Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/377



it? Or did it come directly from an external source into the hands of a late author, who used it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case) the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources of the Pentateuch. The most acceptable form of this theory is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (NKZ, xvi. 929-951). The expedition, he thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750 ; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500. This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of the Israelites through David's conquest of that city. He thus leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of vv.$14f.$ should prove to be relevant. At present, however, they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity or credibility of the narrative can be based.

On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names in v.$1$ are supposed to have been discovered is as late as the 4th or 3rd cent. Assuming the correctness of the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed approximately to assign the composition of Gn. 14. It shows that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact. If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical material remains undetermined. The names in v.$1$ are historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested—the figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ,the importance, the revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the Kikkār, and, in short, all the details of the story—are as yet unattested by any allusion in secular history.

In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal