Genealogy – Geography of Palestine

Genealogy

The genealogies of the OT fall into two classes, national and individual, though the two are sometimes combined, the genealogy of the individual passing into that of the nation.

1. National genealogies.— These Ijelong to a wellrecognized type, by which the relationship of nations, tribes, and families is explained as due to descent from a common ancestor, who is often an ‘eponymous hero,’ invented to account for the name of the nation. The principle was prevalent in Greece (see Grote, Hist. vol. i. ch. iv. etc. and p. 416); e.g. Hellen is the ‘father’ of Dorus, ^olus, and Xuthus, who is in turn the ‘father’ of Ion and Achaeus, the existence of the various branches of the Greek races being thus explained. M’ Lennan (Studies in Ancient History, 2nd series, ix.) gives further examples from Rome (genealogies traced to Numa), Scotland, India, Arabia, and Africa; the Berbers (‘barbarians’) of N. Africa invented an ancestor Berr, and connected him with Noah. The Arabs derived all their subdivisions from Nebaioth or Joktan. The genealogies of Genesis are of the same type. The groundwork of the Priestly narrative (P) is a series of inter-connected genealogies, each beginning with the formula, ‘These are the generations (.toledoth) of . . .’ (2« 5’ 6» etc.). The gap between Adam and Noah is filled by a genealogy of 10 generations (Gu 5), and in Genesis 10 the nations of the world, as known to the writer, are traced in a genealogical tree to Noah’s three sons. We find in the list plural or dual names (e.g. Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim), names of places (Tarshish, Zidon, Ophir) or of nations (the Jebuslte, Amorite, etc.). An ‘Eber’ appears as the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews. Sometimes the names might in form represent either individuals or nations (Asshur, Moab, Edom), but there can in most cases be little doubt that the ancestor has been invented to account for the nation. In later chapters the same method is followed with regard to tribes more or less closely related to Israel; the connexion is explained by deriving them from an ancestor related to Abraham. In Genesis 22:20 the twelve Aramsean tribes are derived from Nahor his brother; in 25:12 twelve N. Arabian tribes, nearer akin, are traced to Ishmael and Hagar; six others, a step farther re moved, to Keturah, his second wife, or concubine (25:1). The Edomltes, as most nearly related, are derived from Esau (36). The frequent recurrence of the number 12 in these hsts is a sign of artificiality. The same principle is applied to Israel itself. The existence of all the twelve sons of Jacob as individuals is on various grounds improbable; they represent tribes, and in many cases their ‘descendants’ are simply individual names coined to account for cities, clans, and subdivisions of the tribes (Genesis 46:8. Numbers 26). A good illustration is found in the case of Gilead. In Deuteronomy 3:15 we are told that Moses gave Gilead to Machir, son of Manasseh. In Numbers 26:29 etc. Gilead has become the ‘son’ of Manasseh, and in Judges 11:1 ‘begets’ Jephthah. So among the ‘sons’ of Caleb we find cities of Judah (Hebron, Tappuah, Ziph, Gibea, etc., 1 Chronicles 2:42 ff.). and Kiriath-jearim and Bethlehem are descendants of Hur (2:51). It is indeed obvious that, whether consciously or not, terms of relationship are used in an artificial sense. ‘Father’ often means founder of a city; in Genesis 4:20 it stands for the originator of occupations and professions; members of a guild or clan are its ‘sons.’ The towns of a district are its ‘daughters’ (Judges 1:27 RVm).

