Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/284

 narrative at all. In the latter, Noah's sons are married men who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in P, but the same must be presumed for J); here, on the contrary, they are represented as minors living in the 'tent' with their father; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously conceived as an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Di. Bu. al.). The presumption, therefore, is that vv.$20-27$ belong to a stratum of J which knew nothing of the Flood; and this conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the structure of the passage.

First of all, we observe that in v.$24$ the offender is the youngest son of Noah, and in v.$25$ is named Canaan; while Shem and Japheth are referred to as his brothers. True, in v.$22$ the misdeed is attributed to 'Ham the father of Canaan'; but the words have all the appearance of a gloss intended to cover the transition from $18f.$ to $20ff.$; and the clause in $18b$ can have no other purpose. Now $18a$ is the close of J's account of the Flood; and $18$ points forward either to J's list of Nations (ch. 10), or to the dispersion of the Tower of Babel. Vv.$4. 8. 9$ interrupt this connexion, and must accordingly be assigned to a separate source. That that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown partly by the language (, v.$1. 9.$ [in spite of in v.$29$]; and, v.$23$); and more especially by the connexion with 5$4$ (see pp. 3, 133 f.). It is clear, therefore, that a redactor (R$19$) has here combined two Yahwistic documents, and sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in $20-27$ and $26$.

18, 19. Connecting verses (see above).—Noah's sons are here for the first time named in J, in harmony, however, with the repeated notices of P (5$27$ 6$20$ 7$29$). On the names see on ch. 10 (p. 195 f.).—20. Noah the husbandman was the first who planted a vineyard]—a fresh advance in human civilisation. The allusion to Noah as the husbandman is

19. ] 'the whole (population of the) earth was scattered.' For the construction cf. 10$J$.—] hardly contracted Niph. from [root] [= ] (G-K. § 67 dd); but from [root], whether this be a secondary formation from [root] (G-B.$18b$ 465 f.), or an independent word (BDB, 659). Cf. 1 Sa. 13$22$, Is. 11$32$ 33$10$.—20. ] cf. 4$13$ 6$5$ 10$14$ 11$11$ 44$12$ (J) 41$3$ (E). The rendering 'Noah commenced as a husbandman' (Dav. § 83, R. 2) is impossible on account of the art. (ct. 1 Sa. 3$26$): to insert (Ball) does not get rid of the difficulty. The construction with [H] cons., instead of inf., is very unusual (Ezr. 3$1$); hence Che. (EB, 3426$8$),