GENESIS, the name of the first book in the Bible, derives its title from the Septuagint rendering of ch. ii. 4. It is the first of the five books (the Pentateuch), or, with the inclusion of Joshua, of the six (the Hexateuch), which cover the history of the Hebrews to their occupation of Canaan. The "genesis" or "becoming" (i.e., coming into being) of history begins with records of antediluvian times : the creation of the world, of the first pair of human beings, and the origin of sin (i.–iii.), the civilization and moral degeneration of mankind, the history of man to the time of Noah (iv.–vi. 8), the flood (vi. 9–ix.), the confusion of languages and the divisions of the human race (x.–xi.) . Turning next to the descendants of Shem, the book deals with Abraham (xii.–xxv. 18), Isaac and Jacob (xxv. Ig–xxxv.), the "fathers" of the tribes of Israel, and concludes with the personal history of Joseph, and the descent of his father Jacob (or Israel) and his brethren into the land of Egypt (xxxvii.–l.). The book of Genesis, as a whole, is closely connected with the subsequent oppression of the sons of Israel, the revelation of Yahweh the God of their fathers (Ex. iii. 6, 15 seq., vi. 2-8), the "exodus" of the Israelites to the land promised to their fathers (Ex. xiii. 5, Deut. i. 8, xxvi. 3 sqq., xxxiv. 4) and its conquest (Josh. i. 6, xxiv.) ; cf. also the summaries Neh. ix. 7 sqq., Ps. cv. 6 sqq. For an analysis of the contents see the commentaries.
Its Compositeness.—Only on the assumption that the book of Genesis is a composite work is it possible to explain the dupli cation of events, the varying use of the divine names Yahweh and Elohim, the linguistic and stylistic differences, the internal intricacies of the subject matter, and the differing standpoints as regards tradition, chronology, morals and religion. The cumu lative effect of the whole evidence is too strong to be withstood, and already in the I7th century it was recognized that the book was of composite origin. Immense labour has been spent upon the critical analysis of the contents, but it is only since the work of Graf (1866) and Wellhausen (1878) that a literary hypothesis has been found which explains the most obvious intricacies. The Graf-Wellhausen literary theory has gained the assent of almost all trained and unbiased biblical scholars; it has not been shaken by the more recent light from external evidence, and no alter native theory has as yet been produced. According to this, Gem sis is a post-exilic work composed of a post-exilic priestly sour( (P) and non-priestly earlier sources which differ markedly f roi P in language, style and religious standpoint, but much le: markedly from one and another. These sources can be trace elsewhere in the Pentateuch and Joshua, and P itself is relate to the post-exilic works Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. In it present form Genesis is an indispensable portion of the bibliu history, and consequently its literary growth cannot be viewe apart from that of the books which follow. On internal ground it appears that the Pentateuch and Joshua, as they now read, tually come in between an older history by "Deuteronomic compilers (easily recognizable in Judges and Kings), and th later treatment of the monarchy in Chronicles, where the inflt ence of the circle which produced P and the present Mosai legislation is quite discernible. There have been stages whey earlier extant sources have been cut down, adjusted or
by compilers who have incorporated fresh material, and it is th later compilers of Genesis who have made the book a fairly kni whole. The technical investigation of the literary problems (espe cially the extent of the earlier sources) is a work of great corn plexity, and, for ordinary purposes, it is more important t obtain a preliminary appreciation of the general features of th contents of Genesis.
Value.—That the records of the pre-historic ages in Ger i.–xi. are at complete variance with modern science and archaeo logical research is unquestionable. But although it is impossibl to regard them any longer either as genuine history or as sub jects for an allegorical interpretation (which would prove th accuracy of any record) they are of distinct value as humai documents. They reflect the ideas and thoughts of the Hebrews they illustrate their conceptions of God and the universe, am they furnish material for a comparison of the moral developmen of the Hebrews with that of other early races. Some of the tra ditions are closely akin to those current in ancient Babylonia, bu a careful and impartial comparison at once illustrates in a strik ing manner the relative moral and spiritual superiority of ou writers. On these subjects see COSMOGONY; DELUGE; PARADISE and HEBREW RELIGION.