With regard to the historical value of these genealogies, two remarks may be made, (a) The records, though in most cases wort bless if regarded as referring to individuals, are of the highest importance as evidence of the movements and history of peoples and clans, and of the beliefs entertained about them. Genesis 10 gives geographical and ethnographical information of great value. A good example is found in what we leain of Caleb and the Calebites. In the eariiest tradition (Numbers 32:12, Jos 14) he is descended from Kenaz, a tribe of Edom, and ‘grandson’ of Esau (Genesis 36:11, 42) in 1 Samuel 25 30:14 the Calebite territory is still distinct from Judah. But in 1 Chronicles 2:4 ff. Caleb has become a descendant of Judah. We gather that the Calebites (‘dog-tribe’) were a related but alien clan, which entered into friendly relations with Judah at the time of the conquest of Canaan, and perhaps took the lead in the Invasion. Ultimately they coalesced with Judah, and were regarded as pure Israelites. So generally, though no uniform interpretation of the genealogies is possible, a marriage will often point to the incorporation of new elements into the tribe, a birth to a fresh subdivision or migration, or an unfruitful marriage to the disappearance of a clan. Contradictory accounts of an individual in documents of different date may tell us of the history of a tribe at successive periods, as in the case of the Calebites.

(6) Though the genealogical names usually represent nations, there is, no doubt, in certain cases a personal element as well. The patriarchs and more prominent figures, such as Ishmael and Esau and Caleb, were no doubt individuals, and their history is not entirely figurative. On this point see Driver, Genesis, pp. Uv. fl. ; also artt. Abraham, and Tribes. We should note that the distinctive feature of the Greek genealogies, which traced national descent from the gods, is absent from the OT. A trace remains in Genesis 6:4 (cf. Luke 3:38).

2. Genealogies of individuals. — Whatever view be taken of the genealogies of our Lord (see next article), their incorporation in the Gospels proves the importance attached to descent in the NT period; they also show that at that time records were kept which made the construction of such tables a possibility. St. Paul was conscious of his pure pedigree (Philippians 3:5), and in several cases in the NT the name of a person’s tribe is preserved. The hope of being the ancestor of the Messiah, and the natural pride of royal descent, probably caused the records of the house of David to be preserved with great care. In the same way Josephus, in the opening chapter of his Life, sets out his genealogy as vouched for by the public records, though only as (ar back as his grand- . father Simon. In c. Apion. i. 7, he speaks of the careful preservation of the Priestly genealogies; and the story of Africanus (,ap. Eus. HE i. 1, 13), that Herod the Great destroyed the genealogical records of the Jews in order to conceal his own origin, is at least an indication of the existence of such records and of the value attached to them. The Talmud speaks of professional genealogists, and in the present day many Jews, especially among the priests, treasure long and detailed family trees, showing their pure descent (cf., for an earlier period, 1 Maccabees 2:1. Baruch 1:1. Tobit 1:1).

There can be no doubt that this careful recording of genealogies received its main impetus in the time of Ezra. It was then that the line between the Jews and other nations became sharply drawn, and stress was laid on purity of descent, whether real or fictitious. Alter the return from Babylon, it was more important to be able to trace descent from the exiles than to be a native of Judah (Ezra 9). Certain families were excluded from the priesthood for lack of the requisite genealogical records (2, Nehemiah 7:63). And in fact practically all the detailed genealogies of individuals as preserved in P, Chronicles, and kindred writings, date from this or a later period. No doubt the injunctions of Deuteronomy 23:3 and the arrangements for a census (2 Samuel 24) imply that there was some sort of registration of families before this, and the stage of civilization reached under the monarchy makes it probable that records were kept of royal and important houses. But the genealogical notes which really date from the earlier period rarely go further back than two or three generations, and the later genealogies bear many traces of their artificiality. The names are In many cases late and post-exilic, and there is no evidence outside the genealogies that they were in use at an earlier period. Of the twenty-four courses of the sons of Aaron in 1 Chronicles 24:1 ff.: sixteen names are post-exilic. Names of places and clans appear as individuals (2:18–24 T^"-*"). Gaps are filled up by the repetition of the same name in several generations(.e.g. 6:4–14). At a later time it was usual for a child to be named after his father or kinsman (Lk !"■ "), but there are probably no cases where this is recorded for the pre-exilic period, except in the Chronicler’s lists (see Gray, HPN). There are numerous discrepancies in the various lists, and there is a strongly marked tendency to ascribe a Levitical descent to all engaged in the service of the sanctuary, e.g. the guilds of singers and porters. So Samuel is made a Levite by the Chronicler (6:22, 33). almost certainly wrongly, as his story shows. In the same way the position of clans, such as Caleb and Jerahraeel, which in the early history appear as alien, is legitimized by artificial genealogies (1 Chronicles 2). In 25:4 the names of the sons of Heman seem to be simply fragments of a hymn or psalm. In 6:4 there are, including Aaron, 23 priests from the Exodus to the Captivity — an evidently artificial reconstruction; forty years is a generation, and 40x12=480 years to the building of the Temple (1 Kings 6:1). the other 11 priests fllUng up the period till the Exile, which took place in the eleventh generation after Solomon. Such marks of artificiality, combined with lateness of date, forbid us to regard the lists as entirely historical. No doubt in certain cases the genealogist had family records to work upon, but the form in which our material has reached us makes it almost impossible to disentangle these with any degree of certainty. W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, p. 6) gives an interesting parallel to this development of genealogizing activity at a particular period. The Arabian genealogies all date from the reign of Caliph Omar, when circumstances made purity of descent of great importance. C. W. Emmet.

Genealogy of Jesus Christ

1. The two genealogies.— Both the First and Third Evangelists (here for brevity referred to as Mt. and Lk.) give our Lord’s ancestry, but they differ from one another very largely. Lk. traces back the genealogy to Adam, Mt. to Abraham only. Both lists agree from Abraham to David, except that Aram or Ram In Matthew 1 = Arnl in Luke 3:33 (best text); but between David and Joseph the lists have only Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, and possibly two other names (see below), in common.

(a) The Matthxan list from Perez to David is taken almost verbatim from Ruth 4 LXX (inserting Rahab and Ruth, and calling David ‘the king’), and agrees with 1 Chronicles 2:1–15; it then gives the names of the kings to Jechoniah, from 1 Chronicles 3, but inserts ‘the [wife] of Uriah’ and omits kings Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Uzziah ( = Azariah), and also Jehoiakim son of Josiah and father of Jechoniah (Coniah, Jeremiah 22:24) or Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:8). This last omission may be merely a mistake, for the list is made up of three artificial divisions of fourteen generations each, and Jechoniah appears both at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third division, being counted twice. Perhaps, then, originally Jehoiakim ended the second division, and Jehoiachin began the third, and they became confused owing to the similarity of spelling and were written alike (as in 1 Chronicles 3:15, Jeremiah 52:31 LXX) ; then the synonym Jechoniah was substituted for both. In the third division the names Shealtiel, Zerubbabel (both in Lk. also) are from Ezra 3:2, 1 Chronicles 3:17, 19, but we notice that in Mt. and Ezra Zerubbabel is called son of Shealtiel, whereas in 1 Ch (except in some MSS of the LXX) he is his nephew. Both in Mt. and 1 Ch. Shealtiel is called son of Jechoniah. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph the names are perhaps from some traditional list of the heirs of the kings, but some names here also have been omitted, for in Mt. ten generations are spread over nearly 500 years, while Lk. gives nineteen generations for the same period. The Mt. genealogy ends with Matthan, Jacob, Joseph.

(6) The Lukan list, which inverts the order, beginning at Jesus and ending at Adam, takes the line from Adam to Abraham, from Genesis 5. 10:21–25 (to Peleg), 1 Chronicles 1:1–27, but inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah, as does the LXX in Gn. and 1 Ch.; it practically agrees with Mt. (see above) from Abraham to David, but then gives the line to Shealtiel through David’s son Nathan, making Shealtiel the son of Neri, not of king Jechoniah (see 2 below). The names between Nathan and Shealtiel are not derived from the OT, and those between Zerubbabel and Joseph are otherwise unknown to us, unless, as Hummer supposes (7CC, ‘St. Luke,’ p. 104,) Joanan (Luke 3:27 RV) = Hananiah son of Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:19) — the name Rhesa being really a title (‘Zerubbabel Rhesa’ = ‘Z. the prince’), misunderstood by some copyist before Lk. — and Joda (Luke 3:26 RV) = Abiud (Matthew 1) (1 Chronicles 3:24 RV, a descendant of Zerubbabel, not son of Hananiah). Some think that Matthat (Luke 3:24) (Matthew 1:15).

