[1] G.B. Gray's _Hebrew Proper Names_ (1896), with his article in the
_Expositor_ (Sept. 1897), pp. 173-190, should be consulted for the
application and range of Hebrew names in O. T. genealogies and lists.
[2] On the subject generally see articles "Genos" and "Gens," by A.H.
Greenidge, in Smith's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities_
(3rd ed., 1890), where the chief authorities are given.
[3] The fondness of Euripides for genealogies is ridiculed by
Aristophanes (_Acharnians_, 47).
[4] All the earlier Greek historians appear to have constructed their
narratives on assumed genealogical bases. The four books of Hecataeus
of Miletus dealt respectively with the traditions about Deucalion,
about Heracles and the Heraclidae, about the early settlements in
Peloponnesus, and about those in Asia Minor; he further made a
pedigree for himself, in which his sixteenth ancestor was a god. The
works of Hellanicus of Lesbos bore titles ([Greek: Deukaliôneia] and
the like) which sufficiently explain their nature; his disciple,
Damastes of Sigeum, was the author of genealogical histories of
Trojan heroes; Apollodorus of Athens made use of three books of
[Greek: Genealogika] by Acusilaus of Argos; Pherecydes of Leros also
wrote [Greek: genealogiai]. See J.A.F. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_
(1889); also J.H. Schubart, _Quaestt. geneal. historicae_ (1832); G.
Marckscheffel, _De genealogica Graecorum poësi_ (1840).
[5] The chief authority on this subject is Polybius (vi. 53); see
also T. Mommsen, _Römisches Staatsrecht_, i. (1887), p. 442.
[6] At the funeral of Drusus the images of Aeneas, of the Alban
kings, of Romulus, of the Sabine nobles, of Attus Clausus, and of
"the rest of the Claudians" were exhibited (Tac. _Ann._ iv. 9).
[7] The Roman stemmata had, as will be seen afterwards, great
interest for the older modern genealogists. Reference may be made to
J. Glandorp's _Descriptio gentis Antoniae_ (1557); to the _Descriptio
gentis Juliae_ (1576) of the same author; and to J. Hübner's
_Genealogische Tabellen_. See also G.A. Ruperti's _Tabulae
genealogicae sive stemmata nobiliss_. gent. Rom. (1794). (X.)
GENELLI, GIOVANNI BUONAVENTURA (1798-1868), German painter, was born at
Berlin on the 28th of September 1798. He was the son of Janus Genelli, a
painter whose landscapes are still preserved in the Schloss at Berlin,
and grandson to Joseph Genelli, a Roman embroiderer employed to found a
school of gobelins by Frederick the Great. Buonaventura Genelli first
took lessons from his father and then became a student of the Berlin
academy. After serving his time in the guards he went with a stipend to
Rome, where he lived ten years, a friend and assistant to Koch the
landscape painter, a colleague of the sculptor Ernst Hähnel (1811-1891),
Reinhart, Overbeck and Führich, all of whom made a name in art. In 1830
he was commissioned by Dr Härtel to adorn a villa at Leipzig with
frescoes, but quarrelling with this patron he withdrew to Munich, where
he earned a scanty livelihood at first, though he succeeded at last in
acquiring repute as an illustrative and figure draughtsman. In 1859 he
was appointed a professor at Weimar, where he died on the 13th of
November 1868. Genelli painted few pictures, and it is very rare to find
his canvases in public galleries, but there are six of his compositions
in oil in the Schack collection at Munich. These and numerous
water-colours, as well as designs for engravings and lithographs, reveal
an artist of considerable power whose ideal was the antique, but who was
also fascinated by the works of Michelangelo. Though a German by birth,
his spirit was unlike that of Overbeck or Führich, whose art was
reminiscent of the old masters of their own country. He seemed to hark
back to the land of his fathers and endeavour to revive the traditions
of the Italian Renaissance. Subtle in thought and powerfully conceived,
his compositions are usually mythological, but full of matter, energetic
and fiery in execution, and marked almost invariably by daring effects
of foreshortening. Impeded by straitened means, the artist seems
frequently to have drawn from imagination rather than from life, and
much of his anatomy of muscle is in consequence conventional and false.
But none the less Genelli merits his reputation as a bold and
imaginative artist, and his name deserves to be remembered beyond the
narrow limits of the early schools of Munich and Weimar.
GENERAL (Lat. _generalis_, of or relating to a _genus_, kind or class),
a term which, from its pointing to all or most of the members of a
class, the whole of an area, &c. as opposed to "particular" or to
"local," is hence used in various shades of meaning, for that which is
prevalent, usual, widespread or miscellaneous, indefinite, vague. It has
been added to the titles of various officials, military officers and
others; thus the head of a religious order is the "superior-general,"
more usually the "general," and we find the same combination in such
offices as that of "accountant-general," "postmaster-general,"
"attorney-" or "solicitor-general," and many others, the additional word
implying that the official in question is of superior rank, as having a
wider authority or sphere of activity. This is the use that accounts
for the application of the term, as a substantive, to a military officer
of superior rank, a "general officer," or "general," who commands or
administers bodies of troops larger than a regiment, or consisting of
more than one arm of the service (see also OFFICERS). It was towards the
end of the 16th century that the word began to be used in its present
sense as a noun, and in the armies of the time the "general" was
commander-in-chief, the "lieutenant-general" commander of the horse and
second in command of the army, and the "major-general" (strictly
"sergeant-major-general") commander of the foot and chief of the staff.
Field marshals, who have now the highest rank, were formerly subordinate
to the general officers. These titles--general, lieutenant-general and
major-general--are still applied in most armies to the first, second and
third grades of general officer, and in the French service until 1870
the chief of the staff of the army bore the title of major-general. In
the German and Russian services the three grades are qualified by the
addition of the words "of cavalry," "of infantry" and "of artillery."
The French service possesses only two grades, "general of brigade" and
"general of division." The Austrian service has two ranks of general
officers peculiar to itself, "lieutenant field marshal," equivalent to
lieutenant-general, and _Feldzeugmeister_ (master of the ordnance),
equivalent to the German general of infantry or artillery. There is also
the rank of "general of cavalry." The Spanish army still retains the old
term "captain-general." In the German service _General Oberst_
(colonel-general) and _General Feldzeugmeister_ (master-general of
ordnance) are ranks intermediate between that of full general and that
of general field marshal. It may be noted that during the 17th century
"general" was not confined to a commanding officer of an army, and was
also equivalent to "admiral"; thus when under the Protectorate the
office of lord high admiral was put into commission, the three first
commissioners, Blake, Edward Popham and Richard Deane, were styled
"generals at sea."
GENERATION (from Lat. _generare_, to beget, procreate; _genus_, stock,
race), the act of procreation or begetting, hence any one of the various
methods by which plants, animals or substances are produced. As applied
to the result of procreation, "generation" is used of the offspring of
the same parents, taken as one degree in descent from a common ancestor,
or, widely, of the body of living persons born at or near the same time;
thus the word is also used of the age or period of a generation, usually
taken as about thirty years, or three generations to a century. As a
term in biology or physiology, generation is synonymous with the Gr.
[Greek: biogenesis] and the Ger. _Zeugung_, and may comprehend the whole
history of the first origin and continued reproduction of living bodies,
whether plants or animals; but it is frequently restricted to the sexual
reproduction of animals. The subject may be divided into the following
branches, viz.: (1) the first origin of life and living beings, (2)
non-sexual or agamic reproduction, and (3) gamic or sexual reproduction.
For the first two of these topics see ABIOGENESIS, BIOGENESIS and
BIOLOGY; for the third and more extensive division, including (1) the
formation and fecundation of the ovum, and (2) the development of the
embryo in different animals, see REPRODUCTION and EMBRYOLOGY.
GENESIS (Gr. [Greek: genesis], becoming; the term being used in English
as a synonym for origin or process of coming into being), the name of
the first book in the Bible, which derives its title from the Septuagint
rendering of ch. ii. 4. It is the first of the five books (the
Pentateuch), or, with the inclusion of Joshua, of the six (the
Hexateuch), which cover the history of the Hebrews to their occupation
of Canaan. The "genesis" of Hebrew history begins with records of
antediluvian times: the creation of the world, of the first pair of
human beings, and the origin of sin (i.-iii.), the civilization and
moral degeneration of mankind, the history of man to the time of Noah
(iv.-vi. 8), the flood (vi. 9-ix.), the confusion of languages and the
divisions of the human race (x.-xi.). Turning next to the descendants of
Shem, the book deals with Abraham (xii.-xxv. 18), Isaac and Jacob (xxv.
19-xxxv.), the "fathers" of the tribes of Israel, and concludes with
the personal history of Joseph, and the descent of his father Jacob (or
Israel) and his brethren into the land of Egypt (xxxvii.-l.). The book
of Genesis, as a whole, is closely connected with the subsequent
oppression of the sons of Israel, the revelation of Yahweh the God of
their fathers (Ex. iii. 6, 15 seq., vi. 2-8), the "exodus" of the
Israelites to the land promised to their fathers (Ex. xiii. 5, Deut. i.
