LIBR ARY OF PRINCETO N 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
COMPANION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 BY SAMUEL H. TURNER, D. D. 
 
 PROF. OF BIB. LIT. AND INTERP. OF SCRIP. IN THE THEOL. SEM. OF 
 
 THE PROT. EPIS. CHURCH, AND OF THE HEBREW LANG. 
 
 AND LIT. IN COLUM. COLL., NEW-YORK. 
 
 NEW-YORK 66 LONDON: 
 WILEY AND PUTNAM, 
 
 1841. 
 
Entered according to an Act of Cong^-ess, in the year 1841, by 
 
 Wiley & Putnam, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York. 
 
 J. P. Wright, Primer, 18 New Slrcel, New York. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The Author of the following work does not 
 hesitate to acknowledge, that he offers it to the 
 pubhc with some solicitude. Apart from any per- 
 sonal considerations, which it would be affectation 
 wholly to disclaim, there are others of a nature en- 
 tirely different and vastly higher, which must make 
 a strong impression on every writer who feels him- 
 self to be a moral and responsible agent. To com- 
 ment on the sacred Scriptures is to interpret what 
 God formerly revealed ; and therefore, the attempt 
 should be made with due seriousness of mind, and 
 suitable intellectual preparation. The expositor 
 should possess a competent acquaintance with the 
 principles and laws of interpretation, and also with 
 the various facts which bear, either directly or in- 
 directly, on the points to be illustrated. He should 
 exercise a proper care and judgment in selecting 
 from the sources of information, and in applying his 
 knowledge to the obscurities which are to be cleared 
 up, and the difficulties which are to be removed. 
 Whether these requisitions shall appear to be met, 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 in any degree, in the subsequent pages, must be 
 decided by the candid and intelHgent examiner. 
 
 It may be proper to inform the reader, that it was 
 not my intention to write a complete commentary 
 on the book of Genesis, or, in any sense, a prac- 
 tical one. He need not therefore be surprised, if 
 many things are here passed over which could not 
 properly have been omitted in a more voluminous 
 work, composed on a more extensive plan. The 
 book now submitted to his inspection is intended as 
 a companion to the first part of the Pentateuch. 
 Far from being designed to lessen the importance 
 or supersede the use of the inspired record, it does 
 but accompany it as a servant and attendant. It is 
 expected, therefore, that the reader will peruse it, 
 and especially the Analysis, with the sacred volume 
 open before him. Those who are acquainted with 
 the original Hebrew, will, of course, prefer the 
 fountain head of the truth. Others will find our 
 admirable and generally accurate English transla- 
 tion among the very best and purest of the streams. 
 
 In tlie preparation both of the Analysis and the 
 Notes, it has been my object to illustrate the book 
 of Genesis by a constant reference to the original 
 text, to other portions of Sciipture, and to the 
 best sources and aids of interpretation. In the 
 hope, that, of those who may favor this volume with 
 their attention, a considerable number will be com- 
 petent to examine original authorities for them- 
 selves, it appeared to be due to that class of readers, 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 not to leave them without the means of determining 
 on the correctness of the Author's representations. 
 It is with this view, that I have occasionally intro- 
 duced the authorities appealed to in their original 
 language. It is hoped, however, that this will not 
 deter the merely English reader from giving his 
 attention to this work, as, in every instance, the 
 original passages are accompanied by a translation, 
 which, if not always literal, is yet sufficiently so to 
 put him in possession of the writer's meaning. He 
 will not object, because to one class of readers an 
 advantage is afforded, of which it is his misfortune 
 that he cannot avail himself. 
 
 It will be perceived that the literal sense of the 
 words is adhered to, when there is no sufficient 
 reason for adopting a figurative meaning. And 
 when a passage is susceptible of more expositions 
 than one, I have thought it most in accordance with 
 that candor which should govern the expositor, not 
 to limit the reader to that, which to my own mind 
 may be most satisfactory: being well assured of 
 this, that uniformity of opinion respecting the 
 meannig of difficult passages of Scripture is not 
 to be expected, both on account of the nature of 
 the grounds whereon such passages ought to be 
 interpreted, and the character and habits of the 
 mind, varying, as they do, in consequence of dif- 
 ferent natural capacity, and also from the influence 
 of education and incidental circumstances. If the 
 data whereby to form a judgment respecting the 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 meaning of a passage have not appeared sufficiently 
 clear or complete to settle the true and necessary 
 sense, I have purposely avoided the expression of 
 a decided opinion, being of nothing more strongly 
 persuaded than of this, that an affectation of know- 
 ledge merely displays ignorance, and that an attempt 
 to shroud in mysteiy what is clear, or to explain 
 what is to us unintelligible, necessarily tends either 
 to superstition or infidelity. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 15, line 4 from bottom, /or In read in. 
 
 — C8, — 11 from bottom, for 60 read 40. 
 
 — 72, — 7, for He read Ttie. 
 
 — 83, — 1, for xi. read ix. 
 _ 86, — 18, for 50 read 51. 
 
 — 102, — 7 from bottom, for her reac? his. 
 
 — 121, — 6 from bottom, for might 7'ead dignity. 
 
 — 131, — 7 from bottom,/oridolatriae re(Zc?idoloIatrisB. 
 _ 380, — 6, for ri^b^t? read rib^t^J. 
 
 — 380, — 19, for adapted, read adopted. 
 
 — 385, — 16, for scarcely, read scarcely. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Book of Genesis derives its name from the history of 
 the creation, in Greek yivsdic., with which it commences. The 
 Jews designate the several books of the Pentateuch by the 
 words with which they respectively begin ; this book, there- 
 fore, is known by the name Bereshith, or Bereshith bara, 
 
 Although the book is a part of the Pentateuch, and conse- 
 quently not in all respects an entire work, it is still suffi- 
 ciently complete in itself to admit of its being examined in- 
 dependently of the four books which succeed it. It may be 
 divided generally into two portions. The first, chap, i — xi. 26, 
 contains the principal events from the creation to the birth of 
 Abraham, with genealogical lists of such of the ancestors of 
 that patriarch as had preserved a due regard for religion and 
 good morals. The second portion, comprehending the re- 
 mainder of the book, furnishes a more detailed history of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, continuing to the death of Jo- 
 seph ; and in this portion the promises made to the patriarchs 
 form everywhere the most conspicuous object. 
 
 After an account of the creation, of the original state of 
 man, and of the fall, the first portion proceeds to relate the 
 increase of irreligion and immorality, until, about the year 
 235, (iv. 26 ; v. 3, 6,) the true worshippers of the Deity were 
 distinguished by the appellation " sons of God," whilst those 
 who disregarded the divine instructions and were led by 
 merely human propensities, were called children " of men." 
 2 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Of the former class were the ancestors of Noah, who are 
 consequently here introduced, (chap, v.) although the gene- 
 alogy, like a long parenthesis, interrupts the close connexion 
 between iv. 26 and vi. 1. For the same cause the extraor- 
 dinary piety of Enoch and his translation are mentioned in 
 V. 22 ss. The intermarriages or illicit union of these two 
 classes of persons produced at last so general a corruption 
 of religion and morals, that God destroyed by a flood all 
 living creatures except Noah and his family, and the various 
 animals which were preserved along with them in the ark. 
 On account of the importance of this terrific event, it is 
 related with more than usual particularity, (vi. 9 — ix. 29.) 
 This is followed by a genealogical and geographical ac- 
 count of settlements made in the world, (chap, x.) and then, 
 (xi. 1 — 9,) the attempt to build the tower of Babel is related, 
 which, as it gave rise to the dispersion, is intimately con- 
 nected with the account of that event. The posterity of 
 Shem, with whom religion and morals were preserved long- 
 est and in the greatest purity, are then introduced, (xi. 26.) 
 down to the birth of Abraham. 
 
 The second portion of the book contains a more particu- 
 lar account of facts in which the Israelites were interested. 
 As the family of Terah were idolatrous, (Josh. xxiv. 2 ; Gen. 
 xxxi. 30, XXXV. 2,) Abraham is divinely called to go to Ca- 
 naan, where a numerous posterity is promised him, and the 
 settlement of his descendants through Isaac, after a resi- 
 dence of four hundred years in a foreign land ; and also, that 
 in his posterity " all nations should be blessed," (xii. 2, 3 ; 
 xiii. 14 — 17; xv. 4, 5, 7, 13 — 18; xvii. 4 — 8; xviii. 18; xxii_ 
 17, 18 ;) all which has in view the preservation of the know- 
 ledge of God and true religion, together with the coming of 
 a spiritual deliverer to bring the blessing of salvation to man- 
 kind. These promises, which are repeated to Isaac, (xxvi. 
 1 — 5,) and to Jacob, (xxviii. 13 — 15,) are the principal point 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 on which every thing in this domestic history turns, the ac- 
 count of Joseph not excepted, as this includes the descent 
 of Jacob's family into Egypt, where they became exceedingly 
 numerous. Whatever is introduced in relation to other 
 families and nations, has some bearing on the history of 
 these patriarchs, or concerns some collateral branches of 
 their families. See chap. xiv. 17 ss.; xxv. 1 — 4, 12—16; 
 xxxvi.* 
 
 That the Pentateuch, and consequently the Book of Gene- 
 sis as a constituent part of it, is the genuine work of Moses, 
 is supported by the tradition of the whole church, both Jew- 
 ish and Christian, which, with unanimous consent, ascribe it 
 to this most extraordinary man, whose deeply religious cha- 
 racter, natural talents, and profound and extensive learning, 
 abundantly qualified him, under that inspiration of the Holy 
 Spirit by which he was guided, to prepare the work, and to 
 rule over the people of God, for whose use it was originally 
 designed. In the earlier ages of the primitive Christian 
 church, some of the Gnosticks and certain other heretics did 
 indeed oppose the genuineness of the Pentateuch ; but their 
 efforts were directed chiefly against the divine origin of the 
 law which it contained, and some of the historical narratives 
 which it recounted, which appeared to them unworthy of 
 the Divine Being.f The fathers considered the Pentateuch 
 as the original work of Moses, restored through inspiration 
 by Ezra, after its loss in consequence of the Babylonian cap- 
 tivity. The notion of this fabulous restoration originated 
 with the Jews themselves. 
 
 The suspicion that the Pentateuch contains interpolations, 
 may also be traced to the same source. Isaac Ben Jasus, 
 
 * Jahn's Introduction, Pail II. § 2. 
 
 t On this gjj)nnd they are said in the Clementines to be false. See 
 Homily II, chapters 41—44, 52, in Le Clerc's edition of Cotelerius, 
 Ant. 1700, vol. I. p. 632, 634. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 a Spanish Jew,* in the beginning of the eleventh century, 
 suggested the idea that some portions of the Pentateuch 
 were composed after the time of Moses. The 36th chapter 
 of Genesis, for instance, he ascribed to the age of Jehosha- 
 phat. Aben Ezra, who mentions this opinion with disap- 
 probation, still admits that some interpolated passages occur. 
 This learned writer is generally considered as the first who 
 opposed the genuineness of the Pentateuch. Spinoza appeals 
 to his authority, and endeavours thereby to support his own 
 opinion, that the Pentateuch owes its present form to the 
 labours of Ezra. Tract. Theol. Polit. Cap. 8. See Hand- 
 buch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testa- 
 ment, by H. A. Ch. Haevernick, Erlangen, 1836, vol. I. 
 p. 634—636. 
 
 It is unnecessary to mention various writers, who, in some 
 form or other, have denied the genuineness of the Penta- 
 teuch, and consequently of the Book of Genesis. However 
 great may have been the influence of their productions 
 within a limited time and space, their objections have always 
 been met by solid answers, and the genuineness of the Pen- 
 tateuch as the authentic work of Moses has been vindicated 
 to the satisfaction of the candid and intelligent. The reader 
 w}\\ find a masterly discussion of this subject in Jahn's In- 
 troduction, Part II. § 3 — 14. And in defending the genuine- 
 ness of the five books of Moses, he comprehends also of 
 course that of Genesis. For, as he remarks,f ' the events 
 herein related are alluded to in the time of Joshua and in all 
 the following ages, as well known equally with those in the 
 remaining books ; whence it may justly be inferred, that Gen- 
 esis, from the time of Joshua downward, having been com- 
 prehended under the general titles of the Law, the Law of 
 
 * See Wolf's Bibliotlieca Hebrxa, Tom. I. p. 339, No. 15, and 
 p. 662, No. 1208. 
 
 t P. 190, 191. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 Jehovah, the Law of Moses, and the Book of the Law of 
 Moses, was attributed to Moses. There is the less room for 
 doubting this, inasmuch as Genesis and the first chapters of 
 Exodus form a necessary introduction to what follows,* 
 and, on the contrary, in the remaining books of the Penta- 
 teuch, there are frequent references to the events narrated 
 in Genesis and the first chapters of Exodus ; so that both 
 parts are closely connected in such a manner that neither 
 would be perfect without the other. The Hebrews, de- 
 graded during their residence in Egypt so as to worship 
 creatures, and, as had been foreseen by Moses, thencor 
 forward continually prone to idolatry, needed the instruction 
 given in Genesis and the former part of Exodus, respecting 
 the nature of the deity whom they at Mount Sinai had ac- 
 knowledged as their king, whose laws they had received, 
 and to whom they proffered their reverence and gratitude 
 for his mercies, by their Sabbaths and solemn feasts, by 
 their sacrifices and first fruits, by their obedience to his 
 laws, and by all their acts of homage and worship. If they 
 had been unacquainted with this part of the Pentateuch, 
 they must have been ignorant of the nature of the Deity 
 whom they professed to worship ; they could not at that 
 remote period have known their king as God the Creator 
 and Governor of the Universe ; they could not have under- 
 stood his frequently recurring titles, the God of Abraham, 
 of Isaac, and of Jacob ; they could not have been able to 
 
 * The connexion of Genesis with the subsequent books, as introductory 
 to their contents, and in some measure serving as an explanation and 
 defence of the proceedings which they relate, will be evident upon an 
 inspection of the following passages, all of whicli contain matter either 
 alluded to in subsequent books, or else corresponding with some particu- 
 lars therein developed. Chap. ii. 3; ix. 1 — 17, 20 — 27; xii. 1 — 3; xiii. 
 14—17; XV.; xvii. ; xix. 30—38; xxi. 1—20; xxiv. 2—8; xxv. 1—6, 
 19 — 34; xxvii. ; xxviii. ; xxxv. 9 — 15; xxxvi. 6; xlvi. 1 — 7; xlviii. ; 
 xlix. 1, 7—13. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ascertain what was meant by the frequent references to the 
 promises made to the patriarchs ; and they must have been 
 entirely in the dark, as to the number and nature of those 
 wonderful works, which are so frequently mentioned in the 
 remaining books of Moses. On all these subjects, oral 
 tradition must, by the general lapse into idolatry, have 
 become exceedingly depraved, if not totally obliterated, in 
 the course of ages. The same writer, therefore, who, in 
 hjs care for the information of the Hebrews even of remote 
 periods, committed the Pentateuch to writing, would not 
 have left instruction so necessary for that people, especially 
 those of them who lived in later ages, as that contained in 
 the book of Genesis and the former part of Exodus, to be 
 supplied by oral tradition ; neither is it credible that he 
 did.' 
 
 But if the book of Genesis were written by Moses, agree- 
 ably to all ancient tradition and scriptural reference, 
 inasmuch as the work contains narrations of events which 
 took place long before the time of the author, the question 
 arises, whence did he obtain his information ? He must have 
 derived his knowledge of the facts recorded either from 
 immediate divine revelation, or from oral tradition, or from 
 written documents or other monuments. The nature of 
 many of the facts and the minuteness of the narration, render it 
 quite improbable that such detailed accounts were commu- 
 nicated by immediate revelation. That all his knowledge 
 should have been derived from oral tradition, appears 
 morally impossible, when we consider the great number of 
 names, of ages, of dates, and of minute events, which are 
 recorded. It remains, then, that he must have obtained 
 some information from written documents, coeval, or nearly 
 so, with the events which they recorded, and composed by 
 persons intimately acquainted with the subjects to which 
 they relate. That these were few in number, appears 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 probable from the simple and uncultivated habits and the 
 humble occupations of the Hebrews previously to their re- 
 moval to Egypt, and from their oppressed and degraded 
 state while there, all of which are unfavourable alike to 
 literary pursuits and historical research. It is probable, 
 therefore, that the history given by Moses in Genesis is 
 derived principally from short memoranda and genea- 
 logical tables written by the patriarchs, or under their 
 superintendence, and preserved by their posterity until the 
 time of Moses, who made use of them, with additions from 
 authentic tradition or existing monuments, under the gui- 
 dance of the Holy Spirit, and thus prepared his work. 
 Indeed, it is- not improbable that the Hebrew legislator intro- 
 duced some patriarchal narrations into his book with little 
 or no alteration. The existence of written documents 
 anterior to the time of Moses is unquestionable.* The au- 
 thority of the book of Job, (xix. 23, 24,) and the late Egyptian 
 disclosures, place this beyond a doubt. And it is difficult to 
 think that documents were not used in preparing such nar- 
 ratives as that of Joseph, and some parts of the history of 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is remarked by Ewald, in 
 his work on the composition of Genesis, respecting the 
 
 * The subject of the early use of writing in reference to its bearing on 
 the antiquity and genuineness of the Pentateuch, is carefully investigated 
 by Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg, in his work on the authenticity of the 
 Pentateuch (Die Authentie des Pentateuches,) vol. I. p. 415-502, 
 Berlin, 1836. As I shall hereafter refer to this work, it may be well to 
 state, that it is the second part of the author's contributions towards an 
 introduction to the Old Testament, of which his work on the Authenticity 
 of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah constitute the first, and was 
 published at Berlin, 1831. His Christology of the Old Testament has 
 been translated by Professor Keith of Alexandria, and was published In 
 three 8vo. volumes, the first at Alexandria, D. C. in 1836, and the 
 remaining two at Washington, D. C. in 1839. This work ought to be 
 in the hands of every student of theology. 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 narrative of the flood,* that, although indeed it might have 
 been abbreviated and some collateral circumstances omitted, 
 yet the writer evidently intends to show the divine agency 
 even in the details, that he is under the influence of strong 
 feeling, and describes the tragic event with minuteness and 
 particularity, as if he had himself been an eye-witness. 
 This is, as he adds, strikingly characteristic of Hebrew 
 history, and is by no means confined to the account of the 
 flood, but pervades the whole book of Genesis. The artist 
 draws from the life, and delineates the vivid scene with all 
 the freshness of nature and reality. It is not to be ques- 
 tioned, that this might be done by a writer who lived long 
 after the facts related ; but the opinion, that Moses employed 
 certain patriarchal accounts composed by some one who 
 had himself beheld the scene related, or else had heard it 
 from an eye-witness, is probable, to say the least. On such 
 a theory, the credibility, historic accuracy, and inspired 
 authority of the book, derive additional strength: for the 
 original author becomes an eye-Matness, or either contempo^ 
 raneous or nearly so with the facts related ; and some of 
 the facts are of such a nature that they could have been 
 derived only from immediate revelation ; and the whole 
 being compiled by an inspired writer, have received the 
 sanction of the Holy Spirit in an equal degree with his 
 original productions. | 
 
 * Die Komposition der Genesis kritisch untersucht, von Dr. H. A. 
 EwALD. Braunschweig, 1823, p. 85. 
 
 f The reader will perhaps observe a striking verbal correspondence 
 between some portions of this paragraph and parts of pages xxxiii and 
 xxxiv of Professor Bush's Introduction to his Notes on the Book of 
 Genesis. As I do not wish it to be supposed that I would quote the 
 Professor's language without the ordinary marks of acknowledgment, I 
 think proper to state tliat the corresponding portions were written by 
 me, and published as notes to Jahn's Introduction, translated by Pro- 
 fessor Whittingham and myself. See p. 204, 205. The notes of Mr. 
 Bush were published in 1839, Jalin's Introduction in 1827. 
 
INTRODUCTION'. 17 
 
 The book of Genesis then appears as the work of Moses, 
 in preparing which, he was assisted by divine inspiration, 
 suggesting what could not otherwise be known ; by docu- 
 ments previously written ; by standing monuments raised 
 to commemorate historical or domestic facts ; and by oral 
 tradition handed down from early ages. On this last men- 
 tioned mode of conveying truth, the more reliance will be 
 placed in proportion as we rightly consider the longevity of 
 human life at the period in question, the vast importance of 
 the topics transmitted, and the deep interest felt in their pre- 
 servation. 
 
 The theory of pre-exi stent documents was first cautiously 
 advanced by Vitringa, who speaks of " scrolls and docu- 
 ments of the patriarchs preserved among the Israelites, and 
 collected, digested, and arranged by Moses, and filled up 
 wherein they were defective."* It was soon after proposed 
 again by Le CeneI , and to a moderate extent, adopted by 
 Calmet,J and Bishop Gleig.§ Astruc was the first who 
 attempted to mark out the various documents of which the 
 book of Genesis consists. In his work on this subject,|| he 
 supposed them to be twelve in number. He contended also 
 
 * "Has vero schedas et scrinia patrum, apud Israelitas conservata, 
 Mosem opinamur collegisse, digessisse, ornasse, et ubi deficiebant 
 complesse, atque ex iis primum libroruni suorum confecisse." Obser- 
 vationes Sacree, Lib. 1. cap. iv. § 2, p. 36 ss. Ed. Francq. 1712. 
 
 f Bible de Le Cene, Tom. I. p. ix. Col. 2, and p. x. Col. 1 and 2, 
 which, however, was not printed until 1741. See an able dissertation 
 in La Bible de Vence, Tom. I. p. 266 ss. ed. 2. 
 
 X Commentaire Litterale, Tom. I. P. I. p. xiii. 
 
 § Introduction to Stackhouse's History of the Bible. See also 
 Home's Introduction, vol. I. p. 54, 55, 6th edition. A list of writers by 
 whom this opinion has been supported may be seen, with accurate 
 references, in Holden on the Fall, chap. II. p. 32, 33. 
 
 II Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse 
 s'est servi pour composer le livre de Genese. Paris, 1753, 8vo. 
 3 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that the first chapters of Exodus were Ukewise derived 
 from them. This, however, no judicious person will allow. 
 EicHHORN, in his Introduction,* modified this hypothesis so as 
 to limit the number of primitive documents to two, the one 
 remarkable for using the term Jehovah as the name of God, 
 while the other employs Elohim. Whatever is not derived 
 from these two, he considers as original with the author. 
 IlgenI makes the distinction of three documents, two of 
 which employ the word Elohim, and the other Jehovah ; 
 one of the former approximating both in language and 
 character to the latter. These hypotheses are all ingenious- 
 ly devised, but not one of them has received universal ap- 
 probation. Each system rests upon far-fetched and arbi- 
 trary assumptions, and supposes the collector of the docu- 
 ments to resemble its framer in views and dispositions. 
 Other theories of the same sort might be contrived, and, in 
 fact, a new one was proposed by Kelle,J in 1811-12, and 
 yet none will be universally acceptable ; and after all, if any 
 one were capable of being established by more ingenious 
 arguments than all the rest, the only advantage to be derived 
 would be, that then the documents employed in preparing the 
 book of Genesis might be enumerated,§ But such a designa- 
 tion of original documents incorporated into the book cannot 
 
 * Einleitung ins A. T. Theil II. § 416-427. 
 
 f In his Urkunden des Jerusalemischen Tempelarchivs, 1798. 
 
 t In his Vorurtheilsfreye Wiirdigung der Mosaischen Schriften. 
 The author afterwards retracted his views, in his work entitled, Die 
 heiligen Scliriften in ihrer Urgestalt, Deutsch und mit neuen An- 
 merkungen, von K. G. Kelle, Freyberg, 1817, where he maintains 
 that Genesis consists of a single genuine work of Moses, much interpo- 
 lated by the priests of the race of Ithamar, and takes great pains to 
 separate the supposed interpolations from the original work. A refu- 
 tation of his hypothesis may be seen in Kosenmueller's Scholia, 
 p. 52 8s. 
 
 § Jalin, p. 204, 205. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 be made. Even Rosenmiiller maintains the impossibility of 
 pointing out any certain distinction between the several doc- 
 uments of which the book of Genesis is composed. This 
 assertion he maintains at some length, examining the different 
 criteria, showing their want of certainty, and proving the 
 futility of all attempts to discover, after a lapse of 3,000 
 years, the precise nature and extent of the records used by 
 Moses in the preparation of his work. 
 
 Before the authorship of the book of Genesis became a 
 subject of discussion, numerous interpolations were supposed 
 to be found in it ; and this opinion was maintained by some 
 writers of distinction, both Jewish and Christian. After- 
 wards the hypothesis of documents was advanced ; and 
 some of its advocates, not content with admitting the fact 
 that Moses did really employ such written sources of his- 
 torical truth, undertook to ascertain their number, to de- 
 termine their commencing and terminating points, to settle 
 their character, and to pass judgment on their style, demon- 
 strating that Moses, the learned and gifted Hebrew legisla- 
 tor, could not so have written. The theory of documents 
 prepared the way for that of fragments.* Phenomena on 
 which that theory was supposed to be founded, appeared, it 
 was thought, in many smaller sections, even of the supposed 
 documents, and the book of Genesis was subdivided into a 
 multitude of portions, the larger were reduced to smaller, 
 connected parts to disjointed fragments. It would be useless 
 to mention, and very idle to examine, all the alleged reasons 
 for such a procedure. But the principal allegations, on the 
 ground of which the book of Genesis has been said to con- 
 sist of independent documents and disconnected fragments, 
 
 * The fragmentary character of the book of Genesis, and particular- 
 ly of the former part of it, is maintained even by Herder in his 
 third letter on the study of Theology, Briefe das Studium der Theologie 
 betrefFend ; Collected Works, Stutgard and Tubingen, vol. xiii. p. 41, 42. 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 must not be passed over without some notice. If the reader 
 wishes any fuller discussion than what the following briei 
 remarks afford, he will find a very able examination of the 
 alleged difficulties in the work of Ewald, before referred 
 to. Havernick, in his Introduction, Part I. § 112, has 
 made use of this acute and learned writer's labours. 
 
 1. The inscriptions are thought to indicate diffei*ent docu- 
 ments or fragments. 
 
 But one writer may well be supposed to prefix suitable 
 inscriptions to the respective narratives, as they are related 
 by him. Indeed, the use of iTlll JiTl, occurring principally 
 in Genesis, and, derived from this source perhaps, appear- 
 ing in a few other books, rather agrees with the opinion of 
 one author than several. I mean that the balance of proba- 
 bilities is in favour of this view, rather than of the contrary. 
 Certainty, in such matters, is not indeed to be expected ; 
 but any one who considers how natural it would be for an 
 author to bring forward the subdivisions of his work with 
 introductions suited to the particular topics of such subdivi- 
 sions, will hardly find in these inscriptions much evidence of 
 different documents. To show the usage of the orientals 
 on this subject of inscriptions, I refer the reader to Ewald's 
 work, p. 133, ss. 
 
 2. The isolated character of the parts is appealed to in 
 support of the same theory. These are said to want con- 
 nexion, and that harmony in the manner of representation 
 which characterizes a single author. 
 
 If by this nothing more is meant than that several of the 
 narrations which the book contains are introduced some- 
 what abruptly, and without much effort to prepare the 
 reader's mind, it may be granted. And this accords with 
 the ordinary manner of eastern writing, and harmonizes 
 with the usual narrative style of Scripture ; and it might be 
 expected to characterize a work of so high antiquity as the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 book of Genesis. Introductions of historical events by re- 
 marks of a somewhat general natm-e, which gradually lead 
 the reader's mind from preceding to subsequent accounts 
 by observations founded on a philosophical view of things, 
 belonged neither to the age nor the country, and therefore it 
 would be unreasonable to expect them. 
 
 3. The repetitions with which it is said the book abounds, 
 is thought to prove its fragmentary character. 
 
 As repetitions in language are frequent in ancient, orien- 
 tal, and Hebrew writings, so also are repetitions of subject. 
 The speaker pours out the theme, with which his soul is full, 
 in repeated bursts of feeling or exhibitions of fact. And not 
 only the speaker, the principal agent, the magna pars in the 
 transaction, but the author also who relates the facts, parti- 
 cipates in the same emotions, and stamps them on his work. 
 Thus it becomes the impress both of the authors and the 
 agent's mind, and its repetitions only show its admirable 
 conformity to nature. This characteristic of Hebrew his- 
 tory is by no means inconsistent with its well-known brevity. 
 In general, its statements are short and compressed. The 
 author directs his eye to his ultimate object, frequently pass- 
 ing over the intermediate portions, which he afterwards il- 
 lustrates and amphfies. Thus, as might be expected, repeti- 
 tions would arise, the natural result of an endeavour to fill 
 up and complete the representation. 
 
 Repetitions occur, when the author, having thrown into 
 the general narrative an account of some particular circum- 
 stance, wishes to mark its prominency above the rest, and 
 therefore introduces a brief notice of this point, to which he 
 attaches especial importance. The reader cannot fail to 
 observe several such places iii Genesis, as also in other 
 books of the Old Testament. But such repetitions might be 
 expected from one and the same author writing a continu- 
 ous account, and are certainly no indications of a fragment- 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ary character of his work. So also in passing over from 
 one circumstance to another, it is not uncommon to repeat 
 the conclusion of the preceding account. Thus the antece- 
 dent narrative is connected with the subsequent. Some- 
 times indeed a considerable part of what has already been 
 related is again introduced, — it may be in language some- 
 what different, — in order to prepare the way for some new 
 and perhaps striking circumstance, to the connexion of which 
 with the account repeated, the author would particularly di- 
 rect the attention of his reader. Or the repetition may be 
 intended to recall to the reader's mind what had been before 
 stated, the thread of the narrative having been broken off 
 by certain intervening accounts. 
 
 For these and other causes, which will probably suggest 
 themselves, repetitions, sometimes verbal and sometimes 
 merely in substance, appear in the book of Genesis. But, 
 as Ewald has shown by a full induction of particulars, they 
 appear also in an equal degree in other historical books of 
 the Old Testament, and not unfrequently in other oriental 
 histories. Verbal repetitions occur also in the works of 
 Homer. The inference therefore which has been so hastily 
 and confidently drawn, that the book consists of various 
 independent fragments or documents, is entirely unsupported 
 by the facts. 
 
 4. It is said that different accounts of one and the same 
 fact are found in the work. A publication, which, without 
 unity of plan, is made up of fragments of several authors not 
 contemporaneous, might be expected lo contain narrations, 
 which, in particular circumstances, or in the disposition or 
 design of the whole, are contradictory. Such phenomena 
 are alleged to occur in the book of Genesis. But this as- 
 sertion has never been supported by sufficient evidence. 
 That different etymological meanings of the same name are 
 suggested, as in the cases of Noah, Esau, Reuben, Zebulon, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 Joseph, and others, cannot be proved. The idea that such 
 phenomena indicate various v^riters is a mere fiction. The 
 plain solution is this : the one author employs the paronoma- 
 sia, so favorite a figure Mrith the Hebrevs^s ; he uses a term 
 which corresponds in sound with that already employed, and 
 which conveys an idea in harmony with its meaning, or with 
 the circumstances of the occasion. Neither has it been 
 proved that different narratives of the same fact are to be 
 found in the book. The relation in the second chapter is not, 
 as has often been said, an account independent of that con- 
 tained in the first. New matter is introduced, preparatory 
 to which a portion of what had been stated in the first is 
 repeated in different language. Abraham's twofold denial 
 of his wife, and the similar narrative of Isaac, may indeed 
 excite our surprise ; but they afford no proof of a repetition 
 of the same identical fact. In this, as in most, if not all of 
 the other alleged points of evidence, the identity of the ac- 
 counts has been taken for granted, and of course the theory 
 to be proved has been assumed. This may be produced as 
 one among many illustrations of the logical character of that 
 species of criticism for which our own age is distinguished. 
 It is easier to appeal to some internal feeling beyond the un- 
 derstanding, than to establish plain declarations on palpable 
 evidence. 
 
 The unity of the book of Genesis, and of its author, is 
 shown from the uniform and steady progress of the narra- 
 tive, from the beginning to the end, each part of the history 
 following very naturally that which immediately precedes. 
 They follow either as parts of the history absolutely neces- 
 sary to its perfection, or else as collateral accounts, interest- 
 ing to those for whom the book was originally intended, and 
 illustrative of its more prominent portions. If the book be 
 one connected history, and not disjointed fragments, it can- 
 not have been merely arranged in chronological order from 
 
24 li\TRODUCTION. 
 
 previously existing accounts, by some compiler, who col- 
 lected the documents into one whole, without making any 
 alteration in the distinct narrations. The undoubted marks 
 of unity, both of plan and object, which the book exhibits, are 
 inconsistent with this theory ; unless indeed it be limited by 
 very important modifications. It is evidently the intention 
 of the whole book, with the exception of those introductory 
 portions which precede the history of Abraham, to give an 
 account of the people of God, from their origin to their set- 
 tlement in Egypt. In doing this, the writer, in the progress 
 of his work, continually alludes to what had been before 
 stated, sometimes in similar and sometimes in the very same 
 language ; and this language in several instances is peculiar 
 to the book, and in others evidently original in it. Doubtless, 
 as I have before said, he availed himself of documents and 
 other sources of information previously existing, and, agree- 
 ably to Hebrew usage, he retained the very phraseology of 
 these documents so far as was consistent with his one ob- 
 ject ; but, in doing this, he adapted these sources of informa- 
 tion to his purpose, modifying their language as the necessity 
 of the case might require. In this respect, the work is anal- 
 ogous in some measure to the books of Samuel and of 
 Kings. 
 
 5. I come now to consider another supposed indication of 
 the documentary or fragmentary character of the book of 
 Genesis, the use of the divine names, to which not a few 
 writers have appealed with unbounded confidence. For 
 this reason, and an account of the interest and importance 
 of the subject, the reader will bear with me, if I should be 
 more difflise than heretofore. The subject is important, and 
 deserves careful consideration. 
 
 It is hardly possible to read the book of Genesis atten- 
 tively without observing that the Deity is therein designated 
 by different names, and that these names are used in a very 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 remarkable manner. Sometimes the term God (Elohim,) 
 occurs, sometimes Lord, (Jehovah,) and sometimes both are 
 united. In i. 1 — ii. 3, God is invariably used ; in ii. 4 — iii. 24, 
 Lord God, except in iii. 1, 3, 5, where the speaker is a dif- 
 ferent person from the author ; in iv. except v. 25, where 
 Eve is introduced speaking, Lord alone. The facts in rela- 
 tion to this point, which a careful perusal of the whole book 
 exhibits, plainly show, that these terms are frequently em- 
 ployed in such a manner as could not have been the result 
 of chance, or of a mere intention to relieve the mind of the 
 reader by an agreeable variety. To ascertain the ground 
 on which the sacred writer has ordinarily employed one or 
 other of these words in denoting the Supreme Being, is there- 
 fore an inquiry of no little interest, and in its connexions and 
 results it is one of great importance. 
 
 The following table, which shows the usage throughout 
 the book of Genesis, will enable the reader to form some 
 judgment on the question, whether the use of these terms 
 is incidental, or has a view to any particular design. It is 
 founded on tables given by Drechsler, p. 5 — 7, in his work 
 on the unity and genuineness of Genesis.* He continues the 
 list to Exodus xxiv. inclusive, and gives others, showing the 
 usage in Judges and 2 Samuel, (p. 3 — 5,) from which it ap- 
 
 * Die Einheit und Aechtheit der Genesis, von Dr. Moritz Drechs- 
 ler; Hamburg, 1838, 8vo. This volume has an intimate connexion 
 with another, published by the author in the preceding year, in which he 
 attacks the literary character of certain late writers in the province of 
 Old Testament criticism, particularly Von Bohlen and Vatke. It is 
 entitled " Die Unwissenschaftlichkeit im Gebiete der Alttestament- 
 lichen Kritik, belegt aus den Schriften neuerer Kritiker, besonders der 
 Herren Von Bohlen und Vatke." Some notice of this book may be 
 seen in the New York Review, No. Ill, January, 1838. — Drechsler 
 remarks that the list of places in which the divine names occur as given 
 by Ewald, in his work on the composition of Genesis, is not altogether 
 to be relied on. Some inaccuracies and omissions in his own I have 
 corrected and supplied in the following table. 
 4 
 
26 
 
 INTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 pears that the Lord, Hin'^. is much the most frequently 
 employed. The combined term, Lord God, which Drechsler 
 gives in the same columns with Lord and God, is here sepa- 
 rated from both the others. It occurs only in the following 
 texts: Gen. ii. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22; iii. 1, 
 8 twice, 9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23 ; ix. 26 ; xv, 2, 8. In xxiv. 3, 
 7, 12, 27, and 42, both terms do indeed appear, but only one 
 is used as a name of the Deity, the other being connected 
 with what follows, as, "the Lord, God of my master Abra- 
 ham," as in xxvii. 20, "the Lord, thy God." Comp. xxviii. 
 21. All these places belong to that class in which the term 
 Lord is employed. With the exception therefore of one 
 place in the 9th chapter and two in the 15th, the connected 
 use of the two terms is confined to the 2d and 3d chapters. 
 
 Lord, nirr^ 
 
 iv. 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15 twice, 16, 26. 
 
 V. 29. 
 
 vi. 3, 5,* 6, 7, 8. 
 
 vii. 1, 5, 16. 
 
 viii. 20, 21 twice. 
 
 X. 9. 
 
 xi. 5, 6, 8, 9 twice. 
 
 xii. 1, 4, 7 twice, 8 twice, 17. 
 
 xiii. 4, 10 twice, 13, 14, ]8. 
 
 xiv. 22. 
 
 XV. 1, 4, 6, 7, 18. 
 
 xvi. 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 twice, 13. 
 
 God, Q^nbiJj or bjs: 
 
 i. 1, 2, 3, 4 twice, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
 10 twice, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 
 20, 21 twice, 22, 24, 25 twice, 
 26, 27 twice, 28 twice, 29, 31. 
 
 ii. 2, 3 twice. 
 
 iii. 1, 3, 5. 
 
 iv. 25. 
 
 V. 1 twice, 22, 24 twice. 
 
 vi. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22. 
 
 vii. 9, 16, 
 
 viii. 1 twice, 15. 
 
 ix. 1, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 27. 
 
 xiv. 18, 19, 20, 22. 
 xvi. 13. 
 
 * Our English Translation and Cranmer's Bible have " God" ; but the 
 original is Lord, SlirT't and this is followed in the Geneva version. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 27 
 
 Lord, nln^. God, Q^nbi?! or b&!! 
 
 xvii. 1. xvii. 1, 3, 9, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23. 
 
 xviii. 1,13, 14, 17, 19 twice, 20, 22, 
 
 26, 33. 
 xix. 13 twice, 14, 16, 24 twice, 27. xix. 29 twice. 
 
 XX. 18. 
 
 xxi. 1 twice, 33. 
 
 xxii. 11, 14 twice, 15, 16. 
 
 xxiv. 1, 3, 7, 12, 21, 26, 27 twice, 
 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48 twice, 50, 
 51, 52, 56. 
 
 XXV. 21 twice, 22, 23. 
 
 xxvi. 2, 12, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29. 
 
 xxvii. 7, 20, 27. 
 
 xxviii. 13 twice, 16, 21. 
 
 xxix. 31, 32, 33, 35. 
 XXX. 24, 27, 30. 
 
 xxxi. 3, 49. 
 
 xxxii. 10, (Eng. Tr. 9.) 
 
 XX. 3, 6, 11, 13, 17 twice. 
 
 xxi. 2, 4, 6, 12, 17 thrice, 19, 20, 
 
 22, 23, 33. 
 xxii. 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 
 xxiii. 6, (prince of God; Eng. Tr. 
 
 mighty prince.) 
 
 XXV. 11. 
 
 xxvii. 28. 
 
 xxviii. 3, 4, 12, 17, 19, (house of 
 God; Eng. Tr. Bethel,) 20, 22. 
 
 XXX. 2, 6, 8, (wrestlings of God,) 
 
 17, 18, 20, 22 twice, 23. 
 xxxi. 7, 9, 11, 13, 16 twice, 24, 
 
 42, 50. 
 xxxii. 2, 3, 29, 31, (Eng. Tr. 1, 2, 
 
 28, 30.) 
 xxxiii. 5, 10, 11, 20. 
 xxxv. 1 twice, 3, 5, 7 twice, 9, 10, 
 
 11 twice, 13, 15. 
 
 xxxviii. 7 twice, 10. 
 
 xxxix. 2, 3 twice, 5 twice, 21, xxxix. 9. 
 
 23 twice. 
 
 xl. 8. 
 
 xli. 16, 25, 28, 32 twice, 38, 39, 
 
 51, 52. 
 
 xlii. 18, 28. 
 
 xliii. 14, 29. 
 
 xliv. 16. 
 
 xlv. 5, 7, 8. 9. 
 
 xlvi. 2, 3. 
 
 xlix. 18. xlviii. 3, 9, 11, 15, 20, 21. 
 
 xlix. 25. 
 
 1. 19, 20, 24, 25. 
 
28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is presumed that no one can carefully examine the 
 usage exhibited in this table, without a disposition to consi- 
 der, whether it be attributable to chance, or to some definite 
 and assignable cause. 
 
 In assisting the reader to form a judgment on this point, I 
 shall freely avail myself of the valuable labours of Dbechs- 
 LER and Hengstenberg,* occasionally, however, suggesting 
 doubts of the certainty of the results to which they have 
 arrived. For the history of the subject I am indebted 
 entirely to the last mentioned author. 
 
 The first reference to the different use of the divine names 
 in Genesis occurs in Tertullian, in his treatise against Her- 
 mogenes, cap. 3, Tom. 11. p. 61, edit. Semler, (p. 234, edit. 
 Rigalt.) It was observed also by Augustin, de Genesi ad 
 literam, viii. 11. edit. Bened. Tom. III. p. 176; and also by 
 Chrysostom, in his 14th Homily on Genesis, 0pp. Tom. II. 
 p. 119, Franc, (edit. Paris. 1636, p. 136; edit. Bened. 
 Tom. IV. p. 108.) The two former writers ascribe the dif- 
 ference to design, but fruitlessly endeavour to account for 
 it by considering the meaning of xv^'ws, or dominus. The 
 latter imagines them to be equivalent in meaning, and used 
 indifferently. 
 
 Among the Jewish writers of the middle ages, Rabbi 
 Jehudah Hallevi,! of the 12th century, the author of the 
 book Cosri, is distinguished for the striking and profound 
 thoughts which he developes on this point. 
 
 " The plural form of the word Elohim," says this writer, 
 " is illustrated by regarding it as opposed to idolators, who, 
 personifying the powers of naturs, apply the 3ingular to each 
 one, and the plural to all combinsd, without keeping in view 
 
 * The treatise of Hengstenberg may be found in his book before 
 mcLtioned, vol. I. p. 181 — 414. It is entitled, "the divine names in the 
 Pentateuch, die Gottesnaraen im Pentateucho" 
 
 t R. J. the Levite. See Wolf, Tern. IV. p. 1022; No. 25. 
 
INTRODUCTION-. 29 
 
 a higher power from whom they all proceed. The term 
 Elohim is in opposition to these. It is consequently the 
 most general name of the Deity, designating him in refe- 
 rence to the fulness of his powers, without respect to per- 
 sonality, moral properties, or any particular connexion with 
 men. Hence it follows, that where God has given wit- 
 ness of himself and is truly known, another name becomes 
 connected with Elohim ; and this is the name Jehovah, 
 which belongs to the covenant people to whom God has re- 
 vealed himself. The former term is general and common, 
 the latter particular and proper. The one is unintelligible 
 to all those to whom the development of the Divine Being 
 which it bears along with it has not been made known ; the 
 other, inasmuch as it designates God according as he is 
 known to all men, is therefore generally intelligible. The 
 name Jehovah, expressive as it is of the inward nature of 
 the Deity, is only to be comprehended where this glorious 
 Being has, as it were, gone out of himself; where he has 
 opened the chambers of his heart, and granted a look within, 
 so that instead of a dark indefinite somewhat, of which 
 nothing more is known or can be predicated, than that it is 
 mighty and excellent beyond all other things, the most per- 
 sonal among all that are personal, the most clearly marked 
 among all that are marked, comes forward." Far more cor- 
 rectly and with deeper penetration than those who in mo- 
 dern times consider the term Jehovah as designating the 
 national God of the Jews, this writer understands it as the 
 appellation of God as reveahng himself, and consequently 
 carries up its use to the origin of revelation itself, and there- 
 fore to the very beginning of the human race. " The being 
 who revealed himself to Adam, was designated by Adam 
 himself as Jehovah." It was in a much later period, when the 
 Divine Being limited his revelations to Israel, that the name 
 became peculiar to that people. " The meaning implied in 
 
30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the word God, (Q''rib5;<5,) may be apprehended by a pro- 
 cess of reasoning, because the understanding teaches us that 
 the world has a ruler and director. But what is implied in 
 the term Jehovah, (nllT],) cannot be thus apprehended, 
 but only by prophetic vision, by which the man becomes 
 separated, as it were, from his own species, and approxi- 
 mates to that of angels. Another spirit enters into him ; 
 preceding doubts of his heart are dissipated ; and his soul is 
 filled with veneration and love for the one God, and rather 
 than abandon them, he is willing to lay down his life." Cosri, 
 Buxtorf's Translation, p. 256, ss. 
 
 Maimonides, in his More Nevochim, Part I. chap. Ixi. Ixii. 
 Ixiii., in the edition in Hebrew, printed at Berhn in 1791, 4to, 
 fol. 56—60, (5-15,) in Buxtorf's Translation, p. lOG— 115. 
 and Abarbanel, as cited by Buxtorf in his Dissertation de 
 nominibus Dei Hebraicis, p. 266, § 39, do also take notice of 
 the distinction of the names employed to designate the Deity, 
 but with less penetration than this author. 
 
 The first writer, who made prominent the false exposition 
 of the distinction in question, was the physician, Astruc, in 
 his work before mentioned. Proceeding on the supposition 
 that the alternate use of the divine names is not founded on 
 any internal difference, a supposition which he never thought 
 of proving, inasmuch as no one in his time questioned it, and, 
 moreover, recognizing the truth, that such use could not be 
 incidental, he attempted to explain it on external grounds. 
 He maintained that Moses had composed the book of Gene- 
 sis from various writings ; two principal documents, distin- 
 guished by the exclusive use of Jehovah and Elohim, and 
 also ten particular memoirs, the use of which, however, was 
 limited to a very few portions of Genesis. 
 
 This publication, at the time of its appearance, attracted 
 very little attention. We learn this from the reply which 
 was made to it, five years afterwards, by H. Scharbau, Vin- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 dicias Geneseos contra auctorem anonymum libri, conjec- 
 tures sur le Genese, which appeared in the Miscellanea Lu- 
 becensia, vol. I. Rost. 1758, p. 39 — 106. The author apolo- 
 gizes at length for having employed some of his leisure hours 
 in refuting so very silly a system of conjectures, by appealing 
 to La Croze, who condescended to write against Harduin's 
 absurdities. He very correctly estimated the danger in 
 Astruc's attempt, who, to support his theory respecting the 
 names, made great use of the unnecessary repetitions, the 
 disorder and confusion, and the contradictions, which the 
 book was said to contain. He treated the doctor as an ene- 
 my of revelation. But for the main point, for the correct 
 exposition of the facts, on the erroneous interpretation of 
 which Astruc's theory was based, nothing was gained by the 
 vindication. 
 
 The period had not arrived for this theory to make im- 
 pression, and it soon appeared to be buried in oblivion. But 
 the times changed ; and the question, how an hypothesis 
 agreed with the divine authority of the Scriptures, was no 
 longer considered. Hence it was, that when Eichhorn, in 
 his Introduction to the Old Testament, again advanced and 
 set off this theory, it met with general acquiescence, and 
 spread with extraordinary rapidity, so that few German 
 scholars of any name were to be found who did not 
 embrace it. 
 
 It would be tedious to enumerate the various writers who 
 defended this hypothesis, or to point out the differences be- 
 tween Eichhorn, who maintained the theory of two docu- 
 ments, and his chief follower, Ilgen, who defended that of 
 three, and the various modifications introduced by others. 
 These points have been already sufficiently noted on p. 
 18. I proceed to take notice of those authors who opposed 
 those views. 
 
 Hasse deserves here to be honourably mentioned, inas- 
 
32 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 much as, in his Entdeckungen im Felde der altesten Erd- 
 und Menschengeschichte Th. 2, Halle, 1805, he attacks the 
 very fundamental principle of the theory, and maintains, that 
 the alternate use of the names is founded on an internal dif- 
 ference in the idea. But, in determining the meaning of the 
 two names, his procedure is so arbitrary and strange, that 
 an examination of his views would be labour without 
 profit.* 
 
 Vater did not meddle with the groundwork of the the- 
 ory. In opposing the hypothesis of documents, he took care 
 not to make the change of the divine names useless for that 
 of fragments, to which he was attached. The work of 
 Vater referred to, is his Commentary on the Pentateuch, 
 Commentar uber den Pentateuch. In Part II. p. 16, he ex- 
 presses his opinion, that " the author of the fragment of Ex- 
 odus," which contains vi. 3, " was unacquainted with Gen- 
 esis ;" although, as Ewald says, in his work already noted, 
 p. 9, "the representations and phraseology of the place are 
 evidently drawn from it." To use the language of this wri- 
 ter, " this is to cut the complicated knot with the sword of 
 violence." The theory in question has but little to fear 
 from such attacks as that of Vater. 
 
 The first really important opposition is that which was 
 made by Sack, in his treatise de usu nominum Dei U'lJlbfeil 
 et ili!l"l in libro Geneseos, in the Commentationes ad theolo- 
 giam historicam, Bonn, 1821 ; with which ought to be com- 
 pared the remarks in the same writer's Apologetik, p. 157 ss. 
 
 * In order that the reader may know that this remark of Hengstenberg 
 is not made without good reason, it may be well to state, that Hasse 
 maintains the extraordinary hypothesis, that the book of Genesis had in 
 view the recommendation of agriculture. Jehovah consequently is pro- 
 perly the god of agriculture, and therefore favourable to agriculturists. 
 Of course, he is so to the Hebrews, to whom he would show himself 
 as the only God, triumphing over all others! Such irreverent and 
 unfounded theoriea are certainly unworthy of examination. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 33 
 
 The discussion, so far as regards the main principle, the 
 determining of the general relation between Jehovah and 
 Elohim, was brought back again by him to the point at 
 which the author of the book Cosri had left it ; and further, 
 the attempt was made, and frequently with success, to ex- 
 plain, in particular portions of Genesis, the use of the two 
 names on the ground of their fundamental difference. 
 
 A second more important attack on the hypothesis of 
 documents and fragments was undertaken by Evvald, in his 
 critical examination of Genesis. The chief value of this 
 work consists in the ability with which it contends against 
 the supposed fragmentary character and disorder of the 
 composition, its inscriptions, repetitions, variety of language, 
 and seeming contradictions. In showing the internal con- 
 nexion of Genesis and the mutual relation of its parts, Ewald 
 has great merit. But his investigations respecting the inter- 
 change of the divine names are exceedingly defective, and 
 far less valuable than those of Sack. He considers Elohim 
 as the general and inferior name of the Deity, Jehovah as 
 that of the national God of the IsraeHtes. This view, 
 which, without the necessary linguistic proof, is drawn 
 merely from an induction of places taken from later his- 
 torical books, although it contains some truth, is unsatis- 
 factory. 
 
 After mentioning the unimportant productions of Gram- 
 berg* and Staehelin,! in reference to the theory opposed by 
 Ewald, Hengstenberg takes notice of Hartm ANN. This writer 
 defends the fragmentary theory, but attaches very little im- 
 portance to the interchange of the names, although, indeed, 
 he acknowledges a real difference between them. He gives 
 
 * Libri Geneseos secundum fontes rite dignoscendos adumbratio 
 nova. Leipz. 1828. 
 
 f Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Genesis. Basel. V^2d. 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the result of his inquiries in these words : " When an 
 author, without evident, definite cause, confines himself in 
 a long section to the use of one name, whether it be Elohim 
 or Jehovah, he shows a certain preference for it, and may 
 therefore be regarded as a different writer from one who, 
 in the same proportion, proceeds in a direction quite oppo- 
 site." If now, an evident, definite cause can be shown, the 
 conclusion of Hartmann falls to the ground. 
 
 Ewald's latest view, as we learn from the review of 
 Stahelin in the Studium und Criticum for 1831, Heft 3, is as 
 follows : " The name Jehovah, as that of the Mosaic national 
 God, may have been first imparted to the people by Moses, 
 and associated with the national worship. In the period 
 anterior to that of Moses, God may have been known by a 
 general name, as Elohim ; or a historian may so designate 
 him, in contradistinction to that of the Mosaic revelation. The 
 first groundwork of the whole Pentateuch is formed by a 
 writing, which, as far as Exod. vi. 2, always names God 
 Elohim, according to the belief or tradition that the name 
 Jehovah was first made known by Moses, and closely con- 
 nected with the whole structure of Mosaic worship. Another 
 writing is interwoven with this, which, less correct in the 
 ancient application of terms, employs Jehovah, the Mosaic 
 divine name, to designate the Deity in the patriarchal times, 
 using also the term Elohim ; and thus portions occur in 
 which Elohim appears exclusively, which is not the case 
 with respect to Jehovah, unless incidentally. Those docu- 
 ments have, with judicious connexion and thought, been in- 
 corporated by a later writer into one, so that Genesis, in its 
 present state, appears as the well connected work of some 
 individual." 
 
 But if the difference between Jehovah and Elohim was 
 generally recognized by the people, how is it possible that 
 two Israelites, the author of the second writing and the col- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 35 
 
 lector, could commit so unfortunate a blunder as to employ 
 the name of the national God in circumstances anterior to 
 the national existence 1 They could not possibly have re- 
 garded it merely as the name of the national God. Another 
 consideration, comprehending this idea, but not identical 
 with it, will account for its use in periods before the time of 
 Moses. 
 
 Hengstenberg very justly remarks, that it is of the 
 greatest importance to determine the derivation, and hence 
 to ascertain the fundamental meaning of the terms under 
 consideration. He begins with Jehovah, and settles the 
 previous question, whether the word is of foreign or of 
 Hebrew origin. He investigates the Egyptian and Phoeni- 
 cian claims, and rejects them as inadmissible. The claim 
 set up for a Chinese origin, and the derivation from Jovis, 
 are hardly worthy of notice. The word is undoubtedly of 
 Hebrew etymology. 
 
 The learned writer then proceeds to examine the correct 
 punctuation of the word. In his opinion, the vowels in 
 present use were taken from Adonai, and the original pro- 
 nunciation was yahveh, rilHl (o^ ^Il^-O making the regular 
 future of !T1!1, and meaning the existing, literally, 'he will 
 exist.' He considers Exod. iii. 14: "and God said unto 
 Moses, I am what I am," or ; ' I will be what I will be,' 
 n^in^ 'Tt?^ t^l^n*^' ^s implying immutability. In the words of 
 Augustin in loc. : " it is the name of unchangeableness. For 
 all things that are mutable, cease to be what they were, and 
 begin to be what they were not. Immutability is peculiar 
 to essential truth. He has the property of existence to 
 whom it is said, ' thou shalt change them, and they shall be 
 changed, but thou art the same.' What is " I am that I 
 am," but ' I am eternal' 1 What is " I am that I am," but ' I 
 cannot be changed' ?" ' The existing,' and ' the unchanging,' 
 
36 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 he considers as equivalent in meaning, and as conveying the 
 sentiment of the text. 
 
 Like Hengstenberg, Drechsler also examines the significa- 
 tion of the two names, before he attempts to deduce any 
 theory in reference to their use in the book of Genesis. In 
 general viev^^s and results, those two scholars coincide. 
 But the latter writer, proceeding, in his argument, from the 
 same text in Exodus, comes to the conclusion, that Jehovah 
 implies capability in hi/nself. The words, " I will be what 
 I will be," do not, he thinks, express the idea usually at- 
 tached to them of immutability, but rather that of unlimited 
 freedom. This, he maintains, accords with analogous usage, 
 and refers to 2 Kings, viii. 1, " sojourn where thou will sojourn," 
 ^13!iin "Itp'iiJla ^n^ri ; also to 2 Sam. xv. 20, and Gen. xliii. 14, 
 which are less to the point. He considers the declarations 
 in Exod. xxxiii. 19, Rom. ix. 15, "I will have mercy on 
 whom I will have mercy," as entirely parallel to the words 
 in Exodus iii. 14. Independent action and independent 
 being may be considered as necessarily connected. On this 
 ground, and in as much as the word tl^.il!^ ' I will be,' or ' I 
 am,' is used instead of the whole expression, Drechsler 
 concludes that the thought thereby conveyed, is that of in- 
 dependent being, p. 12. 
 
 This thought is so closely allied to that given by Hengs- 
 tenberg, that the practical application of both, in reference 
 to the use of the divine names in Genesis, coincides. To de- 
 termine their comparative philological correctness, would 
 be of little importance. The commonly received exposition, 
 which asserts immutability of character, inasmuch as it 
 accords with the simple meaning of the words, and com- 
 prehends the idea of independent volition and action, is here 
 presumed to be the true interpretation. Unlimited freedom 
 in the formation of plans, and also in their execution, is thus 
 necessarily implied in the declaration under consideration. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 37 
 
 The word Elohim is, in all probability, derived from a 
 root, which, although lost in the Hebrew, is still retained in 
 the Arabic language, nbi^, ^\, which not only means ' to 
 worship God,' but also ' to be astonished, amazed, struck 
 with fear.' Thus it conveys the idea of holy reverence and 
 terror, analogous to the language in Gen. xxxi. 42, 53, where 
 God is called " the fear of Isaac," meaning doubtless the ob- 
 ject of his most sacred awe. Comp. Isa. viii. 13, " let him, 
 (Jehovah,) be your fear and your dread." Thus Elohim may 
 be regarded as a general term for God, implying his glory 
 and dignity, as Creator, preserver and governor of all 
 things, and by consequence exhibiting him as the great 
 being, whom all his creatures are to honour and reverence, 
 at the very thought of whose unlimited power all the uni- 
 verse must tremble : the great and mighty God, in contra- 
 distinction to the feeble and inefficient creature. 
 
 Hengstenberg objects to the opinion, so anciently and fre- 
 quently maintained, that the plural form implies plurality of 
 persons. In that case, he thinks it could not be used of di- 
 vine personages in the widest application, as of angels and 
 supernatural beings, as it is in Ps. viii. 5 ; 1 Sam. xxviii. 13 ; 
 and also of idols. But, without deciding in favour of the 
 opinion referred to, it may be said, that whenever the term 
 is so used, that original ground of the plural form might be 
 lost sight of. This is the case in a multitude of words, as 
 their meaning varies in proportion to the extensiveness of 
 their application. And it is the case in English when we 
 apply the word God to denote a false god, an evil being, al- 
 though originally it implied goodness, as a characteristic ne- 
 cessarily belonging to the being so designated. 
 
 If it is clear, that the Pentateuch contains a revelation of 
 God progressively advancing, until it terminates in a de- 
 velopement of the complete theocracy ; then, from the inti- 
 mate connexion of name and thing, we may reasonably ex- 
 
38 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pect that the author, by the use of designed and carefully- 
 varied divine names, intended to note a real difference 
 characteristic of the earlier and later periods. If Elohim 
 be the more general, and Jehovah the more definite and 
 profound name of the Deity, we might consequently expect 
 to find, that the use of these terms varies, before the full 
 establishment of the theocracy, in a different manner from 
 what it does after. According as the subject is connected 
 with the earlier or later period, in other words, as the anal- 
 ogy with the world in general or with the theocracy pre- 
 dominates, the name Jehovah or Elohim must be employed. 
 As the name indicates character, the language in Ex. vi. 3, 
 "by my name Jehovah," is equivalent to 'in my character 
 as Jehovah.' The reference is not to the mere name, but to 
 the thing designated. " You shall know that I am Jehovah, 
 your God ;" you shall know it by the wonderful deliverance 
 from Egypt. Such a developement of divine power was 
 never made to the patriarchs, and indeed, from the nature 
 of the case, it could not have been. This text determines 
 nothing respecting the age of the tey^m Jehovah. It speaks 
 of the revelation of God as Jehovah. Thus far the same 
 being, who, in one respect, was Jehovah, in another has 
 always been Elohim. Now, the great catastrophe ap- 
 proaches, by which Jehovah-Elohim becomes or displays 
 himself as Jehovah. 
 
 Thus Hengstenberg. Drechsler also maintains that the use 
 of the two names rests on grounds connected with the sub- 
 ject, and that the difference in such use observable in Gene- 
 sis from that found in other books of the Old Testament, is 
 not to be ascribed to mere arbitrariness on the part of the 
 writer, but arises from its peculiar character of the contents, 
 which bears an especial relation to one or other of the divine 
 names, as either may be found to have been employed. He 
 then remarks as follows. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 "If, in order to discover the object which this varying 
 usage has in view, we examine the other books of the Pen- 
 tateuch, it will appear that the same usage prevails in these 
 as is to be found in the later historical writings. In the 
 first four chapters of Deuteronomy, in eighty-one instances 
 where the Supreme Being is mentioned, the term Elohim 
 occurs only seven times. 
 
 " Further, the important fact is not to be omitted, that, in 
 other books besides Genesis, where the name Jehovah pre- 
 dominates, Elohim is used exclusively in sections of consi- 
 derable length. This is the case in Jud. ix. and 2 Sam. ix. 
 And, as might naturally be expected, instances of the con- 
 trary usage are also to be found. 
 
 " It has been stated that an examination of passages proves 
 the word Jehovah to be much more frequently used than the 
 other. This might have been exyjected, as it designates God 
 as having revealed himself. And, inasmuch as the Israelitish 
 people constituted the scene of his operations, their existence, 
 and the condition of it, both civil and ecclesiastical, compre- 
 hending their institutions and whole manner of life, were the 
 result of his revelations. Consequently the name Jehovah 
 must have been all-important to the Israelites. It is unne- 
 cessary therefore to inquire under what circumstances this 
 term would be employed, but when the other might or must 
 be used. 
 
 " This general term, Elohim, referring to the Creator, is 
 in contradistinction to the name Jehovah ; which refers to 
 him as having made a revelation of himself See Deut. iv. 
 32 — 40 : ' For ask now of the days that are past, which 
 were before thee, since the day that God created man upon 
 the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, 
 whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing 
 is, or hath been heard like it 1 Did ever people hear the 
 voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou 
 
40 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 hast heard, and live ? Or hath God assayed to go and take 
 
 him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, 
 by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty 
 hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors, ac- 
 cording to all that Jehovah your God did for you in Egypt 
 before your eyes? Unto thee it was shewed, that thou 
 mightest know that Jehovah he is God ; there is none else 
 besides him. Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, 
 that he might instruct thee : and upon earth he shewed thee 
 his great fire ; aad thou heardest his words out of the midst 
 of the fire. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore 
 he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his 
 sight with his mighty power out of Egypt ; to drive out 
 nations from before thee, greater and mightier than thou art, 
 to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, 
 as it is this day. Know therefore this day, and consider 
 it in thine heart, that Jehovah he is God in heaven above, 
 and upon the earth beneath : there is none else. Thou 
 shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, 
 which I command thee this day, that it may go well with 
 thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest 
 prolong thy days upon the earth, which Jehovah thy God 
 giveth thee, for ever.' Compare also 1 Kings, xviii. 24: 
 'And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the 
 name of Jehovah : and the God that answereth by fire, let 
 him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is 
 well spoken.' In these and other cases, God, as he is in his 
 nature, is distinguished from God as having revealed himself. 
 Elsewhere this difference is not essential, and then the two 
 expressions imply no contradistinction, and may be used in- 
 differently, as is the case in many places." p. 9, 10, 17, 20. 
 
 The term Elohim, then, is the general designation of the 
 glorious maker, preserver, and governor of the universe, the 
 great and dreadful God, a proper estimate of whose attri- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 41 
 
 butes must fill the mind of every intelligent creature with 
 reverential awe, the more profound in proportion as those 
 attributes are truly understood and appreciated. The other 
 word, Jehovah, designating the same eternal and infinite 
 being, has a particular bearing. God is contemplated as 
 having a grand and ultimate object in view. To accom- 
 plish this, he displays himself with different degrees of clear- 
 ness as a being without the possibility of change, and with 
 infinite freedom of volition and of action. In this light he is 
 Jehovah ; and in this light, his revelations and actions to- 
 wards his people are proper exhibitions of him as the un- 
 changeable and the infinite. 
 
 If, now, a clearly marked difference of meaning in the 
 terms themselves, and also a clearly marked difference of 
 object on the part of the writer, are the general grounds of 
 the varying usage under consideration, the gain to the truth 
 as historically transmitted is considerable. The inference, 
 which at one time was drawn without hesitation, namely, 
 that the fact indicates different authors, is evidently un- 
 founded. The same writer may have chosen different terms, 
 as, in his judgment, the one or the other harmonized the 
 better with the character of the accompanying contents. 
 
 But still the question arises, is this the invariable ground 
 of the usage? Are there no cases where either term might 
 have been employed without weakening the impression de- 
 signed to be conveyed by the narrations in connexion with 
 which one of them is used ? I am compelled to express the 
 opinion, that there are. It is manifest to me, that in several 
 places either term might have been chosen, and, as it would 
 seem, without affecting even in the slightest degree the in- 
 fluence of the connected portion on the mind of the reader. 
 However true the principle laid down may be as the gene- 
 ral ground of the usage, the two learned authors referred to 
 appear to me occasionally to carry the application of it un- 
 6 
 
42 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 warrantably far. They sometimes make the sacred writer 
 scrupulously and minutely particular in the choice of his 
 terms, at the expense of simpUcity and nature. Jehovah 
 and Elohim, which, although differing in primary meaning, 
 do, it is allowed, designate the same God, may sometimes 
 be used as proper names, without regard to their original or 
 etymological meanings, just as Jesus and Christ are ordi- 
 narily used by Christians, and occasionally in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 I proceed now to take a cursory view of the application 
 of these terms respectively in some of the most important 
 portions of the book of Genesis. This will afford me an oc- 
 casion of illustrating the remark just made, and give the 
 reader an opportunity of judging of its correctness. 
 
 Genesis commences with an account of the creation, and 
 consequently Elohim is the more suitable word. At the pe- 
 riod here referred to, God had not appeared as Jehovah, re- 
 vealing himself to his creature. It is only in his general 
 connexion with the whole universe that he is here brought 
 forward as the Almighty, the creator of all, and conse- 
 quently superior to all. The Hebrew, in speaking of the 
 creation, could undoubtedly have used the term Jehovah to 
 designate the creator, inasmuch as both this term and the 
 other represented the same object to his mind. And hence 
 we find it repeatedly thus employed, as in Ex. xx. 11 ; xxxi. 
 17; Ps. viii. 1 ; xxxiii. 6; civ. 16, 24; Isa. xlii. 5. But in 
 the first introduction of an account of the creation, the author 
 very judiciously places himself, as it were, in the very time 
 of the act, and therefore mentions the Divine Maker under 
 the name which is particularly appropriate to the subject. 
 " The heavens declare the glory of God ;" and it is "the law 
 of Jehovah" which is said to be "perfect." Ps. xix. 1, 7. 
 
 Man, originally good, in the direction of all his powers to 
 God, is the subject of what follows. Consequently Elohim 
 
INTRODUCTION. 43 
 
 appears as Jehovah, thus making his connexion with man 
 the subject of positive revelation. The combination of the 
 two terms is to show that the same being is intended 
 by both. 
 
 The supposition that the second chapter contains a second 
 history of the creation different from the former comprised 
 in the first chapter, is founded on a misapprehension of its 
 meaning. It is not a history of the creation ; it merely con- 
 tains historical information introductory to what follows in 
 the third chapter. 
 
 These brief observations sufficiently explain the ground of 
 the usage in the second and third chapters. But for the 
 reader's satisfaction, I add the following abridged remarks 
 of Hengstenberg. ' Both names are here used, thus imply- 
 ing that the being designated by each is one, that the true 
 Elohim is Jehovah, and that Jehovah is really Elohim. 
 Sometimes the exclusive use of one followed by an exclu- 
 sive use of the other, implies the same thing, as is the case 
 in the book of Jonah. In the portion under consideration, 
 the name Jehovah is that which is best adapted to the na- 
 ture of the contents. The living God, revealing himself to 
 his creatures, is now manifested. He appears as the affec- 
 tionate guardian of men, the disposer of moral life, command- 
 ing and prohibiting, threatening punishment, and opening 
 before the mind the restoration which shall be hereafter. If 
 the author had had in view those only who had attained to 
 a clear recognition of the connexion of Elohim and Jehovah, 
 the latter term alone would have been sufficient. But, inas- 
 much as he rather aims first to intimate the grounds of the 
 connexion of Jehovah and Elohim, the transition from the 
 use of the latter term to that of the former alone would 
 have been too rapid. He wished to avoid the misapprehen- 
 sion, which would be implied in the supposition, that the 
 God who dealt so humanely with men might be a different 
 
44 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 person from the creator of heaven and earth, a merely infe- 
 rior God and mediator. He therefore here uses the two 
 terms in connexion, in order that, in subsequent portions, 
 when Jehovah or Elohim occurs alone, the reader may 
 immediately recognize the truth that the one implies also 
 the other. 
 
 The general character of these chapters requires the use 
 of Jehovah. But, apart from this consideration, Elohim 
 might have been used in particular places with equal pro- 
 priety. It might have been said of God, as well as of the 
 Lord God, "he had not caused it to rain upon the earth." 
 But, as this notice is preparatory to the account afterwards 
 to be related of the establishment of Paradise, it represents 
 God's afiectionate care for man in preparing him a residence 
 even before he was called into existence. The same princi- 
 ple explains the usage elsewhere. 
 
 It follows from what has been said, that the use of the 
 two terms in combination must be limited to the author. 
 Consequently, we do not find it in the language ascribed to 
 the serpent and the woman, because it would be inconsis- 
 tent with the nature of the temptation, and also with such a 
 state of mind as would give it consideration.' 
 
 This view of the matter, as it accounts for the variable 
 use of the names, destroys the hypothesis of particular docu- 
 ments, designated each by its own respective term. 
 
 Elohim has now appeared as Jehovah. This, therefore, 
 becomes in the fourth chapter the predominant term. The 
 other might, indeed, in most places have been used with 
 propriety, but this is particularly appropriate, as the of- 
 ferings of Cain and Abel were made to Jehovah, The 
 use of Elohim in v. 25, " for God hath appointed me another 
 seed," compared with that of Jehovah in v. 1, "I have 
 gotten a man from the Lord," where the subject is the same, 
 requires no laboured exposition. The author implies that 
 
INTRODUCTION. 45 
 
 each term is equally expressive of the same Divine Being, 
 " the giver of every good gift." 
 
 Both the writers before mentioned appear to be fanciful in 
 assigning reasons for the difference in these two verses. 
 Drechsler supposes that the choice of Elohim in v. 25, 
 marks the opposition between God and man. " God re- 
 places in the person of Seth, what Cain had attempted to 
 destroy in that of Abel :" p. 86. Hengstenberg maintains 
 that a different word from that used in the first verse marks 
 the state of the mother's mind. " At the first birth, her 
 consciousness of the divine presence and being is particu- 
 larly vivid. By inflicting punishment, God had shown him- 
 self to be Jehovah ; as Jehovah also is he recognized in the 
 benefit. In the birth of her first son. Eve discovers a dear 
 pledge of his favour. At that of Seth, this feeling is not 
 a little qualified. She merely recognizes a general divine 
 influence ; and the naturalness of the event does not, as on 
 the first occasion, appear to her entirely in the back ground." 
 This inference, founded on such slight premises, will not be 
 considered as receiving much support from the language of 
 Leah, to which the author appeals, although he chooses to 
 conclude that " the correctness of the exposition is conse- 
 quently indubitable." p. 320. He gives no references, but I 
 presume he alludes to the language of xxix. 31-35, compared 
 with that of xxx. 17, 20. 
 
 The indiscriminate application of a true theory, without 
 a due regard to exceptions and limitations, by which every 
 theory on such a subject must be modified, appears also in the 
 remarks of one at least, if not both of these writers, on the 
 next portion of the book of Genesis. 
 
 ' In the whole account of the flood,' says Drechsler, ' Elo- 
 him and Jehovah are both used, the former term, however, 
 greatly preponderating. And this is very proper, as the 
 subject relates to mankind in general, and not particularly to 
 
46 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 God's church. A second creation, as it were, is related, 
 and the ninth chapter evidently refers to the first. Connp. ix. 
 1, 7, with i. 22, 28 ; ix. 2, with i. 26 ; ix. 3, with i. 29, 30.' 
 See p. 103. 
 
 This may be allowed to be natural and reasonable. But 
 how does the author account for the exceptions to the use 
 of Elohim ? 
 
 In vi. 6, 7, Jehovah occurs. " It repented the Lord" — 
 " and the Lord said." " Here God makes his determination, 
 a determination which is founded on his merciful intention 
 to redeem fallen man: therefore Jehovah is used." p. 104. 
 Extraordinary reason truly ! The excision of the race of 
 men then existing may, indeed, have been necessary to pre- 
 pare the way for the accomplishment of this intention ; but 
 surely the determination to cut them off does not even inti- 
 mate such an intention. " But the execution of the deter- 
 mination accords best with the general idea of the creator." 
 Ibid. Elohim is consequently employed. On this theory, 
 we might certainly expect to find Jehovah in vi. 22, where 
 we read : " according to all that God commanded Noah, so 
 did he." In fact, this term does occur in vii. 5, " that the 
 Lord commanded him" ; and here the author remarks, that 
 " the highly favoured Noah must exercise obedience, blind 
 obedience enjoined by an absolute, positive law.* Therefore, 
 Jehovah." p. 105. But on this ground, vi. 22, and vii. 5, would 
 both require Jehovah, since both are equally commands. 
 
 An outline of Hengstenberg's remarks must now be given. 
 
 Gen. vi — ix. Ewald considers this portion of the book 
 as of the highest importance, in its bearing on the theory 
 of two documents, characterized by the use of Elohim and 
 Jehovah. f It is therefore worthy of particular attention. 
 
 * "Blinden Gehorsam (lurch ein wlUkiihrliches, positives Gebot." 
 f Komp. der Genesis, p. 81. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 47 
 
 * vi. 1-8 forms a sort of introduction, stating the cause of 
 the divine judgments. With the exception of the phrase 
 " sons of God," Jehovah is invariably and frequently* em- 
 ployed. The subsequent narrative shows an abundant use 
 of the term Elohim ; though Jehovah is several times unex- 
 pectedly introduced, as in vii. 1, 5 and 16, immediately after 
 Elohim, and in viii. 20, 21, ix. 26, immediately follov^red by 
 it. Ewald takes no notice of this difficulty, and Sack's ex- 
 position is unsatisfactory.' p. 324-326. 
 
 " It is the authors purpose to show how Elohim gradually 
 became [manifested himself as] Jehovah. He has already 
 taken the first step, and has the second in contemplation. 
 The history of Abraham is pretty closely connected with 
 the account of the flood ; for in the intermediate portion the 
 divine names occur but seldom, and the subjects are of such 
 a character throughout as to make the use of Elohim inad- 
 missible. If now the author, before entering on this new 
 and important section of his work, wished, by the use of the 
 divine names, to call his readers' attention to this point, that 
 the being who had already been exhibited as Jehovah was 
 still in a considerable degree Elohim, and that consequently 
 new and more glorious discoveries and revelations were 
 still to be unfolded, this must necessarily be done in tl»e 
 portion under consideration, in which the very frequent 
 use of the divine names must prevent his purpose from 
 being hid. 
 
 " If the author had employed Elohim from the beginning, 
 [of this portion,] one aspect of the truth would have re- 
 mained concealed, namely this, that God was in a consider- 
 able degree already Jehovah, and displayed himself as such 
 in the whole of this great occasion. He therefore in the 
 introduction employs Jehovah frequently and with evident 
 
 * Only five times, including v. 5. 
 
48 INTBODUCTION. 
 
 design. Consequently Elohim, which occurs so often in the 
 subsequent representation, partly in reference to actions in 
 connexion with which Jehovah had immediately before been 
 made prominent, could not be misunderstood. The intro- 
 duction shows that Elohim is not to be taken merely in the 
 abstract, but that it implies this transition to Jehovah, who, 
 in connexion with what follows, is still Elohim." p. 327, 328. 
 
 Hengstenberg then proceeds to give reason^; why the 
 term Elohim, which occurs in vi. 2, 4, and also Jehovah, 
 where it appears after vi. 8, should be considered as excep- 
 tions to the view just stated. 
 
 After an examination of the meaning of the phrase, " sons 
 of God," in this place, which he shows cannot be explained 
 of angels, but only in reference to truly religious men, he 
 remarks, that they are called 'sons of God' rather than of 
 Jehovah, in contradistinction to the daughters of men, in 
 accordance with ordinary usage, which employs the most 
 general designation of the Supreme Being, when heaven and 
 earth, God and man, are set in opposition to each other. 
 Apart from this consideration, however, he thinks there is 
 another reason in favour of the use of Elohim, as the dignity 
 implied in the phrase 'sons of Jehovah' would be too great 
 for the existing developement of the divine purposes. Such 
 a glory must be reserved for a subsequent age. See Deut. 
 xiv. 1,2. p. 332.* 
 
 'The commencement of the 7th chapter, vers. 1, 5, is the 
 proper place to note the fact, that the same being who in some 
 respects is still Elohim simply, is in other very weighty ones 
 Jehovah ; and thus the usage in vi. 1 — 8, is recalled to the 
 reader's mind. We stand here on the very verge of the 
 great catastrophe. The authority of Jehovah determines 
 
 * Drechsler has no difficulty on this point, as, in common with many 
 Jewish and Christian writers, he understands the phrase in question of 
 angels, p. 91—93. 
 
INTRODL'OTION. 49 
 
 the numerical preference which Noah was to give to the 
 clean beasts in opposition to the unclean, inasmuch as offer- 
 ings were selected exclusively from the formei', and these 
 offerings were made to Jehovah. The previous command 
 respecting the beasts proceeds* from the general care of the 
 creator for their preservation; this particular supplementary 
 order,f on the contrary, appertains properly to the Deity, as 
 making hir^self personally known, that is, as Jehovah. It is 
 not the difference between clean and unclean that is pecu- 
 liarly connected with the use of Jehovah, for this distinction 
 occurs in connexion with the use of Elohim, (vii. 8, 9 ;) it is 
 only the solicitude to provide the larger number, which is 
 ascribed to Jehovah. 
 
 In vii. 16, the use of Elohim marks God's care for the 
 creatures in general, while that of Jehovah intimates his 
 merciful intentions towards Noah, " who had found grace in 
 his eyes." " When Jehovah shut the door after him, all the 
 waters of heaven and earth became incapable of forcing an 
 entrance." 
 
 In viii. 20, 21, Jehovah is entirely appropriate, as it is 
 the account of an offering. The interchange of the terms 
 in ix. 26, 27, — " blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; God 
 shall enlarge Japheth," — is easily explained. The connex- 
 ion of the two verses illustrates the connexion, which the au- 
 thor indirectly points out, of the two names to each other. 
 Jehovah is the God of the Shemites, while the association 
 of Japheth is simply with Elohim. The equality, as it re- 
 spects the divine connexion, which has heretofore existed, is 
 to cease, and Elohim will manifest himself, in union with the 
 family of Shem, as Jehovah.' 
 
 Hengstenberg remarks further, that, if the theory main- 
 
 * He refers to vi. 19, 20. 
 t Alluding to vii. 2. 
 7 
 
50 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tained by him be true, the use of the two names may be 
 satisfactorily accounted for, wherever they occur in the 
 whole section. Tlius the blessing, which in ix. 1 ss., is im- 
 parted to Noah by God, relates to natural benefits which are 
 of a general character, and is a repetition of that which fol- 
 lowed the creation, a blessing which the flood seemed to 
 have swept away. Hence the use of Elohim. The same 
 principle is applied by him to the subsequent use of the term 
 in this chapter. 
 
 He concludes with the observation, that in the phrase, 
 "Noah walked with God" in vi. 9, no other appellation 
 would have been equally apposite, inasmuch as it designates 
 his character in contradistinction to that of his ungodly con- 
 temporaries : " not with them, but with God, did Noah 
 walk." p. 328—336. 
 
 Leaving the reader to form his own judgment on the pro- 
 priety of carrying out the author's theory to the extent 
 here developed, I must be allowed to say, that occasion- 
 ally its application wants that simplicity which the mind 
 would naturally desire. Admitting its general truth, it may 
 be carried unreasonably far. Circumstances merely inci- 
 dental may induce the writer to use the one term or the 
 other, where no very important cause existed to lead to a 
 preference. The phrase, " Noah walked with Goc?," may 
 be founded on the reason just given ; but if the author in- 
 tended to state immediately afterwards that "the earth was 
 corrupt before God" and that '^God looked upon it, and 
 behold, it was corrupt," surely we need go no further for a 
 reason. And the natural phraseology would be that which 
 follows: "and God said unto Noah," v. 13. Comp. v. 24: 
 " Enoch walked with God" and " God took him," with v. 1, 
 " God created ;" " in the likeness of God." Still the phrase 
 is probably used with the view of indicating that the mind 
 and heart both of Noah and Enoch were drawn away, in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 51 
 
 an unusual degree, from all created objects to that holy and 
 spiritual being by whom they had been called into exist- 
 ence. — In vi. 22, which refers to the determination expressed 
 in 13, and the consequent command to Noah, we would 
 naturally expect the same divine term to be used, indepen- 
 dently of any reason connected with the original meaning of 
 the word. Immediately afterwards, the Deity appears as 
 Noah's covenant God to whom he had revealed himself, and 
 consequently Jehovah is the term used. See vii. 1, 5. The 
 9th and 16th verses of the same chapter manifestly refer 
 back to vi. 22, and therefore the word Elohim is chosen to 
 express God's commanding; while, in the 16th verse, Noah's 
 covenant God of revelation discloses his character and rela- 
 tion in the favour implied in the words, " Jehovah shut 
 him in." 
 
 Without an examination of the work of Sack above re- 
 ferred to, to which I have not access, I am led to infer, from 
 Hengstenberg's brief notice of his view, that it coincides with 
 the one just given ; although he rejects it, as manifestly un- 
 satisfactory, (offenbar unzureichend. p. 326.) 'When Noah 
 is said to walk vilh God, the general idea of the divine life 
 is intended to be expressed. The subsequent revelations 
 therefore are not attributed to Jehovah, to whom they pro- 
 perly belonged, but to Elohim, because connected with the 
 decision just declared respecting Noah, that he walked with 
 God, "quia adjunctas sunt illi judicio de Noacho eunte coram 
 deo." ' I am not aware that any objections have been or 
 can be urged against such a view as this, which involve any 
 difficulty of moment. 
 
 As the principle laid down, and the modifications of it 
 which have been proposed, are sufficient to account for the 
 interchange of the terms in question in the whole of this sec- 
 tion, it is proper to pass on to other portions of the book of 
 Genesis. 
 
52 INTRODUCTIO>f. 
 
 Nimrod is called " a mighty hunter before Jehovah." 
 X. 9. If the term ' hunter' is employed, as is most probable, 
 to denote this person's oppression and tyrannical character, 
 then the phrase " before Jehovah" implies the insolence and 
 audacity of the man. See the note on the place. He is not 
 to be restrained by the presence of the infinite himself. The 
 choice of the term whereby this infinite being is denoted, 
 would seem to be a matter of indifference. The author 
 might have used Elohim or Jehovah, without any shade of 
 difference in the general meaning, as either would equally 
 convey the idea of Nimrod's impudent and licentious ty- 
 ranny. Hengstenberg has failed to make out his assertion that 
 " Jehovah and not Elohim is to be justified in this place" ; 
 for either term would be appropriate. True, indeed, the 
 rebellious Nimrod "could neither escape the eye of the 
 living God, which was directed towards him, nor avoid 
 his hand." But if there be any such " deep irony" in the 
 phrase " before Jehovah," as that writer supposes, I am at a 
 loss to see why it should not be allowed to lurk under the 
 other phrase, ' before God,' with equal certainty. See p. 
 337, 339. It may be, indeed, that the author of the book of 
 Genesis, both here and elsewhere, selects the term Jehovah 
 in preference to Elohim, in order to intimate that the God 
 of his covenant people had his eye on bold and flagrant 
 offenders, and would visit them with condign punishment, 
 either with the view of furthering his plans towards that 
 people, or of chastising individual offenders among them. 
 (The latter part of the remark would apply to the cases of 
 Er and Onan, mentioned in xxxviii. 7, 10.) But we should 
 take care not to carry out this theory to any greater ex- 
 tent than the specific character of the cases may warrant. 
 Ewald has certainly violated this principle, in saying that 
 " it is Jehovah alone who gives laws ; that, according to the 
 constant use of language, men can sin against Jehovah only, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 53 
 
 and not against Elohim ; and^ that it is Jehovah only who 
 threatens punishment." p. 95. Gen. vi. 22. vii. 9, 16, where 
 Elohim " commands" Noah, and xxxix. 9, where Joseph 
 speaks of " sinning against Eloliim," contradict his as- 
 sertion. 
 
 Hengstenberg's undeviating adherence to his theory has 
 an evident influence on his estimate of the religious know- 
 ledge and character of the various personages brought be- 
 fore us in the book of Genesis. Thus, for instance, it affects 
 his portrait of Melchisedek. This distinguished king and 
 priest, who is affirmed in the seventh chapter of the He- 
 brews to have been greater than Abraham himself, the 
 patriarch, refers to the Deity ns " the most high God, the 
 possessor of heaven and earth." Gen. xiv. 19. But, to 
 this i-epresentation of the supreme being, Abraham prefixes 
 the term Jehovah, v. 22, " and this must have been intended 
 to show that Abraham has more than Melchisedek, whatever 
 they may have held in common. The God of the latter is 
 not merely one [among others], but he is the highest, whose 
 authority extends over the whole world. Justice and love 
 are in him combined with omnipotence, and his parti- 
 cular providence protects the pious and upright. But this 
 view of religion, however pure, is yet imperfect. In the 
 highest God, the lord of heaven and earth, Melchisedek has 
 still not recognized Jehovah. As such, his exhibitions are 
 confined to Abraham, in the way of especial revelation. In 
 the earlier history of mankind, Jehovah, both in name and 
 thing, is common good of the whole human race, and before 
 the calling of Abraham, a man of the religious earnestness 
 of Melchisedek would have recognized and named him, 
 even if it were imperfectly." p. 344, 345. To the same 
 effect, and if possible more plainly, does the author speak 
 in Vol. II. p. 554. " Melchisedek is recognized by Abraham 
 as a priest of the true God, as some centuries after Moses 
 
54 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 was allied with Jethro, by the bond of rehgious community. 
 Yet it is a heathenish religiousness, (eine heidnische ReU- 
 giositat,) QTi'^^ fl^T-" ■^"'^ where is the proof, that a 
 holy man like Melchisedek, dignified in the offices which he 
 sustained, and chiefly illustrious as a type of the great high 
 priest and king of his people, and a wise man like Jethro, 
 whose counsel the great and inspired Hebrew legislator him- 
 self did not disdain to follow, cultivated a sort of heathenish 
 religion, or failed to regard the God whom they worshipped 
 and obeyed as the true Jehovah 1 The author's assertion, 
 that " the more God becomes Jehovah for Abraham, the 
 more does he become Elohim for all the rest of the world," 
 allowing it to be generally true, is not universally so ; and 
 surely Melchisedek may well be considered as the most 
 prominent of all exceptions. It should not be forgotten, that 
 the covenant with Abraham could not annul God's pre- 
 viously made covenant with Noah, and in him with all man- 
 kind, ix. 9 ss. 
 
 'In chap, xvii,' says Drechsler, 'Jehovah is used in v. 1, 
 and afterwards Elohim constantly, because the subject re- 
 lated is, as it were, a creation of a people from nothing, and 
 therefore a powerful proof of the efficiency of God, who is 
 for the first time described as "God Almighty," '^'il'© b!S5, v. 1, 
 for which, in subsequent verses, where Isaac's birth is pro- 
 mised, and also in xxi, where it is narrated, Elohim is used. 
 Those chapters share in one category with the first chapter.' 
 p. 189, 190. 
 
 ' Elohim is used in chap, xvii, and Jehovah in chap, xviii. 
 But, although the general subject is the same, there are 
 some points of difference which suggest the reason of the 
 varying use of these appellations. Chapter xvii contains the 
 promise of the birth of a son, as the commencing point of 
 the long and great work of the creation of a numerous peo- 
 ple ; xviii speaks merely of the birth of this son the follow- 
 
INTRODUCTION. . 55 
 
 ing year. The former is the solemn, I may say public, 
 act ; the latter contains private discourse. Abraham, as the 
 father of a multitude of nations, and this great posterity to 
 descend from him, constitute the leading idea of xvii, which 
 may be said to be its perfect legal instrument, an act of 
 official character. But in xviii, this subject is only oppor- 
 tunely introduced ; for it was not on account of this matter, 
 but a different one, that Jehovah showed himself in action, 
 and he holds intercourse with Abraham and Sarah only as 
 private persons.' p. 191, 192. 
 
 To me, all this appears to be refined and arbitrary. It 
 assumes a gratuitous and unfounded distinction, which seems 
 to have been devised in order to sustain a preconceived 
 theory. Either appellation is sufficiently adapted to the 
 subject, and it would seem unnecessary to investigate very 
 deeply for a motive which might lead to the choice of one 
 in preference to the other. The interchange, both here and 
 elsewhere, may be intended to impress the reader with the 
 conviction, that the same infinite and immutable being is 
 denoted by each. This principle sufficiently illustrates the 
 usage in the 19th chapter. 
 
 In chap. XX, Elohim is the prevailing term. Here the 
 reason is plain. The narrative makes us acquainted with 
 persons who had no other idea of God than what is implied 
 in that word ; and even that idea was very imperfect. 
 " The fear of God in this place," is all that Abraham could 
 reasonably conceive of The name intimates also that the 
 patriarch was under the protection of that glorious being 
 who created the world ; and it was the divine intention in 
 the narrative, to make this truth conspicuous both to his 
 contemporaries and also to future generations. The unex- 
 pected introduction of Jehovah in the last verse points out 
 the identity of the being designated by the two names. 
 
 In xxi Elohim is used, except in v. 1, 33. The author 
 
56 ixthoduction. 
 
 has evidently a reference to chap, xvii, in which the usage 
 is strikingly similar, Jehovah being employed in the first 
 verse, and Elohim always afterwards. The subject also 
 corresponds, the one portion containing the accomphshment 
 of what is promised in the other. Comp. xxi. 2, 3, 4, 5, with 
 xvii. 21, 19, 10 — 12, 17; also,Vhat is said in each chapter 
 of Isaac and Ishmael respectively. The author of xxi has 
 undoubtedly in his mind the contents of xvii. The same 
 motive, then, which gives rise to the choice of the divine 
 names in the one, may fairly be presumed to account for it 
 in the other. It would therefore seem unnecessary at least, 
 to assume with Drechsler, (p. 194,) that Elohim is used, 
 when the subject relates to Ishmael, because the blessings 
 promised to him had reference merely to God's omnipotence 
 and creative power, exclusive of any covenant relation com- 
 prehending positive revelations. This reason would not 
 apply to the choice of this appellation when Abraham or 
 Isaac is the subject of discourse ; and, in all probability, the 
 author's motive is the same in both cases. Certainly, as 
 Drechsler says, Abraham is commanded to "cast out" his 
 son, by God as ruler of the world, in contradistinction to 
 man, who had neither the right to issue nor the power to 
 enforce such an order, and consequently Elohim is fitly cho- 
 sen. But it is undeniable, that the expulsion had a direct 
 and intimate I'elation to the divine plan concerning Abra- 
 ham, and therefore the word Jehovah would have been 
 equally proper. 
 
 Doubtless, the name Jehovah is chosen in the first verse 
 to express God's covenant relation to the mother of the child 
 of promise. But to me it seems fanciful, to account, as 
 Hengstenberg does, for the use of Elohim, which immediately 
 follows, (v. 2,) on the ground, that it points out "the opposi- 
 tion between God's word and man's word." The differ- 
 ence between the language ' God' and ' angel of God' in 
 
INTRODTJCTIOX. 57 
 
 V. 9 — 21, and 'Jehovah' and 'angel of Jehovah' in xvi. 7 ss., 
 while the subject is the same in both places, he attributes to 
 ** the great diversity of the relations which resulted from the 
 birth of Isaac. Heretofore, as Ishmael's circumcision shows, 
 Hagar and he had, in some degree, formed a part of the 
 chosen family, and consequently had participated in its con- 
 nexion with Jehovah. With the declaration of God in v. 
 12, 'in Isaac shall thy seed be called,' they go out of the 
 province of Jehovah into that of Elohim. The outer sepa- 
 ration from the chosen race was only a manifestation of that 
 which had already taken place within. After this final sepa- 
 ration, they had as little connexion with Jehovah as Cain, 
 when he departed from the church of God in Eden and be- 
 took himself to the land of Nod. If in v. 20, the language 
 was ' and Jehovah' instead of ' and God was with the lad,' 
 it would be an express contradiction of what is declared in 
 v. 12." p. 354- 
 
 An examination of the view here assumed respecting Ish- 
 mael's exclusion from all covenant relation with Jehovah, 
 would be foreign to my present purpose. I have only to 
 remark, that, were it allowed to be correct, it would not 
 explain the use of Elohim in v. 12, where it is clear that 
 either this term or Jehovah w^ould be equally appropriate. 
 
 The use of the divine names in the next chapter is easily 
 explained. God, (Elohim,) the maker and the owner, re- 
 quires Abraham to give up his son, and, in the very turning 
 point of the transaction, Jehovah, by his angel, pi'events the 
 sacrifice, and manifests himself as the patriarch's covenant 
 • God. Comp. V. 1, with 11, 12. That the change of names 
 in this narrative is attributable to the circumstance of its 
 being composed of two original documents, is ridiculous. 
 This would have produced a mechanical piece of patch- 
 work, whereas the account is remarkable for its consistency 
 and unity. It requires no extraordinary perspicuity, in order 
 8 
 
58 INTRODUCTIO??. 
 
 to enable the reader to perceive the propriety of the choice 
 of terms whereby to denote the supreme being. But when 
 Hengstenberg tells us, that the patriarch's " temptation would 
 have had no object, if God had already become for him ab- 
 solutely Jehovah," (p. 358,) he seems to have forgotten that 
 •' the Son" himself, whom the father had declared by " a 
 voice from heaven" to be his " beloved" one, was tried by 
 the severest temptations. " Jehovah," the " merciful and gra- 
 cious," might subject his " friend"* to such a test, with the 
 view of strengthening his faith, and of exhibiting his obe- 
 dience to the imitation of all subsequent ages. 
 
 The remarks already made will enable the reader to ex- 
 plain the usage in the chapters immediately following. 
 
 In XXV. 11, it is said, that "God, (Elohim,) blessed Abra- 
 ham's son Isaac." Undoubtedly, either this term or the 
 other is equally appropriate. But, says the author just 
 named, "we find Elohim in this place, where it would seem, 
 at the first look, that Jehovah ought to stand. Still, if we 
 consider that the notice here is merely occasional and preli- 
 minary, and that the author does not professedly enter on 
 the history of Isaac until v. 19 ss., the term Elohim will ap- 
 pear perfectly satisfactory. It conveys here the general in- 
 timation, that the blessing of God or of heaven passed over 
 from Abraham to Isaac. The more definite designation of 
 this blessing follows in xxvi. 3, 12." p. 362, 363. " Isaac," 
 says Drechsler, "is now in Abraham's place. From this 
 time he is clothed with high authority — his cause is God's — 
 and he himself the friend of God. And this very point, 
 namely, that his intluence extends to that higher sphere, that 
 the connexion of the creator of the world to Abraham has 
 passed over to him, lies in the word Elohim. And the ac- 
 tion implied in the word " blessed," belongs principally to 
 
 * See 2 Chron. xx. 7; Isa. xli. 8; and James ii. 2, 3. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 59 
 
 Elohim ; in other words, Jehovah blesses especially with 
 blessings of his omnipotence, his creative power." p. 197. 
 It is unnecessary to remark, that the representations of both 
 these writers are far-fetched, in consequence of an unneces- 
 sary application of a correct theory. 
 
 The same remark applies in part to Hengstenberg's ex- 
 planation of the usage in chap, xxvii. and xxviii. The dim- 
 sighted Isaac speaks of the perfumed clothes of the supposed 
 Esau thus : " See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a 
 field which the Lord hath blessed." xxvii, 27. " Had the 
 comparison been taken from an ordinary richly blooming 
 field, Elohim would have been employed. The use of Je- 
 hovah shows that the reference is to a field such as those of 
 Paradise, wherein the traces of the Deity clearly shine forth, 
 — an ideal field, holding the same relation to ordinary ones, as 
 Israel did to the heathen, a sort of magic garden," &c. 
 Such a land of enchantment he discovers Canaan to have 
 been in some degree, v.'hen it became the residence of the 
 chosen people. The odoriferous vestments of Jacob are 
 viewed by his father as the type of Jehovah's garden, to be 
 verified for Israel, as is pointed out in the words, "God give 
 thee of the dew of heaven and the fatness of the earth and 
 plenty of corn and wine." v. 28. p. 305, 366. The learned 
 writer is carried away by his imagination. Doubtless the 
 blessings referred to are, in a good degree, " theocratical," as 
 he says, " and appertain, not to the general, but especial 
 providence of God ;" and therefore the phraseology, " field 
 which Jehovah hath blessed," is entirely apposite. But that 
 the blessings referred to in xxv. 11, where the language is, 
 " and God blessed Isaac," do not comprehend the same sort 
 of benefactions, is incapable of proof. It would seem plain, 
 that the choice of either term was in both places a matter 
 of indifference. 
 
 In xxviii. 16, also, when Jacob awakes from his vision and 
 
60 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 says, •' surely Jehovah is in this place," we are told, that 
 "Elohim could not have been employed," because, in that 
 case, it would have implied Jacob's ignorance of the doc- 
 trine of the divine omnipresence, p. 368.* But the correct- 
 ness of this inference depends on Jacob's meaning. Un- 
 doubtedly he might say, "God is in this place and I knew it 
 not," if he meant that the Deity was peculiarly present to 
 bless him. Jehovah indeed would be altogether appropri- 
 ate, but Elohim might well be used, and in either case the 
 sense would be precisely the same,- The right explica- 
 tion of the usage in both the chapters would seem to be in 
 general simply this, that the Jehovah of xxvii. is identical 
 with the Elohim of xxviii. — I have only to remark further, 
 that Drechsler is undoubtedly right, when he represents the 
 first four verses of chap, xxviii, as having a retrospective 
 reference to chap, xvii. See p. 198. Compare especially 
 the third verse of the former with the first of the latter. 
 
 xxix. 31 — XXX. 24. In this section, the terms by which 
 the Deity is designated are interchangeably used in connex- 
 ion with the birth of Jacob's sons. The principles already 
 laid down sufficiently explain the usage. And the frequent 
 use of Elohim in chap, xxx. calls the reader's attention to the 
 births in reference to which it occurs, as peculiar favours of 
 
 * According to Ewald, "Jacob is reminded that hi$ own family God 
 is near him even in remote lands." Of course, any other term than Je- 
 hovah Avould fail of the object, " That some deity ruled over the coun- 
 try, Jacob liad no need to be informed; but that his powerful family 
 God bore sway here also, he recognizes with the greatest joy." p, 59, 
 According to this view, Jacob's knowledge of the true God was like that 
 of Ralak, who supposed that, although the divine influence might in- 
 deed prevent Balaam from cursing the Israelites from one spot, another 
 might be selected in'which it should not be exerted; or, of those Syrians 
 who thought, that " the Lord might be God of the hills, but not of the 
 valleys." See Num. xxiii. 13, 27; 1 Kings, xx. 23, 28. How differ- 
 ent this is from the real fact, it were idle to show to any believer in 
 the inspiration of the Scriptures. 
 
INTRODUCTION. . 61 
 
 a beneficent Providence. It is unnecessary to search farther 
 for any recondite motive for the choice of the term. But 
 the wriler to whom I am so much indebted, and from whose 
 particular views I am compelled so often to dissent, is not 
 satisfied with such a general solution. He finds a reason in 
 what he supposes to be the internal condition of the two 
 sisters at the various times of their becoming mothers. 
 " Leah had suffered unrighteous treatment, and been sub- 
 jected to mortification ; Jacob's averseness to her was chiefly 
 attributable to her hard-hearted and invidious sister, who 
 made this averseness an occasion of ridicule and contempt. 
 Under these circumstances Leah and the author both re- 
 cognized, in her own fruilfulness and Rachel's barrenness, 
 not merely the general operation of Providence, but the 
 especial influence of the righteous, retributive God. At the 
 birth of " her maid's" children, no reference to the Deity 
 occurs. In that of the 5th and 6th sons, an influence of 
 Elohim is recognized ; that particular significancy intended 
 by the birth of the first four, here finds no place ; the 
 object designed had been effected, and things resume their 
 ordinary course ; Leah's consciousness of the divine in- 
 fluence is less active ; her eye is principally directed to 
 natural causes, and she acknowledges only an indefinite 
 divine co-operation."* 
 
 " The later feeling of Leah influenced Rachel from the 
 beginning. She had no impulse raising her to Jehovah, 
 whom she could not but regard in the light of a judge and 
 avenger. She would the more hesitate to express his name 
 at the birth of " her maid's" sons, in proportion as she was 
 conscious how much she had contributed to the event. 
 After she has recognized the favour of God in the birth of 
 
 * He then refers to what he had before said on the birth of Abel. See 
 above, p. 19, 20. 
 
62 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 her own first son, does she become more confident. She 
 ventures to apply to Jehovah for a second son, forgetting 
 that he ought to be the object of her fear, inasmuch as she 
 persists in unrighteous conduct towards her sister. The 
 son she prays for from Jehovah is indeed given by Jehovah, 
 but as the son of her sorrow." p. 374, 375. 
 
 It is impossible to read this representation of the simple 
 narrative without feeling, that, while it contains some truth, 
 it is overstrained and unjust to Rachel. Her sentiments 
 towards her less loved, but, as a mother, more favoured 
 sister, are doubtless not to be vindicated ; but this writer's 
 exceedingly unfavourable exhibition of them is unwarranted, 
 and the inferences he deduces altogether extra vasrant. 
 Rachel's language on occasion of the birth of Dan, is a 
 pious recognition of the divine protection, and on becom- 
 ing herself the mother of Joseph, her piety and gratitude 
 and faith are alike conspicuous. Undeviating adherence to 
 a theory seems in this instance not only to have perverted 
 Dr. Hengstenberg's judgment, but to have dimmed his per- 
 ception of right. His mode of accounting for the use of 
 Elohim on the birth of Leah's fifth and sixth sons, when Je- 
 hovah had been employed by her before, is quite unneces- 
 sary, and assumes a change of views and feelings in the 
 mother, wholly improbable. 
 
 In some other portions of Genesis, the author's assump- 
 tions appear to be equally arbitrary. Knowledge of Jeho- 
 vah, and what the word implies in denoting God's relation 
 to men, is attributed or denied, in accordance with the 
 theory, when the outward circumstances and internal 
 characteristics of the individuals, (so far as the brevity of 
 the narrative allows us to form a judgment respecting them,) 
 afford little or no ground for the very important conclusions 
 deduced. I cannot but think that this observation applies 
 not only to what has already been quoted concerning Leah 
 
INTRODUCTION. 63 
 
 and Rachel, but also to some of his remarks in reference to 
 the father of these women. It is especially applicable to 
 his declaration respecting Esau, made in order to illustrate 
 Jacob's useof Elohim in xxxiii. 11, while in xxxii. 9 — 12, he 
 had appealed to Jehovah as the author of all his mercies. 
 " Jehovah lay without the circle of Esau's religious views, 
 whose piety was superficial, and who had only an occasional 
 hour of devotion." p. 379. Admitting this delineation of 
 Esau's religious character to be in general correct, it does 
 not prove that the name Jehovah was not familiarly used 
 by him, as it undoubtedly was in his father's family, much 
 less that Jacob was led, by such a consideration, delibe- 
 rately to choose the term Elohim in preference to the 
 other. 
 
 Chaps, xxxix. — 1. In the former part of this section, the 
 term Jehovah predominates, and is always used when the 
 author is himself the speaker. In the other parts, Elohim 
 maintains the supremacy, and is changed occasionally for 
 God Almighty, which is of similar import. Indeed, the 
 word Jehovah is only employed once in the last ten chapters 
 of Genesis, namely, in Jacob's dying ejaculation, xlix. 18, 
 while in the same portion Elohim occurs eighteen times. 
 On the other hand, in chap, xxxix., the former term appears 
 eight times, and the latter only once. The repeated use of 
 Jehovah in this chapter might be expected, as Joseph's con- 
 dition was subject to the influence of that special provi- 
 dence which superintended the chosen race, protected them 
 in Egypt, and thus prepared them for their future destination. 
 The use of Elohim in the ninth verse, may be accounted 
 for as Hengstenberg (p. 384,) and Drechsler, (p. 204,) sug- 
 gest, on the ground that Joseph is addressing a heathen, to 
 whom this general designation would be more appropriate, 
 if not more intelligible, than the other more particular 
 name. In repelling the advances of Potiphar's wife, he 
 
64 INTRODLTTIOX. 
 
 says, " How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against 
 God?" Ti^io subsequent use of Elohim is easily explained 
 on the principles already stated ; and it is unnecessary to 
 trouble the reader with a repetition of them. But when 
 Hengstenberg attempts to account for its introduction in 
 xli. 51,52, where Joseph ascribes his happy condition to 
 " God, because he did not regard the birth of his sons as 
 connected with the development of the divine kingdom," 
 and because "it, is the general idea of providence which 
 here rules, the indefinite feeling of dependence which governs 
 him," (p. 385,) he says what may possibly be true, but 
 what he neither does nor can establish, and is exceedingly 
 improbable. And why should he assume this of Joseph, 
 and just the very contrary of Leah ? It may indeed be 
 admitted, that, in xlv. 5 — 9, the use of Elohim marks the 
 divine agency in contradistinction to the merely human ; 
 but where does he find proof of his declaration, (introduced 
 as a probable exposition of the use of Elohim in v. 9,) that 
 " Jacob had been wholly governed by human considerations, 
 and had entirely lost from his view the leadings of God, by 
 whom and not by man he was to be drawn to Egypt" ? 
 p. 380. Neither the history in general, nor the uniform 
 course of conduct of the patriarch, in any degree favours 
 such a supposition. It is a gratuitous aspersion of his re- 
 ligious character, like that before attempted to be thrown 
 on the wife of his earlier and deeper affections. 
 
 Indeed, this learned writer is not himself satisfied with 
 the application of his theory, in every case in which these 
 two divine names occur in the latter portion of Genesis. 
 He says, that ' although the use of Elohim in xlviii. 9, " these 
 are my sons whom God hath given me," may be vindicated, 
 if we keep the connexion out of view ; yet, it is evident, 
 that the more suitable term would be Jehovah, whose bless- 
 ing immediately -follows. So also in v. 11, " Lo ! God hath 
 
INTRODUCTION. 65 
 
 showed me thy seed," Elohim may indeed be justified, as 
 expressive of divine direction in opposition to human pur- 
 pose ; yet, the solemnity of the occasion would rather lead 
 us to expect the grateful heart to raise itself to Jehovah. 
 Along with places in which Elohim must necessarily stand, 
 are found several in which it does answer sufficiently well, 
 but Jehovah equally so, and some in which Jehovah is 
 plainly the more suitable. These phenomena are surprising, 
 and would seem to require the admission of some grounds 
 for the usage particularly appropriate to themselves.' p. 
 386—388. 
 
 The author very judiciously rejects the solution advanced 
 by Sack, that Joseph uses the woi'd Elohim in accordance 
 with that heathen influence by which he was surrounded ; 
 and that Jacob, in his intercourse with him, acquiesces in 
 the same usage. His own is vastly more respectful to the 
 venerable patriarchs, but whether supported on surer grounds, 
 is, to say the least, doubtful. He had before suggested, that, 
 in the earUer patriarchal history, the frequent use of Elohim, 
 and the designed omission of Jehovah, intimated the ap- 
 proach of a new period in the development of the divine 
 character and being. He applies the same principle in the 
 cases in contemplation, which correspond with the usage in 
 the earlier portion of Exodus, in which Elohim, not Jeho- 
 vah, is the prevailing term. " The Jehovah-sun," says he, 
 " had hidden himself behind a cloud in reference to the cho- 
 sen race ; they hoped that he would again burst forth in 
 clearer splendor than ever, but were conscious that for the 
 present he was not to be seen. The descent into Egypt 
 must necessarily direct their eager expectation to the future. 
 But in proportion as their eye was turned to the glorious 
 revelations of God still in prospect, he was to them for the 
 present Elohim." p. 390, 391. 
 
 If, now, the invariable usage in the previous part of the 
 9 
 
66 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 book of Genesis were manifestly such as to show, that the 
 author had strictly kept in view the etymological and really 
 different meaning of the two divine names, the solution sug- 
 gested by Hengstenberg, or some other accommodated to 
 the difficulty, might be accepted ; but, as so many cases oc- 
 cur, where the principle is either altogether or partially in- 
 applicable, the instances referred to in the latter part of the 
 book are to be classed in the same category with those. 
 Inasmuch as they contain nothing peculiar, they are fairly 
 explicable on the grounds already stated. 
 
 Ewald would account for the use of Elohim in xlix. 29 — 
 1. 26, in xl. 8, and many other places, on the ground that the 
 subject has no reference to the national god of the Hebrews, 
 but merely to God, considered as superintending and direct- 
 ing the condition of a family, p. 45 ss. But this is evidently 
 unsatisfactory, for the character and condition of a nation 
 did certainly belong to the Hebrews when in Egypt, more 
 properly than in the time of Abraham or Isaac, and even in 
 the earlier period of Jacob's life ; and yet, in these latter 
 circumstances, the national name, as he would call it, is fre- 
 quently applied. Here, I presume, he would introduce his 
 hypothesis of a second document. 
 
 There is doubtless a large proportion of places in Genesis, 
 where the author has been led to the choice of these terms 
 respectively, because of some peculiar adaptation of the one 
 or the other to the subject in connexion with which it occurs. 
 There are other portions in which he seems to have employed 
 both, in order to prevent the possibility of his reader's sup- 
 posing a different being to be intended. And probably there 
 are still others in which the usage differs for the sake of va- 
 riety, and because no particular motive existed to determine 
 his mind to the choice of one rather than the other. If some 
 cases do exist, in which it is difficult and perhaps impossible 
 to settle the ground of the choice of these appellations of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 67 
 
 supreme being, the variety of the usage is no proof of dif- 
 ferent original documents. One writer may have varied the 
 terms for the best of reasons, although in some instances not 
 now discoverable. 
 
 I conclude this introduction with the following extracts 
 from Jahn, p, 208 ss., with such slight modification of his lan- 
 guage as appears to be necessary in order to make his view 
 in all respects correct. 
 
 " The records contained in the book of Genesis are not 
 the fictions or allegories by which in very ancient times 
 wise men chose to veil their philosophical opinions, neither 
 are they mythi, or histories intermingled with mythi, such 
 as other nations relate concerning their earliest ages ; but 
 they are true histories. This will be evident from the fol- 
 lowing considerations. 
 
 " These relations were committed to writing nearly a 
 thousand years before the mythi of the most ancient nations. 
 But in those remote times, the ordinary life of man extended 
 to so great a length, that there could be no necessity for oral 
 tradition to pass through the mouths of many generations. 
 Methuselah was contemporary with Adam during the first 
 two hundred and forty-three years of his life, and with Noah 
 during the last six hundred, and Noah with Abraham fifty- 
 eight years. Thus three generations would have transmitted 
 the account of the creation of the world to Abraham. The 
 histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were committed to 
 writing not long after their times, and from Jacob to Moses 
 it would seem that only four generations intervened.* Some, 
 
 * It is a common opinion, that in Ex. vi. 14 — 19, some generations 
 are omitted, because four hundred and thirty years make thirteen gene- 
 rations instead of four. But, as in Gen. xv. 13, 16, four generations are 
 in express terms made equivalent to four hundred years, and as the two 
 hundred and fifteen years which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob spent in 
 Canaan occupied only two generations, it is evident that a generation at 
 
68 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 indeed, have considered the longevity which is ascribed to 
 the men of the first ages of the w^orld as a mythus, simply 
 because they imagined it to be impossible that the human 
 body should subsist so many years. But no reasonable per- 
 son will maintain that everything was the same in those 
 early ages, especially before the deluge, as it is now. Why, 
 then, must the age of man have necessarily been the same 
 at that time as at present? All other nations extend the 
 
 that time comprehended a hundred years, and not merely thirt^'-four, as 
 was the case at a much later period. 
 
 Thus Dr. Jahn. And the remark may be correct. But it ought to 
 be considered that a principle which would be applicable to the time of 
 Abraham, would hardly suit that of Moses, when the period of human 
 life had been greatly abridged. The truth is, there is difficulty con- 
 nected with the question how long the Israelites remained in Egypt. 
 In favour of the shorter period of two hundred and fifteen years, it may 
 be said, that this agrees best with St. Paul's remark in Gal. iii. 17, that 
 " the law was four hundred and thirty years after the promise ;" that 
 this space accords with the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
 Septuagint version in Ex. xii. 40, which add the clause "and in the 
 land of Canaan," which is not in the Hebrew. Compare the following 
 texts in Genesis, which show that the space of time between Abraham's 
 removal from Haran and Jacob's descent to Egypt was two hundred and 
 fifteen years : xii. 4 ; xxi. 5 ; xxv. 26 ; xlvii. 9. This view corresponds 
 best with the genealogy in Ex. vi. and Num. xxvii. 1. It would seem 
 also from Num. xxvi. 59, that the mother of Moses was the daughter 
 of Levi. 
 
 On the other hand, in favour of a residence of four hundred or four 
 hundred and thirty years, the express declarations in Gen. xv. 13, can- 
 not be set aside. Comp. also Acts vii. 6. The Hebrew of Ex. xii. 60, 
 is also exceedingly strong, and the addition of the Samaritan and Sep- 
 tuagint have the appearance of a gloss designed to remove a supposed 
 difficulty. St. Paul may be allowed, in a matter which had no bearing 
 on his argument, to follow the Septuagint, as best known to the mass of 
 his readers. 
 
 The genealogy of Joshua in 1 Chron. vii. 20 — 27, which descends 
 from Ephraim through ten generations at least, corresponds best with 
 the longer period. The difficulty from Num. xxvi. 59, is examined by 
 Perizonius in his jEgyptiacsD Origines, cap. xx. p. 356 ss. ; but he has 
 not succeeded in satisfactorily removing it. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 69 
 
 lives of the first inhabitants of earth to some thousands of 
 years ; the records in Genesis, therefore, which give a far 
 more moderate duration of existence, are not to be suspect- 
 ed of falsehood in this particular. The ancient worthies 
 esteemed the patriarchal accounts of very great importance, 
 as the groundwork and witness of their religion ; as such 
 they taught them to their children, and in old age frequently 
 repeated the oft-told story, so that there could be little dan- 
 ger of the narrative being misunderstood or designedly cor- 
 rupted. Such parts as had been clothed in verse, vestiges 
 of which occur in Gen. iv. 23, 24, would be the more easily 
 retained in memory, and could not be altered without inju- 
 ring the parallelism or disturbing the harmony; and this 
 ■would lead to the observation and correction of the error. 
 
 " The events related are fewer, and the narratives less full, 
 and perhaps more obscure in proportion to the antiquity of 
 the accounts and the length of time during which they were 
 preserved by tradition ; while, on the contrary, those which 
 are the most modern are also the most complete. From 
 this it is evident that the compiler or author of Genesis must 
 have rejected all uncertain and suspicious accounts, very 
 many of which had doubtless come down from a period of 
 considerable antiquity, and must have received those only 
 the correctness of which was unquestionable. 
 
 " Further, the subjects of the narrative are of the simplest 
 kind, and altogether dissimilar to those which fill the earli- 
 est histories of other nations. If in any respects a slight 
 similitude is discoverable, it is still evident that the latter are 
 feigned or amplified and distorted by fictions, while the for- 
 mer exhibit merely the simple truth. This was acknow- 
 ledged, without any hesitation, by the heathen, whether 
 learned or unlearned, who in the first ages of Christianity 
 turned from the contemplation of their own fables to that of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. Besides, those doubtful or partly 
 
70 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 fictitious narrations, or, if the definition be preferred, philo- 
 sophical opinions clothed in allegorical language, which are 
 known by the name of mythi, are single fragments, which 
 have no real connexion either among themselves or with 
 genuine history. But the accounts in the book of Genesis 
 are indissolubly connected with each other and with history 
 in general. The mythi abound with fictions relating princi- 
 pally to gods and goddesses and demigods, to their wars, 
 and even to their obscene and sexual intercourse. They 
 relate to demons, heroes, nymphs, and metamorphoses, also 
 to the inventors of useful arts and founders of noble families, 
 whose origin they fabulously ascribe to an intermixture of 
 the divine with the human. In the first book of the Penta- 
 teuch, nothing of the kind is to be found. The accounts 
 which it contains relate only to one God, the creator and 
 governor of the universe, and the preserver and guardian of 
 morals and religion, to the establishment, protection, and 
 promotion of which they are devoted ; and they hold forth 
 the prospect of an auspicious and blessed period, when true 
 religion and virtue shall be propagated among all nations. 
 That this prediction has been already fulfilled in a great 
 degree, is undeniable ; and past accomplishment encourages 
 the believer to anticipate its completion. 
 
 "Should it be granted that alterations may have taken 
 place in these accounts, yet even this would not render the 
 character of the principal parts on which the history rests 
 suspicious. Those portions which might be supposed to be 
 most liable to suspicion of corruption or fiction, are such 
 as may be thought to border on the marvellous, such as the 
 accounts of divine revelations. But these very accounts of 
 revelations contain predictions of the perpetual duration of 
 the religion which they teach among the posterity of its 
 first possessors,, and of its future propagation among all 
 nations, which it would have been impossible for the authors 
 
INTRODUCTION. 71 
 
 of these accounts, whoever they were, to invent. See Gen. 
 xit. 1 — 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14, xviii, 19, and 
 xvii. 4 — 14. The idea of God, which pervades all these 
 records, is such as would never have originated with unas- 
 sisted man. 
 
 "It may be remarked farther, that if these narratives, like 
 the fabulous accounts of other nations, had been altered so 
 as to suit the fancy of the narrator, they would have dif- 
 fered in many respects from their present form. As good 
 morals are everywhere inculcated in them, the immoralities 
 and facts of doubtful character which now occur and are 
 certainly but little honourable to the principal personages of 
 the history, would have been omitted. The various narra- 
 tives which appear in the book of Genesis would not have 
 corresponded so accurately with the nature of things ; the 
 speeches which it contains (see particularly xliii. 1 — 14, 
 and xliv. 18 — 44,) would hardly have been so exactly suited 
 to the characters and situations of their respective authors; 
 the general character of the personages would not have 
 been preserved with such uniform and permanent consis- 
 tency, but would have approached occasionally to carica- 
 ture ; the four hundred years of Gen. xv. 30, would have 
 been changed into four hundred and thirty, to correspond 
 with Ex. xii. 40; the apparent contradictions would have 
 been reconciled ; in one word, the whole narration would 
 not have been so perfectly consentaneous to the general 
 course of things observable in other histories.* 
 
 * " Illustrative of the manner in which the rationalists exhibit the 
 statements made in the Bible, and endeavour to place them on the same 
 footing with the early and fabulous accounts of other nations," I fjuote 
 from the notice of Drechsler, already referred to, in the New York Re- 
 view, p. 134, 135. 
 
 "' It is well known,' says Von Bohlen, 'that all the nations of anti- 
 quity possessed accounts of the early history of mankind, of the increase 
 
72 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " The arguments which have been urged against the his- 
 torical credit of the documents employed by the author of 
 the book of Genesis do not prove that the narrations origin- 
 ally given in these documents have been altered, but only 
 that they may have been ; that is, in effect, they prove 
 nothing, for the argument from possibilities to facts is void 
 of all force. He attempts to show that the narrations con- 
 tained in these documents cannot be true, are entirely futile. 
 Such is the assertion, that our first parents could not have 
 immediately related the events described in Gen. ii. 4 — iii. 24, 
 
 and extension of the human race, and even of the creation of the 
 universe. In immediate connexion with them is the knowledge of 
 God, his being and attributes, his connexion with the world, and par- 
 ticularly with men. These accounts remind us of a period, during 
 which God or divine beings came down to earth, walked among inen in 
 human form, trying their virtue, promising and threatening, rewarding 
 and punishing. To say all in one word, most of the eastern nations 
 possessed writings similar in their contents to those of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and this not only in general, but often in particular, and even in 
 a remarkable degree.' 
 
 "From this representation, which no literary man thinks of question- 
 ing, what is to be gained ? From promises like these, what results ? 
 As the accounts referred to are undoubtedly fabulous, the rationalist 
 writer infers or assumes that those in the Old Testament are of the 
 same character. A more direct and palpable begging of the question 
 cannot be imagined. It is, as Drechsler says, a logical blunder. The 
 possible suppositions of which the case admits are three. Either, 
 several of these different accounts contain portions of historical truth ; or, 
 as Von Bohlen thinks, all are untrue ; or one alone is really and his- 
 torically the true statement. The sober and rational inquirer will not 
 content himself with assuming that condition, which his prepossessions 
 may have constituted the favourite one in his mind, but will carefully 
 examine the evidence of all, and admit the one in favour of which the 
 evidence preponderates." 
 
 To maintain, as the neological party in Germany have done, that a 
 narrative must be fabulous or fictitious, or of comparatively late date, 
 because its contents are of a prophetic or miraculous character, pre- 
 sumes the impossibility of prophecy or miracle, and is a course of 
 procedure utterly unworthy of the name of argument. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 73 
 
 in consequence of the imperfection of their language ; and 
 that when their stock of words had increased, they could 
 not have remembered the events of their earliest existence, 
 because without words nothing could be retained beyond 
 an obscure recollection of things. But neither of these as- 
 sertions is true. For, as to the former, our first parents 
 were -adult in the first moment of their existence, possessing 
 the use of all the faculties of their minds, and of all the 
 members of their bodies. They had, moreover, both the 
 power of speech and incitement to its use, so that as soon 
 as the ideas which must have entered their minds imme- 
 diately upon their existence were conceived, they expressed 
 them in language. With respect to the other assertion, the 
 ideas produced during the first moments of their existence, 
 when in possession of all their intellectual powers, whether 
 they were produced by the impressions of the senses or by 
 the instructions of the Deity, would be the most tenaciously 
 retained by the mind, for the very reason that they were 
 the first ; they would be treasured in its inmost recesses, 
 so as to be readily recollected during the remainder of life, 
 and easily narrated in language sufficiently copious at any 
 subsequent period. 
 
 " There can be no doubt that the doctrine of a creating 
 Deity, and consequently that of the creation and ori£:in of 
 all things, are maintained throughout the whole of the book 
 of Genesis ; for the object of all the documents employed 
 in its compilation, is to teach, that this doctrine was revealed 
 to our first parents, that it was preserved by especial divine 
 providence until the time of Abraham, and that it was to be 
 preserved and at last propagated among all nations. The 
 account therefore of the creation, with which the book 
 commences, inasmuch as it coincides with this general ob- 
 ject, is not a fiction, nor a poetical description of the creation, 
 nor a philosophical speculation of some ancient sage, but, as 
 10 
 
74 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the historical tenor of the whole narration shows, a real 
 history. And, inasmuch as no witness existed to recount 
 the particulars of the creation of the earth, it is evident that 
 the matter of this history must have been derived from divine 
 revelation, given for the purpose of instructing the early in- 
 habitants of earth, in the manner best suited to their capa- 
 cities, that there is no divine being or object of worship 
 except the creator, and that the general objects of creation 
 were destined for the use of man, so that they are not divi- 
 nities, but, on the contrary, he is their Lord." 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 The Book of Genesis is divided by the Jews into twelve 
 larger sections, called Pharshioth, J1V1P"!3 ; and in some 
 copies into forty-three snaaller ones, denominated Sedarim, 
 Q'^'l'lD. Bat, independently of this division, and that of fifty 
 chapters, adopted in our English translation, both of which 
 are arbitrary, the attentive reader will perceive another in 
 the construction of the book itself It is composed of eleven 
 parts,' each of which has an appropriate inscription or intro- 
 ductory notice of the subject concerning which it treats. 
 They are as follows: Part I. chap. i. 1 — ii. 3, inclusive; 
 II. ii. 4— iv. 26 ; III. v. 1— vi. 8 ; IV. vi. 9— ix. 29 ; V. x. 
 1— xi. 9; VI. xi. 10—26; VII. xi. 27— xxv. 11 ; VIII. xxv. 
 12 — 18; IX. xxv. 19 — xxxv. 29; X. xxxvi. ; XI. xxxvii. 
 1—1. 26. 
 
 Part I. Chap. i. 1 — ii. 3. 
 
 The first part contains an account of the creation, either 
 of the visible universe, or of the solar system, or of the earth. 
 If tlie sacred writer had the visible universe in view, as is 
 probable from the general nature of some of the language 
 employed,^ it is undeniable that in the details he confines 
 himself to the globe which we inhabit. Whether the first 
 verse is an introduction, intended to state, in the way of a 
 
76 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 general proposition, the same course of action which the 
 subsequent verses specify, — or whether it relates the origi- 
 nal creation of the mass itself, out of which the world was 
 formed in the manner and order afterwards recounted, it 
 is perhaps impossible to say.' 
 
 The condition of the earth before it was reduced to order 
 by its almighty maker, is described as one of confusion. 
 Covered with water, it appeared as a shapeless mass, without 
 such arrangements and provisions as were necessary to fit it 
 for the reception of its future inhabitants.^ Preparatory to 
 this result, the Spirit of God is represented as acting on the 
 chaos, impregnating^ the dead substance with the princi- 
 ples of life and motion. At the will of God,° light begins to 
 pervade the sluggish mass ; and by the rotatory motion of 
 the earth, the vicissitude of night and day is produced. 
 v. 2—5. 
 
 During a subsequent revolution the vital principle still 
 continues to operate. From the watery mass vapors arise 
 and the firmament presents itself, visibly separating the 
 dense fluid below from the lighter aqueous body sustained 
 by the clouds. To this apparently solid substance, God 
 gives the name of heaven, thereby indicating its eleva- 
 tion. 6—8.' 
 
 On the third day, the waters which still continued to 
 cover the surface of the earth, are made to flow together 
 into their vast reservoirs, and thus the dry ground and the 
 seas are formed. — Preparation having been thus made by 
 the formation of light, of atmospheric air, and of earth suita- 
 bly separated from the water, life is called into existence. 
 The earth teems with its various productions, and the once 
 waste and desert surface exhibits the varied beauties of 
 arranged nature in all its vegetable kingdom. 9 — 13. 
 
 The fourth day presents to the supposed observer of pro- 
 gressive creation the effect of the same vital action which 
 
ANALYSTS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 77 
 
 had been going on from the commencement. The Hght 
 which on the first day had begun to penetrate the dark 
 chaotic mass, and which the separation of the fluids after- 
 wards increased, bursts forth in its pure unveiled brilHancy. 
 In the now cleared up vault of heaven the glorious sun ap- 
 pears, the great lord of day ; also the moon, evidently the 
 inferior luminary, which is poetically represented as the 
 queen of night, attended by her innumerable train, the stars. 
 According to the principle which evidently governs the 
 writer in the whole narrative of the creation, the heavenly 
 bodies are said to be made for the benefit of the future in- 
 habitants of this globe, as signs to designate various periods 
 of time, and also as luminaries to enlighten the earth. And 
 this representation is repeated. 14 — 19.* 
 
 Animal life now appears. Fishes and birds of difierent 
 kinds are created on the fifth day, and on the sixth the 
 various creatures which the earth sustains on its surface. 
 20—25. 
 
 In the account of man's formation, the language used 
 indicates somewhat more of solemnity, of dignified deli- 
 beration, than that before employed. Heretofore we read 
 of every thing called into being : " and God said, let" this 
 or that take place, and the effect follows the expression 
 of his will. But now the variation is striking : " and God 
 said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'" 
 The creation follows, and man appears, the noblest of earth's 
 inhabitants, the lord of this lower world, endowed with im- 
 mortality, and in moral character holy, like his maker. 
 26 — 28.'° This is followed by the grant of vegetables and 
 fruits to be used as food by all the animal creation. 29, 30.'* 
 The almighty creator surveys the workmanship of his hands, 
 and pronounces every thing to be good. The sixth day 
 attests that all is finished. 31. 
 
 The section concludes by instructing us, that, inasmuch as 
 
78 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 God had completed his M-ork, he sanctified the seventh day, 
 in memory of the glorious result, ii. 1 — 3." 
 
 Part II. Chap. ii. 4 — iv. 26. 
 
 We are here presented with an account of the state of the 
 world immediately after its creation, together with some 
 highly interesting and important facts relating to the early 
 history of man. 
 
 At the time of the creation, vegetable productions did not 
 spring from the ground, through the influence of rain and 
 human industry, but, as the text implies, by a direct, divine 
 power. Since that period, nature has taken its ordinary 
 course. Mists have risen from the ground, and have come 
 down in refreshing showers, and man, formed of the earth 
 and endowed with a divinely communicated principle of life, 
 has cultivated the soil. 4 — 7.'^ The narration now pro- 
 ceeds to tell us of the settlement of man in the garden of 
 Eden, particularly mentioning its two most important pro- 
 ductions, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge. The 
 former seems to have derived its name from its properties in 
 continuing life, plainly alluded to in iii. 22 ; and the latter, 
 from the practical knowledge of evil in contradistinction to 
 good, which unhappily flowed from its use, which is inter- 
 dicted under the penalty of death.'* A river is said to have 
 supplied the garden with water, and hence to have formed 
 four principal streams, which are named and otherwise ge- 
 ographically designated.'" The acconmiodation of the man 
 with a companion adapted to his nature and wants, is closely 
 connected with his examining and naming the various ani- 
 mals, none of whom was sufficiently dignified to become the 
 spouse of creation's lord. From the substance of the man 
 himself the woman is created by almighty power, and he 
 recognizes her as a fit companion, expressing the depth of his 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 79 
 
 affection by identifying her with his own person." Imme- 
 diately the historian declares the inviolable character of the 
 marriage union, to which every other relationship, even 
 that of parent and child^ must yield precedence."' He sub- 
 joins an intimation of the primaeval purity of the first 
 pair. 8 — 25. 
 
 In the third chapter we have an account of the fall of our 
 first parents from the state of innocence in which they were 
 created. '* The devil, either assuming a serpent as his in- 
 strument, or allegorically represented under the figure of a 
 serpent,'" (an animal considered by the ancients as particu- 
 larly prudent and cunning, and therefore selected as best 
 fitted for the purpose,) tempts the woman to disregard the 
 prohibition of the use of the tree of the knowledge of good 
 and evil, by assuring her that the threatened consequences 
 should not take place, but, on the contrary, that the use of 
 the fruit, so excellent in itself and so beautiful in appear- 
 ance, would impart a divine wisdom, enabling the partaker 
 to discriminate between good and evil. The woman yield- 
 ed to the temptation ; and, at her offer, the man also ate of 
 the fruit and transgressed the divine law. 1—6. The la- 
 mentable effects immediately follow. Their knowledge is 
 indeed increased,'^" but it is a practical knowledge of sin and 
 misery. They are conscious of the loss of purity, and en- 
 deavor to remove their sense of shame, by resorting to a 
 rude covering of intertwined boughs of the fig-tree. At the 
 approach of their almighty father towards the evening, a 
 sense of guilt leads them to the silly attempt to conceal 
 themselves from the Omniscient. But it is impossible to 
 escape his investigation. He examines the facts of the 
 case, and passes sentence on all the parties. In the first 
 place, the tempter himself is condemned to a state of utter 
 degradation and servility ; perpetual enmity between his 
 race and that of the woman is to be established ; although 
 
80 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 he shall be permitted to injure the latter in an inferior de- 
 gree, yet in the end it shall completely destroy his energy 
 and power," Next, the sentence of the woman is an- 
 nounced ; subjection to the man, and pains and distresses 
 peculiar to the female sex. Lastly, the punishment of the 
 man is declared. The ground must be cultivated with hard 
 and incessant toil ; its natural productions shall be thorns ; 
 the path of life shall be chequered with sorrows, till at last 
 death closes the scene, and the body, forsaken by the soul, 
 the animating breath of the Almighty, degenerates into its 
 original dust. 7 — 19." The history then mentions the name 
 given by Adam to his wife and the reason of it;" and states, 
 that, by divine direction, they were both clothed with the 
 skins of animals." It closes by relating their expulsion from 
 Paradise, and the means adopted to prevent their access to 
 the tree of life." 
 
 The history of the fall is succeeded by a narrative, which 
 strikingly depicts its natural consequences, by exhibiting the 
 deformity of sin. Cain and Abel, two of the children of our 
 first parents," are represented as bringing their offerings to 
 God, each selecting for the token of his homage a portion of 
 the fruits of his industry in his respective avocation. That 
 of the former was rejected because of his wickedness, while 
 the faith of the latter secured its acceptance." The divine 
 impartiality, (Acts x. 34, 35,) and the warning and exhortation 
 accompanying it,^' produced no good effect on the mind of 
 Cain. On the contrary, he yielded to the impulse of uncon- 
 trolled passion, and murdered his brother, iv. 1 — 8. Di- 
 vine justice inquires into the crime, which the fratricide at- 
 tempts to conceal by a falsehood, expressed with that inso- 
 lence which sometimes characterizes persons who are under 
 the influence of the " wicked one." But in vain. The atro- 
 city of the deed demands punishment. The very earth feels 
 the unnaturalness of the act, and drinks in the murdered 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 81 
 
 brother's blood, endeavoring to hide the shame of her un- 
 worthy son. At the same time, her detestation of the act is 
 shown, by refusing to bless the murderer. To such a 
 wretch earth will not yield its strength, and, without a habi- 
 tation or subsistence, he becomes " a vagabond." 9 — 12. 
 The unhappy culprit feels the wretchedness of his condition. 
 Whether he laments the severity of his punishment or the 
 " exceeding sinfulness" of his crime, may be uncertain ; but 
 it can hardly be doubted, that some penitential character 
 must have been perceived by the searcher of hearts before 
 he threatened seven-fold vengeance on the man who should 
 take the life of Cain. So great is the wretched fratricide's 
 distress, that his faith in the divine promise of protection 
 is confirmed by a sign, which was probably miraculous. 
 13 — 15.^' Still, this does not prevent Cain's banishment. 
 He settles in a country, which, perhaps, derived its name 
 from the fact of his expulsion.'" There he becomes the 
 father of Enoch, the ancestor of Lamech ; the descendants 
 of whose two wives are particularly distinguished. Those 
 of the one are noted for the skill with which they pur- 
 sued pastoral occupations, and refined society by musi- 
 cal inventions and improvements ; while those of the other 
 became " artificers in brass and iron," thus contributing to 
 the progress of those arts which make human life comforta- 
 ble and easy. 16 — 22. Some unknown circumstances ap- 
 pear to have given uneasiness to Lamech's wives, whom he 
 comforts with the assurance, that he was exposed to no 
 danger, and that any attempt on his life would not fail to 
 draw down the severest judgments. 23, 24." After noticing 
 the birth of Seth, whom maternal piety and affection regard 
 as a substitute for the lost Abel, and the birth also of a son 
 to Seth, this part of the book concludes with the statement, 
 that public worship then began to be celebrated in honor of 
 11 
 
82 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 Jehovah, in contradistinction probably to incipient idolatry. 
 25, 26.'' 
 
 Part III. Chap. v. 1 — vi. 9. 
 
 This part begins with a genealogical list of Adam's" des- 
 cendants to Noah through the line of Seth. vi. 32." Among 
 the most remarkable is Enoch, alike distinguished for his 
 exalted piety, and its extraordinary revv^ard, an early trans- 
 lation to God without subjection to death. 22 — 24.'" The 
 curse of toilsome labor denounced against Adam, iii. 17, 
 seems to have been particularly oppressive to Lamech ; 
 and, either in the prospect of assistance to be obtained from 
 his son's co-operation in cultivating the soil, or in the hope 
 that his son's labors might lead to an increase of piety, and 
 thus lessen or remove that part of the penal consequences 
 of the first transgression, he gives him a name expressive of 
 the rest and comfort which he hoped to attain. 29.'" — If the 
 patriarch did indulge this hope, subsequent events showed 
 its utter fallacy. The degeneracy of mankind seems to 
 have kept pace with their increase. Descendants of the 
 pious, associates of the people of God, intermarried with 
 those of an opposite character, allured by beauty and go- 
 verned by inclination, vi. 1, 2." As might be expected, the 
 divine judgment is threatened, while at the same time space 
 is allowed for repentance. 3.'" Revolt from God, lawless 
 aggression, and proud desire of human distinction, seem to 
 characterize the wickedness of that period. 4, 5.'° In 
 language adapted to human feeling and comprehension, God 
 is said to have repented that he had made man, and to be 
 grieved at the heart. He determines to destroy the aban- 
 doned ingrates, while he spares the righteous Noah. 6 — 8. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 83 
 
 Part IV. Chap. vi. 9— xi. 29. 
 
 This portion is introduced by an inscription stating it to 
 be the history of Noah. The principal point in the narra- 
 tive is the account of the deluge. The general wickedness 
 of men requires that the punishment should extend to the 
 whole human race, and therefore God expresses his deter- 
 mination to cut off all mankind, and to lay the earth waste. 
 9 — 13."° Noah is commanded to construct an ark or navi- 
 gable vessel of cypress wood, of capacious dimensions* 
 with proper apertures for the admission of light and air. 
 14 — 16." While the devouring element is to destroy the 
 mass of living creatures, Noah and his family are to be 
 preserved in this vessel, together with the various classes of 
 animals which would otherwise perish in the waters. Two 
 of unclean and seven of clean beasts are the numbers speci- 
 fied.*'* These are introduced into the ark, certainly not 
 without an extraordinary influence of divine Providence, 
 which indeed might be expected under such circumstances, 
 and is in harmony with the character of the whole trans- 
 action. The natural causes of the flood are stated to be the 
 incessant torrents of rain that fell during forty days and 
 nights, and the vast swell of the ocean, produced doubtless 
 by the operation of volcanic and other agitating elements in 
 the bowels of the earth. " The fountains of the great deep," 
 and "the windows of heaven," (vii. 11,) express these causes 
 in language beautifully simple, yet highly poetic. The 
 waters covered the top of the highest ground to the depth 
 of fifteen cubits, and for the space of one hundred and fifty 
 days continued to increase and to desolate the earth. 
 17— vii. 24. 
 
 The melancholy condition of the patriarch may well be 
 imagined; but the divine mercy displays itself: " God re- 
 
84 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 membered Noah." What a beautiful expression of parental 
 affection ! The rain ceases ; the ocean falls back into its deep- 
 ened bed, and the ark rests on the mountains of Armenia." 
 With unutterable joy Noah beholds the tops of the moun- 
 tains just beginning to show themselves. He sends out a 
 raven ; then a dove, which at first returns as she went, but 
 afterwards brings back in her mouth the " olive leaf," token 
 of peace, and proof that the waters had subsided. Sent 
 out a third time, she returns no more. viii. 1 — 12. 
 
 Now the ground is comparatively dry, and Noah's family 
 leave the ark, accompanied by its numerous inmates. A 
 solemn act of devotion marks the patriarch's gratitude, and 
 is graciously accepted by his almighty preserver. He de- 
 termines no more to bring such a destruction on the earth. 
 He will not " be extreme to mark what is done amiss ;" for 
 man's earliest imaginations are, like his nature, evil. 13 — 22. 
 Then follows the divine blessing bestowed on the family of 
 Noah, in language like that before addressed to Adam, (i. 28,) 
 with the express grant, however, of animal food, the blood 
 or life excepted." Capital punishment is threatened to the 
 murderer ; and, to increase man's horror at the taking of 
 human life, the unconscious, irrational brute is to bear the 
 penalty of his unintentional manslaughter. The dignity of 
 man's nature, created originally in the image of God, is 
 stated as a reason for the severe penalty. By defacing the 
 divine likeness, the murderer attempts, as it were, to mar, if 
 not to destroy the divinity itself, ix. 1 — 7." The promise 
 before made, not to destroy all living things by another 
 flood, a promise equivalent to a solemn agreement made by 
 the creator with his creatures, is renewed ; and the rain- 
 bow, which probably at that time spanned the vault of 
 heaven, is made the sign of its accomplishment. The pro- 
 mise is repeated, in token of perpetuity. 8 — 17. 
 
 The fact of Noah's three sons being the sole fathers of 
 
ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 85 
 
 the second world is then distinctly stated. This is followed 
 by the narrative of Noah's planting a vineyard, and, on too 
 free indulgence in the wine, through ignorance probably of the 
 Strength of the liquor, becoming intoxicated, and indecently 
 exposed. The unfilial behaviour of Ham, and the pious and 
 modest deportment of his two brothers, becoming known to 
 the patriarch on his awaking, he predicts the future fates 
 of their respective descendants. On the posterity of Ham, 
 through his son Canaan, he denounces the curse of de- 
 graded servitude, which was remarkably verified in the 
 future history of the Canaanitish nations. By blessing Je- 
 hovah as the God of Shem, he implies a benediction of the 
 highest kind on Shem himself, inasmuch as the " people 
 whose God is the Lord" cannot but be " happy." Ps. cxliv. 
 15. To the posterity of Japheth, he promises wide and ex- 
 tensive territory ; and the progress and prodigious increase 
 of numerous colonies, founded by Europeans in various parts 
 of the world, have for ages attested the truth of the pre- 
 diction, and are still continuing to add to its evidence. The 
 occupancy of territory by the posterity of Japheth, which 
 was originally peopled by that of his brother, may be in- 
 tended by the phrase, " he shall dwell in the tents of 
 Shem" ; but more probably it alludes to the future connex- 
 ion of the descendants of each, as associated together prin- 
 cipally in religious harmony, by the union of Japheth's 
 progeny with the Hebrews in the kingdom of the Messiah."' 
 A brief notice of the age and death of Noah forms the con- 
 clusion of this part of the book. 18 — 29. 
 
 Part V. Chap. x. 1 — xi. 9. 
 
 This part may be subdivided into two sections. The 
 first, X. 1 — 32, is a brief genealogical notice of the imme- 
 diate descendants of Noah's sons, comprehending also cer- 
 
86 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 tain nations or colonies of which they were the founders." 
 The historian reverses the order which he elsewhere fol- 
 lows, beginning with Japheth and ending with Shem. He 
 takes particular notice of Nimrod, a grandson of Ham, who, 
 by founding an important monarchy, and, according to the 
 view given of his character by some Eastern historians, by 
 tyrannical and oppressive conduct, acquired a disgraceful 
 and unenviable celebrity, x. 1 — 9.'^ 
 
 The principal cities of his kingdom, and those which 
 were perhaps first established, were Babylon, Edessa, 
 Nesibis, and Ctesiphon," (the metropolis of Chalonitis,) in 
 the country of Babylonia, which must be considered as 
 stretching to a considerable extent. 10. In connexion most 
 probably with the history of Nimrod, is the brief notice of 
 Ashur's emigration from that country, and of his building 
 three cities, the principal of which was Nineveh, 11.^° Shem 
 is introduced as the ancestor of the Hebrews, and as the 
 elder brother of Japheth, 21.'° The division and settlement 
 of the earth are mentioned as contemporaneous with Peleg, 
 and giving rise to his name. 25. His brother Joktan's des- 
 cendants are then introduced. 26 — 32. 
 
 The second section, xi. 1 — 9, contains an account of the 
 confusion of the one language, which was employed by 
 all the descendants of Noah. A body of men travelling 
 from the country beyond the Tigris,'° settled in the plains of 
 Babylonia, and proposed to build a city and a very lofty 
 tower, with the view of acquiring distinction both among 
 their contemporaries and with posterity, and, by forming 
 themselves into a strong and well guarded community, to 
 prevent their being forcibly dispersed. 1 — 4." It would 
 seem that these men designed to oppose the divine inten- 
 tion, which required mankind to spread themselves in various 
 regions of the earth. But God determines to frustrate their 
 wily project. Sliould this first enterprise be allowed to 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 87 
 
 succeed, they will increase in hardy rebellion, and go on 
 unrestrained in wickedness. He resolves to confound their 
 language, and thus, by awakening suspicion of each other, 
 to involve their scheme in utter ruin.^* The consequence 
 was, they were widely dispersed ; the projected city re- 
 mained unfinished ; and a name was given it, indicating the 
 confusion," which had been attended with consequences so 
 disastrous to human arrogance. 5 — 9. 
 
 Part VI. Chap. xi. 10—26. 
 
 We have here a list of Shem's descendants in the line 
 from which Abram sprang. This, together with that which 
 is introduced in the fifth chapter, completes the genealogy 
 of the distinguished Hebrew patriarch, whose biography 
 immediately follows. ^° 
 
 Part VII. Chap. xi. 27— xxv. 11. 
 
 The sacred writer now presents us with the history of 
 Abraham. The narrative treats of the immediate ancestors 
 of the Hebrew nation, and is therefore more particular and 
 diffuse than that which had preceded it ; which is a mere 
 introductory sketch, intended to prepare for the subsequent 
 account. This part begins by mentioning the birth of Abra- 
 ham, and ends with a notice of his death. 
 
 Terah the father of Abram removes with his family" 
 from the land of their nativity, " Ur of the Chaldees," a dis- 
 trict lying in the north-eastern part of Mesopotamia, and in 
 modern times reduced to a desolate waste. We are told 
 that their place of destination was the land of Canaan, but 
 that after reaching Haran, a city (or district) situated in the 
 north-western part of Mesopotamia on the Euphrates, they 
 continued there until after the death of Terah.'* This re- 
 moval wa5^ made in consequence of a divine direction com- 
 
88 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 municated to Abram, which was probably repeated after 
 his father's death." It was accompanied by a signal bene- 
 diction, involving, among other promises, the coming of the 
 great descendant of the patriarch, the Messiah, with bless- 
 ings to be dispensed to all mankind." Abram obeyed, and 
 he and his party left Haran and went to Canaan, xi. 27 — 
 xii. 5. 
 
 Entering the land at the north, they gradually advanced 
 towards the south, and were obliged, in consequence of a 
 famine, to take refuge in Egypt. Apprehensive lest the 
 beauty of his wife should induce the Egyptians to put him 
 to death, in order to secure her person, Abram represented 
 her as his sister. Efforts were immediately made by the 
 monarch to procure her as a wife, and with this view the 
 patriarch was treated with great kindness. Some divine 
 inflictions, the nature of which is not stated, most probably 
 led to more particular inquiries ; and on ascertaining that 
 the supposed sister of Abram was in reality his wife, she and 
 the whole party were honorably dismissed. 6 — 20. 
 
 On returning into Canaan, the wanderers were obliged to 
 separate into two divisions. They had now become so 
 wealthy, and their flocks so numerous, that it was found im- 
 possible to settle in one spot. It is evident, from the tenor 
 of the whole narrative, that the population of Canaan was at 
 this period very sparse. There were indeed several nations 
 already settled in the land, dwelling perhaps in towns and 
 adjacent districts ; but much of the open, champain country 
 was still unoccupied. Abram therefore proposed to his 
 kinsman Lot, between whose herdsmen and his own a con- 
 tention had arisen, probably on the subject of pasturage, to 
 direct his course to whatever region should be agreeable to 
 him, promising that he himself would take another direction. 
 Lot chose the valley of the Jordan, the fertility of which, on 
 account of the abundant supply of water which the river 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 89 
 
 afforded, is expressed by comparing it to the garden of Eden 
 and to Egypt." The natural advantages of the situation 
 were, however, more than counterbalanced by the depravity 
 and wickedness of the neighboring citizens, whose conduct 
 was habitually distressing to this righteous man. 2 Pet. ii. 7, 
 8. On the removal of Lot, God renews the promise to 
 Abram, that his posterity should become exceedingly nume- 
 rous, and possess the country in which he was then migra- 
 ting. Immediately after this communication, the patriarch 
 fixed his residence in Hebron,'"'^ and, " as his manner was," 
 raised an altar to the honor of the Lord. xiii. 1 — 18. 
 
 Certain eastern kings, among whom the king of Persia 
 appears to be the most important,"' wage war against the 
 kings of Sodom and the cities in that vicinity, who had 
 thrown off the yoke that for twelve years had oppressed 
 them. After ravaging the neighboring country,"* routing 
 and destroying the inhabitants, they are met by the king of 
 Sodom and his allies, who are defeated in the bituminous 
 valley of Siddim. Lot and his family fall into the hands of 
 the victors, and are carried off as captives. One of the pri- 
 soners escaped, and informed Abram of his kinsman's misfor- 
 tune. Immediately the patriarch armed his people, natives 
 of his own establishment, to the number of three hundred 
 and eighteen,"'^ followed the retreating foe to the northern 
 district of Palestine, divided his party into two bands, 
 routed the victors, pursuing them into Syria, and recovered 
 both the property and the persons that had been seized and 
 carried off. On his return, he was met by the king of 
 Sodom,'" and also by Melchisedek. The latter personage 
 was king of a city called Salem, and also a priest of the true 
 God. He brought with him refreshments for Abram and 
 his army, and blessed him in the name of the most high. 
 The patriarch received his benediction and gave him a tenth 
 of the spoils ; thus recognizing Melchisedek's superiority and 
 12 
 
90 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 also his sacerdotal character." With commendable libe- 
 rality, the king of Sodom urged Abram to retain the spoils, 
 and return the liberated captives. But the noble generosity 
 of Abram induced him to decline all personal advantage, 
 xiv. 1 — 24. 
 
 After the event just related the divine promise of protec- 
 tion and blessing was renewed to Abram. The patriarch 
 represents to the Lord that he is likely to die childless, and 
 a stranger to inherit his estate." But the assurance is given 
 him that his own son shall be his heir, and that his posterity 
 shall be countless, like the stars. Abram believed the decla- 
 ration, however apparently improbable, and was accepted 
 by the Lord as righteous, on account of his faith, xv. 1 — 6.^® 
 At his request, a sign is given him in order to strengthen his 
 confidence in the promise of possessing the land in which he 
 sojourned. He is directed to provide a sacrifice, which he 
 prepares, according to the ordinary and perhaps prescribed 
 usage. Towards sunset, he falls into a deep sleep, accom- 
 panied by great distress : he is informed, that his posterity 
 shall reside in a foreign land, and be afflicted four hundred 
 years ; that the people whom they were to serve, should be 
 severely punished, while they should be delivered and come 
 out greatly enriched ;'" that he himself should in very ad- 
 vanced life be taken to his fathers ; and that, on the expira- 
 tion of the fourth age or century,* his descendants should 
 return to Canaan, when the growing iniquity of the inhabi- 
 tants would require the divine vengeance. 7 — 16. A smok- 
 ing furnace and a burning lamp, emblematic perhaps of the 
 aflOlictions which were to be undergone in Egypt, (compare 
 Deut. iv. 20 ; Jer. xi. 4,) and of the Almighty's protection, 
 consolation, and guidance, which were to be extended to the 
 sufferers, (compare Isa. Ixii. 1 ; Ps. cxix. 105; Job xxix. 3,) 
 
 * See the note in Jahk's Introduction, p. 212. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 91 
 
 passed between the pieces of the victims ;" the divine pro- 
 mise is renewed, and the whole extent of country, from 
 Egypt" to the Euphrates, is pledged to the posterity of the 
 father of the faithful. 17—21. 
 
 As the barrenness of Sarai, Abram's wife, seemed to pre- 
 sent an insuperable barrier to the fulfilment of the promise 
 through her, he is induced, by her suggestion, to have inter- 
 course with her Egyptian maid Hagar. Contempt and in- 
 solence on the part of the servant were the very natural re- 
 sult ; and thus the impropriety of the conduct of Abram and 
 his wife, and the mischievous consequences of polygamy or 
 concubinage, are strikingly illustrated. Sarai's harsh usage 
 led Hagar to leave her mistress, with the view of escaping 
 to her native country. A divine communication directs her 
 to return to the patriarch's family, and promises her a nu- 
 merous offspring, to descend from the son of whom she is 
 soon to become the mother. A name is given to the yet 
 unborn, indicative of God's regard for his people's affliction. 
 The character by which his race is described, indomitable, 
 though constantly engaged in strife and opposition, aptly 
 applies to the Arabs," his lineal descendants ; whose resi- 
 dence is also geographically pointed out, as east of that of 
 the Hebrews, xvi. 1 — 12.'* Hagar's grateful recognition of 
 the divine presence and blessing, in appearing to her, and at 
 the same time allowing her the continued use of her bodily 
 senses and vital powers, gives rise to the name of the well 
 or spring at which the divine appearance took place." Re- 
 turning to Abram, she no doubt informed him of the parti- 
 culars of this communication ; and, on the birth of the ex- 
 pected son, he called his name Ishmael, (b!^5')3tJ?';, God 
 will hear,) in accordance with the prediction made to the 
 mother. 13—16. 
 
 This is followed by another divine appearance to Abram, 
 in which the promise is renewed, accompanied by the assur- 
 
92 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 ance, that his posterity shall comprehend many nations ; an 
 assurance which implies, that true believers of every age 
 and clime shall be regarded as his spiritual children, and be 
 blessed w^ith him. In reference to this, his name is changed 
 into Abraham," and circumcision is instituted as a sign and 
 pledge of God's covenant," with the threat of excision de- 
 nounced against any who should refuse to obey. xvii. 1 — 14.'* 
 A slight change in the name of Abraham's wife, indicative 
 either of a numerous progeny or of some increase of dignity, 
 precedes an emphatic benediction. 15 — 16. At the promise 
 of a son, various emotions were probably excited in the 
 bosom of the aged patriarch. Joy was doubtless predomi- 
 nant ; but it is natural to suppose, that even in faithful Abra- 
 ham this feeling could not be uniform, and that some degree 
 of distrust would occasionally cloud the bright view opening 
 before his faith. Were it otherwise, he would not be a 
 model of human virtue, but at least of angelic excellence. 
 Hence his expressions of doubt, and his prayer that Ishmael, 
 the child already born, might be the object on whom the divine 
 blessing should descend. 17, 18," But the promises are to 
 be verified through another son, whose name indicates his 
 parents' joy, and whose birth is to take place a year after. 
 Ishmael indeed is to be blessed with numerous descendants, 
 and with a princely race, but the covenant is to be estab- 
 lished with Isaac. 19 — 22. In his 99th year, Abraham sub- 
 mits to the painful rite of circumcision, and with him all the 
 males of his family, his son Ishmael being thirteen years 
 old. 23—27. 
 
 Another divine communication is made to Abraham, under 
 very remarkable and peculiar circumstances. He is sitting, 
 in the heat of the day, at the door of his residence among 
 the oaks of Mamre. Three men make their appearance, to 
 whom he offers his hospitable and respectful attentions, 
 xviii. 1 — 8. At first, he appears to regard them as travel- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 93 
 
 lers, as Lot also did the two angels who afterwards went to 
 Sodom. (See xix. 1 ss., and compare Heb. xiii. 2.) But, at 
 the inquiry for Sarah, and the renewal of the promise of a son 
 by her about the same time in the following year,*" he doubt- 
 less recognized the celestial nature of his guests." Sarah is 
 reproved for her want of faith, indicated by her laughter ; 
 after which the men, as they seemed to be, directed their 
 course towards Sodom, respectfully attended by the patri- 
 arch. 9 — 16. The divine determination to communicate to 
 Abraham the approaching destruction of Sodom and Go' 
 morrah, is mentioned as a consequence of his fidelity and 
 obedience. Encouraged by such condescension, he pleads 
 with the Lord as his " friend," (see Isa. xli. 8 ; James ii. 
 23,) and secures the promise, that the guilty cities shall be 
 spared, even if they should contain no more than ten right- 
 eous persons. 17 — 33. 
 
 In the same evening probably, (compare xviii. 33; xix. 1, 
 15, 27,) the two angels approach the gate of Sodom, where 
 Lot was sitting. Yielding to his importunity, they enter his 
 house and partake of his hospitality. Perhaps the human 
 appearance which they had assumed was unusually beauti- 
 ful and attractive, as the vicious inhabitants assault the 
 patriarch's residence for the most atrocious purpose, the 
 execution of which he endeavors to prevent by an offer, 
 which at first view appears scarcely less shocking.'" The 
 abandoned wretches become enraged that a mere temporary 
 resident among them should undertake to thwart their views, 
 and they direct their attack against Lot himself. He is 
 rescued from injury by his guests, who secure him in the 
 house, and smite the men without with blindness, xix. 1 — 11. 
 They then communicate to Lot the purpose of God to des- 
 troy the place, and direct him to remove his family and 
 connexions. His sons-in-law disregarded his intreaties ; and 
 
94 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 the next morning. Lot himself, with his wife and two daugh- 
 ters, urged and assisted by the angels, leave the city and are 
 directed to escape with all possible speed to the mountain 
 district. At the earnest solicitation of Lot, he is allowed to 
 take refuge in Zoar, a small place in the neighborhood, 
 \vhich is saved from the general destruction. 12 — 22. At 
 sunrise. Lot enters the place of his promised security, and 
 the cities of the plain are entirely destroyed by means of 
 thunder and lightning sent by the Lord.*' The patriarch's 
 wife, too, looking back, and perhaps loitering in the way with 
 the hope of securing some valuable portion of property,* 
 contrary to the divine command, "look not behind thee, 
 neither stay thou in all the plain," (v. 17,) is overtaken by 
 the raging tempest. Suffocated perhaps by the vapor of 
 the sulphur and bitumen, and encrusted by the acrid matter 
 with which the atmosphere was filled, she remained a monu- 
 ment of divine displeasure." 
 
 The next morning Abraham's attention is eagerly turned 
 towards the place of his nephew's residence, the destruc- 
 tion of which is but too surely indicated by the volumes of 
 thick smoke that are bursting out. But his piety and prayer 
 had not been forgotten : " God remembered Abraham," and 
 saved Lot. Apprehending, however, a renewal of the 
 calamity, which must make Zoar itself insecure. Lot retreats 
 farther towards the mountains, and takes up his abode in a 
 cave, accompanied by his two daughters. Their incestuous 
 intercourse with him after they had made him intoxicated, 
 results in the birth of two sons, to whom names are given 
 
 * The probability of this representation is supported by the words 
 of our Lord in Luke xvii. 30 — 32. " In the day when the son of man is 
 revealed, he which shall be upon the house top, and his stuff in the 
 house, let him not come down to take it away ; and he that is in the 
 field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's "wnfe." 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 95 
 
 which express, though obscurely, their parentage. From 
 these the Moabites and the Ammonites derived their descent. 
 27—38.'' 
 
 The history now proceeds to relate an incident in Abra- 
 ham's life, which probably took place some time before.** 
 Removing to the south of Palestine, he settled for a time in 
 Gerar, a city lying in the lower district of Philistia. (See 
 Gen. X. 19, and xxvi. 1.) Here he again represented Sarah 
 as his sister, apprehending that her attractions might lead to 
 his personal injury. Abimelech, the king of the place, took 
 her with the intention of making her his wife ; but, obedient 
 to a divine warning communicated to him in a dream, ac- 
 companied also by the information, that Abraham was a 
 sacred person who had intercourse with God," he restored 
 her to her husband. As a mark of respect, he added valua- 
 ble presents, and offered the patriarch a settlement in any 
 part of his country. The culpable deceit which had been 
 practised on him he reproves, with remarkable delicacy 
 mingled with sarcasm f^ and, at the prayer of Abraham, the 
 distress with which his family had been afflicted, was re- 
 moved. XX. 1 — 18.** 
 
 The narrative now resumes its regular order. Sarah be- 
 comes mother of a son, whom she calls Isaac, in allusion to 
 the laughter which the promise of his birth had occasioned, 
 and the joy which the event itself produced, (xvii. 17, xviii. 
 12 — 15, xxi. 6.) At the age of eight days the child is cir- 
 cumcised ; and, at a proper time, he is weaned. As this 
 occasion was attended by unusual festivity, the envy of 
 Ishmael seems to have been excited, and he shows his con- 
 tempt for his father's legitimate son and favorite by some 
 insulting behaviour.^" The jealous Sarah's indignation is 
 roused, and she requires Abraham to dismiss the offender 
 and his servant mother. The patriarch's great reluctance 
 to comply with his wife's request is removed by a divine 
 
96 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 communication, directing him to acquiesce, accompanied 
 with the promise that, although his distinguished progeny 
 should descend from Isaac, yet his son by Hagar should be- 
 come the ancestor of a nation, xxi. 1 — 13. The next day 
 Hagar and her son are dismissed, and she bends her course 
 towards Egypt. She seems to have lost her way ; for she 
 is represented as wandering in a wilderness. Ishmael, a lad 
 of about thirteen years of age, becomes exhausted, and his 
 unfortunate mother, reduced almost to a state of desperation, 
 places" him under one of the small trees, in expectation of 
 his speedy death. But,' in the extremity of her affliction, 
 God interposes. He renews his former promise, (xvi. 10,) 
 directs her attention to a spring of water, which she had 
 overlooked, and thus rouses her drooping energies. Hagar 
 and her son take up their residence in the uncultivated region 
 of Paran, on the south of Palestine, (Num. xiii. 3,) and, in 
 due season, she procures him a wife from her native country. 
 14 — 21. The chapter concludes by giving an account of a 
 treaty of peace and friendship entered into by Abraham and 
 the Philistine king. It is confirmed by a mutual oath, made 
 at a well, that had been dug by the former, and forcibly 
 seized by the servants of the latter, without his knowledge. 
 It is restored to the rightful owner, who consecrates the spot 
 to the worship of Jehovah. 22 — 34. 
 
 Some time after these transactions, the most remarkable 
 event in the life of Abraham took place. It pleased God 
 to subject him to a severer trial than any which he had 
 himself sustained, or which has ever fallen to the lot of 
 mortals. He is commanded to go to the mountainous country 
 of Moriah,'' and there to sacrifice the son of his affection. 
 Certain of the divine origin of the direction, the man, who 
 was already so distinguished for his faith and obedience, 
 complies. Assisted by two of his servants, he prepares wood 
 suitable for the purpose," and, without delay, sets out on his 
 
ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 97 
 
 melancholy journey. On the third day he descries the ap- 
 pointed place, and, informing his attendants that he and his 
 son would go some distance further to worship, and then re- 
 turn,"* he proceeds to the spot. To the touching question of 
 his son respecting the victim to be offered, he replies by ex- 
 pressing his faith that God would himself provide the sacri- 
 fice ; and probably he availed himself of this opportunity to 
 communicate the particulars of the divine command.*"* 
 Isaac submits to the will of God thus expressed, and is just 
 about to perish by his father's hand, when Jehovah's angel 
 interposes and prevents the fatal stroke. A ram, that had 
 become entangled in a thicket, is seized and offered ; and a 
 name is given to the place, indicating the Lord's gracious 
 interference in relieving his faithful servants in the severest 
 of trials, xxii. 1 — 14.*® The promise before made to Abra- 
 ham, of numerous descendants, superior in power to their 
 enemies, and of the blessings which his spiritual progeny, 
 and especially the Messiah, were to extend to all mankind, 
 is again repeated and confirmed in the most solemn manner. 
 Jehovah swears by himself, (comp. Heb. vi. 13, 17,) that 
 such shall be the reward of the patriarch's uncompromising 
 obedience. The whole of this extraordinary transaction 
 being ended," Abraham returns with his son and attendants, 
 to his residence at Beersheba. 15 — 19. 
 , The historian now proceeds to mention the offspring of 
 Nahor, no doubt with a particular view to Rebecca, who is 
 soon to appear as Abraham's daughter-in-law. 20 — 24. He 
 then gives an account of Sarah's death, and of the negocia- 
 tion with the Hittites for a sepulchre. It is difficult to de- 
 termine which is most worthy of admiration, the beautiful 
 simplicity of the account, or the noble, benevolent, and truly 
 gentlemanly bearing of both the honorable parties. The 
 field of Machpelah, which lay east of Mamre, is legally 
 secured to the patriarch, and the remains of Sarah are de- 
 13 
 
98 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 
 
 posited in its cave, xxiii. 1 — 20.°^ This is followed by the 
 equally simple and interesting narrative of the successful 
 effort to procure a suitable wife for Isaac. Abraham sum- 
 mons his most aged servant, and requires him to swear by a 
 solemn oath not to marry his son to a native of Canaan, but 
 to resort to some member of the family still residing in 
 Mesopotamia. On no consideration is Isaac to settle in that 
 country. The Lord under whose protection he himself has 
 ever lived, will give success to the undertaking. Should, 
 however, the woman applied to decline the oJBer with the con- 
 dition of coming to Canaan, the conscientious and venera- 
 ble servant is released from the obligation of his oath.- xxiv. 
 1 — 9. The whole deportment of the aged domestic in 
 managing the trust committed to him, is an affecting illus- 
 tration of his extraordinary worth. Regard for his master's 
 interest and happiness, and the most unaffected and devoted 
 piety to God, are plainly the governing principles by which 
 he is actuated. Arrived at the place of his destination, he 
 stops near evening at a well, and supplicates the God of his. 
 master to crown his enterprise with success, and to grant 
 him a particular token to that effect. With devout wonder 
 he is soon made to perceive that his prayer is heard. Re- 
 becca, at the well, refreshes him with a cooling drink, eases 
 the aged man of the labor of drawing water for his camels, 
 and invites him to her father's house. The gratitude of 
 Abraham's servant expands in praise to Abraham's God.. 
 10 — 28. On the invitation of Laban, the brother of Re- 
 becca, the servant enters the house ; but no considerations 
 can induce him to take any refreshment, until he has made 
 known the purpose of his visit. The influence of a kind 
 Providence is too clear to be questioned, and the consent of 
 both father and brother'^ is given without any hesitation. 
 Rebecca declares herself willing to leave her native land, 
 and to settle in Canaan as the wife of Isaac ; and the next 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 99 
 
 day, with the blessings of her family, she accompanies the 
 faithful messenger. On arriving at Abraham's dwelling, 
 she becomes the wife of Isaac, who shows the respect and 
 affection with which he regarded her, by appropriating 
 for her reception the apartments of his beloved mother. 
 29—67. 
 
 The preceding detailed account is followed by a brief 
 notice of Abraham's marriage to Keturah, by whom he had 
 several children. ""' Probably these and Ishmael"' were ap- 
 portioned by him in his life-time, and settled in the east, 
 apart from Isaac, the divinely appointed heir. At the age of 
 one hundred and seventy-five the patriarch died, and was 
 buried by his two eldest sons, in the cave which he had 
 purchased from the Hittites. xxv. 1 — 11. 
 
 Part VIII. Chap. xxv. 12—18. 
 
 We have here a list of Ishmael's sons, the twelve princes 
 whose births were before announced to Abraham, xvii. 20. 
 It is followed by a notice of the death of their father, and 
 also of the geographical position of the country in which 
 they lived, east of that afterwards occupied by the Is-. 
 raelites.'"' 
 
 Part IX. Chap. xxv. 19 — xxxv. 29. 
 
 This part resumes the history of Isaac, and continues it 
 until the period of his death. 
 
 The faith of Isaac in the divine promise of numerous off- 
 spring was subjected to a long trial. At last, twenty years 
 (comp. xxv. 20 and 26,) after his marriage, Rebecca became 
 pregnant with twins. Agitated and distressed by her situa- 
 tion, she utters her feelings before the Lord. The divine 
 answer informs her, that the children are destined to become 
 
100 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 the progenitors of two nations, and that the one which shall 
 descend from the first-born shall be subject to that which is 
 to be derived from his younger brother. The birth of the 
 two children, which takes place soon afterwards, by verify- 
 ing the former part of the prediction, becomes a pledge of 
 the fulfilment of the latter. The growth of hair which 
 makes the elder remarkable, and unlike ordinary infants, 
 suggests an appropriate name, and the circumstance that his 
 heel was held by the hand of his brother, gives rise to the 
 name of the younger.'" Esau became skillful in hunting 
 and out-door exercises, and Jacob was a religious man,"* 
 without a settled residence. The former was his father's 
 favorite ; the latter was the darling of his mother. 19 — 28. 
 But little is said of the early history of these sons of Isaac. 
 The only fact stated is by no means honorable to either. 
 While Jacob is preparing some vegetable food, of a red 
 color, Esau comes home from the field, exhausted with fa- 
 tigue, and requests his brother to give him what he is pre- 
 paring. Jacob requires him to relinquish the privileges of his 
 birth, and under the solemnity of an oath, in which unreason- 
 able demand Esau seems to acquiesce without any hesita- 
 tion. The food thus dearly purchased is consumed, and 
 *' profane" Esau thus despises his birth-right. 29 — 34."' 
 
 Another famine now arose, obliging Isaac to take up his 
 residence in the country of the Philistines, which, as it lay 
 on the Mediterranean, could the more readily be supplied 
 with the necessaries of life. He is divinely directed not to 
 go to Egypt, and the promise before made to his father is 
 renewed, xxvi. 1 — 5. During his residence at Gerar, he 
 fell into the same weakness into which his father had twice 
 been betrayed, and represented Rebecca as his sister. His 
 deceit was discovered, and mildly censured by the king, 
 Abimelech, whose character and conduct appear in a very 
 advantageous fight. 6 — 11. The prosperity of Isaac natu- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 101 
 
 rally excited the envy of the Philistines, who meanly stopped 
 the wells which his father had opened.* Isaac's increasing 
 greatness is acknowledged by Abimelech, who is thereby 
 induced to request him to leave the country. He complies, 
 and removes out of the immediate vicinity. On opening 
 certain wells, he is obliged to contend with the herdsmen of 
 Gerar more than once. Led by the amiable feeling of con- 
 cession, he relinquishes his rights ; and when, at last, all con- 
 tention ceases, he perpetuates his gratitude by giving an ap- 
 propriate name to the well, which his dependants were 
 allowed to use without molestation. 12 — 22. Hence he 
 removes to Beersheba, and receives another divine promise, 
 which leads him to a public avowal of his religious charac- 
 ter. 23 — 25. This is followed by the notice of a covenant 
 entered into between Isaac and Abimelech, and confirmed 
 by an oath. Hence the name of the place, where the ser- 
 vants of Isaac succeeded in making a well and procuring 
 water, obtains the name of Beersheba, that is, well of the 
 oath. 26 — 33. This name had been before given to the 
 same place by Abraham, (see xxi. 31, 32,) in allusion both 
 to the seven lambs which he had set apart to be received as 
 evidence of his having made the well, and also in reference 
 to the oath by which the covenant then made was con- 
 firmed."* A notice of Esau's marriage with two Hittite 
 women, who made his parents exceedingly unhappy, closes 
 the chapter. 34, 35. 
 
 The next contains an account of a crafty project, formed 
 by Rebecca and carried into effect by Jacob, to deceive 
 Isaac, now far advanced in age and incapable of seeing. 
 
 * This circumstance is very far from being trifling. In that -warm 
 climate it was all important, and particularly for nomad shepherds, to 
 secure an abundant supply of water. A contest about wells, therefore, 
 cannot have been confined to the time of Abraham and Isaac ; it must 
 have been of frequent occurrence. 
 
102 ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 He is overheard directing Esau to procure him some food, 
 such as he was particularly fond of, that after partaking of 
 it, he might bestow on him the paternal benediction. The 
 skillful cunning of the mother contrives to pass off Jacob for 
 Esau ; and thus the aged and blind patriarch is led to believe 
 that he is invoking blessings on the elder son, when in fact it 
 is the younger whom he addresses, xxvii. 1 — 29. Scarcely 
 had he left his father's presence, when Esau makes his ap- 
 pearance with the viands which he had been told to procure, 
 and requests his father to partake and to bless him. The 
 amazement of Isaac shows itself in great agitation ; and in 
 broken accents he informs his distressed son, that Jacob had 
 already anticipated him, and taken away the blessing de- 
 signed for himself. Then, recollecting probably the divine 
 communication which had been made before the birth of the 
 children, that the posterity of the elder should be subject to 
 those of the younger, he adds the emphatic declaration, 
 " yea, and he shall be blessed.'"" Still, this does not pre- 
 vent the affectionate father from predicting an inferior bless- 
 ing on his first-born, which was in part verified by the revolt 
 of the Edomites from the control of Judah. 30 — 40. (See 
 2 Kings viii. 20 — 22."") Jacob's successful deceit so in- 
 flamed the passions of Esau, that he expressed his determi- 
 nation to put him to death, as soon as a decent time of mourn- 
 ing for his father's expected decease should have elapsed. 
 This threat leads the watchful mother to urge on her son 
 the expediency of avoiding the fury of his elder brother, by 
 retiring to the residence of her uncle Laban in Haran."" 
 After an interview with his father, who in all probability had 
 become reconciled to the result of the late conduct of his 
 wife and younger, son, and who renews in his presence the 
 prayer for the promised blessing, Jacob leaves his native 
 place for Padan-aram, or Mesopotamia, the country of his 
 forefathers. He is allowed to depart without attendants 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OP GENESI9. 103 
 
 and as privately as possible, with the view perhaps of avoid- 
 ing Esau's immediate notice, and in the hope of soothing his 
 exasperated feeUngs. After the departure of Jacob, his 
 brother, apparently with the view of gratifying his father, 
 married into the family of Ishmael. Pursuing his solitary 
 journey, the travelling exile must have felt his distressful 
 situation. Cut off from the long enjoyed satisfactions of a 
 home, and thrown on the world a stranger and comfortless, 
 it required the same spirit of faith which had distinguished 
 his grandfather, to prevent him from sinking under the bur- 
 then of his difRculties. To relieve his anxious mind, the 
 Lord appears to him in a dream ; shows him the intimate 
 connexion which subsists between earth and heaven, and 
 that " divine Providence doth govern all things in" both ;"" 
 renews the promises made to his father ; and adds that of 
 particular protection to himself, with safe return to the land 
 of his birth and inheritance. On awaking, he expresses his 
 deep sense of the solemnity of the place ; raises and anoints 
 a monument in commemoration of the fact, giving to the spot 
 the appropriate name of God's house, (Beth-el ;) and, by 
 a solemn vow, devotes himself to the Lord, and pledges 
 the tenth of his future property in token of his sincerity. 
 41— xxviii. 22."' 
 
 Jacob proceeds on his journey, and arrives at the resi- 
 dence of his parents' family. His uncle Laban receives him 
 with kindness ; and, on ascertaining his skill in pastoral af- 
 fairs, expresses his wish to secure his services, xxix. 1 — 15. 
 An arrangement agreeable to both parties is immediately 
 made, in consequence of which Jacob becomes an inmate 
 of the family, with the condition of marrying Rachel, the 
 younger of Laban's two daughters, as a compensation for 
 seven years of stipulated service. On the expiration of this 
 perod,"* he requires his uncle to ratify the agreement, who 
 cunningly substitutes his less attractive elder daughter Leah 
 
104 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 in the place of her sister, who had so long been the object 
 of Jacob's affections. He endeavors to remove his kins- 
 man's dissatisfaction, by pleading the usage of the country 
 not to allow the younger daughter to marry before the eld- 
 er, at the same time offering to give him Rachel also, at the 
 expiration of a week, in consideration of services which he 
 should render during a second period of seven years. Ja- 
 cob acquiesces ; and, as might be expected, is more attached 
 to the wife of whom he had long been an accepted suitor, 
 than he could possibly be to her unsolicited sister."' 
 Through the influence of divine Providence, Leah's unhap- 
 piness in the want of her husband's affections is mitigated. 
 She becomes the mother of four sons, to whom she gives 
 names expressive both of her domestic condition, and of her 
 thankfulness. 16—35."* 
 
 In the mean time, the favorite wife of Jacob is un- 
 blessed by any offspring. Influenced by envy and an 
 unconquerable desire to be honored as a mother, she pro- 
 poses to her husband to take her handmaid Bilhah. To the 
 first son thus born she gives a name, implying that God 
 had espoused her cause ; and the second she designates by 
 a term, denoting the struggling efforts by which her attempt 
 to vie with her sister had become successful."^ Her exam- 
 ple is imitated by Leah, whose maiden Zilpah also presents 
 Jp-cob successively with two sons, to whom her mistress 
 gives names significant of her good fortune and happiness. 
 XXX, 1 — 13."° The inordinate desire of these women to 
 obtain offspring is strikingly depicted in the account which 
 follows of Reuben's mandrakes, connected with which is 
 the name Issachar,"' which Leah applies to her fifth son. 
 Another son and one daughter are added to her former off- 
 spring. 14 — 21. Afterwards Rachel becomes a mother, and 
 calls her son Joseph, a word implying increase. 22 — 24."* 
 At this time Jacob communicates to Laban his intention to 
 
ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 105 
 
 return to the place of his nativity ; but his father-in-law is 
 particularly desirous to retain him in his service, and another 
 arrangement is made to that etfect. That portion of La- 
 ban's cattle which was designated by particular marks, is 
 separated from the rest of the flock ; and it is agreed that 
 Jacob shall have, for the reward of his attendance, such of 
 the increase as shall, notwithstanding the separation, be simi- 
 larly marked. By a stratagem, he contrives to effect such 
 births as would in the greatest degree advance his interests. 
 Thus his own wealth is increased, while that of Laban 
 diminishes. 25 — 43. 
 
 The advancement of Jacob's fortune at the expense of his 
 father-in-law, produced the dissatisfaction which might have 
 been anticipated. Jacob observes it, and is directed to re- 
 turn to Canaan. Aware of the necessity of caution, he holds 
 an interview with his wives in the country, at some distance 
 from their father's residence. He states to them the cir- 
 cumstances of the case : * that their father's feelings towards 
 him had changed, although he had served him faithfully ; 
 that his compensation had been repeatedly altered,'" under 
 the influence of interested motives, deceitfully concealed ; 
 that divine Providence had, notwithstanding, protected and 
 blessed him ; (compare v. 5, 7, 9 ;) that, indeed, the very 
 stratagem which he had resorted to did not originate alto- 
 gether with himself, but was suggested to him in a dream, 
 by the same divine personage to whom he had devoted him- 
 self immediately after the communication made to him while 
 on his journey to Mesopotamia. And now, his determina- 
 tion to return to Canaan is made, in consequence of a com- 
 mand issuing from the same divine source.' xxxi. 1 — 13."" 
 The daughters of Laban acquiesce in their husband's propo- 
 sal without any hesitation, unscrupulously accusing their 
 father of having treated them unworthily and wronged 
 them. 14— 16.''' 
 
 14 
 
106 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 After making all necessary arrangements, Jacob and his 
 family leave the country, avaihng themselves of the occa- 
 sion of Laban's absence. It was not until three days after, 
 that their flight became known to him. Immediately he 
 pursued the fugitives with highly excited feelings, and over- 
 took them at Mount Gilead. A divine communication to 
 Laban in a dream prevented a directly hostile attack, to at- 
 tempt which he was no doubt afraid ; but he met his son-in- 
 law with an angry expostulation, accompanied by a sarcas- 
 tic attack on his filial affection, and also a charge of robbery, 
 founded on the fact, (unknown to Jacob,) that Rachel had 
 stolen her father's teraphim. 17 — SO.'" A very careful 
 search having proved fruitless, Jacob addresses his father- 
 in-law in terms of indignant reproach ; tells him of the toils 
 and privations which he had undergone in his service ; 
 charges him with wickedness and tergiversation; and as- 
 cribes his own success- to the superintending providence of 
 the God of his fathers. 31 — 42. Laban's parental feelings are 
 at last moved, and a mutual covenant of peace is proposed, in 
 which Jacob eagerly acquiesces. A monument of stones is 
 erected in attestation, and named by each of the parties I'e- 
 spectively in his own native tongue.'" A sacrifice to G-od, 
 followed by a feast, to which Jacob invites the party of his 
 relative, closes the ceremonies. The next moi'ning, Laban 
 takes an affectionate farewell of his children, and returns to 
 Mesopotamia. 43 — 55. 
 
 Jacob proceeds on his journey, and is met by angels. 
 The design of this meeting was doubtless to console and en- 
 courage him, although the brevity of the narrative leaves 
 this to be inferred. As his own party and that of the angels 
 constituted two hosts, (Mahanaim,) he applies this name to 
 the place.'°* He then sends a respectful message to Esau, 
 to conciliate his favor. On the return of his deputation, he 
 learns that his brother is advancing towards him at the head 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 107 
 
 of four hundred men ; and, becoming alarmed, immediately 
 takes measures for the safety of a part of his company, at 
 the same time praying for divine protection with character- 
 istic humility and gratitude. In order to omit no act of 
 courtesy which might favorably impress his brother, he pre- 
 pares a noble present for his acceptance, to be delivered 
 with suitable expressions of inferiority and submission. Still 
 unable to repress the uneasiness that he felt, he rose up at 
 night, with his wives and children, and passed the brook 
 Jabbok, with the view of putting them in a place of greater 
 security, xxxii. 1 — 23. On this occasion the most remarka- 
 ble event of his life occurred. He is alone, praying proba- 
 bly for deliverance from the supposed impending danger. 
 A being, apparently human, wrestles with him until day- 
 break. Not prevailing against the hardy Jacob by ordinary 
 effort, he exerts a miraculous power, and the patriarch's 
 thigh is contracted. By this, or some other indication, Jacob 
 recognized the divine character of his opponent, and ear- 
 nestly implored his blessing. He receives it, and at the 
 same time his name is changed from Jacob to Israel, a term 
 of distinction, implying that he had prevailed over God.'" 
 In commemoration of this extraordinary interview, he calls 
 the place Peniel, that is, face of God. As a confirmation of 
 the fact, it is stated, that the Israelites abstain from eating 
 the flesh of the tendon connected with that part of the thigh, 
 out of respect to their great ancestor. 24 — 32.^'® 
 
 The meeting of the two brothers now follows. Jacob 
 approaches Esau with the deepest respect, and is received 
 with the most tender affection. The precautions which he 
 had taken to secure the safety of those who were dearest to 
 him, appear to have been unnecessary, as the kindest feel- 
 ing pervades the breast of his brother, who seems to have 
 forgotten former wrongs, and to kave yielded to the natural 
 impulses of a heart overflowing with affection. The pre- 
 
108 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 sent'" which Jacob had prepared is at first kindly refused, 
 but, on his urgent solicitation, is at last accepted. After a 
 fraternal offer of protection, which Jacob declines as unne- 
 cessary, Esau departs for his own country. Jacob travels 
 in another direction,'^^ and arrives safely at Shalem,'^^ where 
 he fixes his residence on land which he had purchased. In 
 the manner of his religious father and grandfather, he erects 
 an altar in honor of the God of Israel, xxxiii. 1 — 20."° 
 
 The narrative now relates an unhappy event in the life 
 of Dinah, Jacob's only daughter, which has an important in- 
 fluence on the patriarch's arrangements, and also on the fu- 
 ture destiny of two of his sons. Shechem, the lord of that 
 part of the country in which Jacob had settled, seduces 
 Dinah, and is desirous to marry her. Her brothers were at 
 the time from home, superintending their flocks. Being in- 
 formed of the circumstance on their return, they are indig- 
 nant at the dishonor which Shechem's folly had brought on 
 their father and family,"' and determine to avenge the dis- 
 grace. In order to ensure the accomplishment of their pur- 
 pose, they receive the communication of the young prince 
 and Hamor his father with apparent satisfaction, acquies- 
 cing in the proposal made for the hand of their sister, which 
 required that Shechem and his people should submit to bo 
 circumcised. The father and son agreed to the terms ; and, 
 by a favorable representation of the advantages to be de- 
 rived by forming connexions with the family of a man so 
 wealthy and honorable as Jacob, they prevail on their peo- 
 ple to consent to the unpleasant condition."^ When the in- 
 convenience resulting from the operation was most oppres- 
 sive, and incapacitated the Shechemites for active exertion, 
 two of Dinah's maternal brothers, Simeon and Levi, at the 
 head most probably of their armed dependants, attacked and 
 put to death the unsuspecting people, with Hamor and his 
 son, spoiled their city, seized their property, and deUvered 
 
ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 109 
 
 the injured daughter of Jacob. When the patriarch severe- 
 ly remonstrates with them on the criminaUty of their con- 
 duct, they attempt to vindicate or palliate it by the infamy 
 which the treatment of the prince had brought on their 
 sister, xxxiv. 1 — 31. 
 
