Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/238



These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as to the priority of the MT. It would obviously be illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the original system of P. The natural inference is that both were actually in use in the first cent. , and that consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A presumption in favour of MT would be established only if it could be shown that the numbers of [E] and G are either dependent on MT, or involve no chronological scheme at all.

2. The Sam. Vn. has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Gn. 11$10$, we obtain from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of Jub. (see p. 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we assume MT of Ex. 12$40$ to be the original reading (as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find that [E] counts from the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years. The odd 7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360. Shem was born in 1200 a.m., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work of P closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this was his original chronological period; and that the systems of MT (as explained by von Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat important objection to the originality of [E] is, however, the disparity between ch. 5 and 11$10ff.$ with regard to the ages at the birth of the first-born.

3. A connexion between G and [E] is suggested by the fact that the first period of G (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of [E] (1300 + 940 = 2240), though it does not appear on which side the dependence is. Most critics have been content to say that the G figures are enhancements of those of MT in order to bring the biblical chronology somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of Egypt or Chaldæa. That is not probable; though it does not seem possible to discover any distinctive principle of calculation in G. Klostermann (NKZ, v. 208-247 [= Pent. (1907) 1-41]), who defends the priority of G, finds in it a reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years; but his results, which are sufficiently ingenious, are attained by rather violent and arbitrary handling of the data. Thus, in order to adjust the ante-diluvian list to his theory, he has to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to the Flood, and substitute the 120 years of Gn. 6$3$! This reduces the reckoning of G to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the Flood, we obtain 1764 = 3 × 12 × 49.

See, further, on 11$10ff.$ (p. 234 f.).