8, xxvi. 3 sqq., xxxiv. 4) and its conquest (Josh. i. 6, xxiv.); cf.
also the summaries Neh. ix. 7 sqq., Ps. cv. 6 sqq.
Analysis.
The words, "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created" (ii. 4), introduce an account of the creation
of the world, which, however, is preceded by a relatively later and
less primitive record (i. 1-ii. 3). The differences between the two
accounts lie partly in the style and partly in the form and contents
of the narratives. i. 1-ii. 3 is marked by stereotyped formulae ("and
God [_Elohim_] said ... and it was so ... and God saw that it was
good, and there was evening and there was morning," &c.); it is
precise and detailed, whereas ii. 4b-iii. is less systematic, fresher
and more anthropomorphic. The former is cosmic, the latter is local.
It is the latter which mentions the mysterious garden and the
wonderful trees which Yahweh planted, and depicts Yahweh conversing
with man and walking in the garden in the cool of the evening. The
former, on the other hand, has an enlightened conception of _Elohim_;
the Deity, though grand, is a lifeless figure; several antique ideas
are nevertheless preserved. The account of the creation, too, is
different; for example, in chap. i. man and woman are created
together, whereas in ii. man is at first alone. The naiveness of the
story of the creation of woman is in line with the interest which this
more popular source takes in the origin or existence of phenomena,
customs and contemporary beliefs (the garden, the naming of animals,
&c.). The primitive record is continued in the story of Cain and Abel
(iv.), where the old-time problem of Cain's wife and the reference to
other human beings (iv. 14 seq.) gave rise in pre-critical days to the
theory of pre-Adamites, as though Adam and Eve were not the only
inhabitants of the earth. But all the indications go to show that
there were at least two distinct popular narratives, one of which
ignores the flood. Cain the murderer, doomed to be a wanderer, now
becomes the builder of a city, and his descendants introduce various
arts (iv. 16b-24).[1] (See the articles ABEL; ADAM; CAIN; COSMOGENY;
ENOCH; EVE; LAMECH.) From the "generations" of the heavens and the
earth (which one would have expected at the head of ch. i.) we pass to
the "generations of Adam" (v. 1). The list of the "Sethites," with its
characteristically stereotyped framework, has an older parallel in iv.
25 seq. (with the origin of the worship of Yahweh contrast Ex. vi. 2.
seq.), and a fragment from the same source is found in v. 29.
After the birth of Noah the son of Lamech (v. 29, contrast iv. 19
sqq.) comes the brief story of the demigods (vi. 1-4). It is no part
of the account of the fall or of the flood (note verse 4 and Num.
xiii. 33), least of all does it furnish grounds for the old view of
the division of the human race into evil Cainites and God-fearing
Sethites. The excerpt with its description of the fall of the angels
is used to form a prelude to the wickedness of man and the avenging
flood (vi. 5). Noah, the father of Ham, Shem and Japheth, appears as
the hero in the Hebrew version of the flood (see DELUGE; NOAH).
Duplicates (vi. 5-8, 9-13) and discrepancies (vi. 19 sq. contrasted
with vii. 2; or vii. 11, viii. 14 contrasted with viii. 8, 10, 12)
point to the use of two sources (harmonizing passages in vii. 3, 7-9).
The later narrative, which begins with "the generations" of Noah (vi.
9-22; vii. 6, 11, 13-17a, 18-21, 24; viii. 1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19; ix.
1-17), is almost complete; note the superscription and the length of
the flood (365 days; according to other notices the flood apparently
lasted only 61 or 68 days). In the earlier source Noah collects seven
pairs of clean animals, one of each kind; he sacrifices after leaving
the ark, and Yahweh promises not to curse the ground or to smite
living things again. But in the later, he takes only one pair, and
subsequently Elohim blesses Noah and makes a covenant never again to
destroy all flesh by a flood.[2] The covenant (characteristic of the
latest narratives in Genesis) also prohibits the shedding of blood
(cf. the story of Cain and Abel in the earlier source). Mankind is now
made to descend from the three sons of Noah. The older story, however,
continues with another step in the history of civilization, and to
Noah is ascribed the cult of the vine, the abuse of which leads to the
utterance of a curse upon Canaan and a blessing upon Shem and Japheth
(ix. 20-27). The table of nations in x. ("the generations of the sons
of Noah") preserves several signs of composite origin (contrast e.g.
x. 7 with vv. 28 sq., Ludim v. 13 with v. 22, and the Canaanite
families v. 16 with the dispersion "afterwards," v. 18, &c.); see
CANAAN; GENEALOGY; NIMROD. The history of the primitive age concludes
with the story of the tower of Babel (xi. 1-9), which, starting from
a popular etymology of Babel ("gate of God"), as though from Balbel
("confusion"), tells how Yahweh feared lest mankind should become too
powerful (cf. iii. 22-24), and seeks to explain the origin of the
numerous languages in use. It is independent of x., which already
assumes a confusion of tongues (vv. 5, 20, 31), the existence of Babel
(v. 10), and gives a different account of the rise of the various
races. This incident in the journey eastwards (xi. 2) is equally
independent of the story of the Deluge and of Noah's family (see
Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, p. 316). The continuation of the chapter,
"the generations of Shem" (xi. 10-27, see the Shemite genealogy in x.
21 sqq., and contrast the ages with vi. 3), is in the same stereotyped
style as ch. v., and prepares the way for the history of the
patriarchs.
The "generations of Terah" (xi. 27) lead to the introduction of the
first great patriarch Abraham (q.v.).[3] There is a twofold account of
his migration to Bethel with his nephew Lot; the more statistical form
in xi. 31 sq., xii. 4b, 5 belongs to the latest source. The statement
that the Canaanite was then in the land (xii. 6, cf. xiii. 7) points
to a time long after the Israelite conquest, when readers needed such
a reminder (so Hobbes in his _Leviathan_, 1651). A famine forces him
to descend into Egypt, where a story of Sarai (here at least 65 years
of age; see xii. 4, xvii. 17) is one of three variants of a similar
peculiar incident (cf. xx. 1-17, xxvi. 6-14). The passage is an
insertion (xii. 10-xiii. 2; xii. 9, xiii. 3 seq. being harmonistic).
The thread is resumed in the account of the separation of the
patriarch and his nephew Lot, who divide the land between them.
Abraham occupies Canaan, but moves south to Hebron, which, according
to Josh. xiv. 15, was formerly known as Kirjath-Arba. Lot dwells in
the basin of the Jordan, and his history is continued in the story of
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (xviii.-xix.; Hos. xi. 8, Deut.
xxix. 23 speak of Admah and Zeboim). Lot is saved and becomes the
ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites, who are thus closely related
to the descendants of Abraham (note xix. 37, "unto this day"). The
great war with Amraphel and Chedorlaomer--the defeat of a
world-conquering army by 318 men--with the episode of Melchizedek,
noteworthy for the reference to Jerusalem (xiv. 18, cf. Ps. lxxvi. 2),
has nothing in common with the context (see ABRAHAM; MELCHIZEDEK). It
treats as individuals the place-names Mamre and Eshcol (xiv. 13, cf.
Num. xiii. 23 seq.), and by mentioning Dan (v. 14) anticipates the
events in Josh. xix. 47, Judg. xviii. 29.[4] A cycle of narratives
deals with the promise that the barren Sarai (Sarah) should bear a
child whose descendants would inhabit the land of Canaan. The
importance of the tradition for the history of Israel explains both
the prominence given to it (cf. already xii. 7, xiii. 14-17) and their
present complicated character (due to repeated revision). The older
narratives comprise (a) the promise that Abraham shall have a son of
his own flesh (xv.)--the account is composite;[5] (b) the birth of
Ishmael, Abraham's son by Hagar, their exile, and Yahweh's promise
(xvi., with a separate framework in vv. 1a. 3, 15 seq.)--before the
birth of Isaac; and (c) the promise of a son to Sarai (xviii. 1-15),
now combined with the story of Lot and the overthrow of Sodom. The
latest source (xvii.) is marked by the solemn covenant between Yahweh
and Abraham, the revelation of God Almighty (El-Shaddai, cf. Ex. vi.
3), and the institution of circumcision (otherwise treated in Ex. iv.
26, Josh. v. 2 seq.). The more elevated character of this source as
contrasted with xv. and xviii. is as striking as the difference of
religious tone in the two accounts of the creation (above). Abraham
now travels thence (xx. 1, Hebron, see xviii. 1), and his adventure in
the land of Abimelech, king of Gerar (xx.), is a duplicate of xii.
