explained on the hypothesis that we have here "another cosmogony," "a second account" of creation? It will be further observed that the predominating idea of the second chapter is Man, earth's lord and God's son. Everything has relation to him. The earth is prepared for his abode. A reference is made to the later creation of what was needed for his sustenance, of the plant and herb of the field (not of the earth at large, but of the field which man was to till). Then the mode of man's creation is fully told, and the paradise described in which God placed him. The animals, created for man's use and enjoyment, are brought to their lord; but, in the midst of the joy and power of the world's king, the sense of a mighty need deepens evermore: the need of one who can share the wonder and the joy, the need of another human heart to beat in sympathy with his own on this great and glorious earth; and then we are told how woman, the best of all God's earthly gifts, was given. Blot out all this, call it merely a repetition, let there be no second chapter in the Book of Genesis, and will there be no link wanting in the story, which neither the first chapter, nor the third, nor any other in the book, will be able to supply? Keep it where we find it, and do we not mark in these opening chapters simply the onward flow of a continuous story? To rest the theory, that the change of the divine names marks the introduction of another hand in the narrative, upon the supposed independence of chapter ii. 4-25, is not to build upon a foundation even of sand-sand has a palpable existence this has none. The "proof," based upon the account of the Deluge, is really unworthy of sober discussion. Its strength lies in the alleged contradiction between the first direction to take the animals into the ark by pairs, and the subsequent command to take the clean animals by sevens. The explanation is as patent and as old as the difficulty; and the alleged discrepancy might now be supposed to be beyond the range of serious consideration. But what the objection lacks in breadth and weight is made up by what truth compels us to characterise as reckless mis-statement. Bleek, for example, says :— "The fact is this. In ch. vi. 14, up to the end of the chapter, it is related that God (Elohim) gave a command to Noah to build the ark, and The two accounts' of the Flood. 211 to go into it with his family, and with beasts of every kind; and that he should take a pair, a male and female, of each sort, and that Noah followed this command of God. Then, in ch. vii. 1 ff., it is again related that Jehovah commanded Noah to go into the ark with his family, and with the living things; but he tells him that he is to take with him one pair of all unclean beasts, but of clean beasts seven pairs."1 Now, to clothe "the fact" with some importance, it is necessary to show that there is a repetition as well as a variation, and this is accomplished by representing the command to go into the ark as given twice. But in the 6th chapter there is no command to go into the ark, and therefore it is not "again related that Jehovah commanded" him to go into it; ch. vi. 14 is merely an intimation that the ark he is to build. will be a refuge for him and his: "and thou wilt come (2) into the ark." In the seventh chapter we are told that after Noah had done" according to all that God had commanded him," in constructing the ark and storing the necessary food,— the animals he was not to gather, they were to come to him (vi. 20),—and the eventful day at last drew nigh, then, and not till then, the command was given: "Come thou (MAN-1) and all thy house into the ark." Here again there is every mark of a continuous narrative, and even the variation in the directions as to the saving of the animals is quite in harmony with this continuity. The first command was very much an intimation of God's purpose, which enabled Noah to co-operate intelligently in the fulfilment of that purpose. It was not intended to be acted upon till the last moment; but meanwhile it revealed to Noah much that else must have remained dark to him in the directions regarding the dimensions and arrangements of the ark, and the storing of the food. And, when the moment had come for action, the command was again given, and with the necessary minuteness. But Bleek's attempt to make two commands to go into the ark, where the Scripture knows only of one, is a small matter when compared with other endeavours to construct an argument. for the theories out of the story of the Deluge. By the most arbitrary methods, and at the expense of the utter dislocation of the careful reckoning of time, which marks the narrative as it 1 Introd, to Old Testament, vol. i. pp. 273, 274. stands, two accounts are made out of one. "These two accounts," says Mr. Robertson Smith, "are plainly independent, and each is complete in itself. It is impossible that the work of one author could so divide itself (!) into two narratives, and have for each narrative a different name of God." Now this calm statement of the case does real injustice to the critics. It gives no idea of the toil and sweat which they have undergone to make up the two narratives, and quite generously attributes the result to a spontaneous bisection of the account in Genesis. And yet the whole of the latter part of what is called "the Jehovistic narrative" (ch. viii. 6-12), is torn away from the very heart of an Elohistic section (viii. 1-19), and has no name of God in it at all. But, nevertheless, in the face of all this, the statement is made that the Scripture account divides "itself" into two narratives, and has "for each narrative a different name of God"! Other assertions, equally baseless, are made with all the assurance that could possibly accompany the announcement of the