 God now commands Jacob to remove to Bethel. He 
 obeys, after having purified his household from the remains 
 of superstition and idolatry which still clung to some of its 
 members. A panic terror, induced by divine Providence, 
 seizes the inhabitants of the neighboring cities, and prevents 
 them from avenging on his sons the slaughter of the She- 
 chemites."^ On arriving at Bethel, he builds an altar, and 
 designates the place by the name which he had before given 
 it, prefixing also the name of God."* The death and burial 
 of Rebecca's nurse is mentioned, in order, most probably, 
 to explain to the Israelites the origin of the name of an oak 
 subsisting in their time, rather than from the importance of 
 the circumstance itself, as Rebecca's own death is passed 
 over unnoticed, xxxv. 1 — 8. Then follows an account of 
 another divine communication, renewing promises before 
 made and the previous change of the patriarch's name. He 
 commemorates the event by setting up a stone pillar, with 
 religious rites. 9 — 15. The narrative then mentions the 
 death of Rachel, which took place some distance'^^ from 
 Ephrath or Bethlehem, on occasion of the birth of Benja- 
 min ;"° also another removal of Jacob, and the infamous 
 conduct of his eldest son.* Then follows a list of his sons, 
 all of whom but one were born in Mesopotamia."'' This 
 
 * The sacred writer most probably introduces this disgraceful trans- 
 action to prepare his reader for the father's severe yet just denunciation 
 contained in xlix. 3, 4. It would seem, therefore, to intimate the unity 
 of plan which pervades the whole book, and is most consistent with the 
 theory that it was composed by one author. 
 
110 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 part closes by an account of the age and death of Isaac, who 
 was buried by his two sons. 16 — 29. 
 
 Part X. Chap, xxxvi. 
 
 This chapter is closely connected with the preceding and 
 subsequent chapters. At the end of xxxv, it is said of Isaac, 
 that " his sons Esau and Jacob buried him." This is fol- 
 lowed in the present chapter by a genealogical statement of 
 Esau's descendants, concluding with, "this is Esau, the 
 father of the Edomites ;" immediately after which, in chapter 
 xxxvii, we have an account of Jacob's family.* 
 
 Without interrupting the subsequent history of this family, 
 a brief account of the descendants of Esau is here given. 
 First, his wives are enumerated."' This is succeeded by a 
 notice of his sons, and of his removal to Seir, which leaves 
 the land of Canaan for the family of his brother. Each of 
 these countries was occupied by the descendants of Jacob 
 and Esau respectively, agreeably to divine direction. Esau 
 gathered all his effects which he had acquired in Canaan, and 
 went into another land,"' away from his brother Jacob. This 
 suggests the reason of the procedure. Lot had settled in 
 Sodom, leaving Canaan to Abram, xiii. 12 ; Ishmael and 
 other sons of Abraham had been removed to the east, xxv. 
 6. Esau now abandons the promised land to his brother, to 
 whom it of right belonged. The immediate occasion of this 
 arrangement is said to be the great pastoral wealth of the 
 parties, their cattle being too numerous for the limited pas- 
 tures, which the condition of the country allowed them to 
 
 * It would seem difficult to persuade one's self that more than one 
 author was engaged in the composition of these chapters. If there were, 
 the compiler must have performed his task with extraordinary ability, 
 so happy is the combination of originally unconnected fragmenis which 
 he must be supposed to have made. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. Ill 
 
 occupy. It is to be considered, that the Canaanitish tribes 
 were now very considerable, and that the patriarchal fami- 
 lies required great extent of country, on account of the mul- 
 titude of their cattle, and also of their nomad habits, xxxvi. 
 1 — 8. Then follows a list of Esau's descendants for a few 
 generations, 9 — 19, he himself now appearing as the father 
 of a tribe ; and also of Seir's, the former possessor of the 
 country, 20 — 30."° A consecutive catalogue of the kings 
 that reigned in Edom before the institution of royal authority 
 over the Israelites, and a list of certain dukes, complete the 
 chapter. 31—43.'" 
 
 Part XI. Chap, xxxvii. 1 — l. 
 
 This last part of the book of Genesis contains the subse- 
 quent history of Jacob's family until the death of Joseph."* 
 
 This was the patriarch's favorite child, and the parent's 
 partiality seems to have shown itself injudiciously, both in 
 the peculiar attire in which he dressed the youth, and in 
 allowing him to make unfavorable reports of his elder 
 brothers. The father's undue fondness for this son excited 
 the jealousy of the others, and their dislike was increased 
 by two dreams of his which he communicated to them, and 
 which plainly indicated his future superiority over the whole 
 family."^ These dreams made a strong impression on the 
 mind of the patriarch, although he thought proper to 
 censure his son for the extraordinary self-importance which 
 they seemed to imply. At the age of seventeen, Joseph 
 was sent to inquire after the welfare of his brothers, who 
 were some distance from home attending their flocks. On 
 his approach they resolve to kill him, but at the instance 
 of Reuben, who wishes to secure his safety in order to de- 
 liver him to his father, he is put into a pit. During Reu- 
 ben's absence, a party of Ishmaelites"* pass along on their 
 
112 ANALYSIS OP THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 
 
 way to Egypt, and at the proposal of Judah, Joseph is sold 
 to them. His coat is then dipped in blood, and a fraud is 
 practised upon Jacob, who is led to believe that his favorite 
 had been devoured by some wild beast. In the mean while 
 Joseph is taken to Egypt, and sold to Potiphar, one of the 
 king's officers, xxxvii. 
 
 The contents of the next chapter seem to have no im- 
 mediate connexion with the preceding or subsequent, the 
 history of which appears to be thereby unexpectedly inter- 
 rupted. If the conduct of Judah with respect to Tamar, 
 which is the principal point in the account, were contem- 
 poraneous with the sale of Joseph, this may explain the 
 reason of its introduction in this place. But it seems very 
 difficult to reconcile such a synchronism with dates men- 
 tioned in other parts of the history.'" Judah's failure to 
 perform his promise to his daughter-in-law Tamar, by mar- 
 rying her to his son Shelah,"" induces her to perpetrate a 
 shameful and wicked deceit, which is followed by the birth 
 of her twin sons, of whom Judah is the father, xxxviii. 
 
 The excellent conduct of Joseph, and the prosperity which 
 attended all his efforts to advance his master's interests, led 
 Potiphar to make him superintendent over his family, and to 
 resign to him all his concerns.'" The beauty of Joseph's 
 person attracting the attention of his mistress, subjected him 
 to repeated solicitations, the virtuous rejection of which in- 
 duced her to calumniate him to her husband, and was thus the 
 occasion of his imprisonment. (See Gen. xl. 3, 4, the latter 
 of which texts seems to imply that Potiphar had become 
 satisfied of Joseph's innocence.) But the favor which di- 
 vine Providence had already shown him is still continued, 
 and alleviates the sufferings of confinement. The keeper of 
 the prison commits the care of its inmates to the faithful 
 Joseph, in whose hands every thing is made to prosper, 
 xxxix."* 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 113 
 
 At this time two of the king's officers are imprison- 
 ed, and put under the supervision of Joseph. After hav- 
 ing been some time in confinement, each of them has 
 on the same night a remarkable dream,"' adapted to the 
 nature of his office in the court. Joseph explains the dreams, 
 and in the course of three days, as he had foretold, the 
 event reaUzed the interpretation."" One of the officers is 
 put to death, and the other restored to Iris former station, 
 xl. Tv^o years afterwards Pharaoh himself has a very ex- 
 traordinary dream ; and this is succeeded by another, 
 which, in its main points, bears a striking resemblance to 
 the former. These repeated dreams, so pecuKar in their 
 character, disturb the monarch's mind. He feels that they 
 must forebode something unusual, and endeavors to obtain 
 satisfaction from the magicians and wise men of Egypt, who 
 affected to be able to penetrate into futurity. But in vain. 
 The meaning of the dreams lies beyond the reach of their 
 keenest sagacity. In this dilemma, the officer who had 
 been restored to his place, agreeably to the interpretation of 
 his dream as given a long time before by Joseph, remembers 
 the Hebrew captive, and relates to Pharaoh the whole ac- 
 count of himself and his unfortunate brother-officer, with 
 the successful interpretation of their respective dreams* 
 Joseph is immediately sent for, and after modestly disclaim- 
 ing any ability of his own to satisfy the royal mind, and re- 
 ferring to the omniscient God as the only source of know- 
 ledge, the dreams are made known to him by Pharaoh* 
 He then informs the king that both indicate the same thing ; 
 that seven years of extraordinary plenty are to be followed 
 by as many of extraordinary scarcity ; and that the repe^ 
 tition of the dreams denotes the certainty and speedy ac- 
 complishment of the prediction. He also suggests to 
 Pharaoh certain measures proper to be taken in order to 
 preserve the people, during the time of the famine which id 
 15 
 
114 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 to waste the country, xli. 1 — 36. Pharaoh shows how 
 strong an impression the advice of this prudent counsellor 
 had made on his mind, by appointing him general superin- 
 tendent over Egypt, inferior only to himself. He accom- 
 panies this dignity with suitable external marks of honor,'^' 
 gives Joseph an Egyptian name, expressive of the great 
 benefits which were received from him as the saviour of their 
 lives, (comp. xlvii. 26,)'" and raises him to the highest of 
 the national castes, by marrying him to a daughter of the 
 priest of Heliopolis, the city of the sun, as the Egyptian 
 word On signifies. 37 — 45. Joseph immediately enters on 
 the duties of his office, and secures the surplus grain during 
 the seven exceedingly prolific years. In the mean time, he 
 becomes the father of two sons, to whom he gives names 
 expressive of the happy change which, by the blessing of 
 Providence, had taken place in his condition. 46 — 52. 
 
 Now come the predicted years of famine. The neigh- 
 boring nations apply to Egypt for food ; and Jacob's sons, 
 with the exception of Benjamin, the father's darling, present 
 themselves before the great lord of Eg)^pt, and make the 
 most respectful obeisance to "the dreamer," whom they had 
 *• sold for a servant." He immediately recognizes them as 
 his unworthy brothers. But too well acquainted Vvith their 
 real characters, he knew that it was expedient to exercise 
 some degree of harshness towards them as a wholesome dis- 
 cipline. They presented themselves before him, without 
 his father's favorite, his own beloved Benjamin. The sus- 
 picion was probably awakened in his bosom, that this only 
 other son of his mother had, like himself, been subjected to 
 unworthy treatment, perhaps had come to an untimely end. 
 Their treachery towards himself he had doubtless long 
 since forgiven ; but it became him to take measures in order 
 to ascertain his brother's condition. With the view of 
 satisfying himself on this point the more readily, he per- 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 116 
 
 sonates the stranger. He accuses them of being spies, and 
 puts them in prison. On the third day, he releases them 
 from confinement, and retaining Simeon, who was probably 
 one of the most cruel of the band, (see xlix. 5,) as a hos- 
 tage, he dismisses the others, with provision for their fami- 
 lies, commanding them at the same time to bring to him 
 their youngest brother, and thus to clear themselves of the 
 charge which he had brought against them. On returning 
 to Jacob, and giving him an account of their reception in 
 Egypt, of the retention of Simeon, and the demand for 
 Benjamin, the patriarch's distress is greatly aggravated. 
 The money of each one being found carefully secured in his 
 respective sack,'" adds to the prevalent distress. As a 
 circumstance, strange and unaccountable, perhaps it awak- 
 ened alarm in their guilty consciences, although they knew 
 not why; perhaps also it suggested a seemingly well 
 founded apprehension of increased danger to Simeon. The 
 anguish which must have been felt both by parent and sons, is 
 most strikingly depicted, by the frenzied proposal which Reu- 
 ben makes to his father, to allow him to take Benjamin to 
 Egypt, and if he did not bring him back, to " slay" his own 
 " two sons" ; in other words, to avenge the loss of his favorite 
 by destroying two of his grandchildren ! In such a state of 
 mind, rational propositions were hardly to be expected. 
 The language of the overwhelmed patriarch as strikingly 
 portrays the depth of his affection for the lost Joseph and 
 his younger brother ; " my son shall not go down with 
 you, for his brother is dead, and he is left alone." 53 — xlii. 
 
 But necessity knows no law. The famine increases ; the 
 supply of corn is consumed ; and Jacob proposes a second 
 application to Egypt. Judah wrings from him a reluctant 
 consent that Benjamin shall accompany them. With a small 
 present, consisting of the best productions of the ground, 
 which circumstances allowed them to procure, and which 
 
116 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 were usually imported to Egypt in the way of trade, (see 
 xxxvii. 25,) and with twice the sum necessary to pay for the 
 expected provision, Joseph's brothers again make their 
 appearance in Egypt. Now, having substantiated the truth 
 of their former statements, they are treated with kindness 
 and distinction ; they are brought to the house of the gov- 
 ernor, who finds it impossible to restrain the overflowings of 
 fraternal affection for Benjamin, his mother's son, and is 
 obliged to retire in private to give vent to his feelings. The 
 order of the entertainment which follows is doubtless di- 
 rected by Joseph. He, his brothers, and his Egyptian 
 guests, are separately served, in order that the prejudices of 
 the latter should not be offended ;"* and, to the surprise and 
 perplexity of the Hebrew party, they are arranged accord- 
 ing to seniority. Agreeably to usage, the master of the 
 feast sends portions to each of his company, and the affec- 
 tionate brother avails himself of the occasion to show his 
 regard for Benjamin, by sending him five times as much as 
 any one of the others, xliii. 
 
 It must be evident to every reflecting reader, that it is 
 Joseph's intention to make himself known to his brethren. 
 Before doing so, however, he thinks it best to discover their 
 sentiments and feelings tow^ard Benjamin, in order to ascer- 
 tain whether the same unkind jealousies which had marked 
 their conduct towards himself, now influenced their treat- 
 ment of his brother. He directs his steward to return the 
 money as before, and, in addition, to put his own cup into 
 Benjamin's sack. Some time after the men had been dis- 
 missed, the steward is sent in pursuit, and severely expostu- 
 lates with them on the ingratitude of their conduct, and also 
 on the folly of it, representing the moral certainty of detec- 
 tion."' The accusation of theft is repelled with a feeling of 
 conscious innocence. If the cup shall be found in the pos- 
 session of any one, they do not hesitate to condemn him to 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 117 
 
 death and themselves to bondage. The examination results 
 in finding it in the sack of Benjamin ; and, in utter confusion 
 and dismay, the party return to the city. With the deepest 
 humiliation, Judah, who evidently supposes the theft to have 
 been committed, acknow^ledges their crime, and offers him- 
 self and his brothers as servants. With an apparently strict 
 regard to justice, Joseph refuses to retain in bondage any 
 but the offender himself. He permits the others to return to 
 their father. This is followed by the most touching address 
 of Judah, who remembers the "bereavement" which his 
 father had felt in parting with Benjamin, and is aware that 
 the retention of this beloved child must bring down the pa- 
 rent's " gray hairs with sorrow to the grave." The simpli- 
 city, the tenderness, the exquisite pathos of the expostulation 
 which flows warm from the heart of Judah, make it as a 
 composition altogether inimitable. Any attempt to analyse 
 it must be a failure. He begs the privilege of being substi- 
 tuted as a bondsman in the place of his younger brother, and 
 that " the lad," whose return is essential to the life of the 
 worn-out old man, may be permitted to return to his bosom. 
 It was impossible to resist such an appeal, " and Joseph 
 wept aloud." Dismissing his Egyptian attendants, he tells 
 his brethren who he is, consoles them in the distress which 
 the declaration occasioned, by reminding them that divine 
 Providence had superintended and controlled the remarkable 
 events of his Ufe, with a view to the general good. He di- 
 rects them to hasten to his father with the joyous intelli- 
 gence that '* God had made him lord of all Egypt," and with 
 an urgent request to come and settle there with his family. 
 Natural and appropriate manifestations of affection accom- 
 pany the disclosure, and the confidence of his brothers is 
 somewhat restored. The intelligence of the arrival of Jo- 
 seph's brothers is received by Pharaoh with pleasure, and 
 the grateful monarch reiterates the request of his prime 
 
118 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 minister, and makes liberal provision for the journey of Ja- 
 cob's family. Another illustration of Joseph's fondness for 
 Benjamin shows itself in a generous donation ; and he dis- 
 misses his brothers, either with encouragement not to dis- 
 tress themselves with apprehensions of evil, or else with ex- 
 hortation not to make themselves uneasy by mutual recrimi- 
 nation. The original word ^T!i"!^, may be understood so 
 as to imply either of those senses, xliv. 1 — xlv. 24. 
 
 On returning, they communicate to their father the intelli- 
 gence of Joseph's being still alive and ruling over Egypt. 
 At first the good tidings are too joyful to be credited, and 
 when the patriarch is satisfied of the truth of his children's 
 account, it is the fact that his dear son is still living to which 
 his heart responds : the attendant dignities and honors are 
 overlooked. " Joseph, my son, is yet alive : I will go and 
 see him before I die." This resolution is sanctioned by a 
 divine direction, and the patriarch, with all his family,"* set- 
 tles in the land of Egypt. Joseph meets him in Goshen,"'' 
 and afterwards presents five of his brothers and then his 
 father to Pharaoh, with whom he makes arrangements for 
 the future residence of the family in that district, xlv. 25 — 
 xlvii. 12. 
 
 As the distress occasioned by the scarcity of food in- 
 creases, Joseph continues to supply the wants of the Egyp- 
 tians, by selling them provisions until their money is ex- 
 hausted, after which they barter their cattle, and at last sur- 
 render their property and themselves to the monarch. The 
 people in general are removed from their respective places 
 of residence, and so disposed as best to secure national quiet 
 or temporary convenience."^ The regulations established 
 by Joseph either restored the property thus purchased to 
 the former owner, or granted him a portion elsewhere, on 
 the condition that one-fifth of the produce should be paid to 
 the king. This became a permanent law of the land. The 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 119 
 
 property of the priests, however, who were supported during 
 the famine by Pharaoh, was expressly exckided from this 
 arrangement. 13 — 26. 
 
 The settlement of the Israelites in the fertile region which 
 had been assigned them, was marked by advancing prosperi- 
 ty and increase. Nevertheless, a permanent residence in 
 Egypt, the most distinguished probably among the flourish- 
 ing countries of the ancient world, and therefore in point of 
 secular advantages the most desirable, was far from the 
 thoughts of the venerable Jacob. He remembered . the 
 promises made to his fathers and renewed to himself, that 
 their posterity should possess the land of Canaan ; he could 
 not have been unacquainted with the prediction, that they 
 were to reside under afflictive circumstances among a 
 foreign people, and in the end to be restored to the pro- 
 mised country, (xv. 13 — 16.) Calling to mind the extraor- 
 dinary interpositions of divine Providence in favor of his 
 family ; confidently relying on the fidelity of his almighty 
 protector ; and, probably, regarding the temporal blessings 
 announced in the promise as emblematic of those spiritual 
 and everlasting joys, which God hath prepared for those 
 who love and trust him ; he requires of Joseph, with the 
 solemnity of an oath, not to inter him in Egypt, though 
 famous for the seemingly imperishable character of its 
 mausoleums, but to bury him with his fathers in the land of 
 Canaan. Assured of being gratified in this wish of faith, 
 the venerable patriarch vents the feelings of his gratitude in 
 devout thanksgiving. 27 — 31.''' 
 
 After this Jacob is taken sick, and visited by his favorite 
 son, who is accompanied by his two children, Manasseh and 
 Ephraim. After recounting the appearance of God to him 
 in Canaan, and his promise to bless him and his posterity, 
 Jacob formally adopts the two boys, placing them in the 
 same rank, and entitling them to the same privileges and 
 
120 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 patrimonial inheritance as his own children. The sight of 
 the beloved Joseph awakens in his bosom the feelings of 
 affection which he had never ceased to cherish for his la- 
 mented Rachel, and he touches on the circumstances of her 
 death and burial. The verse (7.) which contains this stroke 
 of conjugal tenderness, does indeed interrupt the connexion 
 of the patriarch's leading thought. The coldness of affected 
 criticism finds here an interpolation ; but it is nature itself 
 that bursts out with the interruption, and the mouth does but 
 pour forth somewhat of the abundance of the heart. It is 
 a solemn moment of sublime religious emotion. The heart 
 is full of chastened love. " I had not thought to see the 
 face ; and lo, God hath showed me also thy seed." ' What 
 a mercy to grant such an end to long endured anguish for a 
 son so tenderly beloved ! O, that she, so early snatched 
 away, could see with me this joyous sight !' Passing from 
 the fond recollection of scenes now gone forever, to what 
 was then transpiring, and so on to events which still lay hid 
 in a remote futurity, he requires his two grandsons to be 
 brought to him. After affectionately embracing them, and 
 again expressing his devout gratitude, he laid his right hand 
 on the head of his younger grandson, and his left on that of 
 the elder, although the position in which their father had 
 placed them must have required him to cross his arms,'^° 
 and thus to assume a posture somewhat unnatural. The 
 dimness of the patriarch, in consequence of his advanced 
 age, prevented him from distinguishing the elder from the 
 younger, so that this adjustment, which the subsequent pre- 
 diction shows was not incidental, must have originated in a 
 divine superintending influence. Joseph was well aware 
 that the position of his father's hands intimated the degree 
 of the predicted benefaction, and he would have placed the 
 right hand on the head of Manasseh, his eldest son. But 
 the aged seer, who was better acquainted with the analogy 
 
ANALYSIS or THE BOOK OP GENESIS, 121 
 
 -of the divine procedure, and with the determination of Pro- 
 vidence respecting the two brothers, refused to alter the 
 arrangement which he had designedly made. While he 
 gave his prophetic blessing to both the brothers, he plainly 
 announced that the posterity of the younger should be the 
 more numerous, and become a greater people than that 
 which should descend from the elder. Both, however, 
 should be considered as the sons of Israel, whose name they 
 were to bear ; and the angel who supported the father 
 through all the diversified scenes of his life, and delivered 
 him from the various dangers which so often threatened his 
 destruction, is invoked, evidently as a divine being, to bless 
 the adopted children."' The interview is closed by another 
 expression of faith on the part of Jacob, that God would 
 restore his family to the land of their fathers' pilgrimage, 
 and by the notice of a donation of a particular piece of 
 ground to Joseph, which his father had forcibly wrested 
 from the Amorites. xlviii.'" 
 
 Now follows the celebrated blessing of Jacob,'" which he 
 announced before his death in the presence of his sons.* 
 
 * And Jacob called to his sons ; and he said, gather your- 
 selves together, and I will declare to you what shall befall 
 you in future times. Collect yourselves and attend, ye sons 
 of Jacob, attend to Israel your father. 
 
 Reubex, my first-born art thou, 
 
 My might, and the beginning of my strength, 
 Chief in excellence, and chief in might. 
 
 Lascivious, like water, thou shalt not be chief, 
 
 * As this portion is particularly interesting and important, I trust 
 that a translation of the whole of it, accompanied b}-^ notes more ex- 
 tensive than those usually employed in this work, will not be unac- 
 ceptable."* 
 
 16 
 
122 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS, 
 
 Because thou ascendedst the bed of thy father, 
 
 Then didst thou pollute it : — 
 He ascended my couch ! 
 
 Simeon and Levi are brethren; 
 Jnstruments of violence are their swords. 
 
 In their secret council enter not, my soul, 
 In their assembly do not join, my heart, 
 
 For in their anger they slew men, 
 And in their wantonness they destroyed a city. 
 
 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce. 
 And their wrath, for it was cruel ; 
 
 I will disperse them among Jacob, 
 And will scatter them among Israel. 
 
 J LTD AH ! thy brethren will praise thee. 
 Thy hand shall strike the backs of thine enemies ; 
 
 The sons of thy father shall bow down before thee, 
 A lion's whelp is Judah; 
 
 From the prey, my son, thou hast gone up ! 
 He bent, couched down like a lion. 
 
 And like a roaring lion : 
 Who will rouse him 1 
 
 Authority shall not depart from Judah, 
 Neither shall he want a law-giver, 
 
 Until he comes to whom it is. 
 And him the nations shall obey. 
 
 He fastens to the vine his ass's foal. 
 And to the choice vine the son of his ass : 
 
 He washes in wine his garments. 
 And in the blood of grapes his vesture. 
 
 Sparkling are his eyes with wine. 
 And white are his teeth with milk. 
 
 Zebulon will dwell on the sea-coas:.. 
 A coast well lined with ships ; 
 
 His territories reach unto Zidon. 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 123 
 
 IssACHAR is a strong ass, 
 
 Lying down within his borders. 
 And he saw that rest was good, 
 
 And that the land was fair ; 
 And he offered his shoulder to bear the burden, 
 
 And became a tributary. 
 Dan will rule his people, 
 
 Like one of the tribes of Israel. 
 Dan will be a serpent in the road, 
 
 An adder in the path, 
 That biteth the heels of the horse, 
 
 And his rider falls backward. 
 For thy deliverance have I waited, 
 
 O Jehovah ! 
 Gad, a troop may press upon him, 
 
 But he shall press in the end. 
 From AsHER, rich shall be his food, 
 
 And he shall yield royal delicacies. 
 Naphtali is a hind let loose ; 
 
 He giveth discourses of beauty. 
 A fruitful scion is Joseph, 
 
 A fruitful scion at a well, 
 The branches shoot over the wall. 
 
 The archers distressed him. 
 They shot at him, and hated him ; 
 
 But his bow continued strong, 
 And his arms were active. 
 
 By the hands of the mighty one of Jacob, 
 By the name of the shepherd, the stone of Israel, 
 
 By the God of thy father, who will help thee, 
 And the Almighty, who will bless thee, 
 
 With blessings of heaven above. 
 Blessings of the deep which lieth below. 
 
 Blessings of the breasts and of the womb. 
 
124 ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS. 
 
 The blessings of thy father exceed the blessings of the per- 
 petual mountains, 
 
 The desirable things of the eternal hills ; 
 They shall come upon the head of Joseph, 
 
 And upon the crown of the noblest among his brethren. 
 Benjamin is a wolf, he tears in pieces ; 
 
 In the morning he devours the prey, 
 And at evening he divides the spoil.' xlix. 1 — 27. 
 
 After uttering this prophetic benediction relating to the 
 future circumstances of his children's posterity, the patriarch 
 charges all his sons together, to bury him with his fathers in 
 the land of Canaan. Then, having no other communication to 
 make, he calmly surrenders his soul to him that gave it, " and 
 is gathered unto his peopb." 28 — 33. 
 
 The tokens of Joseph's filial affection are followed by 
 directions to have his father's body embalmed. The cere- 
 monies of mourning in Egypt being ended, Joseph obtains 
 permission of Pharaoh to attend the remains of his father to 
 the place of interment in Canaan, agreeably to the oath 
 which he had sworn. Having arrived at the threshing floor 
 of Atad, which was no doubt some place east of the Jor- 
 dan,''* well fitted for the purpose intended, the lamentation 
 is renewed, and so marked is its character, that it gives rise 
 to the name by which the place was afterwards distinguish- 
 ed. This second mourning being ended, the obsequies of 
 his venerated parent are suitably performed, and the body de- 
 posited in the spot so solemnly agreed on. Joseph and his 
 company return to Egypt. 1. 1 — 14. 
 
 His ^brothers, apprehensive lest the decease of their 
 father should have removed the only restraint which could 
 have prevented Joseph from resenting their injurious treat- 
 ment, sent a messenger to him, deprecating his anger in the 
 most affecting language, and then went themselves with the 
 
ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OP GENESIS. 125 
 
 humblest acknowledgments. His reply is such as might 
 have been expected from an affectionate and forgiving 
 brother, who recognized the hand of divine Providence in 
 the most distressful events of his hfe. 15 — 21. The account 
 of Joseph's death at the age of one hundred and ten years, 
 surrounded by his family, and avowing the same faith by 
 which his ancestors had been distinguished, closes the book* 
 15—26. 
 
NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 Part I. Chap. i. — ii. 3. 
 
 (1.) Some critics divide the work into nine parts, consider- 
 ing the sixth as the commencement of the seventh, and the 
 eighth as an appendix to it. But the history of Abraham, 
 which is so very prominent a part of the book of Genesis, 
 ought to be made a distinct portion. I have therefore 
 thought it best to separate the genealogical list of Shem's 
 descendants from the subsequent more minute and particular 
 narrative, and to make the brief notice of Ishmael's family 
 in XXV. 12 — 18, a distinct division, to which it seems to 
 have as just a claim as the account of Esau's descendants 
 in xxxvi. 
 
 (2.) Comp. v. 14 — 17. The phrase " heaven and earth," v. 
 1. ii. 1, expresses the universe. See Gen, xiv. 19, 22. Some- 
 times, indeed, other terms are added ; but this is done for 
 the sake of emphasis or graphical effect. Thus we find the 
 language, " the heavens and the earth and the sea and the 
 dry land." See Hag. ii. 6, where the representation is 
 figurative, and explained by the phrase " all nations" in the 
 next verse; also Ex. xx. 11, which is literal, "the Lord 
 made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is." 
 
 (3.) In favor of the former view, the analogy of the book 
 may be pleaded, every other division having its own proper 
 introduction. But it may be replied, that the introductions 
 to the other divisions are evidently inscriptions, while this 
 
128 NOTES TO GENESIS. [pakt I. 
 
 appears to be a historical statement of what first took place, 
 followed by a continuous account of subsequent transactions. 
 The words in ii. 3, 'which God created in making,' 15^"^^ 
 Jliil)?^ would undoubtedly agree with that view, as tlliUS^b 
 no doubt refers to the continuous narrative before given. 
 But this can hardly be considered as decisive, for i^'llll 
 in i. 1, may be used in the sense of originally creating, while 
 in ii. 3, in connexion with tli'©3?b, it may denote the perfec- 
 tion of that original creation by the proper formation and re- 
 gular adjustment of the materials ; just as a city is said to be 
 built, when the meaning is, that it is only rebuilt and beauti- 
 fied. The exposition under consideration seems to be sup- 
 ported by the use of SJ^'llIl in ii. 4, where it implies forma- 
 tion and arrangement. Thus also in Isa. xlv. 18, the pro- 
 phet evidently refers to the language in Genesis : * thus 
 saith the Lord, creator JJ^fi^ of the heavens ; he, the God 
 that forms the earth and makes it ; he establishes it ; he 
 did not create it confusion, he formed it to be inhabited,' 
 ^I'llS': Si;itpb ni^^5 ^rin-iSb. Here the word ls^1$, so far 
 from being used to express the act of calling into existence 
 a chaotic mass, is evidently synonymous with ^^'^^ and tlt^^, 
 and denotes such a creation as produces arrangement and 
 accommodation for inhabitants. 
 
 The latter view cannot be maintained on the ground that 
 i^'l!il means to create in the sense of giving existence to, for 
 this, as has been just seen, is by no means its necessary sense. 
 The word Sl^ipjj^'llll may seem to support this view, as in 
 Prov. viii. 22, it is used without the preposition, to express a 
 period anterior to the formation of the world, as is the cor- 
 responding word 125 5^*^^ in the same chapter, v. 23. " The 
 Lord possessed me in the beginning, tl^tpSJ^l, of his way ;" 
 "from the beginning, 'OJi'i'l^, or even the earth was:" lite- 
 
CHAP. 1— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 129 
 
 rally, ' from before the earth.' But the nature of the subject 
 in Proverbs, which is a truly poetic and beautiful personifi- 
 cation of divine wisdom, and the immediate context, favor 
 the opinion that these terms denote eternity ; and if so, they 
 are inapplicable to the verse before us. It has been thought 
 that a clear sense is given to this clause by supposing an 
 ellipsis to be supplied from what follows, thus : ' in the be- 
 ginning of things, when nothing had yet been created.' So 
 BuDDiEus, in his Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, 
 Halffi Magdeb. 1719, 4to. Tom. I. p. 65. But it is plain 
 that the question under consideration is not hereby settled ; 
 because, if this ellipsis be allow^ed, it still remains to be de- 
 termined, whether the creating referred to denotes the origi- 
 nal production of things, or their formation and arrange- 
 ment. If the former be the true meaning, the sense of the 
 verse and its connexion with what follows, are evidently as 
 follows : ' At first God caused material substances to exist, 
 which being, or becoming, in a state of confusion and dis- 
 order, he afterwards formed into a harmonious and well 
 arranged creation.' 
 
 Another view of this place presumes the previous calling 
 into existence of the mass of matter, and considers the first 
 verse with part of the second as descriptive of its condition 
 immediately before the creation, the account of which then 
 follows. This is given by Rabbi Solomon Jarchi,* who 
 maintains that the construct usage of fT'tptSI.'lS requires 
 some such connexion. After giving some far-fetched and 
 extravagant allusions of earlier writers, founded in national 
 vanity, he proceeds thus : ^5 1t3TC3D ItS'inb iTli^n iD5S5l 
 
 imsi nn^n p^^ni p5^i Q^?2t25 ti^^nn ?i^tri<nn mtcns 
 i^np^sn 55^1 j!<bi 115^ •'H^ u^-r-diin '^.)2i^^^ ^trm imm 
 
 * This commentator is more usually denominated Rashi, *^t!l)1, 
 which is a technical word formed from the initial letters of the above 
 appellation. 
 
 17 
 
130 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 innnb ^n Qi^^ M2ip ibsi^tis ^)2^'b n^^^nnn "iio mmnb 
 
 1)35 vnn5^ btu nn^'ib pim iD^ss^ti) i^np^an ii^^:j!^"i ^b 
 "(Srii n^trb^n ^t^±)2)2 n^t255<n Q'^p-^irri n3b)2'/2 n^tri^nn 
 
 ;pt25inn '^^ nm mb^nn ib n^sm i^inn n^tr^^nn i?2D 'i:-i 
 bjsj '■'■1 n^is^-'i 5>t2Jinn nnpn bts mm nb^nn n?3ibD 
 
 l!M i'lnn " But if you wish to explain the words according 
 to their simple meaning, explain them thus : ' in the beginning 
 of the creating of the heavens and the earth, then the earth 
 was without form, and void and darkness, and God said, let 
 there be light.' The verse does not intend to show the arrange- 
 ment of the creation, saying that these" (that is, the heavens 
 and the earth,) " were first. If it had been the author's in- 
 tention to state this, he would have written i^l^ rt5TCJ55"li 
 '^^'\ Q^^tlJn fl!^," (that is, he would have employed the 
 word riDitSi^lS and not i1^tp!!<nn.) " For ^l^tDi^l never oc- 
 curs in Scripture except in connexion with a following 
 word," (that is, in the construct state,) " as we find it in the 
 following places : ' in the beginning of the reign of Jehoia- 
 kim' ; ' the beginning of his reign' ; ' the beginning of thy 
 corn.'* So in this place you should read, ' in the beginning 
 
 * The general usage of fT'tiJiS^'l is construct, as Rashi says. But 
 he is mistaken in supposing that ii is never found otherwise. In Levit. 
 ii. 12, we have Hin^b tJ^iiS! ^^'^Ipi? tl^'!2)"^Tl ]^^p^ "the oblation 
 of the first fruits ye shall offer them unto the Lord;" in Deut. xxxiii. 21, 
 lb tT'tPi^'l i^ll'Ti "and he provided the first part for himself;" in 
 Neh. xii. 44. rii"lip?,72bl fT^'^.i^'lb, " for the first fruits and for the 
 
 tithes;" and in Isa. xlvi. 10, i1^"inb^ JT^'CJi^'1^^ 1"^5''?> "declaring the 
 end from the beginning." But these, I believe, are the only places in 
 which fT'tpi^'l is used, not in construction with the following word, 
 although it occurs very often in the Hebrew Bible ; and h is possible, 
 that in the first three of these, it may be in the construct with a subse- 
 quent word understood. 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 131 
 
 of God's creating the heavens, &c.,' as if the Hebrew were 
 Jj^lli in^tDi^'li in the beginning of creating. Similar to this 
 is, (Hos. i.2.) T^.'iT]'^ nlH^-^^? i^)>^K\, that is to say, the 
 beginning of God's speaking by Hosea ; and the Lord said 
 to Hosea, &c." 
 
 A very particular account of the various opinions, Jewish 
 and Christian, respecting the words ]n"'tpi<"!!ll i^'12 may be 
 found in Gataker's Adversaria Miscellanea, Lib. II. cap. i. ii. 
 
 (4.) The idea conveyed by the original words is evidently 
 that of confusion and desolation, as they are used in Job 
 xii. 24, Isa. xxxiv. 11, xlv. 18, Jer. iv. 23. The ancient ver- 
 sions agree in this meaning. 'Ao'^aTog xai dxaraifxivag-og, in 
 the Septuagint, refers either to the mass being overflowed 
 by water and consequently not to be seen, or rather to its 
 wild, confused appearance, making it unfit to be looked at. 
 The descriptions throughout the chapter are evidently pre- 
 pared in reference to a supposed observer, who watches the 
 changes until the wild and desolate confusion gives place to 
 a world of perfect order and harmony. 
 
 (5.) The figure is taken from the hovering and brooding of 
 birds over their young, in which sense the word is used also 
 in the Syriac. Hence the old mystic representation of the 
 world under the figure of an egg may have been derived. 
 See Vossius de Origine et Progressu Idolatrise, Lib. I. 
 cap. V. p. 33, 34. edit. Amsterd. 4to. 1642. 
 
 (6.) It must be evident to the most inattentive reader, that, 
 in common with other parts of the Bible, this account 
 abounds with figurative language. It is simple, but still 
 poetic. God is represented as commanding the various 
 creations to lake place, where the author undoubtedly in- 
 
132 NOTES TO GENESIS. [parti. 
 
 tended to express the idea that they sprang forth in com- 
 pUance with his will and by the exertion of his power. 
 
 (7.) The Hebrew term for heaven is derived from the 
 Arabic \J^, to be high. — The word 5''^p"l is rendered by 
 some " expanse," a sense which suits the context, and also 
 the etymological meaning of the verb ^'p.'^ to expand, beat 
 out. The common translation, " firmament," agrees with 
 that of the Septuagint, tfrspsiJiJ-a, and of the vulgate, " firma- 
 mentum," and is perhaps preferable. If this be the writer's 
 meaning, it will not follow that he regarded the space so 
 designated as a solid body, in which the sun, moon and stars 
 were immoveably fixed : he speaks of things as they appear 
 to be, not as they actually are. For this reason I have not 
 thought it necessary to alter the ordinary version. 
 
 The word ?'^P'^ occurs, exclusively of its use in this 
 chapter, v. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, eight times in the Old 
 Testament, namely, Ps. xix. 2, cl. 1 ; Ezek. i. 22, 23, 25, 26, 
 X. 1 ; and Dan. xii. 3. It denotes the expanse of the sky 
 as visible to an inhabitant of earth, the space in which the 
 heavenly bodies appear to be. It is an inquiry of no little 
 interest, in what sense the word is used when it first occurs 
 in this chapter. Does it here denote the whole space visible 
 from earth, comprising that in which are the fixed stars as 
 well as the luminaries of our own system? And does the 
 writer intend to teach, that God set this expanse or seem- 
 ingly solid substance, in which the sun, moon and stars were 
 afterwards immoveably fixed, between two vast bodies of 
 water, the one constituting the seas, &c., that belong to 
 earth, and the other forming, as Gesenius says, " a celestial 
 ocean?" And is it in this same sense that we read in Job 
 xxxvii. 18, "hast thou spread out, ^"'Pl?!, the sky which is 
 strong, and as a molten looking glass ?" and that the Psalm- 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 133 
 
 ist, cxlviii. 4, calls upon "the waters that are above the 
 heavens" to hymn the praises of God ? and that God is said 
 (Ps. civ. 3,) to "lay the beams of his chambers in the 
 waters 1" 
 
 I do not deny that the language of the sacred writer, if 
 explained independently of any other considerations than 
 such as are merely verbal, would admit this meaning. But 
 is this a necessary construction ? It involves a view which 
 is inconsistent with the system of philosophy, the truth of 
 which is generally and on good grounds admitted. If this 
 interpretation be maintained, we must then adopt a modified 
 view of the author's inspiration, limiting it to the fact of 
 creation and its general outlines, but allowing an intermix- 
 ture of error in some of the details ; or else, in defiance of 
 ascertained facts, we must reject the Copernican system of 
 astronomy. But the interpreter is not driven to the necessi- 
 ty of adopting either of these extremes. If the word i^^D'n 
 is sometimes employed in its comprehensive sense to denote 
 the whole visible expanse, including the region of the stars, 
 or at least that in which they are said to be because they 
 appear therein, and at other times for that portion of the at- 
 mosphere in which vapors float and clouds are formed, 
 the interpretation need not militate against the received the- 
 ory of the universe. Then the word in v, 14, 15, and 17, 
 will express the former meaning, and in 6, 7, and 8, the lat- 
 ter. The " waters above the firmament" in that case will 
 not be "a celestial ocean," but that portion of the fluids of 
 the watery mass which had risen in the atmosphei'e, and 
 was then held in solution, or floated in the form of mists and 
 clouds. They may be said to be above the firmament, al- 
 though at no very great elevation from the earth, because 
 above that part of it in which birds usually fly. Pfeiffer, 
 in his Dubia vexata Scriptura? Sacrse, 4to., 1685, p. 7, at- 
 tempts to make this interpretation ridiculous by remarking, 
 
134 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 that one miffht as well sav of a man immersed in the midst 
 of the sea, that he was above the sea, or of a buried person, 
 that he was above the earth, because in each case the party 
 was above a part of the element. But it ought to be con- 
 sidered, that the language here is popular, rather than philo- 
 sophical and accurate ; and a part of the firmament or ex- 
 panse, ^Ip"), might the rather be put for the whole and the 
 whole for a part, according to circumstances, because the 
 whole representation is made as things would appear to be 
 to an observer supposed to be below, and not as they were 
 in strictness of speech and abstractedly considered. To what 
 extent the writer supposed the waters to exist in the atmos- 
 phere, is of little importance. The rising of mists, which 
 were afterwards to descend as rain to water the ground, is 
 expressly mentioned by him in ii. G. 
 
 (8.) "For signs and for seasons." This is doubtless a hen- 
 diadys, meaning ' for signs of seasons,' in other words, to 
 designate seasons. That anything " preternatural" is in- 
 tended, is entirely unfounded, either in the necessary mean- 
 ing of the word, or in the facts alleged to illustrate such a 
 sense, which in the present age are universally allowed to 
 be ordinary phenomena, arising from natural causes. It 
 was therefore with no little surprise that I read in Professor 
 Bush's Hote on this place the following statement. " The 
 lieavenly bodies serve for signs, whenever the judgments of 
 God or extraordinary events are signified by remarkable 
 appearances in them. In this way eclipses of the sun and 
 moon, comets, meteors, falling stars, &c. serve as sigjis, i. e. 
 as preternatural tokens or monitions of the divine agency in 
 the sight of men. This is the genuine force of the original, 
 which very often conveys the idea of a miraculous inter- 
 ference." Equally genuine is the application of the original 
 word to ordinary occurrences, as the author by the qualifi- 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 135 
 
 cation implied in the phrase " very often" plainly intimates. 
 His extraordinary inference, towards the end of the same 
 note, founded on the omission of the word "for," is equally 
 incapable of support. He considers it as evidence, that "the 
 sense of the phrase is undoubtedly 'for days, even years'; 
 implying that a dai/ is often to be taken for a year (!), as is 
 the case in prophetical computation." 
 
 Among the objections to which the Mosaic history of the 
 creation has been thought to lie exposed, one by no means 
 trifling is drawn from the account of the formation of the 
 heavenly bodies on the fourth day, while the creation of 
 light is ascribed to the first. It has often been replied, that 
 previously to the creation of the sun, the light divided be- 
 tween the day and night, by being diffused and withdrawn 
 according to the will and power of God, who on the fourth 
 day concentrated the light in the body of the sun ; and that 
 the former method of regulating this viciss'tude would have 
 been no more difficult for the Omnipotent than that which 
 has ever since prevailed. The last remark is unquestiona- 
 bly true, although the proposed solution does not satisfy an 
 inquirer. He may rejoin, that God does nothing in vain, 
 and that the recurrence of evening and morning mentioned 
 in connexion with the first three days being exactly the 
 same as the following, it would seem to have arisen from 
 the same cause. And this view may be defended on either 
 of two suppositions : first, that the Mosaic creation is that of 
 the earth simply, and that the heavenly bodies are said to 
 have been formed on the fourth day, because on that day 
 they showed themselves through the purified atmosphere in 
 all their glory, as adapted to shed light over the earth and 
 to designate divisions of time;* or secondly, that the crea- 
 
 * The coincidence of this view and tliat of Professor Bush in his note 
 on V. 14 will be ihe more striking, when it is recollected that neither 
 writer had any knowledge of the sentiments of the other. For the read- 
 
136 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 tion of the heavenly bodies may have been contemporane- 
 ous with that of the earth. The formation of the sun may 
 have been commenced on the first day, and the hght then 
 called into existence for the benefit of earth's chaos may 
 have flowed from his orb, its rays being originally feeble, 
 but gradually increasing in strength and intensity, as his 
 own creation and that of our globe were both advancing 
 towards perfection. There is nothing in the third verse 
 which requires the admission, that light burst at once in all 
 its splendor upon the unformed material, neither is such a 
 supposition consistent with analogy. Gradual formations 
 characterize the works of nature, and the Mosaic narrative 
 affords no evidence that the original creation was effect- 
 ed by instantaneously producing the perfectly constructed 
 creature. 
 
 It cannot be denied that such a view is more in harmony 
 with the account of the creation effected during the other 
 five days, than that which assumes the sun, moon and stars 
 to have been altogether created on the fourth. On this sup- 
 position, the want of analogy in the aggregate created on 
 
 er's satisfaction I quote the following: "If this history of the creation 
 were designed to describe the effects of the six days' work as they would 
 have ajjpcared to a spectator, had one been inesent — a supposition ren- 
 dered probable from its being said, ' Let the dry land appear,' (Heb. be 
 seen,) ' when as yet there was no eye to see it' — then we may reasonably 
 conclude that tiie sun was formed on the first day, or perhaps had been 
 created even before our earth, and was in fact the cause of the vicissi- 
 tude of the three first days and nights. But as the globe of the earth 
 was during that time surrounded by a dens6 mass of mingled air and 
 water, the rays of the sun would be intercepted; only a dim glimmer- 
 ing light, even in the day time, would appear, and the bodies of the 
 heavenly luminaries would be entirely hidden, just as they now are in 
 a very cloudy day. Let it be supposed, then, that on the fourth day 
 the clouds, mists, and vapors were all cleared away, and the atmos- 
 phere made pure and serene, the sun of course would shine forth in all 
 his splendor, and to the eye of our imagined spectator would seem to 
 have been just created; and so at night of the moon and stars." p. 35. 
 
CHAP. I— 11. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 137 
 
 each day must strike the most inattentive reader ; and the 
 difficulty thus raised in his mind will not be removed by the 
 common-place remark, that God could as easily create in 
 one day the unnumbered worlds of the celestial bodies as 
 the slightest productions of the ground. The question is 
 not, what the Almighty can readily do, but what view of 
 this part of the narrative best corresponds with the repre- 
 sentation made in the other parts. 
 
 It may be objected to this view, that in reality it assigns 
 no specific creation to the fourth day, which merely exhibits 
 in clear distinctness the substances previously existing, while 
 the same terms are used, expressive of creation, which were 
 before employed. But let it be considered, that the ,princi- 
 ple of life and action which was at first infused into the 
 mass would still be exerting its energies. The perfection of 
 creation w'ould be ever advancing on the fourth day as on 
 the former days, until the celestial worlds broke into view 
 from behind the vanishing veil of cloud and mistiness.* 
 Appearing for the first time, and of course as new creations, 
 they would be described as such in the same phraseology as 
 had been before used. Besides, the principal point in the 
 author's mind is the purposes which they were intended to 
 serve for the benefit of man. It is not so much their creation 
 on that day, as the uses to which they were to be put, on which 
 he insists. The next chapter affords a similar specimen of 
 composition, and it may be adduced to illustrate the lan- 
 guage under consideration. The point to which the histo- 
 
 * I have for some years entertained the ophiion that this is the true 
 view of the text. The conclusion arrived at is the result of reflection on 
 the history itself and the universally acknowledged facts of natural 
 philosojjhy. The reader will perceive that I hold it in common with 
 many others. And it may be worthy of notice that the same view was 
 entertained by some of the most learned fathers of the Church. See the 
 works referred to in Dr. Wiseman's Lectures on the connexion between 
 Bcience and revealed religion, p. 178. 
 18 
 
138 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 rian principally directs his reader's attention in ii. 18 — 25, is 
 the production of the woman as a suitable partner for the 
 man. The 18th verse states the divine intention to provide 
 him w^ith such a partner. This is immediately followed in 
 the 19th by the words, "And out of the ground the Lord 
 God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the 
 air." Does the sacred writer intend to teach us that the 
 formation of every beast and fowl was subsequent to the 
 divine determination just expressed, and of course subse- 
 quent to the creation of man himself? This would be to 
 contradict the account of the creation as given in the previ- 
 ous chapter. He intends to introduce the narrative of the 
 manner in which God's purpose to provide man with a suit- 
 able companion was accomplished. As it was proper for 
 this end that Adam should inspect the various animals, their 
 creation is mentioned in immediate connexion with their 
 being brought to him, although it had taken place before the 
 man himself had been called into existence. The same 
 principle may be applied to the account of the fourth day's 
 work. It is not necessary to understand the sacred writer 
 as asserting the creation of the heavenly bodies on that day, 
 but only their developement on that day as adapted to the , 
 purposes intended, the creation of them having previously 
 taken place. 
 
 It is probable that some of my readers will consider the 
 second of the above named suppositions as more in accord- 
 ance with the comprehensive language of the first verse and 
 the general representations of Scripture. If the formation 
 of some of the celestial bodies began at the same time with 
 that of the earth, and if on the fourth day they were com- 
 pleted, or sufficiently so for the purposes intended, a popu- 
 lar use of language would allow expressions denoting cre- 
 ation to be applied to the perfection of their structure and 
 organization. Whether this view would not involve the 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 139 
 
 interpreter in other difficulties arising out of the physical 
 constitution of the universe, requires his serious conside- 
 ration. 
 
 If the view maintained in this note be admitted to be true, 
 it follows, that the opinion which presumes the author to 
 have regarded the planetary worlds as fixtures in the solid 
 arch of heaven and appendages to this globe, has not the 
 least foundation in this part of the sacred narrative. 
 
 (9.) The use of the plural in this passage has been va- 
 riously accounted for. Rosenmueller considers it as noth- 
 ing more than the usage of the Hebrew, in common with 
 other languages, to employ the plural occasionally for the 
 singular. He refers to Job xviii. 2, 3, " How long ere ije make 
 nq^^Pvl an end of words? Mark ye &c. ^^"'5^. Where- 
 fore are we — reputed vile in your sight, tl5'^5'^15?5"; 2 Sam. 
 xvi. 20, " Then said Absalom to Ahithophel, give counsel 
 among you, Qjb ^nn" ; and xxiv. 14, " And David said 
 unto Gad, I am in a great strait : let us fall, b^bSl" But all 
 these places are explicable on other grounds. Bildad ad- 
 dresses Job in the plural, because he connects him with all 
 who held the same sentiments; as, in Isa. viii. 11, 12, 13, 
 God addresses the faithful in the person of his prophet. 
 " The Lord spake to me — and instructed me,— saying, say ije 
 not— neither fear ye, &c. ; let the Lord of hosts be your fear 
 and — your dread." Absalom seeks counsel of Ahithophel's 
 coadjutors as well as of himself ; and David, in regarding the 
 divine indignation as directed against his own person, has 
 reference also to the exposure of his people. Some other 
 passages which have been referred to are also not altogether 
 satisfactory in favor of such usage, as the speaker may 
 mentally connect others with himself See Gen. xxix. 27, 
 Num. xxii. 6, Dan. ii. 36, and 1 Kings iii. 26, in the Hebrew. 
 
140 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 Besides, although an interchangeable use of singular and 
 plural may occasionally take place, as in Cant. i. 4, " Draw me, 
 we will run after thee ; the king hath brought me into his 
 chambers , we will be glad and rejoice in thee," and in se- 
 veral other places ; yet it does not apply in the present case, 
 as the whole clause which expresses the divine determination 
 is in the plural. 
 
 Some suppose the plural to be used here in accommoda- 
 tion to the language of human dignitaries. Thus Aben 
 Ezra on v. 1, speaking of the form Q^flb^. "iHi^ 'tD'^^bi^ 
 
 fir ffiitsi s^n"-! p'SJb Q'^nb^ ^2 id:pi^ mbi^ i55^!S)2^ 
 pirb iin^i mniD pi ib t)^ ptsb bD ^d ptrbn ^^m^s 
 litrbm Q^nn ^itrb biir^n m^b \^'pT\ I'oi^^ti^ r^^ib 
 t]^ni \mii Y:/2n r^^ bii^ri ninTt) n^D pT b5j^>)2t25^ 
 "iji a^^ni ir^b bnr^n yj n^ib nnD ^m trnpn "jV^JbDi 
 
 "As we afterwards meet with mi^Jj^, we know that Q'^H^JJ^ 
 is the plural form from that root. Such is the usage of the 
 language ; for every language has a mode of expressing 
 honorable distinction. In some foreign tongues this is done 
 by the inferior addressing his superior in the plural, and, 
 in Arabic, kings and great men employ the same num- 
 ber. This is also the case in Hebrew." The same prin- 
 ciple has been applied also to other texts ; as, for exam- 
 ple, to 2 Sam. vii. 22, " according to all that we have 
 heard w^ith our ears." But in a prayer to God remark- 
 able for its profound humility, it is not to be supposed 
 that David would employ the plural as indicative of majesty, 
 and such an use never elsewhere appears in the whole prayer, 
 which is of considerable length. Undoubtedly, in this clause, 
 he connects himself with the nation, as the next verse plainly 
 proves : " And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, 
 &c." Neither are the instances which have been adduced 
 in order to show that the same use of the plural is found in 
 Chaldee, satisfactory. Daniel, ii. 23, in his thanksgiving to 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 141 
 
 God, cannot be supposed to use language indicating his own 
 dignity. He associates with himself his friends, whose in- 
 tercessions with God he had before desired, (v. 17, 18,) 
 when he says : " thou hast made known unto us the king's 
 matter." And so also in v. 36, " we will tell the interpreta- 
 tion," the plural may be used for the same reason ; or 
 Daniel may appear as the representative of the wise men. 
 The whole tenor of his address shows that he had no inten- 
 tion of assuming dignity in the presence of the Babylonian 
 monarch. Another text, Ezra. iv. 18, may perhaps bear upon 
 the principle, but even this is not sufficiently explicit to prove 
 it ; and if it were, it is of too late a date to illustrate the 
 language of Genesis, and being Chaldaic, could not settle 
 Hebrew usage. King Artaxerxes does employ the plural 
 of himself: " the letter which ye sent unto zis." But most 
 probably he associates with himself his royal council. The 
 language immediately following is in the singular : " hath 
 been plainly read before me, and /commanded, &c." Another 
 instance of similar usage may be found in Gen. xxxix. 14, 
 although I am not aware that it has ever been cited in re- 
 ference to the principle under consideration. Potiphar's 
 wife cries out to her attendants, " see (^i^^^ the plural,) he 
 hath brought in a Hebrew unto us, to mock us." But 
 undoubtedly she comprehends her attendants, and speaks 
 of the asserted insult as directed against all the family. 
 Immediately afterwards, speaking solel}'" of herself, she 
 employs throughout the singular number. It is very ques- 
 tionable, therefore, whether this royal use of the plural im- 
 plying authority or distinction, existed in very ancient 
 periods ; and modern usage can have no weight. 
 
 Others again regard the phraseology as founded on the 
 scriptural doctrine of the plurality of persons in the divine 
 essence, one being supposed to address another. This view 
 agrees not only with the plain declarations of the New 
 
142 NOTES TO GENEaiS. [part I. 
 
 Testament in which this doctrine is avowed, but also with 
 occasional intimations of it given in the Old, and is in 
 character with the relative importance of the act of creation 
 which immediately follows. Under these circumstances, I 
 cannot venture to reject such an interpretation. It may in- 
 deed be, that the plural form is employed to denote the 
 plenitude of powers existing in God, in addition to the 
 plurality of persons. The Supreme may be distinguished 
 as the being who manifests himself everywhere and under 
 various forms in the powers of nature, and also in the au- 
 thorities of heaven. The multiplicity of God's works, as 
 well as the mysterious nature of his subsistence, may have 
 had an influence on this form of language, by which his 
 nature and character are expressed. See Drechsler's Ein- 
 heit und Aechtheit der Genesis, p. 14, 15. 
 
 There is, however, another view of this subject, which 
 appears to be well worthy of consideration. Rashi explains 
 the use of the plural on the ground of divine condescension. 
 The supreme being is considered as an elevated monarch, 
 surrounded by his nobles, as the great father in the midst of 
 his family. The solemnity and deliberation with which he 
 enters on the creation of man are described by representing 
 the deity as if he had condescended to consult with his 
 most distinguished angels previously to the act. The image 
 of royalty surrounded by its dignitaries, is sometimes em- 
 ployed to delineate the more vividly the character and pro- 
 ceedings of God. This figure illustrates the language of 
 our Lord respecting little children: "their angels do always 
 behold the face of my father who is in heaven," Matt, xviii. 
 10 ; that is, they are his most intimate attendants, his cour- 
 tiers ever near his throne and favored with his presence. 
 Comp. Esther i. 14, " The next unto him (the king,) — the 
 seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the Jang's 
 face and which sat the first in the kingdom" ; and Jer. lii. 25. 
 
CHAP. I— II.. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 143 
 
 " Seven men of them that were near the king's person ;" 
 literally, 'who see the king's face,' 'l572'ri~'^5^ "^l^'l. It is also 
 the ground of the exhibition made by the prophet Micaiah 
 to Ahab in 1 Kings, xxii. 19, " I saw the Lord sitting on his 
 throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his 
 right hand and on his left." And in Isaiah, chap, vi,, we 
 find the same representation. The prophet sees the Lord 
 sitting on his throne and attended by the Seraphim. The 
 language of the 8th verse is particularly worthy of notice 
 in illustration of that under review : " I heard the voice of 
 the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and who will go for 
 us ?" The holy Seraphs are so intimately connected with 
 the great king, the Lord of hosts, that his mission is repre- 
 sented as theirs. The purposes, interests, and measures of 
 both are identified, and the acts, which, properly speaking, 
 are those of the head, are figuratively attributed to the 
 members. Thus also the triumphs of Christ, and the judg- 
 ment which he is to institute, have been supposed by some 
 to be ascribed to his people, on- the ground of that spiritual 
 union by which both parties become so intimately asso- 
 ciated as to be incapable of disunion.* The creation of 
 man is of course the act of God alone, but the principle 
 illustrated allows us to consider the language which ex- 
 presses his intention as an appeal to his holy attendants. 
 
 * The language of Vitringa, in his dissertation, De sceptre Judas 
 superstite, nato Christo, in his Observationes Sacras, Lib. iv. cap. vi. 
 § vii. p. 956, is so well adapted to express my meaning, that I cannot 
 forbear citing it. Christi Jesu regnum aliquod est in mundo, cujus 
 subditi sunt omnes electi credentes. Hi proin regnum Christi dicuntur. 
 Sed iidem illi in Sanctis Uteris dicuntur reges, et cum Christo rege suo 
 regnare. Non alia quidem de causa, quam quod per fidem et amorem 
 tarn arete cum Christo voluntatibus suis conjuncti sint, ut quod Chrigtus 
 agit dominus, ipsi agere ; quee Christo Jesu ex regni administratione 
 nascitur gloria, ipsorum gloria; quam Christus exercet potestatem, 
 eandem ipsi in et cum Christo exercere censeantur. 
 
144 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 They exult in the wisdom and power of the maker, " the 
 sons of God shout for joy."' Job, xxxviii. 7. They partici- 
 pate in the pure delight with which the creator contemplates 
 his work, and feel the same complacency as if the act had 
 been their own. 
 
 (10.) The image of God is a phrase expressive of excel- 
 lence and authority. This is implied in ix. 6, where the 
 creation of man in God's image is stated as a reason for the 
 capital punishment of the murderer : " Whoso sheddeth 
 man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the 
 image of God made he man." In the eighth Psalm, also, 
 supremacy over the inferior creatures is represented as a 
 part of that " glory and honor" with which man was origi- 
 nally " crowned." This is evident, moreover, from the 
 history before us, where authority over the inferior animals 
 is immediately connected with the image of God, by which 
 man was distinguished. Knowledge and wisdom must 
 necessarily be implied ; not, indeed, of that exalted and com- 
 prehensive kind which has often been claimed for our first 
 parent, but a degree correspondent with that perfection in 
 which all the works of God were made. It seems incon- 
 sistent to suppose, with Hengstenberg (Christologie des 
 Alten Testaments, Vol. 1. p. 34, in Keith's Translation, p. 32,) 
 and others, that while Adam's body was created perfect, 
 his intellect was in the condition of childhood. And on the 
 other hand, it is equally objectionable to assume with 
 Maimonides, (JlllilJl ^llt)'^, grounds of the law, chap. iv. 
 § 14, p. 45, edit. Vorst. Amstelod. 1638, 4to.) that the intel- 
 lectual principle constituted the form in which man was 
 created: ITSiH u]^^^ H^^t^"^ T]'J^T\. The most important 
 features of the divine image in the first man were doubtless 
 his moral purity and holiness. These qualities are referred 
 to in Eccles. vii. 29, Eph. iv. 24, Col. iii. 10. In the two 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 145 
 
 latter texts they are spoken of as distinguishing " the new 
 man which is created after God," in contradistinction to the 
 " old man," the sinful character which predominates in the 
 natural mind ; and the apostle evidently refers to the image 
 of God in which man was originally made. 
 
 Many divines, both ancient and modern, have maintained, 
 that the gift of the Holy Spirit constituted the most important 
 feature of the divine image in which Adam was created. See 
 Bishop Bull's Discourse on the state of man before the fall. 
 I have not thought proper to advance this opinion, as I am not 
 satisfied that it can be supported by sufficient scriptural proof. 
 Certainly Gen. ii. 7, so often alleged in defence of it, is altoge- 
 ther inadequate. It expresses the divine origin of the living 
 principle and soul of our first parent. 
 
 To represent the image of God as consisting in uprightness 
 of external person, in contradistinction to the general form of 
 other animals, presumes an ignorance of the divine being in- 
 consistent with the character of the writer, and gives a con- 
 temptible sense, alike unworthy of the book and incapable of 
 proof. Such childish conceptions of God are very little in har- 
 mony with the majesty, wisdom, and power, ascribed to him 
 in the representations throughout the chapter. Indeed, it may 
 well be doubted, whether the erect form in which man was 
 created, was even intended to indicate thatilivine image in 
 which his soul was originally made, although such an opin- 
 ion has been often expressed and is avowed by Augustin. 
 Si ergo et hominem de terra et bestias de terra ipse forma- 
 vit, quid habet homo excellentius in hac re, nisi quod ipse 
 ad imaginem Dei creatus est ? Nee tamen hoc secundum 
 corpus, sed secundum intellectum mentis, de quo post lo- 
 quemur. Quanquam et in ipso corpore habeat quandam 
 proprietatem, quae hoc indicet, quod erecta statura factus 
 est, ut hoc ipso admoneretur, non sibi terrena esse sectanda, 
 velut pecora, quorum voluptas omnis ex terra est, unde in 
 19 
 
146 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 alvum cuncta prona atque prostrata sunt. Congruit ergo, 
 &c. De Genesi ad literam, Lib. VI. cap. xii. Opera, Tom. 
 III. p. 155, edit. Bened. The ground of distinction which is 
 supposed to be found in the form of the inferior creatures, 
 is insufficient as an argument, inasmuch as it is not true of 
 all, especially of birds. 
 
 I consider the language of Dr. Palfrey, in his Acade- 
 mical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities* 
 p. 224, 225, (Lect. X.), as utterly unfounded and dis- 
 honorable to the intellectual and religious character of the 
 great Hebrew lawgiver. " The mind of Moses had not 
 yet" (the period referred to in Ex. xxxiii.) been elevated to 
 the conception of a purely spiritual deity. How should it 
 be ? How can we represent to ourselves the probability of 
 such an immense progress having been made by him beyond 
 the universal apprehensions of his age ? Moses could have 
 had no idea but of a deity with a body ; a body glorious 
 indeed, but definite, limited, and visible." Indeed ! Did 
 Moses receive any knowledge of God from revelation, or 
 was he left to the guidance of his natural powers ? It is 
 only on the latter supposition that the author's inquiry has 
 any force ; and it is hardly necessary to add, that this sup- 
 position implies a denial of his inspiration and divine au- 
 thority. " The doctrine alone of Moses, so remote from the 
 sentiments and philosophy of his age, and so agreeable to 
 truth, creates a strong presumption of his having received 
 it by immediate revelation." Dissertation on Miracles by 
 Hugh Farmer, chap. iii. sect. iii. p. 148, third edition, Lon- 
 don, 1810, 12mo. 
 
 (11.) An attempt has been made to explain these verses 
 so as to comprehend the grant of animal food to man, as 
 well as vegetable. But the interpretation is evidently forced. 
 The express grant of animal food was given after the flood, 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 147 
 
 ix. 3 : " every living thing that moveth shall be meat for 
 you ;" but probably such food had been used before, as it is 
 fitted to the human constitution, and otherwise a dispropor- 
 tionate increase of cattle must have taken place. Indeed, 
 it is likely from ix. 4, that some of the antediluvians prac- 
 tised cruel abuses, and ate the living flesh. 
 
 (12.) In the second verse, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and 
 the Septuagint and Syriac versions, read sixth day instead 
 of seventh. But this is probably a departure from the ori- 
 ginal text, intended to remove the supposed difficulty of 
 God's being said to have finished on the seventh day. The 
 apparent contradiction between this and what is said in the 
 last of the first chapter, is removed by considering the verb 
 here as in the pluperfect. 
 
 The paradisaical origin of the sabbath as a day of holy 
 rest and worship, is clearly to be inferred from the text. 
 The supposition of anticipative reference to the fourth com- 
 mandment is an unnatural assumption. As the Sabbath is 
 an institution alike useful and important for mankind in 
 general, it were unreasonable to limit its benefits to one 
 nation without explicit authority. The intimations, which 
 occasionally appear in the book of Genesis, of more than 
 ordinary solemnity being attached to the number seven, and 
 particularly its use in designating periods of time, are best 
 explained on this ground. The sabbath is not indeed di- 
 rectly mentioned in the history of the patriarchs, but it is 
 probably alluded to ; and if not, the remarkable brevity of the 
 narrative diminishes the force of any argument which might 
 be drawn from the omission. The manner in which the 
 Hebrew law commences, " remember the sabbath day," 
 (Exod. XX. 8,) seems to imply that the institution was not 
 altogether new, although it had fallen greatly into desuetude ; 
 and this view of the subject affords the best exposition of 
 
148 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 the narrative, (chap, xvi.) in which the sabbath is originally 
 introduced. It is true, that sometimes the law is urged on 
 the ground of a different sanction from that first presented, 
 as in Deut. v. 15, when the deliverance of the Hebrews 
 from the slavery of Egypt is stated as the motive : " Re- 
 member that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and 
 that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a 
 mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore the 
 Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day." 
 But this is not exclusive of the original sanction. It adds 
 to it by an appeal to the gratitude of the Hebrews. Thus 
 also we celebrate the Christian sabbath or Lord's day, in 
 commemoration of our Saviours resurrection, as well as of 
 the creation of all things. 
 
 Since writing the above, I have met with Professor J. G. 
 Palfrey's Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures 
 and Antiquities: Boston, 1838. In the ninth lecture of this 
 work, he states his view of the nature and origin of the sab- 
 bath, which he considers as an institution purely Mosaic, re- 
 quiring simply cessation from labor, not at all of a religious 
 character, and in this respect " entirely different" from " the 
 Christian Lord's-day." Although it would not comport 
 with the design of these notes to discuss this whole subject 
 copiously, yet I cannot but remark on some points in the 
 Professor's statements and course of argument, which appear 
 to me wholly unwarranted. 
 
 Dr. Palfrey allows the deliverance from Egypt and the 
 designation of a covenant between God and the Hebrew 
 people, to be the distinguishing characteristics of the Jewish 
 sabbath, p. 188, 194. And yet he does not hesitate to say 
 as follows: "A Jew who should sit perfectly unemployed, 
 or even who should sleep, through the day, would have kept 
 the sabbath with a punctilious observance." p. 186. And 
 again : " Rest from labor, (which may be mere indolent re- 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 149 
 
 pose,) I find to be the essence of the Jewish observance." 
 p. 197. Is it reasonable to believe that an institution so un- 
 meaning in the character of its requisition, which the brute 
 creation could be made to observe as punctually and fully as 
 man, should have been established by the allwise,and enjoined 
 on the Hebrews, by solemn sanctions, as commemorative of 
 a great national deliverance, and as a perpetual sign of cove- 
 nant relationship with God ? I should be at a loss to vindi- 
 cate the wisdom or propriety of an institution having such 
 important objects in view, " the essence of the observance" 
 of which " may be mere indolent repose" 
 
 The author objects to the application in favor of the sab- 
 bath being used as a day of " religious services," which has 
 often been made of the question put to the Shunammitess by 
 her husband : " Wherefore wilt thou go to him (the prophet) 
 to-day ? it is neither new moon nor sabbath." 2 Kings iv. 
 23. " Nothing is said or implied of worship. The sabbaths 
 and the new moons were both holidays, and therefore suita- 
 ble for the offering of presents and the visiting of friends ; 
 and accordingly, the question is asked, why a day should be 
 chosen for visiting Elisha which was not the customary 
 day." p. 186, note. It will not be contended that any expli- 
 cit and definite recognition of divine worship on the sabbath 
 is contained in the text quoted ; and neither is there any 
 such recognition of what the author supposes to be the os- 
 tensible object of the visit. But when we read in Isa. Ixvi. 
 23, "it shall come to pass that from one new moon to 
 another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh 
 come to worship before me, saith the Lord," can it be denied 
 that sabbaths and new moons were at that time regarded 
 as well known and established seasons of worship ? And is 
 it not most reasonable to infer that the connexion of the two 
 feasts in the former passage, exactly analogous to that in the 
 latter, implies that they were both so used in the time of the 
 
150 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 Shunammitess ? And this, be it remembered, was only 
 about a century and a half before Isaiah wrote.* "We 
 have therefore, in the places before us, ordinary practice 
 founded on the law, and exhibiting the national construction 
 then ofiven to the law. And wherein could this construction 
 have beeji found but in the natural meaning of the language 
 of the law, the " sanctification" of the sabbath which it an- 
 nounces, and the " holy convocation" which it requires ? See 
 Levit. xxiii. 3. On this latter point the Professor remarks, that 
 the " holy convocation appears to mean no more than that 
 there should be an assemblage of such as might be within con- 
 venient distance, to witness the one national sacrifice, oifered at 
 the one place of national worship ; or perhaps that there should 
 be festive meetings of friends, a use to which we know that the 
 day was actually put. See Luke xiv. 1 ; Hos. ii. 11." But 
 the command respecting the sacrifice of which he speaks, 
 does not occur in the chapter of Leviticus. It is to be found 
 in Num. xxviii. 9, 10, to which the phrase in Leviticus can- 
 not possibly refer ; nor is it credible that it should refer to 
 the same thing, the sacrifice itself, which would then un- 
 doubtedly have been specified in the context. But so far 
 from this being the case, it is evidently implied that the holy 
 convocation is an essential constituent of the sabbatical requi- 
 sitions, as also of the other festivals mentioned in the chapter. 
 With the text in Leviticus above referred to, compare v. 2, 4, 
 7, 8, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, 37. To limit such convocation to an 
 assemblage at the national altar, is therefore inadmissible ; 
 because, while some of the festivals were celebrated only in 
 that place, others were kept wherever it might be conve- 
 nient to the panty. 
 
 * The genuineness of tlie latter part of llie book of Isaiah, which 
 by universal consent has, until late years, been ascribed to the prophet, 
 is here presumed ; and I tliink has been satisfactorily maintained against 
 all the objections which German neologiaus have raised against it. 
 
CHAP. I— 11. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 151 
 
 The references by which the author endeavors to prove 
 the second alternative suggested by him, after Le Clerc and 
 others, that the ' holy convocation' was a " festive meeting 
 of friends," can at the very most only show that such meet- 
 ings did occasionally take place on the sabbath, but surely 
 not that they constituted an essential part of the requisition 
 of the law. If this were the case, it were difficult to see 
 how the unemployed or sleeping Jew could have punctili- 
 ously observed the sabbath. But the applicability of the 
 references is itself doubtful. The first only shows, with va- 
 rious other places in the Gospels, that our Lord occasionally 
 accepted an invitation to a meal on the sabbath. That any 
 ' festivity' was connected with those occasions cannot be 
 proved. In the only other passage referred to, the prophet 
 classes sabbaths with all other solemn feasts, and declares 
 that the " mirth" with which their celebration was charac- 
 terized should " cease." Doubtless the Jewish festivals were 
 intended to be occasions of devout and grateful joy, marked 
 at the same time by a generous, though rational allowance 
 of the gratifications of life. What we know of human na- 
 ture will not suffer us to doubt, that they were perverted to 
 extravagant and luxurious indulgence, in proportion as the 
 people became vicious and threw off the restraints of reli- 
 gion. And this is probably part of the mirth to which Ho- 
 sea alludes, although it cannot be doubted that he predicts 
 the loss of all the ' gladness' which their joyful celebrations 
 brought along with them. But that the sabbath could not 
 have been intended to be kept with much festivity or luxu- 
 rious gratification of the appetite, would seem quite evident 
 from the law which forbade a fire to be kindled on that day. 
 See Exod. xxxv. 3. The spirit of the language in Isa. Iviii. 
 15, is also adverse to such a supposition. " If thou turn away 
 thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my 
 holy day, and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, 
 
152 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 honorable, and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, 
 nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own 
 words ; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord, &c." 
 
 In considering that view of the sabbath which supposes it 
 to be of paradisaical origin, as given in the former part of 
 this note, the Professor explains the meaning of the phrase, 
 "God blessed and sanctified the seventh day," thus, "he 
 pronounced a blessing upon it, — he commended it, — because 
 (this is agreeable to the whole anthropomorphitic cast of 
 the passage) it was for him a day of leisure after six days 
 of toil. 'And he sanctified it.' How? By making it a 
 holy institution? This is the gloss put upon the word by 
 force of an opinion derived from some subsequent texts, but 
 the word itself implies no such thing. It signifies merely 
 'to set apart,' 'to sequester,' to some distinctive use, just as 
 we might speak of dedicating or devoting a day to amuse- 
 ment, to leisure, to study.* And I submit with confidence, 
 that, if we were not biassed to a peculiar interpretation of 
 this text by views preconceived from other sources, we 
 should not think of regarding it as speaking of the appoint- 
 ment, at any time, or in any way, of a religious institution 
 for man. We should understand it but as declaring, either 
 that God (for himself, and not for man,) made the last day 
 of the first week (for the time being, and not for future time,) 
 happy and sacred, peculiar, distinct from the days which 
 had preceded, by resting upon it ; or that he called that day 
 a blessed and a holy, distinguished day, on which he thus 
 found repose from labor." p. 189, 190. 
 
 According to the author, then, the meaning of the words, 
 " God blessed the seventh day," is simply this, ' God com- 
 mended the seventh day of the first week.' This is very in- 
 
 * We should perhaps hardly speak of consecrating a day to any but 
 a religious use. But the French freely use their corresponding word 
 with all the latitude wlaich we give to ' dedicate,' and ' devote.' 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESig. 153 
 
 telligible. A day may be commended, praised, pronounced 
 blessed, because it is in use or has been used as a period of 
 rest. But what meaning does he attach to the phrase, 
 " sanctified it V In reality, none at all beyond what is im- 
 plied in the term " blessed." " He made it happy and sa- 
 cred, or he called it blessed and holy, by resting upon it ;" 
 that is, the resting of God is itself the consecration. He 
 does indeed say that the word signifies, "to set apart, de- 
 vote." But such " sequestration, distinctive use," implies 
 some object, which, according to the author's view, can be 
 none other than the " rest" which " God himself enjoyed." 
 How, then, does such a sense of the phrase accord with 
 what follows ? ' God pronounced a blessing upon the seventh 
 day, and set it apart for his own rest, because that in it he 
 rested from all his work.' Thus the fact stated is made to 
 appear as a reason for itself! 
 
 The text declares in language sufficiently perspicuous, 
 not that God's resting on that individual day is identical 
 with the blessing and setting apart of it, but that he blessed 
 and set it apart because he had rested on it ; and this setting 
 of it apart for the specified reason must have been for some 
 object other than the reason itself. 
 
 What this object was, is quite clear from other texts, 
 which have plainly a retrospective reference to this in Gene- 
 sis : " In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, &c., and 
 rested the seventh day, ivherefore the Lord blessed the 
 seventh day and hallowed it," (that is, sanctified it ; for both 
 the verbs are the same as those used in Genesis.) Ex. xx. 
 11. "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sab- 
 bath, &c. ; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel 
 forever ; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth." 
 Ex. xxxi. 16,17. 
 
 Dr. Palfrey would remove the difficulty which these pas- 
 sages and the one under consideration present to his view, 
 20 
 
154 NOTES TO GENESIS. [pakt I. 
 
 in a very summary way. The old theory of anticipation, he 
 very properly does not seem to regard as worthy of notice. 
 But the knot that cannot be untied, must be cut. He main- 
 tains that both these texts are spurious, and advances his 
 interpretation of the one in Genesis, " supposing the latter 
 half of the second verse and the third to be genuine," plainly 
 enough intimating his suspicion that they are not. As his 
 course of argument tends, in my opinion, to unsettle our 
 confidence in the genuineness of such passages in the Pen- 
 tateuch as may seem to us inconsistent with others, or may 
 be irreconcileable with our own views, I must beg the read- 
 er's indulgence while I endeavor briefly to examine it. In 
 order to enable him to judge for himself, and to give at the 
 same time a full representation of the author's reasoning, 
 I shall extract the whole argument. 
 
 " I would ask whether any one can compare this verse 
 (Ex. XX. 11,) carefully with its parallel in Deuteronomy, and 
 then be confident in the opinion that it did make an original 
 part of the decalogue. In Deuteronomy (v. 15.) we find no 
 such words, but instead of them the following, which accord 
 entirely with the view of the institution first given above : 
 'And remember that thou wert a servant in the land of 
 Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence 
 with a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore 
 the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath- 
 day.' 
 
 " Will it be said, that one of these texts cannot be used to 
 invalidate the other, inasmuch as the reason given in Exo- 
 dus, and that in Deuteronomy, were both good, and not mu- 
 tually inconsistent, reasons for the institution ; that they were 
 both accordingly announced on Sinai ; and that in Exodus 
 the mention of only one was preferred, in Deuteronomy only 
 of the other? I apprehend that, under the circumstances, 
 this view is altoffether untenable. What the writer of the 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] • NOTES TO GENESIS. 155 
 
 Pentateuch is doing in both these instances, is not prescri- 
 bing an institution, and assigning reasons for it. In that 
 case he might, no doubt, with perfect propriety, select, from 
 among good reasons, one to be urged at one time, and 
 another at another time. But what he has undertaken to 
 do, is to relate to us a fact ; to tell us what God declared, 
 by a supernatural voice, at a certain place and time ; and 
 those too, I may add, a place and time when every word 
 was to be chosen, to make the most effectual impression. 
 Under these circumstances, can it be maintained that Mo- 
 ses, designing to act the part of a veracious narrator, in ac- 
 quainting us with specific luords ivhich God spake,* could 
 give important words in one place, then omit them in 
 another, where he is relating the same occurrence, and give 
 us other important words, significant of a quite diflferent 
 cause of a material provision of his law, in their stead ? 
 
 " I have said, that Moses undertakes, in these two texts, if 
 he wrote both, to apprize us of words which God spake* in the 
 people's hearing ; and yet they differ from each other. But 
 we are told still more respecting the specific character of 
 the words in question. God ' wrote them,' it is said, (that 
 is, wrote the words recited in the context,) ' in two tables of 
 stone.' Deut. v. 22. If he wrote the precise words recorded 
 in Deuteronomy as the decalogue — those words, and no 
 other, (and under the circumstances it seems unavoidable to 
 interpret with all this precision,) — then the decalogue did 
 not contain the words attached in Exodus to the fourth com- 
 mandment, in which that precept is said to be founded on 
 the event of God's creation of the world. And, as if to 
 preclude all doubt upon the point, it is even declared, in the 
 passage last quoted, that no other words were used than the 
 words which it specifies. ' These words the Lord spake — 
 
 * The use of the italics is the author's. 
 
156 NOTES TO GENESIS, [part I. 
 
 * 
 
 and he added no more ; and he wrote them in two tables of 
 stone.' 
 
 " If, then, under the circumstances, the essential character 
 of an exact narrative precludes the supposition of both these 
 passages having been written by Moses, which is to be re- 
 garded as having proceeded from his hand ? Certainly no 
 reasons appear why the authenticity of that in Exodus 
 should be asserted to the prejudice of the other ; and if the 
 question had to be left altogether in suspense, I apprehend 
 that the remarks which have been made would show it to 
 be altogether unsafe to argue, from the passage in Exodus, 
 that the sabbatical institution was contemporaneous with the 
 creation of the world. But further; in comparing the claims 
 of the two passages to be considered authentic, one to the 
 exclusion of the other, we cannot lose sight of the fact, that 
 the passage in Deuteronomy presents the same view of the 
 sabbath with that exhibited so fully in the texts quoted 
 above : a circumstance which affords strong presumption of 
 its superior authority. 
 
 " These views, I think, dispose one strongly to the conclu- 
 sion, that the verse of Exodus in question was not written 
 by Moses, but by some later hand. Nothing could be more 
 natural than for some possessor of his writings, struck by an 
 apparent coincidence between the command to keep the 
 Jewish sabbath, as inserted in the decalogue, and God's re- 
 posing on the seventh day, as related at the beginning of 
 Genesis, to have recorded his remark as a gloss in the mar- 
 gin of his book, whence, as is known to have been the case 
 with some of the most important interpolations of the Bible, 
 it subsequently found its way into the body of the page. 
 And I will not disguise my opinion, that the history of the 
 text in Deuteronomy was probably the same, though it pre- 
 sents what I believe to be the true view of the sabbath. I 
 have argued that both texts could not be genuine. I think 
 
CHAP. I— 11. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 157 
 
 it most likely that neither is so ; and my chief reason for this 
 persuasion is, that, supposing the genuineness of either, it 
 presents a fragment diflering in its tone and structure from 
 all the rest of the decalogue, since the decalogue, in every 
 other case, studying the utmost brevity, deals only in laws 
 and their sanctions, without exhibiting the reasons on which 
 they were founded : a topic which seems foreign to its 
 purpose. 
 
 " And the same view, I think, is to be taken, perhaps with 
 even greater confidence, of the only other important text 
 bearing upon this point, Ex. xxxi. 17. I will not say that 
 this text is rendered suspicious by the abrupt change of per- 
 sons which it exhibits, indicating the second clause to be but 
 a gloss, though certainly its structure is strikingly consistent 
 with that view. But, if I mistake not, the second clause 
 which is all that concerns us in this inquiry, is a palpable 
 contradiction to the first, such as strongly to discredit the 
 supposition that Moses was its writer. ' The children of 
 Israel,' it is said, ' shall keep the sabbath, to observe the 
 sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual cove- 
 nant ; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel for- 
 ever.' And why were the children of Israel to observe this 
 sign, wdiich was a token of their covenant ivith God? 'For,' 
 the text goes on; ' in six days the Lord made heaven and 
 earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed,' 
 {took breath.) That is, for a sign between me and them- 
 selves, they are to keep a day, in which all the world, 
 as much as themselves, has an interest. I can scarcely en- 
 tertain a doubt that the last clause of the verse in question 
 was, in the first instance, a note upon the passage to which 
 we now find it attached, suggested by the reading of the 
 related passage in the second chapter of Genesis. 
 
 " I have thus submitted what seems to me good reason for 
 believing that neither of the two texts, quoted from the law 
 
158 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 to prove the ante-Mosaic origin of the sabbatical institution, 
 originally made part of that document, and for adhering ac- 
 cordingly to the conclusion, that the Jewish sabbath was 
 simply a Jewish festival. The course which I take might 
 be more questionable, were it not precisely the same, which 
 reasons of the case, — scarcely, I think, more urgent than 
 those which have application here, — compel us to take with 
 respect to several texts, for which the mere external evi- 
 dence is as complete as it is for any part of the Pentateuch, 
 but which, notwithstanding, no one can deny to be spurious, 
 provided he is of opinion that Moses wrote the book which 
 contains them. There is no other alternative. We must 
 either refer the whole Pentateuch to a later age, or we must 
 allow that, after Moses had composed that volume, it shared, 
 in some degree, the lot of other books, and received occa- 
 sional interpolations, originating often in marginal comments. 
 Believing that we have sufficient proof of Moses having 
 written the books, we accordingly adopt that theory, along 
 with its necessary incident of the spuriousness of certain 
 parts ; and this we do the more readily, because often a little 
 observation shows us that these parts are of a parenthetical 
 character, not breaking by their removal the continuity of 
 the sense, and so presenting precisely the appearance which 
 glosses of foreign origin would naturally we"ar." pp. 190-195. 
 Preparatory to a review of the Professor's arguments, I 
 would also ask, whether any one can compare those three 
 texts, and not perceive and feel that they exactly harmonize 
 with each other, and also with the opinion of a paradisaical 
 origin of the sabbath as a day of holy rest and worship. 
 If spurious, then, the probability is exceedingly strong, that 
 they were introduced with the view of supporting this 
 opinion ; which, consequently, must have been pretty gene- 
 rally admitted in the time of their author. This, of course, 
 will carry up the opinion itself to a very early period ; if it 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 159 
 
 be allowed that the Samaritan Pentateuch descended from 
 copies existing among the ten tribes before the Assyrian 
 captivity, or even the Babylonian, to a period when the 
 Hebrew nation flourished in its greatness. And we may 
 reasonably ask, whence such an opinion originated, if it be 
 unfounded in scripture, as it must be if these texts are 
 spurious. To the great deliverance from Egypt, the glo- 
 rious independence of the people, the only fact which the 
 sabbath was instituted to commemorate, — why should the 
 Hebrews append a reference to the period of time employed 
 by God in the formation of the world, and to the day of 
 rest immediately subsequent, thus calling off the national 
 mind from the single purpose intended, to another altogether 
 different ? All embarrassment on this point is removed by 
 admitting the commonly received opinion. 
 
 I am willing to allow that the text of the New Testament 
 is supported on external grounds, much more susceptible of 
 careful observation and determinate settlement than that of 
 the Old. This will probably be granted by all who are 
 acquainted with the data on which each is maintained to be 
 generally correct. In the language of the author, an in- 
 terpolation may exist in the Pentateuch " for which the 
 external evidence is as complete as it is for any part of it. 
 We must allow that it shared in some degree the lot of other 
 books, and received occasional interpolations." But then, 
 in every such case, satisfactory reasons for supposing inter- 
 polation must be given ; and here Dr. Palfrey has failed in 
 the case under consideration. 
 
 The whole ground on which he maintains the spurious- 
 ness of the three texts, is their alleged inconsistency with 
 Deut. V. 15, and the representations so often made of 
 the sabbath as a day of rest.* Unless he has substantiated 
 his allegation, their genuineness remains unaffected. 
 
 * Oa the same ground, Gabler, in his Versuche iiber the Schop- 
 
160 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part !. 
 
 The view commonly taken of the two texts m Exodus 
 and Deuteronomy, that each assigns a separate reason for 
 observing the sabbath not exclusive of the other,* is con- 
 sidered by the author as " untenable. The writer is not 
 assigning reasons for an institution, but acquainting us with 
 specific words which God spake." He particularly insists 
 upon this point. " Moses undertakes to apprize us of words 
 which God spake in the people's hearing ;" and he " wrote 
 them, that is, the words recited — the precise words re- 
 corded — those words, and no other. These words the Lord 
 spake — and he added no more." 
 
 But I appeal to any candid and liberal interpreter to say, 
 whether such an assumption is not unreasonable and con- 
 trary to the general use of scriptural language. When we 
 read, that ' the word of the Lord came to a prophet, say- 
 ing,' or, ' the Lord said unto a prophet,' does any one sup- 
 pose that the language following such an introduction are 
 the identical words in which the communication was 
 audibly conveyed to the prophet's ear 1 To refute such an 
 extravagant notion in the present day would be to waste 
 the time and patience of the reader. And I apprehend that 
 few would be more willing than the Professor himself to 
 dispense with argument on such a point. And yet, I can- 
 not see any essential difference -between this case and that 
 of giving the decalogue. In the latter the circumstances of 
 
 fungsgeschichte, p. 63, rejects Ex. xx. 8 ss. and xxxi. 12 — 17, because 
 in Deut. v. 12 — 16, Moses mentions another design of the sabbath. 
 See Jahn's Introduction, p. 215, (note b) ; or his Einleitung in die 
 Gottlichen Biicher des Alten Bundes, Theil II. p. 136. 
 
 * Maimonides lias elated these two reasons with remarkable distinct- 
 ness and propriety. They may be found in his Moreli Nevochim, 
 Part II. chap. 31, p. 46, Berlin edition, 283, Buxtorf's Transla- 
 tion. Patrick, in his note on Ex. xx. 11, has placed his remarks 
 within the reach of the English reader. 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 161 
 
 solemnity, of terror, of sublimity, and consequently of im- 
 pression, are undoubtedly greater. The publicity of the 
 audible communication is also a peculiar and an important 
 circumstance. Still, it remains to be proved, that the author 
 of the Pentateuch intended to deliver the very words in 
 which the ten commandments were embodied. If he have 
 clothed them in terms best fitted to express the laws in- 
 tended to be promulged, he might employ the language 
 which he has used, in evident consistency with the ordinary 
 phraseology of scripture, even if the words had been se- 
 lected by himself. Certain language, certain words, are 
 constantly said to be used, when the meaning evidently is, 
 that the sentiments which they express are avowed or 
 cherished. See, among a multitude of illustrations, Deut. 
 xxxiii. 9, Isa. xxviii. 15. The terms ' word' and ' thing' are 
 often equivalent, and used in our translation to denote the 
 same Hebrew expression "^IZlT We have an illustration of 
 this in Ex. xxxv. 1,4:" These are the words d'^'l^'^H ;" and, 
 " this is the thi?ig ^13'^n." The former of these texts, 
 together with the two verses immediately following, is so 
 strikingly applicable to the point in question, that I must be 
 allowed to quote them in full. " These are the words which 
 the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six 
 days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall 
 be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord : who- 
 soever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall 
 kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath 
 day." On the ground which Dr. Palfrey assumes, the pro- 
 hibition of a fire on the sabbath must also have been audi- 
 bly enunciated by God himself; or rather, this text also must 
 be stricken out of the Pentateuch, because it contains matter 
 additional to the very words supposed to have been uttered, 
 of which it is " even declared, as if to preclude all doubt 
 upon the point," (says the author,) " ajid he added no moi^e" 
 21 
 
162 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 If we maintain that the language in which the decalogue is 
 contained in Deuteronomy is the very words in which it 
 was uttered on Sinai, then most certainly the language in 
 Exodus (chap, xx.) cannot be the very words, for they 
 differ in several particulars from the former, as any one 
 may see who will take the trouble to compare them. And 
 were it really necessary " to interpret with all this precis- 
 ion," I submit whether we should not rather suppose the 
 chapter in Exodus to contain the identical words, because it 
 is the history of the giving of the law, of the very original 
 publication of it, whereas that in Deuteronomy is only the 
 re-statement of the fact made by Moses to the Israelites long 
 after it occurred. 
 