(above). It is continued in xxi. 22-34, which has a close parallel in
the life of Isaac (xxvi., below). Isaac is born in accordance with the
divine promise (xviii. 10 at Hebron); the scene is the south of
Palestine. The story of the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael, and the
revelation (xxi. 8-21) cannot be separated from xvi. 4-14, where vv. 9
seq. are intended to harmonize the passages. Although about sixteen
years intervene (see xvi. 16; xxi. 5, 8), Ishmael is a young child who
has to be carried (xxi. 15), but the Hebrew text of xxi. 14 (not,
however, the Septuagint) endeavours to remove the discrepancy.[6]
"After these things" comes the offering of Isaac which implicitly
annuls the sacrifice of the first-born, a not unfamiliar rite in
Palestine as the denunciations prove (cf. Ezek. xvi. 20 seq., xx. 26;
Mic. vi. 7; Is. lvii. 5), and thus marks an advance, e.g. upon the
story of Jephthah's daughter (Judg. xi.). The story may be contrasted
with the Phoenician account of the sacrifice by Cronos (to be
identified with El) of his only son, which practically justified the
horrid custom. The detailed account of the purchase of the cave of
Machpelah (contrast the brevity of xxxiii. 19) is of great importance
for the traditions of the patriarchs, and, like the references to the
death of Sarah and Abraham, belongs to the latest source (xxiii., xxv.
7-11a).[7] The idyllic picture of life in xxiv. presupposes that Isaac
is sole heir (v. 36); since this is first stated in xxv. 5, it is
probable that xxv. 5, 11b (and perhaps vv. 6, 18) are out of place. It
is noteworthy that the district is Abraham's native place (xxiv. 4, 7,
10; contrast the Babylonian home specified in xi. 28, 31; xv. 7). In
xxv. 1 sqq. Abraham takes as wife (but _concubine_, 1 Chron. i. 32
seq.) Keturah ("incense") and becomes the father of various Arab
tribes, e.g. Sheba and Dedan (grandsons of Cush in x. 7).
After "the generations of Ishmael" (xxv. 12 sqq.) the narrative turns
to "the generations of Isaac" (xxv. 19 sqq.). The story of the events
at the court of Abimelech (xxvi.) finds a parallel in the now
disjointed xx., xxi. 22-34; note the new explanation of Beersheba, the
reference in xxvi. 1 to the parallel story in xii., the absence of
allusion to xx., and the apparent editorial references to xxi. in vv.
15, 18. On the whole, the story of Isaac's wife at Gerar is briefer
and not so elevated as that of Sarah, but the parallel to xxi. 22-34
is more detailed. The birth of Esau and Jacob (xxv. 21-34) introduces
the story of Jacob's craft when Isaac is on the point of death
(xxvii.). Jacob flees to Laban at Haran to escape Esau's hatred
(xxvii. 41-45); but, according to the latest source (P), he is charged
by Isaac to go to Paddan-Aram, and take a wife there, and his father
transfers to him the blessing of Abraham (xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9). On his
way to Haran he stops at Bethel (formerly Luz, according to Judg. i.
22-26), where a vision prompts him to accept the God of the place
should he return in peace to his father's home (xxviii. 10-22). He
passes to the land of "the children of the east" (xxix. 1), and the
scenes which follow are scarcely situated at Haran, the famous and
ancient seat of the worship of the moon-god, but in the desert. Here
he resides fifteen years or more, and by the daughters of Laban and
their handmaidens becomes the "father" of the tribes of Israel. There
are numerous traces of composition from different sources, but a
satisfactory analysis is impossible.[8] The flight of Jacob and his
household (from Paddan-Aram, xxxi. 18 P) leads over "the River" (v.
21, i.e. the Euphrates); though the seven days' journey of this
concourse of men and cattle suggests that he came to Gilead, not from
Haran (300 m. distant), but from some nearer locality. This is to be
taken with the evidence against Haran already noticed, with the use of
the term "children of the east" (xxix. 1; cf. Jer. xlix. 28; Ezek.
xxv. 4, 10), and with the details of Laban's kindred (xxii. 20-24).[9]
The arrival at Mahanaim ("[two?] camps") gives rise to specific
allusions to the meaning of the name (xxxii. 1 seq., 7-12, 13-21); cf.
also the plays upon Jabbok, Israel and Peniel in xxxii. 22-32. He
meets Esau (xxxii. 3-21, xxxiii. 1-16, another reference to Peniel,
"face of God," in v. 10), but they part. Jacob now comes to Shechem
"in peace" (cf. the phrase in xxviii. 21), where he buys land and
erects an altar (xxxiii. 18-20, cf. Abraham in xii. 6 seq.). There is
a remarkable story of the violation of his daughter Dinah by Shechem,
the son of Hamor the Hivite (xxxiv.). It has been heavily revised;
note the alternating prominence of Hamor and Shechem, the condemnation
of Simeon and Levi for their vengeance (cf. the curse in xlix. 5-7),
the destruction of the city Shechem by all the sons of Jacob, and the
survival of the Hamorites as a family centuries later (xxxiii. 19,
Judg. ix. 28). The narrative continues with Jacob's journey to Bethel,
the death of Deborah (who accompanied Rebekah to Palestine 140 years
previously, see xxiv. 59, and the latest source in xxv. 20, xxxv. 28),
the death of Rachel (xxxv. 16-20, contrast xxxvii. 10), and ceases
abruptly in the middle of a sentence (xxxv. 22, but see xlix. 3-4).
The latest source (xxxv. 9-13, 15, 22b-29) gives another account of
the origin of the names Israel (cf. xxxii. 28) and Bethel (cf. xxviii.
19), and the genealogy wrongly includes Benjamin among the sons born
outside Palestine (vv. 24-26). In narrating Jacob's leisurely return
to Isaac at Hebron, the writers quite ignore the many years which have
elapsed since he left his father at the point of death in Beersheba
(xxvii. 1, 2, 7, 10, 41).
"The generations of Esau, the same is Edom," provide much valuable
material for the study of Israel's rival (xxxvi.). The chapter gives
yet another account of the separation of Jacob and Esau (with vv. 6-8,
cf. Abraham and Lot, xiii. 5 seq.), and describes the latter's
withdrawal to Seir (cf. already xxxii. 3; xxxiii. 14, 16). It includes
lists of diverse origin (e.g. vv. 2-5, contrast xxvi. 34, xxviii. 9);
various "dukes" (R.V. marg. "chiefs"), or rather "thousands" or
"clans"; and also the "sons" of Seir the Horite, i.e. Horite clans
(vv. 20 seq. and vv. 29 seq.). A summary of Edomite kings is ascribed
to the period before the Israelite monarchy (vv. 31-39), and the
record concludes with the "dukes" of Esau, the father of the Edomites
(vv. 40-43, cf. names in vv. 10-14, 15-19).[10]
Finally, Genesis turns from the patriarchs to the "generations of
Jacob" (xxxvii. 2), and we have stories of the "sons," the ancestors
of the tribes. (In xxxiv. the incidents which primarily concerned
Simeon and Levi alone have, however, been adjusted to the general
history of Jacob and his family.) The first place is given to Joseph
(xxxvii.), although xxxviii. crowds the early history of the family of
Judah into the twenty-two years between xxxvii. 2 and Jacob's descent
into Egypt (see xli. 46, 47; xlv. 6).[11] In xxxvii., xxxix. sqq. we
have an admirable specimen of writing quite distinct in stamp from the
patriarchal stories. The romance which has here been utilized shows an
acquaintance with Egypt; the narratives are discursive, not laconic,
everything is more detailed, and more under the influence of literary
art. The Reuben and Simeon which appear in it are not the characters
which we meet in xxxiv., xxxv. 22, or in the poem xlix. 3-7; and the
tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh do not scruple to claim ancestry from
Joseph and the daughter of an Egyptian priest at the seat of the
worship of the sun-god (xli. 45). The narratives are composite. Joseph
incurs the ill-will of his brethren because of Israel's partiality or
because of his significant dreams. He is at Shechem or at Dothan; and
when the brothers seek to slay him, Judah proposes that he should be
sold to Ishmaelites, or Reuben suggests that he should be cast into a
pit, where Midianites find and kidnap him (xxxvii., cf. xl. 15). The
latter sell him to the eunuch Potiphar, but he appears in the service
of a married householder (xxxix., the second clause of v. 1
harmonizes). Among other signs of dual origin are the alternation of
"Jacob" and "Israel," and the prominence of Judah (xliii. 3, 8; xliv.
14, 18) or of Reuben (xlii. 22, 37). The money is found in a "bag" as
the brothers encamp (xlii. 27, 28a; xliii.), or in a "sack" when they
reach home (xlii. 8-26, 29-35, 28b, 36 sq.). When Israel and his
family descend into Egypt, the latest source gives a detailed list
which agrees in the main with the Israelite subdivisions (xlvi. 6-27,
cf. Num. xxvi. and 1 Chron. ii.-viii.). The families dwell in the land
of Goshen, east of the Delta, "for every shepherd is an abomination
unto the Egyptians" (xlv. 10; xlvi. 28-34; xlvii. 1-6); or they are in
the "land of Rameses" (xlvii. 11, and Septuagint in xlvi. 28);[12]
Joseph's policy during the famine is next described (xlvii. 13-26),
although it would have been more in place after xli. (see _ib._ 34).
