Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/341



plausible argument advanced by those who hold the mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god.

It will be observed that while both P and J (in the present text) make Ur-Kasdîm the starting-point of the Abrahamic migration, J has no allusion to a journey from Ur to Ḥarran. His language is perfectly consistent either (a) with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b) with the view that the real starting-point was Ḥarran, and that is here a gloss intended to harmonise J and P. Now, there is a group of passages in J which, taken together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of Ḥarran, and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land. In 24$4. 7. 10$, the place of A.'s nativity is Aram-Naharaim, and specially the 'city of Nāḥôr'; while a comparison with 27$43$ 28$10$ 29$4$ leaves no doubt that the 'city of Nāḥôr' was Ḥarran. P, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his theory of a double migration with a halt at Ḥarran; and the persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from Nāḥôr (25$20$ 28$2. 5ff.$) is a proof that the omission of Nāḥôr from the party that left Ur was intentional (Bu. 421 ff.). It is evident, then, that we have to do with a divergence in the patriarchal tradition; and the only uncertainty is with regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of P, though consistently maintained, is not natural; for (1) all the antecedents (11$10-26$) point to Mesopotamia as the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first from Ur and then from Ḥarran, has itself the appearance of a compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest solution would be to suppose that both the references to Ur-Kasdîm in J (11$28$ 15$7$) are interpolations, and that P had another tradition which he harmonised with that of J by the expedient just mentioned (so We. Di. Gu. Dri. al.). Bu. holds that both traditions were represented in different strata of J (J$1$ Ḥarran, J$2$ Ur), and tries to show that the latter is a probable concomitant of the Yahwistic account of the Flood. In that he can hardly be said to be successful; and he is influenced by the consideration that apart from such a discrepancy in his sources P could never have thought of the circuitous route from Ur to Canaan by way of Ḥarran. That argument has little weight with those who are prepared to believe that P had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to know from J and E. In itself, the hypothesis of a dual tradition within the school of J is perfectly reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Bu.'s close reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other indications. The view of We. is on the whole the more acceptable.