Genesis Vol 3.pdf - College Press

12:5 GENESIS ::> r‘
days. The objection is not founded:in historic truth; for
it appears from Gen. 34:30, 1 Ki. 9:20-21, Ezek. 16:3, that
the Canaanite continued to a certain extent in after ages
to occupy the land” (CECG, 131). Murphy suggests
three possible interpretations of this passage (MG, 265 -
266): “This simply implies that the land was not open
for Abram to enter upon immediate possession of it with-
out challenge: another was in posses&m; the sons of Kenaan
had already arrived and preoccupied the country. It also
intimates, or admits of, the supposition that there had been
previous inhabitants who may have been subjugated by the
invading Kenaanites. . , , It admits also of the supposition
that the Kenaanites afterward ceased to be its inhabitants.
Hence some have inferred that this could not have been
penned by Moses, as they were expelled after his death.
If this supposition were the necessary or the only one
implied in the form of expression, we should acquiesce in
the conclusion that this sentence came from one of the
prophets to whom the conservation, revision, and continua-
tion of the living oracles were committed. But we have
seen that two other presuppositions may be made that satisfy
the import of the passage. Moreover, the first of the three
accounts for the fact that Abram does not instantly enter
on possession, as there was an occupying tenant. And,
finally, the third supposition may fairly be, not that the
Kenaanites afterwards ceased, but that they should after-
ward cease to be in the land. This, then, as well as the
others, admits of Moses being the writer of this interesting
sentence.” To the present writer the best explanation of
this sentence is the simplest one: namely, that the writer
intends us to know that the Canaanite was @heady in the
land, Why try to give it some mysterious significance
when the simplest interpretation makes the most sense?
The inlplication could well be also that the Canaanite had
driven out the earlier inhabitants.
68