There are several difficulties in Jacob's blessing of the sons of
Joseph (xlviii.).[13] The blessing in xlix. is a collection of
poetical passages praising or blaming the various tribes, and must
certainly date after the Israelite settlement in Palestine; see
further the articles on the tribes. Jacob's dying instructions to
Joseph (xlvii. 29-31) are continued in l. 1 sqq., his charge to his
sons (xlix. 28 sqq., P) in l. 12 seq. It is significant that Jacob's
body is taken to Palestine, but the brethren return to Egypt; in spite
of a possible allusion to the famine in v. 21, the late chronological
scheme would imply that it had long ceased (see xlv. 6, xlvii. 28).
The book closes with the death of Joseph about fifty years later,
after the birth of the children of Machir, who himself was a
contemporary of Moses forty years after the Exodus (Num. xxxii.
39-41). Joseph's body is embalmed, but it is not until the concluding
chapter of the book of Joshua (xxiv. 32) that his bones find their
last resting-place.
A composite work.
Only on the assumption that the book of Genesis is a composite work is
it possible to explain the duplication of events, the varying use of the
divine names _Yahweh_ and _Elohim_, the linguistic and stylistic
differences, the internal intricacies of the subject matter, and the
differing standpoints as regards tradition, chronology, morals and
religion.[14] The cumulative effect of the whole evidence is too strong
to be withstood, and already in the 17th century it was recognized that
the book was of composite origin. Immense labour has been spent in the
critical analysis of the contents, but it is only since the work of Graf
(1866) and Wellhausen (1878) that a satisfactory literary hypothesis has
been found which explained the most obvious intricacies. The
Graf-Wellhausen literary theory has gained the assent of almost all
trained and unbiased biblical scholars, it has not been shaken by the
more recent light from external evidence, and no alternative theory has
as yet been produced. The internal features of Genesis demand some
formulated theory, more precise than the indefinite concessions of the
17th century, beyond which the opponents of modern literary criticism
scarcely advance, and the Graf-Wellhausen theory, in spite of the
numerous difficulties which it leaves untouched, is the only adequate
starting-point for the study of the book. According to this, Genesis is
a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly source (P) and
non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly from P in language,
style and religious standpoint, but much less markedly from one and
another.[15] These sources can be traced elsewhere in the Pentateuch and
Joshua, and P itself is related to the post-exilic works Chronicles,
Ezra and Nehemiah. In its _present_ form Genesis is an indispensable
portion of the biblical history, and consequently its literary growth
cannot be viewed apart from that of the books which follow. On internal
grounds it appears that the Pentateuch and Joshua, as they now read,
virtually come in between an older history by "Deuteronomic" compilers
(easily recognizable in Judges and Kings), and the later treatment of
the monarchy in Chronicles, where the influence of the circle which
produced P and the present Mosaic legislation is quite discernible.
There have been stages where earlier extant sources have been cut down,
adjusted or revised by compilers who have incorporated fresh material,
and it is the later compilers of Genesis who have made the book a fairly
knit whole. The technical investigation of the _literary_ problems
(especially the extent of the earlier sources) is a work of great
complexity, and, for ordinary purposes, it is more important to obtain a
preliminary appreciation of the general features of the contents of
Genesis.
Value of traditions.
That the records of the pre-historic ages in Gen. i.-xi. are at complete
variance with modern science and archaeological research is
unquestionable.[16] But although it is impossible to regard them any
longer either as genuine history or as subjects for an allegorical
interpretation (which would prove the accuracy of _any_ record) they are
of distinct value as human documents. They reflect the ideas and
thoughts of the Hebrews, they illustrate their conceptions of God and
the universe, and they furnish material for a comparison of the moral
development of the Hebrews with that of other early races. Some of the
traditions are closely akin to those current in ancient Babylonia, but a
careful and impartial comparison at once illustrates in a striking
manner the relative moral and spiritual superiority of our writers. On
these subjects see further COSMOGONY; DELUGE.[17]
The records of the patriarchal age, xii.-l. are very variously
estimated, although the great majority of scholars agree that they are
not contemporary and that they cannot be used, as they stand, for
pre-Mosaic times. Apart from the ordinary arguments of historical
criticism, it is to be noticed that external evidence does not support
the assumption that the records preserve genuine pre-Mosaic history.
There are no grounds for any arbitrary distinction between the
"pre-historic" pre-Abrahamic age and the later age. External evidence,
which recognizes no universal deluge and no dispersal of mankind in the
third millennium B.C., throws its own light upon the opening centuries
of the second. It has revealed conditions which are not reflected in
Genesis, and important facts upon which the book is silent--unless,
indeed, there is a passing allusion to the great Babylonian monarch
Khammurabi in the Amraphel of Gen. xiv. Any careful perusal of modern
attempts to recover historical facts or an historical outline from the
book will show how very inadequate the material proves to be, and the
reconstructions will be found to depend upon an interpretation of the
narratives which is often liberal and not rarely precarious, and to
imply such reshaping and rewriting of the presumed facts that the
cautious reader can place little reliance on them. Whatever future
research may bring, it cannot remove the _internal_ peculiarities which
combine to show that Genesis preserves, not literal history, but popular
traditions of the past. External evidence has proved the antiquity of
various elements, but not that of the form or context in which they now
appear; and the difference is an important one. We have now a background
upon which to view the book, and, on the one hand, it has become obvious
that the records preserve--as is only to be expected--Oriental customs,
beliefs and modes of thought. But it has not been demonstrated that
these are exclusively pre-Mosaic. On the other hand, a better
acquaintance with the ancient political, sociological and religious
conditions has made it increasingly difficult to interpret the records
as a whole literally, or even to find a place in pre-Mosaic Palestine
for the lives of the patriarchs as they are depicted.[18] Nevertheless,
though one cannot look to Genesis for the history of the early part of
the second millennium B.C., the study of what was thought of the past,
proves in this, as in many other cases, to be more instructive than the
facts of the past, and it is distinctly more important for the biblical
student and the theologian to understand the thought of the ages
immediately preceding the foundation of Judaism in the 5th century B.C.
than the actual history of many centuries earlier.
Fusion of diverse features.
A noteworthy feature is the frequent _personification_ of peoples,
tribes or clans (see GENEALOGY: _Biblical_). Midian (i.e. the
Midianites) is a son of Abraham; Canaan is a son of Ham (ix. 22), and
Cush the son of Ham is the father of Ramah and grandfather of the famous
S. Arabian state Sheba and the traders of Dedan (x. 6 sq., cf. Ezek.
xxvii. 20-22). Bethuel the father of Rebekah is the brother of the
tribal names Uz and Buz (xxii. 21 sqq., cf. Jer. xxv. 20, 23). Jacob is
otherwise known as Israel and becomes the father of the tribes of
Israel; Joseph is the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, and incidents in
the life of Judah lead to the birth of Perez and Zerah, Judaean clans.
This personification is entirely natural to the Oriental, and though
"primitive" is not necessarily an ancient trait.[19] It gives rise to
what may be termed the "prophetical interpretation of history" (S.R.
Driver, _Genesis_, p. 111), where the character, fortunes or history of
the apparent individual are practically descriptive of the people or
tribe which, according to tradition, is named after or descended from
him. The utterance of Noah over Canaan, Shem and Japheth (ix. 25 sqq.),
of Isaac over Esau and Jacob (xxvii.), of Jacob over his sons (xlix.) or
grandsons (xlviii.), would have no meaning to Israelites unless they had
some connexion with and interest for contemporary life and thought.
Herein lies the force of the description of the wild and independent
Ishmael (xvi. 12), the "father" of certain well-known tribes (xxv.
13-15); or the contrast between the skilful hunter Esau and the quiet
and respectable Jacob (xxv. 27), and between the tiller Cain who
becomes the typical nomad and the pastoral Abel (iv. 1-15). The interest
of the struggles between Jacob and Esau lay, not in the history of
individuals of the distant past, but in the fact that the names actually
represented Israel and its near rival Edom. These features are in entire
accordance with Oriental usage and give expression to current belief,
existing relationships, or to a poetical foreshadowing of historical
vicissitudes. But in the effort to understand them as they were
originally understood it is very obvious that this method of
interpretation can be pressed too far. It would be precarious to insist
that the entrances into Palestine of Abraham and Jacob (or Israel)
typified two distinct immigrations. The separation of Abraham from Lot
(cf. Lotan, an Edomite name), of Isaac from Hagar-Ishmael, or of Jacob
from Esau-Edom scarcely points to the relative antiquity of the origin
of these non-Israelite peoples who, to judge from the evidence, were
closely related. Or, if the "sons" of Jacob had Aramaean mothers, to
prove that those which are derived from the wives were upon a higher
level than the "sons" of the concubines is more difficult than to allow
that certain of the tribes must have contained some element of Aramaean
blood (cf. 1 Chron. vii. 14, and see ASHER; GAD; MANASSEH). Some of the
names are clearly not those of known clans or tribes (e.g. Abraham,
Isaac), and many of the details of the narratives obviously have no
natural ethnological meaning. Stories of heroic ancestors and of tribal
eponyms intermingle; personal, tribal and national traits are
interwoven. The entrance of Jacob or Israel with his sons suggests that
of the children of Israel. The story of Simeon and Levi at Shechem is
clearly not that of two individuals, sons of the patriarch Israel; in
fact the story actually uses the term "wrought folly in Israel" (cf.