most undeniable facts. It is said that the Elohist speaks of God occasionally as El Shaddai (the Almighty), but that this name is never used by the Jehovist. Now the truth is that the name is first of all met with in a Jehovistic passage:— "Jehovah appeared unto Abraham, and said unto him, I am El Shaddai" (Gen. xvii. 1). In Exodus vi. 3, Ruth i. 20-21, Job xl. 2, Ps. xci. 1, etc., it also occurs in Jehovistic passages. The purpose of such a statement is as patent as its inaccuracy; but it displays an eagerness to uphold a theory which has proved too much either for the critic's carefulness or for his honesty. "Again," says Colenso, "the Elohist uses Israel as a personal name for Jacob-the Jehovist never." The value of this will be understood when the two following facts are mentioned. First, in the Elohistic sections Jacob is not only used as well as Israel, but more than twice as often. Secondly, the only Jehovistic sections which are met with in Genesis, after the change is made in the Patriarch's name, are chapters xxxviii. and xxxix.; and there Jacob is not once referred to, and, as a matter of course, neither name is used. 1 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 328. 3 The Pentateuch, etc., p. 176. "3 Misrepresentations made by the Theorists. 213 A distinction is thus professedly drawn between the Jehovistic and the Elohistic sections of Genesis in regard to the names of Jacob, when the Jehovistic has no occasion to employ the one or the other, and the use of both is confined to the Elohistic! It may be safely said that few controversies have been marked by more daring misrepresentations of facts. But we have now to mention an alleged distinction between the sections, which presents the strongest appearance of all. It is said that each has its own name for the mountainous district to the north of Mesopotamia. "The Elohist uses always Padan, or Padan-Aram, . . . whereas the Jehovist uses Aram-Naharaim." This statement is imposing. That each class of passages should have its own name for the same district, and should keep to it throughout, is almost sufficient in itself to settle the question of separate authorship. And the statement is put forth with a full consciousness of its decisive character. The existence of the distinction begets such gratitude in Bishop Colenso's breast that, for the moment, he is tempted to believe that its presence is due to a special providence. "This circumstance," he says, "that such unmistakeable" (let the reader mark the term), "such unmistakeable differences of expression distinguish, throughout the book of Genesis, the parts which are due to these separate writers, may almost, with reference to the momentous issues involved, be called providential, since it enables us to speak positively on some points which might otherwise have been still subject to doubt." These distinctive marks are indeed a vital part of the critic's case; and this is beyond doubt the most important of them all. It might be permitted, perhaps, to raise the inquiry whether it is quite certain that the names are applied to the same place; whether, for example, AramNaharaim (translated Mesopotamia in our English version), "the highlands of the two rivers," may not be the name of a wide district, and Padan-Aram, "the cultivated land of the highlands," the name of a particular part of it. But surely, in the face of even such semi-pious exultation as this, it could never be tolerated to hint a suspicion of the facts! Whether there is ground for hinting a suspicion of them we shall now 1 The Pentateuch, etc., p. 176. 2 Ibid. p. 177. 2 let the reader judge. Aram-Naharaim occurs only once in the whole of Genesis, and then, too, as the name for a wide district: Abraham's servant " arose and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor" (xxiv. 10). It occurs only once besides in the whole of the Pentateuch, and again as the general name of a district (Deut. xxiii. 4). We do not insist on this evident use of Aram-Naharaim as a general name. We ask attention to the fact that the word occurs but twice in the whole of the Pentateuch and only once in Genesis. Is not this a perilously narrow base for so mighty an induction? And does it not require a peculiar moral build to make so confident a statement, knowing there was only this behind it? But all is not yet told. The very first mention of Padan-Aram, the alleged distinctive name of the Elohist, occurs in a Jehovistic section (Gen. xxv. 20). This was not at first noticed, but, when attention was directed to it, what was proposed? To alter the theory to suit the fact? Little does he know of critical courage and resources who would think so. It was proposed to claim that verse as Elohistic for the sole reason that it had Padan-Aram in it! "Facts are against you" was once objected to a perfervid orator. "So much the worse for the facts was the ready reply; and so here the fact was extinguished that the theory might be saved. We might characterise such procedure. When it marks the trade, the commercial speculations, or even the politics of the day, we know what terms spring unbidden to our lips. But it may be enough to say that, in pursuing it, the critics, whatever the temporary effect of their work may be, are not sapping the foundations of faith in the integrity of the Scriptures: they are only digging the grave of their own reputation. In taking leave of the critical theories we submit what seems to us sufficient in itself for their refutation,-a table of the Jehovistic and Elohistic elements contained in the Old Testament. Opposite the name of each book will be found in parallel columns the number of times Jehovah and Elohim are found in it,the divine names El and Eloah, also attributed to the Elohist, being included in the latter : |