The records of the patriarchal age, xii.–l. are very variousl; estimated, although the great majority of scholars agree that they are not contemporary and that they cannot be used as the) stand, for pre-Mosaic times. Apart from the ordinary argument: of historical criticism, it is to be noticed that external evidence does not support the assumption that the records preserve genu ine pre-Mosaic history. There are no grounds for any arbitrary distinction between the "pre-historic" pre-Abrahamic age and the later age. External evidence, which recognizes no universal deluge and no dispersal of mankind in the third millennium B.C., throws its own light upon the opening centuries of the second. It has revealed conditions which are not reflected in Genesis, and impor tant facts upon which the book is silent—unless, indeed, in Gen xiv., there is a passing allusion to the great Babylonian monarch Khammurabi in the name Amraphel (see article ABRAHAM), A perusal of modern attempts to recover historical facts or histor ical outline from the book will show how very inadequate the material proves to be, and the reconstructions will be found to depend upon an interpretation of the narratives which is often liberal and not rarely precarious, and to imply such reshaping and rewriting of the presumed facts that the cautious reader can place little reliance on them. Whatever future research may bring, it cannot remove the internal peculiarities which combine to show that Genesis preserves, not literal history, but popular tra ditions of the past. External evidence has proved the antiquity of various elements, but not that of the form or context in which they now appear; and the difference is an important one. We have now a background upon which to view the book, and, on the one hand, it has become obvious that the records preserve (as is only to be expected) oriental customs, beliefs and modes of thought. But it has not been demonstrated that these are exclusively pre-Mosaic. On the other hand, a better acquaintance with the ancient political, sociological and religious conditions has made it increasingly difficult to interpret the records as a whole literally, or even to find a place in pre-Mosaic Palestine for the lives of the patriarchs as they are depicted. Neverthe less though one cannot look to Genesis for the history of the early part of the second millennium B.C., the study of what was thought of the past, proves in this, as in many other cases, to be more instructive than the facts of the past, and it is distinctly more important for the biblical student and the theologian to understand the thought of the ages immediately preceding the foundation of Judaism in the 5th century B.C. than the actual history of many centuries earlier.
A noteworthy feature is the frequent per sonification of peoples, tribes or clans. (See GENEALOGY.) Midian (i.e., the Midianites) is a son of Abraham; Canaan is a son of Ham (ix. 22), and Cush the son of Ham is the father of Raamah and grandfather of the famous S. Arabian State Sheba and the traders of Dedan (x. 6 sq., cf. Ezek. xxvii. 20-2 2) . Bethuel the father of Rebekah is the brother of the tribal names Uz and Buz (xxii. 21 seq., cf. Jer. xxv. 20, 23). Jacob is other wise known as Israel and becomes the father of the tribes of Israel; Joseph is the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, and inci dents in the life of Judah lead to the birth of Perez and Zerah, Judaean clans. This personification is entirely natural to the oriental, and though "primitive" is not necessarily an ancient trait (cf. I Chron. iv. 1o). It gives rise to what may be termed the "prophetical interpretation of history" (S. R. Driver Genesis, p. I I I), where the character, fortunes or history of the apparent individual are practically descriptive of the people or tribe which, according to tradition, is named after or descended from him. The utterance of Noah over Canaan, Shem and Japheth (ix. 25 seq.), of Isaac over Esau and Jacob (xxvii.), of Jacob over his sons (xlix.) or grandsons (xlviii.) , would have no meaning for Israelites unless they had some connection with and interest for contemporary life and thought. Herein lies the force of the description of the wild and independent Ishmael (xvi. 12), the "father" of certain well-known tribes (xxv. 13-15) ; or the con trast between the skilful hunter Esau and the quiet and respect able Jacob (xxv. 27), and between the tiller Cain who becomes the typical nomad and the pastoral Abel (iv. I–I 5) . The interest of the struggles between Jacob and Esau lay, not in the history of individuals of the distant past, but in the fact that the names actually represented Israel and its near rival Edom. These f ea tures are in entire accordance with oriental usage and give ex pression to current belief, existing relationships, or to a poetical foreshadowing of historical vicissitudes. But in the effort to un derstand them as they were originally understood, it is very obvi ous that this method of interpretation can be pressed too far. It would be precarious to insist that the entrances into Palestine of Abraham and Jacob (or Israel) typified two distinct immigra tions. The separation of Abraham from Lot (cf. Lotan, an Edom ite name), of Isaac from Hagar-Ishmael, or of Jacob from Esau Edom scarcely points to the relative antiquity of the origin of these non-Israelite peoples who, to judge from the evidence, were closely related. Or, if the "sons" of Jacob had Aramaean mothers, to prove that those which are derived from the wives were upon a higher level than the "sons" of the concubines is more diffi cult than to allow that certain of the tribes must have contained some element of Aramaean blood (cf. I Chron. vii. 14, and see ASHER; GAD; MANASSEH, TRIBE OF). Some names are clearly not those of known clans or tribes (e.g., Abraham, Isaac), and many of the details of the narratives obviously have no natural ethno logical meaning. Stories of heroic ancestors and of tribal eponyms intermingle; personal, tribal and national traits are interwoven. The entrance of Jacob or Israel with his sons suggests that of the children of Israel. The story of Simeon and Levi at Shechem is clearly not that of two individuals, sons of the patriarch Israel; in fact the story actually uses the term "wrought folly in Israel" (cf. Jud. xx. 6, I o) , and the individual Shechem, the son of Hamor, cannot be separated from the city, the scene of the inci dents. Yet Jacob's life with Laban has many purely individual traits. And, further, there intervenes a remarkable passage with an account of his conflict with the divine being who fears the dawn and is unwilling to reveal his name. In a few verses the "wrestling" (`-b-k) of Jacob (yd`dkob) is associated with the Jabbok (yabbok); his "striving" explains his name Israel; at Peniel he sees "the face of God," and when touched on his vul nerable spot (the hollow of the thigh) he is lamed, hence "the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of the thigh unto this day" (xxxii. 24-3 2) . Other examples of the fusion of different features can be readily found. Three divine beings appear to Abraham at the sacred tree of Hebron, and when the birth of Isaac (from sahak, "laugh") is foretold, the account of Sarah's behaviour is merely a popular and trivial story suggested by the child's name (xviii. 12–I 5 ; see also xvii. 17, x)i. 6, g). An extremely fine passage then describes the patriarch's intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah, and the nar rative passes on to the catastrophe which explains the Dead Sea and its desert region and has parallels elsewhere (e.g., the Greek legend of Zeus and Hermes in Phrygia). Lot escapes to Zoar, the name gives rise to the pun on the "little" city (xix. 2o), and his wife, on looking back, becomes one of those pillars of salt which still invite speculation. Finally the names of his children Moab and Ammon are explained by an incident when he is a cave-dweller on a mountain.
To primitive minds which speculated upon the "why and wherefore" of what they saw around them, the narratives of Genesis afforded an answer. They preserve, in fact, some of the popular philosophy and belief of the Hebrews. They furnish what must have been a satisfactory origin of the names Edom, Moab and Ammon, Mahanaim and Succoth, Bethel, Beersheba, etc. They explain why Shechem, Bethel and Beersheba were an cient sanctuaries (see further below) ; why the serpent writhes along the ground (iii. 14) ; and why the hip sinew might not be eaten (xxxii. 32). To these and a hundred other questions the national and tribal stories (of which no doubt only a few have survived, and of which other forms, earlier or later, more crude or more refined, were doubtless current) furnish an evidently adequate answer. Myth and legend, fact and fiction, the common stock of oral tradition, have been handed down, and thus consti tute one of the most valuable sources for popular Hebrew thought.