Jud. xx. 6, 10), and the individual Shechem, the son of Hamor, cannot be
separated from the city, the scene of the incidents. Yet Jacob's life
with Laban has many purely individual traits. And, further, there
intervenes a remarkable passage with an account of his conflict with the
divine being who fears the dawn and is unwilling to reveal his name. In
a few verses the "wrestling" ('-b -k) of Jacob (_ya'aqob_) is associated
with the Jabbok (_yabboq_); his "striving" explains his name Israel; at
Peniel he sees "the face of God," and when touched on his vulnerable
spot--the hollow of the thigh--he is lamed, hence "the children of
Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the
thigh unto this day" (xxxii. 24-32). Other examples of the fusion of
different features can be readily found. Three divine beings appear to
Abraham at the sacred tree of Hebron, and when the birth of Isaac (from
_sahaq_, "laugh") is foretold, the account of Sarah's behaviour is
merely a popular and trivial story suggested by the child's name (xviii.
12-15; see also xvii. 17, xxi. 6, 9). An extremely fine passage then
describes the patriarch's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
narrative passes on to the catastrophe which explains the Dead Sea and
its desert region and has parallels elsewhere (e.g. the Greek legend of
Zeus and Hermes in Phrygia). Lot escapes to Zoar, the name gives rise to
the pun on the "little" city (xix. 20), and his wife, on looking back,
becomes one of those pillars of salt which still invite speculation.
Finally the names of his children Moab and Ammon are explained by an
incident when he is a cave-dweller on a mountain.
To primitive minds which speculated upon the "why and wherefore" of
what they saw around them, the narratives of Genesis afforded an
answer. They preserve, in fact, some of the popular philosophy and
belief of the Hebrews. They furnish what must have been a satisfactory
origin of the names Edom, Moab and Ammon, Mahanaim and Succoth,
Bethel, Beersheba, &c. They explain why Shechem, Bethel and Beersheba
were ancient sanctuaries (see further below); why the serpent writhes
along the ground (iii. 14); and why the hip sinew might not be eaten
(xxxii. 32). To these and a hundred other questions the national and
tribal stories--of which no doubt only a few have survived, and of
which other forms, earlier or later, more crude or more refined, were
doubtless current--furnish an evidently adequate answer. Myth and
legend, fact and fiction, the common stock of oral tradition, have
been handed down, and thus constitute one of the most valuable sources
for popular Hebrew thought.
The book is not to be judged from any one-sided estimate of its
contents. By the side of much that seems trivial, and even
non-moral--for the patriarchs themselves are not saints--it is
noteworthy how frequently the narratives are didactic. The
characteristic sense of collective responsibility, which appears more
incidentally in xx. 7, is treated with striking intensity in a passage
(xviii. 23-33) which uses the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah as a
vehicle for the statement of a familiar problem (cf. Ezek. xviii., Ps.
lxxiii., Job). It will be observed that interviews with divine beings
presented as little difficulty to the primitive minds of old as to the
modern native; even the idea of intercourse of supernatural beings
with mortals (vi. 1-4) is to-day equally intelligible. The modern
untutored native has a not dissimilar undeveloped and childlike
attitude towards the divine, a naive theology and a simple cultus. The
most circumstantial tales are told of imaginary figures, and the most
incredible details clothe the lives of the historical heroes of the
past. So abundant is the testimony of modern travellers to the extent
to which Eastern custom and thought elucidate the interpretation of
the Bible, that it is very important to notice those features which
illustrate Genesis. "The Oriental," writes S.I. Curtiss (_Bibl.
sacra_, Jan. 1901, pp. 103 sqq.), "is least of all a scientific
historian. He is the prince of story-tellers, narratives, real and
imaginative, spring from his lips, which are the truest portraiture of
composite rather than individual Oriental life, though narrated under
forms of individual experience." There are, therefore, many
preliminary points which combine to show that the critical student
cannot isolate the book from Oriental life and thought; its uniqueness
lies in the manner in which the material has been shaped and the use
to which it has been put.
Questions of date.
The Book of Jubilees (not earlier than the 2nd century B.C.) presents
the history in another form. It retains some of the canonical matter,
often with considerable reshaping, omits many details (especially those
to which exception could be taken), and adds much that is novel. The
chronological system of the latest source in Genesis becomes an
elaborate reckoning of heavenly origin. Written under the obvious
influence of later religious aims, it is especially valuable because one
can readily compare the two methods of presenting the old
traditions.[20] There is the same kind of personification, fresh
examples of the "prophetical interpretation of history," and by the side
of the older "primitive" thought are ideas which can only belong to this
later period. In each case we have merely a selection of current
traditional lore. For example, Gen. vi. 1-4 mentions the marriage of
divine beings with the daughters of men and the birth of Nephilim or
giants (cf. Num. xiii. 33). Later allusions to this myth (e.g. Baruch
iii. 26-28, Book of Enoch vi. sqq., 2 Peter ii. 4, &c.) are not based
upon this passage; the fragment itself is all that remains of some more
organic written myth which, as is well-known, has parallels among other
peoples.[21] Old myths underlie the account of the creation and the
garden of Eden, and traces of other versions or forms appear elsewhere
in the Old Testament. Again, the Old Testament throws no light upon the
redemption of Abraham (Is. xxix. 22), although the Targums and other
sources profess to be well-informed. The isolated reference to Jacob's
conquest of Shechem in Gen. xlviii. 22 must have belonged to another
context, and later writings give in a later and thoroughly incredible
form allied traditions. In Hosea xii. 4, Jacob's wrestling is mentioned
before the scene at Bethel (Gen. xxxii. 24 sqq., xxviii. 11 sqq.). The
overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Genesis (xviii. seq.),
but Hosea refers only to that of Admah and Zeboim (xi. 8, cf. Deut.
xxix. 23, Gen. x. 19)--different versions of the great catastrophe were
doubtless current. Consequently investigation must start with the
particular details which happen to be preserved, and these not
necessarily in their original or in their only form. Since the antiquity
of elements of tradition is independent of the shape in which they
appear before us, a careful distinction must be drawn between those
details which do not admit of being dated or located and those which do.
There is evidence for the existence of the _names_ Abram, Jacob and
Joseph previous to 900 B.C., but this does not prove the antiquity of
the present narratives encircling them. Babylonian tablets of the
creation date from the 7th century B.C., but their contents are many
centuries earlier (viz. the age of Khammurabi), whereas the Phoenician
myths of the origin of things are preserved in a late form by the late
writers Damascius and Philo of Byblus. Gen. xiv., which may preserve
some knowledge of the reign of Khammurabi, is on internal literary
grounds of the post-exilic age, and it is at least a coincidence that
the Babylonian texts, often quoted in support of the genuineness of the
narrative, belong to about the same period and use early Babylonian
history for purely didactic purposes.[22] In general, just as the Book
of Jubilees, while presenting many elements of old tradition, betrays on
decisive internal grounds an age later than Genesis itself, so, in turn,
there is sufficient conclusive evidence that Genesis in its present form
includes older features, but belongs to the age to which (on quite
independent grounds) the rest of the Pentateuch must be ascribed.
Historical backgrounds.
Popular tradition often ignores events of historical importance, or, as
repeated experience shows, will represent them in such a form that the
true historical kernel could never have been recovered without some
external clue. The absence of definite references to the events of the
Israelite monarchy does not necessarily point to the priority of the
traditions in Genesis or their later date. Nevertheless, some allusion
to national fortunes is reflected in the exaltation of Jacob (Israel)
over Esau (Edom), and in the promise that the latter should break the
yoke from his neck.[23] Israelite kings are foreshadowed (xvii. 6, xxxv.
11, P), and Israel's kingdom has the ideal limits as ascribed to Solomon
(xv. 18, see 1 Kings iv. 21; but cf. art. SOLOMON). Judah is promised a
world-wide king (xlix. 8-10), though elsewhere the supremacy of Joseph
rouses the jealousy of his "brothers" (xxxvii. 8). Different dates and
circles of interest are thus manifest. The cursing and dispersion of
Simeon and Levi (xlix. 5-7) recall the fact that Simeon's cities were in
the territory of Judah (Josh. xix. 1, 9), and that the Levitical priests
are later scattered and commended to the benevolence of the Israelites.