2 . Reason of the differences . — It is not enough merely to say that theories which endeavour to harmonize the four Gospels are failures, and that, as is shown in art. Gospels, 2 (6), Mt. and Lk. wrote each without knowing the work of the other. We have to consider why two independent writers, both professing to give our Lord’s genealogy, produced such different lists. Jewish genealogies were frequently artificial; that of Mt. is obviously so; for example, its omissions were apparently made only so as to produce an equality between the three divisions. Burkitt (Evangdion da- Mepharreshe, ii. 260f.) and Allen (.ICC, ‘St. Matthew,’ p. 2fE.) think that Mt. compiled his genealogy for the purpose of his Gospel. The details about Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, not to be expected in a genealogy, but suitable for that purpose (see below), and the artificial divisions, seem to point to this view. The object of the Mt. genealogy would be to refute an early Jewish slander that Jesus was born out of wedlock — a slander certainly known to Celsus in the 2nd cent. (Origen, c. Cds. i. 28 etc.). In this connexion Burkitt (I.e.) shows that Mt. 1. 2 are by the same hand as the rest of the Gospel (see also Hawkins, HorcB SynopticcB, p. 4ff.). This view may, however, perhaps be modified a little by the hypothesis that the Mt. list is due to a Christian predecessor of the First Evangelist, perhaps to one of his sources; this modification would allow for the corruption of JehoiaUm and Jehoiacbin (above, 1).

In any case, in spite of the argument to the contrary by Bacon in Hastings’ DB ii. 139, we must probably agree with Westcott (.NT in Greek^, ii. 141), Barnard (Hastings’ DCG i. 638), Alien, and Burkitt, that the word ‘begat’ In this list expresses legal heirship and not physical descent. The same is true in some cases in 1 Chronicles. Mt. clearly believed in the Virgin Birth, and puts the genealogy immediately before the assertion of it; if physical descent is intended, the genealogy through Joseph is unmeaning. He wishes to prove that Jesus is legally descended from David, and therefore gives the ‘throne succession,’ the list of regal heirs. On the other hand, it may be supposed that Lk. states Jesus’ heirship by giving Joseph’s actual physical descent according to some genealogy preserved in the family. According to this view, Joseph was really the son of Heli (Luke 3:23) but the legal heir of Jacob (Matthew 1:16). It is not difficult to understand why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear in both lists. Jechoniah was childless, or at least his heirs died out (Jeremiah 22), and Shealtiel, though called his ‘son’ in 1 Chronicles 3:17, was probably only his legal heir, being son of Neri (Luke 3:27). This theory is elaborated by Lord A. Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells (The Genealogies of our Lord, 1853, and in Smith’s DB’).

The reason of the insertion of the names of the four women in the Mt. list is not quite obvious. It has been suggested that the object was to show that God accepts penitents and strangers . Burkitt, with more probability, supposes that the mention of the heira being born out of the direct lire or irregularly is intended to prepare us for the still greater irregularity at the last stage, for the Virgin Birth of Jesus (l.c. p. 260). We note that in the OT Rahab is not said to have been the wife of Salmon as in Mt. 1:5.

3 . Other solutions .—(a) Af ricanus, perhaps the earliest writer to discuss Biblical questions in a critical manner (c. A.D. 220), treats of these genealogies in his Letter to Arislides (Euseb. HE i. 7, vi. 31). He harmonizes them (expressly, however, not as a matter of tradition) on the theory of levlrate marriages, supposing that two half-brothers, sons of different fathers, married the same woman, and that the issue of the second marriage was therefore legally accounted to the elder, but physically to the younger brother. It is a difficulty that two, or even three, such marriages must be supposed in the list; and this theory is almost universally rejected by moderns. Africauus had no doubt that both genealogies were Joseph’s.

