Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/333

 as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not quite certain.

XI. 10-26.—The Genealogy of Shem (P).

Another section of the Tôlĕdôth, spanning the interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of P's genealogies next to ch. 5; with which it agrees in form, except that in MT the framework is lightened by omitting the total duration of each patriarch's life. In [E] this is consistently supplied; while G merely adds to MT the statement. The number of generations in MT is 9, but in G 10, corresponding with ch. 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to NW Mesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race.

In G the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān between Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 10$24$). That this is a secondary alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in 1 Ch. 1$18. 24$ G; (b) Ḳênān already occurs in the former genealogy (5$9ff.$); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name (Bu. 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tu. De.); but neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence between thel ists of ch. 5 and 11$10ff.$ An indication of the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once as the father, and again as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, Chron. Systeme, 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in ch. 5 (corresponding with 4$25f.$), P has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of which a fragment may have been preserved in vv.$28-30$. We. (Comp.$2$ 9, Prol.$6$ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of P's list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on 10$21. 24$) and the first Nāḥôr are omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy lying behind ch. 5 was 7-membered; and J's parallel to 11$10ff.$ could not in any case be the continuation of 4$16-22$.

10. ] see on 10$22$. He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem; which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with ch. 10, the arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations. Hommel (AA, 222$1$), maintaining his theory that Arp. = Ur-Kasdîm, comes to the absurd conclusion that in the original list it was not the name of Shem's son, but of his birthplace: 'Shem from Arpakshad'!—] The discrepancy between this statement and the chron