 Here, in passing, I may be allowed to express my firm 
 persuasion, that not a few able commentators have per- 
 plexed themselves with difficulties leading to forced con- 
 structions of texts in themselves sufficiently plain, on the 
 supposition that verbal harmony was to be expected, where 
 the sacred writers intended simply to express the same 
 thought, or to make the same general representation. A 
 comparison of 2 Sam. vii. with 1 Chron. xvii, xxviii. 3 — 7, 
 will afford an illustration to any one who is tolerably well 
 acquainted with commentaries. 
 
 Thus far I have considered the point in question in refer- 
 ence to the ordinary scriptural use of language. But I 
 ought not to omit the fact particularly important in this 
 case, that the very term rendered loords is actually the one 
 employed by the divine historian to express the command- 
 ments themselves. Thus, in Ex. xxxiv. 29, we have for "the 
 ten commandments," tD'^'li'^!! illffl^^ ; and so in Deut. iv. 
 13, and x. 4, in both which places these same " ten com- 
 mandments" or ' words,' Q'^llZll, are said to have been 
 written on the " two tables of stone." And it is especially 
 worthy of notice, that in the very verse on the latter clause 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS- 163 
 
 of which Dr. Palfrey lays such stress (Deut. v. 22, in the 
 Heb. 19,) the very same term occurs in the very same 
 sense. " These woi^ds (commandments, Q'^'li'^n,) the Lord 
 spake unto all your assembly, &c." Of course, when Moses 
 says : " and he added no more ; and he wrote them in two 
 tables of stone," he means to teach us, that the ten previously 
 recited commandments constitute the whole of the law 
 which was in that manner preserved. Whether one series 
 of terms is employed in exhibiting them or another, is there- 
 fore of little or no consequence. 
 
 But although Dr. Palfrey has argued against the text in 
 Exodus from that in Deuteronomy, his persuasion is that 
 neither is genuine, because " the decalogue in every other 
 case, studying the utmost brevity, deals only in laws and 
 their sanctions," while this "exhibits the reasons on which the 
 law was founded, a topic which seems foreign to its purpose." 
 
 If, indeed, the external evidence were of such a kind as to 
 throw suspicion on the genuineness of the text, the Pro- 
 fessor's argument might be allowed a place ; although, even 
 in that case, I think the importance to be attached to it 
 would be very inconsiderable. The circumstances of the 
 Israelites may have been such as to afford sufficient cause 
 for giving the reasons of this particular law. Their long 
 residence in Egypt may have weakened both their regard 
 for the sabbatical institution, and their knowledge of the 
 grounds on which it was established ; and it may have been 
 highly expedient to impress these considerations on their 
 minds. And the positive nature of the law, in contradis- 
 tinction to the moral character of all the others, may have 
 added another motive leading to the introduction of reasons 
 in this particular case. Besides, the lawgiver is not so 
 studious of brevity as he is represented to be. The second 
 commandment goes very much into detail, in the represen. 
 tation both of the law and its sanction. Neither can we 
 
164 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 argue from any peculiarity in the manner of representing a 
 law. Several contain merely the words of the statute ; 
 others exhibit, in more or less length, the sanctions ; to the 
 fifth alone, a direct and positive promise is added ; and in 
 the fourth, a reason for the institution which it prescribes. 
 The author's " persuasion" is therefore not warranted by the 
 grounds alleged. 
 
 The latter clause of Ex. xxxi. 17, is considered as spuri- 
 ous, because it " is a palpable contradiction to the first." 
 But this assertion rests on very inadequate proof. The ar^. 
 gument alleged is, that the observance of an institution in- 
 tended as a sign of covenant relation between God and the 
 Israelites, could not be required on the ground stated, which 
 would equally well apply to all mankind. It is a sufficient 
 answer to this objection, that the sabbath was revived among 
 the Israelites after its observance had been partly lost, and 
 then it was made a sign. Thus also circumcision was 
 enjoined on Abraham's whole family, and yet, when the 
 covenant relation became limited to the Israelites, it became 
 a sign between God and them. Any institution divinely 
 estabUshed by Moses might have been constituted a sign 
 between God and his people, even if it had been observed 
 in earlier patriarchal times. Its prior establishment and 
 more general use are quite consistent with its re-establish- 
 ment with this distinctive object in view. That part of the 
 verse of the spuriousness of which Dr. Palfrey " scarcely 
 entertains a doubt," gives a general reason for the sabbati- 
 cal institution ; the other states its particular intent in refer*- 
 ence to the Israelites. Surely nothing like palpable contra- 
 diction can be proved. 
 
 The Mosaic account of the creation has been supposed to 
 be contradicted by geological investigations, demonstrating 
 that long periods of time must have been required for the 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 165 
 
 lives of those successions of animal and vegetable substan- 
 ces, and for those mineral productions, the existence of 
 which is proved by organic and fossil remains still in being ; 
 and also for other phenomena, which an examination of the 
 structure of the earth exhibits. But, on the other hand, 
 some of the best geologists maintain, that the present state 
 of the science proves the facts which have been discovered 
 to be in harmony with the scriptural account properly un- 
 derstood. Various views of this account have had their 
 respective advocates. A clear and comprehensive exhibi- 
 tion of these views may be seen, in an article on " The Con- 
 nexion between Geology and the Mosaic History of the 
 Creation, by Edward Hitchcock, Professor of Chemistry 
 and Natural History in Amherst College," published in the 
 Biblical Repository and Quarterly Observer for October, 
 1835.* Of these various views, two may be regarded 
 as most entitled to respect. The one supposes the first 
 verse to relate the original creation of the material which 
 formed the substance of the world, and the remainder to be 
 a history of its arranged and orderly construction, at some 
 subsequent period, leaving sufficient time between the two 
 for the production of the various phenomena. The other 
 connects the first verse with the following in order of time, 
 and interprets the days of distinct periods, sufficiently long 
 to admit of the geological facts being explained. If the 
 phrase, " the evening and the morning," which occurs so 
 often in this narrative, be interpreted literally, (and this is in 
 accordance with the narrative in general, and indeed with 
 the general contents of the whole book of Genesis,) the con- 
 clusion is irresistible, that it designates the period of one 
 revolution of the earth on its axis ; the time ordinarily un- 
 derstood by the phrase ' day and night,' vv)(Pr,iis^ov. It is 
 
 * This instructive paper did not come under my notice until some 
 time after I had written the above analysis and notes. 
 
166 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 the opinion of several scientific men, and of some commen- 
 tators, that the term ' day ' is " equivalent to a period of 
 undefined extent," and that, thus, the sacred writer speaks of 
 " six indefinite days or periods made up of an equally in- 
 definite number of common or twenty-four-hour days." 
 This view is defended by Professor Bush in his note on 
 Gen. i. 5, and is given in his language. But it is incapable 
 of support, if the narrative be literal. True it is that the 
 term ' day,' in Hebrew as in other languages, is often used 
 for a period of time of undefined or unknown extent, and so 
 is also the term ' hour ;' as in the phrases " the day that the 
 Lord God made, &c." " the day that I brought you out of 
 the land of Egypt," " the day of the Lord cometh, &c.," 
 " the hour cometh, &c. ;" and in common parlance we say, 
 " such an one has had his day,' ' his day is past.' But the 
 succession of days here mentioned to the seventh as much 
 precludes any such supposition in this case, and obliges us, 
 if we adhere to a literal sense, to comprehend the whole in 
 one week, as would the consecutive notice of hours, from 
 one to twelve, oblige us to understand the aggregate as 
 denoting one popular day. It is said that " the true import 
 of the numeral Ifl^ one, seems in several instances to be 
 that of certain, peculiar, special, Lat. quidam." This adjunct 
 sense to its ordinary numeral meaning may perhaps be oc- 
 casionally admitted, but very seldom, and never unless clearly 
 intimated by the context or nature of the subject. The use 
 of the cardinal one for the ordinal fo^st in v. 5, may be ex- 
 plained by supposing that the historian, after mentioning the 
 formation of light, its separation from darkness, and the 
 name by which each was denoted, proceeds to say, that 
 God having advanced so far in the act of creation, " the 
 evening and the morning were Tlliii 'DV day one" Rec- 
 koning aftervi^ards from this one day inclusive, he uses the 
 ordinals second, third, &c. Comp. Tit. iii. 10, m-sto, /xi'av 
 
CHAP. I— 11. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 167 
 
 * 
 
 xai SsvTs^av, after one and the second. This method of ex- 
 planation is not indeed necessary, as the cardinal one is 
 several times used for the ordinal Jirst, of which it may be 
 sufficient to give an instance from Gen. viii. 5. "tU'inb Tni5<!3 
 on the first (lit. one) of the month." The learned commen- 
 tator referred to endeavors to maintain his position by 
 quoting "Dan. viii. 13, [3] : there stood before me a ram, 
 Heb. IT]^ b^S^, a certain ram, that is, a ram of a peculiar 
 description, one having two horns of unequal height." But 
 it is too plain to require proof, that the peculiarity of this 
 ram is not denoted by the term "IH!^, M^hich is very pro- 
 perly rendered a, by a usage not at all uncommon ; its pe- 
 culiar characteristic is afterwards expressly stated. The next 
 passage cited is also by no means satisfactory. " Ezek. vii. 5: 
 * an evil, an only evil, behold, is come.' Heb. ilHi^ T\'$'^ 
 one evil, that is, an evil of a unique and unwonted nature." 
 But the peculiarity of the evil is shown rather from the repe- 
 tition of the word which expresses it, il!^'^, than from the use of 
 ins*^. The literal translation of the Hebrew is, ' an evil, 
 evil, (ilS^'l i^nSJiJ *^^'l) behold, is come.' A similar repe- 
 tition occurs in the next verse : " an end is come, the end 
 is come," {Tp.\\ ^12. ^"3. yp), and this is dwelt upon at the 
 end of the verse : " behold, it is come," and in the seventh : 
 " the morning is come — the time is come" If the numeral 
 be intended to intimate the extraordinary character of the 
 evil, doubtless the repetition is much better adapted to make 
 the intended impression. The next passage appealed to, is 
 Cant. vi. 9. But it is by no means certain that the numeral 
 is intended to represent the bride in any other light than that 
 of her mother's only daughter. The Hebrew literally ren- 
 dered is as follows : ' one is she, my dove, my perfect, one 
 is she of her mother ;' then, as might naturally be supposed 
 of an only daughter, ' the choice, (the darUng,) is she of her 
 
168 NOTES TO GENESIS. [parti. 
 
 that bare her.' It cannot be denied, however, that what is 
 said in viii. 8, may be a valid objection to this view ; but the 
 want of sufficient data to prove the "little" one there intro- 
 duced to have been sister of the bride eulogized in vi. 9, 
 renders the objection uncertain, to say the least. But the 
 apparent opposition between the " one" all-worthy object of 
 the bride-groom's regard, and the multiplicity of " queens, 
 concubines, and virgins" mentioned in the preceding verse, 
 is in favor of the Professor's opinion. In this passage, there- 
 fore, as in Job. xxiii. 13, ^H!!^ may imply the excellence of 
 the party spoken of, which the "context expressly asserts. 
 Four texts are afterwards referred to. The first is Gen. 
 xxxvii. 20, where Joseph's brothers propose to " slay him 
 and cast him into some pit ;" literally, one of the pits, 
 Snii^in irisJ^^ ; the second is 1 Kings xix. 4, " under a (flHiS?) 
 juniper tree;" the third is 1 Kings xx. 13, "there came a 
 (IHi^) prophet unto Ahab ;" and the last, Dan. viii. 13, 
 " I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said, &c." 
 where in both cases the Hebrew is ^Hi^. Did the Professor 
 imagine that the pit, the juniper tree, the prophet, and the 
 two saints, were each " peculiar, especially distinguished 
 from other" things "of the same classes?" It is evident 
 that these passages prove nothing to the purpose, and the 
 reader on examining them is utterly at a loss to perceive 
 their bearing on the usage intended to be proved. But if 
 the usage could be admitted and applied to Gen. i, 5, the 
 author's inference that "the evenincf and the mornincj con- 
 stituted a period of time of indefinite length," would be 
 limited to what is called " the first day," unless the argument 
 for such usage were rested on the application of the term 
 ' day,' as no such usage is pleaded for the other numerals. 
 
 The length of time allotted to each one of the revolutions 
 designated by the term ' day,' is not indeed determined. 
 Still, it cannot be so far extended as to meet the demands 
 
CHAP. I— 11. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 169 
 
 of geological science, while at the same time the authority 
 of the inspired historian is supported, without involving con- 
 sequences inconsistent with the form and density of the 
 earth. If the expression " morning and evening," and the 
 term " day," could possibly be explained figuratively, it could 
 only be on the supposition that this section of the book ori- 
 ginally existed as an independent document, and therefore 
 is not necessarily to be subjected in every part to the same 
 laws of interpretation as are to be applied to the Pentateuch 
 in general. Such an explanation assumes that the account 
 is allegorical in respect to the designation of time, but in 
 other respects historical. But if it were an independent 
 document, written by some very ancient patriarch, the fact 
 of its being incorporated into the Pentateuch by Moses, will 
 perhaps be considered as making the assumption of partial 
 allegory forced and unnatural. This would seem to be 
 reasonable, but it is not a necessary inference ; for Moses 
 may have incorporated it in his work without the least 
 alteration, just as his*venerated ancestor had transmitted the 
 precious document. The Pentateuch itself, as well as other 
 historical books of the Old Testament, affords evidence of 
 this remarkable carefulness of the sacred writers to dehver 
 to posterity the productions of those inspired men who had 
 preceded them, uncorrupted and unaltered, even at the risk 
 of diminishing that uniformity which might at first be ex- 
 pected to reign in one regularly continued work. Still, it is 
 evident that all subsequent sacred writers, who take notice 
 of the creation as a work of six. days, do invariably assume 
 a literal and not an allegorical sense of the word ' day.' 
 The other solution of the difficulty may therefore be re- 
 garded as the more probable of the two. The first verse 
 may, and most probably does, express the original creation 
 of the mass of matter, and the following represent its con- 
 dition and subsequent formation. The connexion of the two 
 22 
 
170 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part I. 
 
 accounts in the narrative by no means requires a chronolo- 
 gical connexion of the things narrated. The language does 
 undoubtedly allow such an exposition, and the geological 
 facts which are thought to support it are merely the occasion 
 which has led to its adoption. In other words, science has 
 suggested a rule of interpretation, and conducted the inquirer 
 to a deeper investigation of the meaning of scripture. 
 
 If the version of Rashi, given in the third note, be allowed 
 to be correct, it will harmonize with this solution. The only 
 point of difference will be this : the one assumes, while the 
 other asserts, a previous creation of the mass of matter of 
 which the world was formed. Both agree in this, that the 
 substance existed when the creation or formation described 
 in the chapter took place, without saying any thing of the 
 time during which it had existed in its unformed state. 
 
 Since the preparation of these notes, Dr. John Pye Smith 
 has published his work " On the Relation between the Holy 
 Scriptures and Some Parts of Geological Science." In one 
 part of his book, the learned author proposes to give such a 
 view of the records in Genesis as shall be consistent with 
 facts as developed and ascertained by geology, and some 
 other departments of physical science. Whether these facts 
 may not be reasonably explained without resorting to such 
 expositions of scripture as he maintains, I leave to the de- 
 cision of those, who, by uniting a competent acquaintance 
 with physical science to an equally competent knowledge 
 of biblical interpretation, are best qualified to judge. I may 
 be allowed to say, however, that the language of scripture 
 does not appear to me to require the representations which 
 this author has founded on it. The reader's attention is re- 
 quested to the following extract. 
 
 " The Hebrew word ^'^'p') is commonly translated jirma- 
 Twen?, after the example of the Septuagint, (tfrs^swixa,) but many 
 modern critics have sought to mollify the unphilosophical 
 
CHAP. I II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 171 
 
 idea of a solid concave shell over our head, by using the 
 word expanse. No doubt they felt their minds acquiescing 
 in this tei-m as expressing very well the diffused fluid which 
 surrounds the earth ; and so leaving us at liberty to conceive 
 of its increasing tenuity, till it is lost in the planetary spaces. 
 But this is the transferring of a modern idea to times and 
 persons which had it not. The word strictly signifies a 
 solid substance, extended by beating out, or rolling, or any 
 other mode of working upon a ductile mass.* The old 
 word, firmament, was therefore the most proper. Ex- 
 amining the whole subject by connecting it with some pas- 
 sages which have been quoted, and some yet to be mentioned, 
 we acquire an idea of the meteorology of the Hebrews. 
 They supposed that, at a moderate distance above the 
 flight of birds, was a solid concave hemisphere, a kind of 
 dome, transparent, in which the stars were fixed, as lamps ; 
 and containing openings, to be used or closed as was ne- 
 cessary. It was understood as supporting a kind of celes- 
 tial ocean, called ' the waters above the firmament,' and 
 ' the waters above the heavens.' This was the grand re- 
 servoir containing water to be discharged at proper times 
 in rain, with which were connected ' water-courses, for the 
 overflowing' or pouring out.-\ The idea also was enter- 
 tained of masses of water being secured in strong bags, 
 which the clouds were supposed to be. 
 
 Thus we read, as one of the works of the Deity, that he 
 'tieth up water in his dark cloud, and the cloud beneath them 
 is not torn.'J Here also were the ' treasures of snow, and 
 treasures of hail.'§ Lightning also was conceived of as pro- 
 duced, and then laid by for use, in the same region : and as 
 consisting of some kind of ignited matter, called in scripture 
 'coals of fire;' deriving the idea from burning wood, for 
 
 * See Jer. x. 9. f Job xxxviii. 25. t lb. xxvi. 8. § lb. xxxviii. 22. 
 
172 NOTES TO GENESIS. [PARf f, 
 
 tnineral coal they knew not. Of the nature and cause of 
 thunder, the Israehtes had no conception ; and therefore 
 they referred it immediately to the supreme cause, and 
 called it ' the voice of God.' This idea coincided with the 
 accustomed mode of representing the Deity, by the analo* 
 gies of the human form." p. 222, 223. 
 
 It is not to be doubted, that the Hebrews, in common 
 with other nations of antiquity, were unacquainted with the 
 true theory of physical nature. But it must not be forgotten, 
 that, in common with all nations, they employ popular lan- 
 guage, and speak of things as they appear rather than as 
 they are. We do it ourselves in some degree, and doubtless 
 they did it in a much greater. This simple principle does 
 of itself suggest the proper exposition of many passages, 
 and the poetic imagery of the sacred writers will solve any 
 further difficulty which others may be supposed to in- 
 volve. 
 
 If the notion which Dr. Smith has adopted from some 
 older writers respecting the Hebrew idea of " a solid con- 
 cave hemisphere, &c." had any good foundation in the texts 
 alluded to, it would just as logically follow, that the earth 
 was thought to be supported on " pillars," from such texts 
 as Job ix. 6, xxvi. 11. Ps. Ixxv. 3. The idea of water- 
 courses connected with the supposed celestial ocean, and the 
 strong bags identical with the clouds, is about as well sup- 
 ported as that of Hteral " windows in heaven," and literal 
 " bags," with which the Christian is commanded to provide 
 himself. See Gen. vii. 11, Luke xii. 33. The author might 
 as well have inferred that the Hebrew supposed these rain- 
 bags to be " tied up" with twine or some flexible material. 
 It is extraordinary that he should not have seen and felt at 
 Once that all this sort of language, as well as the rest which 
 he has cited, is merely poetic, particularly as he proceeds to 
 quote a passage from the eighteenth Psalm, v. 7 — 15, in 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 173" 
 
 which, as he observes very truly, " we find all the parts of 
 this imagery combined, so as to produce the most magnifi- 
 cent effect." What he says of lightning being " conceived 
 of as produced, and then laid by for use" in some region, is 
 utterly unfounded. Indeed, a rigid, literal interpretation of 
 certain texts on which the general view a\*owed by him is 
 maintained, is inconsistent with other representations. That 
 the Hebrews did not consider the heavenly bodies as fix- 
 tures, hanging like lamps from a kind of dome, is plain from 
 Job ix. 9, xxxviii. 31, Amos. v. 8, Judg. v. 20, and other 
 places ; and certainly the author of the book of Genesis, in 
 saying that " a mist went up from the earth, and watered 
 the whole face of the ground," (ii. 6,) must have had the 
 idea that it came down again in the form of rain. 
 
 Dr. Smith gives his view of the Mosaic account of the 
 creation, p. 227 ss. He acknowledges (p. 232,) that the 
 Word earth, " when it is conjoined with ' the heavens,' de- 
 notes the entire created world," but immediately adds, " it 
 is evident of itself that the practical understanding of the 
 phrase would be in conformity with the ideas of the people 
 who used it," which is no doubt true. Then, as if to Umit 
 still further the application of its sense in the first chapter in 
 general, and in the recapitulation in the first verse of the 
 second, he remarks that the word is often used in a limited 
 sense, which is certainly the case in the Hebrew, and, I 
 presume, in all other languages. He then states his opinion, 
 that " subsequently to the first verse" of the first chapter, " and 
 throughout the whole description of the six days, the word 
 was designed to express the part of our world ivhich God 
 was adapting for the dwelling of man and the animals con.' 
 nected with him.* I must profess my conviction that we 
 are not obliged, by the terms made use of, to extend the nar- 
 
 * Here and elsewhere the italics are the author's. 
 
174 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part i. 
 
 rative of the six days to a wider application than this ; a 
 description, in expressions adapted to the ideas and capacities 
 of mankind in the earliest ages, of a series of operations, by 
 which the Being of omnipotent wisdom and goodness adjusted 
 and furnished the earth generally, but, as the particular 
 subject under consideration here, a portion of its surface 
 for most glorious purposes ; in which a newly formed crea- 
 ture should he the object of those manifestations of the au- 
 thority and grace of the Most High, which shall to eternity 
 show forth his perfections above all other methods of their 
 display. This portion of the earth I conceive to have been 
 a large part of Asia, lying betw^een the Caucassian ridge, the 
 Caspian Sea, and Tartary, on the north, the Persian and 
 Indian Seas on the south, and the high mountain ridges 
 which run, at considerable distances, on the eastern and the 
 western flank." 
 
 I am compelled to say, that after repeatedly reading this 
 statement, I am at a loss to reconcile its different parts. 
 When the writer speaks of " adjusting and furnishing the 
 earth generally," one would naturally suppose that he in- 
 tended to denote either the whole or a large proportion of 
 our globe ; but this would be at variance with the words 
 which precede and those immediately following, which limit 
 this operation to " a part of our world, a portion of the 
 earth's surface," which portion he proceeds to define with 
 geographical distinctness. Neither can I understand him to 
 mean, that the Mocaic narrative relates in general to the 
 formation of the whole earth, and particularly to that of 
 this portion. He supposes the previously existing " con- 
 dition of superficial ruin, or some kind of general dis- 
 order, to have been produced by the subsidence of the re- 
 gion." Of course, then, the ruinous disorder would be 
 limited to the portion in question, and the remainder of the 
 earth's surface would need no such adjustment and re-for- 
 mation. 
 
CHAP. I— II. 3.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 175 
 
 Such a restricted sense of the term ' earth,' when used in 
 connexion with ' heavens,' is quite inadmissible ; and I can- 
 not but think, that the true principle whereon to explain the 
 narrative in this chapter, is that which has been already- 
 suggested, namely, that the formation and arrangement of 
 things are represented to have been as they would have 
 appeared to a supposed human observer stationed on the 
 earth, and so whenever this narrative is referred to in other 
 parts of scriptnre. 
 
 Part II. Chap. ii. 4— iv. 26. 
 
 (13.) The former half of this fourth verse is the title to 
 what follows. Drechsler, indeed, p. 78, supposes it to refer 
 to the preceding account as well as to the subsequent ; and 
 doubtless, in writing it, the author had in view the narrative 
 before related. But it is a proper title to the account immedi- 
 ately afterwards given, as is also the case in vi. 9, and xi. 27. 
 Srinblvl, which properly means some accounts of the origin 
 of, and, hence, generations, descents, or genealogical notices, is 
 sometimes used in the sense of history. See xxxvii. 1. The 
 connexion of the two last is evident, as, in all probability, the 
 earliest historical accounts were nothing more than genealo- 
 gical lists, with brief notices of prominent individuals. The 
 clause may be translated thus : 'this is an account of the hea- 
 vens and the earth when they were created.' The account 
 begins with the next words, which are intimately connected 
 with the fifth verse, as follows : ' When the Lord God made 
 the earth and the heavens, then any shrub of the field was 
 not yet in the ground, and any grass of the field had not 
 yet sprouted forth ; for the Lord God had not caused it to 
 rain, &c.' This describes the state of things during the 
 time that the process of creation was going on, and the 
 brevity of the account must be supplied from the preceding 
 
176 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part U. 
 
 narrative, and from the description of the germination and 
 production of vegetables, according to the ordinary course 
 of nature, which immediately follows. In the first chapter, 
 Moses had mentioned the formation of plants on the third 
 day. Now, proceeding to the most ancient history of the 
 earth and of man, he explains in what manner plants were 
 afterwards propagated, and introduces his account by re- 
 marking, that they did not originally exist in the dry land, 
 (i. 9, 10.) The -j commencing the sixth verse is adversative, 
 and should be rendered hut; and that which begins the 
 fifth, serves to introduce the latter part of the sentence, and 
 ought to be translated then, as it is in iii. 5, ^hj?^5l " then yom- 
 eyes shall be opened." The reader cannot fail to observe 
 that these two clauses are constructed in the same way, 
 each beginning with the word fiV^, 'in the day : in ii. 4, 
 
 'irii b^i \triiytfi's pi?! Q^ribssj rt;Jn^ Mii).^ dV5, 'in the 
 
 ■day of the Lord God's making the earth and the heavens, 
 then every, &c."; in iii. 5, &5.^5.^^ ^^f?^5^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^^> 
 " in the day of your eating of it, then your eyes shall be 
 opened." In the former passage, the rabbinical division of 
 the sentence is, of course, disregarded. — It is remarked by 
 Rashi on this place, that Q'lp in scripture always means 
 ^ot yet. 
 
 (14.) As I see no intimation in the narrative which would 
 lead to the opinion that these trees were allegorical, I adopt 
 the literal view, on the ground that this is always to be 
 preferred, unless the nature of the subject is such as to re- 
 quire a figurative sense. 
 
 Kennicott, in his " Dissertation on the Tree of Life in Para- 
 dise," (Oxford, 1747,) has endeavored to prove, that no par- 
 ticular tree was intended : but that the phrase is applicable 
 to fruit trees in general, from their natural tendency to 
 preserve life. His essay is more iagenious than satisfactory. 
 
CHAP. 11. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS* I7f 
 
 and the translation which he gives to ii. 9, in order to make' 
 it agree with his view, does manifest violence to the He- 
 brew. " And out of the ground made the Lord God to 
 grow every tree that was pleasant to the sight, and that was 
 good for food, and a tree of life ; and in the midst of the 
 garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." This 
 is not only against the Masoretic accentuation, but also 
 against the necessary connexion of 1 with If^^ after "15(1. 
 He attempts to vindicate this transfer of "I from its natural 
 place in the series of the words, by appealing to Gen. xxii. 4, 
 and xxviii. 6 ; but in both of these cases it precedes a verb 
 with which it is intimately connected, and may be rendered 
 that. No less forced is his translation, if it may be called a 
 translation of iii. 22 : " Behold, the man hath behaved, as if 
 he were equal to one of us, as to the test of good and evil ; 
 and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take again of the 
 trees of life, and eat, and so live on all his days." 
 
 (15.) It is difficult to identify the first two rivers men 
 tioned by Moses. Some have imagined that he means the' 
 Nile and the Ganges or Indus, which, with the other two, 
 the Tigris and Euphrates, constitute the four great rivers 
 best known to the ancients. But, on this hypothesis, it is 
 impossible to make the account consistent either with geo- 
 graphical truth, or with that accurate knowledge which the 
 Pentateuch exhibits. Indeed, it seems impossible to explain 
 how any Hebrew writer could have represented the Nile as 
 approximating in its source to the head of either of the 
 others. So gross an ignorance is not to be assumed.. 
 Neither is it reasonable to believe, that Moses intended to 
 represent the garden of Eden as a territory of vast extent, 
 comprehending the immense region which a line bordering 
 on the sources of these rivers must necessarily include. 
 Probably the Pison is the Phasis or Phash, which falls into 
 23 
 
178 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part It 
 
 the Black Sea. The name is said to be derived from the 
 fulness and impetuosity of its stream, and consequently (as 
 might be supposed,) was not limited in its application to this 
 river. Havilah, which this stream is said to wind about, is 
 probably Cholchis, famed among the ancients for its gold. 
 It is uncertain whether the substance afterwards mentioned 
 was a precious gum used as frankincense, or pearls. The 
 Gihon, (so called from rT^ti, to break forth, and therefore 
 applied to various streams, and even to a water-course at 
 Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 30,) is perhaps the Aras or 
 Araxes, which, rising near the source of the Phasis, pursues 
 its south-easterly course to the Caspian. This river is said 
 to wind round the country of Cush, rendered in the com- 
 mon version Ethiopia. Some identify this region with that 
 inhabited by the Cosssei near Media. Others consider it as a 
 comprehensive word applied to southern countries, whether 
 in Asia or Africa. Traces of it may still be discovered in 
 the name Chusistan, a province in Persia. The Hiddekel 
 or Tigris, so called from the rapidity of its current, and the 
 Phrath or Euphrates, are both well known. If this view of 
 the four rivers be correct, the garden of Eden must have 
 been situated in Armenia. 
 
 From the tenth verse, it is evident that the four rivers were 
 originally connected. The division of the original stream 
 may well be attributed to some of the various changes to 
 which the surface of the globe has at various times been 
 subjected. Still the question arises, does the language de- 
 scribe what existed in the time of Moses ? or does it repre- 
 sent the antediluvian condition? No good reason can be 
 assigned, why the geographical position of Eden should be 
 marked out by topographical phenomena existing before the 
 flood, by a writer posterior to that event. The probability, 
 then, is in favor of the opinion, that Moses describes the lo- 
 cality by marks which admitted of application in liis day. 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 179 
 
 If it be urged as a difficulty in his account, that the deluge 
 must have obliterated all traces of the four rivers into which 
 the paradisaical stream was divided, it may be replied, that 
 there is no reason for admitting such a destruction of the 
 surface of the globe by the flood as the difficulty assumes. 
 Besides, the text does not oblige us to maintain that the di- 
 vision into four principal streams must have existed before 
 the deluge. The representing of one stream running through 
 the garden at the time when our first parents inhabited it, 
 may have suggested to the sacred writer the formation of 
 four rivers from that spot, although they may not have ex- 
 isted until after the flood. That the two facts are stated in 
 immediate connexion in the narrative, is no proof of contem- 
 poraneous existence. 
 
 ''From thence it was parted." The ordinary sense of 
 Cp is certainly that of place, if indeed this be not its invari- 
 able meaning, as I think is most probable. Hengstenberg 
 denies that it is ever an adverb of time. See the note on 
 Hos. ii. 19, in his Christologie des Alfen Testaments, Vol. Ill, 
 p. 103, Keith's Translation, p. 76. This text is cited by 
 Professor Bush as proving an * undoubted indication of time.' 
 But the particle d^'?2 evidently refers to place, namely, 
 " the wilderness" just spoken of in the preceding verse : 
 " from thence," from that place, " I will give her," the spiri- 
 tually returning people, " vineyards." Clearer still to the 
 same purpose is the only other passage cited by him, Isa. 
 Ixv. 20. dp!? does not here mean " from that time ;" it in- 
 dicates place, the spiritual Jerusalem mentioned in the two 
 preceding verses. Gesenius does indeed represent fiffl as an 
 adverb of time, referring to this very passage in Hosea, and 
 to Ps. xvi, 5, cxxxii, 17, and Judg. v. 1 1. But the references 
 are unsatisfactory. The first from the Psalms and that 
 from Judges rather indicate locality, as they plainly imply 
 circumstance, condition : " there were they in great fear" ; 
 
180 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part ii. 
 
 "there shall they rehearse." The other undoubtedly implies 
 locality : " there will I make the horn of David to sprout" ; 
 there, namely, in " Zion," the " rest," the " habitation" spoken 
 of in V. 13, 14. Isa. xlviii. 16, ^Db^ d^' t^^V^ t\^_)2 seems 
 to support this asserted indication of time, but it is not 
 clearly in favor of it. fitp in this place rather appears to 
 correspond with our English usage of ' there,' in such 
 phrases as : ' there is a man, there are some people.' Thus, 
 the words might be rendered : ' from the time of its being, 
 there (was) I,' that is, ' I was.' See Robertson's Thesaurus 
 and CoccEius's Lexicon on the word, both of whom quote 
 from Maimonides UbXO b^l^S^DS Dt25 tH^'O, where ttH is thus 
 used : *' the first fundamental principle is to believe that there 
 is a perfect being." Comp. Ecc. iii. 17, where our translators 
 have perhaps unnecessarily introduced " there is" in italics, 
 intimating that the original, contains no corresponding term: 
 certainly, they have, if the idea is conveyed by Q'©. In the 
 passage which has suggested these remarks, the connexion 
 with the preceding words necessarily requires the sense of 
 place : " A river went out of Eden," that is, took its rise 
 there, " to water the garden, and /row thence it was parted." 
 
 (16.) Rosenmiiller and some other critics regard the ac- 
 count of the woman's formation from a part of the man's 
 substance, (whether this were a portion of his side or one 
 of his ribs,) as an allegory, intended to represent the inti- 
 mate union and affection of the marriage relation. But it is 
 more consistent with the generally historical character of 
 the contents of the book, to consider the account as that of 
 a real fact. The attempt to give the transaction a ludicrous 
 coloring is but a poor substitution of humor for logic. If 
 the woman were to be created, it is no more an impeach- 
 ment of the creator's wisdom to suppose him to have used 
 a portion of the man's body for the purpose, than it would 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 181 
 
 be to suppose him to have employed any other materials. 
 The being who was able to produce the result, was able to 
 do it without either pain or even consciousness, were this 
 necessary, in the man. There is nothing in the narrative 
 which requires a resort to parable. Com p. 1 Cor. xi. 8 : 
 " for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the 
 man" ; from which it is probable that St. Paul alludes to 
 this account ; and if so, he evidently regards it as a his- 
 torical fact. 
 
 C17.) This is undoubtedly the language of the inspired 
 author, as is intimated in Matt. xix. 4, 5, where it is intro- 
 duced as a divine declaration. The expression of Adam is 
 contained in the preceding verse. 
 
 The hypothesis has been advanced, that the second chap- 
 ter, with the exception of the first three verses, is a separate 
 and independent account of the creation.. But it is destitute 
 of any solid basis. The designation of the Deity by the 
 expression " Lord God," while the term " God" was before 
 employed, has often been appealed to in proof of the inde- 
 pendent origin of these portions of Genesis. But this argu- 
 ment can hardly be thought of much weight, as these vari- 
 ous appellations may be designedly chosen in reference to 
 their genuine meaning, or the use of them may be inciden- 
 tal, or the same writer may habitually use different words 
 at different times. In some places the terms appear to be 
 used indiscriminately. The subject has already been treated 
 of in the Introduction. Rosenmiiller, who once attached 
 great importance to the argument drawn from the use of 
 these different terms, afterwards abandoned it as untenable. 
 Neither is the apparent repetition in part of the narrative of 
 the creation any stronger. For, either it is a retrospective 
 reference to what was before related, and is intended to in- 
 troduce something new, as in v. 18 ss. ; or it is essential to 
 
182 NOTES TO GENESIS. [piBT U. 
 
 a clear view of the statement which the author designed to 
 make, as in v. 7. The remainder of the portion consists 
 altogether of additional matter. 
 
 (18.) The notion of Rosenmiiller, that the narrative des- 
 cribes the first influence of reason as an active principle, 
 which had before lain dormant as it were in the human con- 
 stitution, and now shows itself as the source of misery, 
 simultaneously with animal propensity, is an extravagant 
 hypothesis, alike revolting in its character and unsupported 
 by the representation made in the chapter. It assumes, 
 moreover, that when God made man in his own image, and 
 gave him " dominion over the other works of his hands," 
 (Ps. viii. 6. Gen. i. 26 — 28,) he placed the ruler of this lower 
 woi'ld in the happy condition of early infancy, (" primae in- 
 fantisB foelix simplicitas.") Schiller also represents man in 
 his original state as acting merely under the influence of 
 instinct. * But he breaks away from the leading strings of 
 nature's cradling season, and then by the exercise of reason 
 is to seek again that state of innocence which he had lost.' 
 Thus our first parent's disobedience to the divine law is 
 nothing else than ' a falling away from his instinct, the first 
 daring effort of his reason, the very commencement of his 
 moral being' : ein Abfall von seinem Instinkte — erstes Wag- 
 estiick seiner Vernunft, erster Anfang seines moralischen 
 Daseyn. The philosopher admits that thus moral evil was 
 brought into the creation, but maintains that it was only 
 with the view of making moral good possible ; and there- 
 fore he regards the fact ' as the happiest and greatest event 
 in the history of man' ! Dicser Abfall des Mcnchcn vom 
 Instinkte, der das moralische Uebel zwar in die Schopfung 
 brachte, aber nur um das moralische Gute darin moglich zu 
 machen, ist ohne Widerspruch die gliicklichste und grosste 
 Begebenheit in der Menschengeschichte. See his treatise, 
 
CHAP. 11. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 183 
 
 entitled, Etwas iiber die erste Menschengesellschaft nach 
 dem Leitfaden der Mosaischen Urkunde, section first, which 
 bears the title : ' Transition of man to freedom and humani- 
 ty' ! Uebergang des Menschen zur Freyheit und Humanitat. 
 The treatise may be found in the 16th volume of Schiller's 
 Collected Works, Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1819. A believer 
 in the inspiration of the history, or even in the truth of the 
 facts related, would find it impossible to reconcile such 
 views with his faith. Can it be thought that the benevolent 
 author of our being would have subjected the first human 
 pair to a trial of virtue, the result of which has had an in- 
 fluence on the condition of their posterity, when the power 
 of reasoning on the case was just beginning to develop 
 itself? As such a supposition is incompatible with general 
 sentiment and feeling, so it is also inconsistent with the 
 whole representation in the book of Genesis. This describes 
 the fall of our progenitors from a state of innocence and 
 happiness to one of guilt and misery, in consequence of 
 their voluntary transgression of God's known law, estab- 
 lished as a method of probation and a test of obedience. 
 
 (19.) That "©ni signifies a serpent is almost universally 
 admitted. The use of the word, the authority of the old 
 versions, and eastern tradition, incontrovertibly determine 
 this meaning. — Of the various views which have been taken 
 of this chapter, it will be sufficient for my purpose to state 
 the most important ; leaving the candid reader to form his 
 own judgment respecting the degree of probability to which 
 they are respectively entitled. Each is correct in presum- 
 ing the fact of the fall to be the prominent point of the 
 narrative.* 
 
 * The reader who is desirous to see what curious and learned 
 critics have thought, reasoned, and conjectured on this subject, is 
 
184 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part li. 
 
 The first view to be mentioned is that which maintains 
 the action of a real serpent, and denies any other agent to 
 be intended as a tempter. This opinion has had learned 
 advocates. It is maintained by the Jewish commentator, 
 Abarbanel, supported by Simeon de Muis in the Critici 
 Sacri, Tom. I. p. 148, and sanctioned by Dathe, in his note 
 (c,) on iii. 1, and Herder in his second letter on the Study 
 of Theology, Briefe, das Studium dcr Theologie betreffend, 
 in his Collected Works, published at Stuttgart and Tubingen, 
 1829, Vol. XIII. p. 26. These writers suppose the tempta- 
 tion to have consisted in the serpent's repeatedly using the 
 fruit in Eve's presence, without visible injury, perhaps with 
 apparently increased powers, and thus exciting in her the 
 inclination to follow his example. The influence of this 
 example, and the thoughts that consequently arose in her 
 mind, are represented, agreeably to the genius of oriental 
 and figurative language, under the image of a conversation. 
 In opposition to this hypothesis, it has been urged, that so 
 poetic a representation of the simple act of the serpent's 
 eating the fruit and thereby giving rise to thoughts and in- 
 clinations in the woman's mind, is inconsistent with the 
 narrative style of the whole work, in which poetic ma- 
 chinery can have little or no place. And great weight 
 ought to be attached to the fact, that another agent in the 
 temptation is evidently contemplated by the earliest Jewish 
 authority, and in the New Testament. This will be more 
 particularly exhibited hereafter. 
 
 The second view regards the devil as the principal 
 agent, who, in accomplishing his scheme, employed the ser- 
 pent as his instrument. Thus the latter appears to reason 
 and speak ; the woman converses with him, and is led by the 
 
 referred to the dissertations of Frischmuth, Paschius, and De Hase, 
 
 published in the Thesaurus Theologico-Philologicus, Fol. Amst. 
 Pars prima, pp. 55 — 95. 
 
CHAP. II. 4 — IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 185 
 
 artful representations which the devil enables him to make, 
 to break the divine law. The sentence which afterwards 
 follows, is to be explained in reference to both the agents. 
 This is the view which has been most generally adopted by 
 divines, and is supposed to meet all the requisitions of tho 
 case, and to accord with the representations elsewhere mad<3 
 in scriptitre and early Jewish writings. It is defended by 
 Hengstenberg in his Christology, Vol. I. p. 26 ss. 
 
 There are difficulties in this view of the transaction, 
 which appear to some irreconcileable with truth as deduced 
 from other parts of scripture and supported by reason^ 
 They find it difficult to perceive how the supreme being 
 could allow such a series of circumstances to go into opera- 
 tion, in order to try the virtue of our first parents, consis- 
 tently with the views of divine providenc'e and goodness a3 
 generally exhibited in the Bible. Let it be observed, that 
 the difficulty in contemplation does not lie in the fact of their 
 being permitted to be tempted. Sound reasons are given 
 for this. So far as we know, the trial of virtue may be 
 essential to the highest excellence of every created intelli- 
 gence, and may be allowed in order to produce the greatest 
 amount of moral character. Neither does the difficulty lie 
 in the particular test selected. The establishment of a 
 chai'acter of implicit obedience to the will of God simply as 
 such, was intended to be the result ; and the prohibition of the 
 fruit of a particular tree was as well fitted for this purpose 
 as any prohibition or demand whatever. But, on the hypo- 
 thesis" under consideration, the great enehiy of God and 
 goodness, filled with jealousy at the happiness of the first 
 pair, contrives a plan to ruin this happiness, to bring sin and 
 misery into the world, and thus to mar the harmony and 
 beauty of the almighty maker's workmanship ; and in car- 
 rying this plan into effect, he works a series of miracles,' 
 24 
 
186 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part II. 
 
 speaking by means of the serpent's organs, thus abusing one 
 of God's good creatures,* by making him the instrument in 
 the destruction of another, and that other no less a person- 
 age than the lord of this lower world, the father of the 
 whole human family. This is the point, the miraculous 
 character of the action, which is thought to be an insupera- 
 ble objection. It is impossible to doubt that the facts 
 stated on this hypothesis do imply miracles, unless, indeed, 
 the old fable of inferior animals having been endowed with 
 the faculties of reason and speech be renewed in order to 
 meet the difficulty.! How many others this would involve, 
 it were a waste of time to point out. Whether any of the 
 spiritual agents in the universe, however exalted, possesses 
 natural powers adequate to such miraculous result, may 
 admit of doubt. On the question connected with this re- 
 mark, men of profound thought and acute powers of reason- 
 ing have differed ;J so that we cannot assume the devil's 
 
 * As all of God's creatures were good in their respective kinds, 
 (see Gen. i. 31,) the intimation of Horsley, (Biblical Criticism, Vol. I. 
 p. 17,) that " the tempter assumed perhaps by necessity the form of 
 the serpent, being j^erinitted to assume no better than that of a mean 
 reptile," is not admissible. The contemptuous designation of the ani- 
 mal is in striking contrast with the notion of those who figure to them- 
 selves some glorious creature of remarkable beauty and splendor, who 
 is afterwards compelled to suffer degradation of nature and form, as a 
 consequence of his having been forcibly made the instrument of the evil 
 spirit's wicked machinations ! 
 
 f See the passages from Plato and the Sybilline Oracles quoted by 
 BocHART in his Phaleg, Lib. I. cap. i. xv. p. 3, 50, Edit. Tert. Lug. 
 Bat. 1692. Abundance of Talmudic and Rabbinical nonsense on this 
 subject may be found in Eisenmengkr's Entdectes Judentlmm, Theil 
 I. cap. viii. p. 419 ss. ; although the author seems to give the most ridi- 
 culous construction of the Jewish representations, some of which are 
 perhaps figurative. 
 
 X On this point see Hugh Farmer's Dissertation on Miracles, on the 
 one side; and, on the other, the Bishop of Clogher's (Clayton's) 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 187 
 
 inability to employ the serpent, as the view of the transac- 
 tion supposes him to have done. But w^hatever opinions 
 may be held by different persons respecting the nature of 
 miracles and the power necessary to work them, none who 
 believe in the being and attributes of God can deny that all 
 such power must be under his control, and cannot be used 
 except by his permission. In the language of Dr. Jortin, 
 " God will not permit evil spirits to delude wise and good 
 men to their hurt." 
 
 The questions, then, which every inquirer after truth, who 
 determines to make up his mind deliberately and impartially 
 on this important topic, must settle, are these : ' Does this 
 account of the temptation and fall of our first parents ne- 
 cessarily imply that the devil possesses power to work 
 miracles ? and if he does, that the Deity would allow him 
 to exert it for such a purpose, and under the circumstances 
 of the case ?'* If an affirmative answer to the former of 
 these questions should even be allowed, the latter, it is said, 
 can admit of no other than a negative reply, consistently 
 with the general views of scripture and the fair results of 
 unbiassed reasoning. Under the inflcience of these and 
 other considerations, the truth of the view in contemplation 
 is questioned by some, who are conscientious and serious be- 
 lievers in revelation. 
 
 The third view to be stated supposes the devil to be the 
 only agent in effecting the temptation, and that whatever is 
 
 Chronology of the Hebrew Bible Vindicated, p. 252 ss. ; Houslet's 
 Sermon on Mark vii. 37; Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, 
 Lond. 1805, Vol. II. p. 1 ss. ; and Le Clerc on Exod. vii. 11. 
 
 * That any one should suppose the Deity himself to have wrought 
 the miracle, is too preposterous to be taken into consideration. Neither 
 is it of any consequence to examine the question, in what light Eve 
 herself would have regarded the transaction, and whether her know- 
 ledge of the natural powers of the brute creation were sufficient to 
 enable her to ascertain the truth. 
 
188 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part II. 
 
 said respecting the serpent is figurative. It is worthy of 
 notice, that the sacred books of the ancient Persians repre- 
 sent the evil principle as tempting the parents of the human 
 race,* and as coming to earth in the form of a serpent. f 
 And it is yet more important, that the Jewish tradition and 
 the New Testament speak of the devil as the tempter, and 
 represent him under the same figure. In the book of Wis- 
 dom, ii. 24, we find the expression, "through envy of the 
 devil came death into the world ;" and in Bereshith Rabba, 
 (an old and extensive commentary,) the book Sohar, and 
 other Jewish authorities, Sammael, by whom is meant the 
 devil, is represented as the serpent by whom Eve was de- 
 ceived. See the passages in Schoettgen's Horae Hebraicae, 
 on John viii. 44, and Rev. xii. 7, 9 ; also, in Eisenmenger's 
 Entdecktes Judenthura, Theil I. cap. xviii. p. 831 ss. Thus 
 in Rev. xii. 9. xx. 2, the devil is called " the great dragon" 
 and " that old serpent" ; (the ^!D1?2lpn Wtlli of the Jewish 
 writers ;) and also, without an epithet, " the dragon" and 
 "the serpent." See xii. 13 — 17. And it cannot reasonably 
 be doubted, say the advocates of this view, that in the same 
 figurative sense the word is used without an epithet by St. 
 Paul : " as the serpent beguiled Eve," 2 Cor. xi. 3. In John 
 viii. 44, our Lord calls the devil " a manslayer from the be- 
 ginning," which, in its most natural meaning, refers to him 
 as the original tempter by whom sin and death were brought 
 into the world. The agency of the devil in the temptation 
 of the first human pair, seems therefore to be evidently the 
 doctrine of the New Testament and of the ancient Jewish 
 church. And it is equally evident, that the tempter is him- 
 
 * See Kleuker's Zendavesta in August Hahn's Lehrbuch des 
 Christlichen Glaubens, Leip. 1828, p. 347 ss. 
 
 f Zend, in Hengstenberg, ubi sup. p. 29, 30, and Keith's Trans- 
 lation, p. 29. 
 
CHAP. 11. 4 IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 189 
 
 self designated by the term used in the original record 
 under consideration. 
 
 If now, say they who defend this third view, the inspired 
 author of this record should have intended to denote no 
 other agent, the difficulties which otherwise embarrass the 
 narrative are removed. By the permission, yet under the 
 control of God, the devil tempts our first parents to trans- 
 gress the law which had been imposed as the test of obedi- 
 ence. He holds communication with the woman, and in- 
 duces her to suspect the truth of the divine threatening, and 
 to believe that participation in the fruit would be attended 
 with a vast increase of angelic and perhaps of divine know- 
 ledge. These real facts of the case are represented under 
 the veil of allegory. The serpent is selected to represent 
 the devil on account of his proverbial cunning, and because 
 of the very general antipathy with which this class of ani^ 
 mals is regarded by mankind. That part of the curse which 
 is generally supposed to have been denounced against the 
 reptile itself, is in fact meant for the devil. The language 
 is such as would have been employed had a real serpent 
 been intended ; but this is consistent with the parabolical 
 character of the representation, and even necessary in order 
 to sustain it. That such language presents no real objection 
 to the view which they endeavor to defend, they maintain 
 must be allowed by all who put a figurative construction on 
 the latter part of the curse : " it shall bruise thy head, and 
 thou shalt bruise his heel." But this is done by the whole 
 body of orthodox commentators ; and, indeed, with the best 
 reason, as a literal interpretation would be miserably frigid, 
 utterly unworthy of the solemn occasion, and highly incon- 
 sistent with the infinite dignity of the speaker, and the awful 
 condition of the parties addressed. The expression : " on 
 thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days 
 of thy life," does not necessarily imply a change of form or 
 
190 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part II. 
 
 outward appearance, and a literal use of dust for food. 
 The former must not be assumed, for a large proportion of 
 reflecting readers will regard it as improbable ;* and the 
 latter is obviously untrue, as serpents cannot be said to feed 
 ,on dust, any more than other animals who take their food 
 from the ground. The language denotes great degradation, 
 utter subjection, the most abject prostration in the presence 
 of a triumphant opposing power. See Ps. Ixxii. 9. cii. 10. 
 Isa. xlix. 23, where the phrase, " to ea^" or " lick the dust," 
 can have no other meaning. The verbs bDJSJ and 'nnb are 
 both used in this connexion. See the second reference to 
 the Psalms, and compare Micah vii. 17. 
 
 The objections to this view and the arguments to prove 
 that a real serpent must be intended, may be identified. It 
 is necessary to examine them, and as they are urged by 
 Hengstenberg, I shall state them in his language. 
 
 " It is beyond all doubt, that a real serpent was engaged 
 in the temptation, and consequently the opinion of those 
 must be rejected, who regard the serpent as merely a sym- 
 bolical designation of the evil spirit. This opinion would 
 
 ♦ The notion of several Jewish and Christian expositors, (see Frisch- 
 muth's Dissertation before referred to, cap. I. § 22,) that the creature 
 was originally provided with legs, which on this occasion were cut off, 
 ;(T^!2p5l Tj T^tl lD''ri!H^, Rashi ;) and that of some other commenta- 
 tors, that its primitive form was splendid and imposing, similar to that 
 in which a seraph would display himself, are alike unfounded in the 
 narrative or meaning of the word, and, I think, equally unreasonable. 
 An old Jewish gloss quoted by Maimonides, in his More Nevochhn, 
 Part 11. chap. 30, fol. 43, (y)2) Berl. edition, 1795, and in Buxtorf's 
 Translation, p. 280, 281, may be regarded as the climax of such fan- 
 cies. Here it is said, that the serpent was an animal as large as a 
 camel, that it might be ridden on, that Samniael, which is another term 
 for Satan, rode on it when Eve was deceived, and that the term em- 
 ployed in the text designates both agents. See the Proteuangelium 
 Paradisiacum of Christopher Helvicus, p. 15, in the Critici Sacri, 
 Tom. I. Pars II., at the end of the volume ; and compare Holden's 
 Dissertation on the Fall, chap. II. sect. 6, p. 118. 
 
CHAP. n. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 191 
 
 make it necessary, in order to be consistent, that we should 
 adopt the allegorical mode of interpretation throughout the 
 whole narrative. For in a connected paragraph like this, 
 uniformity of interpretation must prevail, and we are not at 
 liberty, in the same historical relation, to adopt at one time 
 the allegorical or symbolical, and at another the simple and 
 literal method. Against the allegorical interpretation of the 
 whole, there are many objections, as the connexion with 
 what follows, where the history of the same human pair 
 which are brought into view is carried forward, — the ac- 
 curate geographical description of paradise, — the fact, that 
 the condition of mankind threatened in this narrative as a 
 punishment, actually exists, — the absence of every indica- 
 tion from which it might be inferred that the author designed 
 to write an allegory and not a history, — the passages in the 
 New Testament, where the account of the fall is referred 
 to as a real history, 2 Cor. xi. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14, Rom. v. 
 12, — the embarrassment, uncertainty, and capriciousness of 
 the allegorical interpreters, when they attempt to exhibit the 
 truth intended to be conveyed, which, if the author had 
 designed his composition for an allegory, must have been so 
 obvious as to be easily discovered. 
 
 The presence of a real serpent is proved, moreover, not 
 only by the remark, chap. iii. 1, " now the serpent was more 
 subtile than any beast of the field," but by the punishment 
 denounced, which must necessarily refer, in the first instance 
 to the serpent." Christology, p. 26 s. 
 
 It is not my intention to express any decided opinion in 
 favor of the third view now under consideration ; but it 
 must be obvious that the remarks which have already been 
 made, supply an answer to several of those objections of 
 Hengstenberg. Some of the others are irrelative to the 
 view itself, and can only apply to the neological, mythic re- 
 presentation of the facts contained in the first portions of 
 
192 NOTES TO GENESIS. [pakt 11. 
 
 Genesis. The reply to the remainder will immediately 
 occur to every reflecting mind. The author assumes the 
 very principle in question, namely, that consistency requires 
 the whole narrative and representation to be regarded as an 
 allegory, or else denies any part of it to be such. It is 
 assumed also by Horslev, in his Biblical Criticism, Vol. I. 
 p. 9, 10, and 17. But this is not to be conceded. Many 
 objections, and unanswerable, there truly are to an allegorical 
 interpretation of the whole, and of the history which fol- 
 lows. But there is no necessity for this. The statements 
 made both before and after the narrative in question are so 
 stamped with the very image of historical fact, that it would 
 be impossible to view them in any other light without a 
 manifest perversion of their meaning. And it is maintained 
 by those who defend this hypothesis, that the account of the 
 fall is also a real history, as it is represented to be in the 
 New Testament. This is the question for consideration : 
 ' Is this real history of the fall of our first parents into sin, 
 through the instigation of the devil, whereby they were led 
 to disobey God, related in language partly allegorical or 
 wholly literal V It must be obvious to every candid mind, 
 that the reply to this question has no bearing whatever on 
 the fact of the fall or the doctrines deducible from it. 
 Whether it be answered in the affirmative or negative, these 
 will continue the same. There may be " embarrassment, 
 uncertainty, and Capriciousness in the attempts of some to 
 exhibit the truth intended to be conveyed," but they are 
 riot essential to a partly allegorical interpretation. 
 
 A resort to allegory might be defended on the ground of 
 necessity ; and consequently where the necessity does not 
 exist, the narrative is to be explained literally. If the ne- 
 cessity be allowed to exist in some parts of a narrative and 
 not in others, " uniformity of interpretation" cannot be de- 
 manded. The intermixture of the literal and the figurative 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 193 
 
 in immediate connexion, and without any intimation except 
 what the nature of the case suggests, is very usual in scrip- 
 ture. See Matt. viii. 22, " let the dead bury their dead ;" 
 1 Thess. iv. 16, 1 Pet. iv. 5, 6, and particularly the literal 
 clause in the sixteenth verse of the 80th Psalm, " they 
 perish at the rebuke of thy countenance," in connexion with 
 the immediately preceding beautiful allegory of the " vine 
 brought out of Egypt." Does any interpreter hesitate to 
 explain the address of Jotham to the men of Shechem in 
 the ninth chapter of Judges, partly as an allegory or para- 
 ble, (v. 8 — 15,) and partly according to the literal sense of 
 the words? (v. 16 — 20.) Every reader feels that necessity 
 demands this, as the literal sense involves an absurdity. 
 And on the same principle, the view under consideration 
 gives an allegorical sense to what is ascribed to the serpent, 
 because a literal one is thought to involve a difficulty in 
 reference to the moral character of God, and an inconsis- 
 tency with scripture and reason. " If," says Mr. Holden,* 
 "it could be satisfactorily established that Satan, without 
 using any animal as an organ, deceived Eve, and that in 
 consequence ' the serpent' is a figurative and symbolical 
 name given to him by Moses, it would not overturn the 
 literal interpretation. The account may be equally literal 
 and authentic, notwithstanding a few metaphorical expres- 
 sions or symbolical terms. If the devil be called lUnDil, 
 therefore, it will be no reason for turning the whole into 
 allegory. The only difference which this circumstance will 
 make in our interpretation is, that, in the one case the part 
 ascribed to this "ffin!}!!, and the commination of it, will 
 belong both to the devil and the material serpent, and, in 
 the other, to the devil alone ; but the history will be equally 
 true and literal. The younger Vitringa, who espouses the 
 
 * Dissertation on the Fall of Man, p. 401, 402. 
 25 
 
194 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part 11. 
 
 notion that Satan used no brute animal, contends at some 
 length, and very ably, that it does not militate against the 
 literal and historical sense. See Diss, de Serpente Vetera- 
 tore, cap. iv. § 3, et seq." 
 
 Perhaps it may be thought by some, that this third view 
 does not entirely remove the difficulty, and that, on the sup- 
 position of the presence and agency of the devil in the 
 temptation, a miracle must be implied. But this is by no 
 means a necessary consequence. It is certainly the doc- 
 trine of the New Testament, that the devil does now tempt 
 men to sin ; but no believer in this scriptural doctrine re- 
 gards such agency as miraculous. It is according to the 
 ordinary course of nature, as now existing, both as regards 
 the tempter and the tempted. And such temptation may be 
 all that the narrative under consideration states. The lan- 
 guage ascribed to the devil need not have been uttered in 
 articulate sounds. To give such a meaning of the phrase- 
 ology : " and the serpent said unto the woman," &;c. &c., 
 it is enough to maintain, that tJie tempter suggested the thought 
 which the words convey. In the communication of the 
 thought, the essence of his temptation lies, and not in the 
 fact of its having been embodied in language. To illustrate 
 this remark by specific references must be unnecessary, as 
 the scripture abounds with such language, which cannot 
 possibly escape the notice of an attentive reader ; and the 
 first chapter of Genesis is a continual exemplification of the 
 principle, as the phrase " and God said," which occurs so 
 frequently, is generally allowed to denote the determination 
 of his will, and not to signify its oral declaration. The 
 tempting sentiment did not originate with the woman ; it 
 was not the natural working of her own mind ; it was a 
 suggestion made by the great enemy of God and goodness. 
 But it will perhaps be said : can the woman be imagined 
 to address herself to the tempter, or in any way to com- 
 
CHAP. u. 4 — IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 195 
 
 municate her thoughts to him, unless he were visibly pre- 
 sent ? In reply, it may be asked, wherein lies the difficulty 
 of allowing that she might, his real presence being of course 
 understood ? Whenever a communication was made by a 
 spiritual being, whether the infinitely holy one himself or 
 some one of his angels, and replied to by the party to whom 
 it was made, is it to be taken for granted, that a visible 
 form had been assumed, whereby to make such com- 
 munication ? — that the practicability of conveying senti- 
 ments, and of replying to them, depended on the visibility 
 of the principal agent ? The advocates of the third 
 view might reasonably apprehend, that but few would main- 
 tain such a position as this. Does any one imagine that 
 a visible form appeared to Samuel, when he mistook the 
 voice that called him for that of Eli? 1 Sam. iii. 4 — 10. 
 When the law was given on Mount Sinai, the Hebrews 
 '• heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude ; only 
 they heard a voice, they saw no manner of similitude." 
 Deut. iv. 12, 15. And when the Lord Jesus arrested the 
 progress of Saul, and called to him in an audible voice, to 
 which the persecutor replied orally and received oral direc- 
 tions, it is expressly said, that " the men which journeyed 
 with him stood speechless, hearing a voice hut seeing no one, 
 iiriSiva 8s 6su^ouvTsg." Acts ix. 7. And if visibility be not 
 necessary in regard to one spiritual being, why, it might be 
 asked, is its necessity assumed in regard to another 1 The 
 moral character of either cannot be supposed to affect the 
 analogy of the cases. " We know not, and perhaps canno 
 comprehend the mode of communication between spiritual 
 essences." Holden on the Fall, p. 172. 
 
 On the other hand it may be replied : ' although the visibil- 
 ity of the spiritual agent be not contended for, the real mi- 
 raculous character of the agency is, in the latter instances, 
 undeniable. When the word of the Lord is revealed to 
 
196 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part 11. 
 
 Abraham or any other prophet ; when God tries the father 
 of the faithful, and, at the end of the trial, calls to him out 
 of heaven ; there is, as was doubtless the case at our Lord's 
 baptism and transfiguration, and on the occasion mentioned 
 in John xii. 28, and in that of Saul's conversion, an audible 
 voice, a real miraculous agency.' All this is true ; but 
 whether the cases are sufficiently analogous to that of Eve's 
 temptation, to afford ground for an argument from, the one 
 to the other, may admit of some doubt. If the temptation 
 were addressed to her by the devil in a visible appearance, 
 and conveyed by oral declaration, we should not even then 
 too hastily infer that a communication so made, was, at the 
 period in contemplation, contrary to the course of things 
 then subsisting, and, therefore, miraculous in the sense in 
 which it would be to us in the present day. It may be, that 
 angelic beings held frequent intercourse with the first human 
 pair. And if this were so, the seducer may have presented 
 himself to Eve, as readily as any of his brethren who had 
 retained their original condition, and the interchange of 
 thought between him and the woman may have been 
 made in the same way, whether oral or otherwise, as was 
 usual on other occasions when angels communicated with 
 them. 
 
 The difficulties of the subject, and the very imperfect 
 data within our reach, must suggest to every serious in- 
 quirer the duty of taking impartial views, and of avoiding 
 hasty decisions and crude speculations, founded in fancy, 
 rather than careful investigation of inspired truth. 
 
 (20.) To open the eyes is a phrase denoting increase of 
 knowledge. It is thus used of Hagar, when the well is 
 pointed out to her, (Gen. xxi. 19,) and of the disciples who 
 were made to recognize their master at Emmaus, (Luke 
 xxiv. 31.) 
 
CHAP. II. 4 IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 197 
 
 (21.) "The seed" or posterity of the woman (v. 15.) de- 
 notes mankind, comprehending of course the Saviour him- 
 self, the greatest of all her offspring. The miraculous 
 character of his birth cannot be proved to be intimated by 
 the phrase, for one entirely analogous is applied to man in 
 general. See Job xiv. 1. " The seed" or progeny of the 
 serpent, are the children of the devil ; that is, agreeably to 
 the scriptural use of the word child or son, those who are 
 like him in temper and disposition, and whose interests are 
 identified with his. It may comprehend, therefore, all in- 
 corrigibly wicked men and evil angels. The right of obdu- 
 rate sinners of mankind to be regarded as descendants of 
 the woman, connected with her and claiming the promise, 
 is virtually denied, and such enemies of God are placed in 
 the ranks to which they properly belong : " they are of 
 their father the devil," John viii. 44. Here then are two 
 distinct classes ; the partizans of the kingdom of darkness 
 headed by Satan, and those of Eve's posterity who " are 
 on the Lord's side," together with the great Redeemer him- 
 self, with whom they are united in character and interests. 
 
 In determining the general meaning of the prediction in 
 this verse, it is not necessary to settle the original meaning 
 of the word Cl^tl). It may be, according to Gesenius a.nd 
 Umbreit, the same as that of C]!S5'ffi, ' to pant after,' and hence 
 may mean, ' to lie in wait for' ; or it may come from the 
 Arabic \L^, and mean, as Dathe says, ' to look out for with 
 raised head,' (comp. the Greek d'Tfoxa^aSoxia, earnest ex- 
 pectation;) or else from \Ll, 'to scent out.' Onkelos seems 
 to have followed this derivation in the latter clause, which 
 he renders thus : i^S^D^ H""? iL^p-^HiH Jn^^l. ' and thou shalt 
 watch for him at the end.' So also the Septuagint, dvrog tfs 
 Tr]^r)(j'£i xscpocKriv, >c, rfu TTi^rjo'sig aurS "T-Tt'^vav, and the Vulgate : et 
 tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus. Store, in his Opuscula Acade- 
 
198 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part II. 
 
 mica, Vol. II. p. 416 ss., defends another meaning of the 
 Arabic word, viz. ' to come close to,' and deduces this as 
 the sense of the text : " it (the progeny of the woman) 
 shall come close to thy head, that is, shall attack it with 
 hostile intent and not in vain, but thou shalt come close to 
 his heels, shalt come under them, shalt be trampled under 
 foot." See p. 419, s. But this exposition takes the same 
 word in the two clauses in opposite senses ; the former con- 
 veying the idea of successful hostility, the latter of complete 
 prostration under the power of the foe. In Chaldee, the 
 word means, ' to wear away, to grind to dust, to scrape, to 
 file,' like Ti'B'W and C|3lp. Whatever may be the primitive 
 meaning of the root, the idea here conveyed in both clauses 
 is that of hostility ; and this sense agrees with the only two 
 other places in which the word occurs in scripture : Job ix. 
 17, " he breaketh me with a tempest," he assaileth me with 
 hostile fury; and Ps. cxxxix. 11, where it is used meta- 
 phorically, * darkness shall assail me,' shall overwhelm, 
 crush me down, as it were. The degree of injury to be 
 sustained by the respective parties is obviously implied in 
 the terms ' head' and ' heel.' As the head is the seat of life, 
 the assailing and crushing of it express complete destruc- 
 tion of vital energy, entire prostration of the adversary. 
 The antithetic phrase conveys, of course, the idea of injury 
 comparatively trifling. 
 
 The promise in this verse does undoubtedly imply the 
 doctrine of a Saviour, who should deliver the posterity of 
 Eve from the effects of the fall, and destroy the power of 
 the tempter ; so that it may well be regarded as the first 
 annunciation of the Gospel, involving its great and funda- 
 mental truth. But it is conveyed in figurative language, 
 and, like many very early predictions, is obscure. How 
 far our first parents understood its import, we are unable to 
 say. Where the scriptures have withheld information in such 
 points, it were folly to affect knowledge. 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 199 
 
 (22.) That death in the ordinary sense of the word, 
 meaning the separation of the soul and body, is here in- 
 tended, is too plain to need proof. Whether any more 
 comprehensive sense is implied on the supposition of subse- 
 quent rejection of mercy offered through a Saviour, it is 
 not consistent with the plan of these notes to examine. 
 Doubtless such a sense is a scriptural truth, whether it be 
 taught in this history or gathered exclusively from other 
 places. As the death which is here plainly threatened, is 
 the natural result of that mortal state which was the imme- 
 diate effect of the transgression, the language of the origi- 
 nal sanction, " the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall 
 surely die," admits of an easy interpretation, as the cause of 
 dissolution then commenced its operations, and at that very 
 time man became mortal. 
 
 (23.) Eve, in Hebrew n^H, equivalent to T])Tl, Ufe. The 
 name was probably imposed some time after, when the 
 descendants of the first pair had become considerably 
 numerous. 
 
 (24.) The language of the text, " the Lord God made 
 coats of skins," is to be explained on the principle, the use 
 of which is so common in scripture, whereby an action is 
 ascribed to an indirect and remote cause. The meaning is, 
 he instructed our first parents to make themselves garments. 
 Berger, indeed, in his Praktische Einleitung, Vol. I. p. 63, 
 considers this and other representations contained in the 
 first chapters of Genesis, as illustrative of the author's gross 
 and imperfect conceptions of the divine nature. But it is 
 not true, that the narrative represents God as making man 
 " cloaths with his own hand," to use this writer's indecorous 
 language. It might as well be said, that Jacob himself 
 made the coat of Joseph. Comp. xxxvii. 3. 
 
200 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part 11. 
 
 (25.) ViTRiNGA,* and some other critics, suppose the lan- 
 guage in the former part of v. 22 to be ironical, implying, 
 that the tempter's promise (v. 5,) had failed to result in any 
 thing but misery. But the knowing of good and evil, that 
 is, the practical and experimental acquaintance with evil in 
 contradistinction to good, was an effect of the fall, and the 
 comparison here made need not be carried out beyond the 
 single point of an increase of knowledge. Before, the man 
 was happily ignorant of evil and innocent of its effects ; 
 now he is practically acquainted with it in contradistinction 
 to good. The supposition of irony is hardly consistent with 
 the solemnity of the occasion. The phrase, " like one of 
 us," is explained by some in reference to the plurality of 
 persons in the Deity. It seems reasonable to give it the 
 same sense as the corresponding phrase in v. 5, "ye shall be 
 Q'^Jlbj^S-" The Septuagint renders this, 'like gods,' ^s ^soi, 
 and this is followed by the Vulgate, " sicut dii." The Chal- 
 dee translates 'l'^^")^"!^ ' like great ones,' and the Arabic 
 'k^^%Juo\^, ' like the angels' ; the Syriac alone uses the singu- 
 lar number, | q^ y— i1 , ' like God.' Our English translation, 
 "like gods," follows the Septuagint, and means, most pro- 
 bably, like divine beings, in other words, like angels. Thus 
 the word C'll^^ is used in Ps. viii. 6, where it is rendered 
 by the Sept. ayyeXoi, a version which is adopted by St. Paul 
 in Heb. ii. 7, and undoubtedly gives the sense of the origi- 
 nal, although it is not a literal translation. The view sug- 
 gested by Rashi, and presented in the note on i. 26, illus- 
 trates the phrase, ' like one of us.' 
 
 The account of the Cherubim, glorious celestial beings, 
 who were appainted to guard the entrance into paradise, is 
 
 * See his Dissertation, de arbore prudentiee in Paradiso, in his Ob- 
 servationes Sacras, Lib. iv. cap. xii. § iv. p. 1047. 
 
CHAfi 11. 4 — IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 201 
 
 regarded by Michaelis and Dathe as a poetic description of 
 thunder and lightning. Comp. Ps. xviii. 9 — 15. But this is 
 at Variance with the context, which is historical ; and it is 
 not required by any difficulties in the case, as such a pro- 
 cedure could not but strike a salutary awe into the minds of 
 the offenders, fill them with concern for having transgressed 
 God's law, and thus deepen their penitential emotions. The 
 " flaming sword turning itself every way" denotes the effi- 
 ciency of the method employed, and the utter impracticabil- 
 ity of counteracting the divine intentions. It is probable 
 that the expedient for preventing access to the tree of life, 
 continued in operation but a short time. 
 
 (26.) As the scriptures uniformly derive the existence of 
 all mankind from Adam and Eve,* it is evident that their 
 descendants must have been considerably numerous at the 
 time of this transaction. The imperfect notices of Cain's 
 apprehension after the divine judgments had been denounced 
 against him, and of his subsequent conduct, (v. 14 — 16,) are 
 sufficient to establish this point ; and it is quite consistent 
 with the remarkable brevity which characterizes the early 
 part of Genesis. It was not the author's intention to give 
 an entire history of the family of our first parents, but to 
 select those incidents to which more than ordinary interest 
 was attached, or which were most immediately adapted to 
 advance the true knowledge and worship of God. Cain 
 may have been Adam's first-born ; but this is uncertain. 
 The language in v. 1, merely states that his mother gave 
 him a name expressive of acquisition, but whether he was 
 the first treasure of this sort given to his parents, or one 
 
 * The variety of species existing among the human race may not, 
 indeed, have yet been satisfactorily explained ; but certainly, it affords 
 no proof of the opinion of distinct races derived from different ori- 
 ginals. See Wiseman's third and fourth Lectures, which are devoted 
 to this subject. 
 
 26 
 
202 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part U. 
 
 subsequently added to the social circle, we are not informed. 
 The words (iin^~i1i^ mean ' with/ ' by,' or " from the Lord,'^ 
 and denote Eve's pious recognition of the agency of divine 
 providence in giving her this son. Thus, they are well ex- 
 plained by the Septuagint, Sia tS &s^, and this is followed by 
 the Vulgate, per Deum. tli^ may be elliptical for flSSsI^ (comp. 
 xlix. 25. 2 Kings xxiii. 35,) or it may be taken in the sense of 
 'with.' See Gesenius, II. 2. The notion that Eve believed 
 this son to be the, promised Messiah, and avows his divinity 
 by calling him Jehovah, is utterl}^ unfounded, and assumes 
 a measure of religious knowledge, which there is no proof 
 that she possessed. As the name of Abel means vanity, if 
 it were imposed immediately on his birth, it was probably 
 selected on account of some unknown contemporaneous 
 circumstances illustrative of the vain and uncertain charac-" 
 ter of human expectations. It is unnecessary to say how 
 well the designation corresponds with his melancholy death. 
 
 (27.) This is the sole ground on which the scripture rests 
 the procedure of God in reference to the offerings of these 
 two brothers. It was " faith" that made Abel's acceptable, 
 (Heb. xi. 4,) that principle of holy obedience, which, under 
 all dispensations, (Heb. iv. 2, 3,) was the condition of favor. 
 The faith eulogized in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, is a 
 confident expectation of what God hath promised, and a firm 
 conviction of the truth of whatever he hath revealed ; and it 
 leads to an uniform acquiescence in whatever he requires. 
 This faith was Abel's, whether it acted on revealed views of 
 an atoning Saviour to come, or on any other declarations com- 
 municated from heaven. And it would be equally acceptable 
 in either case, plainly because in either case it would have ori- 
 ginated in the same inward character. It has been confidently 
 said, that the faith of Abel prompted him to the choice of an 
 animal sacrifice, in obedience to a divine institution, and that 
 
CHAP. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 203 
 
 he thereby showed that his hopes were founded on an 
 atonement to be made at some future time by the promised 
 Messiah. Certainly it were rash to assert the contrary. 
 But where is the proof that Abel was so fully acquainted 
 with the divine plan for the redemption of mankind? Doubt- 
 less he believed in the promise made to his parents, but we 
 have no evidence to satisfy us that he knew the manner in 
 which it was to be accomplished ; and where the oracles of 
 God are silent, it is wise in human expositors not to affect 
 knowledge. The notion that his animal sacrifice was made 
 in addition to such an offering as Cain presented, was ad- 
 vanced by Kennicott ; but it is unsupported, either by the 
 original language of the text, (v. 4,) or by that in Heb. xi. 4, 
 to which appeal has been made. The word nilS^ offering, 
 on which Kennicott lays great stress, is not confined, as he 
 assumes it to be, to " an oblation of the fruit of the ground, 
 or an unbloody, in opposition to a bloody sacrifice," but is 
 often used for gift in general, and, in the latter part of v. 4, 
 is certainly exegetical of the firstlings and fat of the flock. 
 Undoubtedly it would not be maintained, that Abel's " offer- 
 ing" which God respected, did not comprehend the animal 
 victim ; as this, according to the hypothesis, was the very 
 thing that gave it value, and showed the offerer's faith. 
 That irXsma, in Heb. xii. 4, is used of character rather than 
 number, is in itself altogether probable ; and it is strange, 
 that Dr. Kennicott should say, " that ■rXgiwv has not the sense 
 of praestantior through the whole New Testament." See 
 his Dissertation on the oblations of Cain and Abel, p. 197, 198. 
 Matt. xii. 41, 42, are clear instances of this meaning. It 
 must be said, that several of Kennicott's criticisms are far- 
 fetched and unfounded. — See Magee on the Atonement, 
 No. LXII. 
 
 As Abel's faith made his offering acceptable, the want of 
 it, proved by the want of obedience, caused the rejection of 
 
204 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part 11. 
 
 Cain's. The character of this man is intimated with suffi- 
 cient distinctness by the expostulation of God in v. 7, " if 
 thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? (or perhaps, 
 more in accordance with the Hebrew : ' shall there not be 
 elevation' ? in reference to what is said in v. 5, at the end :) 
 " and if thou doest not well, &c." It is not to be supposed 
 that such an address would be made to a righteous person. 
 If the language of the narrative were consistent with any 
 doubt on this point, that of the New Testament would en- 
 tirely remove it. We are told by St. John, {1 Ep. iii. 12,) 
 that " Cain was of the wicked one," and that " he slew his 
 brother, because his own works were evil and his brother's 
 righteous." See also Jude 11. As the scriptural account of 
 these two persons sufficiently explains the grounds of the 
 divine procedure in reference to each, sound philosophy, as 
 well as common sense, prohibits the indulgence of useless 
 speculation. 
 
 It seems most probable, from the connexion of the verse 
 which mentions the occupation of the two brothers with 
 those which specify the sort of offerings which they made, 
 (2 — 4,) that the latter was the natural result of the former. 
 But this opinion by no means implies that of the human 
 origin of sacrifices. Whether they be regarded as cere- 
 monies indicative of covenant relation, or as gifts recog- 
 nizing divine authority and right,* this view seems wholly 
 at variance with their nature, antiquity, and typical charac- 
 ter, as announced in the New Testament. The manner in 
 which the offerings of Cain and Abel are introduced, (v. 3,) 
 seems to intimate that such a method of propitiating the di- 
 vine favor was then commonly practised ; and that, in so 
 very early a period of human existence, it should have re- 
 
 • In reference «to these two views of the origin of sacrifice, see Jen- 
 ning's Jewish Antiquities, and tlie authorities referred to, in Book I. 
 Chap. V. Vol. I. p. 305 ss., Lend. edit. 1808. 
 
CHAP. II. 4 — IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 205 
 
 suited from observation of the influence of similar acts on 
 men, or reasoning from the action to the wished-for end, is 
 in the highest degree improbable. As the old dispensation 
 was emblematic of the new, it seems altogether analogous 
 to the general representations of scripture, to consider sac- 
 rifice as divinely instituted, in order to typify the offering of 
 Christ. The Mosaic sacrifices were undoubtedly of this 
 nature ; and it is impossible to give a rational account of 
 sacrifice, as almost coeval with the origin and co-extensive 
 with the existence of man before the promulgation of Chris- 
 tianity, without allowing its divine original. The opinion, 
 therefore, which has so often been maintained, that the 
 beasts, whose skins contributed to form the clothing of our 
 fallen parents, had been slain and offered in sacrifice by di' 
 vine direction, seems to intimate the true origin of this re- 
 markable rite. The case admits of but three possible sup- 
 positions. Either the animals referred to were put to death 
 by our first parents, to supply their own wants of food or 
 clothing ; or they died a natural death; or they were slain 
 as piacular victims. The first is in every view incredible, 
 as is proved from the circumstances in which Adam and 
 Eve stood. There is no improbability in either of the others. 
 God may have exhibited to the culprits the agonies of death 
 in the animal frame, in order to show them part of the con- 
 sequence of their disobedience, and to make them compre- 
 hend with the more feeling, something of the terror of the 
 sentence, " thou shalt surely die." Or, he may have in- 
 tended by the exhibition to institute the sacrificial rite, as 
 emblematic of " the lamb of God slain from the foundation 
 of the world." The last view seems most in unison with 
 the benevolence of him, who " so loved the world as to give 
 his only begotten son." 
 
 (28.) I have employed this language with a view to what 
 
206 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part II. 
 
 is perhaps the true meaning of v. 7. " If thou doest not 
 well," if thou continuest to purpose and act wickedly; "sin 
 lieth at the door," it is close at hand, involving guilt and 
 punishment, and tempting thee to further acts of iniquity : 
 ' unto thee is its desire,' it longs to subject thee to its mere- 
 tricious influence, and courts thy favor ; ' but thou shouldst rule 
 over it.' Other meanings have, indeed, been elicited from the 
 Hebrew, for which the reader must consult the commenta- 
 tors. Magee on the Atonement, No. LXV., gives various 
 views, both ancient and modern. He explains the latter 
 part of the verse of Abel's subjection to Cain, the elder 
 brother : " thus he may become subject to thee, and thou 
 mayest have the dominion over him." But this is not sup- 
 ported by the meaning of np^ffivl in the other two passages 
 in which the word occurs, viz. Gen. iii. 16, and Cant. vii. 11, 
 in both of which it is used of the female, and conveys the 
 idea of inclination, desire. The same is the meaning of the 
 
 corresponding Arabic word /v\^jSj ; and in Rabbinical He- 
 brew p^tl) is used in the same sense. The interpretation adopt- 
 ed by a certain Rabbi Solomon,* and given also by the best of 
 the later Christian interpreters, is probably correct. HflSb 
 
 b^ "ipitri ^trs5 Ji;>^ t^npb nn^ T)3ti ]^^t^ <y*ni rs^t:n 
 rp^m mb^n ptub .inpi^n i ']^^t:nnb 5^:11 posn ^b:n nr 
 fi5< njii^ bijj^ <^!S!^t:nnb nppint25?2 T)2^ njj5t:hn b"i 
 : niitiD mti5nn p^i ^d 'HI btu)2b bDiii n^jin " sin lieth 
 
 * The work here referred to is a Comnientary on the Book of Genesis, 
 written in Rabbinical Hebrew by a learned Jew of Dubno in Russia, 
 and printed in the first volume (4to.) of the ilblbD T'^'^ (raised up, that 
 is, prepared way :) a work on the Pentateuch, and some other portions 
 of the Old Testament used by the Jews in the Synagogue. It was 
 published in Furth, in 1801. Besides the commentaries of this writer, 
 and of some other Jews, it contains the Targum of Onkelos, the Com- 
 mentary of Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, and a German Translation of the 
 whole Pentateuch by the celebrated Moses Mendelsohn, printed in 
 Hebrew letters. This publication will be again referred to in these 
 notes. 
 
CHA?. II. 4— IV. 26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 207 
 
 at the door. Iniquity is continually watching to take thy hfe, 
 (or soul ItUSS,) and without the intermission of a moment 
 lies in wait to cause thee to sin." — " ItlpTSDri denotes eager 
 desire. The meaning is, that the sin (STlls^'Dnn) continually 
 desires to cause thee to sin. But, if thou wilt, thou canst 
 conquer it, for the ability is given thee." 
 
 Still it is proper to remark, that in the other passage in 
 Genesis where the word occurs, it is followed by the same 
 language as in the verse under consideration. In the one : 
 " thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over 
 thee ;" in the other : " unto thee shall be his desire, and thou 
 shalt rule over him." If, therefore, it be allowable to as- 
 sume that ^IP^tDiTl had the general meaning of acquiescence, 
 subserviency, thus implying simply inferiority in the one and 
 authority and right in the other, it might well refer to Abel's 
 obligation to submit to the well known claims of his elder 
 brother ; and this indeed would give a very natural inter- 
 pretation of the verse. The root of the word p^tU, to run 
 after, to desire, would certainly suit such a general mean- 
 ing, although there is no direct proof that the derived noun 
 was ever used in this sense. 
 
 The eighth verse is probably imperfect. According to 
 the authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septua- 
 gint, followed by the Syriac and Vulgate versions, the 
 former part of the verse runs thus : ' And Cain said unto 
 Abel his brother, let us go out into the field.' This agrees 
 with the words which immediately follow, and I think is 
 more probable than Dathe's view, who gives to ^^IS'^1 
 the meaning of ' spoke harshly to,' from the Arabic ; and 
 also, than that of Gesenius, " and Cain said (it) unto Abel, 
 that is, he told him that which God had said to him in v. 7." 
 Robinson's Translation, under ^)55}^ 1. 
 
 29. The Hebrew of the thirteenth verse is ambiguous. It 
 
208 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part 11. 
 
 may be rendered, 'my iniquity is too great to be forgiven,' (lit- 
 erally, ' to forgive' :) or : ' my punishment is too great to bear.' 
 The latter version agrees with what immediately follows ; 
 the former gives a reason for what is said in the fifteenth 
 verse. — The phrase in the fourteenth, " from thy face I shall 
 be hid," may allude to some visible exhibition of divine ma- 
 jesty, from all connexion with which Cain was to be de- 
 barred ; but most likely it is figurative, in allusion to the 
 usage of monarchs, (see note 9, p. 142, 143,) admis- 
 sion to whose presence (or face,) was always an indica- 
 tion of favor. — The last part of the verse intimates the 
 remorse of Cain, and the horror which he supposed his 
 fratricide would occasion in the mind of every one not lost 
 to the ordinary feelings of nature. 
 
 " The Lord set a mark upon Cain." The absurdities to 
 which this erroneous translation has given rise, may well 
 be passed over. The inquisitive reader will find them in 
 Patrick's note. The term flii^ is generally used to denote 
 an attestation or sign, intended to confirm the truth of some 
 declaration, and it is often applied to designate a miraculous 
 attestation. As there is nothing in the context which would 
 determine the nature of this sign, it is impossible to arrive 
 at certainty. — Instead of "XDj, therefore, at the beginning of 
 the verse, some manuscripts read 15 ^'^'j not so ; and this 
 sense is given by the Septuagint, Symmachus, Theodotion, 
 and by the Syriac and Vulgate versions. It is followed by 
 Dathe : " nequaquam." The common reading is the more 
 difficult, and, therefore, the more likely to be true. It admits 
 of a clear sense, and, I think, it agrees with the use o( 
 5(a tSto in John vii. 22, and Rom. v. 12. The meaning seems 
 to be, ' consequently,' consistently with what has been said, 
 or is about to be said. 
 
 (30.) The land of Nod, that is, of wandering, or flight ; 
 from ^:i5, " to be driven about, to wander." 
 
CKAP. Ill 4 — IV. 26.] NOTE3 TO GENESIS. 2O'0 
 
 (31.) The fragmentary character of these verses, which 
 are also poetic in their structure, makes them necessarily 
 obscure. The Jewish fiction appended to this imperfect 
 account may be found in Patrick and other commentators. 
 It is also given in full in the Rabbinical work, entitled ' the 
 Book of Jasher,' a translation of which has lately been pub- 
 lished in this city. The words in the latter part of v. 23 
 may be rendered interrogatively, and thus the innocence of 
 Lamech will be contrasted with the guilt of Cain, and the 
 groundlessness of the women's uneasiness made evident. 
 Or, they may be affirmative, implying that although Lamech 
 had indeed slain a young man, it was in self-defence. The 
 equivalent phrases, " to my wounding — to my hurt," — may 
 intimate, that the danger of being hurt and wounded by this 
 youth's attack, compelled him to the act. Or, according to 
 another view adopted by Dathe and Rosenmiiller, they may 
 refer to contemplated aggression against Lamech on the 
 part of the friends of the person whom he had killed : " to my 
 wounding," that is, so as to result in my being attacked and 
 injured. 
 
 (32.) I have endeavored in the analysis to give a meaning 
 which combines the two most ancient and satisfactory in- 
 terpretations. The Targums and some other Jewish au- 
 thorities suppose a direct reference to the rise of idolatry 
 and the increase of wickedness, and translate the Hebrew 
 word, " profaned" ; a sense whidh it often bears in Piel. 
 Some critics, comparing the words with such places as Isa. 
 xliv. 5, xlviii. 1, translate thus : ' then it was begun (or, men 
 began) to call, (namely, one's self, or to be called,) by the 
 name of the Lord.' Thus Dathe. As the invariable mean- 
 ing of the phrase in the Old Testament is ' to worship,' the 
 usage of language certainly requires the same sense here. 
 See the excellent notes of Vossius on the first section of 
 27 
 
210 N0TE3 TO GENESIS. [part in , 
 
 Maimonides' Treatise on Idolatry, and those of Rosenmiiller 
 on this text. — But, as it is evident from incidental notices in the 
 history, that the nuniber of Adam's progeny must have been 
 very considerable long before this time, it would seem alto- 
 gether improbable, that the origin of divine worship, and 
 even of public worship, should have been contemporaneous 
 with the birth of Enos. This difficulty is avoided by sup- 
 posing the sacred writer to use the expression in an em- 
 phatic sense, as referring to the public profession of true 
 religion in opposition to idolatry and wickedness of every 
 kind. The contents of the sixth chapter confirm this view. 
 
 Part III. Chap. v. 1 — vi. 9. 
 
 (33.) Adam is properly a generic term for man, but is 
 here employed as a proper name, designating the first of his 
 race. It may therefore be translated either ' Adam' or 'man,' 
 as the ease requires. 
 
 (34.) General view of the discrepancies of the Hebrew, 
 Samaritan, and Septuagint chronology until the deluge ; 
 from Jahn's Hebrew Bible, p. 12. 
 
 According to the Samaritan, Jared, Methuselah, and 
 Lamech died in the same year ; and therefore, probably, it 
 is artificially constructed. See Bible de Vence, Tom. I. 
 p. 54G, ss. 
 
CHAP. V. 1 VI. 9.] 
 
 NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 211 
 
 
 Befor 
 Heb. 
 
 139 
 
 105 
 90 
 70 
 65 
 
 162 
 65 
 
 187 
 
 182 
 
 500 
 
 1556 
 
 1656 
 
 e Paternity. 
 
 After Paternity. 
 
 T.ital. 1 
 
 Sam. 
 130 
 105 
 90 
 70 
 65 
 62 
 65 
 67 
 
 53 
 
 500 
 1207 
 1307 
 
 Sept. 
 
 230 
 
 205 
 
 190 
 
 170 
 
 165 
 
 162 
 
 165 
 
 187 
 167 
 
 188 
 
 500 
 
 2172 
 
 ■2272 
 
 Heb. 
 800 
 807 
 815 
 840 
 830 
 800 
 300 
 782 
 
 595 
 
 Sam. 
 800 
 807 
 815 
 840 
 830 
 785 
 300 
 653 
 
 600 
 
 Sept 
 
 700 
 
 707 
 
 715 
 
 740 
 
 730 
 
 800 
 
 200 
 
 782 
 802 
 
 565 
 
 Heb. 
 930 
 912 
 905 
 910 
 895 
 962 
 365 
 969 
 
 777 
 
 Sam. 
 930 
 912 
 905 
 910 
 895 
 847 
 365 
 720 
 
 653 
 
 Sept. 
 930 
 912 
 905 
 910 
 895 
 962 
 365 
 969 
 
 753 
 
 Adam 
 
 Seth 
 
 Enos 
 
 Cainan 
 
 Mahalalecl 
 
 Jared 
 
 Enoch 
 
 Methuselah. . . , 
 
 Lamech 
 
 Noah. . . . 
 
 Total 
 
 Deluge. . . . 
 
