Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/202



of the non-Priestly sections of chs. 2-11 (see pp. 3, 134). One important consequence may here be noted. Eve's use of the name, and the subsequent notice of the introduction of the name, suggest that this writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as E and P previously to Ex. 3$14ff.$ and Ex. 6$2ff.$). Hence, if it be the case that one recension of the Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use of (see p. 53), 4$25. 26$ will naturally be regarded as the sequel to that recension.

3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv.$1-16$. That it belongs to J in the wider sense is undisputed, but its precise affinities within the Yahwistic cycle are exceedingly perplexing. If the theory mentioned at the end of the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use of the name would show that it was unknown to the author of vv.$1. 3. 4. 6. 9. 13. 15. 16$ and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by these vv. Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy in which it is embedded? It certainly contains notices—such as the introduction of agriculture and (perhaps) the origin of sacrifice—in keeping with the idea of the genealogy; but the length and amplitude of the narration would be without parallel in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an obvious incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a fugitive unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (v.$11$), who as the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of stable civilised life. Still more complicated are the relations of the passage to the history of the Fall in ch. 3. On the one hand, a series of material incongruities seem to show that the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption of an already existing population on the earth could hardly have been made by the author of ch. 3; the free choice of occupation by the two brothers, and Yahwe's preference for the shepherd's sacrifice, ignore the representation (3$15$) that husbandry is the destined lot of the race; and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which betray no consciousness of a primal curse resting on the ground. It is true, on the other hand, that the literary form of 4$A$ contains striking reminiscences of that of ch. 3. The most surprising of these (4$3. 13$ 3$1. 4. 9. 10. 16$) may be set down to textual corruption (see the note on the v.); but there are several other turns of expression which recall the language of the earlier narrative: cf. 4$6. 15. 15$ with 3$25. 26$. In both we have the same sequence of sin, investigation and punishment (in the form of a curse), the same dramatic dialogue, and the same power of psychological analysis. But whether these resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship is a question that cannot be confidently answered. There is an indistinct-