Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/250



documentary analysis (comp. the interesting exposition by Gu.$2$ 121 ff.). Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along with a summary of the criteria by which the critical operation is guided and justified. The division generally accepted by recent critics is as follows:

J  6$5-8$               7$1-5$           $7 (8. 9). 10$             $12$              $16b$            $17b$          $22. 23$

P             $9-22$              $6$                       $11$            $13-16a$          $17a$            $18-21$

J                       $2b. 3a$              $6-12$             $13b$                $20-22$

P  7$24$   8$1. 2a$              $3b-5$             $13a$               $14-19$                   9$1-17$.

The minutiæ of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given above represents the results of Bu. (to whom the finishing touches are due: Urgesch. 248 ff.) Gu. and Ho. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he assigns 7$17$ wholly to J, and 7$23b$ to P; and We., except with regard to 7$17$ (J) 8$3. 13$, which are both assigned entirely to P. The divergences of Kue. and Co. are almost equally slight; and indeed the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches of Hupfeld, Nöldeke, and Schrader.—This remarkable consensus of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines of evidence: (1) Linguistic. The key to the whole process is, of course, the distinction between the divine names (6$5. 6. 7. 8$ 7$1. 5. 16b$ 8$20. 21$) and (6$9. 11. 12. 13. 22$ 7$16a$ 8$1. 15$ 9$1. 6. 8. 12. 16. 17$). Besides this, a number of characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus J's (7$2$) answers to P's [*] (6$19$ 7$(9). 16$); (6$7$ 7$4. 23$) to and  (6$13. 17$ 9$11. 15$);  (7$22$) to  (6$17$ 7$21$); (7$4. 23$) to [*] (6$12. 13. 17$ 7$21$ and oft.); (8$8. 11$) and  (7$3a$) to (8$5$);  (8$13b$) to  (8$14$) [but see on 8$13b$];  (8$22$) to (6$17$);  (7$3$) to  (6$19. 20$);  (7$1$) to the specific enumerations of 6$18$ 7$(7). 13$ 8$16. 18$. (Comp. the list in Ho. Gen. p. 68).—(2) Diversity of representation. In J clean and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7$2$, cf. 8$20$); in P one pair of every kind without distinction is admitted (6$19f.$ 7$15f.$). According to J, the cause of the Flood is a forty-days' rain which is to commence seven days after the command to enter the ark (7$4. 10. 12$ 8$2b. 6$)—the latter passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40 days. In P we have (7$11$ 8$2a$) a different conception of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7$6. 11. 13. 24$ 8$3b. 4. 5. 13a. 14$, a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one year (see p. 167 ff.).—(3) Duplicates. The following are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6$5-8$ 6$11-13$ (occasion of the Flood); 7$1-5$ 6$17-22$ (command to enter the ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7$7$  7$13$ (entering of the ark); 7$10$  7$11$ (coming of the Flood); 7$17b$ 7$18$ (increase of the waters: floating of the ark); 7$22f.$  7$21$ (destruction of terrestrial life); 8$2b. 3a$  8$1f.$ (abatement of the Flood); 8$13b$  8$13a. 14$ (drying of the earth); 8$20-22$  (9$8ff.$ (promise that the Flood shall not recur).—(4) The final confirmation of the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but continuous narratives, which