 It is observable, that the construction of the notice of 
 Noah in v. 32, differs from that of all the preceding notices. 
 These state the age of the individual spoken of, first, before 
 paternity is nnentioned ; secondly, the time he afterwards 
 lived ; and, thirdly, the whole sum of his life. Here it is 
 said : " and Noah was five hundred years old ; and Noah 
 begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." The difference is easily 
 accounted for. The three sons of Noah are introduced, and 
 not merely the first born, because they make so prominent 
 a figure in the history which immediately follows. After giv- 
 ing an account of the flood, with the cause that gave rise to it, 
 and some important matters closely connected with it, 
 (vi. 1 — ix. 27,) the author proceeds with the genealogy in 
 
212 NOTES TO GENESIS. [paet m. 
 
 ix, 28, 29 : " And Noah lived after the flood three hundred 
 and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nhie hun- 
 dred and fifty years, and he died." It is remarkable, that 
 the same method of representation is pursued in xlvii. 28 : 
 " And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years ; 
 so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven 
 years." In the former case, the period that Noah lived 
 after the flood is first stated, with which the time that Ja- 
 cob lived in Egypt corresponds. This is followed, in the 
 one case, by a notice of " all the days of Noah," and, in the 
 other, of " the whole age of Jacob." — The possibility of 
 these two portions having been written by different authors, 
 is, of course, undeniable, as one writer might readily imitate 
 another ; but, certainly, the commonly received opinion, that 
 the whole book is the work of one individual, harmonizes 
 exactly with the internal evidence hence resulting. 
 
 (35.) The phrase " walked with God," which is used of 
 Enoch in v. 22, 24, denotes friendly and intimate inter- 
 course, and consequently implies similarity of character. 
 Comp. the Heb. in 1 Sam. xxv. 15, and Amos iii. 3. The 
 Targum of Onkelos explains the general sense : ' walked in 
 the fear of God.' To the same purpose the Septuagint 
 Jua^sVTTjrfs, which is employed also in Heb. xi. 5, " he pleased 
 God." — Perhaps, indeed, the Hebrew narrative would not 
 alone justify a positive opinion in favor of Enoch's transla- 
 tion, but the passage in the epistle just referred to, is de- 
 cisive with all who acknowledge its divine authority. Still 
 the Hebrew alone would suggest something extraordinary. 
 For while it is said of every other patriarch in this genealo- 
 gical list, " and he died" ; the language used respecting 
 Enoch is very diflferent : " he was not, for God took him." 
 It is not therefore surprising that the oldest Jewish interpre- 
 ters, the author of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom, xliv. 
 
-CHAP. V. 1— VI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 213 
 
 16, and the Targumists, Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, 
 agree in the opinion that Enoch was translated to heaven. 
 And, indeed, to suppose that the holy man's piety was re- 
 warded with an early death, as must be allowed unless he 
 were removed alive like EHjah, would be entirely inconsis- 
 tent with the representations which pervade the Old Testa- 
 ment. " Length of days" and numerous offspring remune- 
 rate the devoted servant of God. 
 
 (36.) It is uncertain whether Noah's name were imposed 
 immediately on his birth, or on some subsequent occasion. 
 He is called ri5 rest, and yet his father says, this one ^D^^rj^"! 
 will comfort us. The Septuagint either read the text dif- 
 ferently, or it explains the meaning : SiavairaCasi riixag, shall 
 give us rest ; and several commentators would, by a slight 
 alteration of the text, adapt it to this sense. They propose 
 to read ^5n"'p"l. But all such expedients are unnecessary. 
 ^5)2)15'^. rather appears to be an allusion to (15, or a parono- 
 masia with it, than intended to give an etymological reason 
 of the name. Comp. Gen. xlix. 19, where we have 
 ^51^^i 'mii 15, where the paronomasia is equally evident, 
 although the association arising from the meaning of the 
 words is very indistinct. 
 
 (37.) This appears to be the most satisfactory exposition 
 of the text. That magistrates are intended by the phrase, 
 " sons of God" ; or that the higher ranks are said to have 
 amalgamated with the lower, or (as very ancient interpret- 
 ers, both Jewish and Christian, maintained,) that angels are 
 represented as having had intercourse with women, whence 
 giants are said to have sprung, the demigods and heroes of 
 ancient mythology, are notions, which, however they may 
 vary in degrees of extravagance, are alike unsupported by 
 sober and rational investigation. It is surprising that 
 Drechsler (ubi sup. p. 91, 92,) attempts to defend the last 
 
1214 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part III. 
 
 mentioned sense of the phrase " sons of God." He supposes 
 fallen angels to be meant, and, in proof of their being called 
 by this appellation, appeals to Job i. 6, ii. 2. But here, and 
 in xxxviii, 7, of the same book, holy angels are evidently 
 designated. This is indisputable in the last passage. And 
 in the other two, Satan is not said to be one of the sons of 
 God ; it is merely said that he presented himself among 
 them. This would seem to be very unnecessarily intro- 
 duced, if he belonged to their number ; whereas, if he ap- 
 peared in the hght of an informer or accuser, intruding 
 among beings with whom he had no right to associate, the 
 notice of his presence in this holy company is altogether 
 natural. The sons of God are probably those of the pious 
 race, and the daughters of men, the ungodly, (idolators per- 
 haps. Comp. iv. 26,) who appear to be so called by anti- 
 thesis, as they are styled in the New Testament, children of 
 the devil, or of this world. See 1 John iii. 10. Luke xvi. 8. 
 
 (38.) "liTj~i%b. For the various interpretations of this 
 phrase, see the commentators. All the most important views 
 may be found in Dathe's note. Most of the ancient versions 
 give the sense of ' shall not remain' ; s fiii xaraixeiv*]. Sept. 
 non permanebit: Vulg. Probably they read I^D^ or l^l"^ 
 although Gesenius thinks this supposition unnecessary. See 
 him on the word "l^T or ll'l. His own view is not very intel- 
 ligible, either in the original Latin or the English translation. 
 " In the first edition of the larger Lexicon," which contains, 
 he says, " the view to which he has returned," his language 
 is as follows : " My spirit, the divine which dwells in them, 
 (the divine nature imparted to them,) shall not be debased, 
 dishonored in man forever, since he is flesh ; or, tiirough his 
 criminal conduct ; flesh is he." See Handworterbuch, 
 Leipzig, 1810, Vol. I. p. 187. Ewald gives a similar in- 
 terpretation. Komposition der Genesis, p. 203, 204, note. 
 Their meaning appears to be, that the spirit should not al- 
 
^ 
 
 CHAP. V. 1— VI, 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 215' 
 
 ways be subjected, as it were, to degradation and contempt 
 by dwelling among such abandoned men. This interpreta- 
 tion of the word " spirit" was probably taken from the Dub- 
 nian Commentator in the Jlblbt) 'I'll : at least, it accords with 
 that given by him. "My celestial (iTIiT'bS'n) spirit which I 
 breathed into man shall not continually contend and strive 
 with flesh. ItDl b^lH Qti'©!!: because he truly is flesh, and 
 not divine spirit (literally, spirit of God, 'VVb!^ rTT^,) alone, 
 but compounded of flesh and spirit." 
 
 Ewald (ubi sup.) remarks further, that if the expression, 
 " his days shall be one hundred and twenty years," related 
 to the term of respite allowed to the antediluvians, the 
 fact that such a period was granted, would afterwards be 
 stated, agreeably to the writer's usage. But we may well 
 ask in this author's own language on another occasion, 
 (p. 214,) " must the narrator cling so tenaciously to his 
 form ?" The execution of some threats he has indeed par- 
 ticularly specified, but not of all ; and why should it be as- 
 sumed that this must be of the number ? The coming of 
 the flood at the proper time would sufficiently mark the ac- 
 complishment of the threat to the party chiefly interested ; 
 and to others living after the flood, the fact itself as a divine 
 judgment and warning was all important, not its chronolo- 
 gical relation to the period of the threatening. 
 
 If ']^l'l be equivalent to "^^T (and verbs "15? and "'^3? oftei* 
 interchange their middle radical,) the old translation of 
 Symmachus i x^/vsi will give the sense, and this coincides 
 with our own version, " shall not strive with," as one does, 
 who is always judging, and censuring another's conduct. Or, 
 agreeably to the Hebrew use of the word 'judge,' it may 
 convey the idea of government, as if it were said, ' my Spirit 
 shall not always rule (endeavor to rule) in man ; after a 
 limited period, I will abandon him to his guilt and its 
 punishment.' 
 
216 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part iv. 
 
 (39.) C^bSSn or Q^b'^SS'l : both forms occur in Num. 
 xiii. 33. These are the only two places in which the word 
 is found. Our translation renders it " giants," in accordance 
 with some of the ancient versions, particularly the Septua- 
 gint and Vulgate, which have /I'/avrsj, gigantes, Aquila has 
 /Sfaiscr, Symmachus £*i'7rtVTovTaff, Onkelos 5j5^"]!IL'3 powerful, the 
 
 Syriac i Vaju.^. ,the same. Other authorities give it the sense 
 of revolters, apostates. Any one of these meanings agrees 
 with the radical idea of the word, and suits the context. The 
 Dubnian Commentator on v. 2 thinks it implies inferiority, 
 degeneracy, a falling off as we say, from their forefathers. 
 He refers to Job xii. 3, tD3^ ^pj^ bS j-i<"b, I am not in- 
 ferior to you." 
 
 Part IV. Chap. vi. 9— xi. 29. 
 
 (40.) f'li^ri-iliiS^ryzV/i the earth. So Onkelos Q5? ; the Sep- 
 * tuagint gives the meaning xai Tr,v y~qv. Some prefer the sense of 
 from, as if it were t^^)^, but this is unnecessary. The 
 threatened destruction of the earth by no means implies its 
 being reduced to fragments, or the crushing to pieces (as some, 
 especially those of the Hutchinsonian school, have maintained) 
 of its exterior crust. General desolation and ruin of the sur- 
 face, are what is meant. Whether the deluge extended over 
 the whole earth, or was confined to those regions of Asia 
 which are contiguous to the countries in which mankind 
 originally settled, has been much disputed. The strong and 
 unqualified representations contained in the account itself, 
 (see particularly vii. 19 ss.) would seem to favor the affir- 
 mative. But, on the other hand, it may be said with truth 
 that general statements are often limited by the very na- 
 ture of the case, and the author may be supposed to speak 
 of the world as then known. Certain it is, that language 
 equally general in its meaning with that here employed in 
 
tHAp. VI. 9— IX. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 217 
 
 reference to the flood, is elsewhere used in a very limited 
 sense. Thus we read in Gen. xli. 54, 56, 57, that " the 
 dearth was in all lands, and the famine was over all the face 
 of the earth, and all countries came into Egypt to buy corn, 
 because the famine was sore in all lands ;" while it is evi- 
 dent, from the very nature of the case, that the application 
 to Egypt for food must have been partial, and therefore, in 
 all probability, so also was the distress. In the same sort 
 of language, God tells the Israelites, that he " will begin to 
 put the fear of them and the dread of them upon the na- 
 tions that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear re- 
 port of them and shall tremble," (Deut. ii. 25 ;) although it 
 is not to be doubted, that he refers to the immediately sur- 
 rounding nations, and those that might hear of the wonders 
 performed in favor of the Hebrew people. In the same 
 limited sense it is said in general terms, on occasion of the 
 Pentecostal feast, that " there were dwelling at Jerusalem 
 devout men, out of every nation under heaven," (^ Acts ii. 5 ;) 
 and again, that " the gospel had been preached to every 
 creature which is under heaven." (Col. i. 23.) It is needless 
 to multiply instances of this usage. TJie universality of the 
 flood cannot be proved solely from the unlimited nature of 
 the language expressing it ; although this language ought to 
 be understood in its plainest sense, as asserting a general 
 deluge, unless sufficient reason can be given for qualifying 
 it by certain limitations. 
 
 It is said again, that the supposition of a general deluge 
 corresponds with universal tradition, which " furnishes am- 
 ple proof that this great event is indelibly graven upon the 
 memory of the human race, and attested by the consent of 
 mankind." 
 
 But, as it is correctly remarked by Dr. Smith, (ubi sup. 
 p. 92,) "it is remarkable, that learned writers have not per- 
 ceived the absence of any logical connexion between the 
 28 
 
218 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part ir. 
 
 universality of historical tradition, and a geographical uni- 
 versality of the deluge itself. Immense pains have been 
 taken, and very laudably, to collect the traditions of tribes 
 and nations deposing to the fact of an overwhelming deluge 
 in the days of their remotest ancestors ; and it has been 
 hence concluded, since those traditions existed in every 
 quarter of the globe, that the deluge had belonged to every 
 region. But it seems to have been forgotten, that each of 
 those traditionary and historical notices referred to one and 
 the same locality, the seat of the family of Noah, the cradle 
 of the human race." Most undoubtedly the fact of an uni- 
 versal deluge, and the universally existing tradition of a 
 deluge, ai-e far from being identical. Those who have 
 argued from the latter to the former, seem to have over- 
 looked the important fact, that, as all men sprang from 
 Noah, their traditions are to be traced to their origin, and 
 that they would naturally bring these traditions to any re- 
 gion in which they might subsequently settle. Commenta- 
 tors have reasoned as if the traditions had originated in the 
 various regions in which every diversity of the human spe- 
 cies has been found. 
 
 Some of the most remarkable traditionary circumstances 
 are mentioned in Bochart's Phaleg, Lib. I. cap. i., a work 
 replete with curious and interesting learning, and in Mau- 
 rice's History of Hindostan, Part III. chap. xiii. Vol. I. 
 p. 453 ss. Many of them are staled by Professor Hitcb- 
 cocK, in his Essay, entitled " The Historical and Geological 
 Deluges Compared," published in the Biblical Repository, 
 No. XXV. January, 1837, p. 81—93. A vast deal of cu- 
 rious and interesting matter relating to the ancient traditions 
 of the deluge, has been collected by Bryant, in the third 
 _ volume of his Analysis of Mythology. If we cannot al- 
 ways acquiesce in the soundness of the author's reasoning, 
 we cannot but be surprised at the extent of his reading, and 
 
CHAP. VI. 9— IX. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 219 
 
 must acknowledge that he has adduced very much from 
 ancient authorities corroborative of the scriptural account. 
 See also Wiseman's Lectures on the connexion between sci- 
 ence and revealed religion, Lect. IX. p. 289 ss. 
 
 The universality of the deluge has also been supposed to 
 be confirmed by numerous phenomena exhibited in various 
 parts of the strata which form the exterior of the globe. 
 It is unnecessary to state them in detail. Recent geological 
 investigations and discoveries have induced many learned 
 and scientific men, some of whom are also sincere believers 
 in the inspiration of the Old Testament, to ascribe these 
 phenomena to the natural influence of causes operating in 
 periods of time antecedent to the present arrangement and 
 formation of the earth. It is difficult to perceive how they 
 could possibly have been produced by the ordinary opera- 
 tions of any deluge. 
 
 An argument has been drawn in favor of the deluge hav- 
 ing been partial, from the supposed comparative paucity of 
 mankind. This is thought to be supported by " the paucity 
 of birth which not obscurely shows itself in the genealogi- 
 cal table, (Gen. v. 3 — 28,) the length of individual lives" 
 being supposed " to compensate for the slowness of multi- 
 plication," and " moral depravity" having its natural " effect 
 in diminishing the fecundity of the human species." Smith, 
 p. 250. The correctness and applicability of this last ob- 
 servation need not be questioned. But when the author 
 proceeds to confirm his reasoning by remarking " that no 
 children of Noah are mentioned till he was five hundred 
 years old, and that a century later, his three sons, each hav- 
 ing a wife, had no children," meaning undoubtedly had never 
 become parents, (p. 251 ;) he adopts a species of argumen- 
 tation, which, although too commonly applied to the scrip- 
 tures, is nevertheless unsound. He reasons from the absence 
 of information respecting a subject to its want of existence. 
 
220 NOTES TO GENESIS. * [part iv. 
 
 Is it certain that Noah's three sons, each of whom was mar- 
 ried, had had no children when their father was six hundred 
 years old, because no children are mentioned ? If such a 
 method of reasoning were applied to the scriptural narrative 
 of Cain and Abel, the facts related concerning them would 
 be altogether inexplicable. The length of antediluvian life, 
 after all proper allowance for its dissoluteness, during the 
 period of time under consideration, would admit of the ex- 
 istence of a large population on the globe at the time of 
 the flood. 
 
 In favor of the universality of the deluge, the reader is 
 referred to a dissertation in the Sainte Bible, en Latin et en 
 Frangois, avec des notes litterales, critiques et historiques, 
 des prefaces et des dissertations, drawn from the works of 
 Calmet, De Vence and others, in 17 vols. 4to., Tome I. 
 p. 414 — 438. The author replies to the objections of Vossius, 
 who maintained the opinion, that the deluge was partial, 
 In this opinion, Dathe also coincides ; but he advances noth- 
 ing new in support of it. See his note {d) on vii. 20. 
 
 (41.) Bochart has shown that, in all probability, the term 
 •^SJ means cypress, which, indeed, seems to be radically the 
 same word. See his Phaleg, Lib. I. cap. iv. p. 22, 23. — 
 Schultens supposes "^Jl^ to be equivalent to the Arabic 
 
 l^to. the back, and to be used for the roof of the ark, the 
 elevation of which was to be no more than a cubit, allow- 
 ing, he thinks, sufficient descent to carry off the rain. And 
 this, he supposes, is what is meant by the Septuagint, 
 J'TKj'uvaywv, which he explains by contracting, " colligens et 
 contrahens, superne facies arcam." See his Observationes 
 ad Genesin, Cap. I. It is quite as probable, however, that 
 ^witfuvayojv is used to denote the collecting of materials for 
 the building. — Our translation " window" agrees with the 
 Yulgate ' fenestram,' and the version of Symmachus ^lafpavjV' 
 
CHAP. VI. 9— IX. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 221 
 
 And it is probably correct, the singular being used collec- 
 tively. The word properly means light, and seems to be 
 employed by a metonymy for window. With the exception 
 of this text, it is always found in the dual form. It is used 
 to express midday, thus characterized by its bright, clear, 
 light. 
 
 (42.) The distinction of clean and unclean animals most 
 likely originated in the laws and usages connected with sacri- 
 fices, although it is certain that subsequently it obtained also in 
 reference to meats which were considered as fit for food. In 
 common with many other patriarchal institutions, it after- 
 wards became a law of the Mosaic system, in which several of 
 those institutions were incorporated. See the dissertation 
 of H. S. Reimar, entitled, Cogitationes de legibus Mosaicis 
 ante Mosen, in the Commentationes Theologicse, edited by 
 Velthusen, KutNOEL, and Ruperti, Vol. VI. p. 1 — 74. It has 
 been thought that the number of clean animals to be brought 
 into the ark was fourteen, but it would be difficult to account 
 for so large a number being required, and the Hebrews ex- 
 press the same number of different species or individuals by 
 a reduplication. See especially, Num. iii. 47, in the He- 
 brew, and Mark vi. 7, 40, in Greek. If seven was regarded 
 as a sacred number before the flood, as seems probable 
 from the paradisaical origin of the Sabbath, and agrees with 
 certain intimations contained in this narrative, (comp. vii. 4, 
 viii. 10, 12;) this would account for the selection. And if all 
 the clean animals lived, as is altogether probable, the num- 
 ber of each sort would be reduced to an even quantity, 
 three of either sex, after Noah had made the offering men- 
 tioned in viii. 20. 
 
 A comparison of vi. 20, vii. 2, and vii. 8, 9, seems to 
 show a discrepancy. But it is only apparent. In the first, 
 two fowls of every sort are mentioned ; in the second, seven 
 
222 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part iv. 
 
 fowls, meaning, however, as the preceding verse intimates, 
 those which were accounted clean. In the third, it is said : 
 " of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of 
 fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there 
 went in two and two." But this does not contradict what 
 had just been stated. The language is not professedly criti- 
 cal, but rather popular. Either the phrase " two and two" 
 is to be limited to the unclean animals who had been last 
 mentioned, or the meaning is, that two at least of every 
 sort, clean as well as unclean, were preserved. It would be 
 absurd to suppose, that, in such a matter, a writer of merely 
 ordinary intelligence could contradict himself within the 
 space of a few lines. 
 
 (43.) The land of Ararat is the Hebrew expression in 2 
 Kings xix. 37, where our translators very correctly translate 
 it "Armenia." That the ark rested in this region, on the Gor- 
 dioean mountains, has been most conclusively evinced, with 
 a vast amount of learning, (more suo,) by Bochart, Phaleg, 
 Lib. I. cap. iv. 
 
 (44.) The prohibition of " flesh with the life" or " the 
 blood," may have originated in motives of humanity, with 
 the view of preventing the horrible practice of eating the 
 flesh of living creatures. From the character of many of 
 the antediluvians, it is not unreasonable to suppose that such 
 abuses had been practised before the flood ; and it is well 
 known, that since that period uncivilized man has committed 
 the same enormity. As the life was thought to subsist in the 
 blood, (comp. Deut. xii. 23. So Josephus, Ant. Lib. I. cap. ill. 
 § 8, xwpiV ai^uTo^' iv TiTw ya^ sg-iv >j -^^x^- Hudson's edition, p. 
 14,) the law may have been intended to interdict even the 
 use of blood, in order to excite the greater abhorrence of 
 the abuse just mentioned. It had also a religious bearing, 
 
CHAP. VI. 9— IX. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 223 
 
 and was designed to impress on the public mind, the awful 
 sanctity of that justice which required the blood of the vic- 
 tim to atone for the sinner's guilt. See Levit. xvii. 10 — 14. 
 
 (45.) It is not certain that this law is positive and peremp- 
 tory. Like some others, afterwards introduced into the He- 
 brew code, it may be merely permissive, to be followed ac- 
 cording to the discretion of the judiciary, governed by circum- 
 stances, as some Jewish commentators affirm to have been 
 the case with respect to the law of retaliation of Ex. xxi. 
 24, 25. Levit. xxiv. 19, 20. But if it be a positive com- 
 mand, its universal obligation by no means follows. The 
 circumstances and condition of mankind may so vary from 
 the state in which they were when the law was originally 
 promulged, as to make the continuance of the penalty high- 
 ly inexpedient and improper. The grounds on which laws 
 are mutable or unchangeably binding, is admirably settled 
 by Hooker, in his third Book, § 10. His remarks are well 
 worthy of attentive consideration. I cannot refrain from 
 quoting the following sentence, from its remarkable applica- 
 bility to the subject. " Laws, though both ordained of God 
 himself, and the end for which they were ordained con- 
 tinuing, may notwithstanding cease, if, by alteration of per- 
 sons or times, they be found unsufficient to attain unto that 
 end. In which respect, why may we not presume that God 
 doth even call for such change or alteration as the very con- 
 dition of things themselves doth make necessary?" Vol. I. 
 p. 398, Oxford edition, 1793. 
 
 (46.) A clear and interesting view of this prophecy is 
 given by Bishop Newton in his first dissertation on the pro- 
 phecies. But there is not sufficient reason for reading 
 ' Ham, the father of Canaan,' instead of " Canaan," as he 
 proposes. As the prophecy has in view the descendants of 
 the persons named and not the individuals themselves, and 
 as it is by no means necessary to assume that all the descen- 
 
224 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part v, 
 
 dants of each individual are intended ; if the servitude pre- 
 dicted was to exist chiefly among Ham's posterity through 
 Canaan, it becomes a matter comparatively of indifference, 
 which name is mentioned. It is not improbable, however, 
 that Canaan may have concurred with his father in the in- 
 decent conduct which gave rise to the prophecy ; and it is 
 very probable, that his name was selected with the view of 
 representing to the Hebrews the condition of Canaan's des- 
 cendants, as exposed to the infliction of a divine punishment 
 for their iniquities, a punishment which the conduct of their 
 ancestor had been the occasion of predicting. A satisfac- 
 tory exegetical examination of the latter part of this pro- 
 phecy is given by Hengstenberg in his Christology, Vol. I. 
 p. 42 ss. Keith's Translation. For the poetical construction 
 of the passage, see Lowth's Lectures on the sacred poetry 
 of the Hebrews, Lect. IV. p. 60 of Gregory's Translation, 
 Boston, 1815. 
 
 Part V. Chap. x. 1 — xi. 9. 
 
 (47.) The fullest and most learned commentary on this 
 tenth chapter is to be found in the last three books of Bo- 
 chart's Phaleg. Other authorities, which may be consulted 
 with advantage, are mentioned by Dathe and Rosenmiiller. 
 See also Maurice's ancient history of Hindoostan, Vol. I. 
 p. 444 s. — It is evident that several of the names here oc- 
 curring, are names of nations ; in some cases they are 
 patronymic also, in others merely gentilitious. Thus Gomer, 
 Madai, Tiras, Mizraim, Canaan, Sidon, Elam, Ashur, and 
 others, (v. 2, 6, 15, 22,) are names of individuals and of 
 nations. Most critics consider the plurals in v. 13, 14, and 
 elsewhere, as referring exclusively to cities or countries, or 
 to their inhabitants. The meaning will be, that the Egyp- 
 tians, expressed by the word Misraim, founded the nations 
 or colonies denoted by the words Ludim, Anamim, &C. 
 
CHAP. X. 1— XI. 9.] NOTES TO (SENESld. 226 
 
 Thus also ill the sixteenth and following verses, the Jebusitd, 
 &c. does not appear to designate any particular indivi- 
 dual, but is rather to be taken in a collective sense for 
 the people respectively, as in 2 Sam. v. 6. " And the king 
 and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inha- 
 bitants of the land," where the Hebrew is in the singular, 
 "f ns^n ntpi^ ^pn^^n-b^, as it is also in V. 8. 
 
 Ver. 5, d'jisn '^*'.b^, territories of the Gentiles ; properly^ 
 inaritime countries, coasts. The word is sometimes used 
 for distant nations, countries lying on the sea, at the verge 
 (as it were) of the world. In our English version it is al- 
 ways translated " islands," except in Jer. xlvii. 4, where it is " 
 rendered " countries." In Isa. xlii. 15, the supposition that 
 " islands" are meant, is so improbable, as almost to involve 
 an absurdity. 
 
 (48.) The historians referred to identify Nimrod with 
 IZohak or Dhohak, whom they make the brother instead of 
 the son of Cush. See D'Herbelot's Bibliotheque Orientale, 
 under Dhohak, p. 948, fol. Paris, 1697. If Nimrod's name 
 be derived from 1^)2, 37^, to rebel, it was probably not 
 
 imposed until his impious and overbearing conduct marked 
 him out as the distinguished rebel against the divine au- 
 thority. Perizonius conjectures that the term Nimrod, which 
 is the first person plural of the future, may have arisen 
 from his frequent and vain-glorious appeals to his impious 
 companions, urging them to rebellion against divine authori- 
 ty, in which he would employ the word ^1l?25. See 
 his Origines Babylonicse, p. 122. It may indeed denote the 
 temper of his mind, but it is not very likely that he gave this 
 utterance to such a feeling. The phrase v. 9, " a mighty hunter 
 before the Lord," is particularly emphatic. It may express, not 
 only courage, strength, agility, adroitness, perseverance, and 
 * 29 
 
226 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part v. 
 
 such Other properties as usually enter into the character of 
 a good hunter ; but may intimate, that these qualifications 
 were such as would bear the most thorough examination, 
 they were possessed by him in the highest degree ; the 
 Omniscient himself being the judge, he was ,a mighty hunter. 
 Or else, more probably, it implies the boldness and impu- 
 dence of the man, as it is said of the men of Sodom, that 
 they "were sinners before the Lord exceedingly." Gen. xiii. 
 13. In either case, it will imply, that even the presence of 
 Jehovah was no restraint on Nimrod. See Bochart, Lib. 
 IV. cap. xii. 
 
 In very ancient periods of the world, when large dis- 
 tricts of country were but partially settled, the scattered 
 inhabitants were sometimes subjected to great annoyance 
 from wild beasts, and consequently persons who exerted 
 themselves in exterminating such animals, were regarded as 
 benefactors of mankind. It is evident, that to prosecute 
 such enterprises with most success, considerable parties of 
 men would be necessary, conducted doubtless by some 
 leader of distinguished talent and character. It is easy to 
 infer that this leader might acquire popularity and attract 
 multitudes to his standard, that he must direct the under- 
 taking, and give the command, and thus his will would be- 
 come the law of the rest. In the event of any difficulties 
 or dissensions arising, he would of course become the 
 umpire, and thereby his authority would be strengthened 
 and enlarged. In the distribution of the skins or other 
 spoil, his proportion would probably be the largest. As the 
 owners of property, particularly of cattle, were especially 
 interested in the successful issue of such hunts, it is most 
 reasonable to suppose that they would encourage the en- 
 terprising captain by making him presents. He would 
 therefore be in a condition to increase his popularity, by 
 giving away what his own immediate wants did not require 
 
CHAP. X. 1— XI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 227 
 
 him to keep. Thus his circle of dependants and friends 
 would be extended ; and perhaps what was first offered as 
 a willing present, soon came to be demanded as a rightful 
 tribute. It is easy to see how, in this way, the hunter of 
 beasts, acquiring irresistible force and indomitable hardihood 
 and courage in his conflicts with tigers and lions, might 
 readily raise an army, and become the tyrannical oppressor 
 of men, and the insolent contemner of God. And, in all 
 probability, this is the history of the rise and power of Nim- 
 rod, the great ancient rebel. 
 
 (49.) For the authorities on which this interpretation of 
 the names of the cities mentioned in v. 10 is given, the 
 reader is referred to Rosenmiiller's note. 
 
 (50.) Bochart (ubi sup. p. 229, 230,) contends, that 'n^'a5V 
 is the name of the country Assyria, and that the whole 
 clause relates to Nimrod, and ought to be rendered thus : 
 ' he went out of that land into Assyria,' that is, he invaded 
 that region, took possession of it, and built Nineveh and the 
 other cities. No doubt the original word often means Assy- 
 ria, and the Tl local is not necessary, although, to avoid 
 ambiguity, its use would have been highly expedient. No 
 doubt, too, the word i^^^^ is frequently used for going out to 
 war or battle ; but this proves nothing, for it is very often 
 used where no hostility can possibly be implied. Nor is 
 there much force in what is further alleged by Bochart ; that 
 any notice of Ashur, a son of Shem, whose birth is men- 
 tioned in the twenty-second verse, is here out of place, as 
 the immediate context is limited to an account of Ham's 
 descendants. It is not uncommon with the sacred writers 
 to introduce some circumstances of the history of particular 
 persons, although their connexion with the main subject of 
 the context is only incidental. We have an illustration of 
 this in Gen. xxviii. 6 — 9, where Esau's marrying an addi^ 
 
228 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part v. 
 
 tional wife is mentioned in the midst of a continuous narra- 
 tive of Jacob's journey to Padan-Aram ; and another in 
 1 Ghron. v. 1,2, where the cause of Reuben's being deprived 
 of the birth-right, together with the favors bestowed on 
 Joseph and Judah, are merely appendages to the prominent 
 topic. If now the character of Nimrod were such as scrip- 
 ture and eastern history allow us to suppose, it is easy to 
 see why a man of character and independence, feeling him- 
 self unable to cope with an oppressive despot, should leave 
 his country, and settle where he might exert his talents and 
 influence without control. I conclude, therefore, that the 
 common translation, which coincides with most of the an- 
 cient versions, is to be preferred. 
 
 RoLLiN, in his ancient History, Vol. II. p. 181, London, 
 1795, follows Bpchart, and of course makes Nimrod the 
 founder of the; old Assyrian monarchy. Hales also, in his 
 New Analysis of Chronology, adopts the same view. See 
 Vol. I. p. 447, and Vol. II. p. 50. On the other hand, Bryant, 
 in his very learned and curious, though often fanciful. Ana- 
 lysis of Ancient Mythology, defends the common translation. 
 Vol. VI. p. 192 ss. 3rd edit. Lond. 1807. So also Schuck- 
 ford, in his Sacred and Profane History Connected, Vol. I. 
 p. 161 ss. Lond. 1819. — According to the former view, the 
 ancient Babylonian monarchy was the commencement of the 
 kingdom of Nimrod, who, having conquered Assyria, built 
 Nineveh, calling it after his son and successor Ninus, who 
 probably enlarged and finished it. According to the latter, 
 the ancient Assyrian empire was founded by Ashur, and was 
 distinct from the ancient Babylonian, until Ninus, successor 
 to Ashur, subdued the Babylonian and other neighboring 
 people, merging them in the Assyrian empire. 
 
 (51, in the Analysis erroneously printed 50.) "l^^""^!?^ 
 y. 21^ is translated by some critics, following Rashi, ' phildren 
 
CHAP. X. 1— XI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS* 229 
 
 of the other side,' meaning the other side of the Euphrates ; 
 and thus Eber will be represented as the ancestor of 
 those people, (that is, of the larger proportion of them,) 
 who lived on the east of that river. But the ellipsis of a 
 word to express the river is harsh and unnatural. Parkhurst 
 translates it, " children of passage or pilgrimage," and thinks it 
 refers to their " itinerant" character, " passing from one place 
 to another, until their settlement in Canaan, and confessing 
 themselves pilgrims upon earth." See his Hebrew Lexicon 
 under ^'2'$ I., or Greek Lex. in 'E/3^aio?. He follows Julius 
 Bate, in his Critica Hebrsea, or Hebrew-English Dictionary. 
 The principal reason for either of these versions is found in 
 . an objection urged against that usually received, namely, that 
 Shem " was no more the father of the children of his greats 
 grand-son Eber, than of his other descendants." But this 
 objection is removed by explaining the phrase, " children" 
 (or sons) " of Eber," as equivalent to ' Hebrews,' whose an- 
 cestor is here said to be Shem, the subject of a divine bene- 
 diction. See ix. 26. 
 
 Our English translation makes Japheth " the elder" of the 
 two brothers ; but the probability is, that the clause ought to 
 be rendered, " the elder brother of Japheth." Dathe, who 
 at first adopted the former opinion, afterwards acknowledges 
 himself mistaken, and defends the latter. So also Rosen- 
 miiller. Both refer to an able essay relating to this subject 
 by John F. Schelling, in the Repertorium fiir Biblische und 
 Morgenlandische Litteratur, Vol. XVII. p. 1 — 25. There 
 5eems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the usual 
 construction, which places the eldest son first, Patrick re- 
 marks that the article prefixed to blH^ elder, " plainly directs 
 us to refer the word to him who was last spoken of, namely, 
 Japheth." By what usage of the Hebrew language, this 
 plain direction is supported, it were difficult to say. Judg. i. 
 J 3, and ix. 5, are evident instances of the contrary, for in 
 
230 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part v. 
 
 both cases ItOj^Jl plainly refers to the former noun, and 
 Professor Bush, who cites these two places, is undoubtedly 
 right in saying that " had a uniform mode of rendering been 
 pursued, the words before us would no doubt have been 
 translated, ' Shem, the elder brother of Japheth.' " Still, he 
 considers the word b1l5»l as pointing not to seniority of 
 age, but to priority in honor ;" because " the evidence of 
 Japheth's being the eldest of the three sons of Noah is too 
 strong to be set aside." The only evidence alleged by him 
 is what I am about to state from Patrick, which, indeed, is 
 somewhat plausible, and is considered by that distinguished 
 commentator as a " plain proof" that Japheth was the eldest 
 son of his father. On comparing v. 32, vii. 11, and xi. 10, ■ 
 it is argued, that Noah was five hundred years old when the 
 eldest of his three sons was born, and that he was five hun- 
 dred and two on the birth of Shem, because he was six 
 hundred when he entered into the ark, two years after which 
 Shem was one hundred, who must consequently have been 
 two years younger than his brother Japheth. But, how little 
 dependence is to be placed on this argument will be evident 
 to any one, who considers that the scripture very frequently 
 uses round numbers, omitting fractional parts. And such 
 appears to be the usage in v. 32, as it is in the highest degree 
 improbable that Noah became the father of three sons in 
 the same year. 
 
 In the genealogical list contained in the fifth chapter, one 
 son only of each patriarch is introduced. The three sons of 
 Noah are doubtless mentioned, because of the important 
 position which they occupy in the subsequent narrative. 
 
 The repetition of circumstances already mentioned, how- 
 ever contrary to good usage among occidental authors, is 
 very common not only with the Hebrew writers, but also 
 with the Arabian. See Drechsler, ubi sup. p. 98, 99, and 
 £wald's Komposition der Genesis, p. 122 ss. 170, 171. This 
 
CHAP. X. 1— XI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 231 
 
 remark will account for the frequency of such notices as 
 V. 32, vi. 10. vii. 13, ix. 18. Comp. also xi. 10—18, with x. 22, 
 24, 25, vi. 6, with 7, and this with 11, 12, 13. To introduce a 
 theory of various original documents, in the hope of explain- 
 ing such phenomena, would be preposterous. 
 
 (52.) As the country in which the immediate descendants 
 of Noah lived, could not have been remote from the place in 
 which the ark rested, the wanderers referred to must have 
 come from the north, in order to arrive at the plains of 
 Babylonia. The opinion of Shuckford, Vol. I. p. 88 ss., 
 that the ark had floated over to the confines of China, that 
 Noah is identical with Fohi, and that this party had come 
 literally from the extreme east, is encumbered by difficulties, 
 not the least of which is the impracticability of traversing 
 so extensive a region of country at so early a period after 
 the flood. Bochart (Lib. i. cap. vii. p. 31,; conjectures that 
 the sacred writer follows the usage of the Assyrians, and 
 applies the term ' east' to all the region lying beyond the 
 Tigris, without particular reference to its geographical posi- 
 tion. That on the opposite side of the river would of course 
 be named the west. This supposition is now generally 
 adopted by interpreters, and it frees the text from embar- 
 rassment. 
 
 (53.) Le Clerc conjectures that the true reading in v. 4, is 
 Di* instead of Stp, and that it expresses the idea of a me- 
 tropolis. But any alteration of the text is unnecessary and 
 without authority. Some have supposed dtp to mean a 
 conspicuous sign, raised with a view to guide shepherds. 
 Dathe adopts this view. To the ordinary interpretation he 
 objects, that reputation with posterity would not prevent the 
 dispersion of these people. But the text does not limit the- 
 wished-for renown to posterity ; and the distinguished char- 
 acter and fame which they hoped to establish by building- 
 
232 , NOTES TO GENESIS. [part v, 
 
 the city and tower, might reasonably be expected to attract 
 others to their community, and to strengthen the bonds of 
 mutual union. — It has been said, that the very great elevation 
 of the tower was designed for astronomical observations ; 
 but this is mere conjecture, hardly consistent with the state 
 of the people referred to, and the very early period of their 
 existence. Besides a mountainous region would seem better 
 adapted to such a purpose than a plain. 
 
 (54.) The first verse literally translated runs thus : ' and 
 the whole earth was lip one and words one.' The former 
 term lip, tlS'p, is sometinies used by a metonymy for lan- 
 guage, as in Isa. xix. 18 : "In that day shall five cities in the 
 land of Canaan speak the language of Canaan. '15'D3 iiSp" ; 
 
 and xxxiii. 19: "a people of deeper speech, il3ti), than thou 
 canst perceive," meaning probably, a foreign, unknown dia- 
 lect. — But it is also employed in the sense of speech, dis- 
 course, in reference to its nahire and character, without regard 
 to its linguistic peculiarities ; as in Prov. xiv. 7 : " Go from 
 the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in 
 him the lips of knowledge, JlS^'l^'^ilS'©," that is, 'wise and 
 sensible discourse.' Kindred words, such as mouth and 
 tongue, are also used in this latter sense. In 1 Kings xxii. 
 13, and 2 Chron. xviii. 12, we find the very similar phrase 
 ' one mouth,' THiJ^ HS, denoting unanimity, "with one ac- 
 cord," as the same Hebrew expression is well rendered in 
 our version of Josh. ix. 2, in accordance with the Septuagint 
 ajxa *avr£fj and the Vulgate, uno animo : " They gathered 
 themselves together to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with 
 one accord, nrj!^ H^." And in Zeph. iii. 9, the very word 
 ' lip,' nsp, is used in Connexion with expressions of unani- 
 mity. " For then will I turn to the people a pure language, 
 Vr\T\1t riSt2)j that they may all call upon the name of the 
 
CHAP. X. 1— XI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 233 
 
 Lord, to serve him with one consent. So also in Ps. Iv. 10, 
 " divide their tongues,'' CiltDp, is equivalent to, ' spread eon- 
 fusion among them and ruin their counsels.' The same 
 figurative use of such words is common in all languages. 
 Hence Virgil says, unoque omnes eadem ore fremebant. 
 Mn. xi. 132. — Vitringa, in his dissertation on the confusion 
 of languages, which may be found in his Observationes 
 Sacraj, (Lib. I. cap. i — ix. p. 1 — 124, particularly cap. ix. 
 p. 109 ss.) supposes, that the whole of this verse merely ex- 
 presses the idea of unity of mind respecting the intended 
 object, and by the conlusion afterwards related, he under- 
 stands the dissensions which arose and led to the dispersion. 
 It would seem that the bare fact of confounding the one 
 original language, thereby introducing several distinct dia- 
 lects, would not be necessarily attended by an abandonment 
 of the scheme and the dispersion of its projectors. The 
 surprise and consternation which would be occasioned, might 
 gradually yield, as the alarmed builders ascertained that 
 some of their number could still hold intercourse with others; 
 and thus the work might advance, though slowly and not 
 without its peculiar difficulties. The possibility of this, 
 however, by no means encourages a belief that such would 
 be the result. Without vastly more of philosophy than falls 
 to the lot of bodies of men in any age, a confusion of lan- 
 guage would be likely to lead to a want of harmony, quite 
 incompatible with a successful termination of such an en- 
 terprise as that under consideration. And that the text does 
 assert a confusion of language and not merely of design, 
 (however true it may be that this did take place as a conse- 
 quence of the other,) is plain from the general character of 
 the expressions in the first and ninth verses, where the unity 
 and confusion spoken of are represented as co-extensive 
 with the whole habitable earth. The context affords no 
 ground whatever for- limiting their application. To which 
 30 
 
234 NOTES TO GENESIS. [paht v. 
 
 may be added the remark of Perizonius quoted by Rosen- 
 miiller, that, inasmuch as the sacred writer had in tlie pre- 
 vious chapter frequently mentioned the distribution of Noah's 
 posterity, according to their famiHes, countries, and lan- 
 guages, intending now to explain the occasion of such a 
 distribution, he premises the very natural observation, that 
 before this event mankind all used one common tongue. 
 
 How many languages were formed in consequence of the 
 confusion here related, it is impossible to say. The Jewish 
 notion of seventy, and that of seventy-two maintained by 
 many of the Greek and Latin fathers, are alike unsupported 
 by any solid argument. The reader will find all that is 
 necessary to know on this subject in Bochart's Phaleg, Lib. L 
 cap. XV., de confusione linguarum. 
 
 The dispersion of these builders in consequence of the 
 confusion of the one original tongue, would necessarily lead 
 to a still wider diversity of languages, which is the ordinary 
 result of diversity of climate, condition, and association. 
 But to ascribe all varieties of human speech to these and 
 other natural causes, is inconsistent with the plain declara- 
 tion of the inspired narrative, which not only asserts a con- 
 fusion of language, but declares it to have been etiected on 
 this particular occasion, and in the particular place here 
 specified. The seventh and ninth verses clearly prove this 
 point. Tlic former expresses the divine determination to 
 produce the confusion " there,'' and the latter informs us, 
 that " the Lord did there" accomplish it. The dispersion is 
 evidently the result of this confusion, not this contusion the 
 result of the dispersion simply. 
 
 Before concluding this note. I cannot help noting the 
 contemptuous and indecent manner in which Bei'gcr, in the 
 work before referred to. speaks of this narrative. Althounh 
 he considers the whole idea of a contusion of language as a 
 chimerical notion, philosophically speaking an impossibility, 
 
CHAP. X. i— XI. 9.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 235 
 
 he feels no difficulty in allowing that such a confusion is 
 here asserted to have taken place. " The old world had no 
 hesitation in extending their representations of the power of 
 God beyond the bounds of absolute possibility. If it were 
 required to recall the past day, to make a real transaction 
 not to have been done, or to exhibit a four-cornered circle, 
 they would not have scrupled to ascribe this to the divinity;" 
 Vol. I. p. 114. Like many other representations of this 
 writer, this statement and the application which he makes of 
 it are characterized by a flippancy which might well enough 
 become an infidel sneercr, but is very little consistent with 
 the gravity of a philosophical inquirer, to say nothing of the 
 seriousness required of one who professes to write an Intro- 
 duction, pointing out the moral and practical bearing of the 
 Old Testament. What shall be said of the candor or dis- 
 crimination of an author, who represents Abraham as found- 
 ing a system, injurious to the intellectual cultivation of his 
 posterity, and making their conversion to Christianity ex- 
 tremely difficult! p. 139. 
 
 (55.) The derivation of Babel (whence Babylon.) from 
 'b'b'2 to confound, is plainly asserted in the ninth verse. 
 There appears to be an elision of a b, b^^ being put for 
 
 bS^S, like f-^o^^ gogultho for 1 Alol^^ golgultho. See 
 Bochart, Lib. I. cap. xv. ad fin. p. Gl. Gesenius compares the 
 form of the w^ord with riSpltO for HSiipSp. — Eusebius, in 
 his Evangelical Preparation, has preserved fragments re- 
 lating to the city and tower, collected from the works of 
 Abydenus and Eupolemus. See Lib. IX. cap. xiv. xvii. p. 416, 
 418, edit. Colon. 1688. They are inserted by Rosenmiiller at 
 the end of his note on v. 9, and, along with other authorities, 
 by Bochart, cap. xiii. 
 
236 
 
 NOTES TO GENESIS, 
 
 [part VI. 
 
 Part VI. Chap. xi. 10—26. 
 
 (56.) General view of the discrepancies of the Hebrew, 
 Samaritan, and Septuagint chronology, and also that of 
 Josephus, until tlje birth of Abraham, from Jahn's Hebrew 
 Bible, p, 25. 
 
 
 Before Paterni 
 
 ty- 
 
 After Paternity. ' 
 
 Tctal. 
 
 Heb. 
 100 
 
 35 
 
 30 
 34 
 
 30 
 32 
 
 30 
 29 
 
 70 
 
 100 
 135 
 
 130 
 134 
 
 130 
 132 
 
 130 
 79 
 
 70 
 
 Sepi 
 
 100 
 135 
 
 130 
 130 
 134 
 
 130 
 132 
 133 
 
 179 
 
 79 
 
 170 
 
 Jos. 
 112 
 135 
 
 130 
 134 
 
 130 
 130 
 132 
 120 
 
 70 
 
 Heb. 
 500 
 403 
 
 403 
 430 
 
 209 
 207 
 
 Sam. 
 500 
 303 
 
 303 
 
 270 
 
 109 
 107 
 
 Sept. 
 50C 
 
 40C 
 43C 
 
 33C 
 
 330 
 
 270 
 370 
 
 209 
 
 207 
 
 
 Shcm 
 
 600 
 
 Arphaxad 
 
 438 
 
 Cainan 
 
 Salah 
 
 433 
 
 464 
 
 Eber 
 
 Phaleg 
 
 
 Reu 
 
 
 Serug 
 
 200 
 119 
 
 100 
 69 
 
 200 
 
 125 
 
 129 
 
 
 Nahor 
 
 
 Terah 
 
 
 
 
 
 Between the names of Arphaxad and Salah, the Septua-f 
 gint introduces that of Cainan. But this is no doubt an in- 
 terpolation. It is unsupported by any other ancient version, 
 and is not found in the Hebrew text. The internal evidence 
 is also against it, for the age of this supposititious Cainan is the 
 same with that of Salah, both before and after their paternity 
 
CHAP. XI. 10—26.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 237 
 
 is mentioned ; each is one hundred and thirty years before, 
 and each lives three hundred and thirty after, which is an 
 exceedingly improbable coincidence. That St. Luke men- 
 tions Cainan in iii. 36, only shows that his genealogical list 
 followed the Septuagint. See Planck's Introduction to 
 Sacred Philology and Interpretation, translated from the ori- 
 ghial German, and enlarged with notes, by the author of this 
 work, Note,^XLI. p. 278, 279. Bochart, however, denies 
 this, and takes some pains to sustain the conjecture of Cor- 
 nelius A Lapide, that the Septuagint was altered in order to 
 accommodate it to the copies of the Gospel, into which he 
 thinks the error had first crept. See his learned examina- 
 tion of the subject. Lib. II. cap. xiii. p. 89 — 91. The ad- 
 mission of this principle would involve the critic in difficulties 
 arising out of other similar discrepancies. 
 
 Part VII. Chap. xr. 27— xxv. 11. 
 
 (57.) In V. 31, the English translation is, "and they went 
 forth with them." This is the true sense of the Hebrew." 
 There is no necessity, with Dathe, to follow the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, and the Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate ver- 
 sions, all of which read in the singular, * he went out with 
 them,' or, ' he brought them out.' The Chaldee Targum 
 agrees with the Hebrew text. The meaning may be, that 
 Terah and Abraham went with Lot and Sarah, agreeably 
 to the opinion of Rashi, which is approved by Rosenmiiller. 
 Or, it may intimate that other inhabitants of Ur accompanied 
 the party here named. May it not be true that Nahor went 
 with his brother Abram? The narrative does not indeed 
 expressly mention such removal, and yet we find that Abra- 
 ham's servant, who is sent to Mesopotamia to procure a wife 
 for Isaac, goes " to the city of Nahor," (xxiv. 1 0,) the residence 
 of Rebecca, (v. 15,) and of course of her brother Laban, 
 
23S NOTES TO GENESIS. [pap.T vii. 
 
 But Laban's dwelling-place was Haran, as is evident from 
 xxvii. 43, xxviii. 10, xxix. 4. I cunclude, therefore, that this 
 branch of the patriarchal family had removed from Ur to 
 Haran ; and I am not aware -of any scriptural statement 
 which forbids the supposition, that the removal was contem- 
 poraneous with that of Abraham. 
 
 (58.) According to the Hebrew text, Terah lived two 
 hundred and five years, and this reading is supported by all 
 the ancient versions. But the Samaritan text reads one 
 hundred and forty-five. And this seems to be preferable : for, 
 by comparing Gen. xi. 26, with xii. 4, it appears, that if Abra- 
 ham were the eldest son, he left Haran one hundred and 
 forty-five years after his father's birth. If Terah lived 
 two hundred and five years, he must have survived this re- 
 moval sixty years. In this case we must suppose him to 
 have been left in Haran, as the text tells us he died there. 
 But such a supposition is wholly incredible, and is expressly 
 contradicted by St. Stephen in Acts vii. 4, who states, that 
 Abraham's removal was subsequently to his father's decease ; 
 and it is evident that it must have taken place shortly after 
 that event. If we adopt the Samaritan reading, all is clear 
 and probable. It is defended by Bochart, Vol. I. p. 863, 
 864, who conjectures, that the error in the Hebrew may 
 have arisen from the similarity of the letters p (100), and )2 
 (40), particularly as, in some manuscripts, the lower part of 
 the former is cut off. If there be an error, it must have 
 arisen at a very early period. This preference of the Sa- 
 maritan text would indeed be unnecessary, if we could ad- 
 mit, with Dr. Adam Clarke, that Abram was the youngest 
 son, born in his father's one hundred and fortieth year. But 
 this position is untenable, as it was the ordinary practice to 
 mention the eldest son first. See note (51.) Besides, 
 from xvii. 17, it appears that Abraham regarded it as a very 
 extraordinary circumstance, that a person who had arrived 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 239 
 
 at the atre of one hundred sliould become a parent, which is 
 altogether irreconcilable with the opinion that his father was 
 one hundred and forty at the time of his birth. A com- 
 parison of Rom. iv. 19, and Hcb. xi. 11, 12, will confirm 
 this argument. 
 
 (59.) The English version of the phrase HlrT^^ "l/giS'^l 
 "now the Lord had said," is remarkable. It is usually ren- 
 dered, 'and the Lord said.' The translators were probably 
 led to prefer the pluperfect tense, from the impression that 
 this is the same call as that mentioned in Acts vii. 2, 3, where 
 the language agrees. This is tlie view of Rosenmiiller, who 
 considei's the previous notice of Terah's death as prolepti- 
 cal. But the connexion of the narrative makes it plain, that 
 the command here given relates to the departure from lla- 
 ran. The first verse contains this command ; in the second 
 and third the promise is made; the fourth and fifth mention 
 the departure itself, a departure from Haran, and in com- 
 pliance with the divine direction. That St. Stephen has 
 employed the same language to express the original call 
 from Ur of the Chaldees, only proves its applicability to 
 either. If it be objected, that the terms, " from thy kindred 
 and i'rom thy father's house," would be inapplicable after his 
 father's death, it is easy to reply, that they are at least as 
 much so after as before, on the supposition of his father's 
 accoaipanying him. Rosenmullcr, indeed, objects to Lo 
 Clerc, who understands Haran by the expression " thy 
 country," that with the Hebrews the land of any one means 
 his native country, wiiich in this case was of course Chal- 
 dea. No doubt it ordinarily does, as it does also in all lan- 
 guages. But any place in which a person resides for a 
 considerable time, is said to be his country, as in Matt. ix. 1, 
 Capernaum is called our Lord's own city. Comp. iv. 13. 
 Thus too Virgil, JEncld III. 297, speaks of Andromache's 
 
240 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vu. 
 
 having married a husband of her country in the Trojan 
 prince Helenus, although Troy was only her residence, 
 her native place being Thebes. Other examples might easily 
 be adduced. The terms employed in the passage under 
 consideration seem intended to express the complete dissolu- 
 tion of all connexion with the land in which Abram dwelt, 
 entire abandonment of all his local associations, with the 
 view of forming others wholly different. It is highly pro- 
 bable, that the original command of God to Abram so par- 
 ticularly mentioned by St. Stephen, was repeated to him in 
 Haran very soon after the dissolution of his father. 
 
 (60.) This promise is several times repeated. See xviii. 
 18, xxii. 18, xxvi. 4, and xxviii. 14. In the first and last in- 
 stances, as also in the text, the Niphal conjugation is used ; 
 in the other two the Hithpael. The result however is the 
 same, the former being taken in its ordinary passive sense, 
 and the latter retaining its usual reflexive meaning : ' shall 
 consider themselves blessed, shall congratulate themselves.' 
 The gloss of Rashi, which Le Clerc has adopted, is this : 
 * by thee all nations shall bless.' But, as Rosenmiiller re- 
 marks, this would require the Hithpael, as in Deut. xxix. 18, 
 (19,) " tjljlnn, he shall bless himself in his heart." Besides, 
 it is irreconcilable with the phraseology " through thy seed," 
 which is used in three of the five instances. This is ex- 
 planatory of the other phrase " through thee." Both relate 
 to Abram's spiritual progeny, and principally to his most 
 distinguished descendant, Christ. See the application of 
 this promise. Gal. iii. 8, 9, 14, 16, 29, Acts iii. 25, 26. On 
 this prophecy, compare Hengstenberg, ubi sup. p. 46 ss. 
 
 (61.) The remark at the end of the seventh verse: 
 " and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the 
 land," has been supposed to be an interpolation. But evi- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 24l 
 
 dently without any ground. Its external authority is not 
 disputed, and the internal evidence in its favor is strong. No 
 remark could have been more apposite, as the vicinity of 
 these people, who could not have been friendly to the new 
 comers, must have made intestine divisions particularly dan* 
 gerous. Besides, it intimates to the reader, that the level 
 pasture grounds being already considerably occupied by the 
 Perizzites (comp. Gesenius under the words ''T'13 and ''^.1.3, 
 and Hengstenberg's Authentic des Pentateuches, II. p. 186,) 
 the remaining portions Were insufficient for two such com- 
 panies as those of Lot and Abraham. Here it may be Well 
 to remark, that the same statement, which the sacred author 
 has also made in xii. 6, is undoubtedly genuine ; for as the 
 last mentioned writer has observed, p. 185, it is in close 
 connexion with the promise contained in the seventh verse, 
 and illustrates the patriarch's faith, wdio believed that 
 God would give that land to his posterity, although the 
 Canaanite was then its occupant. 
 
 The last clause of the tenth verse, " as thou comest unto 
 Zoar," is connected with the former part, the words, "before 
 the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden 
 of the Lord, like the land of Egypt," being parenthetical. This 
 construction has been overlooked by the Syriac translator, 
 who has taken it in immediate connexion with " the land of 
 Egypt," and read Zoan. All the other ancient versions 
 agree with the Hebrew. The comparison with " the garden 
 of Eden," occurs also in Joel ii. 3. 
 
 Some writers have advanced the opinion, that, before the 
 destruction of Sodom and its sister cities, and the consequent 
 formation of the Dead Sea, the river Jordan pursued a south- 
 erly course along the desert, and found its way into the eastern 
 branch of the Red Sea. Burckhardt, who travelled this route 
 to Egypt, gives a description of the ground, which coincides 
 3J 
 
242 NOTES TO GENESIS. [pAET vii. 
 
 exactly with such a supposition. The reader will doubtless 
 wish to see the statement of this distinguished traveller. 
 
 " The valley of the Ghor, which has a rapid slope south- 
 ward, from the lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea, appears to 
 continue descending from the southern extremity of the latter 
 as far as the Red Sea, for the mountains on the east of it 
 appear to increase in height the farther we proceed south- 
 ward, while the upper plain apparently continues upon the 
 same level. This plain terminates to the south near Akaba, 
 on the Syrian Hadj [pilgrim] route, by a steep rocky des- 
 cent, at the bottom of which begins the desert of Nedjed, 
 covered, for the greater part, wath flints. The same des- 
 cent, or cliff, continues westward towards Akaba on the 
 Egyptian Hadj road, when it joins the Djebel Hesma, (a 
 prolongation of Shera,) about eight hours to the north of 
 the Red Sea." 
 
 " The Wady Gharendal empties itself into the valley El 
 Araba, in whose sands its waters are lost. This valley is a 
 continuation of the Ghor, which may be said to extend from 
 the Red Sea to the sources of the Jordan. The valley of 
 that river widens about Jericho, and its inclosing hills are 
 united to a chain of mountains which open and enclose the 
 Dead Sea. At the southern extremity of the sea, they again 
 approach, and leave between them a valley similar to the 
 northern Ghor in shape, but which the want of water makes 
 a desert, while the Jordan and its numerous tributary streams 
 render the other a fertile plain. — The general direction of 
 the southern Ghor is parallel to the road which I took in 
 coming from Khanzyre to Wady Mousa. At the point 
 where we crossed it near Gharendal, its direction was from 
 N.N. E. to S. S.W. From Gharendal it extends southward 
 for fifteen or twenty hours, till it joins the sandy plain which 
 separates the mountains of Hesma from the eastern branch 
 of the Red Sea. It continues to bear the appellation of El 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 243 
 
 Ghor as far as the latitude of Beszeyra, to the south of 
 which place, as the Arabs informed me, it is interrupted for 
 a short space by rocky ground and wadys, and takes the 
 name of Araba, which it retains till its termination near the 
 Red Sea." Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, by the 
 late John Lewis Burckhardt. London, 4to. 1822, p. 435, and 
 
 441, 442. 
 
 Professor Robinson, however, whose views on geographi- 
 cal points connected with Palestine and Arabia are entitled 
 to the very highest respect, both on account of his general 
 accuracy and thoroughness of investigation, and of his hav- 
 ing examined the country himself, in company with a Reve- 
 rend friend and missionary, declares this opinion to be un- 
 tenable. His views may be seen in part in a letter addressed 
 to the editor of the Biblical Repository, which appeared in 
 the number for January, 1840, p. 24 ss. It is presumed 
 that his work on the Geography of Palestine, the publication 
 of which may soon be expected, will contain further dis- 
 closures on this subject. 
 
 (62.) Hebron is said to have been in the plain, or rather, 
 among the oaks, (^ibi^,) of Mamre, the Amorite. See xiv. 13. 
 
 It would appear from Judges i. 10, that before the age of 
 the author of that book, the name of Hebron was Kirjath- 
 arba. Hence it has been argued, that the word in Genesis 
 is either an interpolation, or that some editor, posterior to 
 the time of the author, substituted it in place of the original 
 word, which in his day had become obsolete. But on the other 
 hand, Hebron may have been the original name of the place, 
 and Kirjath-arba a subsequent appellation, which, after the 
 conquest of Canaan, gave place to the former. It would 
 seem from Gen. xxiii. 2, that when Moses wrote this part of 
 the Pentateuch, both names were occasionally used: "Sarah 
 died in Kirjath-Arba, the same is Hebron in the land of 
 
§44 NOTES TO GENESIS. [PART vil. 
 
 Canaan." It must not be assumed from this place, that 
 Kirjath-Arba was the more an';ient appellation. As Arr 
 ba was a distinguished man among the Anakim, (Josh. xiv. 
 15,) a gigantic race of people very distinguished in tiie time 
 of Moses and Joshua, but not mentioned in the patriarchal 
 history, it is probable that Hebron, a very ancient city, 
 (Num. xiii. 22,) was rebuilt or fortified or embellished by 
 this person, and hence became designated by his name, 
 the city (JTIinP) of Arba. That a city may for a short time 
 partially lose its most ancient name, and afterwards regain 
 it, is illustrated in the case of Jerusalem, which for a time 
 was called iElia Capitolina, but afterwards assumed its 
 ancient appellation, The same remark may apply to what 
 is said in Judg. xviii. 29, respecting a place called Dan. See 
 Gen. xiv. 14. This may have been its original name, al- 
 though for a time it was called Liaish or Leshem, the first 
 designation being re-applied in memory of the son of Ja- 
 cob. Some writers, however, are of the opinion, that there 
 were two places of the name of Dan lying in the northern 
 part of Palestine, and Hengstenberg supposes the Dan of 
 2 Sam. xxiv. 6, to be the one of them, to which the addition 
 of Jaan is appended, in order to distinguish it from the 
 Dan-Laish of the book of Judges. Authentic des Pent. II. 
 p. 194, , 
 
 (63.) Elam is certainly a part of Persia, if it does not 
 comprehend the whole. From the prominency given in the 
 narrative to the king of this country, (see particularly v. 
 4, 5, 17,) it has been inferred, that the Elamites, identical 
 probably with the Persians, were the most powerful nation 
 of Western Asia, since even Canianitish kings were tribu- 
 tary to them. Shinar is the word for Babylonia. What 
 country is meant by Ellasar is uncertain. See Gesenius, 
 who thinks that " the Assyro-Babylonian name of its kingi 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 245 
 
 Arioch, seems to indicate some province of Persia or Assy- 
 ria. Comp. Dan, ii. 14." — The word Qll^, which is rendered 
 *' nations," comprehends probably the country lying north- 
 east of Gainiee. Comp. Isa. viii. 23, (ix, 1,) " Gallilee of the 
 nations." 
 
 (64.) It is said in v. 7, that " they smote all the country of 
 the Amalekites," and, inasmuch as Amalek was a grandson 
 of Esau, xxxvi. 12, the introduction of the Amalekites in the 
 history of Abraham has been thought to involve a palpable 
 contradiction. 
 
 Most commentators, following the authority of Josephus, 
 (Ant. Lib. II. cap. 1. § 2,) take it for granted, that the Ama- 
 lekites were descended from the Amalek just mentioned, and 
 account for the introduction of the name here by supposing 
 a prolepsis. Hengstenberg, ubi sup. II. p. 303 ss., has de- 
 fended this view. Some very distinguished writers, how- 
 ever, among whom may be reckoned Calmet, Le Clerc, 
 Michaelis, and Bryant,* maintain that the Amalekites were 
 a very ancient nation, flourishing long before the age of 
 Esau's grandson, and of course wholly independent of him. 
 It may be proper to state the principal arguments on both 
 sides of this question. 
 
 1. On the one side it is said, that the place of residence 
 of the Amalekites is "Mount Seir," the country which was 
 occupied by the descendants of Esau. Thus we read in 1 
 Chron. iv. 42, 43, that " some of the sons of Simeon went 
 to Mount Seir, and smote the Amalekites." The country of 
 the Amalekites, therefore, belonged to Idumea. Such a 
 coincidence is most readily accounted for on the supposition 
 that the Amalekites were a part of the Edomites. 
 
 Undoubtedly this would be the readiest solution, if it in- 
 
 • Analysis of Mythology, vi. 212 ss. 
 
246 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vn. 
 
 volved no difficulty. But it is by no means a necessary solu- 
 tion ; as it is quite conceivable, that the ancient Amalekites may 
 have settled in that mountainous region, while the Edomites 
 subsequently took possession of such portions as remained 
 unoccupied. Incidental circumstances, which history has 
 not transmitted to us, may have given rise to a local con- 
 nexion between the Edomites and the ancient Amalekites. 
 
 2. Again, it is said to be quite improbable, that a people 
 standing in so important a relation to the Israelites, should be 
 without any genealogical notice. This is foreign from the 
 ordinary usage of the book of Genesis. And it is still more 
 improbable, that no intimation should be given in the whole 
 work of two distinct and separate races of Amalekites. 
 
 The latter remark assumes the contested point, for the 
 language of Gen. xiv. 7, may itself be an intimation of an 
 Amalekitish race anterior to the time of Esau ; not to say, 
 that other places in the Pentateuch hereafter to be examined 
 may strengthen such an opinion. Besides, the descendants 
 of Amalek, the grandson of Esau, may have been merged 
 among the Edomites in general, just as the posterity of Ja- 
 cob's twelve sons are usually designated by the name of 
 Israelites ; unless, indeed, they became incorporated with the 
 more ancient Amalekites, in consequence of some associa- 
 tion or affinity which history has not preserved. The con- 
 clusion drawn from the general usage of the book of Genesis 
 is unauthorized. Where is the genealogical notice of the 
 Chaldees and Perizzites ? In relation to the former, nothing 
 can be inferred from the name Chesed in Gen. xxii. 22, and 
 the origin of the latter is, I believe, unnoticed. We cannot 
 argue from the frequent to the invariable usage of an 
 author. 
 
 3. Some force has been attached to the phraseology in 
 Gen. xiv. 7, " the country of the Amalekites," not the people 
 themselves. Hence it has been supposed that the author in- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 247 
 
 tended to designate the region which in his own time was 
 occupied by the descendants of Esau's grandson. It would 
 not follow that Amalekites resided there in the age of Abra- 
 ham, in reference to whom the name will have been used by 
 way of anticipation. 
 
 The possibility of this is hardly to be denied. But I think 
 it is exceedingly improbable. All the other names in this 
 part of the history seem to be those which were in use in 
 Abraham's time, and there ought to be strong reasons for 
 excepting the term under consideration from the generaj 
 usage. Neither is it very likely that a writer so learned 
 and intelligent as the author of the book of Genesis, would 
 designate a tract of country in this way, although he might 
 proleptically introduce the name of a city or village. Is it 
 to be supposed, that a historian of Great Britain would re- 
 present an inroad made on the Saxons of England, as an 
 attack on a country of the Normans ? The statement of 
 this analogous case places the difficulty of the supposition in 
 its true light. 
 
 The other view of the subject is thus defended. 
 
 1. The identity of names proves nothing. The grandson 
 of Esau may have had the name of Amalek given him 
 either from some incidental cause, or on account of the dis. 
 tinguished character of the more ancient personage who 
 had made it celebrated. 
 
 2. In Num. xxiv. 30, Amalek is called " the first of the 
 nations," which' certainly implies at the very least great an- 
 tiquity. But this, says Hengstenberg, is a misapprehension 
 of the true meaning of the words. They must be limited 
 by the context, which refers to the hostile attitude assumed 
 against Israel. In this sense the Amalekites took precedence, 
 as they were the first of the neighboring tribes to attack the 
 Hebrews on their march towards Canaan. See Ex. xviiy 
 8 — 16. This sense of the place is supported by the Chaldee 
 
24$ NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 Tar^um, which paraphrases it thus : " first of the wars 
 against Israel, blJ^ltZJ^ iJ^^nip ffi'n," that is, first of those 
 nations who made war upon the IsraeHtes. It appears more 
 reasonable, however, to consider the words as expressive, 
 not of an insulated fact in their history, but of some well 
 known property or characteristic of the nation, its great an- 
 tiquity, comprehending also well established strength. This 
 is in harmony with what is said in the following verse, which 
 describes the impregnable security in which the strongly 
 fortified Kenites boasted. The limitation put upon the words 
 is indefensible, such an addition to their simple sense being 
 wholly unnecessary. 
 
 2. It is further argued, that the opposite conduct which 
 the Hebrews were directed to pursue towards the Edomites, 
 who were descendants of Esau, and towards the Amalekites, 
 proves them to have been distinct races. The former were 
 to be treated as brethren ; with the latter they were to 
 ■wage interminable war. See Num. xx. 14 — 21, Deut. ii. 
 4, 5, xxiii. 7 ; with which texts compare Ex. xvii. 8 — 16, Deut. 
 XXV. 17 — 19, and 1 Sam. xv. 2 ss. In reply to this, Hengs- 
 tenberg remarks, that good reason can be given for the dif- 
 ferent conduct of the Israelites towards the Amalekites and 
 the other Edomites. " These, although not friendly to the 
 Israelites, had done nothing against them to dissolve a fra- 
 ternal connexion as the Amalekites had." But this is evi-* 
 dently inconsistent with the representation in Num. xx. 18, 
 20, 21, where Edom replies to his " brother Israel's" request 
 to be permitted merely to "pass through" the country, "thou 
 shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the 
 sword ;" and further still with the fact, that the Edomites did 
 actually " come out against the Israelites with much people 
 and with a strong hand," and " refused to give Israel passage 
 through his border." 
 
 3. The traditionary account of the Arabians is also ap- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 249 
 
 pealed to in defence of this view. Their historians repre- 
 sent Alnalel^: as the son of Ham, the father of Ad and grand- 
 father of Sliedad. See Calmet's Dictionary, and D'Her- 
 belot's Bibliotheque Orientale under Amlak. 
 
 On the whole, the evidence appears to preponderate in 
 favor of the opinion, that the Amalekites were a powerful 
 nation existing long before the age of Esau. 
 
 (G5.) If as many as three hundred and eighteen men ca- 
 pable of bearing arms were born in Abram's house, it is evi- 
 dent that his domestic establishment could not have con- 
 sisted of less than one thousand five hundred or two thousand 
 souls. He was therefore a powerful chief; and thus he is 
 represented in several places in Genesis. See xii. 5, xiii. 2, 0, 
 xxiii. G, xxiv. 10, 35, 53. 
 
 (66.) There is no contradiction between v. 17 and 10. 
 The opinion of Aben Esra, that the kings of Sodom- and 
 Gomorrah threw themselves into some of the pits for the 
 purpose of concealment, is unnecessary ; neither is it sup- 
 ported by the ordinary sense of the word bSl The most 
 probable meaning is, that they and their men fled to this 
 valley, where some were destroyed, and others escaped to 
 the mountain region. The king of Sodom was fortunately 
 among the latter number. 
 
 (67.) All historical knowledge respecting Melchisedek that 
 can be relied on is contained in this very brief account. 
 Nothing more is known of him except that he was king of 
 a place called Salem,* which was probably situated on the 
 
 * Some have identified this place whh Jerusalem, but without any 
 satisfactory proof. Jerusalem is indeed called Salem, (Ps. Ixxvi. 2,) 
 by a contraction probably ; but the historical circumstances here men- 
 tioned, render it most probable that Salem was considerably north of 
 32 
 
250 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vn. 
 
 west of the Jordan between the lake of Gennesaret and the 
 Dead Sea, and that he was a priest of Jehovah ; thus uniting 
 in his person, agreeably to ancient usage, the royal and 
 sacerdotal characters. The peculiarity of the " order" or 
 rank of his priesthood, and the analogy which it bore to the 
 priestly office of Christ, are points of Christian doctrine, but 
 not connected with the history of Abrarn. See Ps. ex. 4, 
 and Heb. vii. 
 
 The dignity of this distinguished personage is well argued 
 in the chapter last referred to. But the opinion advanced 
 by some of the old Romanists, and lately also by Dr. Hale, 
 ubi sup. Vol. I. p. 128, that the " bread and wine" which he 
 is here said to have brought to Abram, v. 18, were em- 
 blematic of the eucharistic elements, is utterly unfounded. 
 The natural result of such extravagant representations is to 
 lessen the reader's respect for scripture and for the judg- 
 ment of the author. Every one knows that the term 'bread' 
 is used by the Hebrews for food in general, and wine was 
 useful to restore the exhausted energies of Abram's party. 
 A refutation of this unfounded notion, against the alleged 
 arguments of Natalis Alexander, may be found in Buddteus, 
 ubi sup. p. 268—270. 
 
 (68.) Whether 'nblH, v. 2, refers to his course of life, as 
 if he had said, ' I am passing my time,' or his advanced age, 
 and the probability of his passing away from the present 
 scene, is doubtful. The Septuagint often translates it by 
 words expressive of dying. Here it uses a*oXjo,aai, in Ps. 
 xxxix. 13, (14,) u.'jfnX^hv, and in Iviii. 8, (9,) dvravotiJ'sJvja'ov-ai. — 
 
 Jerusalem. Certainty on such a point is unattainable. The passage in 
 2 Sam. xviii. 18, "Absalom had reared up a pillar, which is in the 
 kini;'s dale," throws no liglit on the geogra])hical situation of the place; 
 because the locality of " the king's dale" cannot be deteriiiined. To 
 assume that, it lay near Jerusalem, is to beg ilie point in question. 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 251 
 
 Mostoft'^e old versions and Ciimmentators explain pU)^p~15 
 as a Hebr:ii.S!n iijr "steward;" either from DVD or p^'!? 
 to ran about, expressive of activity, diligence, supervision, 
 
 or from the Arabic ^jLa, to comb, trim, polish, keep in or- 
 der, according to the ofiice of a superintendent. A few 
 consider p'i|J)2 as a proper name. It is evidently a parono- 
 masia with what follows ptp/a"]!, and may be used, as Gese- 
 nius thinks, for TiXpJ2 possession, which is probably its mean- 
 ing in Job xxviii. 18. The [)hrase will thus be a Hebraism 
 for ' possessor,' and convey the idea expressed in the Ana- 
 lysis. For a full view of the ancient authorities on this pas- 
 sage, the reader may consult Rosenmiiller's note. 
 
 (G9.) It is not probable that Abram's faith, from which his 
 justification resulted, is mentioned here as a part of the 
 vision ; although it is barely possible, and might be so re- 
 presented, as an intimation of the fixed habit of his mind ; 
 as in the case of Solomon's asking for wisdom in a dream. 
 See 1 Kings iii. 5 ss. If the account of what took place in 
 the vision extended, as Rosenmiiller thinks, to the ninth verse 
 inclusive, the sixth should be regarded as parenthetical. 
 The fifth is easily explained ; as the Lord may be said to 
 have brought Abram out and showed him the stars, although 
 no corporeal action took place, but all was represented to 
 the mind. The language of ilVlAiMONtDEs* illustrates this 
 remark. J^^^b '^bn li^tl) 'Qlbnn dl55 !l!S5Tt2) 1)3D 
 
 li^jnpi 'p lb nbi:3i 'i^sT ii^^i 'nt25i5 m js^trsi 'n^Dibsn 
 
 nni^ * * * * '1:^1 ni^i:25n n5<:i?2i ntri?"' ii< i^^jt "itsij^ 
 n^tjnb '^-^.^m &^b ni<in5n n^M^'D. n^n b^n^ y^MiVi 
 
 * More Nevochim, Part II. chap. 46, fol. 70, Berlin edition, 1795, 
 and iu Buxtorf's translation, p. 322. 
 
253 NOTES TO GENESIS. (part vii. 
 
 ib^nb ^^t2i^ !sjbi ibs^ 'n 1)2^^1 i^^n^n n^^^^^r:; 1:^5 
 
 ,J Qlbnin tTTtu; " As in a dream," says this learned and ju- 
 dicious Rabbi, •' a man may seem to himself to go to a cer- 
 tain country, to marry a wife, and spend a considerable time 
 there, to have a son by her called by some particular name, 
 and of whom this and that may be said ; so is it also in pro- 
 phetic vision. Actions and things which the prophet is 
 said to do, space of time intervening between different ac- 
 tions, removal from one place to another; all these are done in 
 prophetic vision, and are not to be considered as real and sen- 
 eible actions, however minutely they may be specified. To 
 state that any particular part of a communication was made 
 in prophetic vision, would have been unnecessary, because 
 it was well known that the whole took place in that way." 
 It is indeed possible, that the first communication may end 
 with the fourth verse, and another be comprehended in 
 7 — 9, and again a third begin with v. 12. But this is, to 
 •say the least, unnecessary ; and it is not probable, as the 
 second communication would be introduced abruptly, with- 
 out any notice of the manner, while the first is mentioned as 
 ■taking place "in a vision," and the last is made after "a deep 
 ■sleep and horror had fallen on Abram." The mental agony 
 which he suffered, may have been occasioned in part by agi- 
 tating reflections on his situation and prospects ; but, in all 
 probability, it was caused in a much greater degree by natural 
 inability to bear divine communications without being deeply 
 and distressingly affected. Comp. Dan. viii. 27, x. IG ss. 
 
 (70.) In Gen. xv. 13, it is said: "they shall come out with 
 great substance." The particularity of the prediction is 
 remarkable. Compare the language of Ex. iii. 21, 22: "I 
 will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and 
 it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go 
 
CHAP. xi. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 253 
 
 empty. But every woman shall borrow (ask) of her neigh- 
 bor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver 
 and jewels of gold and raiment ; and ye shall spoil the 
 Egyptians." Add xi. 2, 3, and xii. 35, 30. 
 
 (71.) The emblems of affliction and almighty protection 
 passing between the pieces indicates a covenant on the part 
 of God with Abram, comprising the promise of deliverance 
 from the predicted calamity. By this symbolical rite, co- 
 venants were anciently ratified. Why this emblematic re- 
 ference of the furnace and lamp to the predicted servitude 
 and deliverance, should be regarded as out of place in con- 
 sequence of a covenant being thus indicated, (as Rosenmiiller 
 suggests,) I am unable to see. 
 
 (72.) Vossius, in his work on idolatry. Lib. II. cap. 74, 
 p. 690 — 691, explains the phrase, "river of Egypt," of the 
 Nile ; not understanding, however its main stream, but a 
 branch running from the Pelusiac channel towards Palestine, 
 and falling into the Mediterranean, or (as he calls it,) the 
 Egyptian or Phoenician sea, near the southern boundary of 
 that country : '' rivum ex brachio Pelusiaco Judasam versus 
 procurrentem, indeque prolluentem in mare vEgyptium, sive 
 Phcenicium." But the opposition between the river of 
 Egypt and the Euphrates, shows that the main stream itself 
 is meant. The prominence of this river accounts for its 
 being selected to mark out the extreme limit of the promised 
 land on the one side, as the well known Euphrates does on 
 the other. That the Hebrews never possessed the portion 
 of Egypt which lies east of the Nile is no serious difficulty. 
 Nice geographical accuracy is not intended. Comp. Ex. 
 xxiii. 31. The substitution of Egypt in the Analysis for the 
 river of Egypt is in accordance with 2 Chron. ix. 26 : " he 
 reigned from the river even unto the land of the Philistines, 
 
254 NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 and to the border of Euypt." Between this country and 
 that occupied by the Hebrews, nothing intervened but a 
 small portion of unimportant desert. 
 
 (73.) See Sale's Preliminnry Discourse, prefixed to his 
 translation of the Koran, Sect. 1. p. 11. London edition, 1836. 
 Also Discourses on Prophecy, by Joiix Davison, B. D. third 
 edition, Oxford, 1834, p. 490 — 493. As the remarks of this 
 writer are particularly worthy of attention, it may be well 
 to lay them before the reader. 
 
 "The publication [announcement] of this prophecy (res- 
 pecting Ishmael) is ascribed to the time of Abraham ; it is 
 said to have been given beiore the birth of Ishmael, who 
 was to be the progenitor and founder of this future nation ; 
 of which nation we must in reason understand what is here 
 foretold: "he shall be a wild man, and his hand shall be 
 against every man, and every man's hand against him ;" 
 since such a state of general hostility could hardly attach to 
 an individual, except as the representative of his progeny or 
 nation. But, since the date of this remote prophecy rests 
 upon the word of Moses in the Pentateuch, we cannot assume 
 that this particular, respecting its time of publication, is 
 true; and though the faith and veracity of the sacred historian 
 have been often effectually vindicated, that is a previous or 
 collateral topic, from which our present examination shall 
 borrow nothing. Suppose then that the public knowledge 
 of the prophecy was only contemporary with the Pentateuch 
 itself. The Pentateuch, containing the public code and 
 solemn annals of the Jewish people, could not be put forth 
 surreptitiously, nor in any other age than that which it bears 
 upon the face of it ; the age of Moses its author. At that 
 time, if not before, the prophecy was extant. 
 
 At that time, then, we shall have a prediction delineating, 
 under a brief, but expressive description, the genius and 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 255 
 
 manners of a people who liave always been reckoned a very 
 singular race, and that description, in all its brevity, marking 
 the very habits of hfe by which this race has been distin- 
 guished from the rest of the world. "He will be a wild 
 man ; and his hand will be against every man, and every 
 man's hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence 
 of all his brethren." If wo call for the report of the his- 
 torians and travellers of every age, they will inform us that 
 we have here the very character of the Arabian. They 
 will tell us of his roving habits ; of the desultory career of 
 his rude freedom, which has neither been subdued by con- 
 quest, nor reclaimed by the milder restraints of settle- 
 ment and civilization. They will tell us also of the license 
 of his predatory warfare and the state of defiance and 
 hostility whicli forms the internaiiDnal law between him and 
 those around him. There appears therefore, in this instance, 
 to have been an exact and remarkable accomplishment of 
 this aboriginal prophecy concerning the Arabian race. 
 
 Will it be said, however, that so soon as in the time of 
 Moses, to which, for the sake of argument, I have consented 
 to refer the publication of the prophecy, the Ishmaelite then 
 was what he since has always been, and that the subsisting 
 picture of his national manners was converted into the 
 semblance of a prediction? History is too imperfect for us 
 to sift the allegation. If we admit the prophecy to have 
 been a real one, we may easily believe that the people who 
 were the subject of it soon began to verify it. But since, 
 apart from the prophecy, wo know nothing of them in this 
 respect, let us consider what is probable. Now I think it 
 will be granted that the imperfect settlement of the world, 
 and the general rude state of nations at that time, render it 
 highly improbable that any such deep appropriate marks 
 could have bctrun to distinsjuish the Arabian, as would ar- 
 rest the attention of a common historian, and enable him to 
 
256 NOTES TO GEXESI3. [part vn, 
 
 select and seize so truly, the one example of those peculiar 
 national habits which was ultimately to survive and exceed 
 the rest. There were too many wild men then, to make one 
 instance of it in a race a rare one. Too much of promis- 
 cuous rapine and violence, to give a single people the pri- 
 vilege of a reputation on such accounts. 
 
 But one certainty we have, that is, the long continued 
 fulfilment of this prophecy. The Arabians have occupied 
 one and the same country. They have roved, like the 
 moving sands of their deserts ; but their race has been 
 rooted whilst the individual has wandered. That race has 
 neither been dissipated by conquest, nor lost by migration, 
 nor confounded with the blood of other countries. They 
 have continued to dwell "in the presence of all their breth- 
 ren," a distinct national family, wearing, upon the whole, the 
 same features and aspect which prophecy first impressed 
 upon them. The wildness which is incident only to a cer- 
 tain stage of man's social nature, has been permanent with 
 them; and, although they have been compacted and em- 
 bodied as a nation for more than three thousand years, they 
 have resisted those changes of habit which it is the effect 
 of civil union, so long continued, to induce. Plainly, there 
 is something unusual and remarkable in their case. And 
 yet the account which could now be given of them, with al! 
 the advantage of knowing their whole past history, is no 
 other than was given of them long ago, in the first rudi- 
 ments of their national existence, if w^e take the prophecy 
 at the lowest supposable date of it, and before they existed 
 at all, if we rely upon the only direct testimony wdiich we 
 possess, and that an unimpcached one, as to the real time of 
 its publication." 
 
 (74.) The phrase ''S&'D?', rendered in our version, " in 
 the presence of," means 'on the east of.' In describing 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 257 
 
 places, the Hebrews face the east. Hence, '^53~b3?, hterally 
 ' on the face of,' refers to the region which is towards the 
 face, in other words, the east. And so it is used in other 
 places. See xxiii. 17, 19, 5S:1^)3 ^P3"b5? 'east of Mamre/ 
 XXV. 9, and especially 18. In this last passage, ''5S~b^ 
 jSS V/llJ^'Dp, the English translation is : " and he died in 
 the presence of all his brethren." But, not to urge the ex- 
 traordinary sense which this implies, (Ishmael's dying in the 
 presence of the other children of his father,) it is contrary 
 to usage. DSD, which properly means ' to fall,' is not em- 
 ployed in the sense of dying, except in reference to violent 
 death, when its use is agreeable to analogy. The transla- 
 tion ought to be, 'it fell on the east of his brethren;' and the 
 clause is evidently elliptical, meaning, ' the lot fell,' that is,' 
 * their country lay on the east of Palestine.' So the Septua- 
 gint, JcaTwxrjfl'?. In Josh. xiii. 6, nbSri is correctly rendered 
 in our translation, " divide thou it by lot ;" literally, ' cause 
 it to fall.' The death of Ishmael is mentioned in v. 17, and 
 is succeeded by a geographical description of the region in 
 which his posterity lived. Thus the Arabians are called 
 ' sons of the east,' and the Arabian magi are said to come 
 from the east. See Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, 
 Part II. Grabe's edition, p. 304. Geographical terms are 
 frequently employed in scripture with some degree of lati- 
 tude. The descendants of Ishmael were settled partly east 
 and partly south-east of the Hebrews, the latter direction 
 being comprehended under the more general term. 
 
 Since writing the above, I have met with the work of the 
 Rev. Charles Foster, B. D., entitled " Mahometanisirt 
 Unveiled," London, 1829, 2 vols. 8vo. It is extraordinary 
 that so sensible a writer should have founded an important 
 part of his theory on an interpretation which is, at least, 
 of doubtful authority. He considers the expression, 'in 
 33 
 
258 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 the presence of,' as implying contiguity of situation, and " a 
 posture of hostility," " hostile contact and collision." The 
 character of hostility is indeed explicitly stated in the former 
 part of the twelfth verse ; but it is by no means implied in 
 the words under consideration, which simply refer to geo- 
 graphical situation. # This learned author, however, not 
 satisfied with an interpretation, which makes the "Ishmael- 
 itish Arabs stretch themselves along the entire frontier of 
 Canaan, from the Euphj-ates to the Red Sea." thinks 
 that he finds in this simple geographical designation a 
 prophecy to this effect, that the descendants of Ishmael 
 should not only " exercise an implacable and unremitting 
 hostility against the offspring of Isaac, their brethren, in im- 
 mediate contact with whom they were at first planted by 
 the hand of Providence," but that this " prophetic conflict" 
 was in subsequent ages to be "renewed," when the Jews and 
 Mohammedans should meet in the remotest countries of the 
 world. Vol. I. p. 93, 94, 135. It is unnecessary to show, 
 that such views derive no support from the language of the 
 text. But it may not be unworthy of remark, as an illus- 
 tration of the vagueness of exposition not founded on philo- 
 logical examination, that the celebrated Sir Harry Vane, 
 Junior, when referring to a law of exclusion passed by the 
 early puritans of Massachusetts, against which he objected 
 as an act of intolerance, quotes this very language as ex- 
 pressive of peaceful and harmonious intercourse ! " Scribes 
 and Pharisees, and such as are confirmed in any way of 
 error, are not to be denied cohabitation, but are to be pitied 
 and reformed. Ishmael shall dwell in the presence of his 
 brethren" See Bancroft's History of the United States, 
 Vol. I. p. 390, fifth edition. 
 
 (75.) The English translation of the middle clause of the 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 259 
 
 thirteenth verse, " thou God seest me," follows the Scptua- 
 guil and Vulgate, du o Qsoj h snriiwv \xs- qui vidisti me. This 
 version supposes the word "^i^^. to be a participle from !lN!;'1 
 with 1 as a pronominal suffix. The regular form of the 
 participle with the suffix of the first person is "^i&ii"!, or ac- 
 cented '^p^'"l, as it occurs in Isa. xlvii. 10, ""SiiJl '1"'5^ 'there 
 is none that seeth me.' Still there are examples of the use of 
 ''i^l as a participle with the pronominal suffix. Thus in 
 Job vii. 8, ''iS"! I^^" " the eye of him that hath seen me ;" 
 and Ps. xxii. 8, (7,) ^5^n-bD " all they that see me." Also 
 xxxi. 12, (11,) ^!^'"1 "they that did see me." It is better, how- 
 ever, to consider the word as a noun, of the form of '^55'. 
 affliction, and to render the whole phrase thus : ' thou (art) 
 the God of sight,' that is, who allowest thyself to be seen. 
 I observe, after writing this, that the same view of this 
 word is given by Rabbi Solomon of Dubno, in the flblUd T^l 
 " ^5^1 bj!<, an abstract noun of the form of ^yi, i/p;i, ^55^, 
 meaning, thou art the God of seeing (HSl^ illS^"! b'^), who 
 appearest to the sons of men." The reason of Hagars 
 applying this name appears from what follows: ' for she said, 
 do I indeed here see,' that is, enjoy the use of my senses and 
 live, ' after my sight,' after having seen the symbol of the 
 divine presence ! It is an expression of grateful surprise at 
 being permitted to continue in life and health, after the en- 
 joyment of a privilege, to which it was the general opinion 
 that no one could be admitted and live. Comp. Exod. xx. 
 19, Deut. xviii. 16, Jud. vi. 22, 23. The word ^'I^JJ^'I 
 is evidently chosen as a paronomasia with '^^^.. — The name 
 given to the s[)ring is of the same import: Beer-lahai-roi, 
 meaning, ' the well of the living, (an epithet usually applied 
 to God,) of sight,' that is, of him who allows himself to be 
 seen. 
 
260 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 (76.) Abram, compounded of ^5< father and Q'l high, is 
 expressive of dignity. By a very slight change in the latter 
 part of the word, it becomes Abraham, meaning, as the con- 
 text explains, father of a great multitude. The word which 
 forms the latter part of the name no longer exists in the 
 
 Hebrew ; but it is found in the Arabic *L^y a great num- 
 ber. That the name was intended to intimate his spiritual 
 relationship of paternity to all the faithful, as well as to de- 
 note the immense number of iiis lineal descendants, we have 
 the express testimony of St. Paul. See Rom. iv. 11, 12, 16, 
 17, Gal. iii. 7—9, 14, 16, 29. 
 