But the curse obviously represents an attitude quite opposed to the
blessing pronounced upon Levi by Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 8-11). The Edomite
genealogies (xxxvi.) represent a more extensive people than the
references in the popular stories suggest, and the latter by no means
indicate that Edom had so important a career as we actually gather from
a few allusions to its kings (xxxvi. 31-39).[24] The references to
Philistines are anachronistic for the pre-Mosaic age, and it is clear
that the tradition of a solemn covenant with a Philistine king and his
general (xxi. 22 seq., xxvi. 26 sqq.) does not belong to the age or the
circle which remembered the grievous oppressions of the Philistines or
felt contempt for these "uncircumcised" enemies of Israel[25]. Finally,
the thread of the tradition unmistakably represents a national unity of
the twelve sons (tribes) of Israel; but this unity was not felt at
certain periods of disorganization, and the idea of including Judah
among the sons of Israel could not have arisen at a time when Israel and
Judah were rival kingdoms.[26] In so far as the traditions can be read
in the light of biblical history it is evident that they belong to
different ages and represent different national, tribal, or local
standpoints.
Interest in holy places.
Another noteworthy feature is the interest taken in _sacred sites_.
Certain places are distinguished by theophanies or by the erection of an
altar (_lit._ place of sacrificial slaughter), and incidents are
narrated with a very intelligible purpose. _Mizpah_ in Gilead is the
scene of a covenant or treaty between Jacob and his Aramaean relative
commemorated by a pillar (_Massebah_). It was otherwise known for an
annual religious ceremony, the traditional origin of which is related in
the story of Jephthah's vow and sacrifice (Judg. xi.), and its priests
are denounced by Hosea (v. i). _Shechem_, the famous city of the
Samaritans ("the foolish nation," Ecclus. I. 26), where Joseph was
buried (Josh. xxiv. 32), had a sanctuary and a sacred pillar and tree.
It was the scene of the coronation (a religious ceremony) of Abimelech
(Judg. ix.), and Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 1). The pillar was ascribed to
Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26 seq.), and although Jacob set up at Shechem an
"altar," the verb suggests that the original object was a pillar (Gen.
xxxiii. 20). The first ancestor of Israel, on the other hand, is merely
associated with a theophany at an oracular tree (xii. 6). The Benjamite
_Bethel_ was especially famous in Israelite religious history. The story
tells how Jacob discovered its sanctity,--it was the gate of
heaven,--made a covenant with its God, established the sacred pillar,
and instituted its tithes (xxviii.). The prophetess Deborah dwelt under
a palm-tree near Bethel (Judg. iv. 5), and her name is also that of the
foster-mother of Rebekah who was buried near Bethel beneath the "oak of
weeping" (xxxv. 8). _Bochim_ ("weeping") elsewhere receives its name
when an angel appeared to the Israelites (Judg. ii. 1, Septuagint adds
Bethel). To the prophets Hosea and Amos the cultus of Bethel was
superstitious and immoral, even though it was Yahweh himself who was
worshipped there (see BETHEL). South of Hebron lay _Beersheba_, an
important centre and place of pilgrimage, with a special numen by whom
oaths were taken (Amos viii. 14, see Sept. and the commentaries). Isaac
built its altar, and Isaac's God guarded Jacob in his journeying (xxxi.
29, xlvi. 1). This patriarch and his "brother" Ishmael are closely
associated with the district south of Judah, both are connected with
_Beer-lahai-roi_ (xxiv. 62, Sept. xxv. 11), whose fountain was the scene
of a theophany (xvi.), and their traditions are thus localized in the
district of Kadesh famous in the events of the Exodus (cf. xvi. 14, xxi.
21, xxv. 18, Ex. xv. 22). (See EXODUS, THE.) Abraham planted a sacred
tree at Beersheba and invoked "the everlasting God" (xxi. 33). But the
patriarch is more closely identified with _Hebron_, which had a
sanctuary (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 7 seq.), and an altar which he built "unto
Yahweh" (xiii. 18). The sacred oak of Mamre was famous in the time of
Josephus (_B. J._ iv. 9, 7), it was later a haunt of "angels" (Sozomen),
and Constantine was obliged to put down the heathenish cultus. The place
still has its holy tree. Beneath the oak there appeared the three divine
beings, and in the cave of Machpelah the illustrious ancestor and his
wife were buried. The story of his descent into Egypt and the plaguing
of Pharaoh is a secondary insertion (xii. 10-xiii. 2), and where the
patriarch appears at Beersheba it is in incidents which tend to connect
him with his "son" Isaac. There is a very distinct tendency to emphasize
the importance of Hebron. Taken from primitive giants by the
non-Israelite clan Caleb (q.v.) it has now become predominant in the
patriarchal traditions. Jacob leaves his dying father at Beersheba
(xxviii. 10), but according to the _latest_ source he returns to him at
Hebron (xxxv. 27), and here, north of Beersheba, he continues to live
(xxxvii. 14, xlvi. 1-5). The cave of Machpelah became the grave of
Isaac, Rebekah and Leah (but not Rachel); and though Jacob appears to
be buried beyond the Jordan, it is the latest source which places his
grave at Hebron (1. i-11 and 12 seq.). So in still later tradition, all
the sons of Jacob with the exception of Joseph find their last
resting-place at Hebron, and in Jewish prayers for the dead it is
besought that their souls may be bound up with those of the patriarchs,
or that they may go to the cave of Machpelah and thence to the
Cherubim.[27] The increasing prominence of the old Calebite locality is
not the least interesting phase in the comparative study of the
patriarchal traditions.
The association of the ancestors of Israel with certain sites is a
feature which finds analogies even in modern Palestine. There are old
centres of cult which have never lost the veneration of the people; the
shrines are known as the tombs of saints or _walis_ (patrons) with such
orthodox names as St George, Elijah, &c. Traditions justify the
reputation for sanctity, and not only are similar stories told of
distinct figures, but there are varying traditions of a single
figure.[28] The places have retained their sacred character despite
political and religious vicissitudes; they are far older than their
present names, and such is the conservatism of the east that it is not
surprising when, for example, a sacred tomb at Gezer stands quite close
to the site of an ancient holy place, about 3000 years old, the
existence of which was first made known in the course of excavation.
Genesis preserves a selection of traditions relating to a few of the old
Palestinian centres of cult. We cannot suppose that these first gained
their sacred character in the pre-Mosaic "patriarchal" age; there is in
any case the obvious difficulty of bridging the gap between the descent
into Egypt and the Exodus, and it is clear that when the Israelites
entered Palestine they came among a people whose religion, tradition and
thought were fully established. It is only in accordance with analogy if
stories were current in Israel of the institution of the sacred places,
and closer study shows that we do not preserve the original version of
these traditions.[29]
A venerated tree in modern Palestine will owe its sanctity to some
tradition, associating it, it may be, with some saint; the Israelites in
their turn held the belief that the sacred tree at Hebron was one
beneath which their first ancestor sat when three divine beings revealed
themselves to him. But it is noteworthy that Yahweh alone is now
prominent; the tradition has been revised, apparently in writing, and,
later, the author of Jubilees (xvi.) ignores the triad. At
Beer-lahai-roi an El ("god") appeared to Hagar, whence the name of her
child Ishmael; but the writer prefers the unambiguous proper name
Yahweh, and, what is more, the divine being is now Yahweh's angel--the
Almighty's subordinate (xvi.). The older traits show themselves partly
in the manifestation of various _Els_, and partly in the cruder
anthropomorphism of the earlier sources. Later hands have by no means
eliminated or modified them altogether, and in xxxi. 53 one can still
perceive that the present text has endeavoured to obscure the older
belief that the God of Abraham was not the God of his "brother" Nahor
(see the commentaries). The sacred pillar erected by Jacob at Bethel was
solemnly anointed with oil, and it (and not the place) was regarded as
the abode of the Deity (xxviii. 18, 22). This agrees with all that is
known of stone-cults, but it is quite obvious that this interesting
example of popular belief is far below the religious ideas of the writer
of the chapter in its present form.[30] There were many places where it
could be said that Yahweh had recorded his name and would bless his
worshippers (Ex. xx. 24). They were abhorrent to the advanced ethical
teaching of prophets and of those imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy
(cf. 2 Kings xviii. 4 with v. 22), and it is patent from Jeremiah,
Ezekiel and Is. lvi.-lxvi. that even at a late date opinion varied as
to how Yahweh was to be served.[31] It is significant, therefore, that
the narratives in Genesis (apart from P) reflect a certain tolerant
attitude; there is much that is contrary to prophetical thought, but
even the latest compilers have not obliterated all features that, from a
strict standpoint, could appear distasteful. Although the priestly
source shows how the lore could be reshaped, and Jubilees represents
later efforts along similar lines, it is evident that for ordinary
readers the patriarchal traditions could not be presented in an entirely
new form, and that to achieve their aims the writers could not be at
direct variance with current thought.
It will now be understood why several scholars have sought to recover
earlier forms of the traditions, the stages through which the material
has passed, and the place of the earlier forms and stages in the
history and religion of Israel. These labours are indispensable for
scientific biblical study, and are most fruitful when they depend upon
comprehensive methods of research. When, for example, one observes the
usual forms of hero-cult and the tendency to regard the occupant of
the modern sacred shrine as the ancestor of his clients, deeper
significance is attached to the references to the protective care of
Abraham and Israel (Is. lxiii. 16), or to the motherly sympathy of
Rachel (Jer. xxxi. 15). And, again, when one perceives the tendency to
look upon the alleged ancestor or _weli_ as an almost divine being,
there is much to be said for the view that the patriarchal figures
were endowed by popular opinion with divine attributes. But here the
same external evidence warns us that these considerations throw no
light upon the original significance of the patriarchs. It is
impossible to recover the earliest traditions from the present
narratives, and these alone offer sufficiently perplexing
problems.[32]
Southern interests.
