the First Week of Advent
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Genesis
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
or
I. General Data
1. The Name
2. Survey of Contents
3. Connection with Succeeding Books
II. Composition of Genesis in General
1. Unity of the Biblical Text
(1) The Toledhoth
(2) Further Indication of Unity
2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory
(1) In General
(a) Statement of Theory
(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions
(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory
(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language
(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter
(iii) The Biblico-Theological Data
(iv) Duplicates
(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together
(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes
(2) In View of the Names for God
(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle
(b) False Basis of Hypothesis
(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance
(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God
(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh
(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him
(iii) Other Reasons
(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham
(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof
(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position
(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint
III. Structure of the Individual Pericopes
1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1 through 2:3)
2. Structure of the 10 Toledhoth
IV. The Historical Character
1. History of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12 through 50)
(1) Unfounded Attacks upon the History
(a) From General Dogmatic Principles
(b) From Distance of Time
(c) From Biblical Data
(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia
(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age
(a) Explanation Based on High Places
(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times
(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi
(d) Different Explanations Combined
(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis
2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1 through 11
(1) Prominence of the Religious Element
(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research
(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science
(4) Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies
Babylonian and Biblical Stories
V. Origin and Authorship of Genesis
1. Connection with Mosaic Times
2. Examination of Counter-Arguments
(1) Possibility of Later Additions
(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea
(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date
VI. Significance
1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation
2. Preparation for Redemption
Literature
I. General Data
1. The Name
The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, בּראשׁית ,
2. Survey of Contents
The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first human beings (Genesis 1 ); of paradise and the fall (Genesis 2 f); of mankind down to the Deluge ( Genesis 4 f; compare Genesis 4 , Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself (Genesis 6 through 9); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs ( Genesis 10:1 through 11:26; compare Genesis 11:1 , the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (Gen 11:27 through 25:18); of Isaac and his house (Gen 25:19 through 37:2); of Jacob and of Joseph (Gen 37:2-50:26). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down to the beginning of Israel's sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (Gen 1:1 through 11:26) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (Gen 11:27 through 50:26) the history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with Ex 1. Though the introduction, Gen 1-11, with its universal character, includes all mankind in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3 ), it is from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart one man and his family (Gen 12 through 50), and after that a single nation (Ex 1ff), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.
3. Connection with Succeeding Books
By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history of the chosen people, which begins with Exodus 1 ff, at the very outset and with a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare Exodus 1:1-6 , Exodus 1:8 with Genesis 46:27; Genesis 50:24; and see
II. Composition of Genesis in General
1. Unity of the Biblical Text
(1) The tōl edhōth
The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has, at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2,3). This impression is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation of the world (1:1-2:3) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case bear the name
Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term
The number 10 is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles
(2) Further Indication of Unity
In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development. Cain's history (Genesis 4:17 ) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (Genesis 4:25 f J; Genesis 5:3 P); Japheth's and Ham's genealogy ( Genesis 10:1 P; Genesis 10:8 P and J) before that of Shem ( Genesis 10:21 J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah ( Genesis 9:24 ); the further history of Lot (Genesis 19:29 P and J) and of Ishmael's genealogy ( Genesis 25:12 P and J) before that of Isaac ( Genesis 25:19 P and J and E); Esau's descendants ( Genesis 36:1 R and P) before the
In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history that begins with Exodus 1 ff, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis (compare, e.g. Genesis 3:8; Genesis 7:16; Genesis 11:5 J; Genesis 17:1 , Genesis 17:22; Genesis 35:9 , Genesis 35:13 P; Genesis 18:1; Genesis 32:31 J), afterward ceases; and that in Ex, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than in the Book of Genesis (see
2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory
(1) In General
(A) Statement of Theory
Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P), Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed the following greater and connected parts: 1:1-2:4 a ; 5; a part of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Genesis 11:10; 17; 23; Genesis 25:12; Genesis 35:22 ff; the most of 36. As examples of the parts assigned to J we mention 2:4b -4:26; the rest of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; Genesis 11:1; 12 f; 16; 18 f, with the exception of a few verses, which are ascribed to P; chapter 24 and others. Connected parts belonging to the Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters 20 and 21 (with the exception of a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that, beginning with chapter 22, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of Joseph (25:19-50:26), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener, and the author of the present article.
(B) Reasons Assigned for Divisions
As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the two names of God, namely Yahweh (Jehovah) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g., Genesis 1 is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article PENTATEUCH . In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis, and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates are found, e.g., Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 a the Priestly Code (P), and Genesis 2:4 ff J, containing two stories of creation; Genesis 12:9 J; Genesis 20:1 E; Genesis 26:1 J; with the narrative of how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters 15 J and 17 the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded His covenant with Abraham; Genesis 21:22 E and Genesis 26:12 J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters 16 J and 21 E, the Hagar episodes; Genesis 28:10 J and E and Genesis 35:1 E and the Priestly Code (P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt ( Genesis 37:25; Genesis 39:1 ); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material, as in Genesis 5:1; Genesis 11:10; Genesis 25:12; Genesis 36:6 (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau); P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to Exodus 6:1 . Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according to
(C) Examination of the Documentary Theory
(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language
It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts that are no less systematic than those of P (compare Genesis 4:17; Genesis 10:8; Genesis 22:20-24 ); or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (Genesis 7:2 ,Genesis 7:7; or Genesis 7:4 , Genesis 7:12 , Genesis 7:17; Genesis 8:6; or Genesis 7:4; Genesis 8:8 , Genesis 8:10 , Genesis 8:12 ), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible. In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb
Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts in Genesis 1; 17,23 , of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would, according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, Genesis 11:27 , Genesis 11:31 f; Genesis 12:4 f; Genesis 13:6 11b , 12a; Genesis 16:1 , Genesis 16:3 , Genesis 16:15 f; Genesis 19:29; Genesis 21:1 , Genesis 21:2-5; Genesis 25:7-11 ; and in its later parts P would become still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see
(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter
The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics, constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination, and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge (see III, 2, in each case under (2)).
