says, "How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" The subsequent use of Elohim is easily explained on the principles already stated; and it is unnecessary to trouble the reader with a repetition of them. But when Hengstenberg attempts to account for its introduction in xli. 51, 52, where Joseph ascribes his happy condition to "God, because he did not regard the birth of his sons as connected with the development of the divine kingdom," and because "it is the general idea of providence which here rules, the indefinite feeling of dependence which governs him," (p. 385,) he says what may possibly be true, but what he neither does nor can establish, and is exceedingly improbable. And why should he assume this of Joseph, and just the very contrary of Leah? It may indeed be admitted, that, in xlv. 5-9, the use of Elohim marks the divine agency in contradistinction to the merely human; but where does he find proof of his declaration, (introduced as a probable exposition of the use of Elohim in v. 9,) that "Jacob had been wholly governed by human considerations, and had entirely lost from his view the leadings of God, by whom and not by man he was to be drawn to Egypt"? p. 386. Neither the history in general, nor the uniform course of conduct of the patriarch, in any degree favours such a supposition. It is a gratuitous aspersion of his religious character, like that before attempted to be thrown on the wife of his earlier and deeper affections.

Indeed, this learned writer is not himself satisfied with the application of his theory, in every case in which these two divine names occur in the latter portion of Genesis. He says, that although the use of Elohim in xlviii. 9, "these are my sons whom God hath given me," may be vindicated, if we keep the connexion out of view; yet, it is evident, that the more suitable term would be Jehovah, whose blessing immediately follows. So also in v. 11, " Lo! God hath

showed me thy seed," Elohim may indeed be justified, as expressive of divine direction in opposition to human purpose; yet, the solemnity of the occasion would rather lead us to expect the grateful heart to raise itself to Jehovah. Along with places in which Elohim must necessarily stand, are found several in which it does answer sufficiently well, but Jehovah equally so, and some in which Jehovah is plainly the more suitable. These phenomena are surprising, and would seem to require the admission of some grounds for the usage particularly appropriate to themselves.' p. 386-388.

The author very judiciously rejects the solution advanced by Sack, that Joseph uses the word Elohim in accordance with that heathen influence by which he was surrounded; and that Jacob, in his intercourse with him, acquiesces in the same usage. His own is vastly more respectful to the venerable patriarchs, but whether supported on surer grounds, is, to say the least, doubtful. He had before suggested, that, in the earlier patriarchal history, the frequent use of Elohim, and the designed omission of Jehovah, intimated the approach of a new period in the development of the divine. character and being. He applies the same principle in the cases in contemplation, which correspond with the usage in the earlier portion of Exodus, in which Elohim, not Jehovah, is the prevailing term. "The Jehovah-sun," says he, "had hidden himself behind a cloud in reference to the chosen race; they hoped that he would again burst forth in clearer splendor than ever, but were conscious that for the present he was not to be seen. The descent into Egypt must necessarily direct their eager expectation to the future. But in proportion as their eye was turned to the glorious revelations of God still in prospect, he was to them for the present Elohim." p. 390, 391.

If, now, the invariable usage in the previous part of the

book of Genesis were manifestly such as to show, that the author had strictly kept in view the etymological and really different meaning of the two divine names, the solution suggested by Hengstenberg, or some other accommodated to the difficulty, might be accepted; but, as so many cases occur, where the principle is either altogether or partially inapplicable, the instances referred to in the latter part of the book are to be classed in the same category with those. Inasmuch as they contain nothing peculiar, they are fairly explicable on the grounds already stated.

Ewald would account for the use of Elohim in xlix. 29— 1. 26, in xl. 8, and many other places, on the ground that the subject has no reference to the national god of the Hebrews, but merely to God, considered as superintending and directing the condition of a family. p. 45 ss. But this is evidently unsatisfactory, for the character and condition of a nation did certainly belong to the Hebrews when in Egypt, more properly than in the time of Abraham or Isaac, and even in the earlier period of Jacob's life; and yet, in these latter circumstances, the national name, as he would call it, is frequently applied. Here, I presume, he would introduce his hypothesis of a second document.