The book is not to be judged from any one-sided estimate of its contents. By the side of much that seems trivial, and even non moral (for the patriarchs themselves are not saints) it is note worthy how frequently the narratives are didactic. The char acteristic sense of collective responsibility, which appears more incidentally in xx. 7, is treated with striking intensity in a passage (xviii. 23-33) which uses the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah as a vehicle for the statement of a familiar problem (cf. Ezek. xviii., Ps. lxxiii., Job). It will be observed that interviews with divine beings presented as little difficulty to the primitive minds of old as to the modern native ; even the idea of intercourse of supernatural beings with mortals (vi. 1-4) is to-day equally intelligible. The modern untutored native has a not dissimilar undeveloped and childlike attitude towards the divine, a naïve theology and a simple cultus. The most circumstantial tales are told of imaginary figures, and the most incredible details clothe the lives of the historical heroes of the past. So abundant is the testimony of modern travellers to the extent of which East ern custom and thought elucidate the interpretation of the Bible, that it is very important to notice those features which illustrate Genesis. "The oriental," writes S. I. Curtiss (Bibl. Sacra, Jan. Igor, pp. 103 sqq.), "is least of all a scientific historian. He is the prince of story-tellers; narratives, real and imaginative, spring from his lips, which are the truest portraiture of composite rather than individual oriental life, though narrated under forms of individual experience." There are, therefore, many fundamental facts which combine to show that the critical student cannot isolate the book from oriental life and thought ; its uniqueness lies in the manner in which the material has been shaped and the use to which it has been put.
The Book of Jubilees (not later than c.
B.c.) presents the history in another form. It retains some of the canonical matter, often with considerable reshaping ; it omits many details (especially those to which exception could be taken), and adds much that is novel. The chronological system of the latest source in Genesis becomes an elaborate reckoning of heav enly origin. Written under the obvious influence of later religious aims, it is especially valuable because one can readily compare the two methods of presenting the old traditions. The Book of Jubilees (q.v.) also enables the student to test the arguments based upon any study restricted to Genesis alone. Thus it shows that the "primitive" features of Genesis afford a criterion which is sociological rather than chronological. This is often ignored. For example, the conveyance of the field of Machpelah (xxiii.) is conspicuous for the absence of any reference to a written con tract in contrast to the "business" methods in Jer. xxxii. This does not prove that Gen. xxiii. is early, because writing was used in Palestine about 1400 B.C., and, on the other hand, the more simple forms of agreement are still familiar after the time of Jeremiah (e.g., Ruth, Proverbs). Similarly, no safe argument can be based upon the institution of blood-revenge in Gen. iv., when one observes the undeveloped conditions among the Trachonites of the time of Herod the Great (Josephus, Ant. xvi. 9, 1), or the varying usages among modern tribes. In the Book of Jubilees there is the same kind of personification ; there are fresh examples of the "prophetical interpretation of history," and by the side of the older "primitive" thought are ideas which can only belong to this later period. In each case we have merely a selection of current traditional lore. For example, Gen. vi. 1-4 mentions the marriage of divine beings with the daughters of men and the birth of Nephilim or giants (cf. Num. xiii. 33) . Later allusions to this myth (e.g., Baruch iii. 26-28, Book of Enoch vi. sqq., 2 Peter ii. 4, etc.) are not based upon this passage: the fragment itself is all that remains of a more complete written myth. Old myths underlie the account of the Creation and the garden of Eden, and traces of other versions or forms appear elsewhere in the Old Testament. Again, the Old Testament throws no light upon the redemption of Abraham (Is. xxix. 22), although the Targums and other sources profess to be well-informed. The isolated ref erence to Jacob's conquest of Shechem in Gen. xlviii. 22 must have belonged to. another context, and later writings give in a later and thoroughly incredible form allied traditions. In Hosea xii. 4, Jacob's wrestling is mentioned before the scene at Bethel ( Gen. xxxii. 24 sqq., xxviii. i i sqq.) . The overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Genesis (xviii. seq.), but Hosea refers only to that of Admah and Zeboim (xi. 8, cf. Deut. xxix. 23, Gen. x. 19)—different versions of the great catastrophe were doubtless current. Consequently investigation must start with the particular details which happen to be preserved, and these not necessarily in their original or in their only form. Since the antiquity of elements of tradition is independent of the shape in which they appear before us, a careful distinction must be drawn between those details which do not admit of being dated or located and those which do. There is evidence for the existence of the names Abram, Jacob and Joseph in early times, but this does not prove the antiquity of the present narratives encircling them.
