About the Book
Excerpt from The Biblical Museum, Vol. 1: A Collection of Notes Explanatory, Homiletic, and Illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, Especially Designed for the Use of Ministers, Bible-Students, and Sunday-School Teachers; Old Testament, Containing Genesis and Exodus I. Title. Genesis, fr. Gk. Yin/wig, a birth bec. It deset. The generation or production of all things. This is the LXX. Title. The Hebe. Called this bk. Bereshith in the beginning fr. The first word in the Heb. d104. II. Author, moses; for, at least, yrs. Never doubted by Jews or Xtians. T. Hobbes (1650) objected that these bks. Were so called not bec. Written by, but relating to Moses. In proof of his authorship, we have - l. Unanimous test. Of antiquity. 2. M. Is declared tobe the author. (ex. Xvii. 14; xxiv. 4 - 7 xxxiv. 27; Nu. Xxxii. 2 De. Mi. 9, 19 3. Confirmed by other 0. T. Writers (j os. I. 7, 8; viii. 34, 35; Jud. Iii. 4; 2 K. Xxiii. 25; 2 Ch. Xxx. 16; Ezr. Viii. 3; Ne. I. 7, 4. By Xt. And aposs. (ma. Xix. 7 Lu. Xvi. 29 xxiv. 27 Jo. I. 17; vii. 19; Ac. Iii. 22; xxviii. 23; R0. X. 5. All the Hist. Events of Hebrews rest upon authority of these Bks. 6. Objections can be, and oft. Have been, easily refuted. III. Time, uncertain. Some (as Eusebius, etc.) think it was written in Midian while M. Was keeping the flocks of Jethro others (as Theo doret, etc.) that M. Wrote it after the exodus and giving of the law, since prior to the call (ex. Iii.) he was a private person, unendowed with the spirit of prophecy. So also the time covered by the hist. Is unsettled. Ace. To usual computation, yrs; but acc. To Dr. Hales, yrs. IV. Design, two fold. To solve the problems of the creation, and the intro. Of moral evil. 2. To furnish the hist. Of the patriarchal church, as showing the line of the predicted Saviour. It is a purely historical work. It serves as the narrative preamble to the legislation of Moses. It is the first vol. Of the hist. Of man in relation with God (murphy V. Sources. Since the latest events in Gen. Occ. Cents. Bef. The death of M., it becomes a question what are the sources to wh. It is to be traced back. The chief hypotheses are - 1. Documentary. I.e. That M. Formed Gen. Fr. An Elohim, and a Jehovah record, with the aid of 10 smaller memoirs. (this sugg. By Astruc, 1753, is, in part, adopted by Eichhorn, Gramberg, Bohmer, etc.) 2. Fragmentary, i.e. That Gen. Was single, small, fragmentary pieces. Hence var. Superscriptions, concluding formulas, repetitions, vars. Of style. (this the view of Michaelis, Jahn, Vater, Ilartmann, Grunde, 3. Complementary, to. That the Jehovist author of Pent. Had bef. Him an older document, that of the Elohist, wh. He remodelled and extended (ewalzl, do Wette, Bleeh, etc.) 4. Crystallization (so called by De litzsch), sugg. By Ewald, who thought there might be 4 sources: 2 Elohistic, and 2 Jehovistic. 5. The original nnity of Gen. (in com. With rest of Penta teuch). (this is the view of the Rabbins, and of nearly all the older theo logians.) And that the use of the two dif. Names of God is owing solelyto the two dif. Significations of those names (ranke, Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Haver nieh, The use of ea. Of the two names - Jehovah and Elohim - is everywhere in Gen. Adapted to the sense of the passages in wh. The writer has purposely inserted the one name or the other (harernioh). About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