There is doubtless a large proportion of places in Genesis, where the author has been led to the choice of these terms respectively, because of some peculiar adaptation of the one or the other to the subject in connexion with which it occurs. There are other portions in which he seems to have employed both, in order to prevent the possibility of his reader's supposing a different being to be intended. And probably there are still others in which the usage differs for the sake of variety, and because no particular motive existed to determine his mind to the choice of one rather than the other. If some cases do exist, in which it is difficult and perhaps impossible to settle the ground of the choice of these appellations of the

supreme being, the variety of the usage is no proof of dif ferent original documents. One writer may have varied the terms for the best of reasons, although in some instances not now discoverable.

I conclude this introduction with the following extracts from Jahn, p. 208 ss., with such slight modification of his language as appears to be necessary in order to make his view in all respects correct.

"The records contained in the book of Genesis are not the fictions or allegories by which in very ancient times wise men chose to veil their philosophical opinions, neither are they mythi, or histories intermingled with mythi, such as other nations relate concerning their earliest ages; but they are true histories. This will be evident from the following considerations.

"These relations were committed to writing nearly a thousand years before the mythi of the most ancient nations. But in those remote times, the ordinary life of man extended to so great a length, that there could be no necessity for oral tradition to pass through the mouths of many generations. Methuselah was contemporary with Adam during the first two hundred and forty-three years of his life, and with Noah during the last six hundred, and Noah with Abraham fiftyeight years. Thus three generations would have transmitted the account of the creation of the world to Abraham. The histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were committed to writing not long after their times, and from Jacob to Moses it would seem that only four generations intervened.* Some,

* It is a common opinion, that in Ex. vi. 14-19, some generations are omitted, because four hundred and thirty years make thirteen generations instead of four. But, as in Gen. xv. 13, 16, four generations are in express terms made equivalent to four hundred years, and as the two hundred and fifteen years which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob spent in Canaan occupied only two generations, it is evident that a generation at

indeed, have considered the longevity which is ascribed to the men of the first ages of the world as a mythus, simply because they imagined it to be impossible that the human body should subsist so many years. But no reasonable person will maintain that everything was the same in those early ages, especially before the deluge, as it is now. Why, then, must the age of man have necessarily been the same at that time as at present? All other nations extend the

that time comprehended a hundred years, and not merely thirty-four, as was the case at a much later period.

Thus Dr. Jahn. And the remark may be correct. But it ought to be considered that a principle which would be applicable to the time of 、 Abraham, would hardly suit that of Moses, when the period of human life had been greatly abridged. The truth is, there is difficulty connected with the question how long the Israelites remained in Egypt. In favour of the shorter period of two hundred and fifteen years, it may be said, that this agrees best with St. Paul's remark in Gal. iii. 17, that "the law was four hundred and thirty years after the promise;" that this space accords with the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint version in Ex. xii. 40, which add the clause "and in the land of Canaan," which is not in the Hebrew. Compare the following texts in Genesis, which show that the space of time between Abraham's removal from Haran and Jacob's descent to Egypt was two hundred and fifteen years: xii. 4; xxi. 5; xxv. 26; xlvii. 9. This view corresponds best with the genealogy in Ex. vi. and Num. xxvii. 1. It would seem also from Num. xxvi. 59, that the mother of Moses was the daughter of Levi.

On the other hand, in favour of a residence of four hundred or four hundred and thirty years, the express declarations in Gen. xv. 13, can

not be set aside. Comp. also Acts vii. 6. The Hebrew of Ex. xii. 60, 4

is also exceedingly strong, and the addition of the Samaritan and Septuagint have the appearance of a gloss designed to remove a supposed difficulty. St. Paul may be allowed, in a matter which had no bearing on his argument, to follow the Septuagint, as best known to the mass of his readers.

The genealogy of Joshua in 1 Chron. vii. 20—27, which descends from Ephraim through ten generations at least, corresponds best with the longer period. The difficulty from Num. xxvi. 59, is examined by PERIZONIUS in his Ægyptiaca Origines, cap. xx. p. 356 ss.; but he has not succeeded in satisfactorily removing it.