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.
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 Questions of date. 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.[1] 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 Nephīlīm 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.
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 Historical backgrounds. 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.[4] 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).[5] 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[6]. Finally, the thread of the tradition unmistakably represents a national unity of the twelve sons (tribes) of
- ↑ The Book of Jubilees also enables the student to test the arguments based upon any study restricted to Genesis alone. Thus it shows that the “primitive” features of Genesis afford a criterion which is sociological rather than chronological. This is often ignored. For example, the conveyance of the field of Machpelah (xxiii.) is conspicuous for the absence of any reference to a written contract in contrast to the “business” methods in Jer. xxxii. This does not prove that Gen. xxiii. is early, because writing was used in Palestine about 1400 B.C., and, on the other hand, the more simple forms of agreement are still familiar after the time of Jeremiah (e.g. Ruth, Proverbs). Similarly, no safe argument can be based upon the institution of blood-revenge in Gen. iv., when one observes the undeveloped conditions among the Trachonites of the time of Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 9, 1), or the varying usages among modern tribes.
- ↑ On the Jewish forms, see R. H. Charles, Book of Jubilees (1902), pp. 33 seq.
- ↑ A. H. Sayce, Proc. of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch. (1907), pp. 13-17.
- ↑ xxvii. 27-29, 39 seq. This is significantly altered in the later writings (Jub. xxvi. 34 and the Targums). It is worth noticing that in Jub. xxvi. 35 a new turn is given to Gen. xxvii. 41 by changing Isaac’s approaching death (which raises serious difficulties in the history of Jacob) into Esau’s wish that it may soon come.
- ↑ See E. Meyer (and B. Luther), Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 386-389, 442-446.
- ↑ See Philistines. The covenant with Abimelech may be compared with the friendship between David and Achish (1 Sam. xxvii.), who is actually called Abimelech in the heading of Ps. xxxiv. (see 1 Sam. xxi. 10). If this is a mistake (and not a variant tradition) it is a very remarkable one. The treatment of the covenant by the author of Jubilees (xxiv. 28 sqq.), on the other hand, is only intelligible when one recalls the attitude of Judah to the Philistine cities in the 2nd century B.C.; see R. H. Charles, ad loc.
