tion to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth in the pictures of the pre-Exodus period.
As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor worse than
others that might be chosen, we may take that of Cornill. According
to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed a migration from
Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through the successive
separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main body of immigrants
was so reduced that it might have been submerged, but for the arrival
of a fresh contingent from Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the
names, except Abraham's, are all tribal or national). This reinforcement
consisted of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest
and strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but
was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to Egypt.
The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support, was assailed by
the Leah-tribes led by Reuben; but the attempt was foiled, and Reuben
lost his birthright. Subsequently the whole of the tribes were driven to
seek shelter in Egypt, when Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing
them to settle by its side in the frontier province of Egypt (Hist. of Israel, 29 ff.).
It will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on
two leading ideas: tribal affinities typified by various phases
of the marriage relation; and migrations. As regards the
first, we have seen (p. xii) that there is a true principle at
the root of the method. It springs from the personification
of a tribe under the name of an individual, male or female;
and we have admitted that many names in Genesis have this
significance, and probably no other. If, then, two eponymous
ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers,
we may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious
of an extremely close affinity. If a male eponym is married
to a female, we may presume (though with less confidence)
that the two tribes were amalgamated. Or, if one clan is
spoken of as a wife and another as a concubine, we may
reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow inferior to
the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this kind
(each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent
probabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable;
and the attempt to apply it to all the complex family relationships
of the patriarchs only lands us in confusion.[1]—The
- ↑ Guthe (GVI, 1-6) has formulated a set of five rules which he thinks cam be used (with tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology
