 mo.), 1251— 1250. 31. Ramméan-shum-iddina (6), 1249— 1244, 32. Ramman-shum-usur (30), 1243— 1214, 33. Meli-shipak (15), 12183—1199. 34. Marduk-ablu-iddina (13), 1198— 1186. 35. Zamama-shum-iddina (1), 1185°. 36. Bél-nddin{-ahi] (3), 1184—1182. 86 Kings. 576 years, 9 mo. The Second dynasty, it is supposed, reigned in Babylon itself during the 176 years that intervened between the First and Third dynasties. Poebel (Z. fir Ass. 1908, pp. 162 ff.: see the Table, p. 175) agrees with 1 In the Tel el-Amarna letiers corresponds with Amenhétep III (B.c. 1414—1383). Called Kallimasin by Petrie, and Winckler (KB. v. 1—13); Knudzton (Die el- Amarna-Tafeln, 1907, pp. 60 ff.) reads the name as it is given here. 2 In the Tel el-Amarna letters corresponds with Amenhdtep IV (B.c. 1383—1365, Petrie). 3 Contract-tablets dated in the reigns of Nos. 2i—28 exist (Meyer, l.c.). 4 Said by Nabu-na’id to have lived 800 years before himself, i.e, c. B.c. 1350 (Rogers, i, 318). This date is not consistent with the one given in the next note: Ungnad is guided by that date, Poebel by this (so also Radau and Langdon). 5 Waged war with Ashur-dén, king of Assyria. Ashur-dan reigned 60 years before Tiglath-Pileser I (Rogers, i. 326), who, Sennacherib says (Rogers, i. 320), reigned 418 years before himself {>.c, 705—681), ie. ¢c, 1110 B.c., so that Ashur- dan’s date would be c. 1170 B.c. ADDENDA XXXI Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad in the place which he assigns to the Second dynasty, relatively to the First and Third dynasties, ie. he supposes the First and Third dynasties to be separated by the same interval; but, as he takes Nabu-na’id’s 800 years for the interval between Shagarakti-shuriash and himself as exact, he places that king, and with him the whole Kasshite dynasty, 80 years earlier than Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad do, making it begin 1841 Bc, and assigning correspondingly higher dates to the First dynasty (B.c. 2800—2000), and to Hammurabi (B.c. 2198—2155). King (i, 101—113) and Meyer (Gesch. d. Altertums?, 1. ii. (1909), pp. 339, 340—1; ef. the Table, p. 585), urging the facts that the kings of the Second dynasty are called not kings of Babylon, but kings of the ‘Country of the Sea’ (i.e. Lower Babylonia), and also that no inscriptions of the Second dynasty have been found in or near Babylon, eliminate the Second dynasty altogether from the succession of Babylonian dynasties, and make the Third dynasty follow immediately after the First. The date for the First dynasty, according to these scholars, is thus B.0. 2060—1761, and for Hammurabi, 8.0. 1958—1916. This date, it is pointed out, agrees with that which would follow for Sumu-abu (c. 2100) from the statements of Shalmaneser I(p. XX1Xx.). As Ilima-ilu, the first king of the Second dynasty, synchronizes with Samsu-iluna, the Second dynasty will now begin ¢. 1910 B¢., and end (King) 368 years afterwards, i.e. c. 1542 B.0.: Kashtiliash, the contemporary of Ea-gamil, is thus, according to King, not—as it seems natural to suppose—the third Kasshite king of that name, but an at present otherwise unknown king, who lived after the "th Kasshite king, Agum II. Meyer, on the contrary, arguing that 368 years is an improbably long period for a dynasty of 11 kings, reduces it to 200 years: beginning c. 1910 B.c., it thus ends c.17108.¢.; and Kashtiliash, the contemporary of Ea-gimil, is the third Kasshite king of that name. In making the Third dynasty continuous with the First, King thus abandons the synchronism of Ha-gamil with Kashtiliash: Meyer retains this syn chronism, but reduces all the reigns of the kings of the Second dynasty. We must await future discoveries; but meanwhile the view of Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad seems to do better justice to the data we at present possess. [Meyer now (1913), upon fresh astronomical data, agrees with it.] P.156n. 5. It is considered now that Kudur-mabuk had two sons ; and that Arioch is to be identified not with Rim-sin, but with his brother Arad-sin, ‘Arioch’ corresponding to Zri-agu, the Sumerian equivalent of Arad-sin. I quote from a letter received from Dr Stephen Langdon, Reader of Assyrio- logy in the University of Oxford :—‘The fact that Kudur-mabuk had two 1 dagu stands for %9ragu, the Sumerian for ‘ God of the Crown’ (agu meaning ‘crown,’ and being the Sumerian name of the Moon-God, and %4ir being the determinative of ‘God’): it is thus the Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic usin, the ‘Moon-God.’ ‘Rim-Sin’ means the ‘ Wild-ox (Os) of the Moon-God,’ XXXIT ADDENDA (i.e. of the Moon-God); the two names are thus equivalent in meaning to each other; and Zri-4agu is just the Sumerian name of Arad-!"Sin, the elder son of Kudur-mabuk. The Elamite mabuk seems to replace lagomar in the equation Kudur-mabuk= : Kudur-lagomar. It. appears to me that Kudur- mabuk of the Larsa inscriptions (mostly Sumerian) is identical with the Biblical Kudur-lagomar (“Chedorla‘omer”).’ The inscriptions which were formerly all regarded as relating to Rim-sin are now referred partly to Arad-sin, and partly to Rim-sin. See Thureau- Dangin, op. cit. pp. 211—221 (where six inscriptions of Arad-sin are translated, and six of Rim-sin!); and, for the history, Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums’, L. ii. (1909), pp. 550—556. Here are two of the scrip tlone, as translated = Thureau- Dangin :— Abe ovine his prayer, “built the... 2... of Nannar, for his own life, and for the life of Arad-sin, his son, king of Larsa,’ (Brick B, also from Mukayyar.) ‘ Arad-sin, the mighty man, whom as a righteous shepherd (king) En-lil (Bel) has appointed, who cares for Ur, king of Larsa, king of Shumer and Akkad—son__of..Kudur-mabuk, the adda of Yamutbal, am I. That I might enlarge Ur, and have an exalted fame, have I huiibly prayed ; Nannar, my king, has heard me: a great wall, which, like a lofty mountain, cannot be undermined, which shines like the glow of terror, have I built him. May his city be firmly estab eheds This wall, “ Nannar makes sure the soil of the land” is its name.’ Ina third inscription Arad-sin speaks of himself as one who fulfils the decisions of Eridu, restores Lagash and Girsu2, and renovates the city and the land; and says that when the God of the new moon had let him behold his favourable sign, and commanded him to rebuild and restore his temple, he had built the temple in which the god delighted, for his own life, and for the life of Kudur- mabuk, his father and begetter. It seems that Kudur-mabuk appointed first his son Arad-sin king in Larsa, and after Arad-sin’s death his other son Rim-sin®, Both speak of the various temples which they had built. Arad-sin states that he has enlarged Ur, and surrounded it with a strong wall, and restored Lagash, and boasts that he has been appointed a ‘righteous shepherd’ of the god Ellil of Nippur, and that he executes the decisions of Eridu (i.e. of the god Ea, whose temple was in. Eridu: below, p. 52). Rim-sin seems to have extended the kingdom of Arad-sin. He ia only calls himself ‘shepherd of the whole land of Nippur,’ and boasts of his care for Eridu, Ur, Larsa, and Lagash, but also says that Anu, Ellil, Ea, and all the great gods have given Uruk (Erech) into his 1 These translations supersede the more tentative and incomplete translations of seven of these inscriptions given in 1892 by Winckler in KB. iii. 1, pp. 93—99. 2 The réyevos of the Temple of Lagash (Meyer, p. 5538). 8 ‘Arad-sin in all his inscriptions mentions his father Kudur-mabuk as still alive. Rim-sin names him twice only: in his other inscriptions, in which he does not mention him, his own name has the divine determinative; probably, therefore, Arad-sin died before his father; Rim-sin succeeded him, and after his father’s death assumed divine honours’ (Thureau- -Dangin, p. 210 n.*). ADDENDA XX XI hands, and that he has built a temple there. He also mentions other successes. It will be interesting if Dr Langdon’s identification of Chedorla‘omer with Kudur-mabuk should be confirmed. It is remarked by Mr Ball (Exp. Times, Oct. 1907, p. 41) that the name of the deity Zagamal (no doubt, the same as Lagamar) occurs in a number of proper names on some tablets of the First dynasty, recently acquired by St John’s College, Oxford. P. 157 . 3. The uncertainty of the reading arises from the ‘ polyphony’ of the cuneiform script, i.e. from the remarkable, but well-established fact that the same character may denote different sounds', In the three inscriptions referred to, the name which has been supposed to correspond to Chedorla‘omer is written in characters which, read phonetically, would give (1) KU-KU-KU-MAL (2) KU-KU-KU-MAL (3) KU-KU-KU-KD....... The last character in (3) is obliterated. Mr King, having stated these facts, continues, ‘The three names are said to be identical, and to be a fanciful way of writing Chedorla‘omer. Assuming that (3) is to be restored from (2), which is by no means certain, we get two forms of the name, one beginning with KU written three times, the other with it written four times. As the character has also the value dur, and Kudur is a well-known com- ponent of Elamite names, the second occurrence in each name is probably to be transliterated dur, so that the names can be reduced to Ku-dur-ku-mal, and Ku-dur-ku-ku-mal. In order to get the names more like that of Chedor- la‘omer, it was suggested by Mr Pinches that the character in question had on its third occurrence the value Jah or Jag, and the names were transliterated by him as Ku-dur-laj-mal and Ku-dur-laj-gu-mal, the former being de- scribed by him as “defectively written.” But there is little justification for assigning the new value laf or dag to the character used ; and, though Kw- dur-ku-ku-mal is styled a king of Elam, there is no reason for supposing him a contemporary of Hammurabi. He might have occupied the throne at any period before the 4th century B.c. Although however Chedorla‘omer’s name has not yet been identified in any Babylonian inscription, there is no reason at all why it should not be found in one.” Mr King then proceeds to point out. (cf. below, p. 157 f.) ‘that Chedorla‘omer is in form a purely Elamite name, Kudur-Lagamar, and that a joint expedition, such as that described in Gen. xiv., might have taken place, consistently with what we know of the politics of the age, in the early part of Hammurabi’s reign. Thus it would not be surprising if the name Chedorla‘omer should be found as that of a king of Elam in an inscription of the Old Babylonian period. Up to the present time, however, no such discovery has been made.’ Comp. Johns in the Expositor, Oct. 1903, pp. 282—7, who after a discussion of the names of all the four kings from the East concludes (p. 286), ‘The cuneiform originals suggested for the names in Gen. xiv. are therefore only ingenious conjectures. They may all be right, but as yet not one is proved.’ 1 See Eveti’s New Light on the Bible (1892), pp. 119 ff., 452—4, XXXIV ADDENDA P.172f. Prof. Sayce has reverted to the subject of Gen. xiv. in the Hwp. Times for Aug. 1906, pp. 498 ff.; but his article contains nothing which renders it necessary for me to modify anything that I have written upon it. The names of Chedorla‘omer’s allies being, no doubt, Babylonian, they would naturally be derived through some channel or other from a Babylonian source; but no evidence has at present been adduced sufficient to shew that they were derived directly from a cuneiform document of Hammurabi’s age, still less that the Heb. text of Gen. xiv. is a translation, or paraphrase, of a cuneiform original. Prof. Sayce’s conclusions simply do not follow from the premises, or data, which he uses. P. 173. It is stated by Prof. Sayce expressly, and by Dr Orr}, and Prof. A, T. Clay, by implication, that Néldeke’s arguments against the historical character of the narrative of Gen. xiv. have been refuted by archaeology. The statement supplies such an object-lesson of the methods on which the opponents of criticism not unfrequently rely, that it may be worth while to explain here the grounds upon which it rests. Here are Prof. Sayce’s words (Monumental Facts, 1904, p. 54; cf., though without Néldeke’s name, Monuments, p. 161 f.):— ‘In 1869 the great Semitic scholar, Professor Néldeke, published a treatise on the “Unhistorical character of Gen. xiv.” He declared that “criticism” had for ever disproved its claim to be historical, The political situation presupposed by it was incredible and impossible; at so distant a date Babylonian armies could not have marched to Canaan, much less could Canaan have been a subject province of Babylonia. The whole story, in fact, was a fiction based upon the Assyrian conquest of Palestine in later days. The names of the princes commemorated in it were etymological inventions: eminent Semitic scholars had already explained those of Chedorlaomer and his allies from Sanskrit, and those of the Canaanitish princes were derived from the events in which they were supposed to have borne a part.” And then he goes on to declare triumphantly (p. 55) how the progress of archaeology has refuted all these statements. It will probably surprise the reader to be told that, of the series of arguments thus attributed to Prof. Néldeke, while the one about the names is attributed to him with partial correctness (though in so far as it is stated correctly, it has not been refuted by archaeology), the other arguments were never used by him at all! Prof. Néldeke, in the articles referred to, does not say a single word about the political situation presupposed in Gen. xiv. being incredible and impossible, or about the impossibility of Babylonian armies at such a distant date marching to Canaan, or of Canaan being subject to Babylonia. On the contrary, what he does say is this*: ‘Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, appears clearly in vv. 5, 9, 17, as the over-lord of the others (the “Oberkénig”) The fact that we know nothing about such a widely-extended hegemony of the people of Hlam* is no reason whatever for rejecting this 1 Problem of the Old Testament, p. 411. 2 Light on the OT. from Babel (Philadelphia, 1907), pp. 125—7. 3 Untersuchungen zur Kritik des AT.s (1869), p. 159 f. ¢ Prof. Sayce writes ‘Babylonia’: but this is quite beside the mark; the narrative itself gives Elam, not Babylonia, the political supremacy. ADDENDA XXXV statement; we know far too little of the ancient history of Western Asia to do that.’ So far from denying the wide dominion of the Eastern power, Prof. Néldeke thus expressly declares that there are no reasons for questioning it! After commenting on the perverseness of following Josephus in substituting ‘Assyrians’ for the ‘too obscure Elamites, he goes on to say, ‘What. Hllasar was we do not know; but naturally our ignorance of the kingdom can form no argument against the’ correctness of the narrative’? And in a footnote he expressly rejects the explanation of Amraphel from Sanskrit (he mentions no such explanation of any of the other names), on the ground that Indian names are not likely to have been current in Babylonia. The idea that the narrative is a fiction based upon Sennacherib’s expedition against Judah is mentioned by him (p. 172); but, in spite of Prof, Sayce’s statement to the contrary, only to be rejected! The one grain of truth in Prof. Sayce’s long indictment is that of the names of the five Canaanite kings, which are given, Bera‘ and Birsha‘ (suggesting the idea of ‘evil’ and ‘wickedness’ ), and perhaps Shin’ab and Shem’eber as well, are formed artificially ; but this (N.B.) is not asserted of the name of any of the four kings from the Hast. The fact.is, Néldeke’s arguments on Gen. xiv. have not been refuted, or even touched, by archaeology. In all that he said about thé four kings from the East, the~hegemony of Elam, the historical possibility of a kingdom of Hilasar, &c., he expressed himself, though writing forty years ago, with such sound historical insight that, while he left room for. all the then unexpected discoveries which have since thrown such a flood of light upon the further East, not one of these discoveries has affected the truth of what he said. The historicity of some at least of the four kings from the East has been made probable by archaeology: but that Néldeke did not deny. The wide-extended rule and influence of Babylonia in ancient times has been proved by archaeology ; but that also Néldeke did not deny. He did question the historicity of the five kings of Canaan; but this has not been proved by archaeology. Prof. Sayce has simply not mentioned Néldeke’s real arguments at all, Nor are they mentioned by Dr Orr or Professor Clay. Néldeke’s real arguments! are all based, not upon the impossibility of Babylonia at such a time ruling or sending expeditions as far as Canaan, or upon the other premises imaginatively ascribed to him by his critics, but upon the internal improbabilities,.of.the route, and certain other details, of the expedition itself (of the kind indicated below, p. 171f.). These arguments are forcible, and difficult to meet except by the concession that the details criticized are not reported with literal exactness; certainly archaeology has as yet done nothing to meet them. Archaeology has met the arguments which Néldeke did noé use: it has not met the arguments which he did use. Ndéldeke never questioned, as Prof Sayce declares that he did, the general possibility at this time of an expedition being sent from the far Hast into Palestine: his argument con- sisted in pointing out various historical improbabilities attaching to the details of a particular expedition; and archaeology can overthrow this argument only by producing evidence that this expedition, with the delails as stuted un 1 Ibid. pp. 160—172, XXXVI ADDENDA Gen. xiv., actually took place. And this up to the present time (Mar. 1913) archaeology has not done. [See further pp. XLVIII, XLIX.] Dr Orr (pp. 411—418, 531 f.) expresses himself very confidently that the narrative of Gen. xiv. is not a ‘Midrash.’ The present writer has not main- tained that it is. But in spite of the archaeological facts which Dr Orr has amassed in support of his position, a historian as conversant with antiquity as Ed. Meyer, writing in 1909, has no hesitation in giving it that character (Gesch. d. Alt.2, 1. ii. 551 f.). It may be inferred that the argument founded \. by Dr Orr upon the facts is not as cogent as he would desire it to be. P. 180. It has been argued lately that the patriarchs ‘lived under the law of Hammurabi! and moreover that the laws implied in the narratives of Genesis are those actually current in the patriarchal age, and such as no post- Mosaic writer could have imagined or invented. Supposing this conclusion to be sound, it would not be inconsistent with the position taken in the present volume, in which it is maintained that the patriarchal narratives contain a genuine historical nucleus (pp. lvii, lviil, 143). The conclusion is, however, a very doubtful one. The resemblances appealed to are not sufficiently distinc- tive to prove what is alleged. Most of the parallels that have been adduced are too slight to merit any attention (e.g. 0 ammurabi’s code, § 108 and Gen. xlvii. 16, § 117 and xlvii. 19, § 185 and xv. 3: the law, also, of § 8, prescribing death as the penalty for theft from a temple or palace, is surely not needed to explain the words either of Laban in xxxi. 32, or of Joseph’s brethren in xliv. 9). What at first sight appears to be a stronger case is supplied by § 146, which prescribes that if a man’s wife? has given him a concubine, and the concubine afterwards bears children, and makes herself equal with her mistress, because she has borne children her mistress may not sell her, she may reduce her to bondage (lit. put fetters upon her), and count her among her women-slaves: she may only be sold (§ 147) if she has not borne children. Comp. Gen. xvi. 2, 6, where Sarah gives Abraham a concubine, Hagar, who, when she finds that she has conceived, is arrogant towards her mistress, who then ‘deals hardly’ with her (also xxx. 3, where Rachel gives Laban a concubine). The action of Rachel, and even that of Sarah, can, however, be quite naturally explained without calling in Hammurabi’s law. The custom of having concubine-slaves, —to say nothing of other countries,—was, and still is, common in the Semitic Fast; it is implied for Israel in the law of Hx. xxi. 7—9; and it prevails among the Arabs to the present day. A custom so widely diffused as this, and attested for Israel itself by Ex. xxi., obviously does not require the code ot Hammurabi to explain it. Hven moreover though it were true that Sarah could not sell Hagar, the operation of Hammurabi’s law would not be neces- 1 See, on Hammurabi, p. 156 n. 4, with the references. 2 2300 Ilu-shumma, the first king? of Assyria at present (1909) known a ie ee ee soseiC. 2225 Shalmaneser I, the builder of Calah (Gen. x. 10) wee C. 1300 The names of many early Assyrian paées?’s (priest-kings) and kings have been recovered recently in the course of the excavations by the Germans of Kal‘at Sherkat, the site of the ‘city of Asshur,’ i From King’s Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, iii. (1900), p.uxx f. The first column gives the regnal years of the several kings according to the List of Kings (B) published by Mr Pinches in 1880 (above, p. XXVIII); the second gives their regnal years according to the recently discovered Chronicle of the First Dynasty, which is based upon two contemporary documents dating from the reign of Ammi-zaduga (above, p. XXIX, n. 1). 2 According to Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad. 3%. W. King, Chronicles concerning Early Bab. Kings (1907), i. 116, ii. 14. Blsewhere he is styled patesi (cf. p. XXLX, n, 2). INTRODUCTION. § 1. The Structure of the Book of Genesis, and characteristics of its component parts. Tue Book of Genesis is so called from the title given to it in the Lxx. Version, derived from the Greek rendering of i. 4* arn 7 BiBdos yevécews otpavod xai yys. it forms the first book in the Hexateuch,— as the literary whole formed by the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua is now frequently termed’,—the general object of which is to describe in their origin the fundamental institutions of the Israelitish theocracy (i.e. the civil and the ceremonial law), and to trace from the earliest past the course of events which issued ultimately in the establishment of Israel in Canaan. The Book of Genesis comprises the introductory period of this history, embracing the lives of the ancestors of the Hebrews, and ending with the death of Joseph in Egypt. The aim of the book is, however, more than merely to recount the ancestry of Israel itself: its aim is, at the same time, to describe how the earth itself was originally prepared to become the habitation of man, to give an outline of the early history of mankind upon it, and to shew how Israel was related to other nations, and how it emerged gradually intc separate and distinct existence beside them. Accordingly the narrative opens with an account of the creation of the world; the line of Israel’s ancestors is traced back beyond Abraham to the first appearance of man upon the earth; and the relation in which the nations descended from the second father of humanity, Noah, were supposed to stand, both towards one another and towards Israel, is indicated by a genea- logical scheme (ch. x.). The entire book may thus be divided into two parts, of which the first, chs. i—xi., presents a general view of 1 The Book of Joshua is composed of three well-marked distinct strands; and the literary affinities of each of these are with corresponding strands running through part or all of the five preceding books. The literary affinities of Joshua with the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are much less strongly marked. il - INTRODUCTION [§ 1 the Harly History of Mankind, as pictured by the Hebrews, including the Creation (ch. i.), the origin of evil (ch. iii.), the beginnings of civilization (ch. iv.), the Flood (chs. vi.—ix.), the rise of separate nations (ch. x.), and the place taken by the Semites, and particularly by the Hebrews, among them (xi. 10—26); while the second, chs. xii.—l, beginning with the migration of the Terahites, comprehends in par- ticular the History of Israel’s immediate ancestors, the Patriarchs, viz. Abraham (xii. 1—xxv. 18), Isaac (xxv. 19—xxxvi.), and Jacob (xxxvii.—l.). The narrative of Genesis is cast into a framework, or scheme, marked by the recurring formula, These are the generations (lit. be- gettings) of'..... This phrase is one which belongs properly to a genealogical system: it implies that the person to whose name it is prefixed is of sufficient importance to mark a break in the genealogical series, and that he and his descendants will form the subject of the section which follows, until another name is reached prominent enough to form the commencement of a new section. The formula appears ten times in the Book of Genesis: viz. ii. 4* (the generations of heaven and earth), v. 1 (of Adam), vi. 9 (of Noah), x. 1 (of the sons of Noah), xi. 10 (of Shem), xi. 27 (of Terah), xxv. 12 (of Ishmael), xxv. 19 (of Isaac), xxxvi. 1, cf. 9 (of Esau), xxxvii. 2 (of Jacob). In ii. 4° it is applied metaphorically; and as it clearly relates to the contents of ch. i, it is very possible that it stood originally before i. 1 (see p. 19). In the other cases, it introduces each time a longer or shorter genealogical account of the person named and of his descendants, and is followed usually by a more detailed narrative about them. With which of the component parts of Genesis the scheme thus indicated was originally connected will appear subsequently. The entire narrative, as we now possess it, is accommodated to it. The attention of the reader is fixed upon Israel, which is gradually dis- engaged from the nations and tribes related to it: at each stage in the history, a brief general account of the collateral branches having been given, they are dismissed, and the narrative is limited more and more to the immediate line of Israel’s ancestors. Thus after ch. x. (the ethnographical Table) all the descendants of Noah disappear, except _ the line of Shem, xi. 10 ff.; after xxv. 12—18 Ishmael disappears, and Isaac alone remains; after ch. xxxvi. Hsau and his descendants dis- appear, and only Jacob and his sons are left. The same method is adopted in the intermediate parts: thus in xix. 30—38 the relation 1 Once (y. 1), This is the book of the generations of... a — a $1] COMPOSITE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS iii to Israel of the cognate peoples of Moab and Ammon is explained; in xxii. 20—24 (sons of Abraham’s brother, Nahor), and xxv. 1—4 (sons of Abraham’s concubine, Keturah) the relation to Israel of certain Aramaean tribes is explained. The unity of plan thus established for the Book of Genesis, and traceable in many other details, has long been recognized by critics. It is not, however, incompatible with the use by the compiler of pre-existing materials in the composition of his work. And as soon as the book is studied with sufficient attention, phaenomena disclose themselves, which shew that it is composed of distinct documents or sources, which have been welded together by a later compiler (or ‘redactor’) into a continuous whole. These phaenomena are very numerous; but they may be reduced in the main to the two following heads: (1) the same event is doubly recorded; (2) the language, and frequently the representation as well, varies in different sections. Thus i, 1—ii. 4* and ii. 4°—25 contain a double narrative of the origin of man upon earth. No doubt, in the abstract, it might be argued that ii. 4° ff. is intended simply as a more detailed account of what is described summarily in i, 26—80; but upon closer examination differences reveal themselves which preclude the supposition that both sections are the work of the same hand: the order of creation is different, the phraseology and literary style are different, and the representation, especially the representation of Deity, is different’. In the narrative of the Deluge, vi. 9—13 (the wickedness of the earth) is a duplicate of vi. 5—8; vii. 1—5 is a duplicate of vi. 18—22,—with the difference, however, that whereas in vi. 19 (cf. vii. 15) two animals of every kind, without distinction, are to be taken into the ark, in vii. 2 the number prescribed is two of every unclean animal, but seven of every clean animal: there are also several other duplicates, all being marked by accompanying differences of representation and phraseology, one group of sections being akin to i. 1—ii. 4*, and displaying through- out the same phraseology, the other exhibiting a different phraseology, and being conceived in the spirit of ii. 4°—iii, 24°, In xvii. 16—19 and xviii. 9—15 the promise of a son for Sarah is twice described,— the terms used in xviii. 9—15 clearly shewing that the writer did not picture any previous promise of the same kind as having been given to Abraham,—with an accompanying double explanation of the origin of the name Jsaac. The section xxvii, 46—xxviii. 9 differs appreciably in style from xxvii. 1—45, and at the same time represents Rebekah 1 See particulars on p. 35 f. 2 See the noies, p, 86 ff. D. d iv INTRODUCTION [S$ 1 as influenced by a different motive from that mentioned in xxvii. 42-45 in suggesting Jacob’s departure from Canaan’. Further, in xxviii. 19 and xxxv. 15 we find two explanations of the origin of the name Bethel; in xxxii. 28 and xxxv. 10, two of Israel; in xxxil. 3 — and xxxiii. 16 Esau is described as already resident in Edom, whereas in xxxvi. 6 f. his migration thither is attributed to causes which could not have come into operation until after Jacob’s return to Canaan. In short, the Book of Genesis presents two groups of sections, distinguished from each other by differences of phraseology and style, and often also by accompanying differences of representation, so marked, so numerous, and so recurrent, that they can only be accounted for by the supposition that the groups in which they occur are not both the work of the same hand. The sections homogeneous in style and character with i. 1—i. 4° recur at intervals, not in Genesis only, but in the following books to Joshua inclusive; and if read consecutively, apart from the rest of the narrative, will be found to form a nearly complete whole, containing a systematic account of the origines of Israel, treating with particular fulness the various ceremonial institutions of the Hebrews (Sabbath, Circumcision, Passover, Tabernacle, Sacrifices, Feasts, &c.), and dis- playing a consistent regard for chronological and other statistical data, which entitles it to be considered as the framework of our present Hexateuch. The source, or document, thus constituted, has received different names, suggested by one or other of the various characteristics attaching to it. From its preference, till Ex. vi. 3, for the absolute use of the name God (‘Elohim’) rather than Jehovah (‘ Yahweh’), it has been termed the Hlohistic narrative, and its author has been called the Elohist; but these names are not now so much used as they were — formerly; by more recent writers, on account of the predominance in it of priestly interests, and of the priestly point of view, it 1s commonly called the priestly narrative, and denoted, for brevity, by the letter P (which is also used to denote its author). The following are the parts of Genesis which belong to P:— i. 1—ii. 4* (creation of heaven and earth, and God’s subsequent rest upon the sabbath); v. 1—28, 30—32 (the line of Adam’s descendants through Seth to Noah); vi. 9—22, vii. 6, 11, 13—16, 174, 18—21, 24, viii. 1—29, 3>—6, 134, 14—19, ix. 1—17, 28—29 (the story of the Flood); x. 1—7, 20, 22—23, 31—32 (list of nations descended from Japhet, Ham, and Shem); xi. 10—26 (line of Shem’s descendants to Terah); xi. 27, 31—32 (Abraham’s family); xii. 4°—5, a anon REEEE! 1 See p. 262. § 1] THE PRIESTLY NARRATIVE (P) Vv xii. 6, 11612 (his migration into Canaan, and separation from Lot); xvi. 12 3, 15—16 (birth of Ishmael); xvii. (institution of circumcision); xix. 29 (destruction of the cities of the Kikkar); xxi. 1%, 2—5 (birth of Isaac); xxiii. (purchase of the family burial-place in Machpelah); xxv. 7—11* (death and burial of Abraham); xxv. 12—17 (list of 12 tribes descended from Ishmael); xxv. 19—20, 26> (Isaac’s marriage with Rebekah); xxvi. 34—35 (Esau’s Hittite wives) ; xxvii. 46—xxviii. 9 (Jacob’s journey to Paddan-aram); Xxix. 24, 28>, 29, xxx. 22% (perhaps), xxxi. 18>, xxxiii. 18* (Jacob’s marriage with Rachel, and return to Canaan); xxxiv. 1—2’, 4, 6, 8—10, 13—18, 20—24, 25 (partly), 27—29 (refusal of his sons to sanction intermarriage with the Shechemites) ; xxxv. 9—13, 15 (change of name to Israel at Bethel); xxxv. 22>—29 (death and burial of Isaac); xxxvi, in the main (Esau’s migration into Edom ; the tribes and tribal chiefs of Edom and Seir); xxxvii. 1—2?, xli. 46 (Joseph’s elevation in Egypt); xlvi. 6—27, xlvii. 5—6*, 7—11, 27>, 28 (migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt, and their settlement in the ‘land of Rameses’); xlviii/ 3—6, 7 (Jacob’s adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh); xlix. 1%, 28>—33, 1. 12—13 (Jacob’s final instructions to his sons, and his burial by them in the cave of Machpelah). For convenience of reference, and also in order to enable the reader to judge of the character of the source as a whole, a synopsis of the parts of Ex.—Josh. belonging to it is here added :-— Exodus i, 1—5, 7, 13—14. ii, 23°25, vi. 2—vii. 13, vii. 1920, 21>99. viii. 5—7, 15>—19, ix, 8—12. xi, 9—10. xii, 1—20, 28, 37%, 40—41, 43—51. xiii, 1—2, 20. xiv. 1—4, 8—9, 15—18, 214, 21°93 26—274, 28% 99, xvi. 1—3, 6—24, 31—36. xvii. 1% xix, 1—22 Xxiv. 15—18%, xxv. 1— XXxi. 18%, xxxiv. 29-35. xxxv.—xl. Leviticus ii—xvi. xvii.—xxvi. (these ten chapters embodying considerable excerpts from an older source, now generally called, from its leading principle, the ‘Law of Holiness’)!, xxvii. Numbers i. 1—x. 28, xiii, 1—17°, 21, 25—26 (to Paran), 32°, xiv. 1—2?, 5—T, 10, 26—30, 34-382, xv. xvi. 18, o>—70, (7°11), (16—17)3, 18—24, 278, 32°, 35, (36—40)3, 41—50. xvii. xviii, xix. xx. 1° (to month), 2, 3>—4, 6—13, 22—29. xxi. 4*(to Hor), 10—11. xxii. 1, xxv. 6—18. xxvi.—xxxi., XXxii. 18—19, 28324, xxxiii. XXXiV.—XxXxvi. Deuteronomy i. 3. xxxii. 48—52. xxxiy. 18°, 5>, 7—9, Joshua iv. 13,19. v. 10—12, vii.1. ix. 15>, 17—21. xiii. 15—32. xiv. 1—5. xv. 1—13, 20—44, (45—47)8, 4869. xvi, 4-8. xvii. 14, 3—4, 7, 99, PLO xvii) 35 011--98, xix. 1—46, 48, 51. xx. 1—3 (except ‘[and] unawares’), 6* (to judgement), 7—95, xxi, 1—49 (xxii. 9—34)°, The groundwork of P’s narrative in Genesis is ‘a series of inter- “T8057. J 1 AR) SRNR Ra miami ert 1 See the writer’s Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, p. 43 ff. (ed. 6 or 7, p. 47 ff.). 2 In the main. * The parentheses indicate later additions to P (there are probably others as well; but it is not necessary to indicate them in the present synopsis). “ With traces in xxxii. 1~17, 20—27, 5 See LOT. 105 (112), d 2 vi INTRODUCTION [§ 1 connected genealogies—viz. Adam (v. 1—28, 30—32), Noah (vi. 9—-1 0), Noah’s sons (x. 1—7, 20, 22—23, 31—32), Shem (xi. 10—26), Terah (xi. 27, 31—32), Ishmael (xxv. 12—17), Isaac (xxv. 19—20, 26°), Esau (xxxvi.), Jacob (xxxv. 22°—26, xxxvii. 2). These are constructed upon a uniform plan: each bears the title, “This is the genealogy of...”; each often begins with a brief recapitulation connecting it with the preceding table (see on vi. 10); the method is the same throughout. The genealogies are made the basis of a systematic chronology; and short historical notices are appended to them, as in the case of Abraham and Lot, xii. 4°—5, xiii. 6, 11°—12%, xvi. 1°, 3, 15—16, xix. 29’ (Moore, EncB. 1. 1670 £.). The narrative is rarely more detailed, except in the case of important occurrences, as the Creation, the Deluge, the Covenants with Noah (ix. 1—17) and Abraham (ch. xvii.), or the purchase of the family sepulchre at Hebron (ch. xxiil.). Nevertheless, meagre as it is, it contains an outline of the antecedents and patriarchal history of Israel, sufficient as an introduction to the systematic view of the theocratic institutions which is to follow in Ex.—Nu., and which it is the main object of the author of this source to exhibit. In the earlier part of the book the narrative appears to be tolerably complete; but elsewhere there are evidently omissions (e.g. of the birth of Esau and Jacob, and of the events of Jacob’s life in Paddan-aram, pre- supposed by xxxi. 18). But these may be naturally attributed to the compiler who combined P with the other narrative used by him, and who in so doing not unfrequently gave a preference to the fuller and more picturesque descriptions contained in the latter. If the parts assigned to P be read attentively, even in a translation, and compared with the rest of the narrative, the peculiarities of its style will be apparent. Its language is that of a jurist, accustomed to legal particu- larity, rather than that of a historian, writing with variety and freedom ; it is circumstantial, formal, and precise. The narrative, both as a whole and in its several parts, is articulated systematically’; a formal superscription and subscription regularly mark the beginning and close of an enumeration®. Particular words and expressions recur with great frequency. Sentences are also cast with great regularity into the same mould: as Mr Carpenter has remarked, ‘when once the proper form of words has been selected, it is unfailingly reproduced on the 1 B.g. i. 5%, 8%, 13, 19, 23, 31>; vy. 6—8, 9—11, 12—14 &e.; xi. 10—11, 12—13 &e. 2 ‘These are the generations of...’ (above, p. ii); i. 5°, 8°, 13 &e.; x. 5 [see the note], 20, 31, 32, xxv. 13°, 16, xxxvi. 29°, 30>, 40%, 43> &e. (see below, p. x., No. 26); ef. also vi. 22 (see p. ix., No, 12), comp. with Ex. vii. 6 &c. § 1) LITERARY STYLE OF P vii next occasion’.’ In descriptions, emphasis? and completeness’* are studied; hence a statement, or command, is often developed at some length, and in part even repeated in slightly different words*. There is a tendency to describe an object in full each time that it is mentioned’; a direction is followed, as a rule, by an account of its execution, usually in nearly the same words®. It will now, moreover, be apparent that the scheme into which (p. ii.) the Book of Genesis is cast, is the work of the same author,—the formula by which its salient divisions are marked constituting an essential feature in the sections assigned to P. Here is a select list of words and expressions characteristic of P,— most, it will be observed, occurring nowhere else in the entire OT., though a few are met with in Ezekiel, the priestly prophet (who has moreover other affinities with P), and a few occur also in other late OT. writings. Only words and expressions occurring in Genesis are cited; the list would be considerably extended, if those characteristic of the parts of Ex.—Josh. belonging to P were included as well’. The dagger (t+), both here and elsewhere, indicates that all passages of the Old Testament, in which the word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to; and the asterisk (*) indicates that all passages of the Hexateuch, in which the word or phrase quoted occurs, are cited or referred to. 1. God, not Jehovah, Gen.i.1, and uniformly, except xvii. 1, xxi. 1, until Ex. vi. 2, 3. , It is the theory of P, expressed distinctly in Ex. vi. 3, that the name ‘Jehovah’ was not in use before the Mosaic age: accordingly until Ex. vi. 2—3, he consistently confines himself to God. J, on the other hand, uses Jehovah regularly from the beginning (Gen. ii. 4>, 5, 7 &c.). In the OT. generally, 1 Oxf. Hex. 1. 125 (ed. 2, p. 235). Mr Carpenter instances the use of the migration formula, Gen, xii. 5, xxxi. 18, xxxvi. 8, xlvi, 6, and the description of Machpelah, xxiii. 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1.13: cf. also xii. 4>, xvi, 16, xvii. 24, 25, xxi. 5, xxv. 26%, xli. 46%; Ex. vii. 7. 3 Comp. Gen. i. 29, vi. 17, ix.a: 3 Notice the precision of ‘description and definition in Gen. i, 24, 25, 26>, 28>, vi. 18, 20, vii. 13—14, 21, viii. 17, 18—19; x. 5, 20, 31, 32, xxxvi. 40; xxiii. 17: xxxvi, 8, ‘xlvi. 6—7 ; Ex. vii. 19 &c. 4 Gen. ii. 2—3, ix. 9—11, 12—17, xvii. 10—14, 23—27, xxiii. 17—20, xlix. 29— 30, 32; Ex. xii. 18—20 &¢. In this connexion, there may be noticed particularly an otherwise uncommon mode of expression, ’ producing a peculiar rhythm, by which a statement is first made in general terms, and then partly repeated, for the purpose of receiving closer limitation or definition: see, for instance, Gen. i. 27 ‘and God created man in his own image; in the i image of God created he him: male and female created he them,’ vi. 14 (Heb.), ix. 5, xxiii. 11 ‘the field give I thee &c.; in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee,’ xlix. 29°—30; Ex. xii. 4, 8, xvi. 16, 35, tant 2,11, 18, 19, xxvi.1; Lev. xxv. 22; Nu. ii. 2, xviii. 18, xxxvi. 11— 12 (Heb. ), & 5 Comp. Beal i. 7 beside v. 6, v. 12 beside v. 11, viii. 18 f. beside viii. 16 f. $ See Gen. i. 6—7; 11—12; 24—25; vi. 18—20 and vii, 13—16; viii. 16—17 and 18—19; Ex. viii. 16—17; ix, 8—10 &e. ? See LOT. pp. 126—8 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 133—5), viii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 Jehovah is much more common than God; and to this fact is due no doubt its having been accidentally substituted for an original God in the two passages, Gen. xvii. 1, xxi. 1, The statement in Ex. vi. 3 that God appeared to the patriarchs as E/ Shaddai is in agreement with the use of this title in xvii. 1, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlviii. 3. The following words, ‘but by my name Jehovah I was not known unto them,’ are additional proof,—if such be needed,—that Gen. xv. 7, xxviii. 13, as also the numerous passages in Gen. in which the patriarchs make use of this name, cannot have been written by the same author. 2. Kind (3): Gen. i. 11, 12 bis, 21 bis, 24 bis, 25 ter, vi. 20 ter, 7, 14 quater ; Lev. xi. 14, 15, 16, 19 [hence Deut. xiv. 18, 14, 15, 18], 22 quater, 29; Hz. xlvii. 10+. 3. To swarm (WW): Gen. 1. 20, 21, vii. 21, viii. 17; Lev. xi. 29, 41, 42, 43, 46; Ez. xlvii. 9. Fig. of men: Gen. ix. 7; Ex. i. 7+. Once in J, Ex. vii. 28 [hence Ps. cv. 30]. 4, Swarming things (y'3%’): Gen. i. 20, vii. 21; Lev. v. 2, xi. 10, 20 [hence Deut. xiv. 19], 21, 23, 29, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, xxii. 5 [see p. 12 .]t. 5. To be fruitful and multiply (A37) M7): Gen. i. 22, 28, viii. 17, ix. 1, 7, xvii. 20 (cf. ov. 2, 6), xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11, xlvii. 27, xlviii. 4; Ex. i. 7; Lev. xxvi. 9: also Jer. xxiii..3; and (inverted) iii. 16, Ez. xxxvi. 11f. 6. To creep (W127): Gen. i. 21 (EVV. moveth), 26, 28, 30, vii. 8, 14, 21, viii. 17, 19, ix. 2; Lev. xi. 44, 46 (EVV. moveth), xx. 25. Also Deut. iv. 18*. 7. Creeping things, reptiles (VID): Gen. i. 24, 25, 26, vi. 7, 20, vii. 14, 23, viii. 17, 19, ix. 3 (used here more generally : EVV. moveth)*. 8. For food (nb5x5): Gen. i. 29, 30, vi. 21, ix. 3; Ex. xvi. 15; Lev. xi. 39, xxv. 6; Hz. xv. 4, 6, xxi. 37, xxiii, 37, xxix. 5, xxxiv. 5, 8, 10, 12, xxxix. 4+. (In Jer. xii. 9 pbx is an infin.) 9. Generations (nynbyn, lit. begettings) : (a) in the phrase These are the generations of...: Gen. ii. 4%, v. 1 (This ts the book of the generations of...), vi. 9, X. 1, xi. 10, 27, xxv. 12 [hence 1 Ch. i. 29], 19, xxxvi. 1, 9, xxxvii. 2; Nu. iii. 1; Ruth iv. 18. (b) in the phrase their generations, by their families: Nu. i. 20, 22, 24 &. (12 times in this chapter)+. (c) in the phrase according to (5) their generations (=their parentage, or their ages): Gen. x. 32, xxv. 13; Ex. vi. 16, 19, xxviii. 10 (3); 1 Ch. v. 7, vii. 2, 4, 9, viii. 28, ix. 9, 34, xxvi. 31. 10. Zo expire (yi3): Gen. vi. 17, vii. 21, xxv. 8, 17, xxxv. 29, xlix. 33; Nu. xvii. 12, 13, xx. 3 bis, 29; Josh. xxii. 20+. (Only besides in poetry: Zech. xiii. 8; Ps. lxxxviii. 16, civ. 29; Lam. i. 19; and 8 times in Job.) ll. With thee (him &c.) appended to an enumeration: Gen. vi. 18, vii. 7, 18, viii. 16, 18, ix. 8, xxviii. 4, xlvi. 6, 7; Hx. xxviii. 1, 41, xxix. 21 bis; Lev. viii. 2, 30, x. 9, 14, 15, xxv. 41, 54; Nu. xviii. 1, 2,7, 11, 19 bis*. Similarly after you (thee &c.) appended to seed: Gen. ix. 9, xvii. 7 bis, 8, 9, 10, 19, xxxv. 12, xlviii. 4; Ex. xxviii. 43; Nu. xxv. 13. §1]. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P ix 12. And Noah did (so); according to &c.: Gen. vi. 22: exactly the same form of sentence, Ex. vii. 6, xii. 28, 50, xxxix. 32>, xl 16; Nu. i. 54, ii. 34, viii. 20, xvii. 11 (Heb. 26): cf. Ex. xxxix. 43; Nu v. 4, ix. 5. | 13. This selfsame day (myn Dyn Oxy): Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23, 26; Ex. xii. 17, 41, 51; Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, 28, 29, 30; Dt. xxxii. 48; Jos. v. 11, x. 27 (not P: probably the compiler); Hz. ii. 3, xxiv. 2 bzs, xl. 1. 14. After their families (on»-, oninawyd): Gen. viii, 19, x. 5, 20, 31, xxxvi. 40; Ex. vi. 17, 25, xii. 21; Nu. i. (13 times), ii. 34, ili—iv. (15 times), Xxvi. (16 times), xxix. 12, xxxiii. 54; Jos. xiii. 15, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31; xv. 1, 12, 20, xvi. 5, 8, xvii. 2 bis, xviii. 11, 20, 21, 28, xix. (12 times), xxi. 7, 33, 40 (Heb. 38); 1 Ch. v. 7, vi. 62, 63 (Heb. 47, 48: from Josh. xxi. 33, 40). Once in J, Nu. xi. 10; and once also in one of the earlier historical books, 1 8. x. 21 f. 15. An everlasting covenant: Gen. ix. 16, xvii. 7, 18, 19; Ex. xxxi. 16; Lev. xxiv. 8; cf. Nu. xviii. 19, xxv. 13*. 16. Eaceedingly (48D WD3 [not the usual phrase]): Gen. xvii. 2, 6, 20; Ex. i. 7; Hz. ix. 9, xvi. 13+. 17. Substance, goods (wya5): Gen. xii. 5, xiii. 6%, xxxi. 18°, xxxvi. 7, xlvi. 6; Nu. xvi. 32 end, xxxv. 3. Elsewhere (not P): Gen, xiv. 11, 12, 16 bvs, 21, xv. 14; and in Chr. (8 times), Ezr. (4 times), Dan. xi. (3 times) +. 18. To amass, gather (w37—cognate with ‘substance’): Gen. xii. 5, xxxi. 18 bis, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 6 (RV. had gotten) t. 19. Soul (wb) in the sense of person: Gen. xii. 5, xxxvi. 6, xlvi. 15, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; Ex. i. 5, xii. 4, 16 (RV. man), 19, xvi. 16 (RV. persons) ; Lev. ii. 1 (RV. any one), iv. 2, 27, v. 1, 2; and often in the legal parts of Lev. Num. (as Lev. xvii. 12, xxii. 11, xxvii. 2); Nu. xxxi. 28, 35, 40, 46; Josh. xx. 3, 9 (from Nu. xxxv. 11, 15). See also below, No. 24a. A usage not confined to P, but much more frequent in P than elsewhere. 20. Throughout your (their) generations (n>‘n5h>, anh): Gen. xvii. 7, 9, 12; Ex. xii. 14, 17, 42, xvi. 32, 33, xxvii. 21, xxix. 42, xxx. 8, 10, 21, 31, xxxi. 13, 16, xl. 15; Lev. iii. 17, vi. 11, vii. 36, x. 9, xvii. 7, xxi. 17, xxii. 3, Xxiii. 14, 21, 31, 41, xxiv. 3, xxv. 30 (Azs); Nu. ix. 10, x. 8, xv. 14, 15, 21, 23, 38, XViii. 23, xxxv. 29+. 21. Sojournings (A130): with land, Gen. xvii. 8, xxviii. 4, xxxvi. 7, XxXvii. 1; Hx. vi. 4; Ez. xx. 38; with days, Gen. xlvii. 9 b¢s. Only besides Ps. cxix. 54: and rather differently, lv. 15 (sing.); Job xviii. 19+. 22. Possession (MINN): Gen. xvii. 8, xxiii. 4, 9, 20, xxxvi. 43, xlvii. 11, xlviii. 4, xlix. 30, L 13; Lev. xiv. 34, xxv. 10—46 (13 times), xxvii. 16, 21, 22, 24,28; Nu. xxvii. 4, 7, xxxii. 5, 22, 29, 32, xxxv. 2, 8, 28; Dt. xxxii. 