 (77.) On the authority of Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, 
 and Strabo, supported by other evidence, it has been con- 
 tended that circumcision originated with the Egyptians, from 
 whom it spread to other nations. Among the defenders of 
 this view, one of the most distinguished is Spencer, who 
 gives the arguments on both sides with fulness and learning, 
 in his work De Legibus Hebrseorum, Lib. I. cap. iv. sect. 4. 
 Le Clerc, also, in his note on v. 10, suggests that the Egyp- 
 tian practice may have given occasion to the divine com- 
 mand to Abraham. Von der Hardt, as quoted by Buddaeus, 
 ubi sup. Period I. sect. iii. cap. 4, note ***, p. 277, endea- 
 vors to remove the difRculty, by supposing a partial, private, 
 and medicinal use of the rite to have existed antecedently to 
 the time of Abraham, but not allowing its general use among 
 the Egyptians. But such an occasional practice is altogether 
 hypothetical. Rosenmiiller in loc. cites Jablonsk[, saying 
 that as circumcision, both among the Egyptians and the 
 descendants of Abraham, was a religious rite, emblematic 
 of purity, it was not regarded as obligatory by the former 
 except on the priests and other ecclesiastical persons. If 
 this very limited application of the rite were more ancient 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11. J NOTES TO GENESIS. 261 
 
 than Abraham's time, God may have extended the obligation 
 of it to every male, in order to intimate that his people 
 ought all to be holy, like priests. But the passages quoted 
 from the Greek authors above mentioned, say nothing about 
 a limited use of this ceremony. The scriptural evidence 
 favors the opinion, that the narrative in the text contains the 
 history of the origin of circumcision. In defence of this 
 view, see Buddteus, ubi sup. p. 275 — 282. Jer. ix. 25, 26, to 
 which Spencer appeals in order to show that the Egyptians 
 were a circumcised people, is certainly better adapted to 
 prove the contrary. The expression, " all these nations 
 are uncircumcised," being in immediate connexion with the 
 words, " all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the 
 heart," is a reason for taking it in the literal and most com- 
 prehensive sense. See Rosenmiiller on this place, who allows, 
 that as a nation the Egyptians were uncircumcised, and the 
 Idumseans also until the time of John Hyrcanus. Respect- 
 ing the practice of the Ammonites and Moabites we have 
 no evidence, p. 302, 303. — The declaration of God in Jos. 
 V. 9, " I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off 
 you," is also appealed to by Spencer, who supposes it to 
 imply, that before the time of Joshua, uncircumcision was 
 regarded by the Egyptians as disgraceful. But it is clear 
 that the language proves nothing on this point. For the 
 phrase, " the reproach of Egypt," may as well be explained 
 of contempt usually thrown by the Israelites on their Egyp- 
 tian oppressors ; who would be selected as the objects of 
 this opprobrium, on account of the hatred which their tyran- 
 nical conduct would naturally excite. But, probably, the 
 text intimates the state of freedom and dignity to which the 
 Hebrews are now considered as advanced, on renewing their 
 covenant with Jehovah by means of the instituted rite, and 
 immediately on their' entrance into the promised land. "The 
 reproach of Egypt" will thus comprehend the former dis- 
 
262 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vil. 
 
 graceful slavery, the evils, and, indeed, the very memory of 
 which may be said to be removed by becoming the Lord's 
 privileged freemen. 
 
 (78.) The excision referred to is explained by some of ex- 
 communication, by others of banishment. But the opinion 
 generally maintained by the Jews, that it relates to some 
 punishment inflicted by divine interposition, is best supported. 
 See Levit. xvii. 10, xx. 2, 5, 6, xxiii. 30. That divine Pro- 
 vidence always interfered to punish the culprit is, by no 
 means, a necessary consequence. 
 
 (79.) The various feelings which must have agitated 
 Abraham's mind, now of delight, arising out of the exercise 
 of full faith, and again of apprehension, springing from even 
 the shghtest degree of doubt, and prompting the prayer for 
 the son already born, may be illustrated by a comparison 
 with the representation made in the Gospels of the alterna- 
 ting emotions of fear, doubt, and joy, with which the Apos- 
 tles received the evidence of their master's resurrection. 
 See Luke xxiv. 34 — 37, and especially v. 41 ; from which 
 it appears, that, after they had themselves informed the 
 disciples who had just arrived from Emmaus," that the Lord 
 had risen," and thus confirmed the account of his appearance 
 on the road, immediately on his showing himself they are 
 affrighted, and suppose him to be " a spirit," and even on 
 further evidence " believe not for joy." Homer expresses 
 the same natural feeling, when he represents the Trojans as 
 hardly able to believe that their darling Hector has escaped 
 in safety after his engagement with Ajax : 
 
 Kai ^ '/jyov if^ort ddrv, dsXtovTsg tfoov sivai* 
 
 Iliad, vii. 310. 
 
 The note of Madame Dacier, cited with approbation by 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS, 
 
 263 
 
 Clarke, conveys the true sentiment : Pras lastitia vix cre- 
 dentes verum id esse quod viderent. 
 
 (80.) The language of our English version, both in v. 10 
 and 14, "according to the time of life," is not very intelli- 
 gible. The Hebrew is H^n il!?3, and it occurs also in 
 2 Kings iv. 16, 17. Our translators explain ?1^n as a noun. 
 It seems better, with the greater proportion of good critics, 
 to consider it as an adjective, the feminine of "^H living. 
 Thus it may apply to Sarah herself, and imply that she 
 shall live. But it is much clearer and more beautiful, to re- 
 gard it as poetic ; literally, ' according to,' (or when) ' the 
 . time' (or season, or year,) ' is living,' reviving again, return- 
 ing. Thus it will denote, as Gesenius thinks, " the reviving 
 year, that is, the coming spring, when the winter shall be 
 past and nature revives;" or else, 'this same season next 
 year,' as if he had said, ' when this time (of the year) lives 
 again.' See xvii. 21, from which it is probable that this 
 divine manifestation to Abraham took place not long after 
 his submission to the rite of circumcision. • 
 
 (81.) The punctuation of the word "^iDli^ in v. 3, with the 
 same vowels as those which are applied to tTin'', and the 
 masoretical intimation of sanctity expressed by the word 
 12)np in the margin, seem to justify the conclusion, that the 
 Rabbins identified the person whom Abraham addresses 
 with him, to whom the word Ulir^ is applied in v. 13, 14, 
 17, &c.* And probably they were correct in so doing, as 
 it seems difficult to make the whole narrative consistent on 
 any other supposition. At first Abraham sees three men, to 
 
 *■ Compare also the Kabbinical punctuation of "^^li^ in Judg. vi. 15, 
 and see Vitringa's Dissertation, De Angelo Sacerdote, in his Observa- 
 tiones Sacioe, Lib. IV. cap. xiv. § xviii — xx. p. 1099 — 1102. 
 
264 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 one of whom, the most distinguished perhaps in personal 
 appearance, he directs his discourse. The promise is evi- 
 dently announced hy this same personage, (v. 10,) as none 
 other can be understood without introducing an additional 
 speaker, of whom the text gives no intimation. That the 
 reproof and repetition of the promise contained in v. 13 — 15, 
 which are ascribed to " the Lord," tllrT;, Vv^ere conveyed by 
 some other agent than the person just referred to, or one of 
 the two angels that accompany him, must be granted to be 
 possible. But I think every reader will perceive that such 
 a supposition is wholly destitute of probability. Pursuing 
 the narrative, we find that Abraham's guests bend their 
 course towards Sodom, attended by their host ; that before 
 he " returns" home (v. 33,) " the Lord" communicates to 
 him his purpose of destruction, and Abraham pleads for the 
 guilty cities. The language of the sixteenth verse is re- 
 sumed in the twenty-second, the intermediate being parenthe- 
 tical. It is said, " and the men rose up from thence and 
 looked towards Sodom ;" and again, " and the men turned 
 their faces from thence and went toward Sodom." It is 
 most natural to suppose, that the " three" mentioned in the 
 second verse are intended ; and yet it is equally natural to 
 infer from what immediately follows, v. 17 ss., that the per- 
 son who makes the communication ascribed to " the Lord," 
 and to whom Abraham appears to address his supplication, 
 is one of the same party. From the latter part of the 
 twenty-second verse, " the men — went toward Sodom, hut 
 Abraham stood yet before the Lord," and I'rom the narrative 
 in the next chapter, from which it appears that only "two" 
 of the angels proceed to Sodom in order to accomplish 
 the divine purpose, this inference is strengthened. The con- 
 clusion would, therefore, seem to be, that the most promi- 
 nent of the three personages introduced in tlie narrative, is 
 he whom Abraham principally addresses ; that, if he accom- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 265 
 
 panied the other two beyond the precincts of Abraham's 
 residence, he did not afterwards rejoin them ; and that these 
 two are identical with the angels who deliver Lot and des- 
 troy Sodom. 
 
 Still, however, if this be granted, the supposition that 
 Abraham employed the title "^SlS^ in the third verse, in the 
 sense of nltT^. is inadmissible ; for doubtless he addressed 
 the stranger with the ordinary title of civility and respect, 
 as Lot did the two angels, and as the woman of Samaria 
 did our Lord, before she knew anything respecting him, ex- 
 cept that he was a Jew fatigued by travelling. See John 
 iv. IL The supposition itself is no doubt of very high an- 
 tiquity, as it certainly appears in the Chaldee Targum, which 
 uses the abbreviation for Jehovah, ^'^. The use of the sin- 
 gular in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, proves 
 nothing ; as it may be employed in reference to the most 
 prominent of the three. Our own translation " my Lord," 
 agrees with this opinion. Still, if the received punctuation 
 be followed, "^pilJ^ may be the plural with the suffix, the 
 vowel being lengtliened on account of the accent. 
 
 The Jewish interpreters having laid it down as a princi- 
 ple, that no more than one commission is delegated to one 
 angel at a time, account for the mission of three by saying, 
 that one was sent to predict the birth of a son to Abraham, 
 another to save Lot, and the third to destroy the devoted 
 cities. Hence they attempt to explain some of the pecu- 
 liarities of this narrative. For instance, the plui'al number 
 is employed in the first nine verses, (except the third, for 
 which a reason has already been given,) while the promise 
 of the birth of a son, (v. 10,) is made in the singular. So 
 in xix. 17 — 22, where one of the angels speaks, and is ad- 
 dressed by Lot. But this is rather plausible than solid. 
 For in the latter reference, both singular and plural are 
 34 
 
266 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vir. 
 
 used in intimate connexion in v. 17 : " and it came to pass, 
 when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said.' 
 And from what precedes^ it is plain that this distinction of 
 offices is assumed without proof. The promise of a son is 
 indeed in the singular, but the inquiry for Sarah, which in- 
 troduces it, is in the plural: (xviii. 9, 10.) Thus, too, in xix.. 
 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, Lot's security is ascribed indifferently ta 
 both the angels. And so also in reference to the destruction 
 of the cities in v. 13. Such language as that in v, 21, 22, is 
 easily explicable. One among a multitude of agents might 
 employ it ; much more one of two. The natural and sim- 
 ple supposition, that Lot or Abraham addresses the agent 
 who is apparently the most prominent, or even the most 
 accessible, satisfactorily explains the alternate use of either 
 number. 
 
 The narrative under consideration, according to the view 
 above taken of it, suggests an inquiry of no little interest 
 both in its nature and results. If it be one of the three 
 seeming men whom Abraham addresses by the title " the 
 Lord," tlln"]', does it follow that the person so addressed is 
 really the uncreated ? — is it God himself who appears under 
 the image of a man? — or, is the divine agent, whom Je- 
 hovah sends to effect his purposes, regarded as his substitute,, 
 inasmuch as he acts by his authority ; and does he conse- 
 quently appear invested with his dignity, assuming his- 
 name and character ? To settle this question by a full ex- 
 amination of Scripture and ancient Jewish authority, would 
 be quite incompatible with the brevity of these notes. Ne 
 doubt, as Drusius remarks, it is the general practice in these 
 accounts, to ascribe to God what the angels whom he com- 
 missions, are said to do ; and the Lord is often said to speak 
 and act when he employs the instrumentality of an angeL 
 The principle on which such phraseology occurs, is stated 
 in the axiom, qui facit per alium facit per se. In the nar- 
 
4 
 
 CHAP. KI. 27— XXV. II.] NOTES TO GENESIS, 267 
 
 rative the instrument employed is frequently unnoticed, 
 ■" because" (to use the words of Maimonides, More Nevo- 
 chim, Part IL chap. 41, fol. 55,) " of the well known and 
 fundamental principle, that prophecy is communicated only 
 by means of an angel." He refers to Gen. xii. 1, xxxi. 3, 
 and several other places. — Still, I rather think, that the view 
 of most of the ancient Jews and Christian fathers, who 
 thought that the divine person, who is afterwards denom- 
 inated the Logos, is the being who manifests himself in 
 several of the extraordinary appearances attributed to Je- 
 hovah under the old dispensation, is best supported by the 
 general analogy of scripture in relation to this subject. See 
 Hengstenberg's Christology, Vol. I. p. 219 ss., Keith's 
 Translation, 164 ss., where the reader will find a great 
 deal of valuable information, although he will hardly be 
 able to acquiesce in all the learned author's criticism and 
 reasoning. 
 
 In order that the reader may judge for himself on this 
 point, it may be well to call his attention to those portions 
 of the book of Genesis which bear upon the subject- 
 After that under review, which is the first in order, the 
 twenty-first chapter contains the next instance. Hagar, in 
 her desolate condition, is almost reduced to despair at the 
 prospect of her son's death, " And God heard the voice of 
 the lad ; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of 
 heaven, and said unto her, what aileth thee, H;)gar? fear 
 not, for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 
 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand ; for / 
 will make him a great nation.' v, 17, 18. The most natural 
 construction of these words is undoubtedly that which iden- 
 tifies the angel of God with the one who promises to make 
 Ishmael a great nation. And, if this be the true construc- 
 tion, the angel claims divine prerogative ; as it is not to be 
 supposed that any creature would appropriate to himself the 
 
268 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 power and will implied in the promise. If it should be 
 said, that God himself is the speaker in the eighteenth verse, 
 and that an ellipsis of 'and he saith,' or some such phrase, 
 is to be supplied after the seventeenth, the possibility 
 of this is not to be denied : indeed, under certain circum- 
 stances, such an ellipsis would be quite natural. But whether 
 it were intended by the author, and the interpreter has there- 
 fore a right to claim this, and supply it, is entirely another 
 question. An examination of other analogous places affords 
 the most satisfactory ground of decision, and leads, I think, 
 to the conclusion, that no such ellipsis was intended. This 
 will appear from some of the texts which remain to be 
 adduced. 
 
 The next passage bearing on the subject may be found in 
 the twenty-second chapter. In the first verse, God is said 
 to try Abraham, by commanding him to sacrifice his son. 
 Jehovah's angel prevents the consummation of the act, and 
 the language employed (v. 12,) to convey the prohibition, is 
 most readily explained on the supposition, that he is himself 
 a divine person : " Lay not thine hand upon the lad, for now 
 I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with- 
 held thine only son from me." Unless this be allowed, we 
 must suppose an unnatural ellipsis of some phrase to indi- 
 cate that God is the speaker. It cannot be objected to the 
 view here preferred, that, if it were correct, the language 
 would be this: "now I know that thou fearest me;" because 
 the use of the noun for the pronoun is very common in He- 
 brew. Comp. XXXV. 1 ; and note 83, below. 
 
 The next passage is in chapter xxxi. By comparing the 
 eleventh and thirteenth verses, it is evident, that " the angel of 
 God" is said to declare himself to be " the God of Bethel," to 
 whom Jacob had vowed a vow, as is related in xxxiii. 20 — 22. 
 It would seem undeniable, that the patriarch regarded him as 
 a really divine person. And, if this conclusion required any 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— sxv. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 269 
 
 confirmation, the language in xxxii. 9, would afford the fullest. 
 For the being who commands his return to the land of his 
 kindred is " Jehovah, the God of his fathers Abraham and 
 Isaac." 
 
 The same result is fairly attained by comparing xxxii. 
 28 — 30, with Hosea xii. 3, 4, 1 Kings xviii. 31, and 2 Kings 
 xvii. 34, The same agent is denominated indifferently, 
 God, Jehovah, angel of God, or of Jehovah. Compare also 
 XXXV. 10 ss. 
 
 The last passage in the book of Genesis, is xlviii. 15, 16. 
 " God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did 
 walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 
 the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads." 
 Here the God of Abraham and Isaac is plainly identical 
 with the angel who delivered Jacob from the various evils 
 which had surrounded him. Most certainly, this is Jacob's 
 own impression ; and unless this angel is really divine, it 
 would seem impossible to vindicate the patriarch from the 
 charge of superstition and idolatry. 
 
 This view of the subject coincides with the plain meaning 
 of certain texts elsewhere occurring in the Pentateuch. Thus 
 in Ex. iii. 2, it is " the angel of Jehovah" that appears to 
 Moses " in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush ;" and 
 yet, immediately afterwards, we read that God calls to him 
 from the midst of the bush, declares the place to be holy, 
 and avows himself to be Jehovah, the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, v. 4 ss. — In xiv. 19, also, " the angel of 
 God" and "the pillar of the cloud" are said to go behind the 
 Israelites ; and in v. 24, Jehovah is represented as troubling 
 " the host of the Egyptians" by looking " through the pillar 
 of fire and of the cloud." Dathe, indeed, in his note on 
 Ex. xxxiii. 21, adopting the opinion of Herder, that any 
 symbol or visible thing under which the invisible God dis- 
 plays himself, is called the angel or messenger of Jehovah, 
 
270 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 says, that the burning bush and the fiery pillar are identical 
 with the angel of Jehovah. But the ariruments alleged in 
 proof are unsatisfactory. Moses, it is said, saw merely the 
 burning bush, and heard the voice speaking from it. But 
 this is no evidence that the bush and the angel are the same 
 thing, for the narrative does not tell us that Moses saw the 
 angel : the appearance or manifestation is the v^^hole trans- 
 action, comprehending the divine communication made to 
 him at the time. The latter part of xiv. 19, is supposed to 
 be exegetical of the former, and to convey precisely the 
 same thought. But this is assuming the very point to be 
 proved, as it may, v^ith far greater probability and much 
 more in accordance with scriptural analogy, be maintained, 
 that the removal of the pillar was a natural consequence of 
 the action before ascribed to the being who is denominated 
 the angel of God. 
 
 It is worthy of notice, that the same language occurs in 
 Num. xxii., where the narrative of Balaam's journey from 
 Mesopotamia to the plains of Moab is narrated. " God's 
 anger was kindled because he went," and ^' the angel of 
 Jehovah''^ opposed him : v. 22 ss. And it is particularly re- 
 markable, that, at the end of the interview, the angel declares 
 himself to be the author of the communication which Ba- 
 laam was to make: "the angel of Jehovah said unto Bahiam, 
 go with the men ; but only the word that /shall speak unto 
 thee, that thou shalt speak," v. 35. In the account which 
 follows, " God," " Jehovah," is said to " meet Balaam ; " Je- 
 hovah puts a word in his mouth, and the communications 
 made to Balak are invariably ascribed to a divine origin. 
 
 Maimonides, in his More Nevochim, Part II. chap. 42, 
 fol. 56, Berlin edition, p. 310, Buxtorf's Translation, con- 
 siders the circumstance narrated in Num. xxii. as having 
 
 o 
 
 taken place in prophetic vision ; ri&^li^n rii^"*l^i. In this 
 view Dathe acquiesces. Dr. Palfrey, in his woi'k before re- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 27J 
 
 ferred to, supposes Balaam to be relating to the mes- 
 sengers of Baiak the substance of a divine communica- 
 tion which he pretended to have received in a dream, 
 in which Jehovah had consented to his making the wished- 
 for journey. Respecting these view^s of the transaction, my 
 present purpose merely allows me to remark, that they are 
 evidently at variance with the plain meaning of the chapter,, 
 which exhibits what took place after Balaam had com- 
 menced his journey. Comp. v. 21, with the subsequent nar- 
 ration, from which it is plain that Balaam is not relating a 
 dream. Thus, also, was the narrative understood by the 
 apostle St. Peter. 2 Pet. ii. 16.* Dr. Palfrey imagines Ba- 
 laam to tell the princes of Moab, that " after persisting, in 
 his dream, in the attempt to visit Balak, he heard himself 
 addressed hij Jehovah's angel, who saw how determined he 
 was, with permission to prosecute his journey." p. 383. 
 Both Balaam and the messengers of Balak arc consequently 
 supposed to consider Jehovah's angel as a real personage. 
 On the Doctor's theory, then, this view of the personality of 
 this agent is, at least, as ancient as the time of Moses. The 
 question of its origination is worthy of his consideration. 
 
 (82.) Lot's offer of his two daughters as a substitute for 
 his guests, is not to be mentioned except in terms of the 
 strongest reprobation. Viewed in any light, it was an un- 
 pardonable violation of duty. The fact that the sacred 
 writers relate matters of this sort, and such as are mentioned 
 towards the end of the chapter, respecting their most dis- 
 tinguished characters, is one among the many internal proofs 
 of the correctness of their accounts. The sacredness of the 
 rites of hospitality, and the very low estimate in which the 
 
 * 1 am aware that the genuineness of this epistle has been denied ; 
 but I think on grounds entirely insufficient. Its authenticity is quite 
 susceptible of proof. 
 
272 NOTES TO GENESIS. [paKT vil. 
 
 female character was held in ancient times, and, it may rea- 
 sonably be supposed, particularly in so dissolute a place as 
 Sodom, may be pleaded in palliation of this abominable offer. 
 The host would feel his honor to be implicated, and, lest his 
 guests should suspect him of treachery, would endeavor, by 
 making the most unreasonable and even outrageous propo- 
 sition, to assure them of his sincerity. Distracted too by 
 various emotions. Lot may have been hardly conscious of 
 what he was saying, the violence of his feelings suggesting 
 the most extravagant declaration ; as was afterwards the 
 case with Reuben, when he endeavored to reconcile his 
 father to Benjamin's accompanying his brothers to Egypt, 
 by offering his own two sons to be slain by their grand- 
 father, if he did not bring back the favorite. Gen. xlii. 37. 
 Besides, as the narrative shows that the family of Lot had 
 formed alliances in Sodom, which no doubt were with the 
 most distinguished among its citizens, he would most proba- 
 bly presume, that the men would not dare to incur the ven- 
 gence to which the acceptance of such an offer would expose 
 them. This consideration will derive additional force, if it 
 be granted that the two daughters mentioned in the text 
 (v. 8,) are the same as those who are spoken of in the 
 fourteenth verse. Their being said to be "married" involves 
 no great difficulty, as this may express their betrothed state, 
 and their accepted suitors may be called Lot's " sons-in- 
 law." And the words of the next verse, " thy two daugh- 
 ters which are here," does not prove that they had sisters 
 living elsewhere with their husbands. However this may 
 be, it is certain that Lot's domestic connexion with some of 
 the families of Sodom, may have induced him to believe 
 that his offer would be rejected. 
 
 (83.) The expression " brimstone and fire," denotes light- 
 ning producing sulphuric streams. Comp. Ps. xi. C, where 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 273 
 
 the language is evidently fornned on the narrative of this 
 overthrow. See also Ezek. xxxviii. 22. From the four- 
 teenth chapter it appears, that " the vale of Siddim," in 
 which Sodom and Gomorrah were situated, (compare v. 10 
 with V. 3,) abounded with bituminous pits. The word ren- 
 dered "slime" in our translation, is used to express some 
 cohesive substance ; that, for instance, which served to ce- 
 ment the bricks of which the tower of Babel was built, 
 xi. 3, and to coat the ark of rushes in which the infant 
 Moses was placed: Ex. ii. 3, where it is used in connexion' 
 with " pitch." It is, therefore, very suitable to express th^ 
 nature of bitumen; and the name "lacus Asphaltites," which 
 is sometimes applied to the Dead Sea, evidently alludes to 
 this property of the soil. Of course, so combustible a sub- 
 stance would be readily enkindled by the lightning ; and if, 
 as some writers have conjectured, the country contained 
 streams of Naphtha, the effect would be accelerated. The 
 current of the Jordan, filling up the chasm which the burn-" 
 ing of the bituminous substance must have occasioned, would 
 form a lake. See a dissertation on the subject of the over-' 
 throw of Sodom and the other cities, in the Bible de Vencc, 
 Tom. I. p. 593 ss. 
 
 The expression in the text, " the Lord rained — ^from the 
 Lord" is Hebraistic for, 'the Lord rained from himself.' The 
 noun is used where most other languages would employ the 
 pronoun. The same idiom occurs in 1 Kings viii. 1, "So- 
 lomon assembled the elders — unto king Solomon ;" also, in 
 Isa. vii. 11, " the Lord spake unto Ahaz, saying, ask a sign 
 of the Lord ;" in Matt. xii. 26, " if Satan cast out Satan ;" 
 and in various other places. It may be said, that, according 
 to this view, the second noun, or the pronoun which would 
 denote it, is inexplicable, as it cannot refer to the apparent' 
 source of the destructive flame, that being denoted by the 
 phrase, " out of heaven." Hengstenberg assumes that this*- 
 85 
 
274 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vil. 
 
 phrase and the other " from himself" are " of the same im- 
 port." Ubi sup. p. 220, Keith's Translation, p. 165. It must 
 be granted to be unnecessary ; but it is far from being inex- 
 plicable, such pleonasms being very frequent. Compare 
 sv savTu in John vi. 61, xi. 38. It is possible that the pleo- 
 nastic form may be used to express more strongly the idea, 
 that this destructive element was sent and directed by the 
 Lord. Compare the phrase "life in himself" in John v. 26. 
 
 (84.) As salt i« sometimes used to express perpetuity, it 
 has been suggested that the phrase " pillar of salt," may be 
 equivalent to ' a perpetual pillar,' ' a standing monument.' 
 Num. xviii. 19, and 2 Chron. xiii. 5, are appealed to in de- 
 fence of this supposition ; but without success, as in both 
 instances oD"]^ is added, and the phrase ' a covenant of salt' 
 is founded on the usage of eating salt together as a token of 
 friendship, and denotes perpetuity, inviolable character. See 
 Mne'id XII. 173, "dant fruges maribus salsas;" and compare 
 Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, under nb)2 II., and Suicer's 
 Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, under aXac II. A. — Dathe trans- 
 lates nb)0 ^"^^5 TlvlT thus : "in solo salsuglnoso haesit in- 
 fixa." No doubt the ground itself might be called saline, 
 but the close connexion between !n''55 and Hj^ and the 
 omission of the preposition, make it more probable that the 
 former word is in construction with the latter. Lot's wife 
 being suffocated, her person probably became gradually indu- 
 rated and encrusted by the floating vapor. " Fragments 
 of fossil salt in various forms are found in the vicinity of the 
 Dead Sea,"* some one of which, no doubt Josephus mistook 
 for this pillar, when he supposed himself to have seen it. 
 
 * See the authorities referred to in Robinson's Gesenius, under 
 S^^D 2. 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 275 
 
 See his Antiquities, Lib, I. cap. xi. § 4. — Other views of 
 the meaning of the phrase " pillar of salt," may be seen in 
 Suicer, ubi sup., B. 
 
 (85.) The ingenious conjecture of Michaelis, that a part 
 of Lot's flock may have been with their attendants in some 
 district sufficiently remote from the scene of destruction to 
 escape being involved in the ruin, is very probable. Had 
 he sustained the loss of all his effects, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that he would have resorted to Abraham, his noble- 
 hearted and affectionate kinsman, between whom and him- 
 self, we have no reason to think that any other feelings than 
 those of kindness and regard subsisted. We find that his 
 daughters were able to procure wine ; and, as it is difficult 
 to suppose that they would have ventured to do what is re- 
 lated in the. text, unless they hoped to deceive their father 
 into the belief of their being other women, it is likely that 
 they were not the only female inmates of the cave. Exces- 
 sive, indeed, must have been Lot's want of consciousness, 
 on the opposite supposition. The language of the elder 
 daughter to her sister in v. 31, only shows that she appre- 
 hended all the men of that region to have been destroyed ; 
 an opinion perhaps hastily formed, and suggested by the 
 terrific nature of the catastrophe. Indeed, she may have 
 supposed her father, like a second Noah, to be the only male 
 survivor of the conflagration, and that the earth was again 
 to be peopled from one family. These are considerations 
 which may serve in some degree to palliate the flagrant 
 enormity. — Moab implies that the child owed its birth to 
 her father. For the composition of the word, see Gesenius 
 under i2>5i?a and '^^. Ben-Ammi, ''^5'"']!?, is literally, 'son 
 of my people.' It denotes that the child was born of the 
 mother's own stock, without intercourse with one of any 
 other line. 
 
276 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vh. 
 
 (80.) From the similarity of the leading circumstances in 
 this chapter with those in xii. 10—20, it has been conjec- 
 tured, that both these portions of the history are founded on 
 the same fact. It must be acknowledged to be very re- 
 ipiarkable, that two events so strikingly alike should have oc- 
 ,-curred in Abraham's life. But, if these portions of the book 
 of Genesis are both genuine, (and not a particle of proof to 
 the contrary exists, unless the improbability of the case be 
 assumed as evidence,) it is impossible to explain them in re- 
 ference to the same occurrence ; unless, indeed, it could be • 
 allowed, against all reasonable evidence, that gross corrup- 
 iions exist in one or other of the accounts. 
 
 The supposition, appearing in both the narratives, on 
 which danger is apprehended, is that of Sarah's beauty. What 
 is said in xvii. 17, xviii. 11, 12, contains nothing which is ne- 
 ,C6ssarily at variance with this idea. Women are some- 
 times to be met with of sufficient age to be in the situation 
 in which she is described in the texts referred to, who are 
 yet imposing and even beautiful in appearance. It is not 
 unnatural, therefore, that, in those days, when the freshness 
 ,of youth was doubtless proportioned to the length of life, 
 and the mode of living was natural and simple, a woman 
 of distinguished beauty should preserve some of her charms 
 even to a late period of life. It ought also to be considered, 
 that the attractions of a foreign lady, even if they had be- 
 come somewhat diminished, may well be supposed sufficient 
 to make an impression on an eastern prince, satiated, it may 
 be, with indulgence in native beauty. 
 
 It is objected, that the event occurs twice in the life of 
 Abraham, (xii. xx.,) and that a similar circumstance is re- 
 lated of Isaac, (xxvi. 6 — 10 ;) that Gerar, the name of the 
 theatre of action, and Abimelech, that of the party con- 
 ,cerned, are the same in the latter case of the father, and in 
 ^hat of the son. But, if such a brutal attack on private 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO OENESIS. 27T 
 
 rights may be supposed to have once taken place, it will 
 surely be difficult to say why, under similar circumstances, 
 a similar attack may not have been made more than once. 
 With respect to Isaa-c, however, this was not the case. 
 -The narrative merely states his apprehension ; but it does 
 not appear that the anticipated evil did actually occur. The 
 king of the country protected the daughter-in-law of Abra- 
 ham, xxvi. 7 — 11. 
 
 Abimelech was probably the common name of those 
 kings, as Pharaoh was of the Egyptian monarchs ; and 
 Phichol, (DlD^il ' mouth of all,') may also have been an ap- 
 pellation borne in common by the royal " captain," the com- 
 mander of all, their spokesman also, bringing their petitions 
 to the king. Compare xxvi. 26, with xxi. 22. 
 
 Respecting the narrative in the chapter before us, it may be 
 remarked, however, that there is really nothing in the context 
 which obliges us to place the event after those related in the 
 previous chapter. The expression "from thence" in v. 1, car- 
 ries us back to the "place" of Abraham's residence, (xviii. 33,) 
 which we know to have been among the oaks of Mamre, 
 where he had dwelt since the settlement of Lot in Sodom. 
 Compare xviii. 1, xiv. 13, and xiii. 18. Consequently it only 
 proves the event related to have occurred during some period 
 •of the time that Abraham resided in this place. Further still, 
 there is plain proof, that it could not have occurred after 
 the facts immediately before related. The birth of Lot's 
 two sons, (xix. 37, 38,) must have been at least nearly a 
 year after the promise repeated to Abraham in xviii. 10, 
 which, in all probability, was verified about a year after it 
 was made. If, therefore, the removal to Gerar took place 
 after Lot's sons were born, it must have been nearly con- 
 temporaneous with Isaac's birth, which is contradicted by 
 all the circumstances of the case. If it be supposed to have 
 been contemporaneous with Lot's leaving Zoar, and taking 
 
278 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 up his abode in the cave, and thus but a short time after the 
 promise just referred to, still the difficulties will be inexpli- 
 cable ; for what is said in v. 17, 18, imply that some con- 
 siderable time must have elapsed, in order to satisfy the 
 Philistine family both of the infliction and of its removal. 
 But this would oblige us to allow that in the meanwhile 
 Isaac was born, which we know was not the case. Besides, 
 the great age of Sarah (xviii. ll,xvii. 17,) makes it alto- 
 gether improbable, that even her personal beauty could 
 have been so great as to attract the king's attention, which 
 the eleventh verse clearly enough intimates was the result 
 that Abraham feared. On the whole, it is best to admit that 
 this account is not in chronological order, and that the oc- 
 currence took place at a much earlier period than the con- 
 nexion would lead us to suppose. 
 
 (87.) Verse 7 : " he is a prophet." The proper and pro- 
 bably original meaning of this word is, ' one who speaks as 
 God's substitute or ambassador.' Thus, in Exod. vii. 1, it is 
 said, " I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron shall 
 be thy prophet;" of which the language in iv. 16, is ex- 
 planatory : " he shall be thy spokesman unto the people : — 
 he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to 
 him instead of God.'^ To the same purpose, Jer. xv. 19 : 
 " if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be 
 as my mouth." Among the Greeks 'if^o:pYjrYig and viro^pyjTris 
 seem to have been equivalent, 'one who speaks for,' (before,) 
 or 'under,' that is, 'in the place of another.' See 2 Pet. i. 
 20, 21. "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; 
 but holy men of eld spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost;" and with this text compare the passage from Philo 
 quoted by Hahn in his Lehrbuch des Christlichen Glaubens, 
 ■§ 22, Anm. 3, p. 120, and also by Gesenius under 5s^''55 • 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 279 
 
 Xovvros sTsgou. This is also a very usual sense of the word 
 in the New Testament. The meaning of 'one who predicts 
 future events' is secondary. Abraham, therefore, is an- 
 nounced to Abimelech as a sacred character, the interpreter 
 of God, speaking as his agent. 
 
 (88.) The words of Abimelech to Sarah in v. 16 have 
 been variously explained. The use of the term ' brother' 
 for husband is suggested by the attempted deceit. If the 
 pronoun !^^!l relate to Abraham, as Aben Ezra supposes, the 
 translation will be as in the English version, " he is to thee 
 a covering of the eyes unto, (with respect to.) all who are 
 with thee ;" that is, ' he is able to protect thee from any im- 
 pertinence, to guard thy modesty.' Most critics, however, 
 refer it to the money just mentioned, the CjtDS, with which it 
 agrees. This is sanctioned by the Septuagint x'Xia 6i- 
 S^axiJ^ci — • TocuTa sg-ai, and the Vulgate, " hoc erit." The Ara- 
 bic also gives the same meaning, and most probably the 
 Syriac. The sense usually given is as follows : ' it is for a. 
 covering of thine eyes ;' it is intended to supply you with 
 veils, ' for (with a view to,) all who are with you ;' that is, 
 in order that all who fall in company with you may perceive 
 that you are married. It is further stated, that, in those early 
 times, it was the usage for eastern women who were married 
 to wear veils, perhaps as a token of subjection, (compare 1 
 Cor. xi. 10, 1 Pet. iii. 5, 6,) while maidens did not cover the 
 face. See xii. 14, where Sarah passes for an unmarried 
 woman; also xxiv. 16, 17, which shows that Rebecca's face 
 was then uncovered, (compare xxix. 9 ss. ;) but when she is 
 about to meet Isaac, v. 65, she puts on a veil, thus implying 
 that she had become his wife. The suggestion of Abimelech 
 is therefore a delicate reproof of Sarah for representing her- 
 self as Abraham's unmarried sister. 
 
 The exclusive use of the veil by married women is. 
 
280 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vil. 
 
 however, confidently denied by Gesenius, (see him under 
 rnD3,) who remarks, that " it is manifestly contrary 
 to oriental custom, and is incapable of proof." He does not 
 take notice of the texts referred to, which appear to favor 
 the usage just stated. His intimation, that one thousand 
 shekels would be an exorbitant price for a veil, is no very 
 strong objection, 'as it need not be presumed that the donor 
 intended the whole sum to be appropriated to the purchase, 
 but such a proportion as might be necessary. By the phrase 
 " covering of the eyes," he understands, " a present ofiered 
 as an expiation for a fault, in order that one may shut his 
 eyes upon it, connive at it." Compare 1 Sam. xii. 3< " a 
 bribe, to blind mine eyes therewith •," where, although the 
 words are different, the sentiment is evidently the same. 
 
 Mendelsohn, in the HjliQ T"''^> gives the same view of 
 the phrase " covering of the eyes." His version is as fol- 
 lows : " Behold, I have given thy brother one thousand 
 pieces of silver. These may serve thee as a satisfaction 
 [amende honorable,) with respect to all who are with thee ; 
 but wMth respect to every other thou wilt be defended." The 
 interpretation of Rabbi Solomon of Dubno, printed in the 
 same work, is to the same purpose : " ^^!l (the thing which 
 I have given him will be) tD"'5''3^ illDD 15 to thee a cover- 
 ing of the eyes, (hke uOjI in Prov. xii. IG, that is, that no 
 disgrace may attach to thee on account of this, and it may 
 not be said that I have indulged my passion with thee.) To 
 all who are with thee, (that is, thy household, or others 
 who see this at present,) [he means who are witnesses of 
 this satisfaction ;] and with all, (that is, but with all the men 
 who have not seen the honorable satisfaction which I have 
 been obliged to make thee, i^!^%■l, the 1 has the sense of hut.) 
 InnDil (thou wilt be defended by the men who have now 
 seen thy satisfaction, who will publicly declare what their 
 eyes have seen.) rinD5 is benoni feminine Niphal, the proper 
 
CHAP. XI, 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 281 
 
 form being Hn^l!] or ^D^"^^* the patuch being employed on 
 account of the guttural, as in il^'ll^, the _ at the end of the 
 verse being changed into ^." — The latter part of the verse 
 is not clear. Dathe reads it, without regard to the Athnach 
 under tjiTl^i^, as forming a connected clause, and follows the 
 Septuagint and Syriac, (he says also the Vulgate, but this is a 
 mistake,) in omitting the vau before the last word. He consid- 
 ers this as the second person feminine of the preterite Niphal, 
 from n^'^^ (which, in that case, as the Jewish writer just 
 quoted remarks, ought to be written tin?5l,) and gives it 
 the same meaning as it would have in the Hiphil or Hith- 
 pael, * to show' or ' show one's self.' The result affords a 
 very clear and intelligible sense, thus : ' that to all who are 
 with you as well as to all, (that is, whoever may see you,) 
 you may be known ;' in other words, may appear as a mar- 
 ried woman. Still there is no sufficient reason for departing 
 from the masoretical reading. The word tin^ll may be 
 the benoni participle, as Rabbi Solomon says, and may have 
 the meaning given by him. Or it may be the remark of the 
 author, and in immediate connexion with the two preceding 
 words. In either case, the 1 is pleonastic, as is not unusual. 
 Thus the meaning will be : ' and in al!,' that is, as to the 
 whole matter, the attempted deceit, ' she was reproved,' or 
 convicted and silenced. 
 
 (89.) The conduct of Abraham in this affair, and also in 
 that before related, chap, xii., as well as that of Isaac after- 
 wards mentioned, xxvi. 7 ss., is not to be vindicated, how- 
 ever easy it may be to suggest considerations of a palliative 
 kind. The want of entire reliance on divine Providence 
 must be acknowledged; bui that man must be very ignorant 
 of his own heart, who does not feel that the frailty of na- 
 ture would, in most minds, have suggested some expedient 
 36 
 
282 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part viu 
 
 equally unwarranted. It is possible that both these patri- 
 archs may have resorted to a false representation with the 
 view of preventing an attack immediately on their arrival, 
 trusting at the same time to favorable circumstances for 
 disclosing the real truth of the case. It may have been 
 their object to anticipate immediate assault and outrage, and 
 their hope to prevent any alliance by a timely representa- 
 tion of the real connexion. The behaviour of Abimelech 
 is in part laudable, and in part otherwise. He did not 
 know the relationship of Sarah to Abraham, and he imme- 
 diately complies with the divine direction to restore her. 
 If then it should be asked, wherein lay the justice of 
 punishing him by afflicting his family, and also hiniself ;* it 
 may be replied, that the mere fact of his taking Sarah was 
 culpable, inasmuch as it was an unwarranted aggression on 
 the rights of the traveller ; and, as it is not to be imagined 
 that Abraham would have voluntarily surrendered his sup- 
 posed sister, it was also an act of violence. The language 
 of the latter part of the fifth, and the former of the sixth 
 verses, must be explained by the immediately preceding 
 context: Abimelech's "integrity and innocence" are granted 
 so far as regards an intention of depriving the patriarch of 
 his wife, and therefore, the mercy of God providentially in- 
 terposes to prevent farther criminality ; but his conduct in 
 seizing her at all still makes him censurable. 
 
 (90.) The word rendered " mocking" in v. 9, is derived 
 from the same root as the name Isaac, and might be ren- 
 dered ' laughing at.' The same verb is elsewhere used to 
 express the grossest insult, as in the false accusation of 
 Potiphar's wife, xxxix. 14, 17, "the Hebrew servant came 
 
 * It is clear from v. 17, that some personal affliction had fallen on 
 Abimelech ; perhaps sickness of some sort. Compare v. 3, 4, first 
 clause, with the latter lialf of the 6th. 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 283 
 
 m unto me to mock me." Some old Jewish authorities 
 speak of Sarah's ha^'ing observed in Ishmael a disposition to 
 idolatry and various vices. (See Fagius and Drusius in 
 ioc.) But this is only a Rabbinical fiction. Acacius, quoted 
 by the latter commentator, suggests whether the word 
 pn!^)2 ma}'- not mean ' fighting with and persecuting,' as in 
 2 Sam. ii. 14. But here th>.' vooi is pHtO, (although it is 
 most likely that both roots are of the same origin.) and the 
 context shows the nature oi the sport or " play," to use the 
 word of our own version, that Joab meant. Besides, the 
 supposition of personal violence in the case of Ishmael and 
 Isaac, is wholly out of the question. Something insulting, 
 and perhaps malicious and infidel, is ail that the word in this 
 connexion will bear. " He did not merely laugh," says 
 Hengstenberg, (Authentic, I. p. 276,) " he made himself 
 merry. The little helpless Isaac, a father of nations ! Un- 
 belief, jealousy, pride, led him to this behaviour. Want of 
 faith made it appear to him ridiculous, to connect such great 
 results with such a feeble cause." Neither does the use 
 which St. Paul, in Gal. iv. 22 ss., makes of the facts here re- 
 lated require any stronger meaning. He may well apply 
 the term " persecution," v. 29, to such conduct, particularly 
 as he compares it with the treatment to which the true 
 Christians of his day were subjected, by the advocates for 
 the outward Jewish ceremonial in opposition to its spiritual 
 import. 
 
 It has often been objected to this narrative, that Abra- 
 ham's conduct towards Hagar and Ishmael was unfeeling, 
 unworthy alike of a kind master and an affectionate father, 
 both which characters his history in general represents him 
 as sustaining in a very high degree. In reply it may be 
 said, that the patriarch himself was greatly distressed at the 
 thought of complying with his wife's wishes, and his con- 
 sent was gained only in consequence of a divine direction ; 
 
284 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 that the melancholy condition of Hagar and Ishmael in the 
 wilderness was owing to unforeseen and fortuitous circum- 
 stances ; that the providence of God had in view the sepa- 
 ration of Isaac and his family from Ishmael and his connex- 
 ions, (compare xxv. 6,) to preserve the promised race as a 
 distinct body, in order to carry into effect the plan which he 
 had formed ; and that the occurrences here mentioned had 
 a direct tendency to form the character of Ishmael and his 
 posterity, leading to their national distinction, and were 
 therefore ultimately beneficial to him. That he was con- 
 sequently forever afterwards excluded from intercourse 
 with his father's family, is neither stated in the history, nor 
 reasonable in itself. The fact that he united with Isaac in 
 the last honors paid to Abraham's body, (xxv. 9,) affords 
 presumptive evidence to the contrary, and favorable to the 
 opinion that the two brothers lived in harmony. This de- 
 fence, it can hardly be questioned, is sufficiently satis- 
 factory. 
 
 There is, however, another consideration which appears to 
 me to afford an additional reason for the conduct of divine 
 Providence as here exhibited. St. Paul, as above referred 
 to, teaches us that the facts here related were intended to 
 convey allegorical instruction. The words, v. 24, octivo, i&nv 
 dXXriyo^oufAsva, are no doubt incorrectly rendered in our ver- 
 sion, " which things are an allegory," for the Greek will not 
 allow such a translation, nor does the idea which it most 
 naturally suggests meet with any encouragement from the 
 author's writings. The apostle never represents the his- 
 torical facts of the Old Testament as allegories. But it is 
 equally clear, on the other hand, that he does represent the 
 facts under consideration as designed, in the same manner 
 as parables, to convey religious instruction. Some com- 
 rnentators have indeed resorted to the convenient hypothesis 
 jOf accommodation to the allegorical method of interpreta- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 285 
 
 tion, which, they say, was then prevalent among the Jews. 
 A few, allowing that this is not in character with St. Paul's 
 ordinary mode of instruction, are of opinion, that he does 
 himself intimate to the reader his intention of accommo- 
 dating to the Jewish usage, in the application which he is 
 about to make of the facts immediately recounted. This inti, 
 mation is, they think, conveyed in the twentieth verse, where 
 he expresses his "desire to change his voice," that is, to alter 
 his general method of instruction, or to adapt himself to each 
 one's thought and feeling, thus condescending to the erroneous 
 use of allegory, in accommodation to their Jewish weakness 
 and prejudice. See Hahn's Lehrbuch, § 14, Amm. 2, p. 
 65 ; and his treatise on the Grammatico-Historical Interpre- 
 tation of the Scriptures, published in the Biblical Reposi- 
 tory, Vol. I. No. I. p. 133. That this view of the clause is 
 forced and unnatural, will be granted by almost every 
 candid mind. The apostle's question in v. 21, " do ye ngt 
 hear the law ?" ' do ye not perceive and attend to what the 
 scripture itself intimates V evidently shows, that he not only 
 considered the instruction which he was about to convey as 
 implied in the facts recorded, but that his readers might 
 themselves have drawn from the record some such instruc- 
 tion. In a word, he considers Sarah and her son as prefi- 
 gurative of the Christian church and its spiritual members, 
 while Hagar and Ishmael represent the Jewish community 
 devoted to an external religion, characterized by elementary 
 principles, mere rites and ceremonies of a fleshly nature. 
 If then it be allowed that this is the true view of the case, 
 and if the facts here stated were intended to be emblematic 
 of what was afterwards to exist under the Gospel, the vast 
 importance of the things adumbrated affords an additional 
 reason why divine wisdom should allow the influence of 
 Sarah's feelings to lead to the expulsion of Ishmael and his 
 mother, with the whole train of occurrences that followed 
 
286 NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 [part VII. 
 
 it. Such a view of the facts is in harmony with the scrip, 
 tural representation of the connexion of the old and new 
 covenants, which is illustrated by the doctrine that the one 
 was intended to be symbolical of the other, 
 
 ' (91.) The word tjb'dri, rendered " she cast," may possi- 
 bly express the wretched mother's despair, as if in frenzied 
 agony she had thrown oft' from her the son of her love. 
 jThis would not be unnatural. But it does not require such 
 a meaning. It is used by Reuben when he proposes to put 
 Joseph into a pit, while at the same time he is planning his 
 safety ; xxxvii. 22. Neither in this verse nor in the twenty- 
 fourth, where it occurs again, can it fairly require any strong- 
 er meaning than placed or put. In the first and last of 
 these three passages, the Septuagint has £f5''4'S and s^^i%j^av, 
 I and in the second, sixl3aXk£TS. But neither do these words 
 necessarily imply force, as is plain from Matt. ix. 38, xv. 30. 
 The text simply states that Hagar laid her exhausted child 
 on the ground. 
 
 (92.) The Septuagint renders the Hebrew v-^riXYiv^ lofty, 
 considering the word probably as derived from Jllii^'l 
 to see. To the same purpose Aquila, xaTacpavr}, and perhaps 
 Symmachus, Tvjj: h'Kra.alac., followed by the Vulgate, terram 
 visionis ; although it is not improbable that these terms are 
 in allusion to the name given to the place by Abraham. See 
 v. 14. The Syriac translator appears to have read a dif- 
 ferent text, for he renders it, " the land of the Amorites." 
 It is no doubt the name of that region of country, on a part 
 of which the temple was afterwards built. See 2 Chron. iii. 
 1. This may perhaps account for the remarkable version 
 found in the Chaldee, and Arabic, both of which have ' the 
 
 land of worship ;' i^^H^q^ 5<:^1i^, sSCjeJljCG- 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 287 
 
 (93.) The preparation of the wood, and the transportation 
 of it to such a distance, seems at first view a very unneces- 
 sary inconvenience, as Abraham might reasonably expect 
 to find fuel at the appointed place. Perhaps it was done 
 that the wood might be dry. Perhaps, too, it was usual to 
 prepare the fuel used on sacrificial occasions in some par- 
 ticular wav. The Jews, durins: the time of the second 
 temple, were very careful to procure clean wood, and there- 
 fore priests, who on examination were discovered to have 
 any blemish, were set to remove the worms that might be 
 found in it, and rooms connected wi'iS the court of the 
 women were appropriated to this purpose. See Light- 
 foot's Temple Service, chap, xviii. 2, Works, Vol. I. fol. p. 
 1093, London, 1684. It is very probable that even the cere- 
 monial of sacrifice was observed, in this early period, with 
 great regard to circumstance, hov/ever unimportant in 
 itself. 
 
 (94.) The la/iguage of the fifth verse is worthy of more 
 than ordinary attention. Is it the language of deceit ? 
 Under circumstances of such appalling interest, docs the 
 patriarch assure his servants that he and his son woulci re- 
 turn to them when the act of worship was over, while at 
 the same time he expected to leave the bones of his son Isaac 
 on the altar from which the smoke of his sacrificed body 
 had ascended 1 I think not. Surely this is the language of 
 faith : Abraham is persuaded that, in some way or other, 
 Jehovah would interpose to prevent the final loss of his son, 
 through whom alone the divine promises could be rafified. 
 And the same faith prompts the reply in the eighth verse. 
 That he did cherish such a persuasion, is a result to which 
 we are led solely fi-om the narrative. Either he believed 
 that his God would interpose and prevent the sacrifice ; or 
 he expected that he would raise to life again the victim, 
 
288 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 should he choose to hisist upon the offering. The remark 
 of the inspired author of the epistle to the Hebrews, " rea- 
 soning (koyi(faixswg,) that God was able to raise up even 
 from the dead," xi. 19, is in favor of the latter supposition. 
 And this coincides with the opinion, supported by indirect 
 evidence of very early antiquity derived from the Old Tes- 
 tament and from other sources, that the doctrine of the 
 resurrection, or union of soul and body after death, was 
 known and cherished by the patriarchs. The striking pas- 
 sage in Job xix. 23 — 27, which has so often been appealed 
 to on this subject, is of itself satisfactory evidence. 
 
 (95.) Borger, in the work before referred to, p. 135, ad- 
 duces the account of the offering of Isaac as a proof that 
 the patriarch claimed unlimited power over his son's life. 
 But this cannot be supported. It is impossible, indeed, to 
 ascertain what was Isaac's age at this period ; but the nar- 
 rative contains nothing inconsistent with the opinion, that in 
 consequence of representations made by his father, he vol- 
 untarily submitted to the divine requisition. And as no 
 time seems more favorable for such a disclosure than that in 
 which the inquiry was made, we may reasonably presume 
 it to have been then communicated. 
 
 (96.) The name given to the place no doubt refers to the 
 reply of Abraham to his son. Compare v. 8 and 14. In 
 the latter 112)^^ ' which,' is used for Itpiil^ * as,' as in Jer. 
 xxxiii. 22, and elsewhere ; and the particle of comparison H) 
 seems to be omitted before '^t]'2, agreeably to ordinary 
 usage, of which we have a striking instance in Ps. cxxxix. 
 15, "I was made in secret, and curiously wrought (as) in the 
 lowest parts of the earth." According to the Rabbinical 
 punctuation, to vary from which no good reason can be as- 
 signed, the meaning is as follows: 'And Abraham called the 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. 11.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 289 
 
 name of that place, the Lord will provide, as it is said to- 
 day, (as) in the mount of the Lord, it shall be provided.' 
 It would seem that the language of Abraham, ' God will 
 provide, &c.' had given rise to a proverb, expressive of the 
 Almighty's interposition for the deliverance of his people in ^ 
 
 difficulties. Nothing could be better adapted to encourage 
 such an expectation, than the words by which the patriarch's 
 faith had been avowed, when'^viewed in connexion with the 
 result, by which they were so remarkably verified. 
 
 (97.) The infidel objections which have so often been 
 urged against the narrative contained in this chapter, lose 
 their force, when the motives by which the divine mind was 
 influenced are taken into consideration. The command 
 given to Abraham to ofler up his son, has been appealed to, 
 in order to prove that human sacrifices are recognized in the 
 narrative as agreeable to the will of God. But such an in- 
 ference is in direct opposition to the whole revealed law, 
 and the result in this case aftbrds an argument equally strong 
 for the very contrary position. It is a good remark of Le 
 Clerc on this portion of sacred history, that it is introduced 
 in order to show, that although human victims were not 
 offered to God by his true worshippers, yet this did not arise 
 from any unwillingness on their part to sacrifice the best and 
 dearest. 
 
 Another reason for the transaction under review may be 
 found in the very language which introduces it: "God did 
 try Abraham." It was intended as a test of his faith ; not, of 
 course, for the satisfaction of the Omniscient, nor altogether 
 to strengthen and increase the patriarch's habit of virtue ; but 
 also to aflibrd an example and a lesson of instruction to all 
 succeeding ages. See * Rom. xv. 4. Hengstenberg (ubi 
 sup. II. p. 139.) supposes, that the command in the second 
 verse was not intended to be understood literally ; that a 
 37 
 
290 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part ni, 
 
 spiritual offering of Isaac is all that was required ; that the 
 trial lay in the ambiguity of the language employed ; and 
 that Abraham misapprehended (p. 146,) the meaning ! But 
 this view of the subject is evidently unfounded. The words 
 of the command are too plain to allow of misconstruction : and 
 had they admitted the figurative meaning which he ascribes 
 to them, the parent's heart would doubtless have prompted 
 such an exposition. A spiiftual offering of Isaac could 
 be nothing more than an entire dedication of him to God's 
 service, which the character of the father shows had al- 
 ready been done. The objection of this learned writer, that 
 God, who can neither lie nor repent, could not afterwards 
 have recalled his order, is hardly worthy of notice, as the 
 Scripture furnishes us with so many instances of divine 
 directions being modified by varying circumstances. His 
 other objection is, that what the divine law declared to be 
 impious, God cannot have commanded even in the way of 
 a trial. But, surely, the divine law^giver may counteract his 
 own law in a case not necessarily involving moral evil, and 
 he who has a right to the lives of all may require any one 
 to be taken, in whatever manner and by whomsoever he 
 pleases. The conduct of God toward Abraham is in some 
 respects similar to that of our Lord toward the Canaanitess 
 related in Mark vii. 27 ss. la neither case is it right to 
 judge of the divine motive, without being governed by a 
 view of the divine conduct in the whole transaction. The 
 countermanding of the order in the twelfth verse, is neces- 
 sarily to be considered, in forming a just conception of the 
 motive by which it was originally prompted. 
 
 If it be correct to regard the sacrifice of Christ as pre- 
 figured by the intended offering of Isaac, another reason will 
 be afforded for this remarkable transaction. It must be 
 granted, that no positive declaration to this effect is made in 
 Scripture. The language of our Lord in John viii. 56, 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. IL] NOTES TO GENESIS. 291 
 
 " your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw 
 it and was glad," may indeed have been intended to bear 
 upon this fact in the patriarch's hfe, as well as others which 
 the brevity of his history has passed over without notice ; 
 but it is too indeterminate to justify a positive conclusion. 
 And the only other passage which can be supposed to sus- 
 tain such a typical relation, Heb. xi. 19, is susceptible of a 
 very clear and intelligible exposition, independently of any 
 such connexion. The sacred writer may intend to say, that, 
 speaking figuratively (;v *a^a/3oX;o) Abraham had originally 
 received his son from the dead, referring to the circumstan- 
 ces of his birth. Compare Rom. iv. 19, and Heb. xi. 12. Or, 
 as appears to me more probabfe, he may allude to the situa- 
 tion in which Isaac was placed on the occasion under re- 
 view, when he was »in imminent danger of destruction, and 
 rescued, as one may say, from the very jaws of death. But, 
 although there is no direct proof afforded by any specific 
 declaration of Scripture, from which it may be concluded 
 that the sacrifice of Isaac was typical of that of Christ; yet 
 the contrary is not hastily to be inferred. May there not be 
 a typical relationship which is not explicitly asserted 1 May 
 it not be left to the pious, candid, and intelligent believer, to 
 ascertain in some cases such relationship by a comparison 
 of circumstances, and by the analogy of Scripture ? Allow- 
 ing, as such an one must, the typical character of those per- 
 sons and facts which the New Testament so exhibits by 
 unequivocal declaration, are we consequently to deny that 
 such a character can possibly be maintained of any others ? 
 No doubt a multitude of well-meaning writers have run to 
 unwarranted extremes on this subject, finding typical asso- 
 ciations in minute and must fanciful resemblances, where 
 nothing of the sort was intended.* But it is an axiom which 
 
 * I might illustrate this remark, by referring the reader to the .so- 
 called epistle of Barnabas, among works of antiquity, and among 
 
292 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 no well balanced mind rejects, that the abuse of a principle 
 does not take away its legitimate use. So extraordinary a 
 fact as that before us would be a fit symbol of that most ex- 
 traordinary of all facts, " the ofiering of the body of Jesus 
 Christ once for all." Several similar circumstances might 
 be mentioned respecting each, constituting an analogy, cer- 
 tainly not less striking than that pointed out in the epistle to 
 the Hebrews, between several particulars of the Mosaic 
 service and those facts of the Christian dispensation, which 
 we are there taught to regard as correspondent. 
 
 (98.) Machpelah seems to have been the name of the 
 place, (v. 9, 17,) derived perhaps from the circumstance of 
 its containing a double cave : SlDS^/? from 533 to double. — 
 It is remarked by Le Clerc, that the length of the sentence 
 in the seventeenth and eighteenth verses, and the particu- 
 larity with which the land is designated, agree well with the 
 supposition, that it is a part of the legal document which 
 secured the purchase. 
 
 I cannot acquiesce in the remarks made from a writer in 
 the Pictorial Bible by Professor Bush, in his account of the 
 transaction of Abraham and the Hittite chief " This 
 Ephron is the first of that nation who comes under our no- 
 tice ; and his tone and manner on this occasion do no great 
 credit to his tribe. We are not surprised that Ephrons 
 respectful and seemingly liberal conduct has been beheld 
 favorably in Europe, for only one who has been in the east 
 can properly appreciate the rich orientalism it exhibits." 
 
 modern compositions, to Busman's Solomon's Temple Spiritualized, or 
 to McEaven on the Types. But to show that even a learned and able 
 .divine may be led away into wild extravagances on this jioint, I pre- 
 fer directing his attention to Vitri.nga's remarks on the typical charac- 
 ter of Joseph and Samson, in his Observaliones Sacra;, Lib. VI. cap. 
 xxi. xxii. 
 
CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. II.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 293 
 
 The affair is then represented as an ostentatious and hypo- 
 critical ofler of Ephron, arising out of his wish "to lay so 
 great a person as Abraham under obligation," wilh the view 
 of "obtaining a present of much more than equal value in 
 return." But the patriarch " understands these matters, and 
 is not disposed to receive such obligation." The depth of 
 his grief on occasion of the death of his long-beloved Sarah, 
 does not prevent his conducting himself, in making arrange- 
 ments for her suitable interment, with a shrewd and wary 
 foresight respecting his pecuniary interests. In plain words, 
 the Hittite was a cunning and unfeeling sharper, and Abra- 
 ham too knowing a dealer to be deceived by him ! It is 
 hard, to make any selfish pretence of generosity which may 
 characterize some modern Persians, and the cautious circum- 
 spection of an experienced traveller, always apprehensive of 
 being overreached, the rule whereby to judge a very an- 
 cient Canaanitish tribe, and a generous, open-hearted prince 
 like Abraham. 
 
 (99.) It appears from the fiftieth verse, that Laban, Re- 
 becca's brother, acts conjointly wilh her father in relation to 
 the proposed marriage. This accords with the influence 
 which brothers exercised in disposing of sisters, and is illus- 
 trated by the case of Dinah in chap, xxxiv. 11 ss. See also 
 Judges xxi. 22. — The phrase " bad or good," in the latter 
 clause of the same verse, is equivalent to the Hebraism 
 " from good to bad" in xxxi. 24, 29 ; and the meaning is, 
 ' we have nothing to say on this subject, it is evidently the 
 working of Providence.' 
 
 (100.) It would seem, that the constitution of Abraham 
 must have been greatly strengthened, if not i-enovated. since 
 the time immediately preceding the last promise of Isaac's 
 birth. This supposition appears necessary, in order to re- 
 
294 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part vii. 
 
 concile the fact of his having so many children by Keturah, 
 with the texts referred to in the latter part of note (58,) above. 
 That he did not marry her until alter Sarah's death, is evi- 
 dent from the arrangement of the narrative and the whole 
 series of the history. Mr, Bush, in his note on xxv. 1, fol- 
 lows some of the older commentators in supposing Keturah to 
 have been Abraham's concubine during the life-time of Sarah. 
 But the arguments alleged in favor of this opinion do not ap- 
 pear to be of much weight. If, on the supposition of her 
 having been a second wife, there is any difficulty in her being 
 called a concubine in Chronicles, there is, on the other hand, 
 a difficulty in her being called liis wife in Genesis, on the 
 supposition of her having been merely a concubine. " The 
 silence of Moses about her pedigree" certainly proves noth- 
 ing. It was his great design to show the accomplishment 
 of the promise through Isaac ; and, therefore, the mother of 
 any other of Abraham's children must be comparatively a 
 very insignificant personage in his estimation. The " im- 
 probability that Abraham would make an alliance with any 
 family of the Canaanites, and that any princess of Canaan 
 would accept of him, in his old age, when the whole inheri- 
 tance was to go to Sarah's son," no more supports the 
 opinion "that Keturah was a concubine," than a wife "taken 
 from among the servants of his family." The author asks : 
 " was the interval sufficient, between Sarah's death and 
 Abraham's, for six sons to "be born to him of one woman, 
 and grow up to manhood, when manhood hardly took 
 place before the age of thirty at soonest ?" Without stop- 
 pino' to inquire whether an age of thirty years was necessary 
 to the attainment of manhood at that period, it is sufficient 
 to reply, that a comparison of xvii. 17, xxiii. 1, and xxv. 7, 
 shows that Abraham outlived Sarah thirty-eight years, a 
 space of time quite sufficient to satisfy the demand. The 
 other objection drawn from his advanced age and corporeal 
 
T*. 
 
 CHAP. XI. 27— XXV. ]1.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 295 
 
 debility, shortly before the time of Isaac's birth, is answered 
 by allowing that there was '• a continuance of his physical 
 vigor," in consequence of a miraculous restoration of it. 
 
 The last objection just noted would oblige the Professor 
 to allow the birth of these six sons to have taken place be- 
 fore that of Isaac. But this is inconsistent with the narra- 
 tive, which always represents Abraham as childless until the 
 birth of Ishmael, who is afterwards uniformly mentioned as 
 his only son until Isaac is born. See xv. 2, xvii. 18 — 21, 
 25, 26. 
 
 (101.) Keturah was Abraham's wife in the proper sense 
 of the term ; yet she is regarded as inferior to Sarah, whom 
 the patriarch first married, and with whom he lived so long, 
 and in 1 Chron. i. 32, she is consequently called his concu- 
 bine. Her children, therefore, and the son of Hagar, are 
 probably the persons intended in the sixth verse. 
 
 . Part VIII. Chap. xxv. 12—18. 
 (102.) See note (74.) 
 
 Part IX. Chap. xxv. 19— xxxv. 29. 
 
 (103.) The name Esau, Itp!^ is derived by many com- 
 mentators, both Jewish and Christian, from !Tffi5' to makcy 
 to form, and is thought to express the child's comparatively 
 complete formation at the time of his birth, when he is sup- 
 posed to have been at least as hairy as a grown man. But 
 this seems very strained. It is better to derive the word 
 
 from the Arabic, Jc^ to be hairy. Esau's other name 
 Edom, meaning red, is that by which his posterity are gene- 
 rally distinguished. Its origin is stated in v. 30. — Jacob, 
 
296 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 '2p^_'^_ is from '2'p,'^ to hold the heel, (compare Hos. xii. 4 :) 
 hence, to supplant, (Gen. xxvii. 30.) 
 
 (104.) Tiie Hebrew is t3v1 tS^iiJ. Our English transla- 
 tion, following jirobably the Septuagint u.-TtAas-og, and the A^ul- 
 gate simplex, renders it " a plain man." So also the Geneva 
 version, with the marginal note, " simple and innocent." 
 Lyra has " simplex" with the note, " sine plica dolositatis !"* 
 Cranmcr's Bible, more correctly, because exactly accord- 
 ing to the original, translates it " a perfect man," as the 
 same word, when used of individuals, is often rendered in 
 the ordinary version. No doubt the author intends to 
 describe Jacob as a religious man. And, in all probability, 
 this character of the patriarch is intimated also by the next 
 Words, " dwelling in tents." This lano-uafre is sometimes 
 used in contradistinction to settlement in a permanent or 
 well-fortified residence. Thus in Num. xiii. 11), " whether 
 they dwell in tents or strong holds ;" also in Jer. xxxv. 7, 
 "neither shall ye build house, &c., but all your days ye shall 
 dwell in tents ;" and again in the ninth and tenth verses. 
 And the author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of 
 Abraham as " a sojourner in the land of promise, dwelling 
 in tents as well as" Isaac and Jacob," and contrasts their 
 unsettled habitation with the " city that hath foundations, 
 whose builder and maker is God." xi. 9, 10. Here it may 
 be weir to trace some of the prominent features which 
 characterize the two brothers, Jacob and Esau. In doing 
 this, I shall be guided considerably by the remarks of 
 Drechsler in the work already referred to. 
 
 Esau, it would seem, belonged to the class of rough, 
 
 * Such translations naturally suggest the inquir\% whether the au- 
 thors did not thereby intend to shield Jacob against the charge of cun- 
 ning, which might seem to be founded on some parts of his history. 
 
CHAP. XXV. 19— XXXV. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 297 
 
 sensual natures, men, who, acting under the influence of 
 present impulse, have no steadiness of character. They are 
 distinguished by an imposing directness of conduct, the very 
 opposite to any thing deceitful or cunning. They have 
 feeling and kindness ; they readily forget an injury, and 
 cherish no malice. These amiable qualities are associated, 
 however, with levity, sensuality, and passion, leading to acts 
 of violence, as circumstances may prompt. That Esau's 
 character was of this- nature is evident, as well from the 
 advantageous points which his history discloses, as from the 
 contrary. Were we to form an opinion of the two brothers 
 from one or two insulated facts, we should probably decide 
 in favor of the elder. The narrative in chap, xxxiii. 3, 4, 
 for instance, considered by itself, is unquestionably much in 
 favor of Esau. The one bows himself seven times to the 
 ground in the presence of his elder brother; the other, yield- 
 ing to the heart's impulse, rushes forward with the fraternal 
 embrace. The whole interview shows Esau to have been 
 a man of heart and feeling, kindly disposed, glad to do a 
 favor, and uninfluenced by any selfish considerations. See 
 particularly xxxiii. 9. 
 
 Favorable also to the character of Esau is the statement, 
 that when he observed that the choice of his Hittite wives 
 was disagreeable to his parents, he endeavored to make a 
 more acceptable selection. See xxviii. 9. Hereby, how- 
 ever, nothing more is proved than this, that he would not 
 openly and boldly oppose his parents. That he consulted 
 their wishes does not appear from the narrative, neither is it in 
 itself probable, as they would most likely have suggested a 
 different choice. And his former union with the Canaani- 
 tish women shows, that he hghtly appreciated those divine 
 directions, by which his father and brother were governed 
 in the choice of companions for life. 
 
 If it be asked, what it is that makes Jacob's character so 
 38 
 
298 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 particularly deserving of estimation, the answer is this : 'his 
 whole life was spent in the faith of the God of his fathers.' 
 It was this divine principle which governed him from his 
 earliest years. Even in the purchase of his birthright, un- 
 kind and ungenerous as was the act under existing circum- 
 stances, it was not without an influence. It was not his own 
 personal worldly advantage which he had in view, but 
 rather the future prosperity, temporal, spiritual, and eternal, 
 of his progeny. Esau, who " despised his birthright," re- 
 ceived his possessions earlier than Jacob. He founded a 
 nation without subjecting his progeny to any disgrace like 
 that which the descendants of Jacob experienced in Egypt. 
 But, to be the heir of the promise, to acquire possession of 
 Canaan, to be associated with God in Abraham's covenant, — 
 this elevated calling was supposed to be connected with the 
 rights of the first-born. See xv. 13 — 16. The sensual 
 Esau esteemed all this at a very low rate. With him the 
 passion of the present moment predominated. Jacob, on 
 the other hand, had his thoughts fixed on the divine 
 promises, and therefore he obtained the blessing of Abra- 
 ham, (xxvii. 28, 29, xxviii. 3, 4, 13, 14,) which, indeed, had 
 been secured to him by divine right before his birth, (xxv. 
 23 ss.,) and to which he had acquired a human claim by 
 purchase, (xxv. 29 ss.,) although in a manner much to be 
 censured. 
 
 In order to prepare himself for the accomplishment of 
 the divine purpose, he is obliged, partly by adverse cir- 
 cumstances, and partly in order to form a matrimonial con- 
 nexion with his father's family, to go to Mesopotamia. The 
 latter cause is not to be regarded as incidental and of little 
 weight, for all such connexion with the nations of Canaan 
 was strictly prohibited and carefully guarded against, both 
 by Abraham and Isaac. See xxiv. 2 — 9, and xxviii. 1, 2, 6 ; 
 and compare xxvii. 40, and xxvi. 25. 
 
CHAP. XXV. 19— XXXV. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 299 
 
 On his journey to Mesopotamia, Jacob shows his religious 
 character, in devoting himself and a reasonable proportion 
 of his property to the service of God. See xxviii. 20 — 22. 
 While residing with his uncle Laban, who attempted to 
 abuse in his person the rights of hospitality and the claims 
 of relationship, he commits the prosperity of his enterprises 
 to God. XXX. 32, 33, xxxi. 7, 9—13, 42. On his return, in 
 the apprehension of danger, he trusts to the same almighty 
 defence, exercising a religious faith with suitable humil- 
 ity, xxxii. 9 — 12. Doubtless he might have settled himself 
 advantageously in Mesopotamia, but duty required his return 
 to Canaan, and he religiously obeyed the call. xxxi. 3, 13. 
 The same character displays itself in the remainder of his 
 life. In his old age he undertakes a journey to Egypt, to 
 meet his much-loved and long-lost son ; but not untd his 
 devotions had been favored with the divine answer, and a 
 direction to settle there for a season, with the promise that 
 his posterity, having there become a great nation, should, by 
 the good providence of God, return to Canaan, xlvi. 1 — 4. 
 The same religious faith leads him to require from Joseph 
 in particular, and again from his sons in general, a solemn 
 assurance that his body should be interred in the promised 
 land, where his fathers lay, (xlvii. 29 — 31, xlix. 29 — 32,) and 
 which he doubted not his descendants would occupy. All this 
 is in unison with that religious ardor which prompted the 
 language, " I will not let thee go, unless - thou bless me." 
 xxxii. 26. 
 
 In giving this view of Jacob's religious character, I have 
 no intention of vindicating all his conduct. His constitu- 
 tional prudence sometimes degenerated into coldness, and 
 led him to take advantage of the warmer feelings of his less 
 considerate brother. His characteristic shrewdness occa- 
 sionally displayed itself in artifice and perhaps deceit. And 
 it is not to be denied, that the narrative which describes the 
 
300 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part TX. 
 
 meeting of the brothers, (xxxiii.) represents the younger in 
 a ]ess favorable hght than the elder. He is reserved and 
 distant ; his manner of approaching his brother is marked 
 by that obsequiousness which characterizes the eastern de- 
 pendent. Still, it is necessary to consider Jacob's situation, 
 in order to form a correct opinion of his behaviour. He had 
 good reason to dread a meeting which might expose him to 
 his brother's resentment, which he could not be unconscious 
 was in some measure deserved. He knew that before his 
 flight to Mesopotamia, Esau had resolved on bloody ven- 
 geance, xxvii. 41, 42. He knew the rough, passionate na- 
 ture of his brother, and feared some hasty ebullition of un- 
 guarded temper. Himself less governed by feeling, less 
 prompt to hasty action, the peaceable shepherd, many of 
 whose years had been spent in the humble situation of a 
 servant, conducting a multitude of dependents, children, 
 feeble women and unprotected flocks, he could not but trem- 
 ble at the approach of an injured brother, who made his 
 appearance with an armed force as the independent lord of 
 Seir, to trample down, as he might reasonably suppose, the 
 servile supplanter, and to crush and scatter his weak and 
 defenceless company. Prudence also dictated to Jacob the 
 propriety of satisfying his brother that he was in no condi- 
 tion to claim rights of primogeniture, and that in him no 
 competitor could be expected. He assumes, therefore, 
 without hesitation, the deportment of a submissive inferior, 
 and acknowledges the elder brother as his "lord Esau." 
 The latter, melted into kindness, urges Jacob to continue in 
 his company. Well acquainted with Esau's mutability of 
 character, knowing that, under different circumstances, his 
 good nature and generosity of feeling might turn to over- 
 heated passion, and that, forgetful of the past, he might be 
 hurried into some hasty and extravagant act, Jacob cau- 
 tiously and very prudently declines. He is well aware that 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 30 J 
 
 the brotherly feeUng of the mighty chieftain of Edom might 
 rapidly pass away, " like the morning cloud, or the early 
 dew." 
 
 The conduct of Jacob, as related in xxx. 25 — 43, has been 
 the occasion of no little animadversion. He has been ac- 
 cused of overreaching his mother's brother by deceit and 
 artifice. If the contents of this portion of the chapter 
 could be viewed in no other light than this, then, indeed, there 
 would be a great difficulty to resolve, namely, to account 
 for such a procedure being related in the Bible. Certainly 
 it does not comport with the object of this sacred book, to 
 relate instances of cunning merely for the purpose of amuse- 
 ment. It does, indeed, mention the frailties and sins of holy 
 men, but always with some definite object in view. The 
 falsehood of Abraham and Isaac in denying their wives, the 
 imposition which Jacob was induced to practise on his bhnd 
 and aged father, David's infamous conduct in the aflfair of 
 Bathsheba, have all a historical and moral and religious 
 bearing. But what could lead to the introduction of an 
 account of such a crafty device as this is asserted to have 
 been 1 In order rightly to understand such a portion of the 
 Bible as that under consideration, it is necessary to have 
 right views of the character of the Bible. That exposition 
 must necessarily rest on an erroneous basis, which assumes 
 that the sacred writer could have in view any other than a 
 sacred purpose ; that he could, by any possibility, have in- 
 tended to exhibit a well planned and successful piece of 
 cunning, or some remarkable lusus naturae, brought forward 
 on account of its extreme rarity. Such views are abhorrent 
 to every well-ordered and serious mind. 
 
 Jacob is treated most unrighteously by the selfish Laban, 
 and reduced to extremity. The narrative relates the par- 
 ticulars. His own conduct had been in all respects unex- 
 ceptionable and honorable, and divine Providence had blessed 
 
302 NOTES TO GENESra. [part IX. 
 
 his hard labors, increased his gains, and thus inflicted merited 
 punishment on the churlish Laban. In the arrangement 
 which constitutes the ground of objection, Jacob proposes 
 that the only wages to be received by him shall be the re- 
 suit of circumstances, which were altogether beyond the 
 reach of human reasoning and calculation, much more of 
 human action. Whatever light modern inquiries in physi- 
 ology may throw on the phenomena in contemplation, by 
 alleging instances of the wonderful power of imagination on 
 the female when in the circumstances suggested in the text, 
 it is hardly to be supposed, that Jacob's knowledge of the 
 mysteries of nature could have been so profound as to lead 
 him, of his own accord, to adopt the course related, particu- 
 larly as he risked his very subsistence on a result, which, 
 considered as a natural effect merely, he could not but have 
 known to be extremely problematical. Surely, it was the pat- 
 riarch's childlike, implicit faith in the divine direction, com- 
 municated to him in the ordinary manner, which impelled 
 his conduct. Compare xxxi. 9 — 12. See farther on this 
 subject in note (118.) 
 
 (105.) The privileges of the birthright consisted in pre- 
 cedence over the other brothers, and a double patrimony. 
 See Gen. xlix. 3, 4, Deut. xxi. 17, 1 Chron. v. 1, 2. To this 
 some add the right of the priesthood. The opinion is cer- 
 tainly of very high antiquity, as it is expressly stated in the 
 Chaldee Targum on Gen. xlix. 3, where the priestly authority 
 is mentioned as that part of Reuben's rights of primogeniture 
 which fell to the tribe of Levi. See the Note on that text. 
 It is supposed also by most Jewish and Christian commen- 
 tators, that " the priests" mentioned in Exod. xix. 22, and the 
 " young men" in xxiv. 5, are the first-born, who being con- 
 secrated to God, (see xiii. 2,) became priests, in place of 
 whom the Levites were afterwards substituted. Num. iii. 
 
CHi.P.ixv.19— IXXT.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 303 
 
 45. But the argument assumes the very points in dispute, 
 namely, that the consecration of the first-born was an in- 
 vesting of them with the priesthood, and that the priests 
 and young men referred to were identical with the first- 
 born, neither of which can be proved. Besides, the Le- 
 vites who took the place of the first-born, were not 
 priests, but only attendants or servants of the sanctuary ; 
 and " the priesthood*' which they are said " to receive," 
 in Heb. vii. 5, (if, indeed, the whole body of Levites are 
 there intended, which it is impossible to prove,) must be 
 understood in a limited sense. That Esau is called " a 
 profane person," (Heb. xii. IG.) for thus parting with his 
 birthright, would indeed be clearly explicable on the ground 
 that the priestly office made a part of it. But it is equally 
 so, if the rights of primogeniture were regarded in the pat- 
 riarchal age as comprehending any spiritual blessings ; which 
 it would be unreasonable, and in opposition to the general 
 representations of Scripture, to deny. If the expected de- 
 liverer were supposed to be a descendant from the eldest 
 son, Esau's profanity in despising the honor of being ances- 
 tor of such an offspring, requires no illustration. It is little 
 less than despising the benefits which were expected to 
 flow from this personage. His readiness in yielding to his 
 brother's proposition, and the sentiment along with which 
 he expresses his determination, shows clearly enough that 
 his views were limited to personal gratification. " I am at 
 the point to die, and what profit shall this birthright do to 
 me ?" It is not to be supposed, that Esau was in danger of 
 immediate death for want of food in his fathers house : his 
 language is of that extravagant hyperbolical character, 
 which could be occasioned by nothing less than a vehement 
 desire for the food before him, and a very low estimate of 
 the value of the price demanded for it. The subject of the 
 priesthood, considered as one of the rights of primogeniture. 
 
304 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part ix. 
 
 is ably discussed by Vitringa, and settled in the negative, in 
 his Observation's Sacrro, Lib. II. cap. ii. iii. p. 271 — 300. 
 Buddffius, ubi sup. Per. I. sect. iii. p. 389 ss., has taken 
 some notice of his Dissertation, without succeeding, however, 
 in refuting his arguments. 
 
 (106.) Beer, IJS;!!, means a well, and ^'2^, to swear, 
 whence n^^^^tl) an oath: ^'^tp is the word for seven. The 
 oath is no doubt the principal circumstance giving rise to 
 the name. This is plain from the language in xxi. 31 ; 
 " therefore he called the name of that place. Beer Sheba, 
 ^^IniD "^i^!!!* (without the athnach ^"2X5 ;) because there they 
 sware, ^y'3.W'2, both of them. " Still, as Hengstenberg re- 
 marks, neither ^21^ nor Jl^^ntp ever means oath. He con- 
 siders the bringing of seven sheep as the usual symbol, by 
 means of which the compact and oath were ratified ; so that 
 both phrases are equivalent. See his Authentic des Penta- 
 teuches, I. p. 277. 
 
 (107.) The ardent attachment of Isaac to his elder son 
 doubtless strengthened his natural desire, that the divine 
 blessing should flow to posterity thorough him. The same 
 preference of the elder son appears in the case of Joseph. 
 See Gen. xlviii. 17, 18. It is reasonable to think, that Re- 
 becca's particular affection for Jacob confirmed her in the 
 impression, that he was destined to become the more distin- 
 guished of her two children. Indeed, the prediction made 
 to her before they were born, no doubt gave her mind a 
 bias especially favorable to Jacob, which would naturally 
 be increased by his domestic habits. Perhaps she saw in 
 her husband an undue partiality for the elder brother ; and, 
 apprehensive of its consequences in diverting the blessing 
 from the intended channel, may have supposed herself justi- 
 fied in resorting to the crafty expedients which the narrative 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 305 
 
 recounts. The lawfulness of religious frauds, as such at- 
 tempts to advance the cause of God have by a strange 
 misnomer been called, has been maintained by some men of 
 the very highest distinction in the Christian church, from a 
 very early age. It is not therefore to be assumed that Re- 
 becca had clear ideas of obligation in all points, and conse- 
 quently our censures of her conduct ought to be modified 
 by a correct view of her religious and moral knowledge. 
 Certainly the divine pron:iise needed no deceitful efforts, 
 either on the part of Jacob or his mother, to verify its ac- 
 complishment; non tahbus auxiliis. Neither human "wrath" 
 nor human cunning is necessary to " work the righteousness 
 of God." James i. 20. 
 
 It is much to be lamented, that both Jewish and Christian 
 writers of authority have too often attempted to vindicate, 
 or at least greatly to excuse, certain conduct of the patri- 
 archs and other personages of Scripture, as if their gene- 
 ral faith and piety stamped correctness on every action of 
 their lives. Miserable are the subterfuges by which it has 
 been attempted to elicit morality and truth, from cunning 
 hypocrisy and falsehood. Thus, for example, Aben Ezra, in 
 commenting on this portion of Genesis, attempts to vindi- 
 cate falsehood on occasion of necessity, [Tiyi^ T'mliSb,) by 
 appealing to David's declaration to Abimelech, " the vessels 
 of the young men are holy," (1 Sam. xxi. 5 ;) to Elisha's 
 message to the king of Syria, " go, say unto him, thou wilt 
 certainly recover," (2 Kings viii. 10,) although his meaning 
 is, as is afterwards expressed, " the Lord hath showed me 
 that he shall surely die ;" to Micaiah's language to Ahab, 
 "go and prosper," (1 Kings xxii. 15 ;) to Daniel's address to 
 Nebuchadnezzar, " my lord, the dream be to them that hate 
 thee," (Dan. iv. 19.) And Rashi's comment, though brief, 
 according to his manner, very evidently makes the language 
 
 of Jacob an equivocation: " 1t2J5>1 ^D i^^n^^H 'iW '^DiSfl 
 3P 
 
306 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX- 
 
 "TllSi JS^in, I Esau :* who bring to thee, and Esan, he is 
 thy first-born ;" that is, ' I am bringing thee the food, and 
 Esau is thy eldest son.'f And not only do Jews of the 
 middle ages make these wretched efforts to remove their 
 great ancestor's criminality ; but a most distinguished Chris- 
 tian father of the fourth century labors with Jesuitical so- 
 phistry to free him and his mother from censure, and to re- 
 present their conduct as worthy of praise. The golden- 
 mouthed patriarch of Constantinople employs the force of 
 his eloquence to give weight to the opinion, which others 
 before him had advanced, that, as the frauds in question did 
 not proceed ft'om any inclination to do mischief, but were 
 subservient to "the attainment of the highest good, the prin- 
 cipals in conducting them are rather entitled to approbation 
 than obnoxious to censure. Thus, in his fii^y-third Homily 
 on Genesis, (chap, xxvii.) Tom. IV. p. 515, of the Benedictine' 
 edition, he says : ''O^a |x-/]r|of cpikocfro^yiav, f^aXXov Ss 6sw otxovo/x- 
 
 TTotv xaro^&wS^vai ■Trrjiwv " See the greatness of the mother's 
 love, or rather the dispensation of God. For he it was who 
 excited her to (give) the counsel, and who made the whole 
 matter successful." And afterwards he speaks of her act- 
 ing ' not from the impulse of her own opinion merely, but 
 under a prompting from above,' avukv and again, p. 516, of 
 ' her and Jacob doing what was proper (or necessary, 
 
 * These two words are the text, the comment follows. 
 
 f It is worthy of notice, that Cartwright, after rejecting the erro- 
 neous gloss of Rashi, and noting with disapprobation the attempt of 
 Lyra to free Jacob from the charge of falsehood, by saying, that in office 
 and dignity respecting the right of primogeniture, Jacob was Esan, does 
 himself make the remark, that " if Jacob had only said, I am the first- 
 born, he miglit perhaps be excusable : san<? si tantum dixisset, ego sum 
 primogenitus, excusari forsan potuisset; et cum dixerit, ego sum Esau, 
 fnistra queeritur excusatio." What views could these theologians have 
 had of the nature of falsehood ? 
 
CHiP.xxT.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 307 
 
 ix^jjv) to be done, and of the most difficult part of all, the 
 concealment of the fraud from Isaac, being effected by the 
 good Lord's co-operation.' And then, as his hearer might 
 well be supposed to ask whether God lent his aid to such a 
 falsehood, he kindly cautions him ' not to be too inquisitive 
 about the fact, but to attend to the design in view, which 
 was not the acquisition of any temporal advantage, but the 
 paternal benediction :* iJ^rj airXuig s^ira^s to yivojxevov, dyaojTe, 
 aKka. Tov tfjcotfov xaTa|xa.v5avs, xat tu a. 
 
 It should never be forgotten, that the characters who 
 stand out in such bold relief in the pages of sacred Scrip- 
 ture, are represented as men, weak and sinful like ourselves. 
 The inspired historian does not indeed stop, in his narrative, 
 to express any opinion respecting the moral character of the 
 actions he records ; but we are not on this account to sup- 
 pose that he meant to justify them, any more than we should 
 infer from a similar silence that the Evangelists did not con- 
 demn the act of crucifying our Lord. It was not the writer's 
 object to comment on the character of the action ; but ra- 
 ther to give a true picture of human nature, and to illustrate 
 the divine influence in accomplishing God's schemes, not- 
 withstanding the natural tinfitness of the agency by means 
 of which they were advanced. And yet the judgment of 
 the author, and even the divine judgment, are readily dis- 
 cernible by the attentive reader in the history itself. The 
 acquiescence of Abraham in the advice of Sarah, whereby 
 he betrays a want of that implicit reliance on the divine 
 promise by which he was generally characterized, is fol- 
 lowed by consequences which for a time were fatal to his 
 domestic peace. Jacob's conduct on the present occasion 
 meets with its merited retribution in the treatment which he 
 afterwards receives from Laban ; and Rebecca, in that long 
 and anxious separation from her favorite, which must in a 
 good degree have embittered her life. And to this it may 
 
808 NOTES TO GENESI3. [pAET IX. 
 
 be proper to add, that if the sacred writer relates these oc^ 
 currences without any expression of censure, he sometimes 
 stamps upon them the seal of his reprobation, when, in a 
 subsequent part of his work, he has occasion to refer back 
 to them. Of this we have a striking instance in the horror 
 with which the dying Jacob regards the incestuous conduct 
 of his eldest son, and the wanton cruelty of two of the 
 others. See xlix. 4 — 7. The success which attended Re- 
 becca's crafty project is no more an impeachment of the 
 divine wisdom and goodness, than are many other results 
 which the providence of God allows to crown the efforts of 
 ambitious and selfish hypocrisy, AH events of this kind do 
 but confirm the truth, that human frailty and passion are 
 made subservient to the divine will, 
 
 (108.) For the various meanings assigned to the word 
 *T^"]sri, see Rosenmiiller and Dathe in loc, and particularly 
 ScHROEDER, in his Observationes ad Origines Hebraeas, cap. 
 \, § 9. See also Gesenius under T^*l, No. 2. 
 
 (109.) Compare Note (57.) 
 
 (110.) The doctrine of a particillar providence, extending 
 on suitable occasions even so far as to miraculous inflluence, 
 seems plainly intimated by the symbol of the ladder and the 
 angels, and the allusion to it made by our Lord in reference 
 to himself in John i. 51. The instruction and consolation 
 thus afforded to Jacob could not have been conveyed by any 
 more appropriate emblem. The notion, that the doctrine of 
 angels, either good or bad, is of Babylonian or Persian ori- 
 gin, and was incorporated into Jewish theology after the 
 captivity, is utterly irreconcilable with Scripture ; and, if 
 admitted, would destroy the credibility of the Old Testa- 
 ment history. Nothing can be clearer, than that the au- 
 thors! represent the patriarchs themselves, and the Hebrew 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 309 
 
 worthies in general, as believing in the existence of angels, 
 and recognizing their influence in human affairs. 
 
 (111.) The erection of pillars for religious purposes, and 
 anointing them with oil, is of high antiquity. They received 
 the name of iSai'hvXia, probably from bi!:~fT^!ll, and are men- 
 tioned occasionally as animated stones. See Clement of 
 Alexandria, Strom. Lib. VII. p. 713, Sylburg's edition, and 
 Sanconiathon in Eusebius, Evang. Prep. Lib. I. cap. x. 
 p. 37, Cologne edition, 1688. Jacob raises his pillar merely 
 as commemorative ; but the heathen paid to theirs a species 
 of divine adoration. See Rosenmiiller in loc, and particu- 
 lar his Alte und Neue Morgenland, Vol. I. p. 125—128.— 
 The twentieth verse does not imply indecision in Jacob's 
 purpose. Since God had promised to bless him, he vows 
 obedience as an expression of his gratitude. 
 
 According to the Masoretical accentuation, which is fol- 
 lowed by our English translation, the patriarch's vow com- 
 mences with the latter clause of the twenty-first verse : " then 
 shall the Lord be my God." And certainly the sense is 
 good and clear ; ' I will devote myself to the service of Je- 
 hovah,' in contradistinction to that of any false God. In the 
 opinion of Hengstenberg, however, (ubi sup. p. 370, 371,) 
 this clause precedes the commencement of the vow, thus : 
 * Since God will be with me, &c. — and Jehovah is my God ; 
 this stone, &c.' He argues in favor of this construction 
 from the tense of tl^Hl, whereas the following verbs n.^HI 
 and ^i^^_^ are future in their form. This is of little mo- 
 ment, as the van is conversive. But, to declare as part of a 
 vow, that Jehovah should be one's God, that the benefitted 
 party would accept him as protector and Lord, is not accor- 
 dant with scriptural usage, which always, as the author 
 says, embodies the grateful feeling in some outward action. 
 Besides, the thirteenth verse seems to confirm this construci 
 
310 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part is. 
 
 tion : " I am the God of Abraham, thy father, and the God 
 of Isaac." This iUustrates the language of Jacob : ' since 
 Jehovah is to me what he declared himself to have been to 
 Abraham and Isaac ;' and it is confirmed by the declaration 
 in the fifteenth verse, " I am with thee, and will keep thee in 
 all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again to 
 this land." The last clause, * and Jehovah is my God,' con- 
 centrates, as it were, all that the holy man had just said, im- 
 plying guidance, protection, security, and happy restoration 
 to the promised land, and the paternal home. 
 