Africanus says that Herod the Great destroyed all the Jewish genealogies kept in the archives, so as to hide his own ignoble descent, but that not a few had private records of their own (Euseb. HE i. 7). Here clearly Africanus exaggerates. Josephus says that his own genealogy was given in the public records, and that the priests’ pedigrees, even among Jews of the Disperaion, were carefully preserved (Life, 1, c. Ap. i. 7). Tnere is no reaaon why Lk. should not have found a genealogy in Joseph’s family. Africauus says that our Lord’s relatives, called desposyni, prided themselves on preserving the memory of their noble descent.

(6) A more modern theory, expounded by Weiss, but first by Annius of Viterbo (c. a.d. 1490), is that Mt. gives Joseph’s pedigree, Lk. Mary’s. It is necessary on this theory to render Luke 3:23 thus: ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph [but really the grandson] of Heli .’ This translation is rightly pronounced by Hummer to be incredible (l.c. p. 103); and a birthright derived through the mother would be ‘quite out of harmony with either Jewish ideas or Gentile ideas.’ The important thing was to state Jesus’ birthright, and the only possible way to do this would be through Joseph.

It must, however, be added that Joseph and Mary were probably near relations. We cannot, indeed, say with Eusebius (HE i. 7) that they must have been of the same tribe, because ‘intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.’ He is evidently referring to Numbers 36:6 f.: but this relates only to heiresses, who, if they married out of their tribe, would forfeit their inheritance. Mary and Elisabeth were kinswomen , though the latter was descended from Aaron (Lk 1’ 36). But it was undoubtedly the belief of the early Christians that Jesus was descended, according to the flesh, from David, and was of the tribe of Judah (Acts 2:30 13:23. Romans 1:3. 2 Timothy 2:8. Hebrews 7:14. Revelation 5:5 22:16; cf . Mark 115 11:10). At the same time it is noteworthy that our Lord did not base His claims on His Davidic descent. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, an apocryphal work written in its present form c. A.n. 120, we find (Sym. 7, Gad, 8) the idea that the Lord should ‘raise (one) from Levi as priest and from Judah as king. Cod and man, — an Inference, as Sanday-Headlam remark (ICC, ‘Romans,’ p. 7), from Luke 1:36.

4. The Matthsean text. — In Matthew 1:16 the reading of almost all Greek MSS, attested by Tertullian, is that of EV, ‘Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,’ etc. The lately discovered Sinaitic-Syriac palimpsest has ‘Jacob begat Joseph: Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus.’ This reading is carefully discussed by Prof. Burkitt (l.c. p. 262 ff.), who thinks that it is not original, but derived from a variant of the ordinary text: ‘Jacob begat Joseph, to whom being betrothed the Virgin Mary bare [lit. begat, as oftenj Jesus’ [this is questioned by Allen, l.c. p. 8]. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Sinaitic palimpsest has the original reading of a source of our Mt. which did not believe in the Virgin Birth. If so, it is strange that the First Evangelist should place it in such close juxtaposition to his assertion of that belief. In view, however, of what has been said above, that the word ‘begat’ in Mt. implies only legal heirship, the question has no real doctrinal significance. On purely literary grounds. Prof. Burkitt seems to the present writer to have established his point. A. J. Maclean.

General

Tills adj. means in AV ‘universal,’ as Latimer, Sermons, 182, ‘The promises of God our Saviour are general; they pertain to all mankind.’ So in He 12^, ‘the general assembly’ means the gathering of all without exception. Generally in like manner means ‘universally,’ 2 Samuel 17:11 ‘I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee.’ The subst. ‘general’ is once (1 Chronicles 27:34) used for Heb. aar, of which the more usual rendering is ‘captain’ (wh. see; cf. Army, § 2).

