Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

KEIL observes, 'Of Jehovah, Abraham's Covenant-God, the Philistine king knows nothing and needs know nothing.' But why not? Nay, this very same Abimelech names God 'Jehovah' in xxvi. 28,29. And does not Abram in xiv.22, when talking with the king of Sodom, name God 'Jehovah'? Why not here also, since Abimelech shows such childlike piety, such ready recognition of God's prophet, and so deep a sense of right and wrong,-in particular, of the sanctity of marriage? ... Since, then, there is no reason of necessity, why Abraham in the presence of Abimelech should name God 'Elohim' instead of 'Jehovah,' the use of this Divine Name in this narrative can be explained only as a consequence of the source from which it has been derived.

103. The resemblance, however, between the style of these (later) Elohistic passages and that of the Jehovist is so very great that it becomes at times a matter of some difficulty to discriminate them. Accordingly, the views of HUPFELD and BOEHMER, who both maintain the theory of three original independent documents, (those of the Elohist, Second Elohist, and Jehovist,) which have been combined into one narrative by a later Compiler, vary considerably as to the parts assigned by them to E, and J, respectively; and, indeed, in the history of Joseph, xxxvii, xxxix-1, the former does not profess to have effected the complete separation.

104. The difficulty is increased by the fact that the Jehovist not unfrequently uses Elohim' as a personal name,-(besides using it habitually as an appellative, and repeatedly in the compound form 'Jehovah-Elohim' in the section ii.4b-iii.24)— as in iii.1,3,5, ix.27, iv.25, xvi. 13, xxi.6,33, xxxiii.5,10,11,20, (not to mention xxviii.20,xxxii.28,30, where special reasons may be given for his using it), all which passages are assigned by HUPFELD himself to the Jehovist, as is also xxvii.28, where the same writer uses D. Again HUPFELD speaks doubtfully of xxii.1-14, where we have again 'Elohim' in v.8,12, and in v.1,3,9, as he does also about 1.23-26, where we have Elohim' in v.24,25, both which passages we give to the Jehovist. And there are many other passages, summed up in (193), in which 'Elohim' is freely, if not exclusively, used, and which, from the internal evidence of our analysis, we ascribe

to the Jehovist (often in common with BOEHMER), whereas HUPFELD (sometimes merely because of the Elohim') gives them to the Second Elohist. In fact, in xxxiii-a Jehovistic chapter, as HUPFELD allows- Elohim' is used exclusively, four times.

105. These phenomena give rise to the suspicion whether the Second Elohist and Jehovist are really different personswhether they may not be the same person, in different stages of his life. That the sets of passages, which we denote by E, and J, are totally distinct in style and character from the original Elohistic matter is certain, and is recognised by all competent

critics.

Thus HUPFELD says, p.167

That it (E) in its point of view and modes of conception and expression differs considerably from the prime-document (E) and comes closer to the Jehovistic, and in general bears a later stamp akin to that of the latter, we have already remarked and demonstrated.

It is admitted also that E, and J wrote nearly in the same age, at least, that E, wrote much nearer to the time of J than to that of E, and that E, wrote previously to J.

Thus again HUPFELD writes, p. 193

In it (E) the old Elohistic legends of the Patriarchal time are reproduced throughout in a further development of their principal features from similar points of view and in the like direction as in the Jehovistic matter, but not yet upon the same stage of development, . . . and they assume a middle place between E and J, but much nearer to the latter than the former. They must, consequently, be in time also older than the Jehovistic matter.

2

In the following analysis, however, we have noted the points of agreement between E, and those passages which, from internal evidence, we must assign to J; and they will be found to be so very numerous that the question, as we have said, is raised, whether we have not in all these sections a series of supplementary additions from the hand of one and the same writer, made at different parts of his life.

106. It might be supposed, for instance, that this writer, in the earliest of his insertions, may have used Elohim' exclusively.

[ocr errors]

either following the example of E, or having the same reason which we may suppose E to have had, for abstaining from the use of 'Jehovah' in the patriarchal age, whatever that reason may have been. Then, in his later insertions, he may have used 'Jehovah' occasionally, but not so freely as Elohim.' And, at last, he may have interpolated other episodes, written now with a somewhat freer hand and more practised pen, while still presenting the identical features of his own peculiar style, and dealing with the same kind of subjects as before, and in these he may have employed almost exclusively the name 'Jehovah.' But we must reserve this point for further consideration when we have completed the analysis of Genesis, and have all the facts of the case before us. In the course of our analysis we may properly speak of E, as distinct from J, since in any case these (later) passages containing only Elohim were written previously to those which are more decidedly Jehovistic as regards the use of the Divine name.

2

107. On xx.1 BOEHMER writes, p.111:

HUPFELD, p.209, ascribes this verse to the Jehovist, referring to p.173–175, where he has shown this. There, however, he himself says that this verse with its data of place 'cannot with perfect certainty be denied to E, since it supplies the indispensable notice of the locality for the narrative which follows.' It seems to me that the difficulty is solved simply by separating for C(E) only the last two words of v.1, which are not at all required for the preceding datum belonging to B(J), but on the contrary suit well for C(E,) as the beginning of what follows. BOEHMER, then, would make xx.1b follow xvi.15a thus'And Hagar bare to Abram a son, and he sojourned in Gerar.'

But the construction here is so very harsh, that it would be difficult to assent to this view, even if we had not shown sufficiently that xvi. 15a cannot possibly belong to E2.

