each document adheres to a characteristic set of expressions, in conformity with the particular name which it employs for the Deity'; and it would manifestly be absurd to suppose that the author should have affected unusual forms of expression only in these particular sections, or should have suddenly varied the whole character of his style according to the one or other of these two names which he happened to adopt.

The circumstances here stated lead to the conclusion, that only two styles are found to prevail through the book of Genesis, and that we need not assume more than two sources for that work; and it is most probable that the whole of this question would long since have received a most complete solution, if critics had not been led by the names they themselves had given to regard the two separate sources as a settled matter of fact, and proceeded as a natural consequence to divide the whole of the text into the smallest possible fragments.

It was against this absurd practice that Ewald's Essay on the Composition of Genesis2 was directed; and although the opinions which he advanced therein, on the original unity of Genesis, were subsequently withdrawn by the author himself, and the essay was declared to be the work of a youth of nineteen, merely possessing value as a matter of history, yet this treatise had been written with so much learning and acuteness, it had proved the existence of so many points of connection between parts of Genesis which had previously appeared to be the most fragmentary and abrupt, and the success with which it met the boldest

1 In the eleven first chapters of Genesis this is particularly observable; compare also chapters xxiv. (xx ?), xxvi., xli., xlii.

2 Die Composition der Genesis. Braunschw. 1823.

EWALD'S THEORY.

305

assertions of the hypothesis of separation, was so triumphant, that it may be justly said to have formed an æra in the criticism of the composition of Genesis. Schumann, in his admirable edition of Genesis', has been uniformly guided by the principles laid down in this essay, and with singular judgement has chosen the happy medium between the opposite extremes.

Ewald starts from the fundamental principle, that the use of these names for the Deity may be reduced, in every case, to fixed rules, and that a marked distinction is uniformly observed between the two; that the name Jehovah is employed only for the national deity of the theocracy, as the king of the people and the source of legislative power, in opposition to the gods of other nations, while the name Elohim denoted the gods of the heathen and other supernatural beings, in short, the Divine power in general and its effects as it is exhibited to us in nature; but in attempting to apply this distinction, Ewald found, as he has since been obliged to admit, that he had undertaken a task which could not be accomplished. It is undoubtedly true that strict theocratists of the Old Testament seldom employ the name Elohim, and so confirm to the fullest extent the result of our previous inquiries2; while in the older writings this name is far more frequently used, and in many instances, as it would seem, with even a higher meaning than Jehovah. Thus Gideon invokes the aid, not of Jehovah as we should expect, but of Elohim against the national enemy3; David calls upon

1 Genesis, hebraice et græce. Lips. 1829.

2 See Chapter XIII., pp. 148, 152.

3 'And Gideon said unto God [Elohim], If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said......And Gideon said unto God [Elohim], Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once :

VOL. I.

X

306

ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH.

Elohim to save his child'; a prophet was still termed 'ish 'Elohim "a man of Elohim," and at a later period the whole nation was described as 'ebed Jehovah, or a servant of Jehovah. Traces of the distinction we have mentioned become more apparent in the Prophets, but in the latest writings hardly any difference can be observed, since the name Elohim had been retained in the popular language, and its meaning had now become purely monotheistic and spiritual. In Genesis however this is very far from being the case, and the marked and uniform distinction proposed by Ewald is not by any means to be found. At the commencement of this book Elohim creates the world, without reference to the most holy Jehovah, who was far more exalted in the belief of the Hebrews; Elohim founds the purely theocratic covenant of circumcision3; Elohim appears to Jacob and blesses him. Abraham says that Elohim caused him to wanders; and although this was addressed to a heathen king, yet it appears that on other occasions Abraham did not scruple to use the name of Jehovah to strangers, and many who were not let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. And God [Elohim] did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground."-Judges vi. 36, 39, 40.

1 “David therefore besought God [Elohim] for the child."—2 Sam. xii. 16.

2 Compare, on the other hand, Exodus xx. 11. "In six days the Lord [Jehovah] made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is." 3 Genesis xvii.

4"And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him."-Gen. xxxv. 9.

5 "And it came to pass, when God [Elohim] caused me to wander from my father's house.". Gen. xx. 13.

6" And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord [Jehovah], the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth."- Gen. xiv. 22.

ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH.

307

Israelites would seem to have been perfectly familiar with that name1.

But the ideas formed of Jehovah himself were also very limited, and purely human in their character; he is described as forming men from the dust of the ground, and as making clothes for them; he comes down to them as Elohim does; he takes a part in the confusion of tongues, and he exerts his power with reference to the pregnancy of women. Elohim and Jehovah have each their angels; dreams proceed from both, the asking counsel of God is used with both titles, and in short a remarkable alternation of these two names seems connected with certain sections of Genesis.

Other arguments might be added for this subdivision of Genesis, but they are of little importance. The repetitions and contradictions which are so frequently found in that book, and which clearly prove the working up of existing materials, cannot possibly be ascribed to the lively style of narration in which an author, from youthful precipitation, may repeat the account of various circumstances, and give a different colouring to events under the momentary impulse of his feelings, and then, on the sudden recollection of what had preceded, may become embarrassed and perplexed by the rapidity of his own transitions. In Genesis, on the contrary, the narrator appears to have deliberately adopted a settled plan, and to be by no means so forgetful as on

1 "And they [Abimelech king of the Philistines and his friends] said, We saw certainly that the Lord [Jehovah] was with thee,"-Gen.

xxvi. 28.

2 "And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now the Lord [Jehovah] hath restrained me from bearing."-- Gen. xvi. 2.

"For the Lord [Jehovah] had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife."- Gen. xx. 18.

308

UNITY OF GENESIS.

three different occasions to represent the wife as the sister of a patriarch', or repeatedly to give different explanations of the same proper name, so as thereby to weaken the faith in his own derivations. Indeed the original compiler took no notice of any repetitions, but conceived that each narrative was sufficiently supported by the separate documents before him 2.

Ewald, with his usual candour, has openly admitted all these circumstances, and his great merit consists in having proved beyond a doubt a nearer approach to unity in the Pentateuch, and especially in Genesis, than was previously supposed; but then it is a unity which is perfectly compatible with the existence of a large number of original materials. The final result of his critical inquiries is summed up by Ewald in the following terms. "The Pentateuch," he says, "in its present state is founded on an ancient record, which brought down the history from the commencement of the world to the death of Moses and the conquest of Canaan, which was distinguished for its adherence to a determinate plan, and for characteristic peculiarities of language, and of which ancient document all the five books contain considerable fragments. The compiler of the Pentateuch also adopted other fragments of still more ancient date; and it is one of these which constantly employs the name Elohim for the Deity, as far as Exodus v. 2, in conformity with the belief or historical tradition, that the name of Jehovah first became known by Moses, and that that name was intimately connected with the

1 Genesis xii., xx., xxvi.

2 See De Wette, Einleitung (Introduction) p. 189. not. d. Fasi in Schulthess' Annalen, 1829, p. 111, &c. Schumann, Prolegg. p. lxvi., and Hartmann, p. 159, &c.