Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/290

 exhibit their origin and mutual relationships in the form of a genealogical tree.

Analysis.—The separation of the two main sources is due to the lucid and convincing analysis of We. (Comp.$2$ 6 ff.). The hand of P is easily recognised in the superscription ($1a$ ), and the methodical uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening and closing formulæ. The headings of the three sections are: ($2$), ($6$), and ($22$); the respective conclusions are found in $5$. (mutilated) $20. 31$, v.$32$ being a final summary. This framework, however, contains several continuous sections which obviously belong to J. (a) $8-12$; the account of Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by P among the sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong contrast to P: note also ; instead of ($8$),  ($9$). (b) $13f.$: the sons of Mizraim (v. ). (c) $15-19$: the Canaanites. (d) $21. 25-30$: the Shemites ( $21. 25$; $26$).—Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold introduction to Shem ($21 22$), and the discrepancy between $7$ and $28f.$ regarding and. The documents, therefore, assort themselves as follows:

P: $1a$; $2-5$; $6f. 20$; $22f. 31$; $32$ J: $1b$ (?); $8-12$; $13f.$; $15-19$; $21. 25-30$.

Vv.$9. 16-18a$ and $24$ are regarded by We. and most subsequent writers as interpolations: see the notes. The framework of P is made the basis of the Table; and so far as appears that document has been preserved in its original order. In J the genealogy of Shem ($21. 25-30$) is probably complete; that of Ham ($13f. 15ff.$) is certainly curtailed; while every trace of Japheth has been obliterated (see, however, p. 208). Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand in their original order, we have no means of determining.

The analysis has been carried a step further by Gu. ($2$ 74 f.), who first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic Table, and its connexion with the two recensions of J which appear in ch. 9. He agrees with We. Di. al. that 9$18f.$ forms the transition from the story of the Flood to a list of nations which is partly represented in ch. 10; 10$1b$ being the immediate continuation of 9$19$ in that recension of J (J$j$). But he tries to show that 9$20-27$ was also followed by a Table of Nations, and that to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in ch. 10 belong ($8. 10-12. 15. 21. 25-29$ = J$e$). This conclusion is reached by a somewhat subtle examination of v.$21$ and vv.$15-19$. In v.$21$ Shem is the 'elder brother of Japheth,' which seems to imply that Japheth was the second son of Noah as in 9$20ff.$; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between $15$ and $18b. 19$. In $19$ the northern limit of the Canaanites is Ẓidon, whereas in $15$ Canaan includes the Ḥittites, and has therefore the wider geographical sense which Gu. postulates for 9$20-27$ (see p. 186 above). He also calls attention to the difference in language between the eponymous in $15$ and the gentilic in $18b. 19$, and considers that this was a characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these premises the further dissection of the Table follows easily enough. Vv.$8-12$ may be