49; Josh. xxi. 12, 41, xxii. 4 (Deuteronomic), 9, 19 bés. Elsewhere only in Ezekiel (xliv. 28 bis, xlv. 5, 6, 7 bis, 8, xlvi. 16, 18 ter, xlviii. 20, 21, 22 b¢s); Ps. ii. 8; 1 Ch. vii. 28, ix. 2 (=Neh. xi. 3), 2 Ch. xi. 14, xxxi. 1 f. 23. The cognate verb to get possessions (13), rather a peculiar word : Gen. xxxiv. 10, xlvii. 27; Nu. xxxii. 30, Josh. xxii. 9, 19+. x INTRODUCTION [$1 94. Father's kin (pdy),—a peculiar usage (see on Gen. xvii. 14): (a) that soul (or that man) shall be cut of from his father’s kin: Gen. Xvii. 14; Ex. xxx. 33, 38, xxxi. 14; Lev. vii. 20, 21, 25, 27, xvii. 9, xix. 8, xxiii, 29; Nu. ix. 13+. (b) to be gathered to one’s father’s kin: Gen. xxv. 8, 17, xxxv. 29, xlix. 33 (cf. on v. 29); Nu. xx. 24, xxvii. 13, xxxi. 2; Dt. xxxii. 50 bist. (c) Lev. xix. 16, xxi. 1, 4, 14,15; Ez. xviii. 18: perhaps Jud. v. 14; Hos. x14, 25. Sojourner (EVV.), better settler (Win): Gen. xxiii. 4 (hence fig. Ps. xxxix. 13, 1 Ch. xxix. 15); Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 23 (fig.), 35, 40, 45, 47 bis; Nu. xxxv. 15; 1 K. xvii. 1 (but read rather as RVm.)t+. 26. The methodical form of subscription and superscription: Gen. x. [5,] 20, 31, 32, xxv. 13%, 16, xxxvi. 29%, 30%, 40%, 43>, xlvi. 8, 15, 18, 22, 25; Hx. 1.1, vi. 14, 16, 19, 25, 26; Nu. i. 44, iv. 28, 33, 37, 41, 45, vii. 17, 28, 29 &&., 84, Xxxiii. 1; Josh. xiii. 23, 28, 32, xiv. 1, xv. 12, 20, xvi. 8, xviii. 20, 28, xix. 8, 16, 23, 31, 39, 48, 51 [cf. Gen. x. 31, 32], xxi. 19, 26, 33, 40, 4142. (Not a complete enumeration.)! 27. As those acquainted with Hebrew will be aware, there are in Heb. two forms of the pron. of the Ist pers. sing. ’dn2 and ’Gndki, which are not by all writers used indiscriminately: P now uses ’dn2 nearly 130 times (Gndki only once, Gen. xxiii. 4: comp. in Ezekiel dn? 138 times, ’dndki once, xxxvi. 28). In the rest of the Hexateuch ’Gn0X7 is preferred to ’dni, and in the discourses of Deut. it is used almost exclusively. 28. For hundred P uses a peculiar grammatical form (math in the constr. state, in cases where ordinarily mé’ah would be said): Gen. v. 3, 6, 18, 25, 28, vii. 24, vill. 3, xi. 10,25, xxi. 5, xxv. 7, 17, xxxv. 28, xlvji. 9; 28; Ex. vi. 16, 18, 20, xxxviii. 25, 27 ter; Nu. ii. 9, 16, 24, 31, xxxiii. 39. So besides only Neh. v. 11 (probably corrupt: see Ryie ad loc.), 2 Ch. xxv. 9 Qré, Est. i. 4. P uses mé’ah in such cases only twice, Gen. xvii. 17, xxiii. 1. 29. For to beget P uses regularly soin, Gen. v. 3—32 (28 times), vi. 10, xi. 10—27 (27 times), xvii. 20, xxv. 19, xlviii. 6; not 45°, which is used by J, Gen. iv. 18 ter, x. 8, 13, 15, 24 bzs, 26, xxii. 23, xxv. 3. 30. For the idea of making a covenant, P says always O°? (establish), Gen. vi. 18, ix. 9, 11, 17, xvii. 7, 19, 21, Ex. vi. 4 (so Ez. xvi. 60, 62)+; not ND (lit. cut, EVV. make: see on xv. 18), as in Gen. xv. 18, xxi. 27, 32, xxvi. 28, xxxi. 44, and generally in the OT. 31. To express the idea of Jehovah’s being in the midst of His people, P says always 7)n1 (13 times: Hx. xxv. 8 &c.), JH a9pa (13 times: Ex. iii. 20 &.). 32. Hebron is denoted in P (except Josh. xxi. 13) by Kiriath-arba‘ (said in Josh. xiv. 15=Jud. i. 10 [J] to have been its old name): Gen. xxiii. 2, xxxv. 27; Josh. xv. 13, 54, xx. 7, xxi. 11. So Neh. xi 25+. 1 The subscriptions in J are much briefer; ix. 19, x. 29, xxii. 23, xxv. 4. § 1] ; LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS OF P xi The following geographical terms are found only in P: 33. Machpelah: Gen. xxiii. 9, 17, 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13+. 34. Paddan-aram: Gen. xxv. 20, xxviii. 2, 5, 6, 7, xxxi. 18, xxxiii. 18>, XXXV. 9, 26, xlvi. 15; cf. xlviii. 7 (Paddan alone). J says Aram-naharaim, Gen. xxiv. 10: so Dt. xxiii. 4, Jud. iii. 8, Ps. lx. tétlet. Some other expressions might be noted; but these are the most distinctive. If the reader will be at the pains of underlining them in all their occurrences, he will see that they do not occur in the Hexateuch indiscriminately, but that they are aggregated in particular passages, to which they impart a character of their own, different from that of the rest of the narrative’. The literary style of P is very strongly marked: in point of fact, it stands apart not only from that of every other part of the Hexateuch, but also from that of every part of Judges, Samuel, and Kings*,—whether the strictly narrative parts, or those which have been added by the Deuteronomic compiler; and has sub- stantial resemblances only with that of Ezekiel. The parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P have next to be considered. These also shew indications of not being homogeneous in structure. Especially from ch. xx. onwards the narrative exhibits marks of compilation; and the component parts, though ‘not differing from one another in diction and style so widely as either differs from P, and being so welded together that the lines of demarcation between them frequently cannot be fixed with certainty, appear nevertheless to be plainly discernible. Thus in xx. 1—17 the consistent use of the term God is remarkable, whereas in ch. xviii.— xix. (except xix. 29 P), and in the similar narrative xii. 10—20, the term Jehovah is uniformly employed. The term God recurs similarly in xxl. 6—31, xxii. 1—13, and elsewhere, particularly in chs. xl—xlii., xlv. or such a variation in similar and consecutive chapters no plausible explanation can be assigned except diversity of authorship®. At the same time, the fact that Elohim is not here accompanied by the other criteria of P’s style, forbids our assigning the sections thus — - 1 After Ex. vi. 2 Hlohim for Jehovah disappears; but a number of even more distinctive expressions appear in its place. It is a serious mistake te suppose, as appears to be sometimes done, that the use of Hlohim for Jehovah is the only criterion distinctive of P. 2 For points of contact in isolated passages, viz. parts of Jud. xx.—xxi.,1S. ii, 22», 1 K. viii. 1, 5, see LOT’. p. 136 (ed. 7, p. 143 f£.). 3 It is true that Elohim and Yahweh represent the Divine Nature under different aspects, viz. as the God of nature and the God of revelation respectively ; but it is only in a comparatively small number of instances that this distinction can be applied, except with great artificiality, to oxplain the variation between the fwo names in the Pentateuch, xii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 characterized to that source. Other phraseological criteria are slight; there are, however, not unfrequently differences of representation, which point decidedly in the same direction (e.g. the remarkable ones in ch. xxxvii.). It seems thus that the parts of Genesis which remain after the separation of P are formed by the combination of two narratives, originally independent, though covering largely the same ground, which have been united by a subsequent editor, who also contributed inconsiderable additions of his own, into a single, con- tinuous narrative. One of these sources, from its use of the name Jahweh, is now generally denoted by the letter J; the other, in which the name Elohim is preferred, is denoted similarly by E; and the work formed by the combination of the two is referred to by the double letters JE. The method of the compiler who combined J and E together, was sometimes, it seems, to extract an entire narrative from one or other of these sources (as xx. 1—17, xxi. 6—31 from E; ch. xxiv. from J); sometimes, while taking a narrative as a whole from one source, to incorporate with it notices derived from the other (as frequently in chaps. xl.—xly.); and sometimes to construct his narrative of materials derived from each source in nearly equal pro- portions (as chaps. Xxviil., XIX). The passages assigned to H in the present volume are: xv. 1—2, 5, xx,, xxi, 6—21, 22—32%, xxii. 1—14, 19, xxviii, 11—12, 17—18, 20—22, xxix. 1, 15—23, 25—28*, 30, xxx. 1—3, 6, 17—20%°, 2123, xxxi. 2, 4—18*, 19—45, 51—55, xxxii. 1, xxxiii, 18°—20, xxxv. 1—8, xxxvii. 5—11, 19—20, 22—25%, 98°, 299-30, 36, xl.—xlii. (except a few isolated passages), xlv. (with similar exceptions), xlvi. 1—5, xviii. 1—2, 8—22, 1, 15—26. It may suffice to indicate the principal longer passages referred to J: ii, 4>—iii,, iv.; the parts of vi—x. not referred above to P; xi. 1—9; and (except here and there a verse or two,—rarely, a few verses more,—belonging to E or P) xii. xiii., xv., xvi., xviii—xix., Xxiv., XxV. 21—34, xxvi., xxvii. 1—45, xxix. 2—14, xxix. 31—xxx. 24 (the main narrative), xxx. 25—43, xxxii., xxxiil,, xxxiv. (partly), xxxvii. (partly), XXxViii., xxxix., xliii., xliv., xlvi. 28—34, xlvil., xlix., |. 