The Unity of the Book

1

THE UNITY OF THE BOOK

OF GENESIS

BY

WILLIAM HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL AND OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE IN PRINCETON

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

1895

COPYRIGHT, 1895, BY

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

[Digitally prepared by Dr. Ted Hildebrandt

Gordon College, MA 9/11/2002]

TROW DIRECTORY

PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY

NEW YORK

PREFACE

ALL tradition, from whatever source it is derived,

whether inspired or uninspired, unanimously affirms that

the first five books of the Bible were written by one man

and that man was Moses. There is no counter-testimony

in any quarter. From the predominant character of their

contents these books are commonly called the Law. All

the statutes contained in them are expressly declared to

have been written by Moses or to have been given by the

LORD to Moses. And if the entire law is his, the history,

which is plainly preparatory for, or subsidiary to, the

law, must be his likewise.

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has, how-

ever, been challenged in modern times in the name of

the higher criticism on two distinct and independent

grounds. One is that of the document hypothesis in its

various forms and modifications, which occupies itself

with the narrative portion of the Pentateuch, and on

the ground of literary criteria claims that this is not the

product of anyone writer, but that it has been compiled

from different documents, which are clearly distinguish-

able in diction, style, conception, plan, and design, and

which belong to widely separated ages. The other is

that of the development hypothesis, which has attached

itself to the preceding, but deals characteristically with a

different portion of the Pentateuch and employs a differ-

ent style of argument. Its field of operation is the laws,

which it claims were not and could not have been given by

Moses, nor at anyone period in the history of Israel.

vi PREFACE

It professes to trace the growth of this legislation from

simple and primitive forms to those which are more

complex and which imply a later and more developed

civilization. And it confidently affirms that these laws

could not have been committed to writing in their pres-

ent form for many centuries after the age of Moses.

These hypotheses are discussed in a general way in my

"Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch," where the fallacy

and inconclusiveness of the reasoning by which they are

defended and the falsity of the conclusions deduced from

them are exposed. In order to a complete refutation of

these hypotheses it is necessary to show still further by

a detailed examination their inapplicability to, and in-

compatibility with, the phenomena of the Pentateuch,

and that, so far from solving the question of its origin,

they are destitute of any real basis; they find no support

in the Pentateuch itself, but are simply the creations of

learned ingenuity and a lively imagination.

The present treatise occupies itself exclusively with

the document hypothesis, and aims to prove that the

book of Genesis is not a compilation from different docu-

ments, but is the continuous work of a single writer.

The demonstration that this hypothesis has no foothold

in Genesis effectually overturns it for the rest of the

Pentateuch, or, if the critics please, the Hexateuch. It

took its rise in Genesis; the most plausible arguments

in its favor are drawn from that book; and the verdict

rendered by that book substantially settles the case for

those that follow. It is on the basis of the assumption

that it is firmly established in Genesis that it is carried

through the Hexateuch. If that assumption is proved

to be false, the hypothesis collapses entirely.

What is here proposed is a critical study of Genesis

from beginning to end, chapter by chapter and section

by section. The history of critical opinion is given in

PREFACE vii

full in the more important passages, and is throughout

traced sufficiently to place before the reader the various

views that have been entertained, together with the

grounds adduced on their behalf. Pains have been taken

to carefully collate and frankly state whatever has been

urged in defence of the hypothesis by its ablest and

most eminent advocates on each successive passage; and

this is then subjected to a thorough and candid exami-

nation. The reader will thus be put in possession of the

reasons for and against it to the best of the writer's abil-

ity, and can form his own conclusion. The writer, while

aiming at entire fairness in presenting both sides of the

argument, does not conceal his own assured conviction

of the overwhelming preponderance in favor of the faith

of ages and against the divisive hypothesis of modern

times.

As the alleged criteria of the different documents are

most fully and clearly stated by Dr. Dillmann, his pres-

entation of them is followed throughout the book, unless

where some other authority is expressly mentioned.

To avoid constant circumlocution P, J, E, and D are

frequently spoken of as though they were the real en-

tities that the critics declare them to be, and passages

are said to belong to one or the other because critics so

affirm. Such language adopted for brevity must not be

understood as an admission that the documents so called

ever existed.