 (112.) MicHAELis supposes that Jacob received Leah at 
 the commencement of the seven stipulated years, and that 
 the chronology requires this admission. Usher, in his chro- 
 nology, and Junius and Tremellius in their note on this 
 place, maintain the same opinion. So also Richardson, 
 Bishop of Ardagh, in his very useful " Observations upon 
 the Book of Genesis," London, 1655, on v. 20. But the 
 language of the twenty-first verse is evidently unfavorable 
 to this view. It is very harsh to render ^)2'^ ^^^J^, as the 
 last mentioned author does, " my days are filled or filling 
 up," that is, I am advancing in age ; or, with the first, ' I 
 am quite marriageable, and can no longer defer making such 
 a connexion, unless I forego the hope of having a family.' 
 Whatever Jacob's age may have been at this time, we 
 know he must have lived fifty years beyond it, when he was 
 presented to Pharaoh, (compare xlvii. 9, with xlv. 6, xli. 
 47, 46, xxxi. 41, and xxx. 25 ss. ;) and it is evident, that 
 neither his age nor constitution and habits correspond with 
 such a construction. Besides, the Hebrew will not bear 
 it. The ordinary phrase to express advanced age is, 
 Q''?5^5 !^^ "jpT. See Josh. xiii. 1, xxiii. 2, 1 Kings i. 1, and 
 a similar form in 1 Sam. xii. 2. ^j)2, when used in con- 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 311 
 
 nexion with time, means ' to fill up, expire, complete,' desig- 
 nating accomplishment or end, never advancement or pro- 
 gress. Thus 1 Sam. xviii. 26, " the days were not expired, 
 ^i5b)2," that is, the time appointed had not come to an end ; 
 Levit. xii. 4, " until the days of her purifying have expired 
 il5!ib/2-15? ;" XXV. 30, " until the expiration ilJSib^^-li? of a 
 full year ;" Num. vi. 5, 13 ; Jer. xxv. 34, " for your days — are 
 accomplished," or expired, Q^"^^"^. ^J^^^""^!? ; also xxix. 10 ; 
 Dan. X. 3. There are no exceptions to this meaning. In 
 Jer. vi. 11, " the aged with D^)2^ Utib'O" signifies ' with him 
 who has accomplished his days,' as we would say, is just ex- 
 piring, not him who is advancing in age ; so also Lam. iv. 
 18. In 2 Sam. vii. 12, and the parallel place 1 Chron. xvii. 
 11, the phrase "when thy days be fulfilled" or "expired" 
 means, ' when thy life is ended,' as the words immediately 
 following prove. The view given by Michaelis and Rich- 
 ardson is not supported by usage. The chronological dif- 
 ficulties alluded to must therefore be removed in some 
 other way. 
 
 (113.) The term " hated" in v. 31 is comparative, imply- 
 ing very inferior regard, as the preceding verse intimates ; 
 and in this sense it is often used in Scripture. See Luke 
 xiv. 26 : " if any man come to me and hate not his father, 
 &c." ; Rom. ix. 13, compared with Mai. i. 3 : "Jacob have I 
 loved, but Esau have I hated ;" and Deut. xxi. 15 — 17 : " if 
 a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated." 
 
 (114.) Reuben, "(i ^5^1, means literally, ' see a son;' but 
 the former part of the name is not the ordinary word for 
 'see, behold,' (although it is occasionally so used, as in xxxix. 
 14,) which is HSri, and the context shows that it alludes to 
 the Lord's having; seen the mother's affliction. When the 
 
312 Notes to genesis. [part ix. 
 
 slighted and mortified Leah became the mother of a son^ 
 she cried out, under a feehng of the triumph which, (ac- 
 cording to the spirit of the time and people,) she supposed 
 herself to have gained, " see, a son !" and this name she im- 
 poses on the infant, as a lasting monument of her own honor 
 and a disgrace to her competitor for the husband's favor : 
 "for she said, surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction^ 
 '^'^53'!ll niri^ n55^1~''3. in those words, she does not refer to 
 the name Reuben, the derivation and meaning of which are 
 clear enough of themselves, but to the fact of her being 
 permitted to make the declaration, to the painful reminis- 
 cences which were connected with the name. Her lan- 
 guage contains a paronomasia, and adheres as closely as 
 possible to the origin of the former part of the word and the 
 sound of the latter. Any other connexion of the words is 
 not to be thought of. 
 
 Thus, for substance, Drechsler, ubi sup. p. 212, 213. He 
 proceeds to add : ' How ridiculously pedantic, then, for lex- 
 icographers of the nineteenth century seriously to examine 
 whether Leah's words are consistent with conjugation and 
 declension." No doubt he alludes to Gesenius, who, under 
 the word lIl^JJ^'l, remarks as follows : " See ye, a son I 
 although the author of Genesis, in xxix. 32, seems to ex- 
 plain the name as being for ^'^pl^lll ['^^i^'l] ^!>^!^ provided for 
 my affliction." The language of the critic will hardly be 
 considered too caustic, when we reflect that the lexicogra- 
 pher's remark seems to imply ignorance on the part of the 
 Hebrew author himself 
 
 Simeon, llS'^'ffi, is from ^12'^ ' to hear ;' and it implies 
 Leah's domestic calamity, and also her belief that the Lord 
 had not forgotten her. Levi, '^ib, from tl^b 'to join,' denotes 
 the union of heart which the tried, yet happy mother hopes 
 may result. Judah, H'l^tT;', from HT in Hiphil, ' to praise. 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 313 
 
 expresses her gratitude to God, in which every other con- 
 sideration seems to be absorbed. 
 
 (115.) Dan is derived from the root V\ 'to judge,' mean- 
 ing, to espouse the cause of, as where God is said to "judge 
 his people ;" and where it is commanded to " judge the 
 fatherless." See Heb. x. 30, Deut. xxxii. 36, Isa. i. 17. — 
 Naphthali is a word formed from the root bins, ' to strive, 
 wrestle,' implying that she had used all her efforts to equal 
 her sister, and had succeeded. 
 
 (116.) The word I^S, according to the reading in the 
 margin 1^ b^^, means ' good fortune comes ;' according to 
 that in the text, with a slight change in the punctuation of 
 the first letter, it signifies, ' with good fortune,' that is, ' hap- 
 pily, auspiciously,' £v tu-xj], as it is in the Septuagint. The 
 sense of " troop" is unsupported. In Gen. xlix. 19, the simi- 
 larity of 15 and m!i is the sole ground of the alliteration. 
 Compare v. 29. — In the thirteenth verse, our translators have 
 followed the Septuagint, (j-axa^ia eyw- the Uteral version of 
 the Hebrew is, ' with,' or ' for my happiness' ; that is, the 
 birth of this son will contribute to it. 
 
 (117.) IptUlS'^ or l^bip? is probably contracted from 
 *lDb ^b\ ' will bring hire.' 
 
 (118.) The paronomasia is a favorite figure with the He- 
 brews, and may often be traced in the application of names. 
 And if this play upon a word comprehends an allusion to 
 more ideas than one, it is considered as so much the more 
 spirited. Hence it is that Rachel, at the birth of her first 
 son, applies the term Joseph in a two-fold respect ; in part, 
 as she connects with him the wish, that the Lord may add 
 40 
 
314 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 yet one more, OHib^ "jS "^b niri"] V[Q'^,) xxx. 24, and in part, 
 as she combines CjDT^ with CjOSS^ in the former verse, " God 
 hath taken away my reproach." The reader who examines 
 the two verses carefully, will see that neither of them can 
 be removed without injuring the sense, which requires the 
 ideas conveyed by both to be combined. 
 
 The combination in the latter clause of v. 20 is of a still 
 freer kind. Leah calls her son Zebulon, in order to bring in 
 a paronomasia of ^ST to dwell with, and 15| to endow. 
 See the former part of the verse. 
 
 (119.) " Ten times ;" that is, often, a definite for an inde- 
 finite number. See Num. xiv. 22. — The Septuagint has 
 <rwv 5sxa a/j-vojv, for an explanation of which see Schleusner's 
 Lexicon in Septuaginta under a^j^vog- 
 
 (120.) As the latter part of v. 13, " now arise, &c." can- 
 not be a direction given to Jacob at the time of the dream 
 just mentioned, v, 10, &c., it is probable, that it is a repeti- 
 tion, made by Jacob to his wives, of that mentioned in the 
 third verse. 
 
 Perhaps it may be thought by some readers, that the sub- 
 ject of this dream of Jacob is of such a nature, as to be in- 
 consistent with the supposition of a divine communication. 
 To remove the difficulty, it has been said, that the whole 
 occurrence is nothing but a dream ; that Jacob's mind, 
 dwelling on Laban's unworthy attempts to injure him, na- 
 turally revolved the matter even in sleep; that the strate- 
 gem thus occurring to him in the ordinary progress of 
 thought, while in this state, is ascribed by him to God's 
 angel, on the cherished supposition, that whatever tended to 
 his welfare originated with that divine being to whose service 
 he had devoted himself; or else, on another principle, that 
 
CHAP.xxv. 19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 315 
 
 whatever is allowed in the providence of God is, in scrip- 
 tural language, ascribed to God himself. Although the 
 principle and supposition are both true ; and, although it 
 should be granted, that the waking emotions of Jacob might 
 have suggested to his mind while asleep such an idea as the 
 narrative conveys ; the interpretation offered by this view 
 of the matter cannot be admitted. Any other view than 
 that of a divine communication in the ordinary sense of the 
 words, is inconsistent with the language of the text. The 
 natural thoughts of the mind, whether the party be awake 
 or asleep, are never expressed in language like this : " and 
 the angel of God spake unto me, &c. ;" while, on the other 
 hand, this language is entirely analogous to that elsewhere 
 employed to denote divine communications. These are 
 sometimes ascribed to God, sometimes to the Lord, and 
 sometimes to the angel of God or of the Lord. It cannot 
 then be denied, that such a communication is here intended. 
 Neither, indeed, is the nature of it inconsistent with this 
 belief. It is no more derogatory to the purity and dignity 
 of the divine being, to admit that he made such a communi- 
 cation in an extraordinary way, in order to effect one part 
 of his great scheme by increasing the wealth and reputation 
 of the patriarch, than it would be to admit that Providence 
 allowed him, by a close observation of nature, to perceive 
 the bearing and influence of external circumstances in pro- 
 ducing such a result as the narrative mentions. The opera- 
 tions of nature are the effects of the laws which the God of 
 nature has imposed on his works ; and it cannot possibly be 
 inconsistent with the purity and dignity of the lawgiver, to 
 allow that he may disclose those laws in any method most 
 agreeable to him, whenever, in his wisdom, important ends 
 are thereby to be answered. 
 
 (12L) Some commentators remark that Laban ought to 
 
816 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 have allowed his two daughters the value of Jacob's four- 
 teen years' service as their dowry. The ordinary usage 
 seems to have been, for the son-in-law to give a dowry to 
 . the father. See xxxiv. 12, 1 Sam. xviii. 23, 25, 27. It is 
 said, however, that occasionally the father paid one. See 
 Jahn's Archaeology, § 153. The language of Laban's 
 daughters is quite explicable on the ground of their father's 
 contemptible and unnatural behaviour. 
 
 (122.) For an account of these images, see the commen- 
 tators, particularly Drusius, (in the Critici Sacri,) on v. 19, 
 notae majores, and De Muis : also, Calmet's Dictionary under 
 the word. He gives a view of the absurd notions of some 
 of the Jewish rabbins on the nature and uses of the tera- 
 phim; and Buxtorf, in his Talmudic Lexicon, (col. 2660 — 4,) 
 quotes largely from these writers. The teraphim were 
 probably a sort of household gods, stolen by Rachel from 
 superstitious and perhaps idolatrous motives. Compare 
 XXXV. 2, 4. 
 
 (123.) Jegar sahadutha is Syriac, and of the same im- 
 port as Galeed in Hebrew, that is, ' heap of witness,' heap 
 which attests. Parkhurst under ly^ contends, that the for- 
 mer words are Hebrew, meaning, " may the witness of the 
 appointed bounds (be) a terror (to us.)" He follows Julius 
 Bate's New and Literal Translation. Compare his Critica 
 Hebrasa, or Hebrew and English Dictionary, under "lIT©. 
 But the form of the words allows no such signification. 
 They are pure Syriac, exactly equivalent to the Hebrew 
 used by Jacob. Mizpah, the other name, means ' watch- 
 tower.' See the Lexicons. — In v. 53, the clause, " the God 
 of their father," is probably the parenthetical remark of the 
 author. This is the opinion of Aben Ezra, in which Rosen- 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] N0TE3 TO GENESIS. 317 
 
 miiller acquiesces. Considered as the language of Laban, 
 it embarrasses the sentence. 
 
 (124.) The notion of De Wette and some other German 
 rationalists, that this narrative is a historical mythus, that is, 
 a fiction, invented to give a reason for the name Mahanaim, 
 which occurs in Jos. xx. 38, is unworthy of serious refuta- 
 tion. Why should a reason of this sort be devised to ac- 
 count for this particular name, while a multitude of others 
 equally significant and important, are unaccounted for ? 
 
 (125.) Septuagint: oVs sviVjj^utfaj: (xem 2rsS, xa? (xs-m av&^w'rwv 
 (Juvarog £(fy]- Vulgate : quoniam si contra Deum fortis fuisti, 
 quanto majis contra homines prsevalebis. Rosenmiiller re- 
 marks after Le Clerc, that T\^b never has the sense of 
 strength or victory. That may be, and yet the idea may be 
 implied from the circumstances in which the word is used : 
 i"©^ means to dwell, and yet it sometimes implies the idea 
 of security ; Qnb? means to fight, but in 2 Kings xvi. 5, and 
 Isa. vii. 1, it expresses prevailing in war. The English 
 translation of t1^"li9 "as a prince hast thou power," combines 
 the meaning of the verb with that of 'T© a prince, following 
 the Chaldee Targum, which has, " for a prince art thou be- 
 fore Jehovah." Jerome also, in his Questions on Genesis, 
 Tom. II. Col. 536, Paris. 1699, (or as cited by Drusius in 
 loc.,) gives the same view. There may be an intended 
 allusion to the meaning of nb, but this is by no means ne- 
 cessary or certain. The sense suggested by the Septuagint 
 and Vulgate versions, is probably the true one : ' thou hast 
 prevailed (contended successfully) with God, much more 
 Shalt thou be mighty against men.' The term Israel is 
 therefore expressive of extraordinary distinction in opposi- 
 
318 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 tion to that of Jacob, a supplanter. See Hos. xii. 3, 4 ; 1 
 Kings xviii. 31 ; 2 Kings xvii. 34. 
 
 (126.) The word ^'J^il in v. 26, is rendered in our trans- 
 lation, " was out of joint." Inasmuch, however, as this is 
 the only place in which it is supposed to have this meaning, 
 which seems also to be hardly compatible with the circum- 
 stances of the case, I cannot but doubt the correctness of 
 the version. The idea of being contracted, drawn away, 
 hanging loose from, the cavity of the thigh, suits the con- 
 text, and is in analogy with the signification in which the 
 word is elsewhere used. It occurs but nine times, in addi- 
 tion to the text : in Kal and Niphal in Jer. vi. 8, Ezek. xxiii. 
 17, 18, 22, 28 ; and in Hiphil and Hophal in Num. xxv. 4, 
 2 Sam. xxi. 6, 9, 13. In ail these texts, it has the sense of 
 being alienated from, or of hanging. — On the Jewish usage 
 to abstain from the part referred to, the Talmud contains 
 several precepts. See the Treatise I'^blH, on profane 
 things, chap. vii. Mishna, edition of Surenhusius, Part V. p. 
 140—142. 
 
 (127.) The word "blessing" in v. 11, is equivalent to 
 " present" in v. 10, and is often used in this sense. See 1 
 Sam. xxv. 27. 
 
 (128.) By comparing v. 12 and 14, it seems that Esau in- 
 vited Jacob to accompany him to Seir. Whether Jacob in- 
 tended to follow his brother there, and was afterwards 
 induced to change his mind, and whether, at any subsequent 
 period, he went or not, we are not informed. The difficul- 
 ties which must have impeded the further migration of so 
 numerous a family, with all that belonged to them, and es- 
 pecially the divine direction to return to Canaan, (xxxi. 13,) 
 
CHAP.XXV.19— XXXV.29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 319 
 
 are sufficient to account for his avoiding such a journey, 
 without supposing that he still apprehended hostility on the 
 part of his brother. 
 
 (129.) Interpreters, both ancient and modern, differ in 
 translating the first clause of the eighteenth verse. The 
 Targum and other highly respectable authorities, consider 
 the word " shalem" as an adjective, meaning safe (or safely,) 
 as it is used in Nahum i. 12, analogous to its ordinary sense 
 of sound, perfect. So Dathe, Augusti, Rosenmiiller, and 
 Gesenius. Thus it may refer to the recovery of Jacob's 
 thigh, to the safety of his family and property, and, in gene- 
 ral, to his deliverance from the various dangers to which he 
 had been exposed. " SbtU : sound in his body, which had 
 recovered of its halting ; sound in his property, which had 
 not diminished ; sound in his religion, which he had not ne- 
 glected during his residence with Laban." Rashi. " d^tU 
 is an adjective ; and the meaning is, that he came safe, that 
 no unfortunate event had occurred to him : for he had not 
 yet recorded the affair of Dinah." Aben Ezra. Drechsler 
 supposes also a reference to the language of Jacob's con- 
 ditional vow in xxviii. 21. "Here," says he, "is a great 
 point in the patriarch's life. The dark hours of foreign pil- 
 grimage and service are succeeded by the bright day of glo- 
 riously accomplished promise. He had said, " so that I 
 come again to my father's house in peace, Qljtplll ; now he 
 comes Dbtl? to Sichem." p. 147. But if such a reference 
 were intended, I should suppose that the same word would 
 have been employed in both places. — Others again, follow- 
 ing the Septuagint and Vulgate, explain the word as the 
 name of the city in the vicinity of which he settled. Thus 
 our English translation, and also the German of Luther. I 
 am strongly disposed to believe that this is right ; other- 
 
320 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 wise the name of the city is ziot designated, and such an 
 omission is unusual, Shechem is the name of the man who 
 makes so prominent a figure in the subsequent chapter. This 
 is proved by the next verse, and the repeated use of the 
 word in the narrative which immediately follows ; although 
 it is true that there was a place which bore the same name. 
 See xxxvii. 12 ss. The translation in the Septuagint is, 
 Shalem, a city of the Sichemites, "toXiu Sixijxajv, and that of 
 the Vulgate, urbem Sichemorum. Rosenmiiller's and Dathe's 
 "venit Sichemum," "pervenit Sichemum," (meaning the city 
 Sichem,) are inadmissible ; as, in such cases, the usage re- 
 quires the article before the word city, as in Esther iii. 15, 
 and viii. 15, "jtri^'© l^^^tl. In the text it is simply Dpt?' T3? 
 without the article, and I think it ought not to be rendered 
 *the city Shechem,' but, 'a city of Shechem,' or 'Shechem's 
 city,' that is, a place under the government of this person, 
 who is immediately afterwards called " the prince of the 
 country," xxxiv. 2. This, I believe, agrees with the invaria- 
 ble usage. Thus we have in Num. xxi. 28, llT^G tT]^p)?2 
 fro77i Sihon^s city ; and in Samuel and Chronicles, David's 
 city is always "m 'T'5' or T'l'l, never "l'^?'!l. If, therefore, 
 Shalem is not the name of a place, no city is specified ; 
 unless, indeed, the phrase ' Shechem's city' were in the au- 
 thor's age sufficiently definite for this purpose. As this may 
 be so, I have thought it best to retain the expression safely, 
 in the Analysis. Whether this is implied in the original 
 word or not, it is no doubt implied in the narration. 
 
 I find, after writing this note, that Mendelsohn's translation 
 is : " Jacob came safely to Shechem's city." 
 
 (130.) The literal translation of the last clause is : * and 
 he called it God, the God of Israel.' Such names, applied 
 to places, occur elsewhere. See the last words in Ezekiel, 
 and also Jer. xxxiii. 16, (ad fin.) which cannot be proved to 
 
CHAP.sxv.lO— XXSV.29 ] NOTES TO GENESIS. 321 
 
 relate to any other object than Jerusalem. It is as if the 
 patriarch had said, ' I have experienced that God is the God 
 of Israel, and this altar I erect as a memorial of his mercies. 
 Gratitude compels the avowal.' The name of God is ap- 
 plied to the object whereby or wherein he is honored. 
 Still, there may be an ellipsis of altar ; or bli<5 may be un- 
 derstood in a genitive sense, and the meaning be: 'he called 
 it God's,' the next words being explanatory. The Septua- 
 gint, s-KcxoO^daro rov Ssov 'l(f^ur]\, 'he invoked the God of 
 Israel,' and the Vulgate, invocavit super illud fortissimum 
 Deum Israelis, do not accord with the Hebrew. The for- 
 mer omits any notice of the words bi!5 lb, and the latter 
 gives to 1b~5^'1p.'^l the sense of 'invoking upon,' while its 
 ordinary meaning is to name, as in Gen. i. 5, 7, and in many 
 other places. 
 
 (131.) The phrase, " to work folly in (or, against) Israel, 
 DJj^'ltp^lZl/' is thought by some to be of later origin than that 
 period in which the book of Genesis is supposed to have 
 been written. It occurs in Josh. vii. 15, Judg. xx. 10. But, 
 although in these places Israel is used for the nation, the 
 phrase may have originated fi'om the very text before us. 
 The language is not indicative of a later age than that of the 
 patriarch himself. 
 
 (132.) While the cruel and crafty plot of Jacob's sons 
 deserves the severest reprobation, it is evident, and espe- 
 cially from V. 23, that the Shechemites also acted with du. 
 plicity and from interested motives. They were over- 
 reached by the superior management of their enemies. 
 
 (133.) The expression, "terror of God," in v. 5, is con- 
 sidered by some as a Hebraism, for ' great terror,' as in 
 xxiii. 6, ' a prince of God,' for " a mighty prince," and xxx. 
 41 
 
322 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part IX. 
 
 8, ' wrcstlingjs of God,' for "great wrestlings," and else- 
 where. Inasmuch, however, as an extraordinary provi- 
 dence often superintended and controlled the affairs of the 
 patriarchs and their families, the view suggested in the Ana- 
 lysis is preferable. Compare Exod. xxiii. 27: "I will send 
 my fear before thee." 
 
 (134.) Compare xxxiii. 20, which is probably parallel. 
 Thus the meaning will be : ' he called the place, God of 
 Bethel.' — Another view is admissible : ' he called the place 
 of God,' (that is, the place consecrated to God,) 'Bethel'; or, 
 ' he called the place, God's, Bethel.' Thus the last words, 
 meaning ' God's house,' will be explanatory. 
 
 (135.) The space denoted by the original word <T^i?5 
 cannot be determined. From the etymology, it would seem 
 to imply a considerable distance: but this must, of course, 
 be relative. In 2 Kings v. 19, the distance which it denotes 
 could not have been great. See Gesenius under the word, 
 Schleusner's Thesaurus Veteris Testamenti, under x",^"^"- 
 and 'I'TT'TroiJ^o/xoj. 
 
 (136.) The name Benjamin, ']''!p!^55, is thought by several 
 commentators to m^an, * son of old age,' l"^^^ being taken 
 as the Chaldee form, for ' days.' But the evident antithesis 
 between Benoni, ' son of my sorrow,' and Benjamin, shows 
 that the latter must denote excellence or happiness of some 
 kind. The parallelism in Ps. Ixxx. 18, (17,) suggests the 
 idea of strength, and this is probably what the name im- 
 plies, as the right hand is more vigorous and efficient than 
 the left. 
 
 (137.) As all Jacob's children, except Benjamin, were 
 
CHAP. XXV. 19— XXXV. 29.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 323 
 
 born in Mesopotamia, the historian does not think it neces- 
 sary to mention this one in particular. His language is 
 popular rather than exact. Thus in 1 Cor. xv. 5, it is said, 
 that Christ appeared " to the twelve," although the suicide 
 of Judas had reduced the number of the apostles to eleven; 
 and in Luke xxiv. 33, " the eleven" are said to have been 
 " gathered together," although we are elsewhere informed 
 that Thomas was not one of their number. See John xxi. 
 24, where again the expression is, " one of the twelve." All 
 this is popular language. The Scripture abounds with it, 
 and the failure to recognize it has been tt prolific source of 
 mistakes and difficulties. 
 
 Part X. Chap, xxxvi. 
 
 (138.) On comparing xxvi. 34, with the second verse of 
 this chapter, a seeming discrepancy appears. To solve it 
 the conjecture has been advanced, that, the names designate 
 different persons, thus: (1) Judith; (2) Bashemath, the 
 daughter of Elon ; (3) Adah, another daughter of Elon. 
 The supposition of Le Clerc, that the latter of these names 
 was applied by Isaac and Rebecca to Bashemath, in refer- 
 ence to her character and conduct, this meaning being 
 
 drawn from the Arabic IJlc, to transgress, act wickedly, 
 is quite improbable. (4) Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah; 
 (5) Bashemath, the daughter of Ishmael ; and (6) Mahalath, 
 her sister, (xxviii, 9.) According to this view, six wives of 
 Esau will be mentioned. 
 
 Another theory removes the difficulty, by supposing that 
 each of these women appears under two names, thus re- 
 ducing the number of his wives to three. Hengstenberg 
 adopts this course. See his Authentic des Pentateuches, 11. p. 
 273 ss. He identifies the Anah of xxxvi. 2, 24, with Beeri 
 
324 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part x. 
 
 of xxvi. 34, who derived his name '^'^^.'2, equivalent to 
 * well' or ' spring finder,' from the discovery of warm 
 springs mentioned in xxxvi. 24. This is now generally 
 acknowledged by critics to be the most probable meaning of 
 D'^^.'l, which is rendered in our translation, " mules." This 
 man, who in xxxvi. 2, is called a Hivite, is named a Horite 
 in v. 20 ; that is, he belonged to that subdivision of the 
 Canaanitish race of the Hivites, who, from their residence 
 in caves, were known as Horites or Troglodytes, from the 
 Hebrew and Greek words respectively. In xxvi. 34, the 
 same person, if Hengstenberg's theory is correct, is called a 
 Hittite. This discrepancy he removes by showing that the 
 term Hittite, although it originally designated a single 
 Canaanitish tribe, was, like the name Amorite, employed in 
 a broader sense, to denote the whole race. Thus in Josh. 
 i. 4, " the land of the Hittites" comprehended all the country 
 of the Canaanites ; in 1 Kings x. 29, we read of " all the 
 kings of the Hittites ;" and in 2 Kings vii. 6, " the king of 
 Israel" is said to have " hired the kings of the Hittites." With 
 this view the language in Ezek. xvi. 3, corresponds : " thy 
 father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite." So in 
 Gen. xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1, the Hittite women are put for 
 Canaanitish women in general. Hence it is clear, that the 
 same individual might be a Hivite and a Hittite. He con- 
 jectures that all the wives of Esau received new names at their 
 marriage, when they left their families, by which names they 
 are designated in xxxvi ; Judith (xxvi. 34,) is Aholibamah, 
 Bashemath is Adah, and Mahalath (xxviii. 9,) is Bashemath. 
 How closely new circumstances and new names are con- 
 nected in the east, is well known ; and this is particularly 
 true of females. See p. 277. 
 
 If neither of those solutions should be thought altogether 
 satisfactory, we cannot be surprised, much less charge the 
 
CHAP. XXXVI.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 325 
 
 author with contradiction, if we consider the great antiquity 
 of the matter, the absence of all other data than those con- 
 tained in the Bible, the want of. analogy with modern and 
 occidental usages which marked the ancient state of things, 
 and the want of importance as regards ourselves of the 
 whole subject. 
 
 (139.) The original is l^^l^^-b:^. The phrase " into the 
 country," which is used in the English translation, does not 
 convey the meaning, and indeed, in the circumstances in 
 which the two brothers then were, it is hardly explicable. 
 It would in itself seem to imply, that before they had been 
 together in some city, which is surely unfounded and im- 
 probable. 
 
 (140.) This portion contains more than one inscription. 
 That in v. 1 is general, and intended for the whole chapter. 
 In V. 5, we have a subscription, referring back to Esau's 
 sons born in Canaan. The remainder of the chapter is in- 
 troduced by v. 9 ; and the different clauses of it by their 
 own appropriate inscriptions. All, however, is perfectly 
 natural, and not a trace of a disjointed or fragmentary com- 
 position is discoverable. 
 
 (141.) It appears that v. 15 — 18 give the list of dukes 
 (fi*'S^b!S5) through whom the Idumean nation originated from 
 Esau, and who were themselves founders of as many lines ; 
 while, on the other hand, v. 40 — 43 specify those who 
 flourished in the time of Moses : so that we are here fur- 
 nished with the condition of the Idumean people, as they 
 were divided into tribes in the time of Moses, in the reign 
 of the last named eighth king Hadar, or Hadad, as he is 
 
 • 
 
326 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part x. 
 
 called in the first book of Chronicles. The early condition 
 of Edom's national existence was one of division. This will 
 be evident to any who attentively examiiae the list here given 
 of its kings, which does not afford a single instance of re- 
 gular succession from father to son. We may therefore 
 infer without hesitation, that the political condition of the 
 people was the very opposite of stability. And this is not 
 at all surprising, as the immediately preceding period, during 
 which the old inhabitants of the country were driven out or 
 subjected, must have been one of violence. This view of 
 the subject is derived in part from the expressions in v. 
 40 — 43. The particular importance of the second list of 
 dukes here exhibited, and its specific distinctions from the 
 one before given, appear in the recurring adjuncts : " these 
 are the dukes of Esau according to their families, according 
 to their places, according to their names," v, 40 ; or, " accord- 
 ing to their habitations in the land of their possession,^' 
 v. 43. These adjuncts plainly denote, that, while the former 
 list, 15 — 18, gives merely the genealogical and individual 
 designation, this one has in view a geographical division of 
 the race. This same view is confirmed by 1 Chron. i. 51. 
 There it is said, "Hadad died also, and then {V\i'^.'\) the dukes 
 of Edom were, &c." Thus the Idumean dukes are repre- 
 sented in the Chronicles and in Genesis in connexion with 
 Hadad. The death of this king is mentioned in Chronicles, 
 but not by Moses, as is that of the seven who preceded 
 him. Now, if the period of Hadad's government coincides 
 with that of Moses, (as is here supposed to be the case,) 
 this peculiarity in the narrative is explained. And, on this 
 theory, the fact that the wife of the eighth king is the only 
 one mentioned by name, (Gen. xxxvi. 39,) is also susceptible 
 of explanation. 
 
 Further, it is clear from this chapter, that among the Idu- 
 
CHAP. XXXVI.] 
 
 NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 327 
 
 means, kings and dukes were contemporaneous. This state- 
 ment is in iiarmony with Ex. xv. 15, " the dukes of Edom 
 shall be amazed," and Num. xx. 14, " Moses sent messen- 
 gers unto the king of Edom." 
 
 The connexion of this chapter with the preceding and 
 subsequent ones, is worthy of notice. As the section xxv. 
 12 — 18, which treats of Ishmael, the collateral branch, 
 refers backwards to the history of Abraham, (xii. 1 — xxv. 
 11,) which concludes with xxv. 1 — 11, and forwards to the 
 history of Isaac, (xxv. 19 — xxxv. 29,) which begins with 
 xxv. 19 ; so does the section, chapter xxxvi., relate to the 
 preceding chapter, which contains a brief notice of Isaac, and 
 also to the following, which keeps in view the story of Jacob. 
 The identity of the author, and the fact of his being gov- 
 erned by a regular plan, are manifestly deducible from such 
 premises. And this will be still more evident, if we com- 
 pare xxxv. 23 — 26 with xxv. 1 — 6, and xxxv. 27 — 29 with 
 xxv. 7 — 9, and the manner in which xxv. 19 and xxxvii. 2 
 begin. In order to assist the reader in making this com- 
 parison, I shall exhibit the places respectively in parallel 
 columns. 
 
 xxxv. 23 — 26. " The sons of Leah; 
 Reuben, Jacob's first-born, and Simeon, 
 and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, 
 and Zebulon. 
 
 The sons of Rachel ; Joseph, and 
 Benjamin. 
 
 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's 
 handmaid : Dan and Naphthali. 
 
 And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's 
 handmaid ; Gad and Asher. These 
 are the sons of Jacob, &c." 
 
 xxv. 1 — 6. " Then again Abraham 
 took a wife, &c. 
 
 And she bare him Zimran and 
 Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and 
 Ishbak, and Shuah. 
 
 And Jokshan be^at Sheba, and 
 Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were, 
 &c. 
 
 And the sons of Midian, Ephab, 
 and Epher, &c. All these were the 
 children of Keturah. 
 
 And Abraham gave all that he had 
 unto Isaac. 
 
 But unto the sons of the concubines, 
 &c." 
 
328 
 
 NOTES TO GENESIS. 
 
 [part": 
 
 XXXV. 27 — 29. " And Jacob came 
 unto Isaac his father unto Mamre, 
 unto the city of Arbah, which is He- 
 bron, where Abraham and Isaac so- 
 journed. 
 
 And the days of Isaac were an 
 hundred and fourscore years. 
 
 And Isaac gave up the ghost, and 
 died, and was gathered unto his peo- 
 ple, being old and full of days ; and 
 his sons Esau and Jacob buried him." 
 
 (xxxvi. Generations of Esau.) 
 
 xxxvii. 2. " Tliese are the genera- 
 tions of Jacob. Joseph, being seven, 
 teen years old, &c." 
 
 XXV. 7 — 9. " And these are the days 
 of the years of Abraliam's life which 
 he lived, an hundred threescore and 
 fifteen years. 
 
 And Abraham gave up the ghost, 
 and died in a good old age, an old 
 man and full of years, and was 
 gathered to his people. 
 
 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael 
 buried him in the cave, &c." 
 
 (xxv. 12 — 18. Generations of Ish- 
 mael.) 
 
 xxv. 19, 20. " And these are the 
 generations of Isaac, Abraham's son. 
 Abraham begat Isaac. 
 
 And Isaac was forty years old, &.c." 
 
 Now this is the arrangement, and ordinarily the method 
 which pervades the whole book of Genesis, as the attentive 
 reader will readily perceive. For the thirty-sixth chapter 
 stands between the thirty-fifth and thirty-seventh, just as the 
 notice of Cain, in chapter iv,, stands between the account of 
 Adam in ii., iii., and the introduction of Seth and his gene- 
 alogy in chapter v. ; and further also, as chapter x. between 
 the history of Noah in v. 32 — ix. 29, and the genealogy of 
 Shem in xi. 10 ss. ; and lastly, as Ishmael is introduced be- 
 tween Abraham and Isaac in xxv. 12 — 18. 
 
 Another remark in connexion with this subject is worthy 
 of notice. The way and manner in which the portion of 
 the historical accounts of the patriarchs which immediately 
 follows chapter xxxvi., (that is, xxxvii. 1, 2,) is introduced, 
 manifestly refers back to that chapter. In other words, 
 xxxvii. 1, " and Jacob dwelt in the land where his father 
 was a stranger, in the land of Canaan," and xxxvi. 8, " thus 
 dwelt Esau in Mount Sein," are analogous. That Jacob, 
 the heir of the promise, remained in the land of promise. 
 
CHAP. XXXVI,] NOTES TO GENESIS. 329 
 
 while Esau, the collateral branch of the family, was ex- 
 cluded, is here, as every where else, the principal point. 
 Both xxxvii. 2, thei-efore, and xxxvi. 9, are similarly con- 
 nected with the verses immediately preceding them. 
 
 The views given in this note are chiefly taken from the 
 work of Drechsler before mentioned, p. 157 ss. Hengs- 
 tenberg, II. p. 291 ss,, accords in general with this writer. 
 I shall give the reader a very brief analysis of his re- 
 marks. 
 
 ' The chapter begins with an account of Esau's family 
 during their residence in Canaan, and of their wealth and 
 removal, 1 — 8. It proceeds to give a general view of the 
 domestic condition of Esau in the country of Scir, 9 — 14.- 
 This is followed by the names of the tribes of the Edomites, 
 who, like those of the Israelites, borrowed their names from 
 those of Esau's nearest descendants, and each of whom had 
 its head or duke, in Hebrew alluph, as the alluph of the tribe 
 of Teman, &c. 15 — 19. Afterwards appears the genealogy 
 of Seir the Horite, 20 — 30, Then we have the Edomilish 
 kings, 31 — 39. And the chapter closes by giving the resi- 
 dences of the chiefs of the Edomitish tribes, 40 — -43.' This 
 general view removes the chief difficulties in the chapter. 
 The fourteen alluphim who are named (15 — 19) before the 
 kings, do not form a successive course, but are contempora- 
 neous, and, after the kings, it is not a new course of phy- 
 larchs that is given, but the residences of those before 
 named. (He thinks it improbable that feminine nouns, such 
 as Timnah, and Aholibamah, should denote the dukes them- 
 selves ; and for this reason, and also an account of the 
 adjuncts, " according to their families, after their places," 
 conjectures that the names employed designate the settle- 
 ments of the personages. But it is unreasonable to suppose 
 that the same language, which in v. 15 — 19 designates indi- 
 viduals, should in 40—43 be used of their local settlements.) 
 42 
 
330 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part X. 
 
 * Every difficulty vanishes, when it is considered, that the 
 royal power among the Edomites was not raised on the 
 ruins of the authority of the phylarchs, (which would re- 
 quire a considerable course of time for the continuance of 
 the latter, after the expiration of which the course of eight 
 kings might begin,) but that both existed contemporane- 
 ously, the Edomites having rulers of tribes and also kings 
 at the same time.' 
 
 ' The eighth king of the Edomites was evidently contem- 
 poraneous with the author of the Pentateuch ; who mentions 
 the decease of all the preceding kings, but is silent respect- 
 ing his. The reason is plain : he was king when the author 
 wrote. In the first book of Chronicles, indeed, his death is 
 stated, ii. 51 ; but this work was composed long after his 
 time. The author of Genesis, with a particularity which 
 appears only in this individual case, mentions the names of 
 his wife, her parent and grand-parent. What reason can be 
 assigned for this, unless the author was contemporary with 
 the Edomitish king ? And the period of his reign falls 
 within the age of Moses.' 
 
 From what has been said, it appears that the dukes and 
 kings of Edom mentioned in this chapter may have flourished 
 before the death of Moses, and consequently the notice here 
 contained may have been written by him. Inasmuch as he 
 does speak of kings who should rule over the Hebrews, 
 (see Deut. xvii. 14 — 20, xxviii. 30,) it is not impossible that 
 he may have written even the latter clause of v. 31, — " be- 
 fore there reigned any king over the children of Israel," 
 particularly as in xxxv. 11, he recounts the promise of God 
 to Jacob, that " kings" should descend from him. Still it 
 may have been originally a marginal note, which in time 
 found its way into the text. Several commentators have 
 supposed that the last thirteen verses of the chapter cannot 
 have been the work of the Hebrew lawgiver. The reader 
 
CHAP. XXXVI.] NOTES TO GENESIS 
 
 331 
 
 may find a notice of the most important writers on both 
 sides of this question in Rosenmiiller's Scholia, p. 555 — 558. 
 In V. 2, the phraseology, " Aholibamah the daughter of 
 Anah. the daughter of Zibeon," is unusual and difficult. It 
 is certain from v. 24, (compare also 1 Chron. i. 40.) that 
 Anah was a male, and that he was Zibeon's son ; unless, in- 
 deed, it be allowed that Zibeon had a son and daughter 
 bearing the same name, which is very improbable. From 
 V. 25 it appears that this Anah was Aholibamah's father. 
 To remove the supposed difficulty, Dathe and Rosenmiiller 
 would read ']'2 for t^'2^ son for daughter, following the Sa- 
 maritan text and the Septuagint and Syriac versions. But 
 Michaelis, who was once of the same opinion, objects that 
 the same mode of expression occurs in v. 14, 39 : to which 
 may be added 1 Chron. i. 50. — Perhaps this method of re- 
 counting was used among the Idumeans, and the meaning of 
 the clause in v. 2 may be this : " Aholibamah the daughter 
 of Anah, (and) the daughter," that is, grand-daughter, " of 
 Zibeon."— In v. 25, the noun Anah is used for the pronoun 
 his, as is usual in Hebrew. See the same idiom in xi. 29, 
 " the father of Milcah" for ' her father.' 
 
 Part XI. Chap, xxxvir. 1 — l. 
 
 (142.) xxxvii. 2. " These are the generations," or rather, 
 * this is an account of Jacob,' that is, of his family ; the 
 patriarch, as head, standing for his whole household. The 
 inscription marks the epoch of a new ancestral lord,* as in 
 XXV. 19, ' this is an account of Isaac' In the one case, be- 
 cause Isaac was the successor of Abraham, and in the other, 
 because Jacob was the son and heir of Isaac ; the deaths e 
 both having been previously mentioned, Abraham's in xx 
 
 * Drechsler, p. 139. 
 
332 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 10, and Isaac's in xxxv. 29. As the chapter inamediately 
 following, (xxxvi.) relates to Esau, so the portion which 
 succeeds the notice of Abraham's death, (xxv. 12—18,) re- 
 lates to Ishnaael. The construction and arrangement of 
 both accounts are decidedly in favor of the opinion that 
 both originated with the same author, and unfavorable to the 
 theory, that each biographical narrative is founded on an in- 
 dependent document. 
 
 As the inscription marks the accession of a new chief, in 
 the patriarchal line, and follows the account of the death of 
 a predecessor, we need not be surprised that the inscription 
 in xxxvii. 2, purporting to be an account of Jacob, is im- 
 mediately succeeded by a part of the history of Joseph. 
 
 (143.) In v. 9, the article before the word " eleven" is not 
 sanctioned by the Hebrew. If omitted, the meaning will 
 be clearer. — As Joseph's own mother was dead, (compare 
 xxxv. 18, and xxx. 22 — 24,) perhaps Bilhah may be meant, 
 or Leah, if she still lived. But this supposition is by no 
 means necessary, as the fact of Rachel's death heightens 
 the absurdity of what seems to be implied in the dream, 
 
 (144.) The Ishmaelites and Midianites were both des- 
 cended from Abraham, but of different female parentage. 
 See xxv. 2, 4, 12—18, In this part of the narrative they 
 appear to be identified, owing probably to their intimate as- 
 sociation with each other. See also Judg. vii. 12, viii. 22, 
 24, 26, where the words seem to be used promiscuously. 
 Rosenmiiller distinguishes them as genus and species, illus- 
 trating by the comparison, taken from Aben Esra, of French- 
 men and Lyonnese. As the Ishmaelites were the most nu- 
 merous and powerful of Abraham's descendants, (with the 
 exception of the Israelites,) all the others seem to have 
 become merged in them, and to have been known by their 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 333 
 
 name ; as, in the present day, the Arabians boast of being 
 the posterity of Ishmael. 
 
 (145.) Some weighty chronological difficulties arise from 
 the account in this chapter. Certain of the events related 
 in it must have taken place before the sale of Joseph. For, 
 from this time until Jacob's descent into Egypt, not more 
 than twenty-two years elapsed, (see xxxvii. 2, xli. 46, and 
 to the thirteen years thus obtained, add the seven of plenty 
 and two of famine which had passed by, xlv. 11,) which is 
 too short a period for Judah to have three sons by the same 
 mother, to marry them, and by his daughter-in-law to have 
 twins, one of whom, Pharez, when he went to Egypt, had 
 also two, xlvi. 12. On the other hand, if Judah's incest with 
 Tamar happened about the time of Joseph's sale, and the 
 story be allowed to be properly placed here, this will carry 
 up the circumstance of xxxviii. 1, 2, to the time when Ja- 
 cob was in Mesopotamia. For, if we allow fourteen years 
 (which is little enough, and in all probability too little,) for 
 Shelah to be grown up, (xxxviii. 11, 14,) and three for the 
 births of himself and two brothers, (v. 3 — 5,) this will make 
 about seventeen between the conduct of Judah mentioned 
 in v. 16 ss., and his associating with Shuah, (v. 2.) And as 
 Joseph was seventeen when he was sold, (xxxvii. 2,) the 
 affair of xxxviii. 1, 2, will be about contemporaneous with 
 the birth of Joseph mentioned in xxx. 24 ; that is, fourteen 
 years after Jacob had come to Mesopotamia, supposing his 
 residence there to have been only twenty years. Compare 
 xxx. 25 ss., and xxxi. 38. If now Jacob did not marry 
 Rachel until he had served seven years, (xxix. 20, 21,) as 
 not less than three and a half elapsed between his marriage 
 and the birth of his fourth son Judah, (v. 31 — 35,) only the 
 same space of time will remain between his birth and 
 Joseph's ; in other words, between his birth and the affair 
 
334 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 with Shuah mentioned in xxxviii. 1, 2, which cannot possi- 
 bly be correct. If, according to the writers mentioned in 
 note (112,) Jacob married soon after he went to Mesopo- 
 tamia, Judah will still be no more than ten and a half years 
 old at the time in view. This does not remove the difficulty, 
 while it involves us in another of an exegetical kind. See 
 the note just referred to. Dr. Kcnnicott, quoted by Dr. 
 Adam Clarke, thinks that Jacob served and lived in connex- 
 ion with Laban forty years, supposing the twenty years 
 mentioned in xxxi. 38, and that in v, 41, to be two distinct 
 periods.* Perhaps he spent more time in Mesopotamia, or 
 elsewhere out of Canaan, than the brief history narrates, 
 and twenty years of the whole period in Laban's service ; 
 for the twenty years mentioned in both these texts do seem 
 to be identical, notwithstanding the learned author's very 
 plausible defence of the contrary view. Such a supposition 
 will relieve us of the embarrassment occasioned by the 
 chronological difficulties equally well with that maintained 
 by Kennicott, while it allows us to give what appears 
 to be the most natural exposition of the two verses just re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 There is still another view of this subject, which, if ad- 
 missible, will effectually remove the difficulty already ex- 
 amined. It supposes, that the design of the author of the 
 book of Genesis was not to mention those of Jacob's family 
 who were living at the time of the descent into Egypt, and 
 then accompanied him and his sons thither, but rather to 
 state the whole number of his family, in order to show how 
 abundant was the harvest, which in a comparatively short 
 time sprang up from such a handful of seed. Compare Ex. 
 i. 5, 7, Deut. x. 22. , Several of his grand-children, there- 
 
 * See the remarks appended to Clarke's Commentary on chapter 
 xxxi. 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 335 
 
 fore, may have been born some time after the settlement in 
 Egypt ; and of course his great-grand-children Hezron and 
 Hamul, mentioned in xlvi. 12. The sacred writer probably 
 intended to state the number of Jacob's descendants who 
 were living at the time of his death, and from whom the 
 nation of the Israelites descended. It is remarkable, that, 
 although in xlvi. 7, " his daughters and his sons' daughtere" 
 are spoken of as " brought with him" into Egypt, the only 
 females mentioned in the subsequent catalogue are his 
 daughter Dinah, and Serah the daughter of Asher. Can 
 it be that all his other grand-daughters had died 1 Or, is it 
 not more probable that they had married Egyptians, or men 
 of some neighboring nation, and consequently are not to be 
 regarded in the light of " mothers in Israel" 1 
 
 The following considerations in favor of the view above 
 stated are alleged by Hengstenberg in his reply to the ob- 
 jections of Ilgen, De Wette, Von Bohlen, and Liitzelberger. 
 Authentic des Pentateuches, II. p. 354 — 359. 
 
 1. At the time of the descent into Egypt, Reuben had only 
 two sons, for if he had more, he undoubtedly would not have 
 limited the offer made in xlii. 37, to that number. But in xlvi. 
 9, four sons of Reuben are enumerated, two of whom must 
 consequently have been born in Egypt. — But this argu- 
 ment is not conclusive. Perhaps the original ^5^ '^!3'^~i^!?!5 
 will bear to be rendered ' the two of my sons,' and thus the 
 father will not specify the number of his male children, but 
 offer to the distracted patriarch two lives for one. Besides, 
 it is very easy to conjecture that only two sons of Reuben 
 were present or at home on the occasion referred to. 
 
 2. Benjamin is so constantly represented as a young man, 
 that it could hardly have occurred to an Israelite, that at 
 the time of his going to Egypt he was the father of ten 
 sons. Compare Gen. xlih. 8, xliv. 30 — 33 ; also xliii. 29. 
 
 3. The author seems to hint, with respect to Hezron and 
 
330 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 Hamul (v. 12), that they were substitutes for Er and Onan, 
 and that they were not born in Canaan. " And Er and 
 Onan died in the land of Canaan, and the sons of Pharez 
 were Hezron and Hannul." Venema gives the same view 
 of this passage. — The argument seems to rest on the sup- 
 position, that on this ground only can a satisfactory reason 
 be given for introducing the phrase, "in the land of Canaan." 
 But the connexion of this clause is rather with the words 
 preceding than with those which follow it, and merely state 
 the fact that the deaths of Er and Onan took place before 
 the descent. 
 
 4. Immediately before the genealogy, it is said in xlvi. 5 : 
 " and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father and their 
 little ones, &c." ; and, according to xliii. 8, the family consisted 
 of Jacob, his sons and their ^^ little ones" But the genealogy 
 presents us with grand-sons of Jacob, who themselves have 
 children. It cannot, therefore, be the author's intention to 
 keep himself to the very point of time when the children of 
 Israel came to Egypt. 
 
 5. In Num. xxvi., which contains a census of the Israel- 
 ites, not a single grand-son of Jacob is mentioned, who has 
 not been already recounted in Gen. xlvi.* This is scarcely 
 explicable, if all who are mentioned in Genesis were living 
 at the time of the descent into Egypt. It is quite unreasona- 
 ble to suppose that no sons were born to Jacob's children 
 after their settlement in that country ; although it is in the 
 highest degree probable, that several of those who accom- 
 panied their parents died without offspring. 
 
 6. In xxxvii. 1, the author announces the "generations" 
 or genealogy of Jacob. His sons had already been enu- 
 merated in that of Isaac. It remained to mention his 
 
 " J. lie leaaer will of course bear in mind, that proper allowances 
 must be made for slight changes and transpositions of letters. 
 
CHAP, xxxvii. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 337 
 
 grand-sons, and perhaps some of his more distinguished 
 great-grand-sons. In giving this genealogy, it would 
 indeed be of little consequence to inform us where the 
 grand-children Were born, but highly important, indeed, not 
 to omit any in the enumeration. Otherwise it were rea- 
 sonable to expect a second genealogical view, relative to 
 the increase of the patriarchal family in Egypt. But such 
 statistical information is not to be found. 
 
 From what has been said, it is evident that it cannot have 
 been the design of the author merely to mention those per- 
 sons who were already born at the time of the descent into 
 Egypt. " The list comprehends all the males of .Jacob's 
 family, whether born in Mesopotamia or in Canaan or in 
 Egypt." Hartmann. 
 
 But the result thus attained appears to be in direct oppo- 
 sition to the express declaration of the sacred author him- 
 self. He tells us in xlvi. 26, that " all the souls that came 
 with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides 
 Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were three score and six." 
 This difficulty is increased by the next verse, which speci- 
 fies Joseph and his sons as already in Egypt, seemingly in 
 contradistinction to those who came there in company with 
 Jacob. 
 
 In reply to this very plausible objection, it may be said, 
 that the author considers those who were born in Egypt as 
 having come there with Jacob in their fathers. This posi- 
 tion is maintained on the following grounds : 
 
 1. It is said in v. 27 : "all the souls of the house of Ja- 
 cob which came into Egypt were three score and ten." As 
 in this enumeration the sons of Joseph are comprehended in 
 the general number of those who came to Egypt, although 
 they were born in that country, and consequently had come 
 there in the person of their father; so also may other grand- 
 sons of Jacob be enumerated as a part of the aggregate 
 43 
 
338 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 who are said to have come with him to Egypt, although they 
 came thither in their fathers respectively. This conclusion 
 is irresistible. 
 
 2. The phraseology in v. 15 is worthy of notice. ^^ These 
 (the whole number named in the preceding verses,) are the 
 sons of Leah, which she bore unto Jacob in Padan Aram, 
 with his daughter Dinah ; all the souls of his sons and his 
 daughters were thirty and three" Here, and in v. 8, the word 
 " sons" may be taken in a limited or more extended mean- 
 ing. In either case the sons appear as appertaining to the 
 fathers, and born along with them. The same remark ap- 
 plies to V. 18 : "these are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban 
 gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, 
 sixteen souls." Compare also v. 25, which is similar. 
 
 3. In Deut. x. 22, it is said : " thy fathers went down into 
 Egypt in (not with) three score and ten persons," compre- 
 hending Joseph's sons as having gone down in their father. 
 Compare the language " I will surely bring thee up again" 
 in xlvi. 4, which refers to Jacob's posterity. 
 
 Some of these considerations must be allowed to have 
 great weight, and perhaps the theory which they are in- 
 tended to maintain most satisfactorily removes the chrono- 
 logical difficulty before stated. These various solutions are 
 submitted to the judgment of the reader. 
 
 (146.) It appears from the eighth verse, that the law in 
 Deut. XXV. 5 ss., obliging a man to marry his brother's 
 childless widow, with the view of raising a family for his 
 brother, did not originate with Moses, but was in use in the 
 patriarchal age. Indeed, this remark applies to some other 
 particulars of the Mosaic system. An Essay on this sub- 
 ject by Reimar, published in the Commentationes Theolo- 
 gicse, has been referred to in note (42.) 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 339 
 
 (147.) The middle clause of the sixth verse may mean, 
 that, having abandoned all his domestic affairs to Joseph, 
 Potiphar was solicitous about nothing but to get his food in 
 proper season : Or, as the food of the Egyptians, or the 
 manner of preparing and using it, differed in some respects 
 from that of the Hebrews, (compare xliii. 32,) that Joseph 
 was not allowed to have any concern with his master's 
 table. 
 
 (148.) It has been supposed, that a comparison of Gen. 
 xxxvii., xxxix. and xl., exhibits a difficulty which cannot be 
 removed. In xxxvii. 36, and xxxix. 1, Potiphar is called- 
 " the captain of the guard," meaning of the king's body 
 guard. Joseph is sold to this person,'calumniated by his 
 wife, and consequently imprisoned by him. He becomes a 
 favorite with the keej^er of the prison, who commits to him 
 the important trust of the otherprisoners, xxxix. 21 — 23. But 
 in xl. 4, " the captain of the guard" is said to charge Joseph 
 with the care of the chief butler and the chief baker. The 
 question has been raised, had Pharaoh two captains of his 
 body guard 1 and is one of them identical with the keeper 
 of the prison? The answer is easy. The captain of the 
 body guard was commander, in modern phrase, lieutenant, 
 of the prison, as is very plain from xl. 3 ; and probably the 
 house in which Joseph was confined was an appendage to 
 his residence. Thus, in the time of Jeremiah, "the house of 
 Jonathan the scribe" was employed as a prison. Jer. xxxvii. 
 15. Still, the state prison of which Potiphar was the com- 
 mander, had a special inspector, subject to the higher au- 
 thority of the commander, and this is the person who is 
 called the " keeper of the prison" If now Joseph made 
 himself agreeable and necessary to this officer, who is never 
 called his master, it would be very natural that he should 
 make the useful Hebrew sub-inspector of the prison. Both 
 
340 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XU 
 
 before and after the confinement of the chief butler and chief 
 baker, he continues under the higher authority, the captain 
 of the guard, and is still his servant, xli. 12. That Potiphar 
 should entrust these two officers to the care of Joseph 
 involves no difficulty ; for doubtless the keeper of the prison 
 had informed him of Joseph's fidelity ; and very probably 
 he distrusted the correctness of his wife's report. This is 
 quite reconcileable with the opinion, that prudential con- 
 siderations prevented him from avowing his servant's inno- 
 cence by releasing him from prison. 
 
 (149.) The expression in the fifth verse, " each man ac- 
 cording to the interpretation of his dream," intimates, that 
 the dream of each had a different exposition. Dathe gives 
 the meaning : " diversee sententiae somnia." The noun is 
 used for the pronoun : ' each one's dream had its own pe- 
 cuhar interpretation.' 
 
 (150.) In v. 13, the words ^t;p5^Vh!^ J>^b^. are rendered 
 in our translation, " shall lift up thy head." The same phrase 
 is employed in Exod. xxx. 12, and Num. i. 49, in the sense 
 of numbering, and this sense agrees well with the use of the 
 phrase in v. 20 : " he lifted up the head of the chief butler 
 and of the chief baker in the midst of his servants." It 
 might then be translated literally, ' shall take thy poll ;' that 
 is, in recounting his officers, Pharaoh shall number thee, and. 
 as it follows, shall restore thee to thy station. The addition of 
 ^"^^^12 to the same phrase in v. 19, gives a different mean- 
 ing : * shall raise thy head from thee,' that is, shall put thee 
 to death. Whether this were done by decapitation, or by 
 some other mode of execution, the phrase itself does not 
 determine. In the case before us, suspension, in some form 
 or other, was the mode adopted. See v. 22. 
 
CHAP. XXXVII, 1—L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 341 
 
 Gesenius, in his Lexicon, under 5J<t2J5 I. (b) (7), considers 
 the phrase, 'to lift up the liead,' in this chapter, as elHplical, 
 for the full expression * to lift up the head out of prison ;' 
 such places of confinement being usually under ground. 
 He refers to 2 Kings xxv. 27, where the words occur in re- 
 ference to the king of Babylon and his captive, the king of 
 Judah, whom he released from a long imprisonment. Here 
 the idea of taking the poll would seem to be inadmissible. 
 It is most probable, therefore, that the language in 2 Kings 
 denotes removal from prison, and restoration to liberty. 
 And Gesenius may have seized upon the fundamental thought 
 implied in the phrase, namely, *to remove from prison,' the 
 result of such removal, whether happy or distressful, being 
 expressed by the subsequent language. 
 
 " The land of the Hebrews" in v. 15, has been supposed 
 to be an interpolation, but without sufficient reason. The 
 country about Hebron may have been so designated even in 
 Joseph's time ; and the term " Hebrews" applied to all who 
 were connected with Jacob's family. Abraham, the He- 
 brew, had visited Egypt, and probably left there a distinct 
 impression of his patronymic name as well as of his character, 
 and it would doubtless be continued by means of caravans and 
 trading companies. The appellation appears to have been 
 current, and to have needed no interpretation. See xxxix. 
 14, 17, xli. 12. The Hebrews were probably regarded by 
 the Egyptians as settlers in Canaan, part of which would be 
 called by their name, as other parts were known as the 
 lands of Jebusites, Perizzites, Hittites, &c. 
 
 (151.) Some have supposed the word "ijl^i^ in v. 43, to 
 be Hebrew, and derived it from TjllS with the preformative 
 fi< for n, meaning " bow the knee." But most probably it 
 is Egyptian. Various significations have been assigned to 
 
342 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 it, according to the supposed origin and composition of the 
 word. Foster compares it with haprechek, meaning ' clothed 
 by the king,' and thinks it refers to the vesture and orna- 
 ments just mentioned, and that Joseph's favor with the mon- 
 arch was to be announced to the people by a public exhibi- 
 tion and proclamation, as in the case of Mordecai. See 
 Esther vi. 11. — The signification most generally received, 
 however, is that of La Croze. He derives the word from 
 oube rech, meaning, ' bend down,' ' do reverence before.' 
 Thus the same idea is supported both by the Egyptian and 
 Hebrew usage. See Jablonskii Opuscula, (edit. Te Water,) 
 Tom. I. p. 4—8. 
 
 (152.) n5?'S il5512. The former of these words is de- 
 rived by some from "IS^ to hide. The Hebrew affords no 
 analogy that can be relied on with the latter. Yet the 
 meaning of both has been supposed to be, ' revealer of 
 secrets ;' and this is given by several ancient Jewish au- 
 thorities. — The terms are no doubt Egyptian, with which 
 the Septuagint ■^ov^oix.^avri-)^ nearly corresponds, and signify, 
 * saviour of the age' or 'world.' Dr. L. Loewe, in a Disser- 
 tation on " the Origin of the Egyptian Language, proved by 
 the Analysis of that and the Hebrew," gives " a very dif- 
 ferent meaning," which he " fearlessly asserts it had in 
 the mind of Pharaoh," namely, " Son of the God of life." 
 But this result is founded on so many assumptions and fan- 
 ciful analogies, that it is not likely to be admitted by judi- 
 cious commentators. Jablonski, who coincides in the mean- 
 ing above given, has examined the subject at length, ubi 
 sup. p. 207 — 216. Those who have not access to this 
 learned writer, may consult Rosenmiiller's notes, and Gese- 
 jiius on the word. 
 
 (153.) In the several notices which occur in the narrative 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 343 
 
 respecting the bundles of money found in the sacks, there 
 appears to be a palpable discrepancy. In the first account 
 of this circumstance, (xHi. 27,) on of the brothers is said to 
 have discovered his money on opening " his sack to give 
 his ass provender at the inn ;" and afterwards, (v. 35,) on 
 their return home it was found that " every man's bundle of 
 money" had been secured to him in the same manner. 
 Hence it would seem evident, that this discovery was not 
 made until they arrived at their father's house. Whereas, 
 from what is subsequently stated by the brothers to Joseph's 
 steward, (xliii. 21,) it appears no less evident, that it was 
 made at the inn, where, as it was before said, one of them 
 found his money in his sack's mouth. — It is possible, that 
 the agitation of mind under which the communication was 
 made to the steward, (see particularly v. 18,) may have led 
 the speaker into a slight mistake, inducing him to say, that 
 that took place at the inn which happened partly there and 
 partly at home. Or it may be, that several opened their 
 sacks at the inn, although one only is said to have done so 
 in xlii. 27, and thus what occurred to several in that place, 
 and to the rest of them at home, is represented to the stew- 
 ard in general terms as happening at the inn, the mere cir- 
 cumstance of place being regarded as indifferent. To sup- 
 pose a contradiction of this kind in the author, would be 
 irreconcilable with his character as an intelligent and care- 
 ful historian, (which the whole tenor of his book proves,) 
 independently of his inspiration. 
 
 (154.) In V. 32, it is said: to "eat with the Hebrews is 
 an abomination unto the Egyptians." Herodotus tells us, 
 that the Egyptians would not associate much with the 
 Greeks, nor use any of their culinary utensils. See II. 41 ; 
 in Beloe's Translation, Vol. I. p. 328, Philadelphia edition, 
 1814. It is not likely that the Greeks were exclusively the 
 
344 NOTEd TO GENESIS. [i^art xi. 
 
 objects of their aversion ; most probably it e:s:tended to 
 foreigners in general. Thus it affords one reason for the 
 statement of abhorrence so strongly represented in the text. 
 Besides, the cattle that were slaughtered and eaten by the 
 Hebrews, were, in some of the nomes of Egypt, regarded 
 as objects of worship. — It is also afterwards said, that "every 
 shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians." xlvi. 34^ 
 It is evident that this cannot be understood of shepherds 
 universally, for the king had his own flocks and shepherds, 
 as is plain from xlvii. 6. Compare also Exod. ix. 3, 4, 6, 
 19 — 21. These texts prove that the occupation was not 
 unusual among the Egyptians. (See also Wilkinson's Man- 
 ners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, Vol. I. p. 239, 
 chap. iii. and II. p. 15, chap, iv., where the Egyptian "pas- 
 tors" are mentioned as belonging to the fourth caste, and are 
 " subdivided into oxherds, shepherds, goatherds, and swine- 
 herds.") It has been said, that they kept flocks simply for 
 the milk, skin, and wool, and abstained entirely from the use 
 of them for food. Grotius, on xlvi. 34, gives as a reason 
 for the declaration there made, "that the shepherds deprived 
 the cattle of life and used the flesh for food ;" and says that 
 " the Egyptians kept flocks for the sake of the wool and 
 milk." Quia pastores pecori vitam adimebant, et carne 
 vescebantur. — Pecora iEgyplii habebant, sed lana3 et lactis 
 causa." Aben Ezra also tells us that " the Egyptians did 
 not then eat flesh," '^bDli^ d^n^S^Sfl TH &<b DHH tD^^^l 
 *lO!n, and he compares them with the natives of India, who 
 abstain, he says, both from flesh and milk. But that the 
 Egyptians did avoid the use of flesh is not susceptible of 
 proof, as Bryant has abundantly shown in his Analysis of 
 Ancient Mythology ; although some of his quotations from 
 Herodotus are of doubtful application. See Vol. VI. p. 
 168 — 176, 8vo. London, 1807. In some nomes they used 
 as articles of food what were objects of worship in others. 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 345 
 
 See Heeren's Ideen iiber die Politik, &c. translated into 
 Englisii, and published under the title of " Historical Re- 
 searches into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the 
 Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, Vol. II. p. 183, 
 Oxford edition. That the ancient Egyptians used flesh very 
 freely, particularly beef and goose, appears from the sculp- 
 tures which still remain. See Wilkinson, Vol. II. p. 367 ss., 
 chap. vii. It is also plainly alluded to in Ex. xvi, 3, where 
 the murmuring Hebrews long for " the flesh-pots" at which 
 they were in the habit of enjoying themselves when in 
 Egypt. Still, the indiscriminate use of the flesh of cattle for 
 food by the Hebrews and foreign shepherds, may afford 
 another reason why both were regarded by the Egyptians 
 with abhorrence. 
 
 A further reason has been assigned why shepherds, and 
 consequently Hebrews, who, in common with their ances- 
 tors, led a pastoral life, were held in detestation by the 
 Egyptians. It is said that they had suffered much and long 
 from the invasion of the shepherd race, who had usurped 
 the government and exercised a foreign sway over the na- 
 tion, so that the very name and occupation were abomina- 
 ble to them. Shuckford, indeed, in his Sacred and Pro- 
 fane History Connected, Book VII. Vol. II. p. 205—210, 
 places the invasion of these foreigners considerably after this 
 period, and supposes the king who arose after Joseph's 
 death, and disregarded the services which he had rendered 
 the nation, to have been the first of this new dynasty. But 
 this hypothesis, like some others of the same author, is un- 
 founded. The best supported theories, and those which are 
 most generally received, allow a much earlier date to this 
 invasion. Hales, in his new Analysis of Chronology, Vol. 
 II. p. 157, places it six years before the birth of Abraham ; 
 Usher, eighty-eight. See his Chronologia Sacra, anno 
 mundi 1920 and 2008. Bryant also assigns to it a period 
 44 
 
«I 
 
 146 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 anterior to the time of that patriarch, Vol. VI. p. 153, He 
 enters largely into the history of this shepherd race, ex- 
 hibits all that is said of them by Manetho, Josephus, and 
 others ; distinguishes them from the Hebrews, whose settle- 
 ment he thinks was subsequent to their expulsion ; and de- 
 tails many interesting particulars, mingled, however, with 
 not a little that is fanciful and groundless. See Vol. IV. p. 
 301 ss., and VI. p. 1 — 187. Wilkinson is also of opinion, 
 that " the hatred borne against shepherds by the Egyptians 
 was not owing solely to their contempt for that occupation. 
 This feeling," says he, " originated in another and a far 
 more powerful cause, — the previous occupation of their 
 country by a pastor race, who had committed great cruelties 
 during their possession of the country ; and the already ex- 
 isting prejudice against shepherds when the Hebrews ar- 
 rived, plainly shows their invasion to have happened pre- 
 vious to that event." Vol. II. p. 16, chap. iv. If, now, these 
 shepherd invaders had been driven out from Egypt a short 
 time before the age of Joseph, no wonder that shepherds 
 should have been detested by the natives. This supposition 
 is in harmony with the incidents mentioned in the narrative ; 
 it adds point to the affected suspicion of Joseph, that his 
 brothers were spies, and shows that Pharaoh's allowing them 
 to occupy the land of Goshen was politic, as the Hebrews, 
 placed on the Arabian frontier, became a sort of barrier, to 
 prevent the invasion of any foreign aggressors from the 
 east. 
 
 Many writers, however, identify the shepherds with the 
 Israelites, considering the narrative of Manetho, from whom 
 chiefly the account of this race is drawn, as too confused 
 and uncertain to be relied on with confidence. See Buddeeus, 
 Hist. Ecc. V. T. Period. I. sect. iii. § 24, Tom. I. p. 451 ss. ; 
 Witsius, ^Egyptiaca, Lib. III. p. 208 — 216 ; Vitringa in Isa. 
 cap. xix. Notitia ^Egypti, xxxi. xxxii. Tom. I. p. 549, 550 ; 
 
CHXP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 347 
 
 and Perizonius, iEgyptiaram Originum et Temporum Anti- 
 quissimorum Investigatio, cap. xix. p. 328 — 352. 
 
 The learned; acute, and careful German author, Heeren, 
 considers the whole account of the shepherd race, the hyksos 
 of Manetho, as referring to the repeated invasions and at- 
 tacks to which lower Egypt was subjected from the east, 
 and particularly by Arabians, in proportion as it became 
 more cultivated and settled by immigration from the south, 
 and comprehending the settlement of these foreigners, who 
 were finally expelled by the combined efforts of several 
 contemporaneous Egyptian kings. Historical Researches, 
 &;c. Vol. II. chap. ii. p. 115 ss. He acquiesces in the view 
 of Manetho, who " places the elevation of Joseph within 
 this period," remarking that " the favorable reception of his 
 family, leading a shepherd life, will be certainly most ex- 
 plicable during the sway of a shepherd dynasty." p. 117. 
 See also p. 119. On the Egyptian aversion to shepherds he 
 makes the following remarks : " The extensive table lands 
 which the nomad herdsman inhabited, were seldom [entirely] 
 subject to the Pharaohs, probably never ; and the dominion 
 over nomad hordes, from their very nature, must at all times 
 be very uncertain and variable. From their whole manner 
 of life, they can scai'cely be considered otherwise than as 
 natural enemies, which must be borne with, because they 
 cannot be got rid of. To this, therefore, we may attribute 
 the hate and scorn in which they were at all times held, and 
 which the ruling priest caste carefully strove to nourish. 
 " The neatherds are to the Egyptians an abomination," was 
 said in the Mosaic period, and traces of the contempt with 
 which they were regarded are found in Herodotus, ii. 128. 
 There is no proof, however, that this disgrace attached to 
 those cultivators, who, being proprietors of land, made the 
 tending and breeding of cattle their business. Black cattle 
 were by no means unclean in Egypt ; the cow was sacred 
 
-Vv 
 
 348 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 to Isis, and oxen generally served for food and sacrifice ; it 
 is not therefore likely that the naanagement of them should 
 have caused defilement. It was not so much the keeping of 
 cattle, which, in fact, was equally indispensable with agri- 
 culture, as the nomad life, which was directly opposed to 
 the views and policy of the ruling caste. 
 
 Besides, to this caste [of shepherds] seem to have be- 
 longed the tribes which had taken up their abode in the 
 marshy plains of the Delta. According to Strabo, (p. 1142,) 
 these were especially assigned by the ancient Pharaohs for 
 the abode of the neatherds. The tribes which dwelt there 
 had, nevertheless, as we are told by Herodotus, (ii. 92,) 
 adopted Egyptian manners ; but they still remained half 
 barbarians, and even robbers, for the thickets of reeds not 
 only supplied them with the materials for their huts, but 
 likewise protected them from the approach of strangers. 
 Diod. i. 52. Heliodorus draws a similar picture of them. 
 iEthiop. i. 5." p. 148, 149. 
 
 The theory favored by Heeren is maintained also by Dr. 
 J. M. JosT, in his general history of the Israelites, Allge- 
 meine Geschichte des Israelitischen Volks, Berlin, 1832. In 
 Vol. I. p. 67, 74, he advances it incidentally, but afterwards, 
 p. 94 — 97, he defends it at length. As his argument com- 
 prehends probably all that can be urged with any weight in 
 favor of this view, it may be well to give the reader an 
 abstract of it. 
 
 Jost places the exode about the middle or latter half of 
 the fifteenth century before the Christian era, in the time of 
 the fifth Ramesses. The fourth of this name, Ramesses 
 Meiamum, died in the year A. C. 1493, after a reign of 
 sixty-six years. About one hundred and fifty or two hun- 
 dred years before, the dynasty of these kings had put an 
 end to the authority of the shepherds, which had lasted tWD 
 hundred and sixty years. Coming immediately after that of 
 
CHAP, xxxvii. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 349 
 
 the shepherds, it must have been unfriendly to the Israelites, 
 to whom that race was favorable, as it was altogether na- 
 tural to expect that they would be. The shepherds were 
 Shemites, descendants probably of Eber, and allied to the 
 Israelites in spirit, language, and occupation ; which very 
 circumstances would make them hateful to the Egyptians. 
 This agrees with the apprehension of Pharaoh, that the 
 Hebrews, who had become exceedingly numerous, might 
 avail themselves of the occasion of a war to leave the 
 country and increase the number of hostile neighbors. Ex. 
 i. 10. Hence it is plain that the Israelites were able at that 
 time to draw together a considerable army to act against 
 the ruling dynasty. It follows, therefore, that several gene- 
 rations, certainly more than two hundred years, must have 
 passed away since Jacob and his family settled in Egypt.* 
 Hence it appears also, as the shepherd dynasty lasted only 
 two hundred and sixty years, that their settlement must have 
 taken place not long after the commencement of that 
 dynasty. 
 
 This conclusion is corroborated by the simple narrative 
 of Joseph, which presumes the reader to be acquainted 
 with Egyptian history. In the first place the term Hebrews 
 is applied, without immediate reference to Israel, whose 
 family was small, to the whole body of the shepherd people,f 
 who as such were hated by the Egyptians. This agrees 
 with the opinion that they had conquered the country, and 
 that the ruling monarchs were selected from their number 
 and forced upon the people, by whom they were held in 
 detestation, although they did accommodate themselves to 
 the Egyptian laws and usages. 
 
 * Jost adheres to the chronology which is supported by the Hebrew 
 text, and maintains that the Israelites resided in Egypt four hundred 
 and thirty years. See Exod. xii. 40. 
 
 f Gen. xxxix. 14, xl. 15, xli. 12, xliii. 31, Ex. i. 16, iii. 18, and viii. 
 
350 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 Secondly, it was only under such a foreigner, and in such 
 circumstances, that Joseph could have been raised to dis- 
 tinction. Hence the cup-bearer mentioned him as a Hebrew 
 youth, able to interpret dreams ; and hence the king, of the 
 same stock originally, determined to send for him, as the 
 Egyptian wise men gave him no satisfaction. The advice 
 of Joseph was gladly taken, because the king perceived im- 
 mediately that the establishment and independence of his 
 people would be promoted by it. To have a Hebrew in his 
 service as administrator of the kingdom would be agreeable 
 to his dependents ; and his foes, the priests, were soothed by 
 freeing them from civil burthens, and securing their incomes. 
 And, although he conferred the right of citizenship on Joseph, 
 giving him an Egyptian name and marrying him to the 
 daughter of the priest of the sun, yet he did not venture to 
 violate the feelings of the people, and Joseph did not sit at 
 the same table with the Egyptian lords, because they would 
 not eat with the shepherd race. Gen. xliii. 21. 
 
 Thirdly, when Joseph's brothers came to Egypt, they un- 
 doubtedly recognized him as the Hebrew, for his story must 
 have been generally known ; but it never occurred to them 
 that he was their brother, whom they had sold, as there 
 were certainly many Hebrews in the land, and some of them 
 men of distinction. He confirmed their error by employ- 
 ing an interpreter. And it is only on the supposition here 
 maintained, that he could affect to regard his ten brothers 
 as spies ; for, while the shepherd race held the power, it is 
 very conceivable that their jealousy might be excited by the 
 apprehension of further inroads by others of the same stock. 
 Such a feigned charge preferred by. a governor acting under 
 the authority of the genuine Egyptian family, would be 
 altogether inexplicable. 
 
 Lastly, Pharaoh was pleased with the account of Joseph's 
 family. Did he know that they were shepherds 1 And were 
 
 • <• 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1—L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 351 
 
 he an Egyptian, would he have allowed such men, hateful 
 to his people, to settle in Egypt 1 But if he were himself 
 of the same stock, his own satisfaction and that of his cour- 
 tiers is what might be expected from the characteristic hos- 
 pitality of the race. Thus the Israelites were connected 
 with the government, but hated by the Egyptian people. 
 The remains of Jacob are embalmed, and, agreeably to his 
 last will, committed to his own sepulchre, accompanied by 
 many Egyptian lords, solemnities which it is not to be sup- 
 posed that the enemies of the shepherd race would have 
 allowed. The place in Canaan where the mourning cere- 
 monies of the funeral were performed, was called by the in- 
 habitants, Abel Misraim, (mourning of the Egyptians,) be- 
 cause they were all conducted according to the Egyptian 
 manner. 
 
 There is certainly weight in some of the suggestions here 
 advanced. And yet they are not of sufficient force to re- 
 move all doubt from an inquirer's mind. The first argument 
 assumes the general application of the term Hebrews to the 
 whole body of the shepherd people. The truth of this can- 
 not perhaps be denied, but the evidence of it is plainly un- 
 satisfactory. The last of the author's references is probably 
 a typographical error, as it has no bearing on the point. 
 The others, although they harmonize with his view, are 
 evidently inadequate to prove it. Indeed there is only one, 
 (Gen. xliii. 31,) which, as proof, carries with it even plausi- 
 bility. Still, the term Hebrew may have been applied to 
 other races descended from the patriarch Eber, beside that 
 of Jacob. 
 
 The second argument seems also to be inconclusive. 
 Undoubtedly " Joseph could have been raised to distinction 
 under such a foreigner and in such circumstances ;" but 
 wherein lies the impossibility or even the great difficulty 
 of his elevation under a native monarch ? The cup-bearer 
 
352 NOTES TO GENESI3. [part xi. 
 
 mentions Joseph to Pharaoh, not particularly as a Hebrew 
 youth, but as a companion in trouble, whom prosperity had 
 led him to forget, and of whom he is reminded by the 
 monarch's very remarkable dream. The king would na- 
 turally send for him, whether he were of the same stock 
 with himself or not, for the plain reason that the Egyptian 
 wise men were unable to satisfy his mind. On the same 
 principle, the Babylonian monarch, in similar circumstances, 
 sent for Daniel. Dan. v. J 3 — 16.r — Politic considerations 
 may indeed have led Pharaoh to adopt the counsel of Joseph, 
 but a moderate degree of good sense would of itself induce 
 him to follow it. The high estimate in which the priests 
 were held sufficiently accounts for ' the benefit of clergy' 
 with which Pharaoh thought proper to favor them. And 
 that Joseph and the Egyptian lords dined at separate tables, 
 is at least as explicable on the theory that the ruling dynasty 
 was Egyptian, as on that of Jost and Heeren. Indeed, on 
 this theory, the supposition that the hostile feelings of the 
 natives, whether of the common class or of the grandees, 
 towards the shepherds, showed themselves as is represented 
 in the history, seems to involve a difficulty. It appears un- 
 natural to understand the term " Egyptian," in the thirty- 
 fourth verse of the forty-sixth chapter, of the subjugated 
 natives. So bold an expression of contempt and detestation 
 is not likely to have been generally made by the people 
 at the very time that they were forced to submit to the 
 hated rulers. Still, it cannot be denied, that such a state of 
 things as this would imply might temporarily exist, as was 
 the case in England in a considerable degree during some 
 time after the Norman conquest. The brevity of the nar- 
 rative, and the want of other clear historical data, seem 
 to preclude the possibility of arriving at thorough satisfac- 
 tion on such a topic. 
 
 The third argument of Jost is based on the supposition 
 
CHAP, ixxvii. 1 — L.] NOTES TO GENESIS, 353 
 
 which he assumes in tlie first, which would indeed account 
 for the fact that Joseph's brethren did not recognize him, 
 but is by no means necessary for this purpose. And surely 
 Joseph might aflfect to regard them as spies, if the shepherd 
 dynasty had been conquered and expelled not long before 
 their arrival. — And, in reference to the last argument, it is 
 evident, that the kindness with which Joseph was himself 
 regarded by Pharaoh, and the gratitude of the monarch for 
 his favorite's services both to himself and the nation, are 
 sufficient to account for the friendly reception of his father 
 and family; although the author's theory is quite in harmony 
 with the circumstances of the narrative. It agrees also 
 with the remark in Ex. i. 8, that " a new king arose, who 
 did not regard Joseph." For, if the re-establishment of the 
 rightful Egyptian dynasty on the expulsion of the shepherds 
 is here meant, Joseph's memory would of course be disre- 
 garded, and the Israelitish population despised. 
 
 (155.) xliv, 5. The phrase tDHi'^ ©ni in this verse, in all 
 probability, is equivalent to the same phrase in v. 15. Most 
 of the ancient versions, including the Septuagint and Vulgate, 
 give it the meaning of augur, divine : and this is adopted 
 by our English translation, although in the margui it follows 
 the Chaldee Targum, and renders it, search. The former 
 meaning is undoubtedly the usual sense of the word. In 
 addition to these two places, it occurs elsewhere in the 
 Bible, in Gen. xxx. 27, Lev. xix. 26, Num. xxiii. 23, xxiv. 1, 
 Deut. xviii. 10, 1 Kings xx. 33, 2 Kings xvii. 17, xxi. 6, and 
 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. In some of these places it is connected 
 with other words expressive of magical superstition, and 
 always conveys this idea, or that of foreboding or taking as 
 an omen, unless Gen. xxx. 27, and the texts under considera- 
 tion, be regarded as exceptions. If the idea of divining be 
 intended, it will not follow that the cup is represented as the 
 45 
 
354 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 medium by which the divination was practised. That can- 
 not be Joseph's meaning in v. 15, for the cup had not been 
 in his possession, and to recover it would have been the very 
 intention of the supposed divination. Neither is it the ne- 
 cessary meaning of the clause in the fifth verse, which may 
 be rendered, after several of the Jewish interpreters, ' on 
 account of which he would divine ;' that is, he would re- 
 sort to divination in oi'der to ascertain what had become 
 of it. See Munster, De Muis, and Cartwright in the Critici 
 Sacri. 
 
 The practice of divining by means of a cup is mentioned 
 by Rosenmiiller in his Alte und neue Morgenland, I. p. 210 ss. 
 He refers to Jamblicus on the Mysteries of the Egyptians, 
 Lib. III. sect. 14, who says, that by means of certain figures 
 reflected by the rays of light in clear water, future circum- 
 stances were prognosticated ; and to Augustin, who, in his 
 treatise, de Civitate Dei, Lib. VII, cap. 35, quotes a place 
 of a lost work of Varro, wherein it is said that this sort of 
 divination originated with the Persians. 
 
 The manner of divination is stated to be as follows. Small 
 pieces of gold or silver leaf or thin plate were thrown into 
 a cup, intermingled with precious stones, on which certain 
 characters* were engraven. Then the inquirer repeated 
 some forms of adjuration, and invoked the devil. The an- 
 swer was communicated in various ways : sometimes by an 
 intelligible voice ; sometimes by the same signs appearing 
 on the surface of the water as had been engraven on the 
 precious stones ; sometimes by exhibiting the image of the 
 person respecting whom the applicant would inquire. 
 Cornelius Agrippa, de Occulta Philosophia, Lib. I. cap. 57, 
 mentions also, that many were accustomed to throw melted 
 wax into a vessel of water, and from the forms which it as- 
 sumed, to infer the answers to the proposed inquiries. 
 
 In addition to the writers above mentioned, Rosenmiiller 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOtES TO GENESIS. 355 
 
 refers to Norden's Travels in Egypt and Nubia, D'Herbe- 
 lot's Bibliotheque Orientale under Giam and Giemschid, and 
 Von Hammer's Collection of Poems. 
 
 Of the fact that sucli a superstitious usage existed, there 
 can be no doubt ; whether it prevailed as anciently as the 
 time of Joseph, is uncertain. However, if divination of any 
 kind is alluded to in the places before us, this will not prove 
 that Joseph practised it. Both he and the steward may ac- 
 commodate their language to the ignorance of the brothers. 
 And in neither of the verses is a direct act of Joseph ne- 
 cessarily implied ; the meaning may be, that he could ascer- 
 tain the theft by applying to the divines, for which his dig- 
 nity and station afforded him every facility. 
 
 (156.) In the details of v. 8 — 27, it is proper to note some 
 slight difficulties. In v. 8, Jacob is mentioned, because he 
 is the head of all, and therefore properly introduces " the 
 children of Israel." Or else this phrase is equivalent to 
 'Israelites,' as 'children of Eber," x. 21, is to 'Hebrews,' 
 and consequently includes Jacob himself. — The order in 
 which the names of the children are given is as follows : 
 (1) Leah's children; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, 
 Zebulon ; (2) Zilpah's ; Gad, Asher ; (3) Rachel's ; Joseph, 
 Benjamin; (4) Bilhah's; Dan, Naphthali. — Shuckford, ubi 
 sup. p. 198, supposes that the names of the other sons 
 were originally added to Reuben's, and have been lost. 
 But this is a mere conjecture, and in Num. xxvi. 5, the list is 
 similar. 
 
 Verse 15. To introduce Jochabed from Ex. vi. 20, in 
 order to make up the number thirty-three, is exceedingly 
 unreasonable, unless it be supposed to have fallen out of the 
 text in this place, for which there is no warrant. It is far 
 better to allow a popular and somewhat loose phraseology, 
 and to include Jacob himself in the reckoning. Of course, 
 
356 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 Dinah must be added, and the sons of Pharez, as those of 
 Beriah are in v. 17. Er and Onan were dead. The word 
 " daughters" is an enalk^ge numeri, the pkn'al for the singular, 
 as in V. 23, the term " sons." 
 
 Verse 20. Here and elsewhere the Sepluagint differs 
 greatly from the Hebrew text. Perhaps it is interpolated. 
 It is by no means important to reconcile the two. Compare 
 Num. xxvi. 29, 1 Chron. vh. 14, 20. In v. 27 also, the Sep- 
 tuagint reads nine instead of two, disagreeing with v. 20, and 
 without the sanction of one ancient version. — In Acts vii. 
 14, the number of Jacob's family that settled in Egypt is 
 said to have been seventy-five ; here, seventy. The com- 
 mentators, and particularly Kuinoel on the Acts, state the 
 various ways of reconciling this discrepancy. Dr. Hales, 
 ubi sup. Vol. II. p. 160, attempts to remove the difficulty 
 thus. Excluding Jacob, the father, and Joseph and his two 
 sons, who were already in Egypt, the number is sixty-six. 
 To this he adds nine wives, Judah's being dead, Joseph's 
 already in Egypt, and Simeon's being also dead, which he 
 infers from the fact that Shaul was the son of a Canaanitish 
 woman, (v. 10 ;) which will hardly be allowed much weight 
 as an argument. — I suppose St. Stephen gave the commonly 
 received number, founded on the Septuagint, as St. Paul 
 also most probably does in Gal. iii. 17 ; without, in either 
 case, authorizing the enumeration of that version. 
 
 (157.) Jablonski, ubi sup. Tom. II. p. 77 — 224, places 
 Goshen in upper Egypt, in the prefecture of Hercules, 
 vo/Aoff 'H^axXswTYif, an island made in the Heptanomis, by means 
 of a canal connected in two places with the Nile, and called 
 to this day ' the' canal of Joseph.' But, notwithstanding the 
 very extensive discussions of this learned writer, the facts 
 stated in the history of the Exode seem evidently to show, 
 that it must have been situated east of the Nile, in lower 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 357 
 
 Egypt, and not a great distance from the western arm of 
 the Red Sea. It was probably near the ancient HeUopoUs, 
 and being a flat country, and distinguished for the richness 
 of the soil, and the excellence of its pasturage, was in all 
 respects most suitable for the Hebrews, both with respect 
 to their residence, and the facilities it afforded for their re- 
 moval. In Gen. xlvii. 11, it is named, either in whole or in 
 part, "the land of Rameses." The author just referred to, 
 ubi sup. p. 136, explains this word by 'men of sheep,' 'per- 
 sons leading the pastoral life ;' and supposes the name to 
 have been applied by the Israelites, meaning * shepherd 
 country.' But the city of the same name mentioned in Exod. 
 i. 11, as built or at least repaired and ornamented by the 
 Israelites, he identifies with On or Heliopolis,* now called 
 by the Arabs Ain shonesh, 'eye or fountain of the sun ;' and 
 he analyses the word, so as to derive the meaning of ' coun- 
 try' or 'place of the sun.' p. 138, 139. Goshen is often 
 called in the Septuagint rsciv or rstfsV 'A^a/3iac, as it lay con- 
 tiguous to the latter country, and the name Arabia was 
 anciently employed, somewhat loosely, to comprehend all 
 that region of land east of the Nile, and bordering on Ara- 
 bia properly so denominated. See Bryant's Analysis, Vol. 
 VI. p. 105 ss. ; Rosenmiiller on Gen. xlv. 10 ; and his A. 
 und N. Morgenland, Vol. I. p. 215. — The hypothesis of 
 Jablonski is examined and refuted by Michaelis in his Sup- 
 plementa ad Lexica Hebraica, under ltp5, p. 371 — 381. 
 On the situation of Goshen, see also Budda3us, Hist. Eccles. 
 V. T. Per. iii. sect. iii. § 13, Tom. I. p. 33G. 
 
 That the Mitzraim to which the Israelites went was not 
 Egypt, but a country in sandy Arabia, is a theory main- 
 
 * N. B. The Septuagint in Exod. i. 11, evidently distinguishes them: 
 
358 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 tained by Beke ; but how unsuccessfully, is shown in the 
 London Quarterly Review for November, 1834. 
 
 (158.) Instead of "he removed," (v, 21,) the Septuagint, 
 agreeing with the Samaritan Pentateuch, and followed by 
 the Vulgate, reads, 'he subjected,' xarsSovXudaTo. The sub- 
 stitution of a 1 for a *l in the word *l"'!n5?.!l accounts for this 
 meaning ; which, it must be granted, agrees very well with 
 the context, and expresses the feudatory condition to which 
 the people were reduced under the monarch. If the present 
 Hebrew reading be correct, the meaning may be, that 
 Joseph, having secured to the crown the right of all the 
 lands, made a new distribution to the former owners, trans- 
 ferring them, however, to residences remote from their na- 
 tive places, thus obliging them to form new associations, 
 and lessening the probability of sedition. See Grotius in loc. 
 Q'^l^r? " to cities," will then be elliptical for, ' from cities to 
 cities,' as the Targum renders it. If it should be said, that 
 such an arrangement would be a wanton exercise of power, 
 indicating the arbitrary will of a tyrant, rather than the 
 benevolence of a kind and equitable governor, the evident 
 answer is, that we are too little acquainted with the internal 
 condition of Egypt at that time, to enable us to form a right 
 judgment in the case. Such a distribution of persons and 
 property may have been necessary, in order to secure the 
 peace and safety of the community. — Another interpreta- 
 tion, however, has been proposed, namely, that Joseph re- 
 moved the people from the country to their respective cities, 
 for the more convenient distribution of food ; and that this 
 regulation extended throughout the whole of Egypt. This 
 view agrees, no doubt, with the Hebrew, and requires no 
 ellipsis. But it seems inconsistent with the context, for the 
 twenty-first verse is closely connected both with the preceding 
 and subsequent, making the removal spoken of an immediate 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1—L.] NOTES TO GENESIS.. 359 
 
 result of what had just been stated ; whereas, if the chief or 
 only object to be effected were convenience, it might be 
 supposed that the regulation would have been adopted from 
 the first. Perhaps, however, as the severity of the famine 
 increased, and the repeated failures of the Nile to overflow 
 its banks augmented the sterility of the soil, the inhabitants 
 entirely abandoned all agricultural efforts, and, at Joseph's 
 direction, removed to their respective cities. On the cessa- 
 tion of the famine, they may have returned to their former 
 residences, — It is evident, that the people do not consider 
 Joseph's arrangement as a hardship ; on the contrary, they 
 regard him as their benefactor and saviour. 
 
 (159.) Instead of "head of the bed," in v. 31, the Sep- 
 tuagint has ' top of his staff,' reading ntp52 for tl^^, and tljis 
 is followed by the apostle in Heb. xi. 21. The idea is, that, 
 bent down by years and infirmities, the venerable Jacob 
 leaned on his trusty staff, the companion of his wanderings, 
 (see xxxii. 11,) and in this posture gave thanks. In the place 
 just referred to, however, another word, bj5)3, is used for 
 " staff." — -The common reading and translation are quite 
 perspicuous. The patriarch turns his face toward the pil- 
 low of his bed, to exclude from his mind all external objects, 
 while he expresses his gratitude to God. Both Symniacbus 
 and Aquila retain the word 'bed;' and this meaning appears 
 to be sanctioned by 1 Kings i. 47, "and the king bowed him- 
 self upon the bed ;" for, although the word there employed is 
 i3''25)3, yet the whole turn of the expression is the same as 
 that of the text. Compare also, for the general sentiment, 
 2 Kings XX. 2 : " then he turned his face to the wall and 
 prayed." 
 
 (160.) The nature of the case requires this, and probably 
 the Hebrew expresses it. The Septuagint and Vulgate un- 
 
360 . NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 doubtedly do ; the former has svaXXdg raj x^'f^^j ^^^ the 
 latter commutans manus. 
 
