Abbildungen der Seite

out of the idea that the Divine Being is too exalted to manifest himself. Accordingly, the expression angel of Jehovah or angel of God, does not occur in the Elohist; Genesis xxi. 17, xxxi. 11, and Exodus xiv. 19, being no exceptions; for the first belongs to the redactor, the second to the junior Elohist, and the third to the Jehovist. This angel is interchanged with Jehovah himself, the writer intimating that the appearances of God and of angels were in his view the same (comp. Genesis xvi. 7–13, Exodus xiv. 19, 24). The history of man's moral development (Genesis ü.-iv.) evinces considerable advancement in comparison with the ethics of the Elohist. According to the Elohist, man is made up of body and soul. Man is also said to have been formed after the image of God. But in the Jehovist, human anthropology appears in another stage of development; because, in addition to the soul which is in the blood, a breath of God is assumed (Gen. ii. 7). Such views also respecting the sinfulness of man as appear in Genesis vi. 5, viii. 21, shew a deep sense of its nature, harmonising with the Christian doctrine of original sin, and exhibiting a more advanced consciousness of the divine. Indeed the Elohist gives a much more favourable view of man at the beginning, for he does not speak of him as corrupt till near the time of the flood; whereas the Jehovist describes him as wicked from a very early period (comp. Genesis vi. 12–13, with vi. 5).

The Jehovist speaks of obedience to God, on which he lays great stress, oftener than of sacrifices. He requires faith and trust in God, shewing that he was deeply penetrated with the idea of effecting an intimate union between God and man.

The Elohist, though holding the omnipotence of God, never speaks of other nations than the Hebrew being brought to worship Him. Hence the Divine Being, as conceived and described by him, is the God of the Hebrews. Of his relation to other peoples there is no mention. He is, in effect, the national God. Israel has still no place in universal history; and therefore the blessings promised to the patriarchs reach no farther than the possession of Palestine. The idea of God's universal providence had not taken possession of the Israelite mind so early. The heathen are spoken of only in connexion with the chosen people. The less developed consciousness of Israel is apparent in this. The Jehovist infers from the unity of God, that all the earth belongs to him (Genesis xxiv. 3). Accordingly all nations are represented as participating in the blessings promised to the patriarchs. They are destined to a share in Israel's salvation. În like manner, while the possession of Palestine is the highest aim of the Hebrew nation, according to the Elohist; a loftier import belongs to it in the view of the Jehovist. Israel is to be a nation of priests (Exodus xix. 6), i.e., a nation by whose agency others are brought to God.

The opposition in which the Israelites stood to other peoples is mildly expressed in the Elohim document, which contains no commands directed against the heathen immediately. The national aspect of the theocracy is not so prominent or exclusive as to hinder the author from speaking with moderation of other peoples. Of the Egyptians he says nothing exaggerated or severe. The Midianites alone, who had been dangerous enemies, are rather sharply spoken of. The Canaanites appear in a favourable light in their transactions with Abraham and Jacob; and their extirpation is not mentioned. But the later legislation of the Jehovist (and also of the Deuteronomist), exhibits a sharply-defined position against the Canaanites in particular. In the Elohist it is nowhere forbidden to make a covenant with them. The contrary appears in the Jehovah document. The severe injunction to extirpate the Canaanites is found only in the latter (Exodus xxiii. 25, etc., xxxiv. 11, etc.) Thus the national feeling is very prominent in him. In fact, he takes an unfavourable view of all who are not Hebrews, as of Ham, Canaan, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha, the Philistines. Nothing shews this more palpably than the myth respecting the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites.

From these observations, it appears that two main forms of the national tradition, respecting the earliest age of humanity and the Hebrew people, were current; the one older, simpler, short, and summary, containing leading points of jurisprudence; the other later, more ornate, and largely occupied with the principal heroes and events of history. We are not to suppose them the creation of two writers. They had assumed their characteristic features in the circle of the nation's traditions before they were committed to writing ; and are therefore transcripts of different shapes into which those accumulated traditions had been moulded.

It may be observed that the Elohim document properly possesses a three-fold gradation with respect to the Deity. In the primitire era till Abraham, the general and comprehensive Elohim appears; in the preparatory theocratic period, or that of the Hebrew patriarchs, El Shaddai is found, but only in the manifestations of God and their repetitions (Genesis xvii. 2, xxviii. 3, xxxv. 10, xlviii. 3); in the proper theocratic or Mosaic period, Jehorah. This fine gradation, indicative of a corresponding development of the religious consciousness, is not observed by the Jehovist, who is less correct in the application of terms, because he employs Jehovah, the Mosaic divine name, to designate the Deity in the patriarchal times; while he also uses occasionally, but rarely, the term Elohim. It has been too hastily assumed, that the Jehovist uses Elohim often. The correct state of the case is, that portions occur in which Elohim appears exclusively, which is not always the case with respect to Jehovah.

It has been a point of inquiry whether the Elohist was the earliest Hebrew writer that treated of the origin of mankind and the beginnings of Israel as a people. The probability is that he was not. He may have employed older documents relating to the times and events which occupied his attention. It is likely that he did. But it is impossiþle, at this distant period, to discover such pre-elohistic materials with any degree of probability, because they have been more or less conformed to the manner and style of the writer or writers that used them. Perhaps some of the graphic accounts of Joseph's history were originally written in Egypt.

