Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/95

 command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand, such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of personal piety—the disposition of the heart towards God—his narrative hardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a theology at once more abstract and shallower than that of J or E, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life (chs. 3. 6$5$ 8$21$ 18$23ff.$ 45$8$ etc.), and succeeds in depicting the personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward fellowship with God (cf. 22. 24$12ff.$ 32$9ff.$ 48$15f.$ etc.). It would be unfair to charge the author of P$g$ with indifference to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating character and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are none the less characteristic of the type of mind that produced the colourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant ideas of the Priestly theology.

Another characteristic distinction between JE and P is seen in the enhanced transcendentalism of the latter's conception of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthropopathic, expressions are studiously avoided (an exception is Gn. 2$2f.$: cf. Ex. 31$17b$); revelation takes the form of simple speech; angels, dreams, and visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not described; God is said to 'appear' to men, and to 'go up from them' (Gn. 17$1. 22f.$ 35$9. 13$ 48$3$, Ex. 6$3$), but the manner of His appearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation at Sinai (Ex. 24$1ff.$ 34$29b$ 40$34f.$). It is true that a similar inconcreteness often characterises the theophanies of J and E, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided approximation to the abstract conceptions of P. But a comparison of the parallels ch. 17 with 15, or 35$9ff.$ with 28$10ff.$, makes it clear that P's departure from the older tradition springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from the representation of Godhead.

It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, P's attitude to the traditional history of the patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that