Popular tradition often ignores events of historical importance, or, as repeated experience shows, will represent them in such a form that the true historical kernel could never have been recovered without some external clue. The absence of definite references to the events of the Israelite mon archy does not necessarily point to the priority of the traditions in Genesis or their later date. Nevertheless, some allusion to national fortunes is reflected in the exaltation of Jacob (Israel) over Esau (Edom), and in the promise that the latter should break the yoke from his neck; later writers (in the Targums) bring this up-to-date. Israelite kings are foreshadowed (xvii. 6, xxxv. i i P), and Israel's kingdom has the ideal limits as ascribed to Solomon (xv. 18, see I. Kings iv. 21 ; but cf. art. SoLorooN) . Judah is promised a world-wide king (xlix. 8-1o), though else where the supremacy of Joseph rouses the jealousy of his "broth ers" (xxxvii. 8). Different dates and circles of interest are thus manifest. The cursing and dispersion of Simeon and Levi (xlix. 5-7) recall the fact that Simeon's cities were in the territory of Judah (Josh. xix. 1, 9), and that the Levitical priests are later scattered and commended to the benevolence of the Israelites. But the curse obviously represents an attitude quite opposed to the blessing pronounced upon Levi by Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 8-11). The Edomite genealogies (xxxvi.) represent a more extensive people than the references in the popular stories suggest, and the latter by no means indicate that Edom had so important a career as we actually gather from a few allusions to its kings (xxxvi.
. The references to Philistines are anachronistic for the pre-Mosaic age, and it is clear that the tradition of a solemn covenant with a Philistine king and his general (xxi. 22 seq., xxvi. 26 seq.) does not belong to the age or the circle which remem bered the heavy oppressions of the Philistines. Similarly, the treat ment of the covenant by the author of Jubilees (xxiv. 28 sqq.) is only intelligible when one recalls the attitude of Judah to the Philistine cities in the 2nd century B.C. Finally, the thread of the tradition unmistakably represents a national unity of the 12 sons (tribes) of Israel; but this unity was not felt at certain periods of disorganization, and the idea of including Judah among the sons of Israel could not have arisen at a time when Israel and Judah were rival kingdoms. Thus in the original text of 2 Sam. xix. 43 the men of Israel claim to be the first-born rather than Judah; cf. also I. Chron. v. I sq. where Joseph obtains the birth-right. In so far as the traditions can be read in the light of biblical history it is evident that they belong to different ages and represent dif ferent national, tribal, or local standpoints.
Noteworthy is the interest taken in sacred sites. Certain places are distinguished by theophanies or by the erection of an altar (lit. place of sacrificial slaughter). Mizpah in Gilead is the scene of a covenant or treaty between Jacob and his Aramaean relative commemorated by a pillar (Masseba/i). It was otherwise known for an annual religious ceremony, the traditional origin of which is related in the story of Jephthah's vow and sacrifice (Judg. xi.), and its priests are denounced by Hosea (v. 1). Shechem, the famous city of the Samaritans ("the foolish nation," Ecclus I. 5o, 26), where Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32), had a sanctuary and a sacred pillar and tree. It was the scene of the coronation (a religious ceremony) of Abimelech (Judg. ix.), and Rehoboam (I. Kings xii. 1). The pillar was ascribed to Joshua (Josh. xxiv. 26 seq.), and although Jacob set up at Shechem an "altar," the verb sug gests that the original object was a pillar (Gen. xxxiii. 20). The first ancestor of Israel, on the other hand, is merely associated with a theophany at an oracular tree (xii. 6). The Benjamite Bethel was especially famous in Israelite religious history. The story tells how Jacob discovered its sanctity (it was the gate of heaven), made a covenant with its God, established the sacred pillar, and instituted its tithes (xxviii.). The prophetess Deborah dwelt under a palm-tree near Bethel (Judg. iv. 5), and her name is also that of the foster-mother of Rebekah who was buried near Bethel beneath the "oak of weeping" (xxxv. 8). Bochim ("weep ing") elsewhere receives its name when an angel appeared to the Israelites (Judg. ii. I, Septuagint adds Bethel). To the prophets Hosea and Amos the cultus of Bethel was heathen and immoral, even though it was Yahweh himself who was worshipped there (see BETHEL). South of Hebron lay Beersheba, an important centre and place of pilgrimage, with a special numen by whom oaths were taken (Amos viii. 14, see Sept. and cf. the commen taries). Isaac built its altar, and Isaac's God guarded Jacob in his journeying (xxxi. 29, xlvi. i ). This patriarch and his "brother" Ishmael are closely associated with the district south of Judah; both are connected with Beer-lahai-roi (xxiv. 62, Sept. xxv. i 1), whose fountain was the scene of a theophany (xvi.). Their tradi tions are thus localized in the district of Kadesh, famous in the events of the Exodus (cf. xvi. 14, xxi. 21, xxv. 18, Ex. xv. 22). Abraham planted a sacred tree at Beersheba and invoked "the everlasting God" (xxi. 33). But the patriarch is more closely identified with Hebron, which had a sanctuary (cf. 2 Sam. xv. 7 seq.), and an altar which he built "unto Yahweh" (xiii. 18). The sacred oak of Mamre was famous in the time of Josephus (B. J. iv. 9, 7), it was later a haunt of "angels" (Sozomen), and Con stantine was obliged to put down the heathenish cultus. The place still has its holy tree. Beneath the oak there appeared the three di vine beings, and in the cave of Machpelah the illustrious ancestor and his wife were buried. There is a distinct tendency to emphasize the importance of Hebron. Taken from primitive giants by the non-Israelite clan Caleb (q.v.) it is predominant in the patri archal traditions. Jacob leaves his dying father at Beersheba (xxviii. 1o), but according to the latest source he returns to him at Hebron (xxxv. 27), and here, north of Beersheba, he continues to live (xxxvii. 14, xlvi. 1-5). The cave of Machpelah became the grave of Isaac, Rebekah and Leah (but not Rachel) ; and though Jacob appears to be buried beyond the Jordan, it is the latest source which places his grave at Hebron (1. I-1I and 12 seq.). So in still later tradition, all the sons of Jacob with the exception of Joseph find their last resting-place at Hebron, and in Jewish prayers for the dead it is besought that their souls may be bound up with those of the patriarchs, or that they may go to the cave of Machpelah and thence to the Cherubim. The increasing prominence of the old Calebite locality is not the least interest ing phase in the comparative study of the patriarchal traditions.
The association of the ancestors of Israel with certain sites is a feature which finds analogies even in modern Palestine. There are old centres of cult which have never lost the veneration of the people ; the shrines are known as the tombs of saints or welis (patrons) with such orthodox names as St. George, Elijah, etc. Traditions justify the reputation for sanctity, and not only are similar stories told of distinct figures, but there are varying traditions of a single figure. Genesis preserves a selection of traditions relating to a few of the old Palestinian centres of cult. We cannot suppose that these first gained their sacred character in the pre-Mosaic "patriarchal" age ; there is in any case the obvious difficulty of bridging the gap between the descent into Egypt and the Exodus ; and it is clear that when the Israelites entered Palestine they came among a people whose religion, tra dition and thought were fully established. It is only in accordance with analogy if stories were current in Israel of the institution of the sacred places, and closer study shows that we do not preserve the original version of these traditions.
A venerated tree in modern Palestine will owe its sanctity to some tradition, associating it, it may be, with some saint ; the Israelites in their turn held the belief that the sacred tree at Hebron was one beneath which their first ancestor sat when three divine beings revealed themselves to him. But it is noteworthy that Yahweh alone is now prominent ; the tradition has been revised, apparently in writing, and, later, the author of Jubilees (xvi.) ignores the triad. At Beer-lahai-roi an El ("god") appeared to Hagar, whence the name of her child Ishmael; but the writer prefers the unambiguous proper name Yahweh, and, what is more, the divine being is now Yahweh's angel—the Almighty's sub ordinate (xvi.) . The older traits show themselves partly in the manifestation of various Els, and partly in the cruder anthro pomorphism of the earlier sources. Later hands have by no means eliminated or modified them altogether, and in xxxi. S3 one can still perceive that the present text has endeavoured to obscure the older belief that the God of Abraham was not the God of his "brother" Nahor (see the commentaries). The sacred pillar erected by Jacob at Bethel was solemnly anointed with oil, and it (and not the place) was regarded as the abode of the Deity (xxviii. 18, 22). This agrees with all that is known of stone-cults, but it is quite obvious that this interesting example of popular belief is far below the religious ideas of the writer of the chapter in its present form. There were many places where it could be said that Yahweh had recorded his name and would bless his worshippers (Ex. xx. 24). They were abhorrent to the advanced ethical teaching of prophets and of those imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy (cf. ii. Kings xviii. 4 with v. 22), and it is patent from Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Is. lvi.–lxvi. that even at a late date opinion varied as to how Yahweh was to be served. It is significant, therefore, that the narratives in Genesis (apart from P) reflect a certain tolerant attitude ; there is much that is contrary to prophetical thought, but even the latest compilers have not obliterated all features that, from a strict standpoint, could appear distasteful. Although the priestly source shows how the lore could be reshaped, and Jubilees represents later efforts along similar lines, it is evident that for ordinary readers the patri archal traditions could not be presented in an entirely new form, and that to achieve their aims the writers could not be at direct variance with current thought.
There is relatively little tradition from north Israel ; Beersheba, Beer-lahai-roi and Hebron are more prominent than even Bethel or Shechem, and there are no stories of Gilgal, Shiloh or Dan. Yet in the nature of the case there must have been a great store of local tradition accessible to some writers and at some periods. Interest is taken not in Phoenicia, Damascus or the northern tribes, but in the east and south, in Gilead, Ammon, Moab and Ishmael. Particular attention is paid to Edom and Jacob, and there is good evidence for a close rela tionship between Edomite and allied names and those of south Palestine (including Simeon and Judah). Especially significant, too, is the interest in traditions which affected the south of Pales tine, that district which is of importance for the history of Israel in the wilderness and of the Levites. It is noteworthy therefore, that while different peoples had their own theories of their earliest history, the first-born of the first human pair is Cain, the eponym of the Kenites, and the ancestor of the beginnings of civilization (iv. 17, 20-22) . This "Kenite" version had its own view of the institution of the worship of Yahweh (iv. 26) ; it appears to have ignored the Deluge, and it implies the existence of a fuller corpus of written tradition. Elsewhere, in the records of the Exodus, there are traces of specific traditions associated with Kadesh, Kenites, Caleb and Jerahmeel, and with a movement into Judah, all originally independent of their present context. Like the prominence of the traditions of Hebron and its hero Abra ham, these features are not fortuitous, though the problems they bring cannot be discussed here (see Catnb. Anc. History, ii. 359 sqq., iii. 472 sqq., vi. 185 seq.).
R. Driver's commentary (Westminster Series) Bibliography.-S. R. Driver's commentary (Westminster Series) deals thoroughly with all preliminary problems of criticism, and is the best for the ordinary reader; Dillmann (6th ed., E. trans.) is technical, Ryle (Cambridge Bible) and Bennett (Century Bible) more popular. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of Genesis, and Ball (in Haupt's Sacred Books of the 0. T.) appeal to Hebrew students. Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, and C. F. Kent, Beginnings of Hebrew History, are important for the lit erary analysis. J.
in his Proleg. to Hist. of Israel (E. trans., pp.
is admirable, as also is the general intro. (trans. by W. H. Carruth, 1907) to Gunkel's valuable commentary. Fuller bibl. information will be found in the works already mentioned, in the articles in the Ency. Bib. (G. F. Moore), and Hastings's Dict. (G. A. Smith), and in the fine volume by J. Skinner in the Inter national Critical Series. (S. A. C.)