 (161.) It cannot be denied that in v. 15, 16, the " God" of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is identified with " the Angel" 
 who is said to have " redeemed" the patriarch " from all 
 evil," and whom he invokes to " bless the lads." It is cer- 
 tain, therefore, that Jacob regards this being as divine. 
 
 (162.) With xlviii. 22, compare John iv. 5. See also Gen. 
 xxxiii. 18, 19, and Josh. xxiv. 32, from which it would ap- 
 pear that this property was originally purchased by Jacob. 
 Probably, after Jacob's removal mentioned in the thirty-fifth 
 chapter, it had been seized by the Hittites, (called here by 
 the general name of Amorites,) from whom it had subse- 
 quently been forcibly recovered by the patriarch. 
 
 (163.) The genuineness of Jacob's dying address to his 
 sons was questioned by Le Clerc, and since his time, has 
 been denied by several German critics, who are unwilling 
 to allow it a higher antiquity than the age of David. A no- 
 tice of the chief writers on both sides of this question may be 
 seen in Rosenmiiller's note on the first verse. He acquiesces 
 in the generally received opinion, that we have the declara- 
 tions of the dying patriarch, which his children and their 
 posterity had been careful to preserve. The objections 
 which have been urged against this opinion are of very little 
 weight : indeed, to the consistent believer in divine revela- 
 tion, of none at all. The unusual elevation of the style is 
 altogether in character with the subject of the address and 
 its poetic conformation, and somewhat of sublimity might be 
 expected in such a speaker and on such an occasion. And 
 it may well be assumed, that Jacob had some natural poetic 
 talent, which the circumstances in which he was, and the re- 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 361 
 
 mote future towards which he looked, would naturally have 
 called into exercise. Moreover, his address is in part prophe- 
 tic. The inspired mind of the patriarch sees distant events, 
 and describes them in the same manner as other prophets 
 exhibit their revelations; in language considerably figurative, 
 and in general terms, sufficiently clear indeed to constitute 
 predictions, and yet not so perspicuous in particulars, as his- 
 tory, written subsequently to the facts and circumstances an- 
 nounced, would naturally have described them. The ground 
 on which the genuineness of this portion of Genesis has been 
 denied, would, if admitted, do away whatever is properly 
 prophetic in the sacred scriptures ; and in fact, this is the re- 
 sult to which neological principles have led their advocates. 
 
 The simplicity with which some of the opponents of the 
 genuineness of this chapter state their views may almost be 
 considered as amusing. " The most natural view (says Va- 
 TER,) that can be adopted after reading this beautiful poem, 
 is certainly this : that it was sung at a time when the Israel- 
 itish tribes held possession of the land of Canaan, and had ex- 
 perienced the fates which are herein so clearly described." 
 And Bertoldt, after remarking that " criticism can have no 
 other object in view than to establish and elucidate historical 
 truth," infers, that " consequently an inclination has for a long 
 time prevailed, to consider as interpolations and additions of 
 a later age, whatever the Pentateuch contains, which mani- 
 festly cannot have been written by Moses, with the ordinary 
 natural powers of a man." See Hengstenberg's Authentic 
 des Pentateuchs, II. p. 181, who very properly observes, that 
 it requires neither art nor wit to discover anachronisms on 
 such principles as these. 
 
 Herder, in his fifth letter on the study of theology, p. 62, 
 
 supposes, that the well known character of Jacob's sons 
 
 suggested to the dying patriarch the germ of his predictions 
 
 respecting the descendants of each. As we are very im- 
 
 46 
 
362 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 perfectly informed of the actions and characteristics of each 
 of these individuals, and also of each trihe, we cannot go 
 much beyond conjecture in relation to such a point. The 
 reference to some facts in the lives of Reuben, Simeon, 
 Levi and Joseph, is in favor of Herder's supposition. If the 
 history of each tribe had been particularly detailed in the 
 Bible, Jacob's last declarations would no doubt be clearer, 
 and their prophetic character the more fully illustrated. 
 
 (164.) Notes on xlix. : 
 
 V. 2. D'^/2^tl fl^"in!J5ln. 'In future af^es, hereafter.' This 
 phrase, which is sometimes applied to the time of the Mes- 
 siah and the dispensation of the Gospel, as in Isa. ii. 2, Mic, 
 iv. 1, is frequently used in the general sense of futurity. See 
 Num. xxiv. 14, Deut. iv. 30, Dan. ii. 28. The contents of 
 the chapter prove this to be the meaning here. 
 
 3. ^5i5^ il^tr'i^ni ^i3 rii^SS: ^-1:55 p^iiJ:"). 'Reuben, my 
 first-born art thou, my strength, and the beginning of my 
 power.' The latter expressions have been supposed to con- 
 vey the idea of vigor, beyond what might be thought to 
 belong to children born in a more advanced age of the 
 parent. Compare "ID^'^ and IjS^ £T^tP!Ji'n in Deut. xxi. 17; 
 and see Ps. Ixxviii. 51, cv. 36. The Septuagint translates 
 this phrase in Deuteronomy, and here by d^x^ tsxvuv fxS, 
 which gives the general idea of priority of birth, and per- 
 haps nothing more is intended. The same language is used 
 by Virgil in the ^Eneid, I. 664, where Venus addresses her 
 son in these terms : 
 
 " Nate, mea3 vires, mea magna potentia." 
 
 See also Ovid, Met. v. 365. 
 
 V ^i!l?.l t15<ip "ifl^ ' The superiority of excellence, and 
 the superiority of dignity,' that is, the abstract for the con- 
 crete, 'chief in excellence, and chief in dignity.' ilJJ^'P 
 
CHAP, sxxvii. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 363 
 
 is used for excellence in Job xiii. 11, and perhaps in Gen. iv. 7. 
 ly is often expressive of dignity, (compare Hab. iii. 4,) and 
 is sometimes translated in the Septuagint by Si^ci and Tif/^o^. 
 See Ps. Ixviii. 35, (34.) xxix. 1, xcvi. 7, Isa. xii. 2. It is 
 generally rendered in this passage by ' strength' or ' power.' 
 Thus our English translation, De Wette, and Rosenmiiller. 
 But the parallelism with Jli^tp is better preserved by trans- 
 lating it 'dignity,' and then both the clauses of the verse, 
 ii:j%b "li?,l and T;^ 1i]^ express the same general idea of 
 majesty. Dathe gives a similar view of the meaning : prin- 
 ceps dignitate, princeps honore ; and the Vulgate version of 
 the latter clause is, major in imperio. The Chaldee para- 
 phrases explain the whole passage of the rights of primo- 
 geniture, priesthood, and royalty, taken away by the patri- 
 arch from his eldest son, and conferred respectively on 
 Joseph, to whom was given the double portion, (compare 
 1 Chron. v. 1,2, Gen. xlviii. 5,) on Levi, from whom sprang 
 the sacerdotal family, and on Judah, who was the ancestor 
 of the line of David. 
 
 4. inivl-bX Q'?725 THS. ' Lasciviousness, (bursting 
 out, or boiling over,) like water, thou shalt not be chief.' It 
 is not easy to determine the meaning of TPlS. It occurs 
 only four times in the Bible ; twice in the form of the parti- 
 ciple Benoni Q^TDl^, meaning light and vicious persons, 
 Jud. ix. 4, Zeph. iii. 4, once as a noun in the construct state, 
 QJn^Tn.l, their lightness, Jer. xxiii. 32, and in this place. In 
 Syriac }^2> means ' to be lascivious,' and the noun in the 
 emphatic form, \Zo)^, is used for lasciviousness in the 
 Syriac version, 2'Cor. xii. 21, Eph. iv. 19. This significa- 
 tion suits the context, and may be implied in the other three 
 places where the word is used. If the phrase " like water" 
 be intended to illustrate the clause immediately following, 
 the force of the comparison will lie in this, that the insolent 
 
364 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 and lascivious conduct of Reuben is likened to water, which 
 breaks through all restraint, and spreads its desolating inun- 
 dation over the private and most highly cultivated garden. 
 Or else, more probably, the figure is taken from water 
 swelling and foaming and boiling in a pot, so as to over- 
 flow its sides, as Gesenius thinks. See his Lexicon, and also 
 his Commentatio de Pentateuchi Samaritani Origine, &c. 
 p. 33. If the figure were abandoned, the idea might be ex- 
 pressed thus : ' unrestrained in lasciviousness.' I have sub- 
 stituted the adjective for the noun, in accommodation to the 
 English idiom. The Vulgate version is, effusus es sicut 
 aqua ; the Septuagint, s^ufS^iarig ug v&^^, thou hast burst out 
 in insolence like water. Water when poured out, sinks into 
 the ground, or evaporates in the air, without the possibility 
 of being gathered again, (compare 2 Sam. xiv. 14) ; thus 
 the figure will intimate Reuben's loss of supremacy, which 
 is fully expressed in that clause. — But most probably the 
 connexion of this phrase is with the preceding word. 
 
 ^"j^n:?^ ^^5^'?2 n^bi? ^3. 'Because thou ascendedst the 
 bed of thy father.' See Gen. xxxv. 22. 
 
 Itib'J ^3?^^^ tlbbn m. 'Then didst thou pollute 
 
 it. — He ascended my couch.' Dathe would connect these 
 two clauses, and read ribS^, in the infinitive ; and, therefore, 
 he translates the whole thus : polluisti stratum meum isto 
 ascensu, or, ascendendo, and De Wette agrees with him : 
 entweihtest mein Lager besteigend. There is more force, 
 however, in considering the latter clause as conveying an 
 abrupt declaration of the patriarch's injured feelings, when 
 he recollected the insolent and libidinous attack which his 
 eldest son had made upon his domestic peace. The change 
 of person, which is very common in Hebrew poetry as well 
 as in all other, places the speaker's indignation in a stronger 
 light, and makes him appeal for its justice to the sympathies 
 and feelings of all who heard him. 
 
CHAP. IXXVII.I— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 365 
 
 5. C^^ni^ ''"lb"! Ii5>>3'©. 'Simeon and Levi are brethren/ 
 They were the sons of Leah, (see Gen. xxix. 33, 34,) children 
 of the same mother, and of the same character and disposi- 
 tion, which is no doubt the idea intended to be conveyed. Com- 
 pare the useofuio, inMatt.xxiii.3L : Qn^tinS/p G^H ^b^. 
 
 * Instruments of violence are their swords.' It is impossible 
 to say with certainty what is the sense of this place. It 
 refers to the history in chap, xxxiv. The chief difficulty 
 lies in the word Qn^sTi"!?/?, the meaning of which, as it never 
 occurs elsewhere, has been sought in the cognate languages. 
 Dathe derives it from the Syriac, 9s>o ' to betroth,' and 
 translates thus : sponsalia cruenta perfecerunt ; referring of 
 course to the negotiations relating to Dinah's marriage in 
 xxxiv. 8 — 24. But, as it does not appear that Simeon and 
 Levi took a more prominent part in this matter than their 
 brothers, and as the marriage was not effected, this transla- 
 tion is not supported by the history. — De Dieu and others 
 appeal to the Ethiopic and Arabic for the sense of ' consul- 
 tations, machinations,' and this seems to be the meaning of 
 the Septuagint, tfuvsTg'Xsrfav d^ixi'av £| h^idsus dvruv. All these 
 versions require a different reading of the first word, viz. 
 ^b5 for ""bD, and this has the sanction of the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch, which reads ib^. The meaning will then be: 'they 
 accomplished or executed their iniquitous plots ;' and this 
 agrees with the next verse, although it is not therefore ne- 
 cessarily the true exposition.— Our translation, " their habi- 
 tations," is derived from Jl^^^^p, said by some Jewish com- 
 mentators to be equivalent to l^ti^, 'a dwelling,' (see Ps. I v. 
 16,) or rather, a sojourning. Rashi mentions this meaning, 
 although'he prefers another. " The word denotes a sword, 
 in Greek M-axai^a. Another interpretation : Dn^im"i::)2, in 
 the land, Qnm!i)2, of their sojourning, they employed in- 
 
366 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 struments of violence, as ']''rmbl/21 '^■'lnin^/2, (Ezek. xvi. 
 3,) and thus the Targum of Onkelos." In this interpreta- 
 tion Aben Ezra acquiesces: "in my opinion it is equivalent to 
 "j^ilimD'O (Ezek. xvi. 3,) the i being omitted." The Tar- 
 gum translates the clause thus : " strong men in the land 
 of ' their sojourning,' llSliTl^fTi Jl, they exercised power." — 
 The Vulgate version is, vasa iniquitatis bellantia, and Jerome 
 says that, according to the Hebrew verity, it is vasa iniquitatis 
 arma eorum. Qua3s. in Gen. Tom. II. p. 545. This interpre- 
 tation is founded upon the opinion, just given from Rashi, 
 that tTl^/? is the same word as ixa-x^aiPo. of the Greeks, and 
 that it was introduced into their language, along with many 
 others, from the east. See Rosenmiiller in loc. and Drusius, 
 nota3 majores, in Grit. Sac. Tom. I. P. I. p. 1077 ; also Gese- 
 nius, who remarks that "this interpretation is implied by R. 
 Elieser in Pirke Aboth," c. 38; "Jacob cursed their swords, 
 (that is, those of Levi and Simeon,) in the Greek tongue." 
 Upon the whole, it is probable that this version has as strong 
 claims as any other ; perhaps, indeed, it is to be preferred. 
 It is given by Luther: ihre Schwerdter sind morderische 
 Waffen ; who is followed by Rosenmiiller and De Wette, the 
 latter of whom expresses the sense in these terms : Werk- 
 zeuge des Frevels ihre Schwerter. Compare the language 
 in xxxiv. 25. " Simeon and Levi took each man his sword." 
 6. ^tp'S^ i^d?1-b^ tDiOS. ' In their secret council enter 
 not, my soul.' There can be no doubt that iDltD refers to 
 the project to destroy the Shcchemites, which the sons of 
 Jacob had planned and executed, and that he intends to de- 
 clare in the strongest terms his abhorrence of their conduct. 
 But the antithesis with l^^op in the next clause' makes it 
 most probable, that their private meeting to concert and ar- 
 range the scheme is what the word is intended to convey. 
 This is a very usual signification of liO, and this may be 
 
CHAP, xxxvn. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 367 
 
 the meaning of fBaX-^ and consilium in the Septuagint and 
 Vulsate. — "^12^ Tnri~bi^ tjbnp!lL. ' In their assembly do 
 
 O •:-**-TTj;- •/ 
 
 not join my heart.' Ilip, which literally n)eans ' honor,' is 
 used here, as in Ps. xvi. 9, and other places, for the noblest 
 part of human nature ; and therefore, in order to preserve 
 the parallelism with * soul,' it is best to translate it ' heart.'* 
 The Septuagint version of this clause is as follows : Kai £*? 
 Tji dug-kdii duTwv [i.'}\ £»iVai to ^tfaTO fxjs. The translator seems 
 
 to have read "^l^li 'iriiri~b!S5 ; the liver being regarded by 
 the Greeks as the seat of the passions. Ilj?! is the apocopated 
 future of il'l/l, to be enflamed, angry, and conveys the sense 
 of wrathful excitement. 
 
 nVilJ qnpj? Qj^il^^ ^25^5^ -ijin u3;^n ^3. Tor in their 
 anger they slew men, and in their wantonness, (their wanton 
 rage,) they destroyed a city.' Rosenmiillcr takes tCSSS collec- 
 tively for men, that is, the males of Shechem, who were all put 
 to death. This accords with the Syriac translation, which is 
 plural, and it is agreeable to usage. See Judg. viii. 22. In 
 his version of the latter clause, he follows the Septuagint, 
 sv rff sVi&ufAia auruv svsu^oxoViitfav rav^ov : " in their desire, 
 (their rash, headstrong wantonness,) " they hamstrung the 
 oxen," thus cruelly destroying them. Compare Josh. xi. 
 9. He means that portion only of the cattle which it 
 was found impracticable to drive away, as it is certain 
 from xxxiv. 28, 29, that what is here said cannot be un- 
 derstood of all. Perhaps, if this translation be admitted, 
 ^1115 is employed figuratively to denote men of distinction, 
 
 * It is far more poetic and spirited to give to the future ^niH 
 an imperative meaning, which is very common, than to throw the 
 clause into a narrative form, as Gesenius has done : " in their assembly 
 my soul was not present, (non interfuit.") This is too tame for the 
 elevated character of the context. 
 
368 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 princes, like "^5 and I'^SiSJ. See Ps. xxii. 13, Ixviii. 31. It 
 will then be a climax in reference to '!23''i^ in the parallel 
 clause. De Wette gives the same translation as Rosen- 
 miiller. So also Herder, in his sixth letter on the Study of 
 Theology, p. 70 : "den edlen Stier entnervten." But as it is 
 reasonable to think that the patriarch, intending to express 
 his detestation of his children's behavior, would not pass un- 
 noticed the chief work of ruin, and as the history tells us 
 that the city was destroyed, it seems preferable to adopt the 
 reading *1^12J, ' a wall,' which has the sanction of the Chal- 
 dee, Syriac, and Vulgate versions. It will then be figura- 
 tive for ' city.' ^p]^, which properly means ' to root out,' is 
 applied in Zeph. ii. 4, to the complete destruction of a city. 
 In Syriac this meaning is very frequent, and Michaelis, in 
 his edition of Castell's Lexicon, p. 669, 670, has given 
 several examples, with the view of illustrating the word in 
 the place before us. The Chaldee '1p>5'. is used to express 
 the entire overthrow and ruin of nations. See Jer. i. 10, 
 xviii. 7, or Buxtorf's Talmudic and Chaldee Lexicon, Col. 
 1652. — 1"!^*) is plainly to be taken in a bad sense for ' self- 
 will, wantonness.' In order that it may correspond with 
 the parallel word Cji:^, I have translated it ' wanton rage.' 
 Dathe has, in furore suo muros destruxerunt. 
 
 7. : b5i!!^ip^5 G^Si^n ^P-^-^ fipln^^. ' I will disperse 
 them among Jacob, and will scatter them among Israel.' 
 As the words ' Jacob' and ' Israel' are plainly used for the 
 nation, "2. is best rendered by ' among.' The prophets are 
 often said to do what they announce or predict. See Isa. 
 vi. 10, Jer. i. 10, Hoa. vi. 5. Poetry adopts the same lan- 
 guage. Thus Silenus surrounds the sisters of Phaeton in 
 moss, Phaetontiadas musco circumdat, that is, he sings their 
 transformation. Virg. Eel. vi. 62. Compare also the use of 
 movit in the Georgics, I. 123. The meaning seems to be 
 
CHAP, xxxvii.l— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 369 
 
 this : ' although these brothers have been inseparably united 
 by congeniality of disposition, their posterity shall not dwell 
 contiguous in the promised land, or occupy one continuous 
 tract, like the other tribes.' Compare Josh. xix. 1 — 9, from 
 which it seems probable, that the portion allotted to Simeon 
 must have been small, as it had been a part of Judah's. 
 This is confirmed by 1 Chron, iv. 33 — 43. The Levites had 
 cities appropriated to them among the rest of the tribes ; 
 and, although in many respects the curse of their ancestor 
 was converted into a blessing, there can be no doubt, that, 
 during thos3 frequent and long periods of Israelitish history 
 when the people abandoned themselves to idolatry, the Le- 
 vites were deprived of their legal rights. See Roscnmuller 
 in loc. — It is a Jewish tradition, mentioned in the Jerusalem 
 Targum, that multitudes of Simeon's posterity were scat- 
 tered among the other tribes in the capacity of teachers ; 
 so that the Hebrews were accustomed to say, that every 
 poor scribe and schoolmaster was a Simeonite. See Fagius 
 and Drusius in Crit. Sac. Tom. I. p. 1049, 1079. 
 
 8. ^^D^ ^^^^^ ^i?^ ni^n";. 'Judah, thy brethren will 
 praise thee.' The Hebrew words for Judah and praise are 
 derived from the same root. Compare Gen. xxix. 35. This 
 leads to a paronomasia in the original which a translation 
 cannot express. Some commentators render the words thus: 
 * thou art Judah, thy brethren will praise thee,' as if Jacob 
 had said, thou art what thy name imports, and shalt be the 
 praise and glory of thy brethren. This interpretation ap- 
 pears to be sanctioned by Aben Ezra ; T^IDID riiTliJ^ riTl?'!''' 
 y^n^ "^nV pi " Judah (art) thee ; according to thy 
 name, and thus shall thy brethren praise thee." Compare 
 -TTsV^oc: and TreV^a in Malt. xvi. 18. The patriarch undoubtedly 
 alludes to the meaning of his son's name, as he does also in 
 the case of Dan, but it may be questioned whether the He- 
 47 
 
370 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 brew ought to be translated, ' thou art Judah,' Most pro- 
 bably n^lJ^ is pleonastic with the suffix of T^ll"' for thee 
 simplv; as H7an in n72n D^DT 115< in Ps. ix. 7, * their re- 
 
 X m ' T" X'- T;'-T 
 
 membrance has perished :' where see Rosenmiiller. Such 
 pleonasms are frequent in Arabic, and not unusual in He- 
 brew. Compare "^Dl^. '^S in 1 Sam. xxv. 24, and t^lp! d?l^ 
 in 2 Chron. xxviii. 10, and "^5^ "'P^'/?^ in Zcch. vii. 5 ; and 
 see ScHULTENs, Opera Min. p. 129, 130, 180, 181, 354, 355. 
 I have therefore followed the Septuagint and Vulgate ver- 
 sions : 'litia, tfi diviVai5'av oi a^sXqjoi d^- Juda, te laudabunt 
 fratrestui.— ^^^I'JS^! qi^"!? ^T^. ' Thy hand shall strike the 
 backs of thine enemies.' Literally, the translation would be, 
 
 * thy hand upon the back.' As the clause is elliptical, it 
 seems best to supply the ellipsis with some such phrase as, 
 
 * shall strike.' Compare Isa. ix. 3, (4,) where 1?2?'i2!) tl^^ 
 is well rendered by Gesenius, in his translation, ' the stick 
 which strikes his back,' The word ^^ is frequently used 
 for hack in the phrase, 'giving the back to pursuers,' in other 
 words, ' putting the enemies to flight.' See Ex. xxiii. 27, 
 Josh. vii. 8, 12. The Septuagint version is wi x-^^k <f^ £*' vwrs. 
 The Chaldee of Onkelos gives the general sense tjT. 
 ~b? CIi^SIkI* ' thy hand shall prevail against thine enemies.' 
 The patriarch announces to Judah, that his posterity shall 
 be victorious over their foes. In the next clause he declares, 
 that their superiority shall be acknowledged by the respect 
 and submission of all the other tribes. 
 
 9. n:'.n3S55 f nn ^'\'2 n^b2> ^pip qp^)? ni^n-; nn^^ ^^t^ 
 
 J ^3)3'ipi ^)2 JJ^'^^bD^. 'A lion's whelp is Judah. From the 
 prey, my son, thou hast gone up ! He bent, couched down 
 hke a lion, and like a roaring lion : who will rouse him !' 
 The boldness and strength of the tribe are still the subject 
 in the mind of the prophet, which he expresses in figurative 
 
CHAP, xxsvil. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 371 
 
 language usual among the Hebrew poets. See Deut. 
 xxxiii. 20. It may be observed, that there is a gradation 
 in the use of the metaphor here employed. First, the 
 comparison is to a lion's whelp, then to a full grown lion, 
 and lastly to the same animal, whose fierceness is denoted 
 by his terrific roar. Several commentators understand 
 by the word i^'^^lb a lioness, whose fierceness, especially 
 when protecting her young, is appalling. The change of 
 person makes the description very graphical and nervous, 
 and is quite poetic. Some interpreters explain tl''D^ by 
 'increasing, growing strong.' Thus Dathe : crevistiexprajda; 
 and De Wette, vom llaube wirst du wachsen. If this inter- 
 pretation be admitted, the expression will denote that increase 
 of strength which the posterity of Judah should acquire by 
 the successful results of warlike enterprise. Most probably 
 it refers to the lion's going up to his lair in the mountains 
 after having seized upon his prey, and conveys this mean- 
 ing : ' thou wilt return victor to thy [secure and impreg- 
 nable] dwelling, bearing off the spoils of the enemy.' Thus 
 Rosehmiiller in loc. 
 
 lti^)2? iinpi lb"] rirtp iSl';-^5. ' Authority shall not de- 
 part from Judah, neither shall he want a lawgiver, until he 
 comes to whom (it belongs), and him the nations shall obey.' 
 
 The interest which has aKvays been attached to this verse, 
 must be my apology for more than ordinary particularity, and 
 before I examine its meaning, I must be allowed to give the 
 most important of the ancient versions. The Septuagint 
 and Vulgate are omitted ; as, whatever they contain which 
 has a bearing on the principal topic of the prophecy will be 
 produced under the exegetical discussion, and they are readi- 
 ly accessible. I add also the original authorities, that the 
 reader may not be obliged to depend on the translations. 
 
372 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 Chaldee Targum of Onkelos. ']^b/i'ffi li!^ ^^3^,^.-5^5^ 
 
 ^^VT^? ^]p)?-^y. ^nii^-"^.?:;!?? ^^|0l ^T.^iT tr^iX^, 
 
 "One that exercises authority shall not depart from the house 
 of Judah, nor a scribe from his children's children forever, 
 until Messiah comes, whose (literally, ivho of him,) is the 
 kingdom, and whom (lit. hwi,) the nations shall obey." 
 Jerusalem Targum. Cjii!: ni^ni n^n'l?? "j^Sb)? Ip^CS bi5b 
 
 5j53b)2 -iti^^i i^T 15? ^ii^ ^5^)2 b^n^'ni^^ ^3b)3 v^^^ ^b 
 
 T : - ••••:)-: - : • : • t : - ■•:-)■ t - t 
 
 : !^5?')^1 i<:?ipb^ b3 " Kings shall not cease from the 
 house of Judah, nor scholars, (or, skilful) teachers of the 
 law, from his children's children, until the time that king 
 Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom, and whom all the 
 kingdoms of the earth are about to serve." 
 
 The Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Hebrew, ex- 
 cept in reading J^li\ vbyi, JlbtU. " The sceptre shall not 
 depart from Judah, nor one that gives the law from his (lit- 
 erally,/ro/?i between his,) standards, until Tib^ comes, and to 
 him the nations shall assemble." ■ 
 
 Syriac version. ]JLCg_CLLDO .]50(ti»* _^ 1 ^ "^ *■ i ^^^ "jJ 
 
 .].'-nVi\ " The sceptre shall not remove from Judah, nor an 
 interpreter from between his feet, until he comes whose it is, 
 and for him will the nations wait." 
 
 To this view of the most important versions, I add a 
 translation of the commentary of Rashi, and the principal 
 portions of that of Aben Ezra, adhering as closely to the 
 phraseology of these writers, as the English idiom will 
 allow. Rashi comments thus. " The sceptre shall not 
 
CHAP, xxxvii.l— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 373 
 
 depart from Judah. From David and afterwards. These 
 are the heads of the captivity in Babylonia, who rule the 
 people with the sceptre, who are governors appointed by 
 royal authority. Nor a lawgiver from between his feet. 
 These are scholars, princes of Israel, say the rabbins. 
 Until Shiloh come. King Messiah, whose is the kingdom, 
 lbl25, and thus Onkelos. But the Midrash Agada," (old 
 rabbinical interpretation.) "explains it by 15 ^125, as it is 
 ' said : !J^"n)2b *© "ib^m^ (' let them bring presents to him 
 that is to be feared.' Ps. Ixxvi. 12.) And to him shall the 
 rmp^ of the people be. The gathering (JlS'Ci^) of the 
 people : for the i is radical." [Then follow some remarks 
 on radicals and serviles, after which he proceeds thus.] 
 " d^)2>' il^!p\ the gathering of the people, as it is said, ' to 
 him shall the nations seek,' (Isa. xi. 10;) and like it, (is 
 Pro v. XXX. 17,) ' the eye that mocketh its father and 
 despiseth the gathering of its mother,' (inHp^b Tlln^n,) the 
 collecting of wrinkles on her face before her old age." (! !) 
 He then refers to the use of the word !lHp in the Talmud. 
 See Buxtorf's Lexicon, col. 1983. 
 
 Aben Ezra. " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. 
 The sceptre, great men, shall not depart from Judah, until 
 David comes, who was the beginning of the kingdom of 
 Judah :' (that is, as Cartwright explains it, the first king 
 of the tribe of Judah.) " And the fact was so. Is it 
 not seen that the standard of Judah sets out first ? The 
 Lord says indeed, 'let Judah go up first;'" (referring to 
 Judo-, i. 1, 2.) "And the meaning of ppin^ is scribe, 
 because A*? writes (plH^) in books: and the sense of 
 between his feet is" (shown from this,) " that it was the 
 custom of every scribe to sit between the feet of the elder. 
 
 Shiloh: some say, according to the way in which the 
 
 Syriac translator explains it, that it is of the same import 
 
374 NOTES TO GENESIS, [part XI. 
 
 as "1 bt25." [Ho then proceeds to give some other views ; 
 such as, (1) the name of the place Shiloh, i^li'^ being used for 
 dechning, as it is appUed to the sun going down, and thus 
 the meaning will be, until Shiloh come to an end or decline, 
 referring to Ps. Ixxviii. 60, ' he forsook the tabernacle of 
 * Shiloh,' after which it follows in v. 70, ' he chose David his 
 servant' ; (2) Hb^tT for "15^, the H for 1 and b^lU in the 
 sense of otlspring, from embryo or second birth. flUpi he 
 explains like Rashi, and refers to the authority exercised 
 by David and Solomon. He remarks also, that the phrase 
 until does not imply a departure of the sceptre at the time 
 contemplated;] "but its meaning is like, 'bread shall not 
 fail to such an one until the time comes that he shall have 
 many fields and vineyards' ; like, ' I will not leave thee, 
 until I have done what I have spoken to thee,' that is, that 
 he would bring him back to the land." (See Gen. xxviii. 15.) 
 The first word to be examined in this passage is LOjIltp. 
 Its general sense is that of i-od or staff ; and hence it is 
 applied, figuratively, to punishment, correction, and to a 
 i^uhr of whose office it was the badge. It is used also for 
 a tribe. Its other significations have no bearing on its 
 meaning here. It cannot be employed in the third sense, 
 for it would be exceedingly frigid to say that a tribe should 
 not depart from itself. Neither can the word tribe be 
 intended to express the characteristics and peculiarities of 
 a tribe, so as to give the sense, that Judah should not cease 
 to be a tribe, should not lose its character as such, until 
 &c. ; for no use of the word supports such a signification. 
 Some Jews of comparatively modern date, understand it 
 in the first of the above mentioned senses, and explain the 
 declaration thus ; the ' Jews shall be an afflicted people, and 
 exposed to the oppression of tyranny until the coming of 
 the Messiah.' But this cannot be the meanins : for the 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 375 
 
 text speaks of authority resident in the tribe itself, not of 
 foreign control ; and the context is altogether at variance 
 with the supposition of oppression.* There can be no 
 reasonable doubt, that it is used in the second of the above 
 senses. 1. This is not only a very common meaning of 
 'Dlntp) but the whole phrase is used to express the loss of a 
 nation's authority, in Zech. x. 11. I^D^ Q^"!^^ tO^tp", 'the 
 sceptre of Egypt shall depart.' 2. The antithesis with 
 pjin?? requires this sense. This word is used for lawgiver 
 in Deut. xxxiii. 21, and elsewhere, and the antithesis is 
 sufficiently preserved by translating it so in this place. I 
 do not, therefore, see sufficient reason to render it, with 
 De Wette and Gesenius, staff of authority, sceptre, thus 
 making it express the very same shade of meaning as 10519 '■> 
 for although this is often, it is not necessarily, the case with 
 Hebrew parallelisms, the different members of which fre- 
 quently mark species of the same genus. 3. The con- 
 text, which speaks of Judah's power and superiority, will 
 not admit any other sense; and lastly, this is supported 
 by the ancient versions, of which the Septuagint has afx'-jv 
 
 >3yi(x£vocr, and the Vulgate, sceptrum — dux. 
 
 Tb^*l l'^^''?- Many commentators explain this phrase 
 as an euphemism. This is the opinion of Rosenmiiller, who 
 refers to Deut. xxviii. 57, and to the similar phrase in Gen. 
 xlvi. 26, Ex. i. 5, Jud. viii. 30 ; and this is the idea of the 
 Septuagint and Vulgate versions ; sx rwv (ji^ri^uv aurS- de femore 
 ejus. It is observable, however, that the first of the places 
 referred to speaks of the female, and the others, although 
 they have in view the male, use the word tTT, the thigh. 
 There is therefore a difference in the texts, and they cannot 
 be adduced as examples of analogous expression, although 
 
 * This view is fully refuted by Fagius, Drusius, and Cartwright, in 
 the Critici Sacri, Col. 1051, 1068, 1105. 
 
376 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 they may be analogous in the general idea. Gesenius, 
 under V'2 4, c), follows the Targums : " from the seed, 
 offspring, posterity." Ernesti compares the phrase with 
 ix -T^Iiv 'Xoduv d'ffo;)^w«'/;(rojxsv, USed by Plato, and ix •^oS-Zv dti^ovrai, 
 by Xenophon, both equivalent to e medio discedere or simply 
 abire of the Latins, ' to go out,' remarking that the Hebrews 
 were accustomed to use various members of the body for 
 the whole man. See Rosenmuller in loc. Also Hengsten- 
 berg, Christologie, I. p. 70, Keith's Translation, p. 58. To 
 the instances there given, it may be added, that we say in 
 English, ' I received at your hands,' meaning \from you.' 
 Whatever may be the idea on which the use of the phrase 
 is founded, there can be no doubt respecting its general 
 meaning, which is equivalent to //-ow A //;«, that is, the tribe 
 of Judah. 
 
 ■^3 13?. I have retained the meaning which is usually 
 given to this phrase, until, because this is the only meaning 
 which it has in the Bible. It is used but four times, exclu- 
 sive of the text : Gen. xxvi. 13, xli, 49, 2 Sam. xxiii. 10, 
 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. Some interpreters translate it as long 
 as ; and this is the version of Dathe, who thinks that the 
 parallelism is not given with sufficient accuracy by until, 
 as this verse, like the next, evidently consists of two 
 hemistichs, the clauses of which correspond with each other. 
 His translation is as follows : " Non decrunt reges Judte, 
 
 nee legislatores. Quamdiu prolem habebit, ei 
 
 gentes obedient." He remarks also that ^5' and "3 ^5? 
 do not always express the limits of time, but mark also its 
 duration ; and that by giving it this sense here, the last 
 hemistich, like the first, will consist of two corresponding 
 members. This view of the text he derived from Gulcher's 
 explicatio nova et facilis loci. Gen. xlix. 10. — Although it be 
 granted that Dathe's version does place the parallelism in a 
 stronger light than the ordinary translation, it may be 
 
CHAP, xxxvil. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 377 
 
 doubted whether this circumstance should have so much 
 weight as to counterbalance the sense in which "^3 ^^ 
 is always used. It is certain, that so nice an adjustment 
 of the parallel clauses as is frequently to be met with in 
 Hebrew poetry does not characterize the whole of this 
 prophecy of Jacob, and therefore need not be required in 
 this verse : the common translation exhibits as much of this 
 quality as can be discovered in some other verses. To the 
 objection drawn from the meaning of '^'2 ^?, he thinks it 
 sufficient to reply with Gulcher, that the phrase does not 
 occur often enough to admit of a rule being founded upon 
 it, and that ^5 appended to ^3^, and other particles, does 
 not alter their meaning : hence he concludes that it is 
 nothing more than an expletive, like the Greek av. — What 
 force these remarks would be entitled to, if the usual signi- 
 fication of ^3 1^ presented an insuperable difficulty in 
 ascertaining the sense of the clause, it is unnecessary to 
 examine. It suits the passage under consideration as well 
 as the others in which it is found, and therefore it has been 
 adopted by all the ancient versions.* Some modern Jews 
 have endeavored to give to 1? the meaning of forever. 
 They have understood the text, either as asserting the 
 perpetuity of Judah's authority when the Messiah shall 
 have come, (see Fagius in loc. Grit. Sac. p. 1052,) or, as 
 declaring that the want of authority shall not be permanent, 
 because he is to come to restore it to the tribe. See David 
 Levi's Lingua Sacra in "I5>. The word 13? is indeed used 
 
 * The Chaldee of Onkelos need not he considered as an exception to 
 this statement. This version is as follows: '^il"'.'?'^.""'^? !i^^^^~'^^- 
 i^n^tp^. Here ^il'^.'^T""!? is the translation of i^'l"^-^!? 1!^, and 
 5}^^b^~1?, is, as well as 5^n'''ip)2, added by the interpreter, and in- 
 tended perhaps as an exegetical paraphrase r 
 4S 
 
378 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 to express perpetuity, but never, as in this place, followed by 
 ^4)*, and generally connected with some adjunct, as for 
 instance, li'b, 13? ^^2>, 1^1 t]bi5?!p and others. Jf Isa. 
 Ivii. 15, may be considered as an exception, the meaning 
 is different, and the place maybe rendered adverbially, thus : 
 'who sits (on the throne) eternally.' — This Jewish interpre- 
 tation, being founded altogether on difficulties arising out of 
 doctrinal views, may be passed over without any further 
 remark. 
 
 The word n^''tp, which is next to be examined, has given 
 rise to more discussion than any other in the prophecy. 
 The first point which must be investigated relates to the 
 genuine reading. The varieties which appear in manu- 
 scripts are Hb'^'©, HbllJ, "ib^tT, ibtl? ; the two last occur in 
 but few. Jahn, who has examined this subject in his Ein- 
 leitung, Theil. I. § 148, says, that the oldest testimony in 
 favor of the reading tlb'^tl' is the Targum of the Pseudo 
 Jonathan, which is not of higher antiquity than the seventh 
 or eighth century ; and that the evidence of even this wit- 
 ness is doubtful, inasmuch as his translation, " the least" or 
 "youngest of his sons," is too vague to enable us to deter- 
 mine whether he read ilb'^ID or nbtlJ. The former, how- 
 ever, appears in most Hebrew manuscripts, and in almost 
 all the editions. But as both editions and manuscripts are 
 comparatively modern, other authorities more ancient must 
 
 * The assertion of Levi is somewhat extraordinary, and not very 
 critical, that " according to the common translation, and -w hich all 
 Christians seem to have adopted, the adverb ^^, because, sinuds fox a 
 cypher in the text, as no word is given for it." AVould he require every 
 particle in a Hebrew phrase to have a correspondent term in the ver- 
 nacular tongue? ^^ IS? is the phrase for until, and if two words are 
 required to express its meaning, the rather melegant phrase u7itiL thai 
 will meet his objection. 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 379 
 
 be examined. 1. All the manuscripts of the Samaritan 
 text read nbll', and this reading is preserved in the Samari- 
 tan version. 2. The Septuagint translation, to, dnfoxsiij.sva 
 dvTU), according to some copies, with which Theodotion 
 agrees, and fS d*o'xsjTo according to others, with which Aquila 
 and Symmachus coincide, may have been obtained from 
 tlblS but not from nb''t2J. 3. These Greek readings are 
 supported' by Justin Martyr, both in his apology and dialogue 
 with Trypho, and also by Epiphanius and Theodoret. 4. 
 The translator of the Peshito, Onkelos, and the author of the 
 Jerusalem Targum, appear to have read HblD, as their ver- 
 sions are a paraphrase of this word. 5. In the former part 
 of the tenth century the reading rtb'^IT does not seem to 
 have been known in Egypt and Babylon and the adjacent 
 countries ; for the Egyptian Saadias, the Gaon, who was 
 for two years master of the school of Babylon or Seleucia, 
 translated according to the reading HbtU. Jahn, from whom 
 chiefly this view of the evidence is taken, tells us, that in a 
 manuscript writing at the end of the thirteenth century 
 ilDtlJ is found as a correction ; from which it is clear, that 
 some standard manuscripts, (compare his Introduction, P. I. 
 § iii. p. 131, of the Translation,) by which the correctors were 
 governed, contained that reading. Others, however, of the 
 same class, read Mb'^tiJ, for in three manuscripts of the 
 thirteenth century it is a correction of tibw, and in another of 
 "litU. Such corrections were increased about this period, 
 and in the fourteenth century the reading rib'^tl) became 
 pretty common, and in the next was more generally ex- 
 tended, among manuscripts. The external evidence there- 
 fore is (he thinks,) decidedly in favor of nbtlJ, and this 
 reading is as well sustained by "the internal as the other, if 
 not better. In addition to Jahn, as above referred to, see 
 W. F. Hufnagel's Versuch iiber 1 Mos. xlix. 10, in the Re- 
 
380 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 portorium fiir Biblische und Morgenlandische Litteratur, 
 Theil XIV. p. 240—242. 
 
 In one point of view, the insertion of the yod is of very 
 little consequence, as the word may have the same mean- 
 ing without as it has with it: in the one case, it will be 
 fully, in the other imperfectly written ; ri''b'^t25 and riD'S 
 are identical in meaning. But, in another point of view, 
 the introduction of the yod is important, as an interpre- 
 tation which the word may bear without it, could not be 
 elicited, if it were written with the yod inserted. Heng- 
 stenbei'g remarks, that " the defenders of the interpretation" 
 alluded to " fall into an error, when they conclude, from 
 the fact that the old translators adopted this pointing, that 
 it was the received one in their time." He supposes it 
 *' most likely, that they found the present pointing of the 
 word as the received one, but felt obliged to depart from it, 
 because, according to it, they could give to the word no 
 suitable derivation, while, on the contrary, the pointing 
 which they adapted, (rt^ip,) agreed with the traditional 
 reference of the passage to the Messiah." Christology, 
 Keith's Translation, p. 55. He admits, then, that the old 
 translators could not derive the meaning which tradition 
 had stamped on the text, without assuming the reading 
 which Jahn maintains to be the true one. Is it not vastly 
 more probable, that this was actually the reading which 
 they found ? The meaning which this reading sanctions, 
 Hengstenberg allows to have been the traditionary one 
 received before " the old translators," in other words, the 
 authors of the Targums and of the Septuagint, lived. Its 
 very high antiquity, therefore, is admitted. If the reading 
 lib"'t53 vvere the prevailing one before the times of these 
 translators, whence arose the traditionary meaning, which 
 induced them to change this reading into tlbip, in order to 
 adapt the word to the current interpretation ? 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 381 
 
 The meaning of the word must now be considered. 
 1. A few expositors have regarded it as the name of a 
 place, as the word UDW is used in Judg. xxi. 12, 1 Sam. 
 iv. 12, and elsewhere, and have translated the passage 
 thus: "until he come to Shiloli f^ and an allusion to the 
 meaning of the word rt bllJ, to be at Test, has been supposed 
 to be intended. The meaning will then be, that the tribe of 
 Judah should enjoy the precedence until they came to their 
 rest in the land of Canaan, at which time the others sepa- 
 rated from this, (which had previously occupied the first 
 rank in the march, Num. x. 14,) in order to receive their 
 own portion. Against this interpretation, it is sufficient to 
 remark, that it is altogether too feeble for the elevated pre- 
 dictions of the context, and that it wants coherence with 
 the following expressions. Shiloh being a city within the 
 limits of Ephraim, did not belong to the tribe of Judah, and 
 the connexion between it and the authority of that tribe, is 
 at best remote and incidental, while it has none at all with 
 the obedience of the nations, which is immediately after- 
 wards predicted. The same objections, ,with others also, 
 may be urged against the exposition of Rabbi Samuel, the 
 son of Meir, which is given by Mendelsohn, and defended 
 by the Dubnian commentator in the Jl b"lbD 1"^^. " Until 
 he come to Shiloh, (ilb'''l25 for nb'^lDb, as in 1 Chron. xviii. 
 7, Jer. xxiv. 1, and xxviii. 3,) that is to say, until there 
 come a king of Judah, Rehoboam the son of Solomon, who 
 came to renew the kingdom of Shiloh which is near to 
 Shechem. But then the tribes will depart from him and 
 will make Jeroboam king, and only Judah and Benjamin 
 shall be left to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon." The latter 
 part of the verse he explains of the subjection of the sur- 
 rounding nations to Solomon, (1 Kings iv. 24,) and of 
 Israel's flocking to Shechem to crown Rehoboam ; 
 (2 Chron. x. 1.) To prove the proximity of Shechem to 
 
382 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 Shiloh, he refers to Josh. xxiv. 1, 26, "the sanctuary of the 
 Lord" mentioned in the latter text, being then at Shiloh, as 
 is evident from Judges xxi. 19, and Jer. xli. 5. 
 
 2. Dathe, with other critics of great name, compares 
 nbtp with an Arabic word denoting the membrane which 
 envelops the foetus, and then explains it as a metonymy for 
 offspring, referring to n"jbtl) in Deut, xxviii, 57, and re- 
 marking that !5^^ is used in relation to birth. See Ps. Ixxi. 
 18. Thus his translation is: " quamdiu />roZe/?i habebit." 
 Concerning this interpretation it is well observed by Le 
 Clerc, that it is a conjecture founded on no firmer basis than 
 the slender affinity of the terms embryo, second birth, and 
 offspring, which is entirely too slight to support it. Besides, 
 can any reason be given why this word should be em- 
 ployed in so unusual a sense, in preference to "IS or 5''1T» 
 which are commonly used to denote posterity. 
 
 3. The Vulgate version is, donee veniat qui mittendus est. 
 Jerome »either used a manuscript which contained the read- 
 ing nbtli, sent, or he mistook the H for a H. The latter 
 supposition is th^ more probable, for, as Jahn remarks 
 ubi sup. p. 508, this might easily be done, owing to the 
 similarity of the letters, the smallness of the characters in 
 his copy, and the weakness of his eyes, of which he com- 
 plains ; and because he has actually made this mistake in 
 Gen. X. 24, by commuting flbtfi with nbtlJ. 
 
 4. Rosenmiiller considers the term as an appellative from 
 nbtp, to be at rest, analogous to ^iui''p smoke, from ^'y[?, 
 and makes it equivalent to tranquility, that is, the author 
 of tranquility, the peace maker, like LOitp' sceptre, for he 
 who holds it, that is, the ruler. Thus the word will be 
 synonymous with DlbtC ^tP, prince of peace, in Isa. ix. 5, 
 and with (11^D125, Soloni07i, that is, the peaceable, (see 1. 
 Chron. xxii. 9,) to whom the Samaritans apply the pro- 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS, 383 
 
 phecy. Hengstenberg adopts this view. He does not 
 hesitate to say, that " every thing is in favor of this interpre- 
 tation, and that nothing can be said against it." Christology, 
 I. p. 67, 8. But I think it involves difficnhies which have 
 never been satisfactorily solved. Whether !lb"'tp or tlDtp 
 will bear this translation is somewhat doubtful, as this word 
 is never used for tranquility, but ni-^ID. That other 
 similar forms do occur, as these two critics show, only 
 proves that the vvord would be in analogy with other words 
 really existing; it by no means proves that there was 
 such a word. And as a stale of peaceful and happy 
 security is expressed by Qlbtl?, (Gen, xxviii. 21,) and 
 as tOptl? is used to denote the enjoyment of such a state, 
 (Judg. viii. 28;) it is difficult to conceive why a term 
 which occurs no where else should be used here to convey 
 the same idea, and also why this term, once employed in 
 this sense, should never have been used by subsequent 
 writers, particularly by Isaiah in the place referred to. It 
 is possible, indeed, that the word may contain an intended 
 allusion to this meaning, and thus be considered as a sort 
 of paronomasia, so favorite a figure with the Hebrew 
 writers, 
 
 5, The word HbtU" seems to be a term compounded of the 
 prefix ID, a particle from "TipiJ^ and equivalent to it, mean- 
 ing who, and tlD for TD to him; that is, literally, 'who 
 (there is) to him, he to whom,' and the sentence to be 
 elliptical for — until he comes whose (it is), namely, the 
 authority implied in the word sceptre and recognised by 
 the expectation of those to whom the prophecy was 
 directed. Thus ibtU will be equivalent to lb ^12)!}<, hterally, 
 « whom to him,' and 1D~1'2l'i^ is similar to ll^^^liiJ^ literally, 
 'whom in thee,' in Isa. xlix. 3. This does appear to be the 
 view in which Ezekiel regarded the passage, if, as seems 
 
384 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 exceedingly probable, he has paraphrased it in xxi. 32, (27,) 
 tD|tp?3n ib-ntp^5: ^2-^y ' until he comes to whom the 
 right belongs.' Hengstenberg allows it to be undeniable " that 
 Ezekiel had this passage in view ; but there is no objection, 
 (he thinks,) to understand the words, ' he whose is the 
 dominion,' as a paraphrase of Shiloh, regarded as a name 
 of the Messiah, according to the interpretation" just con- 
 sidered. It cannot indeed be denied that the appellation 
 * peace' or ' peacemaker,' is not at variance with the peri- 
 phrasis, " he whose is the dominion ;" for (he establishment 
 of peace is quite consistent with the idea of supremacy. 
 Still there is no necessary connexion between the two, and 
 the "paraphrase" of Ezekiel could be no more than an 
 incidental result from the original expression of Jacob. 
 According to the view which I am endeavoring to defend, 
 " the traditionary reference," which, on the supposition that 
 the common punctuation Sib'^tp is the true one, was inex- 
 plicable to the " old translators," who, therefore, " felt obliged 
 to depart from it," and to adopt the reading Hbtp, is as old 
 at least as the time of Ezekiel, and is given by him in his 
 paraphrase. 
 
 The objection urged against this analysis of the word is 
 that 125 is not used in this way in early Hebrew writings. 
 To this it may be replied, that it is so used in Judg. v. 7, 
 '^yl)2j?tl5 ' that I arose' ; in Canticles i. 7, twice, once with a 
 ssegol nin^tP ' whom (my soul) loveth,' and again with a 
 patach n!^|t2!) ' for why' ; and in viii. 12, '^btj? ' which is mine.' 
 Eccles. i. 9, affords several examples of this usage : ~T\)^ 
 
 ri^iJ^i.t?" jj^^n nip_^sy?-n)3T n^.ri^.tp j^t^n n^nip. it occurs 
 
 also in Job xix. 29 : " that ye may know "I'^'^tP or Vup that 
 (there is) a judgment ;" and perhaps in Gen. vi. 3, d5tp!Zl. 
 This word is explained in the old versions as a particle 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 385 
 
 compounded of 3 "^P ^^^ ^"^j meaning 'because, in that 
 indeed,' although some modern critics consider it as the 
 infinitive Piel of ti^'© or rTStll) to err, with an affix and a 
 prefix. See Gesenius in 'X^'d ; also Rosenmiiller and Dathe 
 in loc, the former of whom translates it * dum errare eos 
 facit caro,' and the latter, ' propter errores suos.' But if it 
 were certain that 11!) is not found in this sense in the Pen- 
 tateuch, it would not follow that it was never so used in 
 Hebrew writings of equal antiquity, but only that it was not 
 common. It is remarked by Jahn, that it is by no means 
 surprising that Jacob, who lived so long in Mesopotamia 
 among the Syrians, should have availed himself of a prefix 
 which corresponds with the Aramasan Daleth. Hengsten- 
 berg, while he takes notice of the objection, candidly allows 
 that it " is not of itself sufficient ;" but he remarks, " that 
 the supposed ellipsis is so unnatural that scarcely an 
 analogous example can be found." p. 56. The weight to 
 be attached to such an objection as this depends very much 
 on individual feeling. I can only express my surprise that 
 any one should be pressed by such a difficulty. The 
 ellipsis is merely of the substantive verb : " until he come, 
 whom (it is) to him," is' the literal translation, according to 
 the view under consideration. The word which Ezekiel 
 introduces is not necessary to complete the sense ; his 
 paraphrase only makes it plainer, and this accords with 
 prophetic analogy. The use of tlD for lb is according to 
 the orthography of n'^"'^ for i"!'^^!', and li^^D the chethib 
 for ifT=lD in the next verse. 
 
 This view of the word nbtl) is sanctioned by the ancient 
 versions. The Greek, di d-toxsiro, ' for whom it is reserved, 
 or, Ta dtfojcsVsva duroj, ' the things reserved for him,' supply in 
 part the ellipsis, and evidently refer to some person or 
 authority, or both, expected to come in a future age. To 
 49 
 
38G NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 the same purpose the Targum of Onkelos, which is still 
 more paraphrastic, and which seems to have had in view 
 the text in Ezekiel : " until the Messiah comes, whose is the 
 kingdom." Thus also the Syriac and other oriental ver- 
 sions, which, as they agree with the Targum, show that 
 this last phrase is not a Jewish addition, but an intended 
 paraphrase of H^itp. 
 
 Whether this analysis of the word be well founded or 
 not, there is strong reason to believe that the passage does 
 relate to the Messiah : and it is not impossible that the word 
 employed may have been intended to allude to him as the 
 author of peace and quiet felicity. This is merely a con- 
 jecture ; but it is worthy of some consideration, as in this 
 very chapter such an allusion is contained in the nineteenth 
 verse, where Gad, 15, which properly signifies 'good 
 luck,' (see the Septuagint Iv 7o-)(y]'m- Gen. xxx. 11,) is con- 
 nected with 1^1!?, ' a troop,' and in v. 29, there is a 
 paronomasia of ^T}T., * shall comfort,' with h5, which 
 means ' rest.'* To use the language of Rosenmiiller : 
 " promittitur itaque tribui Judse, non recessurum ab eo 
 imperium, donee veniat magnus ille princeps, qui extreme 
 mundi tevo turbata omnia ad paccm et tranquillitatem sit 
 revocaturus, et totius orbis terrarum imperium sit suscep- 
 turus." 
 
 Such a view of this text, which makes it a prediction of 
 the coming Messiah, coincides with the patriarchal history 
 and promises. The annunciation made in paradise of " a 
 descendant of the woman" who was to destroy the power 
 
 * Compare Gesenius under "l^TiP"^, which, he thinks, may " imply 
 an allusion to the signification of right, uprightness, contained in the 
 root lip"'," while he supposes it "not improbable, that it was a dimi- 
 nutive form of the name btSSltO^" Robinson's Translation, p. 454. 
 
CHAP, xixvii. 1— L.] N0TE3 TO GENESIS. 387 
 
 of the devil, the frequent repetition of the promise to 
 Abraham, that in his posterity " all nations should be 
 blessed," are entirely in unison with this interpretation of 
 Jacob's much celebrated prophecy. And the imperfect 
 knowledge which at that period existed of the nature and 
 character of the Messiah's kingdom, will account for the 
 obscurity and apparent indefiniteness of the term under 
 which he is represented. In this declaration, then, the 
 authority of government and legislation is promised to the 
 tribe of Judah until the coming of the Messiah : and, 
 although the Israelites ceased to be a distinct nation at the 
 time of the Assyrian captivity, yet the Jews, who were the 
 descendants of that tribe, continued with occasional inter- 
 ruptions and oppressions to enjoy their own government 
 until the coming of Jesus Christ. Then indeed the sceptre 
 did not depart, although the visible and secular rule soon 
 became extinct; it was made permanent in his person, 
 agreeably to the idea illustrated by Aben Ezra, as before 
 cited.* " His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of 
 his dominion there shall be no end." 
 
 It has been supposed by Eusebius and other very 
 respectable writers, that " the sceptre departed from Judah" 
 on the accession of Herod, who is called " a foreigner," and 
 who was not of Jewish extraction. But the fact does not 
 warrant the conclusion. The Jewish nation still retained 
 the right of self-government. The exercise of the sceptre 
 was indeed restricted, but not taken away. Herod's 
 government was Jewish government, and was regulated by 
 Jewish laws. As well might it be said, that the Roman 
 power ceased whenever some foreign adventurer succeeded 
 in mounting the throne of the Caesars ; or that the sceptre 
 
 * Hengstenberg defends this view. See p. 59. 
 
388 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 departed from the French nation, when the Corsican 
 became their emperor. The civil rights of the Jewish 
 people were controlled by the influence of the Romans, but 
 they were not entirely taken away until the overthrow of 
 the nation. Vitringa has written a very satisfactory dis- 
 sertation on this subject in his Observationes Sacree, Lib. IV. 
 cap. v. vii. p. 934-960. 
 
 J t3'^?23' Sinpl ibl. The Septuagint has, xai dvros if^od^oxia. 
 ISvGJv, which is followed by the Vulgate, ' et ipse erit expec- 
 tatio gentium.' To the same purpose the Syriac version. 
 The translators seem to have taken the word as a derivative 
 from rilj!^, which in Piel means * to expect.' Perhaps the 
 reading in their copies was obtained from that root. — Others 
 render t^tlJ?^ ' congregatio,' " gathering," after the Samari- 
 tan, which reads "itinp'^, and which the Samaritan transla- 
 tion explains by "^Tlt^irT^, ' shall place themselves (shall 
 stand,) before.' This is also the translation of Rashi, as I 
 have before shown. — Most probably it is derived from an 
 Arabic root, meaning ' to obey,' and signifies obedience. This 
 sense suits the only other place in which the word occurs in 
 Scripture, Pro v. xxx. 17. It is the interpretation of the 
 best critics, and is supported by the Chaldee of Onkelos, 
 b^^)3)25? ^^:5>)p?l^'l rl^bl ' and him shall the nations obey.' 
 
 11. l^sHi^ ^5!? rij^liubl riTi? ^^^b ^yo^. 'He fastens 
 to the vine his ass's foal, and to the choice vine the son of 
 his ass.' ^"ibi^ is poetical for 1tDi<, the "^ being paragogic- 
 Thus also in "^55, which the Vulgate has considered as a 
 pronominal suffix, translating " o fill mi." ?lj^1t2) is the 
 same as p'l.t2l' in Isa. v. 2, a very superior species of vine, 
 which is called at the present day in Morocco set^ki. The 
 extraordinary fertility of Judah's portion in the promised 
 land is here announced : vines of the finest sort shall be so 
 common that travellers shall use them for hedges and fences 
 
CHAP, xxxvu. 1-L.] NOTES TO GENESI3. 389 
 
 to fasten their asses to.— The same idea is expressed in the 
 next clause in language highly figurative and poetical : ' He 
 washes in wine his garments and in the blood of grapes his 
 vesture.' fl^O is derived by Aben Ezra from the same 
 source as T]^m in Ex. xxxiv. 33, 34, 35, a veil, covering, 
 and made equivalent to it. But it is generally considered 
 as imperfectly written by an aphajresis for Jl^D5, as the 
 full reading occurs in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Although 
 no instance can be produced of the elision of D, yet ^t} for 
 IdP, np for np.b, are thought to be analogous examples. See 
 Gesenius in verb, and de Pent. Sam. p. 33. He is mistaken, 
 however, in ascribing this view of the word to the Jewish 
 commentator above named. " Ita Aben Esra, qui scribit : 
 DD "lOm initiD 1)3D nJniO." it is true he does so write, 
 but he introduces the remark with the words, tSS^I (that is, 
 rn^i^ ^^l) J^ltltD, ' some say that it is ;' and immediately 
 adds, mQ)2 '^n)2 'in^ ^5^5?1 "(l^lDm 'but it is clear to me 
 that it is from the same source as mD)2.' 
 
 12. : ^"^^ril^ D'^5t2?-^5^^ V"^- ^'^-'^- '^'^^n. 'Sparkling 
 are his eyes with wine, and white are his teeth with milk.' 
 Although rr^T^ tl^b^b^n is used in reference to an intem- 
 perate use of wine, (see Prov. xxiii. 29,) yet it is unnecessary, 
 and would be at variance with the nature of the subject, to 
 extend the meaning of the word here any further than to 
 denote abundance. Compare the use of ^^XO in Gen. xliii. 
 34. Profusion of wine and milk seems plainly to be the 
 idea conveyed, and this is closely connected with the former 
 verse.— The Septuagint, xa^o^o'O' ^' o^^aV"' ^^''^^ ^'^H ^'^°^' """■' 
 XsuxS. 5. 55o'vTsc; durS ^ yaXa, followed by the Vulgate, ' pulchri- 
 ores sunt oculi ejus vino, et dentes ejus lacte candidiores, 
 more joyous are his eyes than wine, and whiter his teeth 
 than milk,' is beautifully expressive of the felicitous condi- 
 
390 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 tion of Judah. Saadias gives the same version. Whiter 
 than milk, is also a proverbial expression. See Drusius in 
 loc, notae majores. But the other translation is probably 
 more correct, as it suits the context rather better, which 
 plainly gives the idea of great plenty. 
 
 13. iii^T.i ^"^P^ CjinJ) Js^s^ni 'jpp-'" s^'^i qln!) "jb^nr 
 
 J 1"T^5~i'3'. * Zebulon will dwell on the sea coast, a coast 
 well lined with ships, his territories reach unto Zidon.' In 
 our English translation CjiH is rendered " haven." Its 
 general meaning is undoubtedly coast or shore, or side, and 
 so it is constantly translated. See Deut. i. 7, Josh. ix. 1,' 
 Judg. V. 17, Jer. xlvii. 7, Ezek. xxv. 16; which, exclusive 
 of the text, are the only places in which the word occurs. 
 Dathe thinks it should have the meaning of haven in the 
 second clause of the verse ; but as Rosenmiiller's interpreta- 
 tion is simple and easy, and retains the usual sense of the 
 word, I have adopted it in the preceding translation. " Erit 
 ipse ad littus navium, id est, habitabit ad littus semper navibus 
 frequens. Ixx. xi'a duroj *a^' o^jutov "ffXoiojv." The country of Ze- 
 bulon extended from the sea of Tiberias to the Mediterra- 
 nean, and along the latter as far as Zidon, that is, according 
 to Bochart, to Phoenicia. See his Phaleg, Lib. IV. cap. 34. 
 p. 302. 
 
 14. : Q^nstr)?2n v^ Ti"i Q'ns n^sn n:D©tr)\ 'issachar 
 
 is a strong ass, lying down within his borders.' Thus Ho- 
 mer compares Ajax to an ass, 
 
 *Jlj ^' ot' ovoj *«!'' oL^a^av \uvsl3ir}(faro t(on8a.g 
 
 'Nu'hrjg, 'Qs tot' IVsit' 'Aiavra jas'yav xai ra a. 
 
 II. xi. 557, 562. Cowper's translation, 672 ss. The chief 
 difficulty in the verse lies in the word D'^'ilSllplO. The 
 Septuagint translates it xX^^oi, the Vulgate termini, and the 
 Chaldee of Onkelos i^'^^S^Htl, * boundaries, borders.' Thus it 
 would be a regular derivative from ^iSp, * to place.' Many of 
 
CHAP, xxxvn. 1 — L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 391 
 
 the modern commentators, following Michaelis, derive it from 
 the Arabic word J!Ju»j, and explain it by ' water troughs' 
 or * canals for cattle.' Thus Dathe and De Wette. But 
 Gesenius remarks that the " root is not used of every kind of 
 drink, but only of such as is hurtful, which does not quench 
 thirst but augments it." Consequently it is not admissible 
 to derive the Hebrew word from it. Rosenmiiller also says 
 that the Arabians use it in reference to unwholesome food, 
 both meat and drink. He follows the old versions, and in- 
 terprets the word of the two borders by which one part of a 
 field or country is separated from another adjacent to it. 
 This is probably the best course to be pursued by an inter- 
 preter, when the data for ascertaining the signification of a 
 term are so imperfect. — The whole verse, he thinks, express- 
 es the servile character of the tribe, and their quiet enjoy- 
 ment of their own district, as well as their attachment to 
 agricultural pursuits. This is plainly supported by the next 
 verse. 
 
 16, 17. : bs5ii£)^. ''tpitri nni^s I725? "^^t "jt *Dan win 
 
 rule his people like one of the tribes of Israel ;' that is, he 
 will maintain his rank among them. There is a pa- 
 ronomasia in the first two words, which a translation 
 cannot express. The common English translation of 1^1, 
 in the Old Testament, and of x^i'vsiv in the New, is ' to judge,' 
 which in some cases is a very proper term. But as these 
 words are frequently used in the sense of ' governing, ruling,' 
 as is also the corresponding word tOStp, (see 1 Sam. ii. 10, 
 viii. 5 ; Isa. xl. 23,) I have preferred the more general ex- 
 pression. The sentiment expressed in the verse appears to 
 be this, that Dan will be as able as any other of the tribes 
 to advance his own interests and to govern himself by his 
 own magistrates. There is no reason to suppose with On- 
 kelos that a direct reference to Samson is intended ; the 
 
392 NOTES TO GENESIS. [paut xi. 
 
 tribe in general seems to be thus characterized. So also in 
 the next verse, the craft of the Danites and their destruction 
 of their enemies, are expressed by the metaphor of a serpent 
 lying in the path, striking with its poisonous fang the heel of 
 the unsuspecting horse, and causing him, through the pain 
 occasioned by the bite, to throw his rider in the dust. Comp. 
 Judg. xviii. 27, 28. The Septuagint renders iS^Sip by 
 syxa'^riiisvog. 
 
 18. No view of this clause seems more probable than 
 that suggested by Herder and adopted by Dathe. The pa- 
 triarch, while he is uttering these predictions respecting the 
 character and situation of the tribe of Dan, recollects with 
 feelings of devout gratitude the many difficulties and con- 
 cealed dangers from which the Almighty had delivered him, 
 and expresses his confidence in the divine protection, in the 
 deliverance of his descendants from dangers and hostile at- 
 tacks, and perhaps in the future spiritual deliverance which 
 he had before predicted. The language is comprehensive, 
 and admits of a wide application. The extraordinary good- 
 ness of God, which Jacob had so often experienced, was 
 well adapted to give him composure and elevation of mind 
 in his dying moments ; and equally so to raise the hopes of 
 his posterity under any trying circumstances in which they 
 might afterwards be placed, and to keep alive their faith in 
 the future coming of the great deliverer. 
 
 19. : lf?.2? "13^^ t^^ri-) ^S^^ti^ mi^ 15. 'Gad— a troop 
 may press upon him, but he shall press in the end.' Thus I 
 have rendered ^jp^, following Rosenmullcr. He prefers 
 this meaning on the authority of Aben Ezra, whose interpre- 
 tation is ri5l"in&^!n l5n:25'' Ji^ini, ' but he slmll overcome it 
 in the end,' or 'afterwards;' and the Arabic of Erpcnius. 
 Dathe and Gesenius think it means ' the rear,' and the latter 
 refers to Josh. viii. 13. This signification has the support 
 of the Arabic of Saadias. The sense will then be, that God 
 
CHAP. Xxxvn.l-L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 393 
 
 shall put his foes to flight, and drive them before him ; oi" 
 else, that, although his enemies may press him, he shall rout 
 their rear. It is not easy to say which of the two interpre- 
 tations is correct ; the former is perhaps the more probable. 
 The paronomasia which runs through the verse is very 
 striking, and "^^5 seems to have been selected on account 
 of its alliteration with 15, not that the words are synony- 
 mous, for the latter, as was before remarked, signifies 'good 
 luck.' "I^i:^, which is translated " troop,' does not appear 
 to mean an army fully supplied and properly drawn up, but 
 rather a band of warriors accustomed to predatory incur- 
 sions. See 2 Kings, v. 2; Hos. vii. 1. The Septuagint 
 version is : TokJ, ifsi^arii^m lisi^msodsi aurov, ctuToff 6z ifSi^aTSodsi 
 duTov xara ifoSocg, where 'r(siPaTr,^m is used for a band of rob- 
 bers, tfJ^>ifj^a XTirfTwv, as Hippolytus explains it. See Schleus- 
 ner's Thesaurus in verb, and RosenmuUer in loc. SchneideH 
 and Passow, in their Greek Lexicons, give the sense of a 
 company of pirates, and the former refers to Heliodorus in 
 defence of this meaning. 
 
 iJO. This verse expresses nothing more than the fertility 
 of Asher's soil and the abundance and excellence of its pro- 
 ductions. Compare Deut. xxxiii. 24. 
 
 21. n3'i?-^"]^5;5 liTiSn nnbtp nb^^?; ■'b?l35. •Naphthali 
 is a hind let loose ; he giveth discourses of beauty.' Bochart, 
 in his Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. III. cap. 18, p. 896, proposed 
 another interpretation of this verse, and it has been adopted 
 by several modern critics, among whom are Dathe and 
 De Wette. His version is this : ' Naphthali is a spreading 
 tree, (or terebinth,) which puts forth beautiful branches.' 
 The metaphor, as denoting prosperity in general, is too fre- 
 quent to require illustration. This translation is favored by 
 the parallelism, and has the sanction of the Septuagint ver- 
 sion : Nstp^aX; (fTiXsx^s avsifXe'vov, £*iOi(5ig sv rc-J yswr^ixaTi xaXXog. 
 It requires us to read T^^^, (the Jod may be retained, as in 
 50 
 
S94 NOTKS TO GENESIS. [riRT XI. 
 
 the plural u'^i^'^^, Isa. i. 29, although the common form of 
 the shigular is n^^,) or the construct ilp'^S;^, and to alter the 
 punctuation of "^^.'^i^ so as to read "''^I'-^v The meaning, 
 as exhibited by tlie present Rabbinical punctuation, is given 
 in the English translation: "Naphthali is a hind let loose ; he 
 giveth goodly words." Robertson, in his Clavis Pentatcu- 
 chi, who adheres to this interpretation, remarks, that this 
 tribe may be compared to a hind on account of its extraor- 
 dinary increase, and its situation in rocky, mountainous dis- 
 tricts. Whether the descendants of Naphthali were so nu- 
 merous as to sanction his first observation, may be doubted. 
 Certainly Deut. xxxiii. 2.3, to which he appeals, is of too 
 general a nature to justify such a representation ; and al- 
 though, as he says, the country about Gallilee was exceed- 
 ingly populous, so also, it may be replied, was the whole 
 country of Palestine. See Num. i. 42, 43, from which, in 
 connexion with the rest of the chapter, it does not appear 
 that this tribe v/as particularly numerous in comparison with 
 the others. If this meaning be the correct one, I should 
 rather think that the stateliness and beauty of the gazelle, so 
 celebrated among the eastern poets, constitute the point of 
 comparison. The prediction will then be, that Naphthali 
 shall be a noble and lovely tribe among the others, a race of 
 princes worthy of being celebrated. This coincides with 
 the sentiment expressed in the next clause, which is not very 
 intelligible in the common version, and which is well ex- 
 plained by the same author thus : " he affords materials for 
 joyful hymns." "^^!S5, which properly means ' word, dis- 
 course,' may express the subject of such discourse, whether 
 it be poetic or not; as in Job xxxv. 10, the term "songs" is 
 equivalent to 'subjects to sing of;' and in Ps. Ixix. 13, (12,) 
 " I was the song of the drunkards," means, I was the subject 
 of their idle mirth. According to this view of the passage, the 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 395 
 
 figure is of the same class as those used of Judah and Issa- 
 char. According to Bochart's interpretation, it is of the 
 same kind as that under which Joseph is represented in the 
 following verses, and it is beautifully sustained in the latter 
 hemistich. But as his version requires a change of the punc- 
 tuation, and assigns to the word """l^!!^ a meaning which is not 
 sufficiently supported by the only two places in which "T^^Si^ 
 occurs, (Isa. xvii. G, 9,) I thought it best to retain the old 
 translation. The objection which has been urged, that the 
 latter part of the verse is not in keeping with the figure con- 
 tained in the former, is at best only rhetorical. The author 
 may leave the metaphor with which he began, and speak of 
 the tribe itself. It is not uncommon for one member of a 
 parallelism to consist of figurative language, and another of 
 proper terras. All the most important views of this passage 
 may be found in Rosenmiiller's note. 
 
 22. mi>;2 t\-i^ ]i^r^T^: ^1^ ]^ R5V rins in 
 
 J 1^\'Td!~'^ ^y. ' A fruitful scion is Joseph, a fruitful scion at a 
 well, the branches shoot over the wall.' The Hebrew is 
 literally, ' a son of a fruitful (tree),' or, ' a son of a branch ;' 
 and is so rendered by De Wette : " Sohn eines fruchtbaren 
 Baums." The phraseology is evidently in the usual style 
 of Hebrew poetry, and I should prefer retaining it, were it 
 not for the word fllDlZl in the next hemistich, which ought 
 then to be translated ' daus^hters.' But this would not be 
 allowable in our language, even in poetry, and the writer 
 just mentioned renders it " Sprossen, sprouts, branches." 
 Jacob begins the blessing of Joseph in language which 
 alludes to the signification of his name, viz. 'addition, 
 increase.' See Gen. xxx. 24. He compares his son to a 
 branch, or scion, or tree, growing alongside of a well or 
 fountain, and putting forth new and plentiful shoots. Dathe 
 supposes iT13 to be used for STliS'S, (the quiescent 2J^ 
 
396 NOTES TO GEiNESIS. 
 
 [part XI. 
 
 being omitted,) ' a branch.' See Ezek. xvii. G, xxxi. 5, 6, 
 12. Rosenmiiller explains the masculine 15 by ramus, 
 and says that it is connected with the feminine adjective 
 ln"jS, in consequence of the meaning of the synonymous 
 term tTIJ^'S. The grammatical construction, he remarks, 
 suits the sense, not the word, as in Judg. xviii. 7, where 
 D^n is connected with fllH'IiP'l'', because it expresses the 
 idea of society, rTlin. His translation is : "filius fructifer, 
 a fruit-bearing son is Joseph, &c." Such usage is not at all 
 uncommon, but whether it is necessary to resort to it in the 
 present instance is far from being certain, tliii may be 
 used as the participle for H^iS or tTi3, ' fruit-bearing, 
 fruitful,' as Kimchi has remarked. See Buxtort's Thes. 
 Gram. Lib. I. cap. 49. p. 265, Basil edition, 1629. 
 The clause will then stand thus: 'a son of a fruitful,' 
 (meaning tree or vine, or something equivalent,) or else, 
 (taking ' fruitful' as the concrete for the abstract,) ' a son of 
 fertility,' that is, by a common Hebraism, ' an abundantly 
 fruitful plant or branch is Joseph.' Rosenmiiller objects, 
 that if it be taken in the construct state it ought to be l^l, 
 with a sajgol, but this only shows that the Masorets did not 
 understand it in the construct ; and how easily the lower 
 dot of the soBgol might be obliterated in some manuscript, 
 needs no proof. tllDi literally means 'daughters,' as the 
 branches of the growing scion, the I!]! of the former clause, 
 are elegantly denominated ; or, if the author has the vine 
 in view, its tendrils, creeping up the walls. The vine is 
 used as an image of fecundity. See Ps. cxxviii. 3. The 
 plural is joined to the singular verb ^T^?!^ distributively, as 
 if it had been said, each one shoots over. — The Septuagint 
 version of this verse is as follows : 'Tioc: riu^vi^asvoj lui(i-l](^, iiog 
 T^v^Yj^ivos jXi: (^r;Xo)To^, biog /;.s vsCwuTog- if^og, (jls ava.dT^s-^^o'v. It is 
 
CHAP, xxxvii. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 397 
 
 plain, that the translators used a copy with a different read- 
 ing from the present Masoretical. See Schleusner, ubi sup. 
 under ^^iXwtoc: and vs^jraro^. In part, the Septuagint coincides 
 with the Samaritan. See Dathe's note. 
 
 23. The meaning of this verse is very clear. It refers to 
 the animosity which Joseph's brethren had cherished, and 
 the hostile conduct which they had pursued towards him. 
 The figure is changed, and they are represented as archers 
 shooting at their enemy with the fixed purpose of de- 
 stroying him. For the meaning of ^lzi"l, see Rosenmiiller 
 in loc. 
 
 24. i^ltpp ]^'^^^ ^tPvll. 'But his bow continued strong; 
 literally, in strength, the adjective Itl'^ii^ being used as a 
 noun.' — VT '^3'"lT 173^1, ' and his arms were active.' 
 Rosenmiiller considers VT '^5'"lT as equivalent to V^^^T, 
 his arms, the latter word being redundant. Others suppose 
 '^i'lT to be used figuratively for might. Thus Gesenius : 
 " the power (might) of his hands." But in all the instances 
 cited by him, except Job xxii. 9, Ps. xxxvii. 17, and Dan. 
 xi. 15, 22, 31, the word is singular, and it is this form which 
 is usually employed in this metaphorical sense, and there- 
 fore I have preferred following Rosenmiiller. Perhaps too 
 it may be worth noting, that in the excepted places more 
 than one individual, a class of persons, is referred to. The 
 word TT3 occurs also in 2 Sam. vi. 16, and in both these 
 places seems to convey the idea of the cognate Arabic 
 
 word, yi ' to be light, nimble, active.' See Dathe in loc. 
 
 and Schultens' Opera Minora, p. 132—135. 1^!?^^ ^"I^^ 
 
 : bSi^nip-i -j^^ f1?^ t]l|)2 "i^T.- ' By the hands of the 
 mighty one of Jacob, by the power (name) of the shepherd, 
 the stone (rock) of Israel.' There is great difficulty in 
 settling the connexion and meaning of this and the following 
 
398 XOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi." 
 
 clauses. De Wette completes a period with VT^, (which 
 is sanctioned by the accent Athnach,) and translates the 
 remainder of this verse, and the twenty-fifth, thus : 
 
 Aus der Hand des gewaltigen Jakobs, 
 
 A^om Fiihrer, vom Felsen Israels, 
 25. Yom Gott deines Yaters, er half dir, 
 
 Yom Allmachtigen, er segnete dich, 
 Komme dir Segen des Himmels von obenher, 
 
 Segen der Tiefe unten, 
 Segen der Briiste und des Mutterleibs ! 
 
 By the hand of the powerful Jacob, 
 
 From the leader, from the rock of Israel, 
 25. From the God of thy father, he helped thee, 
 From the Almighty, he blessed thee, 
 
 Come to thee blessings of the heaven from above. 
 Blessings of the deep below, 
 
 Blessings of the breasts and of the womb ! 
 
 Dathe connects the remainder of the twenty-fourth verse 
 with the preceding clause, and for il"^^, ' from thence,' he 
 %vould read u"l"2, ' from the name,' corresponding with 
 '1^^'?, and supported by the Syriac version, >5.a. ,JiCO. 
 He supposes the patriarch to refer to the history in Gen^ 
 xxviii. 12, 13, the occasion of his distress, when God gave 
 him the most ample promises. His version is this : " — by 
 the help of the mighty God, whom Jacob worshipped, by 
 him who guarded the stone of Israel." In a note he adds 
 as follows : " It appears to me that the narrative in Gen. 
 xxviii. 12, 13, suggests a simple and natural exposition of 
 this verse. At a time when Jacob very greatly needed the 
 divine assistance, God granted him most ample promises. 
 
CHAP, xxivii. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 399 
 
 while asleep with a stone for his pillow. Therefore, says 
 he, the same God, who was present with me in the most 
 dangerous period of my life, hath also defended thee in thy 
 calamities. Thus he explains himself in the next verse." 
 — Rosenmiiller, who gives the same view of the passage 
 from Teller's, Not. Crit., remarks, that there is considerable 
 harshness in speaking of God as the shepherd or defender of 
 a stone. He supposes Joseph to be intended by these ex- 
 pressions, and retains the reading C'l"^, which he interprets 
 by, ' from that time,' which is, to say the least, a very 
 doubtful meaning of the word. See Note 15. p. 179, 180. 
 Inde pascens erat et lapis Israelis ; ' from the time that he 
 escaped the difficulties which had oppressed him, he sus- 
 tained myself and family.' Jacob calls his son ' the shep- 
 herd' of Israel, because he had supplied the wants of his 
 household and raised them to affluence, and ' the stone,' be- 
 cause he had been their prop and support.' — I do not see 
 any more harshness in representing God as the protector of 
 Jacob's stone than there is in speaking of him as the " keeper 
 of the city." Ps. cxxvii. 1. If there were, it would be re- 
 moved by the expository translation of Herder, " who 
 watched Israel on his stone : Von Namen dess, der Israel 
 auf seinem Stein bewachte." Letters on the Study of The- 
 ology, (Briefe, &c.) p. 76. Amidst so much uncertainty 
 it is difficult to come to any satisfactory and certain result. 
 In the version above oflered, I have adopted the reading 
 tD'ip, retaining its common translation " name," which must 
 be considered as conveying also the idea of power, a mean- 
 ing which is undoubtedly implied in the word, and which 
 corresponds with the parallel ''"i'^.. It seems most probable, 
 too, from the use of the preposition "i"^ prefixed to both 
 these words, in connexion with the parallelism of the clauses, 
 that both relate to the same object. The word mI^I is 
 
400 NOTES TO GENESIS. [pArT xI, 
 
 beautifully applied to God as the patriarch's kind and tender 
 protector, (see Ps. xxiii. 1.) and there is no difficulty in con- 
 sidering l^i*5 as in opposition with it, and expressive of 
 almighty support, in which sense the corresponding term 
 ^^!2, ' rock,' is often employed. 
 
 25. 'By the God of thy father, who will help thee, and by 
 the Almighty, who will bless thee with blessings of heaven 
 above, blessings of the deep which lieth below, blessings of 
 the breasts and of the womb.' — Some commentators suppose 
 an ellipsis immediately after the words " who will bless 
 thee, ' which they supply with ' be thou blessed,' or ' let them 
 come,' as may suit the language of the context. But if the 
 twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses be connected, as in the 
 translation of the analysis, which gives to the preposition 
 yip before '^'l''!'?, Qll) (D^,) and bJS: the same general mean- 
 ing, and making the three nouns relate to the same being, 
 the necessity of adding any thing to the text is removed- 
 In Tj'lT^'^l and TjlD'^i"'! the vau expresses the sense of ^tS^, 
 who. £int1 il^i^ diHiTl is rendered by Dathe tej-rcc ei 
 (that is, coelo,) suhjectcE. But QlniTl does not appear to be 
 used in this sense. The common phrase for 'earth below,* 
 when antithetic to ' heaven above', is JlH?!!'? 3?T!S5. See 
 Exod. XX. 4. Deut. iv. 39, v. 8. As " blessings of heaven 
 above" refers to seasonable rains and copious dews, moist- 
 ening and fertilizing the ground, and preparing it to yield 
 plentiful harvests, so it would seem that " blessings of the 
 deep that lieth below," must be intended to express fountains, 
 lakes and streams of water, which promote fertility and 
 conduce to the agreeableness and advantages of a country. 
 The last clause plainly denotes a strong and numerous poste- 
 rity. Compare the imprecatory language in Hos. ix. 14. 
 
 26. ri:>;i5 iii^^^iTi ly ^lin iiDn^^-bi? ^n;i5 ^^n^^ nbia 
 
 : Dbii'. ' The blessings of thy father exceed the blessings 
 
^ 
 
 CHAP. XXXVII. 1—L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 401 
 
 of the everlasting mountains, the desirable things of the 
 eternal hills.' — For "illtl the Samaritan Pentateuch has "^1^, 
 ' mountains,' which is probably the true reading, or else 
 '''lin, ^^'n being considered as an old form of lllj* in either 
 case ^5? being connected with it, and not disjoined as in the 
 Rabbinical text by the Sakeph katon. This appears to have 
 been the reading from which the Septuagint version was 
 made : u*s^ ivXoylas o^sojv laovifAwv, xai s*' ivXaylaig Sivwv ctsvawv. 
 It is supported by the corresponding word ili'^ii in the 
 parallel hemistich, and the meaning thus obtained, which I 
 have expressed in the translation, is preferred by several 
 modern critics, among whom may be found the names of 
 De Wette, Dathe and Gesenius. This reading is also con- 
 firmed by the parallel place in Deut. xxxiii. 15, ffifiiilTa^ 
 fibl5? m'5?:?5 1573)21 t]1j5r^'n"]n»— « ancient mountains"— 
 and the other in Hab. iii. 6, int|) l^-^'n"!!! li^^SJl^.l 
 
 DblS? SnlS'i'? — " everlasting mountains." Rosenmiiller, who 
 prefers retaining the usual punctuation, remarks, that " al- 
 though H"!!! properly means, * to conceive, to be pregnant,' 
 yet, like ib'J^ it is used indifferently of father or mother, 
 so that tTlln is properly, what gives conception, father." 
 But he produces no evidence in support of his assertion, and 
 Dathe states, " that nitl is always used of the female, 
 never of the male," which I believe is true, except in cases 
 where the word is applied figuratively. Rosenmiiller says 
 indeed, that, although the data by which the other view is 
 supported are specious, the result to which it leads is inele- 
 gant and far-fetched ; nor is it easy to perceive, why eternity 
 should be repeated, that is, predicated both of mountains 
 
 * Gesenius, Geschichte der Heb. Spr. und Schrift, § 56. p. 119, and 
 Lexicon under llH 1. 
 51 
 
402 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part XI. 
 
 and hills. To prove that the result is as he states, would be 
 difficult ; and the latter remark certainly needs no reply, as 
 the application of the term eternal or everlasting to the 
 mountains and hills, is plainly intended to increase the poetic 
 effect, and to make the parallelism more perfect. — The 
 meaning appears to be this : * the blessings which thy father 
 invokes on thee are superior to the blessings, (the best pro- 
 ductions,) of the perpetual mountains, the most desirable 
 gifts of the eternal hills ;' in other words, they are the most 
 excellent that paternal affection can pray for. — The other 
 translation, "the blessings of thy father have prevailed 
 above the blessings of my progenitors," conveys a sense 
 which is not very probable. The patriarch would hardly an- 
 nounce the magnificence of his own prophetic benediction 
 by contrasting it with those of his venerated ancestors, nei- 
 ther indeed can it be said, in reference to Joseph, that the 
 blessings promised him are superior to those which had 
 been made to Jacob himself, (see Gen. xxvii. 2S, 29. xxiii. 3, 
 4,) to say nothing of the glorious promises both of a tempo- 
 ral and spiritual kind which God had given to Abraham. — 
 If the word nlS^iTl be derived from t^s^^^j equivalent to 
 rilJTI, * to mark out,' it may be translated ' bound,' as it is in 
 our EngUsh version, founded on some ancient Jewish au- 
 thorities ; but its usual meaning is ' delight, desire, object 
 of desire.' — There is no difficulty in the remainder of the 
 verse, unless it be in the word 1''T5. It is derived from '1T5, 
 * to separate, distinguish,' namely, for excellencies and dig- 
 nity. If, with many late critics, we consider it as a denomina- 
 tive from *iT!D' ' a crown, a diadem,^ it will be equivalent to, 
 he that wears the crown, in other words, the prince, the noblest 
 among his brethren. The general idea is the same as that just 
 stated. The same phrase VH!^ "T^p in Deut. xxxiii. 16, is 
 translated in the Septuagint version ^o^atfSs/s h dosX^Ztg, and this 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. 1— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 403 
 
 is the meaning which is given here by the Targum of Jona- 
 than: "^^n^^ 5><lp.^5 ^V'^l s^.l^^;i t)^5t25i 11 mni, 'who 
 
 was prince and ruler in Egypt, and distinguished (Uterally 
 shining, splendid,) by honor of his brethren,' that is, by the 
 respect which his brothers paid him. See Rosenmiiller in 
 loo. The same idea of superior dignity is conveyed also by 
 the Syriac version, \Lt^ ^^h \ ' upon the head of the 
 diadem,' that is, the head of him who was honored with the 
 diadem, the abstract being used, most probably, for the con- 
 crete. The Septuagint, in making Joseph the ruler over his 
 brethren agrees in this meaning, 'wv riyyidaro a5sKcpi^\.* 
 
 27. ' Benjamin is a wolf, he tears in pieces : in the 
 morning he devours the prey, and at evening he divides 
 the spoil.' This verse describes the warlike disposition of 
 the tribe, and the rapacity with which they would spoil 
 their enemies. Some have supposed the meaning to be, 
 that the booty obtained would be so immense as to be 
 sufficient for Benjamin's consumption not only in the morn- 
 ing, but through the whole day, even until the evening, and 
 also for the consumption of others. Some again understand 
 it thus, that the booty, which he had divided at evening, 
 should be abundantly sufficient to last until the morning. 
 See Rosenmiiller in loc. Probably, however, nothing more 
 is intended than this, that both morning and evening, day 
 and night, in other words, at all times, he will be dividing 
 the booty or devouring the prey. Rapacity and destruc- 
 tiveness could scarcely be expressed in bolder and more 
 graphical poetry. • 
 
 * It may not be unworthy of remark, that Schiller in some of his tra- 
 gedies uses the same figure. Thus, in his William Tell, act iii. scene 
 2, Kudentz says to Bertha : Da seh' ich Dich, die Krone aller Frauen. 
 And in the Maid of Orleans, act i. scene 4, Charles applies the 
 same term to Agnes Sorel. 
 
404 NOTES TO GENESIS. [part xi. 
 
 (165.) This is doubtless the true meaning of the phrase 
 ']1")1'!' ^5^5 in this place, and most probably it should 
 always be rendered ' beyond,' or ' on the other side of the 
 Jordan,' wherever it occurs ; although it is maintained by 
 some commentators and critics, that it means * on this or 
 on that side indifferently,' and in our English translation it 
 is sometimes rendered " on this side," and sometimes 
 " beyond Jordan." See Hengstenberg's examination of 
 this phrase, ubi sup. II. p. 313 — 324. — The cavalcade that 
 attended the remains of Jacob was probably accompanied 
 by some military force, to protect it from hostile bands. 
 See V. 9. Avoiding a march into Canaan by the most 
 direct course, perhaps from motives of a prudential kind, 
 the company proceeded along its southern border to the 
 eastern extremity, where, after the second mourning was 
 finished, they crossed to the western bank of the Jordan, 
 and, unattended probably by the armed force, proceeded to 
 the place of interment. The country beyond Jordan is 
 clearly contradistinguished from " the land of Canaan" in 
 V. 13. So also in Num. xxxii. 32: "we- will pass over 
 armed into the land of Canaan, that the possession of our 
 inheritance beyond the Jordan may be ours ;" that is, as is 
 proved by the twenty-ninth and thirty-third verses, the 
 country lying east of the Jordan : and xxxv. 14 : " ye shall 
 give three cities beyond the Jordan, and three cities shall ye 
 give in the land of Canaan." In these two last places, our 
 translation has " on this side Jordan ;" but in both, the 
 original phrase is XT^i^ "^5?^- In Num. xxxii. 19, the 
 use of the term is very remarkable. The Reubenites and 
 Gadites, who settled on the east of Jordan, say to Moses : 
 *' we will not inherit with them," (the other tribes,) " beyond 
 the Jordan and forward, 'r\'^y\'\ I'^'l^H "^^^^^ because 
 our inheritance is fallen to us beyond the Jordan eastward, 
 nniT^ n^n^n nn:?)^." it is not to be supposed that the 
 
CHAP. XXXVII. I— L.] NOTES TO GENESIS. 40.5 
 
 same phrase is employed in opposite senses in such a con- 
 nexion, although such seems to have been the opinion of 
 the English translator of the book, who, in the former case, 
 renders it " on yonder side," and in the latter, " on this 
 side." The phrase signifies beyond the Jordan in both cases, 
 and the word added in each shows the reader which side is 
 meant. The opinion of Gesenius, under *15?» !• (Robin- 
 son's Translation, p. 734,) that " this expression is (some- 
 times) applied to the country west of the Jordan, hy a later 
 idiom, it would seem, which probably arose during the 
 Babylonian exile," is unfounded in fact and not necessary 
 to illustrate the texts. The truth seems to be, that the 
 phrase had a definite, geographical sense, designating the 
 country lying east of the Jordan, similar to the use of 
 ^rawsalpine Gaul among the Romans ; and was also used to 
 denote the region on the side of the river opposite to that 
 occupied by the writer, or the possession of which he re- 
 garded at the time of writing as having been already 
 entirely secured by conquest. If so, the word will always 
 retain one uniform meaning, although it may be employed, 
 according to circumstances, to designate the territory lying 
 on either side of the river. 
 
 FINIS 
 
 J. p. Wright, Printer, 18 New Street, New York. 
 
16711TC IXn 
 
 08-07-03 32180 MS W 
 
Princeton Theoloqical , Sfnimary Librah^^ 
 
 1 1012 01276 7358