1—11, 14. The criteria distinguishing J from E are fewer and less clearly marked than those distinguishing P from JE as a whole; and there is consequently sometimes uncertainty in the analysis, and critics, interpreting the evidence differently, sometimes differ accordingly in their conclusions. Nevertheless the indications that the narrative is composite are of a nature which it is not easy to gainsay; and the difficulty which sometimes presents itself of disengaging the two sources is but a natural consequence of the greater similarity of style § 1] CRITERIA DISTINGUISHING J AND E xiii subsisting between them, than between JE, as a whole, and P'. At the same time the present writer is ready to allow that by some critics the separation of J from E is carried further than seems to him to be probable or necessary: no doubt, the criteria which are relied upon exist; the question which seems to him to be doubtful, is whether in the cases which he has in view they are sufficient evidence of different authorship. But the general conclusion that the narrative here called ‘JE’ is composite does not appear to him to be disputable: and the longer and more clearly defined passages which may reasonably be referred to J and E respectively, have been indicated by him accord- ingly throughout the present volume. In important cases, also, the grounds upon which the distinction rests have generally been pointed out in the notes. The following are some examples of words or expressions characteristic of E, as distinguished from J, E prefers God (though not exclusively) and angel of God where J prefers Jehovah and angel of Jehovah; E uses Amorite as the general name of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, while J uses Canaanite; EK uses Horeb, J Sinai; in E the name of Moses’ father-in-law is Jethro, in J it is Hobab; for bondwoman E prefers dmah, J prefers shiphhah; E speaks of God’s coming in a dream (xx. 3, xxxi, 24; Nu. xxii. 9, 20),—an expression not found at all elsewhere; E also uses sometimes unusual words, as 0°} times Gen. xxxi. 7, 41+, kesitah (a piece of money) xxxiii. 19, Jos. xxiv. 32 (only besides Job xlii. 11)+, HN to rejoice Ex. xviii. 9 (otherwise rare and poet.), MIM to see, v. 21 (very uncommon in prose), nwidn weakness xxxii. 18, pn Dpa mynw> for a whispering among them that rose up against them (poet.) ». 25, M5 in a local sense (‘here,’ not, as usually, ‘thus’); and he has peculiar forms of the inf., Gen. xxxi. 28, xlvi. 3, xlviii. 11, 1.20. Of expressions characteristic of J, we can only notice here Behold, now, Gen. xii. 11, xvi. 2, XVili. 27, 31, xix. 2, 8,19, xxvii. 27; to call with the name of Jehovah, iv. 26, xii, 8, xiii. 4, xxi. 33, xxvi. 257; he (was) the father of..., iv. 20, 21, xix. 37, 382 (cf. ix. 18, x. 21, xi. 29, xxii. 212; observe also (S13) 81 D1 in the same contexts, iv. 22, 26, x. 21, xix. 38, xxii. 20, 24); to sind favour in the eyes of (14 times in Gen.); forasmuch as (yo-Sy-99, a peculiar expression), xviii. 5, xix, 8, xxiii. 10, xxxviii. 26, Nu. x. 31, xiv. 437; the land of Goshen (see on xlv. 10); a preference for Zsrael (as the personal name of Jacob) after XXXY. 22 (cf. p. 353; E prefers Jacob throughout); nmnox (peculiar word for sack, 15 times in xlii. 27—xliv. 12; not elsewhere). 1 In a harmony of the four Gospels, the parts belonging to the Fourth Gospel would, as a rule, be separable from the rest without difficulty: but those belonging to the First and Second, it would often be scarcely possible to distinguish. J and KE differ from P in having stylistically a considerable general resemblance (though there are differences: see, for instance, LOT. p. 174 f., ed. 6 or 7, p. 184 f.) to the narratives (apart from the ‘Deuteronomic’ additions) of Judges, Samuel, and the earlier parts of Kings. 4 Not elsewhere in the Hexateuch. xiv INTRODUCTION [$1 For longer lists of characteristic expressions, reference must be made to the Oaf. Hex. 1. 185—192 (in the reprint of vol. 1., p. 384 ff.). The expressions quoted there are not indeed all of equal value; and some may occur in short passages assigned to J or E (as the case may be) upon slight grounds; but when all deductions have been made on these accounts, the reader who will be at the pains of examining the two lists attentively will find that J and E shew each a decided preference for particular expressions, which, though not so strongly marked as the preferences shewn by P, nevertheless exists, and is a reality. It is also to be borne in mind that words and expressions, which may be insignificant in themselves, nevertheless, when they recur repeatedly, may be evidence of the line of thought along which a given writer moves most familiarly, or of the subjects in which he is chiefly interested. Of all the Hebrew historians whose writings have been preserved to us, J is the most gifted and the most brilliant. He excels in the power of delineating life and character. His touch is singularly light: with a few strokes he paints a scene, which impresses itself indelibly upon his reader’s memory. In ease and grace his narratives are un- surpassed: everything is told with precisely the amount of detail that is required; the narrative never lingers, and the reader’s interest ig sustained to the end. He writes without effort, and without conscious art. ‘That some of his narratives are intentionally didactic can hardly be questioned: the first man, the woman, the serpent, and Yahweh, all play their part in the Eden drama with a profound purpose under- lying it: yet the simplicity of the story and the clearness of the characterization are unmarred. But there are others, like the account of the mission of Abraham’s steward in Gen. xxiv., which have no such specific aim, and are unsurpassed in felicitous presentation, because they are unconsciously pervaded by fine ideas. The dialogues especially are full of dignity and human feeling; the transitions in the scenes between Abraham and his visitors in ch. xviil., or between Joseph and his brethren, are instinctively artistic; for delicacy and pathos, what can surpass the intercession of Judah (xliv. 18 ff.), or the self-disclosure of Joseph (xlv. 1 ff.)? The vivid touches that call up a whole picture, the time-references from daybreak through the heat to evening cool and night, the incidents that circle round the desert wells, the constant sense of the place of cattle alike in the Jand- scape and in life, the tender consideration for the flock and herd,— all these belong to a time when the pastoral habit has not ceased, and the tales that belong to it are told from mouth to mouth. The breath of poetry sweeps through them; and though they are set in § 1] LITERARY STYLE OF J AND E XV a historic frame that distinctly implies a reflective effort to conceive the course of human things as a whole, they have not passed into the stage of learned arrangement; they still possess the freshness of the elder time’.’ E in general character does not differ widely from J. But he does not as a writer exhibit the same rare literary power, he does not display the same command of language, the same delicacy of touch, the same unequalled felicity of representation and expression. His descriptions are less poetical; and his narratives do not generally leave the same vivid impression. As compared with P, both J and E exhibit far greater freshness and brightness of style; their diction 1s more varied; they are not bound to the same stereotyped forms of thought and expression; their narratives are more dramatic, more life- like, more instinct with feeling and character. The question of the dates of the sources of which the Book of Genesis is composed, cannot be properly answered from a consideration of this book alone, as many of the most important criteria upon which the answer depends are afforded by the subsequent parts of the Pentateuch. There are indeed passages in Genesis which cannot reasonably be supposed to have been written until after Israel had been settled in Canaan, as xii. 6, xiii. 7; xiv. 14 (‘Dan’); xxi. 32, 34 and xxvi. 1 (the Philistines, if what is stated on x. 14 is correct, were not in Palestine till the age of Ramses III., considerably after the Exodus); xxxvi. 31 (a verse which obviously presupposes the existence of the monarchy in Israel); xl. 15 (Canaan called the ‘land of the Hebrews’); and ch. xlix.,—at least if the considerations advanced on p. 380 are accepted: but these are isolated passages, the inferences naturally authorized by which might not impossibly be neutralized by the supposition that they were later additions to the original narrative, and did not consequently determine by themselves the date of the book as a whole. The question of the date of the Book of Genesis is really part of a wider question, viz. that of the date of the Pentateuch,—or rather Hexateuch,—as a whole; and a full considera- tion of this wider subject obviously does not belong to the present context. It must suffice, therefore, here to say generally, that when the different parts of the Hexateuch, especially the Laws, are com- pared together, and also compared with the other historical books of the Old Testament, and the prophets, it appears clearly that they 1 Carpenter, The Oxford Hexateuch, 1. 102 f. (ed. 2, p. 185 f.). xvi INTRODUCTION [$1 cannot all be the work of a single man, or the product of a single age: the different strata of narrative and law into which, when closely examined, the Hexateuch is seen to fall, reveal differences of such a kind that they can only be adequately accounted for by the supposition that they reflect the ideas, and embody the institutions, which were character- istic of widely different periods of Israelitish history. The general con- clusions to which a consideration of all the facts thus briefly indicated has led critics, and which are adopted in the present volume, are that the two sources, J and E, date from the early centuries of the monarchy, J belonging probably to the ninth, and E to the early part of the | eighth cent. B.c. (before Amos or Hosea); and that P,—at least in its main stock (for it seems, as a whole, to have been the work of a school of writers rather than of an individual, and particular sections, espe- cially in Exodus and Numbers, appear to be of later origin),—belongs to the age of Ezekiel and the Exile’. Chap. xiv. is clearly not part of either J, E, or P, but belongs to a special source. There is, how- ever, no sufficient foundation for the idea that it is of foreign origin,— whether translated from a cuneiform original, or based upon an ancient Canaanitish source; for the narrative is genuinely Hebraic in style and colouring. Its date is uncertain: but it has some points of contact — with P; and, as Prof. G. F. Moore remarks (HncB. u. 1677), the impression which the contents and style of the chapter make as a whole is of affinity with the later rather than with the earlier Heb. historical writing. It will scarcely be earlier than the age of the Exile. The Book of Genesis assumed its present form, it is probable, by two main stages. First, the two independent, but parallel, narratives of the patriarchal age, J and E, were combined into a whole by a com- piler, who sometimes incorporated long sections of each intact (or nearly so), and at other times combined elements from each into a single narrative, introducing occasionally in the process short ad- ditions of his own (e.g. in xxvi. 1—5, xxxix. 1, xl. 1, 3,5). The whole thus formed (JE) was afterwards combined with the narrative P by a second compiler, who, adopting P as his framework, accommodated JE to it, omitting in either what was necessary to avoid needless 1 On the general question of the date of the Hexateuch, and for a fuller statement of the grounds on which these conclusions rest, see F. H. Woods’ art. Hexatrvcn in DB. (cf. also the art. Law in OT.); the present writer’s Introduction to the Lit. of the OT. pp. 115—150 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 122—159); or the very compre- hensive discussion of the subject by J. E. Carpenter in the Oxford Hexateuch, vol.1. passim (ed. 2, under the title The Composition of the Hexateuch, 1902). ee a § 1] DATE OF GENESIS XVii repetition, and making such slight redactional adjustments as the unity of his work required. One chapter (xiv.), the literary style of which distinguishes it from both JE and P, he incorporated from a special source. ‘I'he Book of Genesis is not a conglomerate of dis- connected fragments; the three main sources, or documents, of which it consists, once formed independent wholes, and the portions selected from each have been combined together in accordance with a de- finite plan. It remains to consider the other leading characteristics of the several sources. Here also, as in their literary features, J and E have many similarities, though there are at the same time differences; while P displays marked contrasts to both. J and E may be regarded as having reduced to writing the traditions respecting the antecedents and beginnings of their nation, which were current in the early centuries of the monarchy. In view of the principles and interests which predominate in both these narratives, and in contradistinction to those which determine the form and contents of the priestly narra- tive (p. iv.), JE, treated as a whole, may be termed the prophetical narrative of the Hexateuch: the ideas and points of view which are so conspicuous afterwards in a more developed form in the writings of the great prophets appearing in it in germ, and the general religious spirit being very similar. Among the characteristics of J, one that is very prominent is his tendency to trace back to their beginnings, even in the primitive history of mankind, many existing customs, institutions, or facts of life and society. ‘Thus in ii. 4°—iii. he explains the origin of the distinction of the sexes, the institution of marriage, the presence of sin and toil in the world, the custom of wearing clothing, the gait and habits of the serpent, the subject condition of woman, and the pain of child-bearing. As, however, is pointed out on p. 36, the explanations offered of these facts are not historical or scientific explanations, but explanations prompted by religious reflection upon the facts of life. In ch. iv. he describes, in accordance with the beliefs current among the Hebrews, the origin of pastoral life and agriculture, of city-life, polygamy, music, metallurgy, and the public worship of Yahweh; in ix. 20—26 that of the culture of the vine; and in x., xi. 1—9 that of the division of mankind into different nations, and of diversities of language. He explains the origin of a common proverb or saying in x. 9 and xxii. 14, of a remarkable pinnacle of salt overlooking the Dead Sea in xix. 26, of the custom of not eating a particular part of xviii INTRODUCTION [§ 1 an animal in xxxii. 32, of the Egyptian system of land-tenure in xlvii. 26, and of a great many names of persons’ and places’, at least according to the etymologies current at the time. Explanations of the last-named kind are also found in E; but much less frequently than in J*. J explains also, in accordance with contemporary beliefs, the origin of various nations and tribes, especially of those which were more or less closely related to Israel, as x. 8—12, 13—19, 24—30; xix. 37f. (Moab and Ammon), xxii. 20—24 (the Nahoridae), xxv. 1—4 (the Keturaean tribes), xxv. 21—26* (Edom). By prophetic words attributed, in most cases, to their respective ancestors, he accounts for the character and political position of many of the peoples of his own day, ix. 25—27 (Canaan), xvi. 12 (Ishmael), xxv. 23, xxvii. 28f,, 39, 40 (Edom and Israel), ch. xlix. (the twelve tribes): cf. in E xlviil. 14, 19 (Manasseh and Ephraim), 22 (Shechem). In other respects also J loves to point to the character of nations or tribes as fore- shadowed in their beginnings (ix. 22—24, xvi. 12, xxv. 25f.,, 33; and perhaps xix. 830—88, xxxv. 22 [see the notes]: cf. also xlix. 3—4, 5—7). In J the knowledge and worship of Jehovah go back to primitive times: Cain and Abel already make their ‘presents’ to Him (iv. 3), which may be either of the fruits of the ground or of the firstlings of the flock. Under Sheth (Gen. iv. 24) men begin,—it may be supposed, in some more formal and public manner,—to ‘call with the name of Jehovah.’ A distinction between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals is recognized under Noah (vii. 2), who also builds an altar, and offers ‘clean’ animals as burnt offerings to Jehovah (viii. 20). The same usages prevailed during the whole patriarchal period: the patriarchs are repeatedly spoken of as building altars, and ‘calling with the name of Jehovah’ (see pp. xix, xx)* 1 Eve (iii, 20), Cain (iv. 1), Seth (iv. 25), Noah (v. 29), Peleg (x. 25), Ishmael (xvi. 11), Isaac (xviii. 12—15, but not explicitly), Moab and Ammon (xix. 37, 38), Esau, Jacob, and Edom (xxv. 25, 26, 30), most of the names of Jacob’s sons in xxix. 31—xxx. 24, Israel (xxxii. 28), Ben-oni and Benjamin (xxxv. 18), Perez and Zerah (xxxviii. 29, 30); cf. ii. 7 (‘man’), 23 (‘woman’), xli. 45 (Zaphenath-Pa‘neah). 2 Enoch (iv. 17), Babylon (xi. 9), Beer-lahai-roi (xvi. 14), Zo‘ar (xix. 22), Yahweh- yir‘eh (xxii. 14), the wells ‘Esek, Sitnah, and Rehoboth (xxvi, 20, 21, 22), Beer-sheba‘ (xxvi. 33), Bethel (xxviii. 19), Gilead and Mizpah (xxxi. 48, 49), Penuel (xxxii. 30), Succoth (xxxiii. 17), Abel-mizraim (1. 11), Marah (Ex. xv. 23): cf. also the allusions to Seir xxv. 25, Mahanaim xxxii. 7, 10, Jabbok xxxii. 24, and Penuel xxxiii. 10. 8 Isaac (xxi. 6), Dan (xxx. 6), Issachar (xxx. 18), Zebulun (xxx. 20*°), Joseph (xxx. 23), Manasseh and Ephraim (sli. 51 f.); Beer-sheba‘ (xxi. 31), Bethel (xxviii. 17, 22), Mahanaim (xxxii. 2), and Allon-bachuth (xxxv. 8): cf. also xxxui. 20, xxxv. 7. The meaning of ‘Ishmael’ is alluded to in xxi. 17. 4 This is J’s representation: but it can scarcely be doubted that in his use of the name Jehovah (Yahweh) he in reality merely transfers, without conscious reflection, the usage of his own age to primitive, if not also to patriarchal times. The total { : J , 7 5 § 1] CHARACTERISTICS OF J AND E xix E, however, seems to describe a threefold stage of religious develop- ment. What picture, indeed, he had formed of the primitive history of mankind we do not know: though Gen. xx. 13, Josh. xxiv. 2 appear to shew that he carried back the story of Abraham to his ancestral connexions in Haran, the first traces of his narrative which remain are to be found in ch. xv. But Israel’s ancestors, he declares, ‘beyond the River’ (i.e. in Haran), were idolaters (Josh. xxiv. 2, 14, 15); Jacob’s wives accordingly bring their ‘foreign gods’ into Canaan with them (Gen. xxxv. 2—4); and Rachel in particular steals her father’s teraphim (xxxi. 19). By what means Abraham learnt the higher truth, the existing narrative does not state. But he appears as a consistent monotheist (xx. 11, 17, &c.); and Jacob, though his mono- theism, at least in xxviii. 20—22, is of an immature and rudimentary type, still calls upon his family and household to bury their ‘foreign gods’ under the terebinth at Shechem (xxxv. 4). The name Yahweh is in this source first expressly revealed in Ex. i. 14f. In the Book of Genesis, both narratives deal largely with the antiquities of the sacred sites of Palestine. ‘Thus an altar is built by Abraham, as soon as he enters the country, at Shechem, close to ths ‘Directing Terebinth’ (xii. 7), another between Bethel and Ai (xii. 8 cf. xiii. 4), a third at Hebron, by the terebinths of Mamre (xiii. 18), and a fourth on (apparently) the site of the later Temple (xxii. 9): other altars are built by Isaac at Beer-sheba (xxvi. 25) and by Jacob at Shechem (xxxiii. 20; but perhaps ‘pillar’ should be read here: see the note), and at Bethel (xxxv. 1, 3, 7): Jacob also sacrifices at Beer- sheba on his way to Egypt (xlvi. 1).