From a careful survey of all the accessible material it is beyond doubt
that Genesis preserves only a selection of traditions of various ages
and interests, and often not in their original form. We have relatively
little tradition from North Israel; Beersheba, Beer-lahai-roi and Hebron
are more prominent than even Bethel or Shechem, while there are no
stories of Gilgal, Shiloh or Dan. Yet in the nature of the case, there
must have been a great store of local tradition accessible to some
writers and at some periods.[33] Interest is taken not in Phoenicia,
Damascus or the northern tribes, but in the east and south, in Gilead,
Ammon, Moab and Ishmael. Particular attention is paid to Edom and Jacob,
and there is good evidence for a close relationship between Edomite and
allied names and those of South Palestine (including Simeon and Judah).
Especially significant, too, is the interest in traditions which
affected the South of Palestine, that district which is of importance
for the history of Israel in the wilderness and of the Levites.[34] It
is noteworthy, therefore, that while different peoples had their own
theories of their earliest history, the first-born of the first human
pair is Cain, the eponym of the Kenites, and the ancestor of the
beginnings of civilization (iv. 17, 20-22). This "Kenite" version had
its own view of the institution of the worship of Yahweh (iv. 26); it
appears to have ignored the Deluge, and it implies the existence of a
fuller corpus of written tradition. Elsewhere, in the records of the
Exodus, there are traces of specific traditions associated with Kadesh,
Kenites, Caleb and Jerahmeel, and with a movement into Judah, all
originally independent of their present context. Like the prominence of
the traditions of Hebron and its hero Abraham, these features cannot be
merely casual.[35]
The fact that one is not dealing with literal history complicates the
question of the nomadic or semi-nomadic life of the Israelite
ancestors.[36] They are tent-dwellers, shepherds, sojourners (xvii. 8,
xxiii. 4, xxviii. 4, xxxvi. 7, xxxvii. 1), and we breathe the air of
the open country. But the impression gained from the narratives is of
course due to the narrators. The movements of the patriarchs serve
mainly to connect them with traditions which were originally
independent. When Abraham separates from Lot he settles in "the land
of Canaan," while Lot dwells in "the cities of the plain" (xiii. 12).
Isaac at Beersheba enters into an alliance with the Philistines (xxvi.
12 sqq.), while Jacob seems to settle at Shechem (xxxiv.), and there
or at Dothan, a few miles north, his sons pasture their father's flock
(xxxvii. 12 sqq.).[37] Indeed, according to an isolated fragment Jacob
conquered Shechem and gave it to Joseph (xlviii. 22), and this
tradition underlies (and has not given birth to) the late and
fantastic stories of his warfare (Jub. xxxiv. 1-9, Test. of Judah
iii.). Judah, also, is represented as settling among the Canaanites
(xxxviii.), and Simeon marries a Canaanite--according to late
tradition, a woman of Zephath (xlvi. 10; Jub. xxxiv. 20, xliv. 13; see
Judg. i. 17). These representations have been subordinated to others,
in particular to the descent into Egypt of Jacob (Israel) and his
sons, and the Exodus of the Israelites. But the critical study of
these events raises very serious historical problems. Abraham's
grandson, with his family--a mere handful of people--went down into
Egypt during a famine (cf. Abraham xii. 10, and Isaac xxvi. 1 seq.);
400 years pass, all memory of which is practically obliterated, and
the Israelite nation composed of similar subdivisions returns.
Although the later genealogies from Jacob to Moses allow only four
generations (cf. Gen. xv. 16), the difficulties are not removed.
Joseph lived to see the children of Machir (l. 23, note Ex. i. 8),
though Machir received Gilead from the hands of Moses (Num. xxxii.
40); Levi descended with Kehath, who became the grandfather of Aaron
and Moses, while Aaron married a descendant in the fifth generation
from Judah (Ex. vi. 23). On the other hand the genealogies in 1 Chron.
ii. sqq. are independent of the Exodus; Ephraim's children raid Gath,
his daughter founds certain cities, and Manasseh has an Aramaean
concubine who becomes the mother of Machir (1 Chron. vii. 14,
20-24).[38] Moreover the whole course of the invasion and settlement
of Israel (under Joshua) has no real connexion with pre-Mosaic
patriarchal history. If we reinterpret the history of the _family_ and
its descent into Egypt, and belittle its increase into a _nation_, and
if we figure to ourselves a more gradual occupation of Palestine, we
destroy the entire continuity of history as it was understood by those
who compiled the biblical history, and we have no evidence for any
confident reconstruction. With such thoroughness have the compilers
given effect to their views that only on closer examination is it
found that even at a relatively late period fundamentally differing
traditions still existed, and that those which belonged to circles
which did not recognize the Exodus have been subordinated and adjusted
by writers to whom this was the profoundest event in their past.[39]
The Southern nucleus.
That the journey of Jacob-Israel from his Aramaean relatives into
Palestine hints at some pre-Mosaic immigration is possible, but has not
been either proved or disproved. The details point rather to a
reflection of the entrance of the children of Israel, elsewhere ascribed
to the leadership of Joshua (q.v.). Though the latter proceeded to
Gilgal, a variant tradition, now almost lost, seems to have recorded an
immediate journey to Shechem (Deut. xxvii. 1-10, Josh. viii. 30-35)
previous to Joshua's great campaigns (Josh. x. seq., cf. Jacob's wars).
His religious gathering at Shechem before the dismissal of the tribes
finds its parallel in Jacob's reforms before leaving for Bethel (xxiv.;
cf. v. 26, Gen. xxxv. 4). Owing, perhaps, to the locale of the writers,
we hear relatively little of the northern tribes. Judah and Simeon are
the first to conquer their lot, and the "house of Joseph" proceeds south
to Bethel, where the story of the "weeping" at Bochim finds a parallel
in the "oak of weeping" (Gen. xxxv. 8). In Gen. xxxviii. "at that time
Judah went down from his brethren"--in xxxvii. they are at Shechem or
Dothan--and settled among Canaanites, and there is a fragmentary
allusion to a similar alliance of Simeon (xlvi. 10). The trend of the
two series of traditions is too close to be accidental, yet the present
sequence of the narratives in Joshua and Judges associates them with the
Exodus. Further, Jacob's move to Shechem, Bethel and the south is
parallel to that of Abraham, but his history actually represents a
twofold course. On the one hand, he is the Aramaean (Deut. xxvi. 5), the
favourite son of his Aramaean mother. On the other, Rebekah is brought
to Beer-lahai-roi (xxiv.), Jacob belongs to the south and he leaves
Beersheba for his lengthy sojourn beyond the Jordan. His separation from
Esau, the revelation at Bethel, and the new name Israel are recorded
twice, and if the entrance into Palestine reflects one ethnological
tradition, the possibility that his departure from Beersheba reflects
another, finds support (a) in the genealogies which associate the nomad
"father" of the southern clans Caleb and Jerahmeel with Gilead (1 Chron.
ii. 21), and (b) in the hints of an "exodus" from the district of Kadesh
northwards.
The history of an immigration into Palestine from beyond the Jordan
would take various shapes in local tradition. In Genesis it is preserved
from the southern point of view. The northern standpoint appears when
Rachel, mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is the favoured wife in contrast
to the despised Leah, mother of Judah and Simeon; when Joseph is supreme
among his brethren; and when Judah is included among the "sons" of
Israel. It is possible that the application of the traditional
immigration to the history of the tribes is secondary. This at all
events suggests itself when xxxiv. extends to the history of all the
sons, incidents which originally concerned Simeon and Levi alone, and
which may have represented the Shechemite version of a "Levitical"
tradition (see LEVITES). However this may be, it is necessary to account
for the nomadic colouring of the narratives (cf. Meyer, pp. 305, 472)
and the prominence of southern interests, and it would be in accordance
with biblical evidence elsewhere if northern tradition had been taken
over and adapted to the standpoint of the southern members of Israel,
with the incorporation of local tradition which could only have
originated in the south.[40] These and other indications point to a late
date in biblical history. There is a manifest difference between the
religious importance of Shechem in the traditions of Joshua (xxiv.) and
Jacob's reforms when he leaves behind him the heathen symbols before
journeying to the holy site of Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 4). There is even some
polemic against marriage with Shechemites (xxxiv.; more emphatic in Jub.
xxx.), while in the story of the Hebronite Abraham, Bethel itself is
avoided and Shechem is of little significance. Again, the present object
of xxxviii. is to trace the origin of certain Judaean subdivisions after
the death of the wicked Er and Onan. It is purely local and is
interested in Shelah, and more especially in Perez and Zerah, names of
families or clans of the post-exilic age.[41] Elsewhere, in 1 Chron.
ii. and iv., the genealogies represent a Judah composed of clans from
the south (Caleb and Jerahmeel) and of small families or guilds, Shelah
included. It is not the Judah of the monarchy or of the post-exilic
Babylonian-Israelite community. But the mixed elements were ultimately
reckoned among the descendants of Judah, through Hezron the "father" of
Caleb and Jerahmeel, and just as the southern groups finally became
incorporated in Israel, so it is to be observed that although Hebron and
Abraham have gained the first place in the patriarchal history, the
traditions are no longer specifically Calebite, but are part of the
common Israelite heritage.