Hiatuses or gaps in the Elohim document form an argument against its existence, in the hands of critics like Keil; but the instances of them are fewer than he supposes. It was to be expected that a redactor would not leave the fundamental document unscathed. Here and there portions have been suppressed, either to make room for others, or because they appeared unnecessary. Vaihinger, who has examined all Keil's examples, finds no more than two to the point, and even their validity to be partial. The hypothesis cannot be shaken by the objection drawn from gaps in the Elohist. “Gaping hiatuses," as they are termed by persons ignorant of the document-hypothesis, is a phrase which sounds contemptuously ; but coming from them means nothing. Thus it is a mistake to suppose that Genesis xx. 1-17, belonged to the original Elohim-document; and therefore to talk of such a "gaping hiatus” as there must have been in it between xx. 17, and the second verse of xxi., is to misapprehend the state of the case. Yet we have seen the blunder committed.

Nor does the general corruption mentioned in vi. 11-13 (Elohistic) appear unintelligible, though everything is pronounced very good after the creation. It is true that the fall is narrated by the Jehovist alone; but there is no enigma in the Elohist writing as he does in vi. 11-13, though such a history of the fall as that in Genesis iii. had not preceded. All is natural in the Elohim-document as it stands. Again, it is said, that there is an unnatural hiatus between chapters xiii. and xvii. of Genesis. The composition, according to Kurtz, would be imperfect, if chapter xvii. followed chapter xiii. immediately ; for Ishmael appears in xvii., the story of whose birth is related in xvi. Very true; but xvi. 15, 16, as well as xvi. 3 are Elohistic, and relate to Ishmael's birth.

Much injury has been done to the hypothesis in question by terming the Jehovist a repairer or interpolator of the Elohimdocument. His sections were not intended as interpolations. Nor is it accurate to call him a reriser. He wrote independently; and has his own peculiarities which distinguish him from the Elohistic ones. Even if the appellations Jehovah and Elohim were absent, two documents, at least, might be traced here and there with tolerable distinctness. The facts of the case necessi. tate a hypothesis which assumes the employment of two or more documents by a final editor. A full induction of particulars makes this apparent. The larger the induction, the more manifest does the need of the hypothesis become. It is easy to say that it is "encompassed with absurdities,” and to refer, ås B. B. Edwards does, to the disagreement of crities on the Pentateuch in relation to it, as enough to condemn the whole procedure. But most recent scholars who have studied the subject, are agreed in holding the existence of, at least, two such documents forming the main body of the Pentateuch. However differing in details, they think they can clearly trace two documents. That they should disagree at times in tracing all component parts of the documents, is no more than might have been expected. We submit, therefore, that writers who speak of it as “an arbitrary assumption from beginning to end,” give a false idea of the method in which the advocates of the hypothesis have proceeded; because many phenomena have led to it-distinctive characteristics in passages marked by the tico appellations of Deity respectivelywhich are neither obscure nor fictitious. No one who has patiently examined the question with the care and sagacity it demands, can indulge in the random assertions about it which perfunctory writers in ephemeral publications indulge in, who usually know so little of its nature as to be unable even to state the case, since they speak of it as resting solely on the use of the names Jehovah and Elohim.

It shews equal ignorance of the subject to talk of the supplementer or the editor intending to harmonise the parts, and taking pains to fit them in with so great nicety, that the sharpest eye has failed to detect the junction in all cases. This was the object and aim of neither." The Jehovist did not unite the documents in any way whatever. That was the redactor's work; who, forming them into a connected text, was not solicitous of exact agreement; nor indeed could he have introduced it everywhere, without materially altering the nature of the documents. All that he wished to effect was a general harmony compatible with the characteristics of the documents. It is therefore absurd to talk of him as clear-sighted and blind at the same time-clear-sighted in the minutest points, while blind to a great contradiction respecting the name Jehovah—at once careful and careless. His real object was to unite documents embodying different traditions of the national history. In so doing he was obliged to take liberties in the way of omission, addition, interpolation, etc., etc., but not always on a large scale. The modern notion of perfect harmony, as necessary to the records of his nation, was unknown to him. Infallibility of writings had not been discovered in his day. It was enough to incorporate the documents with judgment, so that the history might appear a connected, continuous, and tolerably complete work.

It is desirable, perhaps, to illustrate the nature of the Jehovah and Elohim-documents by a few examples given at length. Thus there are two accounts of the creation-one in Genesis i-ii. 3 ; the other in Genesis ii. 4-iii. 24; also two narratives of the flood in Genesis vi.-ix. Let us examine these sections :

At the fourth verse of Genesis ii. a new piece begins. This

אֵלֶה תּוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם appears from the new inscription or title


D$77. Y 7) these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created; for there is little doubt (notwithstanding the endeavours that have been made to shew that it is the subscription to what goes before) that it is a proper title to the account immediately following. In all other instances, 7975in nox is a title. In any case it cannot refer, as Drechsler assumes, to the preceding as well as subsequent history—to both at the same time. As used elsewhere, the words shew that they stand at the head of a leading historical section, where a new epoch, a new genealogy, or the account of another patriarch, commences. Hence they must point to a new and independent statement. Thus the title is adverse to the supposition that section ii. 4-iii. 24, is a mere continuation of the foregoing, or a supplement to it. And this is confirmed by the contents, which shew that they were intended to stand at the head of a separate history. The narrative begins at a certain point or condition of the creative work, the primary creative-act being presupposed. Earth and heaven already exist; the former alone becomes the subject of discourse. The earth is still without plants and creatures, but not covered with water. Neither has it risen out of the water; it is dry; the want of vegetation arises from the fact that there had been no rain. It is first moistened by an ascending mist or exhalation, which does not harmonise with its being previously submerged in water. Accordingly, no separation is mentioned as taking place between the waters above and below, as in the first chapter. Nor do we read here of the separation between light and darkness, and the creation of the heavenly luminaries. All this is involved in the first creative

« ZurückWeiter »