In replying to the objections of Bishop Colenso in

1863 the author ventured the suggestion that he might

at some future time prepare a work on the criticism of

the Pentateuch. Since that time the positions then

taken by leading critics have been abandoned by them-

selves, and their whole conception of the origin and con-

stitution of the Pentateuch has been revolutionized.

The complex character of the Pentateuchal question

viii PREFACE

and the tedious minuteness required in its thorough ex-

amination doubtless supply the reason why so many

critics are content with repeating or building upon the

conclusions of their predecessors without investigating

for themselves the soundness of the basis on which these

conclusions rest. The author frankly confesses for him-

self that, while he felt at every point the weakness and

unsatisfactory character of the arguments of the divisive

critics, he was long deterred by the complexity of the

task from undertaking to prepare such a treatise as the

nature of the case required. He might have continued

still to shrink from it but for the proposal, in 1888,

by his friend Dr. W. R. Harper, of an amicable dis-

cussion of the subject in the columns of the Hebraica.

The kindly proposal was accepted, though with some

hesitation lest the cause whose defence was thus under-

taken might suffer from unskilful advocacy. It seemed,

however, to involve less responsibility and to be a less

onerous undertaking to engage in such a discussion,

piecemeal, in the columns of a quarterly journal, at

the solicitation of a friend, than to set myself to the

preparation of a work on the entire subject of my own

motion. The discussion thus begun was continued at

intervals, step by step, through the whole of the narrative

portion of the Pentateuch. Though convinced at the

outset of the unsoundness in the main of the arguments

urged on behalf of the critical partition of the Penta-

teuch by its principal defenders, I did not know but

there might be some fire where there was so much

smoke, and some possible foundation for the positive

assertions in which the critics are so prone to indulge.

The discussion was accordingly begun with no absolute

prepossession on my part for or against the existence of

Pentateuchal documents. One thing was clear to my

mind from the beginning, that the Pentateuch as inspired

PREFACE ix

of God was a true and trustworthy record; everything

else was left to be determined by the evidence which it

should supply. As the discussion proceeded I found my-

self unable to discover sufficient reason anywhere for the

assumption that the Pentateuch was a compilation from

pre-existing documents; and by the time that my task

was completed I had settled down in the assured belief

that the so-called documents were a chimera, and that

the much-vaunted discovery of Astruc was no discovery

at all, but an ignis fatuus which has misled critics ever

since into a long and weary and fruitless search through

fog and mire, that might better be abandoned for a

forward march on terra firma.

The discussion in the Hebraica prepared the way for

the volume now offered to the public, in which the

attempt is made to treat the question with more thor-

oughness than was possible in the limitations necessarily

imposed in a crowded quarterly. The ground there

traversed has been carefully re-examined and explored

at afresh in the light shed upon it by the ablest minds on

either side of the controversy. The prominence ac-

corded to German scholars is due to the fact that the

have been the chief laborers in the field. The various

partition hypotheses, after Astruc's conjecture, as he

himself termed it, had pointed out the way, have been

originated and elaborated by German scholars. And if

they have failed to put them upon a solid basis, it is but

from no lack of learning, ingenuity, or perseverance, but

much from the inherent weakness of the cause.

It is hoped that this volume may prove a serviceable

text-book for the study of criticism; that it may meet

the wants of theological students and ministers who de-

sire to acquaint themselves thoroughly with a subject of

such prominence and importance; and that it may like-

wise prove helpful to intelligent laymen who, omitting

x PREFACE

the discussion of Hebrew words that are necessarily in-

troduced, may be led by it to a better understanding of

the book of Genesis in its connection and the mutual

relation of its several parts, and be helped in the solu-

tion of difficulties and the removal of objections. It

stands on the common ground, dear alike to all who re-

gard the Pentateuch as the word of God through Moses,

whether Jew or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, clergy-

man or layman. If by the divine blessing it shall be

made to contribute in any measure to the elucidation or

defence of this part of Holy Scripture, or to the confir-

mation of the faith of any, or to the relief of such as

may have been perplexed or troubled by anxious doubts

or misgivings, the author will be profoundly grateful to

Him to whom all praise is due.

PRINCETON, N. J., September 26, 1895.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

THE BOOK OF GENESIS, 1

The creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. i. 1-ii. 3),

words indicative of P, 4.

I

THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (CH. II. 4-IV.) 7

Primitive state and fall of man (ch. ii. 4-iii. 24), 7; false critical

methods, 7; no duplicate account of the creation,

9; no discrepancies, 20; words and phrases indicative of J,

29 ; mutual relation of this and the preceding section, 33.

Cain and Abel--Cain's descendants (ch. iv.), 36; marks of J, 39.

II

THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM (CH. V. 1- VI. 8), 42

Adam to Noah (ch. v.), 42; the Cainite and Sethite gen-

ealogies, 43; duplicate statements, 47; primeval chronology,

49; marks of P, 50. The Sons of God and the Daughters of

Men (ch. vi. 1-8), 51; marks of J, 61.

III

THE GENERATIONS OF NOAR (CH. VI. 9-IX. 29), 65

The flood (ch. vi. 9-ix. 17), 65; the critical partition of

ch. vi. 5-ix. 17, 66; J not continuous, 71; P not contin-

uous, 78; no superfluous repetitions, 83 ; the divine names,

88; no discrepancies, 90; difference of diction, 94; marks

of P, 96; marks of J, 116; numerical correspondence, 121;

the Assyrian flood tablets? 122, Noah after the flood (ch.

ix. 18-29), 127.

xii CONTNETS

IV

PAGE

THE GENERATIONS 0F THE SONS 0F NOAH. (CH. X. l-XI. 9), 131 Origin of nations (ch. x.), 131 ; marks of P, 141 ; marks

of J, 143. Tower of Babel (ch. xi. 1-9),143; marks of J, 145.

V

THE GENERATIONS 0F SHEM (CH. XI. 10-26), 146

Shem to Abram (ch. xi. 10-26), 146.

VI

THE GENERATIONS OF TERAH (Cx. XI. 27-XXV. 11), 148

Preliminary remarks, 148; the divine names, 151; the crit-

ical partition, 154; no discrepancies, 161. The family of

Terah (ch. xi. 27-32), 168. The call of Abram and his jour-

neys (ch. xii.), 171; critical partition of vs. 1-9, 172; marks

of P, 175; marks of J, 181. Abram in Egypt (vs. 10-20),

182; marks of J, 185. Separation from Lot (ch. xiii), 185;

grounds of partition, 186; marks of P, 192; marks of J, 193.

Abram's rescue of Lot (ch. xiv.), 195. Promise and cove-

nant of Jehovah (ch. xv.), 202. Birth of Ishmael (ch. xvi.),

208; marks of P, 213; marks of J, 215. Covenant sealed

by Abraham (ch. xvii.), 217; style of P, 226; marks of P,

231. Visit to Abraham and destruction of Sodom (ch. xviii.

1-xix. 28), 236; marks of J, 240. Lot's incest (ch. xix. 29-

38), 246; marks of J, 250. Abraham with Abimelech, king

of Gerar (ch. xx.), 250; critical embarrassment, 250; diction

of ch. xx., 252; not referable to a distinct document, 254;

marks of E, 259. Birth of Isaac and dismissal of Ishmael (ch.

xxi. 1-21), 262; critical perplexity, 262; division impossible,

266 ; marks of P, 269; marks of J, 269; marks of E, 270.

Abraham at Beersheba (ch. xxi 22-34), 273; marks of E,

276. Sacrifice of Isaac (ch. xxii. 1-19), 277; the critical par-

tition, 278; marks of E, 286; marks of R, 288; no proof of

separate documents, 290. Family of Nahor (ch. xxii. 20-24),

291; marks of J, 292. Death and burial of Sarah (ch. xxiii.),

293; marks of P, 296. Marriage of Isaac (ch. xxiv.), 298;

marks of J, 304. Conclusion of Abraham's life (ch. xxv.

1-11), 307; marks of P, 310.

CONTENTS xiii

VII

Page

THE GENERATIONS OF ISHMAEL (CH. XXV. 12-18), 312

Marks of P, 313.