We are taken to a period in biblical history when, though the historical
sources are almost inexplicably scanty, the narratives of the past were
approaching their present shape. Some time after the fall of Jerusalem
(587 B.C.) there was a movement from the south of Judah northwards to
the vicinity of Jerusalem (Bethlehem, Kirjath-jearim, &c.), where, as
can be gathered from 1 Chron. ii., were congregated Kenite and Rechabite
communities and families of scribes. Names related to those of Edomite
and kindred groups are found in the late genealogies of both Judah and
Benjamin, and recur even among families of the time of Nehemiah.[42] The
same obscure period witnessed the advent of southern families,[43] the
revival of the Davidic dynasty and its mysterious disappearance, the
outbreak of fierce hatred of Edom, the return of exiles from Babylonia,
the separation of Judah from Samaria and the rise of bitter
anti-Samaritan feeling. It closes with the reorganization associated
with Ezra and Nehemiah and the compilation of the historical books in
practically their present form. It contains diverse interests and
changing standpoints by which it is possible to explain the presence of
purely southern tradition, the southern treatment of national history,
and the antipathy to northern claims. As has already been mentioned, the
specifically southern writings have everywhere been modified or adjusted
to other standpoints, or have been almost entirely subordinated, and it
is noteworthy, therefore, that in narratives elsewhere which reflect
rivalries and conflicts among the priestly families, there is sometimes
an animus against those whose names and traditions point to a southern
origin (see LEVITES).
Summary.
Thus the book of Genesis represents the result of efforts to systematize
the earliest history, and to make it a worthy prelude to the Mosaic
legislation which formed the charter of Judaism as it was established in
or about the 5th century B.C. It goes back to traditions of the most
varied character, whose tone was originally more in accord with earlier
religion and thought. Though these have been made more edifying, they
have not lost their charm and interest. The latest source, it is true,
is without their freshness and life, but it is a matter for thankfulness
that the simple compilers were conservative, and have neither presented
a work entirely on the lines of P, nor rewritten their material as was
done by the author of Jubilees and by Josephus. It is obvious that from
Jubilees alone it would have been impossible to conceive the form which
the traditions had taken a few centuries previously--viz. in Genesis.
Also, from P alone it would have been equally impossible to recover the
non-priestly forms. But while there is no immeasurable gulf between the
canonical book of Genesis and Jubilees, the internal study of the former
reveals traces of earlier traditions most profoundly different as
regards thought and contents. It is not otherwise when one looks below
the traditional history elsewhere (e.g. Samuel, Kings). An explanation
may be found in the vicissitudes of the age. The movement from the
south, which seems to account for a considerable cycle of the
patriarchal traditions, belongs to the age after the downfall of the
Israelite and (later) the Judaean monarchies when there were vital
political and social changes. The removal of prominent inhabitants, by
Assyria and later by Babylonia, the introduction of colonists from
distant lands, and the movements of restless tribes around Palestine
were more fatal to the continuity of trustworthy tradition than to the
persistence of popular thought. New conditions arose as the population
was reorganized, a new Israel claimed to be the heirs of the past (cf.
e.g. the Samaritans, Ezr. iv. 2, Joseph. _Antiq_. ix. 14, 3; xi. 8,
6), and not until after these vicissitudes did the book of Genesis begin
to assume its present shape.[44] (See JEWS; PALESTINE: _History_.)
The above pages handle only the more important details for the study
of a book which, as regards contents and literary history, cannot be
separated from the series to which it forms the introduction. As
regards the literary-critical problems it is clear that with the
elimination of P we have the sources (minor adjustment and revision
excepted) which were accessible to the last compiler in the
post-exilic age. Most critics have inclined to date these sources (J
and E) as early as possible, whereas the admitted presence of
secondary and of relatively late passages (e.g. xviii. 22 sqq., J;
xxii., E) shows that one must work back from the sources as known in
P's age, and that one can rely only upon those criteria which can be
approximately dated. It is usual to regard the more primitive
character of J and E as a mark of antiquity; but this ignores the
regular survival of primitive modes of thought and of popular
tradition outside more cultured circles. It is also recognized that J
and E are non-prophetical and non-Deuteronomic, but it has not been
proved that the present J and E are earlier than the prophets or the
Deuteronomic reforms of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. seq.). J and E are
linguistically almost identical (in contrast to P), and differ from P
in features which are often not of chronological but of sociological
significance (e.g. the mentality of the writers). Their language is
without some of the phenomena found in narratives which emanate from
the north (e.g. Judges v., stories of Elijah and Elisha), and their
stylistic variations may be, as Gunkel suggests, the mark of a
district or region; for this district one would look in the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The conclusion that P's narratives and
laws in the Pentateuch are post-exilic was found by biblical scholars
to be a necessary correction to the original hypothesis of Graf (1866)
that P's _narratives_ were to be retained (with J and E) at an early
date. This view was influenced by the close connexion between the
subject-matter, J, E and P representing the same trend of tradition.
But by still ascribing J and E as written sources to about the 9th or
8th century (individual opinion varies), many difficulties and
inconsistencies are involved. The present J and E reflect a reshaping
and readjustment of earlier tradition which is found elsewhere, and
the suggestion that they are not far removed from the age of the
priestly writers and redactors does not conflict with what is known of
language, forms of religious thought, or tendencies of tradition. We
reach thus approximately the age when post-Deuteronomic editors were
able to utilize such records as Judg. i., xvii. sqq., 2 Sam. ix.-xx.
(see JUDGES; SAMUEL, BOOKS OF), which are equally valuable as
specimens of current thought and of written tradition. In conclusion,
the tendency of criticism has been to recognize "schools" of J and E
extending into the exile, thus making the three sources J, E and P
more nearly contemporaneous. The most recent conservative authority
also inclines to a similar contemporaneity ("collaboration" or
"co-operation"), but at an impossibly early date (J. Orr, _Problem of
the O. T_., 1905, pp. 216, 345, 354, 375 seq., 527). By admitting
possible revision in the post-exilic age (pp. 226, 369, 375 seq.), the
conservative theory recalls the old legend that Ezra rewrote the Old
Testament (2 Esd. xiv.) and thus restored the Law which had been lost;
a view which, through the early Christian Fathers, gained currency and
has enjoyed a certain popularity to the present day. But when once
revision or rewriting is conceded, there is absolutely no guarantee
that the present Pentateuch is in any way identical with the five
books which tradition ascribed to Moses (q.v.), and the necessity for
a comprehensive critical investigation of the _present_ contents makes
itself felt.[45]
LITERATURE.--Only a few of the numerous works can be mentioned. Of
those written from a conservative or traditional standpoint the most
notable are: W.H. Green's _Unity of Genesis_ (1895); and J. Orr,
_Problem of the O. T_. (which is nevertheless a great advance upon
earlier non-critical literature). S.R. Driver's commentary
(_Westminster Series_) deals thoroughly with all preliminary problems
of criticism, and is the best for the ordinary reader; that of A.
Dillmann (6th ed.; Eng. trans.) is more technical, that of W.H.
Bennett (_Century Bible_) is more concise and popular. G.J. Spurrell,
Notes on the Text of Genesis, and C.J. Ball (in Haupt's _Sacred Books
of the O. T_.) appeal to Hebrew students. W.E. Addis, _Documents of
the Hexateuch_, Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, _The Hexateuch_, and
C.F. Kent, _Beginnings of Hebrew History_, are more important for the
literary analysis. J. Wellhausen's sketch in his _Proleg. to Hist. of
Israel_ (Eng. trans., pp. 259-342) is admirable, as also is the
general Introduction (trans. by W.H. Carruth, 1907) to H. Gunkel's
valuable commentary. Of recent works bearing upon the subject-matter
reference may be made to J.P. Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_ (1904),
A.R. Gordon, _Early Traditions of Genesis_ (1907), and T.K. Cheyne,
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_ (1907). Special mention
must be made of Eduard Meyer and B. Luther, to whose _Die Israëliten
und ihre Nachbarstämme_ (1906) the present writer is indebted for many
valuable suggestions and hints. Fuller bibliographical information
will be found in the works already mentioned, in the articles in the
_Ency. Bib_. (G.F. Moore), and Hastings's _Dict_. (G.A. Smith), and in
the volume by J. Skinner in the elaborate and encyclopaedic
_International Critical Series_. (S. A. C.)