Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/22

 considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part of which (1909) was published just too late to be utilised for this volume. That I have not neglected the older standard commentaries of Tuch, Delitzsch, and Dillmann, or less comprehensive expositions like that of Strack, will be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the notes. The same remark applies to many books of a more general kind (mostly cited in the list of "Abbreviations"), which have helped to elucidate special points of exegesis.

The problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis are, indeed, too varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily treated within the compass of a single volume. The old controversies as to the compatibility of the earlier chapters with the conclusions of modern science are no longer, to my mind, a living issue; and I have not thought it necessary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those who are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages of Dr. Driver, where they will find these matters handled with convincing force and clearness. Rather more attention has been given to the recent reaction against the critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am very far from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative or its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the scholarly work of the last hundred and fifty years. At all events, my own belief in the essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed by the renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present undertaking required. It will probably appear to some that the analysis is pushed further than is warranted, and that duplicates are discovered where common sense would have suggested an easy reconciliation. That is a perfectly fair line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept in view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain which is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts from cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontrovertible, and moves on to others where it is less certain; and it is surely evident that when the composition of sources is once established, the slightest