(iii) the Biblico-Theological Data
The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes with mankind only in the beginning (Genesis 2 f; 16ff; Genesis 11:5; 18 f), but not afterward. In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare Genesis 17:1 , Genesis 17:22; Genesis 35:9 , Genesis 35:13 ). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not only in E, (Genesis 21:17 ,
(iv) Duplicates
In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions, see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).
(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together
But it is also impossible that these sources could have been worked together in the manner in which the critics claim that this was done. The more arbitrarily and carelessly the redactors are thought to have gone to work in many places in removing contradictions, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they at other places report faithfully such contradictions and permit these to stand side by side, or, rather, have placed them thus. And even if they are thought not to have smoothed over the difficulties anywhere, and out of reverence for their sources, not to have omitted or changed any of these reports, we certainly would have a right to think that even if they would have perchance placed side by side narratives with such enormous contradictions as there are claimed to be, e.g. in the story of the Deluge in P and J, they certainly would not have woven these together. If, notwithstanding, they still did this without harmonizing them, why are we asked to believe that at other places they omitted matters of the greatest importance (see III, 2,3)? Further, J and E would have worked their materials together so closely at different places that a separation between the two would be an impossibility, something that is acknowledged as a fact by many Old Testament students; yet, notwithstanding, the contradictions, e.g. in the history of Joseph, have been allowed to stand side by side in consecutive verses, or have even intentionally been placed thus (compare, e.g. Genesis 37:25 ). Then, too, it is in the nature of things unthinkable that three originally independent sources for the history of Israel should have constituted separate currents down to the period after Moses, and that they could yet be dovetailed, often sentence by sentence, in the manner claimed by the critics. In conclusion, the entire hypothesis suffers shipwreck through those passages which combine the peculiarities of the different sources, as e.g. in Genesis 20:18 , which on the one hand constitutes the necessary conclusion to the preceding story from E (compare Genesis 20:17 ), and on the other hand contains the name Yahweh; or in Genesis 22:14 , which contains the real purpose of the story of the sacrificing of Isaac from E, but throughout also shows the characteristic marks of J; or in Genesis 39:1 , where the so-called private person into whose house Joseph has been brought, according to J, is more exactly described as the chief of the body-guard, as this is done by E, in Genesis 40:2 , Genesis 40:4 . And when the critics in this passage appeal to the help of the redactor (editor), this is evidently only an ill-concealed example of a "begging of the question." In chapter 34, and especially in chapter 14, we have a considerable number of larger sections that contain the characteristics of two or even all three sources, and which accordingly furnish ample evidence for protesting against the whole documentary theory.
(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes
All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in Genesis 12:9 and in Genesis 26:1 , are ascribed to J, and the story as found in Genesis 20:1 to E. But evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly, we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in Genesis 17:17; Genesis 18:12; Genesis 21:6 , namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But since Genesis 21:9 E; Genesis 26:8 J also contain references to this, and as in Genesis 21:6 JE, in addition to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then, in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1 and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch, Kuënen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others). Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources, except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored.
(2) In View of the Names for God
(A) Error of Hypothesis in Principle
The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in Exodus 6:1 , in the Priestly Code (P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by the name of Yahweh, but only as "God Almighty," it seems to be the correct thing to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from Gen 20 on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E), whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a
(B) False Basis of Hypothesis
But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, Exodus 6:1 P; is falsely regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses, as Exodus 6:1 P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59 ). In addition, we do not find at all in Exodus 6:1 that God had before this revealed Himself as
(C) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is Without Significance
In view of the importance which among oriental nations is assigned to names, it is absolutely unthinkable that the two names Yahweh and Elohim had originally been used without any reference to their different meanings. The almost total omission of the name Yahweh in later times or the substitution of the name Elohim for it in Psalm 42 through 83 is doubtless based in part on the reluctance which gradually arose in Israel to use the name at all; but this cannot be shown as probable for older times, in which it is claimed that E was written. In the case of P the rule, according to which the name Elohim is said to have been used for the pre-Mosaic period, and the reason for the omission of Yahweh would have been an entirely different one. Then, too, it would be entirely inexplicable why J should have avoided the use of the name Elohim. The word Elohim is connected with a root that signifies "to fear," and characterizes God from the side of His power, as this is, e.g., seen at once in Genesis 1 . Yahweh is splendidly interpreted in Exodus 3:14; and the word is connected with the archaic form
(D) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God
But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.
(i) Decreasing Use of YahwehCopyright Statement
These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software.Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Genesis'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/g/genesis.html. 1915.
These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software.
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Genesis'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/g/genesis.html. 1915.
