my views of the matter, the record of Jehovah noticed little more of the life of Joseph, than his adventure with Potiphar's wife, ch. xxxix.; the dying request of Jacob to his son Joseph, ch. xlvii. 28-31; and its fulfilment, ch. 1. 1-12. On the other hand, the record under the name of Elohim, though brief and incomplete in its account of the lives of Abraham and Isaac, contains a very circumstantial narrative of those of Jacob and Joseph, relating with great minuteness the various occurrences which took place subsequent to the departure of Joseph from his paternal home, and concealing nothing which in any way tends to heighten his reputation. It describes the brilliant part which he acted in Egypt, ch. xli.-xlvii.; adverts to the address of his dying father, so eminently honourable to him, and to the rights secured to both his sons, ch. xlviii.; and quotes the noble declaration made by Joseph to his brethren, after his father's death, ch. 1. 14-26, &c. Lastly, the record of Jehovah concludes with an account of Jacob's death and burial, ch. 1. 14; whereas the other embraces a narrative of the adventures of his descendants in Egypt, after the death of Joseph, at a period when the services he had rendered Egypt and the privileges granted to his relatives on their taking up their residence in the land of Goshen, had long been forgotten; and even extends into the first chapters of the Book of Exodus.

617

gratitude for the interesting discoveries detailed in the foregoing Sections, respecting the true contents of the Book of Genesis, the spirit of party will in all probability continue for another score of years to treat the whole with indignation and disdain! With what degree of propriety, however, may be inferred from the following observations:

1. According to my views of the subject, the hypothesis laid down respecting the Book of Genesis tends very considerably to heighten its credibility. Was ever an historian known to have gone so religiously and conscientiously to work with the materials once selected by him as the compiler of the Book of Genesis? Fully convinced himself of the genuineness and truth of his records, he gives them to his readers exactly as he found them; certain, that whilst on the one hand no undue attempt was made by the assistance of false tints and a high colouring to extort admiration, the unadorned simplicity of their real form could not fail, on the other, to insure the respect and veneration of every one.

2. The benefits, further, to be reaped from the discovery in question, by the historian, the commentator and the critic, cannot but be of the greatest moment. The lover of history is no longer bound in his researches into antiquity to follow the accounts of a single writer; he has the advantage of consulting two authorities where a repetition of the narrative occurs, and can safely presume that, even in cases which appear to involve variations, both agree in the main. No longer obliged by a twofold account of the saine occurrence, which he has hitherto fancied proceeded from one and the same pen, to render the trifling variations of minor incidents consistent by a series of artful turns, or subtle hypotheses, he may now regard those very differences as proofs of the independent character of each distinct record, and draw the most favourable conclusions from their mutual consistency in matters of moment.

3. As to the commentator,-the separation of both records under the guidance of enlightened criticism, will obviate a host of difficulties which he

has hitherto been inclined to consider as insurmountable. He will no longer be obliged to attempt to explain the second Book of Genesis by the first, or the first by the second; nor will he think of asserting that the account of the deluge at the time of Noah, as contained in the Mosaic records, necessarily proves that it was universal : in fine, the world will at length cease to tax Moses with the faults of his commentators!

4. Nor can it be denied, lastly, that the benefits accruing to criticism itself from the discovery alluded to, are equally important. When the task of the more enlightened critic shall have been brought to a successful conclusion, by the separation of both records in the Book of Genesis, according to the views, style, individual expressions and other characteristics peculiar to each, it will be seen that the more humble labourer in the field, whose province extends over words only, and whose object is to detect erroneous readings, has fixed rules and principles laid down, by which to judge of them. In strict conformity with these, he will pronounce, in Gen. v. 28, to be a word introduced from some foreign text; D', ch. vii. 6, to be a mere glossary, originating in a parallel expression; further, 5, ch. xxx.

* Vide Repertory for Biblical and Oriental Literature, Vol. V. p. 215. The construction of the words op 'n ban, so totally repugnant to every thing of the Hebrew idiom, cannot fail to create suspicion, and even induced Michaelis to propose the reading of instead of

מים

"the inundation spread over the land from the sea;" see Michaelis Orient. and Exeget. Library, IX. 183. It is, how ever, more probable, that originally the

24, a strange word, inserted solely for the sake of connexion; 72

20", ch. vii. 16, a verbal transposi tion: nor will he fail to discover other errors which have hitherto escaped general notice (e. g. Gen. vii. 9, xvii. Ï, xxii. 12, xxvi. 24, xxvii. 28; perhaps, also, xxxii. 10, &c.).

[Deest § 425.

On the Difficulties connected with on Attempt to separate both Records in the Book of Genesis.]

§ 426. Separation of both Records contained in the Book of Genesis.

I

I shall now proceed to make an atwhich compose the Book of Genesis, tempt to separate both the records and to exhibit each in a distinct form, accompanied by a statement of the grounds which appear to me to warrant precisely the division here made, and no other; and in this attempt I trust, that, if I be not so fortunate as may at least count on the plan struck to encourage others to similar labours, terially improved upon; for although out by me being followed up and maI cannot tax myself with any want of care or diligence in patiently investi gating the subject and re-considering well aware that it is incompatible with my own attempts, yet I am but too the nature of works belonging to the higher departments of criticism, to arrive by one step at the summit of perfection.

marked it in the margin of the line containing the words, nn an, whence it was afterwards actually transferred into the text itself, although, most unfortunately, in the wrong place; that is to say, not after the word 120, (thus,

record to which this passage belongs, uses precisely that expression, in reference to the flood, in ch. vii. 17. Some one, perhaps, making the discovery that the expression D' 10 occurred in ch. vii. 17, as well as in other places, re

dependent of the above, it must also be confessed, that the expression D'D is not usual with the author of the record to which the passage above quoted belongs, for he uniformly adopts only, or apn 'p.

§ 427.

A principal Objection to the foregoing Hypothesis, stated and considered.

I conclude this subject with a reply to an objection which may probably have somewhat perplexed the reader during his perusal of our disquisition on the origin and internal structure of the Book of Genesis. The book in question is alleged to have been compiled verbatim from records which existed prior to the time of Moses, and yet it would appear that in one record the name of Jehovah is constantly used: a name which God is said only to have adopted on the departure of the Hebrews out of Egypt: vide Exodus vii. 3: "I appeared," says God, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as El Shadai, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them."

The words quoted in the above passage may, at first sight, lead to misconception, but on a minuter examination they will, I apprehend, be

xlvii. 28-31.

xlix. 1-28. 1. 1—12. 1. 14.

found perfectly clear and consistent. tators, that the contents of the followIt is universally allowed by commening verses prove that God had the intention of assuring Moses, and the whole Hebrew nation through him, that he was on the eve of fulfilling the promise originally given to their ancestors; and surely, in declaring such to be his intention, an account of the name by which he was known to the Patriarchs must appear wholly misplaced. If, however, we distinguish between the proposition itself and the mere phraseology in which it is conveyed, it will be found that both the introduction and the promise are most intimately connected together. The true import of El Shadai is "Almighty God," and of Jehovak, “immutable in his resolves;" see Exodus iii. 14; and to be called by a particu lar name, means frequently "to be actually what the name expresses or signifies." Hence, the easiest and most natural interpretation of this verse is, "Your ancestors knew we