is not otherwise when one looks below the traditional history elsewhere (e.g. Samuel, Kings). An explanation may be found in the vicissitudes of the age. The movement from the south, which seems to account for a considerable cycle of the patriarchal traditions, belongs to the age after the downfall of the Israelite and (later) the Judaean monarchies when there were vital political and social changes. The removal of prominent inhabitants, by Assyria and later by Babylonia, the introduction of colonists from distant lands, and the movements of restless tribes around Palestine were more fatal to the continuity of trustworthy tradition than to the persistence of popular thought. New conditions arose as the population was reorganized, a new Israel claimed to be the heirs of the past (cf. e.g. the Samaritans, Ezr. iv. 2, Joseph. Antiq. ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6), and not until after these vicissitudes did the book of Genesis begin to assume its present shape.[1] (See Jews; Palestine: History.)
The above pages handle only the more important details for the study of a book which, as regards contents and literary history, cannot be separated from the series to which it forms the introduction. As regards the literary-critical problems it is clear that with the elimination of P we have the sources (minor adjustment and revision excepted) which were accessible to the last compiler in the post-exilic age. Most critics have inclined to date these sources (J and E) as early as possible, whereas the admitted presence of secondary and of relatively late passages (e.g. xviii. 22 sqq., J; xxii., E) shows that one must work back from the sources as known in P’s age, and that one can rely only upon those criteria which can be approximately dated. It is usual to regard the more primitive character of J and E as a mark of antiquity; but this ignores the regular survival of primitive modes of thought and of popular tradition outside more cultured circles. It is also recognized that J and E are non-prophetical and non-Deuteronomic, but it has not been proved that the present J and E are earlier than the prophets or the Deuteronomic reforms of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. seq.). J and E are linguistically almost identical (in contrast to P), and differ from P in features which are often not of chronological but of sociological significance (e.g. the mentality of the writers). Their language is without some of the phenomena found in narratives which emanate from the north (e.g. Judges v., stories of Elijah and Elisha), and their stylistic variations may be, as Gunkel suggests, the mark of a district or region; for this district one would look in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. The conclusion that P’s narratives and laws in the Pentateuch are post-exilic was found by biblical scholars to be a necessary correction to the original hypothesis of Graf (1866) that P’s narratives were to be retained (with J and E) at an early date. This view was influenced by the close connexion between the subject-matter, J, E and P representing the same trend of tradition. But by still ascribing J and E as written sources to about the 9th or 8th century (individual opinion varies), many difficulties and inconsistencies are involved. The present J and E reflect a reshaping and readjustment of earlier tradition which is found elsewhere, and the suggestion that they are not far removed from the age of the priestly writers and redactors does not conflict with what is known of language, forms of religious thought, or tendencies of tradition. We reach thus approximately the age when post-Deuteronomic editors were able to utilize such records as Judg. i., xvii. sqq., 2 Sam. ix.-xx. (see Judges; Samuel, Books of), which are equally valuable as specimens of current thought and of written tradition. In conclusion, the tendency of criticism has been to recognize “schools” of J and E extending into the exile, thus making the three sources J, E and P more nearly contemporaneous. The most recent conservative authority also inclines to a similar contemporaneity (“collaboration” or “co-operation”), but at an impossibly early date (J. Orr, Problem of the O. T., 1905, pp. 216, 345, 354, 375 seq., 527). By admitting possible revision in the post-exilic age (pp. 226, 369, 375 seq.), the conservative theory recalls the old legend that Ezra rewrote the Old Testament (2 Esd. xiv.) and thus restored the Law which had been lost; a view which, through the early Christian Fathers, gained currency and has enjoyed a certain popularity to the present day. But when once revision or rewriting is conceded, there is absolutely no guarantee that the present Pentateuch is in any way identical with the five books which tradition ascribed to Moses (q.v.), and the necessity for a comprehensive critical investigation of the present contents makes itself felt.[2]
Literature.—Only a few of the numerous works can be mentioned. Of those written from a conservative or traditional standpoint the most notable are: W. H. Green’s Unity of Genesis (1895); and J. Orr, Problem of the O. T. (which is nevertheless a great advance upon earlier non-critical literature). S. R. Driver’s commentary (Westminster Series) deals thoroughly with all preliminary problems of criticism, and is the best for the ordinary reader; that of A. Dillmann (6th ed.; Eng. trans.) is more technical, that of W. H. Bennett (Century Bible) is more concise and popular. G. J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of Genesis, and C. J. Ball (in Haupt’s Sacred Books of the O. T.) appeal to Hebrew students. W. E. Addis, Documents of the Hexateuch, Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch, and C. F. Kent, Beginnings of Hebrew History, are more important for the literary analysis. J. Wellhausen’s sketch in his Proleg. to Hist. of Israel (Eng. trans., pp. 259-342) is admirable, as also is the general Introduction (trans. by W. H. Carruth, 1907) to H. Gunkel’s valuable commentary. Of recent works bearing upon the subject-matter reference may be made to J. P. Peters, Early Hebrew Story (1904), A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis (1907), and T. K. Cheyne, Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel (1907). Special mention must be made of Eduard Meyer and B. Luther, to whose Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906) the present writer is indebted for many valuable suggestions and hints. Fuller bibliographical 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 volume by J. Skinner in the elaborate and encyclopaedic International Critical Series. (S. A. C.)
GENET, typically a south European carnivorous mammal referable to the Viverridae or family of civets, but also taken to include several allied species from Africa. The true genet (Genetta vulgaris or Genetta genetta) occurs throughout the south of Europe and in Palestine, as well as North Africa. The fur is of a dark-grey colour, thickly spotted with black, and having a dark streak along the back, while the tail, which is nearly as long as the body, is ringed with black and white. The genet is rare in the south of France, but commoner in Spain, where it frequents the banks of streams, and feeds on small mammals and birds. It differs from the true civets in that the anal pouch is a mere depression, and contains only a faint trace of the highly characteristic odour of the former. In south-western Europe and North Africa it is sought for its soft and beautifully spotted fur. In some parts of Europe, the genet, which is easily tamed, is kept like a cat for destroying mice and other vermin.
The Genet (Genetta vulgaris).
GENEVA, a city of Ontario county, New York, U.S.A., at the
N. end of Seneca Lake, about 52 m. S.E. of Rochester. Pop.
(1890) 7557; (1900) 10,433 (of whom 1916 were foreign-born);
(1910 census) 12,446. It is served by the New York Central
& Hudson River, and the Lehigh Valley railways, and by the
Cayuga & Seneca Canal. It is an attractively built city, and has
good mineral springs. Malt, tinware, flour and grist-mill products,
- ↑ The south of Palestine, if less disturbed by these changes, may well have had access to older authoritative material.
- ↑ For Orr’s other concessions bearing upon Genesis, see op. cit., pp. 9 seq., 87, 93, and (on J, E, P) 196, 335, 340. These, like the concessions of other apologetic writers, far outweigh the often hypercritical, irrelevant, and superficial objections brought against the literary and historical criticism of Genesis.
