6

the alternate Elohistic and Jehovistic sections; and it cannot but be admitted, that on the whole this evidence is decidedly in its favour. Several clear cases of divergence have been established, chiefly, as might have been expected, in those portions which have to some extent a common subject. Many striking instances have appeared also of distinct and well-defined transition, evidenced sometimes by the subject-matter, more commonly by the phraseology, and especially by the occurrence of the characteristic phrase, These are the annals.' On the other hand there are a few instances where the supposed transition from one author to another has rested on bare conjecture, and the narrative would be most naturally regarded as a continuous whole. Many also where the transitions are in no respect more clearly marked than the ordinary transitions from one division to another in the same narrative. These latter, however, cannot be urged as objections to the theory, any more than the absence of divergences in other cases than those enumerated; since the idea of compilation by no means necessitates either divergence or well-marked transitions, but merely involves the probability that in some cases these will be found, with which the facts before us well agree. The real difficulties which presented themselves have also been shewn to admit of a ready and not unreasonable explanation, on the supposition that certain parts of the Elohistic record were omitted by the Jehovist and replaced by his own matter. A supposition which appeared on other and independent grounds to be certainly probable. Weighed, therefore, one against the other, the evidence for compilation must be allowed to preponderate; and a valuable confirmation to the results deduced from the usage of the divine names is thus obtained. It remains now to examine into the validity of two or three other objections to which the theory in question is fairly open, before we finally conclude as to its tenability and reasonableness.

1. Elohim is not confined to the Elohistic sections, but is to be found not unfrequently in the Jehovistic also, viz., Gen.iii.1,3,5,iv.25,ix.27,xix.29,

xxii.12,xxvii.28,xxxix.9,xl. 8,xli. 16,25,28,32,38,39,51,52, in all 20 times: besides those in which it is necessary or preferable from the idiom of the language.

Ans. It is never asserted, however, that the Jehovist employs one name to the entire exclusion of the other. Elohim occurs four times in Deuteronomy, 3 times in Numbers, and still oftener in Exodus; all which are decidedly Jehovistic. Its occasional occurrence in the Jehovistic parts of Genesis is therefore no more than reasonable. Special reasons may also be given for many of the instances cited; thus the three in Gen.iii. are from the mouth of the Serpent, nine of those in xxxix.-xli. are in conversations with Egyptians, in both which cases the name may have been omitted as inappropriate. Others again may be due to fragments of the fundamental Elohistic records, incorporated by the Jehovist with his own composition; the two in Gen.xix.29, very probably arise from this cause. This objection cannot therefore be allowed any weight in determining the point at issue. 2. The name Jehovah is found not unfrequently in Elohistic sections, viz., Gen. v. 29, vii. 16,x.9,xiv.22,xvii.1,xx.18,xxi.1,33,xxxi.49,xxxii.9,xlix.18, in all 13 times.

Ans. This objection might seem at first sight to be as hollow as the first, and explicable on the same ground, of general usage not necessarily involving exclusive usage. It derives its strength, however, from the notion, that these sections are Elohistic because they were written before the revelation of the name Jehovah, which would of course make its presence in them an impossibility. To discuss this point here would be out of place; assuming it however to be even so, is the presence of the name in these places really a fatal objection to the compilation theory? Surely not, for a few alterations and additions by the later writer will abundantly account for them all. And in many cases the passages containing Jehovah are easily separable from the context, so that to regard them as interpolations is by no means unreasonable. The naming of Noah (v.29), in which the curse of the ground is referred to, unmentioned in any Elohistic section extant, and where the form of phraseology used throughout the chapter is markedly departed from; the proverb concerning Nimrod (x.9); the explanatory clause respecting the plague inflicted upon Abimelech's household (xx.18), are striking instances of this. The connection with preceding Jehovistic sections might explain others, as xvii.1,xxxii.9. While the meaning of the name would afford a sufficient inducement for its insertion in yet another, xxi. 33. This would leave only 4 cases unaccounted for, in none of which would the idea of alteration or interpolation present the slightest difficulty. We shall have occasion to return to this point hereafter (see chap.vi.).

