Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet, apparently in consequence of their near relation to the patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael, ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.

5.  The Mosaic authorship of Genesis has already been considered; and, in connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and especially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11.  Some, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such clauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were afterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men.  We are at liberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence before us.  On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written documents, see Ch. 9, No. 11.

The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially into the texture of the book.  They are just such extraneous remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example, Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35.  On the last of these, Graves, who considers it “plainly a passage inserted by a later hand,” says:  “I contend that the insertion of such notes rather confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative.  If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records” (according to the false assumption of some respecting the origin of the Pentateuch), “such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original.”  On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1, No. 13.

6.  The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar.  It is not strange, therefore, that we should encounter difficulties in the attempt to interpret them.  To consider these difficulties in detail would be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters.  Only some general remarks can here be offered.  Some difficulties are imaginary, the inventions of special pleading.  In these the commentaries of modern rationalists abound.  They are to be set aside by fair interpretation.  But other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by the honest expositor.  If he can give a valid explanation of them, well and good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the calm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a foundation that cannot be shaken.  To deny a well-authenticated narrative of facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is to build on a foundation of error.