ites, and imposing an obligation on the tribes of Canaan. But for an interpreter, who undertakes to vindicate the course of Moses, it would be altogether a work of supererogation to attempt to show, that he used an argument designed to satisfy the Canaanites, that it was their duty to abandon their homes. Such an argument to the Canaanites would not have been pertinent to any of his objects. He had no mission to that people; and no nation, in any age, least of all, in those barbarous times, is likely to be persuaded, that it ought to abandon its home, because another nation has a better right to it. The mission of Moses was to the Jews; and to them it was certainly in the highest degree pertinent for him to say; "Reclaim and recover this country of Canaan, not only because Jehovah, the proprietor and rightful disposer of the earth and all that is therein, gave it to your fathers for the permanent dwelling of themselves and their race, but because your fathers in past times took possession of it, and neither they nor their posterity have ever done any thing which can be properly regarded as an alienation of it." And, even independently of the view that these hints of Moses were intended to show, that a claim on the ground of first occupation had been originally well founded, and had since been properly kept up, they had still an important use in exciting the Israelites to the vigorous assertion of a right, which, on another and unquestionable ground, they knew themselves to possess. Whether or not they had other good titles to the territory of Canaan, they knew themselves to have that which was best of all, and which was sufficient alone to vindicate to their own minds their enterprise of invading that region, though other nations, ignorant of Jehovah, would not admit its validity. Jehovah, who made, and had the supreme right to dispose of all things,

had given that territory to their fathers and to them. So testified old tradition, and so Moses, in the exercise of his supernatural office, declared. As to right, here was enough. As to impulse to assert that right, nothing could more appropriately furnish it, than to call up the remembrance, that the territory, which they were seeking to repossess, now profaned by idolatry and all sorts of crime, contained their fathers' ancient homes, their altars, and their graves.

LECTURE XXV.

THE TIME OF JACOB AND OF THE RESIDENCE IN EGYPT.

GENESIS XXXVI. 1.- EXODUS II. 10.

GENEALOGY OF THE IDUMEANS.-CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BIRTH OF PHAREZ AND ZERAH.-HISTORY OF JOSEPH.-MIGRATION OF JACOB WITH HIS FAMILY TO EGYPT. - CONDUCT OF JACOB IN RESPECT TO JOSEPH'S TWO SONS.-LAST DISCOURSE OF JACOB TO HIS CHILDREN, AND REASONS FOR ITS PRESERVATION BY MOSES.BURIAL OF JACOB IN CANAAN.-JOSEPH'S SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT OF HIS BROTHERS. HIS DEATH IN EGYPT, AFTER COMMANDING THAT HIS BODY SHOULD BE CONVEYED TO CANAAN. — SUBSEQUENT CONDITION OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT.-BIRTH AND EDUCATION OF MOSES.. - CREDIBILITY OF THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE LIVES OF THE PATRIARCHS. - REFERENCES IN THE LATER BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH TO DIVINE REVELATIONS MADE TO THEM. - CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY EVENTS IN THE BIBLICAL HISTORY. SUPPOSED LONGEVITY OF MEN IN THE EARLY AGES.

THE thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis interrupts the narrative of the fortunes of Jacob and his family with a brief account of the posterity of Esau, which was of interest to the Israelites, both because of the consanguinity of the two races, and of the near vicinity of the territories which they occupied. In this chapter we have further indications of the fragmentary character of the book, as it has been heretofore described. Different parts of it present repetitions of the same fact, and it contains statements inconsistent

Compare Gen. xxxvi. 10 with 4; 18 with 5 and 14; 29, 30, with 20, 21.

with others made in the context, and in previous parts of the book.*

With the thirty-seventh chapter begins the history of Joseph, the eleventh son of Jacob, which, with that of its influence on the fortunes of the family, is pursued to the close of the book, the continuity of the narrative being interrupted only by the contents of

In Gen. xxxvi. 2, the name Anah is said to have belonged to a daughter of Zibeon, while in 24 (compare 29) it is given to his son, and in 20 it seems to be given to his brother. In xxvi. 34, Esau's wives are said to have been "Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite"; and in xxviii. 9, he is said to have also married "Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth"; while in xxxvi. 2, 3, the same names of his wives are partly retained, with a different account of their parentage. It is there Adah, instead of Bashemath, who is daughter of Elon, and Bashemath, on the other hand, instead of Mahalath, is represented as daughter of Ishmael. It seems impossible here not to recognise different traditions respecting the same fact, which had come to Moses' knowledge. In 6-8 is a record, important to the Jews of Moses' time, of the voluntary abdication of Canaan by Esau and his family. - In 20-30 is an account of the tribes which had occupied Idumea previously to its conquest by Esau (compare Deut. ii. 12, 22). It is the more pertinent in the place, as Esau and his son Eliphaz (Gen. xxxvi. 24, 25, 12, 22) had married daughters of the Horite race. Instead of "mules" (24) the Vulgate translates "hot baths," which is a more probable rendering."These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (31). From this verse it has been inferred, that the passage which it introduces was written after the establishment of the Israelitish monarchy. If so, one cannot reason from it against the authenticity of Genesis; it would only have to be regarded as one of those interpolations which doubtless exist. But I conceive that the idea, that this was written simply in reference to xxxv. 11, is by no means destitute of probability; the writer meaning to indicate, that there had been so many princes in the family of Esau, while as yet the divine promise to Israel, respecting a royal posterity, remained unfulfilled. And this is the more likely, as, while the death of the princes previously named is mentioned, there is no such record (xxxvi. 39) in respect to Hadar, who, considering the number of names in the line, may well have been the king of Edom to whom Moses (comp. Numb, xx. 14,) is related to have sent a message. The passage, if interpolated, was perhaps taken from 1 Chron. i. 43-50.

one chapter, the thirty-eighth, in which is related an incident in the life of one of his brothers. Judah, having neglected to take care for the marriage of his youngest son Shelah to Tamar, widow of Shelah's elder brothers, is made the subject of an artifice on her part, in the sequel of which he becomes the parent of twin sons. The passage, I conceive, was esteemed by Moses worthy of preservation, chiefly because of its sustaining, by the force of ancient authority, two provisions of his law, those relating to levirate marriages, and to the punishment of the crime of adultery.*

The history of Joseph, independently of its being one of the most touching narratives within the compass of all literature, sacred or profane, was indispensable to the objects of Moses' record, inasmuch as it connected itself throughout with the occasion of the

* With Gen. xxxviii. 11, 14, &c. compare Deut. xxv. 5, 6; and with xxxviii. 24, compare Deut. xxii. 22-24.—“At that time," &c. (1). It is impossible to suppose a correct chronology here. When Joseph was sold into Egypt, he was seventeen years old (xxxvii. 2); when he interpreted Pharaoh's dream, he was thirty (xli. 46); that is, thirteen years had passed. To these succeeded the seven years of plenty (xli. 53), and to them two years of famine (xlv. 6), making in all twenty-two years after the abduction of Joseph; by no means time enough for Judah to have become the parent of two sons, who were successively the husband of a woman, by whom, subsequently, Judah himself had a son, who, in his turn, had already (xlvi. 12) become a parent. -The reason, probably, why the second son of Judah was unwilling (xxxviii. 9) to become the parent of a child, who, according to an arrangement of the Mosaic Law (existing, however, it appears, as early as the patriarchal times), would be reckoned not as his, but as the child of his elder brother deceased, was this; that that child, as the representative of Jacob's oldest son (Deut. xxv. 5, 6), would be entitled to a double portion of the family estate (Deut. xxi. 17); whereas, if the elder line were extinct, not only in fact, as was the case with that of Er, but also in legal contemplation, its rights would vest in the second son and his heirs. The passage, 27-30, was probably of importance in relation to a rule, resting on ancient usage, for deciding the question, which, of twins, was to be esteemed entitled to the prerogatives of first born.