Generation

‘Generation’ is used in AV to tr. 1. Heb. ddr, which is used (a) generally for a period, especially in the phrases dBr wOdhBr, etc. , of limitless duration ; past. Isaiah 51:8; future, Psalms 10:6; past and future, Psalms 102:24; (b) of all men living at any given time (Genesis 6:9) ; (c) of a class of men with some special characteristic, Proverbs 30:11–14 of four generations of bad men; (d) in Isaiah 38:12 and Psalms 49:19 dUr is sometimes taken as ‘dwelling-place.’ 2. Heb. tSledhBth (from ySladh, ‘beget’ or ‘bear children’), which is used in the sense of (a) genealogies Genesis 5:1. figuratively of the account of creation, Genesis 2:4; also (6) divisions of a tribe, as based on genealogy; 0ledhdth occurs only in the Priestly Code, in Eu 4:18. and in 1 Ch. 3. Gr. genea in same sense as 1 (o). Colossians 1:26; as 1 (6), Matthew 24:34. 4. genesis=2 (a), Matthew 1:1. an imitation of LXX use of genesis for tdledUdlh. 5. GeniUma, ‘offspring’=l (c): so Matthew 3:7)) (‘generation, i.e. offspring, of vipers’). 6. genos, ‘race’=l (c): so 1 Peter 2:9 (AV ‘chosen generation,’ RV ‘elect race’).

Genesis

1 . Name, Contents, and Plan.— The name ‘Genesis,’ as applied to the first book of the Bible, is derived from the LXX, in one or two MSS of which the book is entitled Genesis kosmou (‘origin of the world ‘) . A more appropriate designation, represented by the heading of one Greek MS, is’ The Book of Origins’; for Genesis is pre-eminently the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a collection of the earliest traditions of the Israelites regarding the beginnings of things, and particularly of their national history; these traditions being woven into a continuous narrative, commencing with the creation of the world and ending with the death of Joseph. The story is continued in the book of Exodus, and indeed forms the introduction to a historical work which may be said to terminate either with the conquest of Palestine(Hexateuch) or with the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings). The narrative comprised in Genesis falls naturally into two main divisions — (i) The history of primeval mankind (chs. 1-11), including the creation of the world, the origin of evil, the beginnings of civilization, the Flood, and the dispersion of peoples, (ii.) The history of the patriarchs (ch. 12-50), which is again divided into three sections, corresponding to the lives of Abraham (12-25"), Isaac (25"-36), and Jacob (37-50) ; although in the last two periods the story is really occupied with the fortunes of Jacob and Joseph respectively. The transition from one period to another is marked by a series of genealogies, some of which (e.g. chs. 5. 11’™) serve a chronological purpose and bridge over intervals of time with regard to which tradition was silent, while others (chs. 10. 36, etc.) exhibit the nearer or remoter relation to Israel of the various races and peoples of mankind. These genealogies constitute a, sort of framework for the history, and at the same time reveal the plan on which the book is constructed. As the different branches of the human family are successively enumerated and dismissed, and the history converges more and more on the chosen line, we are meant to trace the unfolding of the Divine purpose by which Israel was separated from all the nations of the earth to be the people of the true God.

2. Literary sources. — The unity of plan which characterizes the Book of Genesis does not necessarily exclude the supposition that it is composed of separate documents; and a careful study of the structure of the book proves beyond all doubt that this is actually the case. The clue to the analysis was obtained when (in 1753) attention was directed to the significant alternation of two names for God, Jahweh and Elohim. This at once suggested a compilation from two pre-existing sources; although it is obvious that a preference for one or other Divine name might be common to many independent writers, and does not by itself establish the unity of all the passages in which it appears. It was speedily discovered, however, that this characteristic does not occur alone, but is associated with a number of other features, linguistic, literary, and religious, which were found to correspond in general with the division based on the use of the Divine names. Hence the conviction gradually gained ground that in Genesis we have to do not with an indefinite number of disconnected fragments, but with a few homogeneous compositions, each with a literary character of its own. The attempts to determine the relation of the several components to one another proved more or less abortive, until it was finally established in 1853 that the use of Elohim is a peculiarity common to two quite dissimilar groups of passages; and that one of these has much closer affinities with the sections where Jahweh is used than with the other Elohistic sections. Since then, criticism has rapidly advanced to the positions now held by the great majority of OT scholars, which may be briefly summarized as follows:

