Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/379

 examining the solution proposed by Gu. He assigns $1a.* bγ. 2a. 3b. 4. 6. 9.$ $10. 12aα. b. 17. 18a. bα$ to J; $1bαβ. 3a. [2b?] 5. 11. 12αβ. 13a. 14$ (to ) $16$ to E; and $7. 8. 13b. 14bβ. 15. 18bβ. 19-21$ to a redactor. On this analysis the J fragments form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at v.$7$ being caused by R's insertion of $7f.$ But (1) it is not so easy to get rid of $7f.$ V.$8$ is, and $6$ is not, a suitable point of contact for $9ff.$; and the omission of $7f.$ would make the covenant a confirmation of the promise of an heir, whereas $18$ expressly restricts it to the possession of the land. And (2) the parts assigned to J contain no marks of the Yahwistic style except the name ; they present features not elsewhere observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas characteristic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points may be here noted: (a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram ($1. 4$); (b) the address ($2a$ [cf.$8$]); (c) the theological reflexion on the nature of Abram's righteousness ($6$: cf. Dt. 6$25$ 24$13$); (d) the idea of the Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of JE, and common in Dt.); to which may be added (e) the ideal boundaries of the land and the enumeration of its inhabitants ($18b-21$), both of which are Deuteronomistic (see on the vv. below). The ceremonial of $9f. 17$ is no proof of antiquity (cf. Jer. 34$17ff.$), and the symbolic representation of Yahwe's presence in $17$ is certainly not decisive against the late authorship of the piece (against Gu.). It is difficult to escape the impression that the whole of this J narrative (including $7f.$) is the composition of an editor who used the name, but whose affinities otherwise are with the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.—This result, however, still leaves unsolved problems. (1) It fails to account for the obvious doublets in $2. 3$. $2b$ and $3a$ are generally recognised as the first traces in the Hex. of the document E, and $5$ (a night scene in contrast to $12. 17$) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2) With regard to $[12?] 13-16$, which most critics consider to be a redactional expansion of J, I incline to the opinion of Gu., that $11. 13-16$ form part of the sequel to the E narrative recognised in $3a. 2b. 5$ (note, v.$16$). (3) The renewed introduction of Yahwe in v.$7$ forms a hiatus barely consistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by Bacon's suggestion that the proper position of the J material in $1-6$ is intermediate between 15$18$ and 16$1$. But though this ingenious theory removes one difficulty it creates others, and it leaves untouched what seems to me the chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both in $1-6$ and $7-21$.—The phenomena might be most fully explained by the assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic editor (probably R$JE$), and afterwards combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence.

1-6. The promise of an heir (J), and a numerous posterity (E).—1. The v. presupposes a situation of

1. ] frequent in E (22$1$ 40$1$ 48$1$, Jos. 24$29$), but also used by J (22$20$ 39$7$).— (cf. v.$4$)] not elsewhere in the Hex.;