Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/337

 Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.—(3) [E] returns to the earlier Heb. reckoning by generations, its terminus ad quem being the measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the ''Sam. Chronicle'' published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215 + 215 + 42 (desert wandering) + 13 (measurement of Gerizim) = 2807 = 70 × 40 + 7. —(4) The Book of Jubilees counts by Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to Canaan) = 2450 = 50 × 49.]

XI. 27-32.—The Genealogy of Teraḥ (P and J).

The vv. are of mixed authorship; and form, both in P and J, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In P ($6$) genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration of the Teraḥites from Ur-Kasdîm to Ḥarran, to which 12$27. 31. 32$ may be the immediate sequel. The insertion from J ($4b. 5$) finds an equally suitable continuation in 12$28-30$, and is very probably the conclusion of J's lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding context of J is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty of the tradition which makes Ur-Kasdîm the home of the ancestors of the Hebrews (see concluding note, p. 239)

On the analysis, cf. esp. Bu. Urg. 414 ff.—Vv.$1ff.$ and $27$ belong quite obviously to P; and $32$, from its diffuse style and close resemblance to P's regular manner in recording the patriarchal migrations (12$31$ 31$5$ 36$18$ 46$6$: see Hupf. Qu. 19 f.), may be confidently assigned to the same source. $6$ presents nothing distinctive of either document; but in $28a$ is peculiar to JE (see the footnote on the v.). $28b$ is J because presupposed in 22$29$; and its continuation ($20ff.$) brings as an additional criterion the word (cf. 25$30$ 29$21$), which is never used by P.—The extract from J is supplementary to P, and it might be argued that at least $31$ was necessary in the latter source to explain why Loṭ and not Haran went with Teraḥ. Bu. points out in answer (p. 420) that with still greater urgency we desiderate an explanation of the fact that Nāḥôr was left behind: if the one fact is left unexplained, so a fortiori might the other.

The formula does not occur again till 25$28a$; and it is very widely held that in v.$12$ it stands as the heading of the section of P