/I) Practically the whole of Genesis is resolved into three origiiially separate documents, each containing a complete and consecutive narrative: (a)the Jahwistic{J), characterized by the use of ‘Jahweh,’ commencing with the Creation (2<bs) and continued to the end of the book; (6) the Elohistic(E), using ‘Elohim,’ beginning at ch. 20; (c) the Priestly Code (P), also using ‘Elohim,’ which opens with the first account of the Creation (1-2’"). (2) In the compilation from these sources of our present Book of Genesis, two main stages are recognized: first, the fusion of J and E into a single work (JE); and second, the amalgamation of the combined work JE with P (an intermediate stage; the combination of JE with the Book of Deuteronomy, is here passed over because it has no appreciable influence on the composition of Genesis). (3) ‘The oldest documents are J and E, which represent slightly varying recensions of a common body of patriarchal tradition, to which J has prefixed traditions from the early history of mankind. Both belong to the best age of Hebrew writing, and must have been composed before the middle of the 8th cent. B.C. The composite work JE is the basis of the Genesis narrative; to it belong all the graphic, picturesque, and racy stories which give life and charm to the book. Differences of standpoint between the two components are clearly marked; but both bear the stamp of popular literature, full of local colour and human interest, yet deeply pervaded by the religious spirit. Their view of God and His converse with men is primitiveand childlike; but the bold anUiropomoiphic representations which abound in J are strikinSy absent from E, where the element of theological reflexion ia somewhat more pronounced than in J. (4) The third source, P, rejproduces the traditional scheme of history laid down in JE; but the writer’s unequal treatment of’tne material at his disposal reveals a prevailing interest in the history of the sacred institutions which were to be the basis of the Sinaitio legislation. Aa a rule he enlarges only on those epochs of the history at which some new religious observance was introduced, viz., the Creation, when the Sabbath was instituted; the Flood, followed by the prohibition of eating the blood; and the Abrahamic Covenant, of which circumcision was the perpetual seal. For the rest, the narrative 13 mostly a meagre and colourless epitome, based on JE, and scarcely intelligible apart from it. While there ia evidence that P used other sources than JE, it is significant that, with the exception of ch. 23. there is no single episode to which a parallel is not found in the older and fuller narrative. To P, however, we owe the chronological scheme, and the aeries of genealogies already referred to as constituting the framework of the book as a whole. The Code belongs to a comparatively’late period of Hebrew literature, and is generally assigned by critics to the early post-exilic age.