[ocr errors]

108. But the difficulty' which HUPFELD notices, arises only from the fact that in v.1 we have the expression and Abraham journeyed from thence'; and this, of course, is perplexing in the very commencement of an independent narrative. For us no such difficulty exists; since if E, had before him, as we

suppose, the original Elohistic document, he might here be merely referring to the last preceding notice of the Elohist about Abram's dwelling in the land of Canaan,' xiii.12a, with reference to which he may now, of course, have written, with the necessary change of the patriarch's name into Abraham,

And Abraham journeyed from thence towards the Negeb, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.'

[ocr errors]

Or he may have written from thence' loosely, without any special reference to any other place at all, merely to introduce his own interpolation.

At all events, there seems no reason to doubt that the whole section xx.1-17 belongs to E. And, if he really did write (as HUPFELD and BOEHMER both suppose) a complete independent narrative, it would have to be supposed that the Compiler has left out all that preceded xx.1. But this appears to us a rather improbable supposition.

[ocr errors]

109. In v.1 we have Negeb,'Kadesh,'Shur,' and these names occur also in previous Jehovistic passages, viz. 'Negeb,' xii.9, xiii.1,3, Kadesh,' xvi. 14, 'Shur,' xvi.7: but HUPFELD and BOEHMER both agree with us in believing that the Second Elohist wrote before the Jehovist. Hence the first mention of these places in Genesis must have been made by the former, and, as we suppose, in the passage before us. According to our view also, viz. that the Jehovist wrote to supplement the story as it came into his hands, already enlarged by the insertions of E„ the Jehovist will have had before him the statements in xx.1,&c. when he wrote his own additions, and may have followed anywhere the lead, or assumed as known the data, of either of the two older writers, E and E2. In other words, the Jehovist may, perhaps, be found to refer to either of the two Elohists, and the Second Elohist may be found to refer to the first, but not vice versâ in either case.

110. xx.1-17, Second Elohist.

The following analysis shows, as we have said (103), that

[blocks in formation]

there is a very great similarity in style and expression between

E, and J. It shows also that E, refers to E, and that J refers

2

[blocks in formation]

(i) v.1, ‘from thence,' either referring to xiii.12(E), 'Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan,' or perhaps said loosely, without reference to any particular place, and merely introducing this interpolated incident.

(ii) v.1, 'land of the Negeb,' as in J(xxiv.62),—only thrice besides in the Bible, N.xiii. 29, Jo.xv.19, Ju.i.15.

(iii) v.1, 'and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur,' i.e. probably, not far from the well Lakhai-roi, as appears from the description of it in xvi.7, 'the spring in the way to Shur,' v.14, 'between Kadesh and Bered'; but neither this well, nor the adjoining well at Beersheba (121), is named by E2.

(iv) v.2, 'send and take'; comp. J(180.xlvii).

(v) v.3, and Elohim came unto Abimelech in a dream of the night and said to him';

comp. and Elohim came unto Laban in a dream of the night and said to him,' xxxi.24(J).

(vi) v.3, 'behold, thou diest!' comp. J(xxx.1a, xlviii.21, 1.5).

(vii) v.5,6, 17, ‘heart,' as in J(xxxi.26)—nowhere else in Genesis.
(viii) v.6, and Elohim said unto him in a dream'; comp. J(xxxi.11).
(ix) v.6,17, □', 'ELOHIM,' XX.6,17, xli. 25,28,32,32; comp. J(133.ii).

(x) v.6, 'I (pron.) know that, &c.,' xx.6; comp. J(216.viii).

(xi) v.6, in, withhold,' xx.6; comp. J(xxii.12), imitated by D(xxii.16). (xii) v.6, 1-by, therefore'; comp. J(3.xvii).

[ocr errors]

(xiii) v.6, y, 'touch'; comp. J(4.vi).

(xiv) v.6, 'I suffered thee not to touch her';

comp. 'Elohim suffered him not to do evil to me,' xxxi. 7(J).

(xv) v.7, 72-webp, ‘all which is thine,' comp. J(59 xxviii).

(xvi) v.8, 'rise-early in the morning,' xx.8, xxi.14; comp. J(99.xlix).

(xvii) v.9, -↳ mpy, ‘do to'; comp. J(47.ix).

(xviii) v.9, 'what hast thou done to us?' v.10, 'what sawest thou that thou

hast done this thing?' comp. J(4.xiii).

(xix) v.9, and Abimelech called to Abraham and said '; comp. J(xii.18, xxvi.9).

(xx) v.9, 'thou hast brought upon me . . . a great sin';

comp. 'thou hast brought upon us transgression,' xxvi.10(J).

(xxi) v.11, 'fear of Elohim'; comp. J(xxii.12, xlii.18).

(xxii) v.13, Elohim used with a plural verb; comp. J(xxxi. 53, xxxv.7).

(xxiii) nyn, ‘wander,' xx.13, xxi.14; comp. J(xxxvii.15).

(xxiv) v.13, 'do mercy with (ny),' xx.13, xxi.23; comp. J(99.xxxviii).

(xxv) v.14, 'flocks and herds and servants and maids'; comp. J(59.xxii).

(xxvi) v.15, 'be good (evil) in the eyes of,' xx.15, xxi.11,12; comp. J(86.vii). (xxvii) v.15, ' my land is before thee'; comp. J(63.xiii).

(xxviii) v.16, ¿'ṣin, 'correct, set-right,' xx.16, xx1.25; comp. J(141.xxvi).

« ZurückWeiter »