3. There are some passages where the two names are employed so equally, that it is impossible to determine to which class they belong, viz. xxviii.10xxxi.3 and xxxix-xlii.4.

Ans. The former of these we have already admitted to be of mixed origin, the latter has been partially explained above. Both may, however, be allowed as difficulties, not by any means incompatible with the idea of compilation, but certainly adverse to it, and more readily explicable on the theory of common undivided authorship.

These objections considered, we are now in a position to draw together all the points of evidence on either side, and form an impartial judgment upon them.

The evidence in favour of Bishop Colenso's view is briefly this: -The book of Genesis is composed of a number of alternating sections of various lengths, distinguished by their different usage of the two names Jehovah and Elohim; a phenomenon unparalleled in the rest of the Pentateuch, and incapable of any sufficient explanation compatible with the common Mosaic authorship of the whole book. These sections present also several remarkable divergences in subject-matter and phraseology, and numerous well-marked and striking signs of transition, confirmatory of the same view, and equally inexplicable on that commonly held.

The counter-evidence in favour of the old established view may be stated as follows:-The distinction of usage depended upon is not absolute, Jehovistic passages contain Elohim, and Elohistic Jehovah, while some obstinately refuse to be classed as either. The divisions proposed are also often arbitrary and ill-defined, made to suit the theory, not grounds on which it rests. To which must be added the presumption afforded by the testimony of tradition.

The weight of evidence unquestionably inclines towards the theory of compilation. And this, not merely an account of the large quantity adduced, or the more general and wide spread character of the facts referred to; important points of advantage as both these are. It is the logical force of the two positions, which most convincingly proves the strength of the first and the weakness of the second. The evidence in favour of compilation consists of phenonena inexplicable on the contrary view. The evidence against it consists merely of phenomena less easily explicable on this than on the other view. Grant the theory of compilation to be true, and all the peculiarities of Genesis are capable of being adequately accounted for. Grant the theory of undivided Mosaic authorship true, and a few lesser difficulties are

alleviated indeed, but only to be replaced by a vast mass of far larger and insuperable ones. This being so, we at once accept the compilation theory of Genesis as the only reasonable view of its origin before us, still slightly doubtful perhaps, from the amount of assumption it occasionally involves, and the difficulties which still beset it, but certainly far preferable to any other. The application of this theory to the other books of the Pentateuch must be left for a later stage of our inquiries.

CHAPTER III.

THE PROPER NAMES IN THE PENTATEUCH AND HISTORICAL BOOKS. (BP. COLENSO, PT. II., CHAP. VIII., XIX-XX., p. 234-9, 330-52.)

THE concession of Bishop Colenso's view of the constitution of Genesis, necessitated by the evidence considered in the last chapter, must not be regarded as involving the concession of his whole theory as to its origin. That theory rests, as we have already pointed out, upon two perfectly independent propositions, the most important of which has yet to be discussed. It is asserted, not only that the Pentateuch is a compilation (and therefore, in part at least, unmosaic), but that the date of each portion can be fixed with some approach to certainty, the most ancient sections being not earlier than the days of Samuel. The evidence on which this assertion is mainly based is certain facts relative to the introduction and use of the name Jehovah, which forms, as we have seen, the great distinguishing mark between the different sections of Genesis. It may be shortly summed up as follows:

1. If the name Jehovah was in common use among the people in the days of Moses (as the Pentateuch represents it to have been), it would most probably have been used by them in the formation of proper names, as Elohim had been before. Instead of this, names compounded with Jehovah are scarcely ever to be met with in the Pentateuch, though those with Elohim are common. Nor can any well-authenticated instance, prior to the days of Samuel, be found in the earlier historical books. During his lifetime, however, they became comparatively common, and afterwards were used for a long period to the almost entire exclusion of those containing Elohim. It is probable, therefore, that the name Jehovah first came into use about the time of