3. Nature of the material. — That the contents of Genesis are not historical in the technical sense, is implied in the fact that even the oldest of its written documents are far from being contemporary with the events related. They consist for the most part of traditions which for an indefinite period had circulated orally amongst the Israelites, and which (as divergences in the written records testify) had undergone modification in the course of transmission. No one denies that oral tradition may embody authentic recollection of actual occurrences; but the extent to which this is the case is uncertain, and will naturally vary in different parts of the narrative. Thus a broad distinction may be drawn between the primitive traditions of chs. 1-H on the one hand, and those relating to the patriarchs on the other. The accounts of the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Dispersion, all exhibit more or less clearly the influence of Babylonian mythology; and with regard to these the question is one not of trustworthy historical memory, but of the avenue through which certain mythical representations came to the knowledge of Israel. For the patriarchal period the conditions are different: here the tradition is ostensibly national; the presumed interval of oral transmission is perhaps not beyond the compass of the retentive Oriental memory; and it would be surprising if some real knowledge of its own antecedents had not persisted in the national recollection of Israel. These considerations may be held to justify the behef that a substratum of historic fact underhes the patriarchal narratives of Genesis; but it must be added that to distinguish that substratum from legendary accretions is hardly possible in the present state of our knowledge. The process by which the two elements came to be blended can, however, partly be explained. The patriarchs, for instance, are conceived as ancestors of tribes and nations; and it is certain that in some narratives the characteristics, the mutual relations, and even the history, of tribes are reflected in what is told as the personal biography of the ancestors. Again, the patriarchs are founders of sanctuaries; and it is natural to suppose that legends explanatory of customs observed at these sanctuaries are attached to the names of their reputed founders and go to enrich the traditional narrative. Once more, they are types of character; and in the inevitable simplification which accompanies popular narration the features of the type tended to be emphasized, and the figures of the patriarchs were gradually idealized as patterns of Hebrew piety and virtue. No greater mistake could be made than to think that these non-historical, legendary or imaginative, parts of the tradition are valueless for the ends of revelation. They are inseparably woven into that ideal background of history which bounded the horizon of ancient Israel, and was perhaps more influential in the moulding of national character than a knowledge of the naked reality would have been. The inspiration of the Biblical narrators is seen in the fashioning of the floating mass of legend and folklore and historical reminiscences into an expression of their Divinely given apprehension of religious truth, and so transforming what would otherwise have been a constant source of religious error and moral corruption as to make it a vehicle of instruction in the knowledge and fear of God. Once the principle is admitted that every genuine and worthy mode of literary expression is a suitable medium of God’s word to men, it is impossible to suppose that the mythic faculty, which plays so Important a part in the thinking of all early peoples, was alone ignored in the Divine education of Israel. J. Skinner.

Geneva Bible

See English Vehsions, § 26.

GENN.^TTS. — The father of Apollonius, a Syrian commander of a district in Palestine (2 Maccabees 12:2).

Gennesaret, Lake of

See Galilee [Sea of]‘GENNESARET, LAND OP.— Mentioned only in the parallel passages Matthew 14:34. Mark 6:53, as the place whither the disciples sailed after the stilling of the second storm on the Lake. It was somewhere on the W. bank of the Lake of Galilee, as the feeding of the five thousand had taken place, just before the crossing, on the E. side; it was also near habitations, as sick people were brought for healing to Christ on His landing. It is usually, and with reason, identified with the low land at the N.W. corner of the Lake. R. A. S. Macalister.

For ‘Court of the

Gentiles

See Nations. Gentiles,’ see Temple.

Gentleness

The word ‘gentle’ occurs five times in NT (AV). In 1 Thessalonians 2:7 and 2 Timothy 2:24 it corresponds to Gr. dpios; it is the character proper to a nurse among trying children, or a teacher with refractory pupils. In Titus 3:2. James 3:17, 1 Peter 2:18 ‘gentle’ is the AV tr. of epieikSs, which is uniformly so rendered in EV. The general idea of the Gr. word is that which is suggested by equity as opposed to strict legal justice; it expresses the quality of considerateness, of readiness to look humanely and reasonably at the tacts of a case. There is a good discussion of it in Trench, Syn. § xliii.; he thinks there are no words in English which answer exactly to it, the ideas of equity and fairness, which are essential to its import, usually getting less than justice in the proposed equivalents.

In 2 Samuel 22:36 = Psalms 18:35 (‘Thy gentleness hath made me great’) RV keeps ‘gentleness’ in the text, but gives ‘condescension’ In the margin, which is much better. The key to the meaning is found in comparing such passages as Psalms 113:5 f.; Isaiah 67. Zee 9:9. Matthew 11:29.

Genubath

Son of Hadad, the fugitive Edomlte prince, by the sister of queen Tahpenes (1 Kings 11:19, 20).

Geography of Palestine

See Palestine.