GENERAL
believe
in
the
Virgin
Birth.
If
so,
it
is
strange
that
the
First
Evangelist
should
place
it
in
such
close
juxta-position
to
his
assertion
of
that
belief.
In
view,
how-ever,
of
what
has
been
said
above,
that
the
word
'
begat
'
in
Mt.
implies
only
legal
heirship,
the
question
has
no
real
doctrinal
significance.
On
purely
literary
grounds.
Prof.
Burkitt
seems
to
the
present
writer
to
have
established
his
point.
A.
J.
Maclean.
GENERAL.—
Tills
adj.
means
in
AV
'universal,'
as
Latimer,
Sermons,
182,
'
The
promises
of
God
our
Saviour
are
general;
they
pertain
to
all
mankind.'
So
in
He
12^,
'the
general
assembly'
means
the
gathering
of
all
without
exception.
Generally
in
like
manner
means
'universally,'
2
S
17"
'I
counsel
that
all
Israel
be
generally
gathered
unto
thee.'
The
subst.
'general'
is
once
(1
Ch
27^)
used
for
Heb.
aar,
of
which
the
more
usual
rendering
is
'captain'
(wh.
see;
cf.
Army,
§
2).
GENERATION.—'
Generation'
is
used
in
AV
to
tr.
1.
Heb.
ddr,
which
is
used
(a)
generally
for
a
period,
espe-cially
in
the
phrases
dBr
wOdhBr,
etc.
,
of
limitless
duration
;
past.
Is
51";
future,
Ps
10«;
past
and
future,
Ps
102=";
(b)
of
all
men
living
at
any
given
time
(Gn
6')
;
(c)
of
a
class
of
men
with
some
special
characteristic,
Pr
30"-"
of
four
generations
of
bad
men;
(d)
in
Is
38"
and
Ps
49"
dUr
is
sometimes
taken
as
'dwelling-place.'
2.
Heb.
tSledhBth
(from
ySladh,
'beget'
or
'bear
children'),
which
is
used
in
the
sense
of
(a)
genealogies
Gn
5',
figuratively
of
the
account
of
creation,
Gn
2<;
also
(6)
divisions
of
a
tribe,
as
based
on
genealogy;
0ledhdth
occurs
only
in
the
Priestly
Code,
in
Eu
4",
and
in
1
Ch.
3.
Gr.
genea
in
same
sense
as
1
(o).
Col
l^*;
as
1
(6),
Mt
24".
4.
genesis=2
(a),
Mt
1',
an
imita-tion
of
LXX
use
of
genesis
for
tdledUdlh.
5.
GeniUma,
'offspring'=l
(c):
so
Mt
3'||
('generation,
i.e.
offspring,
of
vipers').
6.
genos,
'race'=l
(c):
so
1
P
2'
(AV
'chosen
generation,'
RV
'elect
race').
GENESIS.—
1
.
Name,
Contents,
and
Plan.—
The
name
'Genesis,'
as
applied
to
the
first
book
of
the
Bible,
is
derived
from
the
LXX,
in
one
or
two
MSS
of
which
the
book
is
entitled
Genesis
kosmou
('
origin
of
the
world
')
.
A
more
appropriate
designation,
represented
by
the
heading
of
one
Greek
MS,
is
'The
Book
of
Origins';
for
Genesis
is
pre-eminently
the
Book
of
Hebrew
Origins.
It
is
a
collection
of
the
earliest
traditions
of
the
Israelites
regarding
the
beginnings
of
things,
and
particularly
of
their
national
history;
these
traditions
being
woven
into
a
continuous
narrative,
commencing
with
the
creation
of
the
world
and
ending
with
the
death
of
Joseph.
The
story
is
continued
in
the
book
of
Exodus,
and
indeed
forms
the
introduction
to
a
historical
work
which
may
be
said
to
terminate
either
with
the
conquest
of
Palestine(Hexateuch)
or
with
the
Babylonian
captivity
(2
Kings).
The
narrative
comprised
in
Genesis
falls
naturally
into
two
main
divisions
—
(i)
The
history
of
primeval
mankind
(chs.
1-11),
including
the
creation
of
the
world,
the
origin
of
evil,
the
beginnings
of
civiliza-tion,
the
Flood,
and
the
dispersion
of
peoples,
(ii.)
The
history
of
the
patriarchs
(ch.
12-50),
which
is
again
divided
into
three
sections,
corresponding
to
the
lives
of
Abraham
(12-25"),
Isaac
(25"-36),
and
Jacob
(37-50)
;
although
in
the
last
two
periods
the
story
is
really
occupied
with
the
fortunes
of
Jacob
and
Joseph
respectively.
The
transition
from
one
period
to
another
is
marked
by
a
series
of
genealogies,
some
of
which
(e.g.
chs.
5.
11'™)
serve
a
chronological
purpose
and
bridge
over
intervals
of
time
with
regard
to
which
tradition
was
silent,
while
others
(chs.
10.
36,
etc.)
exhibit
the
nearer
or
remoter
relation
to
Israel
of
the
various
races
and
peoples
of
mankind.
These
genealogies
constitute
a,
sort
of
framework
for
the
history,
and
at
the
same
time
reveal
the
plan
on
which
the
book
is
constructed.
As
the
different
branches
of
the
human
family
are
successively
enumerated
and
dismissed,
and
the
history
converges
more
and
more
on
the
chosen
line,
we
are
meant
to
trace
the
unfolding
of
the
Divine
GENESIS
purpose
by
which
Israel
was
separated
from
all
the
nations
of
the
earth
to
be
the
people
of
the
true
God.
2.
Literary
sources.
—
The
unity
of
plan
which
characterizes
the
Book
of
Genesis
does
not
necessarily
exclude
the
supposition
that
it
is
composed
of
separate
documents;
and
a
careful
study
of
the
structure
of
the
book
proves
beyond
all
doubt
that
this
is
actually
the
case.
The
clue
to
the
analysis
was
obtained
when
(in
1753)
attention
was
directed
to
the
significant
alternation
of
two
names
for
God,
Jahweh
and
Elohim.
This
at
once
suggested
a
compilation
from
two
pre-existing
sources;
although
it
is
obvious
that
a
prefer-ence
for
one
or
other
Divine
name
might
be
common
to
many
independent
writers,
and
does
not
by
itself
establish
the
unity
of
all
the
passages
in
which
it
appears.
It
was
speedily
discovered,
however,
that
this
character-istic
does
not
occur
alone,
but
is
associated
with
a
number
of
other
features,
linguistic,
literary,
and
religious,
which
were
found
to
correspond
in
general
with
the
division
based
on
the
use
of
the
Divine
names.
Hence
the
conviction
gradually
gained
ground
that
in
Genesis
we
have
to
do
not
with
an
indefinite
number
of
discon-nected
fragments,
but
with
a
few
homogeneous
com-positions,
each
with
a
literary
character
of
its
own.
The
attempts
to
determine
the
relation
of
the
several
components
to
one
another
proved
more
or
less
abortive,
until
it
was
finally
established
in
1853
that
the
use
of
Elohim
is
a
peculiarity
common
to
two
quite
dissimilar
groups
of
passages;
and
that
one
of
these
has
much
closer
affinities
with
the
sections
where
Jahweh
is
used
than
with
the
other
Elohistic
sections.
Since
then,
criticism
has
rapidly
advanced
to
the
positions
now
held
by
the
great
majority
of
OT
scholars,
which
may
be
briefly
summarized
as
follows:
/I)
Practically
the
whole
of
Genesis
is
resolved
into
three
origiiially
separate
documents,
each
containing
a
complete
and
consecutive
narrative:
(a)the
Jahwistic{J),
characterized
by
the
use
of
'Jahweh,'
commencing
with
the
Creation
(2<bs)
and
continued
to
the
end
of
the
book;
(6)
the
Elo-histic
(E),
using
'Elohim,'
beginning
at
ch.
20;
(c)
the
Priestly
Code
(P),
also
using
'
Elohim,'
which
opens
with
the
first
account
of
the
Creation
(1-2'").
(2)
In
the
compilation
from
these
sources
of
our
present
Book
of
Genesis,
two
main
stages
are
recognized:
first,
the
fusion
of
J
and
E
into
a
single
work
(JE);
and
second,
the
amalgamation
of
the
combined
work
JE
with
P
(an
intermediate
stage;
the
combination
of
JE
with
the
Book
of
Deuteronomy,
is
here
passed
over
because
it
has
no
appreciable
influence
on
the
composition
of
Genesis).
(3)
'The
oldest
documents
are
J
and
E,
which
represent
slightly
varying
recensions
of
a
common
body
of
patriarchal
tradition,
to
which
J
has
pre-fixed
traditions
from
the
early
history
of
mankind.
Both
belong
to
the
best
age
of
Hebrew
writing,
and
must
have
been
composed
before
the
middle
of
the
8th
cent.
B.C.
The
composite
work
JE
is
the
basis
of
the
Genesis
narrative;
to
it
belong
all
the
graphic,
picturesque,
and
racy
stories
which
give
life
and
charm
to
the
book.
Differences
of
stand-point
between
the
two
components
are
clearly
marked;
but
both
bear
the
stamp
of
popular
literature,
full
of
local
colour
and
human
interest,
yet
deeply
pervaded
by
the
religious
spirit.
Their
view
of
God
and
His
converse
with
men
isprimitiveand
childlike;
but
the
bold
anUiropomoiphic
representations
which
abound
in
J
are
strikinSy
absent
from
E,
where
the
element
of
theological
reflexion
ia
some-what
more
pronounced
than
in
J.
(4)
The
third
source,
P,
rejproduces
the
traditional
scheme
of
history
laid
down
in
JE;
but
the
writer's
unequal
treatment
of'tne
material
at
his
disposal
reveals
a
prevailing
interest
in
the
history
of
the
sacred
institutions
which
were
to
be
the
basis
of
the
Sinaitio
legislation.
Aa
a
rule
he
enlarges
only
on
those
epochs
of
the
history
at
which
some
new
religious
observance
was
in-troduced,
viz.,
the
Creation,
when
the
Sabbath
was
insti-tuted;
the
Flood,
followed
by
the
prohibition
of
eating
the
blood;
and
the
Abrahamic
Covenant,
of
which
circum-cision
was
the
perpetual
seal.
For
the
rest,
the
narrative
13
mostly
a
meagre
and
colourless
epitome,
based
on
JE,
and
scarcely
intelligible
apart
from
it.
While
there
ia
evidence
that
P
used
other
sources
than
JE,
it
is
significant
that,
with
the
exception
of
ch.
23.
there
is
no
single
episode
to
which
a
parallel
is
not
found
in
the
older
and
fuller
narrative.
To
P,
however,
we
owe
the
chronological
scheme,
and
the
aeries
of
genealogies
already
referred
to
as
constitut-ing
the
framework
of
the
book
as
a
whole.
The
Code
belongs
