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]
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 Southern nucleus. 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]).
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 Summary. 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.)
[1] The abrupt introduction of a small poem (iv. 23 seq.) was long ago regarded as due to the use of separate sources (so the Calvinist Isaac de la Peyrère, 1654).