and

References virtual re-editing; and this sufficiently explains the Authorities. few references to himself which Moses seems to make,

Ex. xi. 3;

De. xxxiv.

Nu. xii. 3 but which it is very unlikely that he himself would or could have written.

10.

Perowne's testimony.

We may conclude this chapter with the words of Dean Perowne :- "The Book of Genesis rests chiefly on documents much earlier than the time of Moses, though it was probably brought to very nearly its present shape, either by Moses himself, or by one of the elders who acted under him."

Documentary

NOTE ON THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESES. I. What is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. hypothesis; Astruc, physician of Louis XIV., published in Brussels, supported by 1753 A.D., an article in which he sought to prove that Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Moses formed Genesis from an Elohim record and a Gramberg, Böhmer, &c. Jehovah record, with the aid of the smaller memoirs. 2. The Fragmentary Hypothesis. The idea of this tary is that Genesis is nothing but single, small, fragmentary supported by pieces joined together.

Fragmen

hypothesis;

Michaelis,

Hartmann,

Fahn, 3. The Complementary Hypothesis. This supposes the &c. author of the Pentateuch, the Jehovist, to have had Complemen- before him an older document, extending from the hypothesis; creation of the world to the death of Joshua. This docusupported by

tary

Ewald, ment had been prepared by the Elohist, and the Jehovist Bleek, Tuch, remodelled and extended it.

De Wette,

&c. In a modified form this theory is still a favourite.

So

Kurtz.

Delitzsch, 4. The Crystallization Hypothesis. Suggested by Crystalliza Ewald, who thought there might be four sources—two hypothesis. Elohistic, and two Jehovistic.

tion

Original 5. The Original Unity Hypothesis. The view taken unity by the Rabbins, and nearly all the older theologians. hypothesis.

and

No need for

It will be evident, from the variety and discordance of References these theories, that the materials of a definite judgment Authorities. on the matter are not at our command; and the necessity theories. for constructing theories at all seems to be removed, if Havernick is right in saying,-"The use of each of the two names-Jehovah and Elohim- is everywhere in Genesis adapted to the sense of the passages in which Havernick's testimony. the writer has purposely inserted the one name or the other."

In the Speaker's Commentary it is further pointed out Speaker's Commentary that, if the name Jehovah was known to the Patriarchs it might have been, and probably was, little if at all, used by the Israelites during their sojourn in Egypt; and then it is pretty certain that the documents Moses used, or the narratives he collected, would have the names El, Elohim, or Elion, for the name of God, rather than during EgypJehovah. It might consequently be a part of Moses' tian sojourn. duty, in the lead of the Divine Inspiration, appropriately

to restore the higher, and more distinctive Divine name.

Word Jeho

vah lost

"In the Scriptures the boldest anthropomorphic language is used without reserve, because without it the thoughts of men would have been shadowy and indistinct, and God would have been to them but a name for the unknown and the inconceivable."- E. H. Plumptre, M.A.

and

Authorities.

Bible

References THE very complicated question of Bible Inspiration we are not called upon here to discuss, but there are inspiration. two or three points in connection with it which need to be set forth clearly, and which bear important relations to that view of the early chapters of Genesis which we propose presently to set forth.

Knowledge of God

by revelation.

Some knowledge of the relations in which God must come stands to us is plainly necessary, if we are to render Him an intelligent worship. And it is impossible for us to gain that knowledge, save by God's revealing those things concerning Himself which he may deem

Revelation through human

necessary.

For the purpose of His revelation God may use language. every kind of agency by which He can influence man.

and Authorities.

But if He has been pleased to appoint language as the References medium of the highest communications between man and man, no reason at all can be given why God should not use this language as His mode of communication with man. A revelation in a Book is just what we might reasonably expect. For the Book is only the Storehouse of the words in which God has revealed His will to past generations.

Inspiration is simply this, as applied to the Holy Scripture:-The endowment of man by God to enable him to use human language for the revelation and preservation of God's will. We should be helped if we would keep the term Inspiration to revelation by means of human language.

What

inspiration

is.

not a

perfect medium.

But much follows if we see clearly that God has Language is been pleased to put His Will into our human language. The vehicle He uses is not a perfect one; and the Will, and the Truth, cannot but be affected by the imperfection of the medium through which it is conveyed. There is a very true and proper sense in which we may say, that God put His revelation into limits when He was thus pleased to speak in man's words. He accommodated Himself to our faculty and capacity, and to our manner and habit of thought. the Bible, therefore, not absolute revelation, but rela- Relational tional revelation, or truth adapted to us men. This is often lost sight of, or insufficiently considered, and yet it is the key that unlocks many Bible difficulties; God says to us, as Christ said to His disciples,-"I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." We could not follow, with our limited minds,

We have in

revelation.

and

References the infinite thoughts of God, if He were to give them Authorities. the perfect utterance. The language of Heaven would

God's

accommoda. tion to our

modes of

morphism.

be far more mysterious to us than any language of foreign nations. So God graciously translates Himself into our human speech, bidding it tell us all it possibly can of the glory and grace in Him.

And even more than this, God will also accommodate Himself to the modes of thinking which He has thinking appointed for men. He even comes to them as if He were a fellow human being, and He speaks of Himself as seeing, hearing, thinking. We read of God's walkAnthropo- ing, of His arm, and of His breath. "The writers of the Bible are not careful to define accurately, to set cautious limits, on this side or that, to their statements as to the Divine nature. Here, as elsewhere, Scripture teaches by the boldest paradox, and presents aspects of the truth that are sharply contrasted, almost contradictory. There is not an element even of man's bodily nature which is not ascribed to God. "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good; His ears are open to the prayers of His people, His right hand hath the pre-eminence, His arm is not Plumptre. shortened that it cannot secure, and so on through a hundred instances."

Explanation This principle of the Divine accommodation to human

of the

forms of

different thought and language being once assured, we may see revelation. how it helps to explain the various forms in which God has revealed Himself in different ages. It has always been in precise adaptation to the faculties, culture, and associations of the age; and the poetical and pictorial descriptions of the early chapters of the Book