Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/155



position; hence $23$ may have been the original continuation of $19$, to which it forms a natural sequel. There is thus some reason to believe that in this instance, at any rate, the 'tree of life' is not from the hand of the chief narrator.—(4) Other and less certain duplicates are: 2$6$ 2$10 (11-14)$ (see above), $8a 9a$ (the planting of the garden); and $8b$ $15a$ (the placing of man in it); 2$23$ 3$20$ (the naming of the woman).—(5) Bu. (Urg. 232 ff.) was the first to suggest that the double name (which is all but peculiar to this section) has arisen through amalgamation of sources. His theory in its broader aspects has been stated on p. 3, above; it is enough here to point out its bearing on the compound name in Gn. 2 f. It is assumed that two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which (J$e$) employed only, the other (J$j$) only. When these were combined the editor harmonised them by adding to  everywhere in J$j$, and prefixing to  everywhere in J$e$ except in the colloquy between the serpent and the woman (3$1-5$), where the general name was felt to be more appropriate. The reasoning is precarious; but if it be sound, it follows that 3$1$ must be assigned to J$1-5$; and since these vv. are part of the main narrative (that which speaks only of the tree of knowledge), there remain for J$2$ only 3$3$, and possibly some variants and glosses in the earlier part of the narrative.—On the whole, the facts seem to warrant these conclusions: of the Paradise story two recensions existed; in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of life (so v. Doorninck, ThT, xxxix. 225 f.) and possibly both trees; the former supplied the basis of our present narrative, and is practically complete, while the second is so fragmentary that all attempt to reconstruct even its main outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.