Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/326

 It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt the awkward duplicate ($8a$ || $9b$) with which B closes. Gu.'s bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological play on the name of the tower ( or ) certainly removes the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for. Against this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the absence of demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even in B; the facts that only a single phrase ( in v.$5$) requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one transposition ($3b$); and the facility with which nearly all the numerous doublets ($3a$ || $3b$; $4aγ$ || $4b$; ($5$) || ($7$); $6a,$ || $6aγb$; $9a$ || $8a + 9b$) can be definitely assigned to the one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in $5$ and $7$, from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style, and some general differences of conception between the two strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may be reserved for the notes.

The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the Ethnographic Table of ch. 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived as the result of the natural increase and partition of the family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant (cf., etc., in P, 10$5. 20. 31$). Here, on the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to assign the passage to that section of J (if there be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so We. Bu. Sta. al.); although it must be said that the idea here is little less at variance with the classification by professions of 4$20-22$ than with ch. 10. The truth is that the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in historical sequence.

1-4. The Building of the City and the Tower.—(Compare the translation given above.) 1, 2. The expres-

1. is not verbal pred. to, but merely introduces the circumstantial sent., as in 15$17$ 42$35$ etc. (Dav. § 141 and R.$1$). Such a sent. is usually followed by, but see 1 Ki. 13$20$. It may certainly be doubted if it could be followed by another with inf. cl. (v.$2$); and this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gu.'s analysis.—If there be any distinction between and, the former may refer to the