Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/382

 26$4$, Ex. 32$13$, Dt. 1$10$ 10$22$ 28$62$).—6. counted it (his implicit trust in the character of Yahwe) as righteousness] 1 Mac. 2$52$. is here neither inherent moral character, nor piety in the subjective sense, but a right relation to God conferred by a divine sentence of approval (see We. Pss., SBOT, 174).

This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith (Ro. 4$3. 9. 22$, Gal. 3$6$; cf. Ja. 2$23$) must, of course, be understood in the light of OT conceptions. The idea of righteousness as dependent on a divine judgment could only have arisen on the basis of legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands later in theological development than Dt. 6$25$ 24$13$, and has its nearest analogies in Ps. 106$31$ 24$5$. The reflexion is suggested by the question how Abram, who had no law to fulfil, was nevertheless 'righteous'; and, finding the ground of his acceptance in an inward attitude towards God, it marks a real approximation to the Apostle's standpoint. Gu. (161) well remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of this abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram's faith came to light.

7-21. The covenant.—7, 8. The promise of the land, Abram's request for a pledge (ct. v.$6$), and the self-introduction of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the commencement of an interview), are marks of discontinuity difficult to reconcile with the assumption of the unity of the narrative. Most critics accordingly recommend the excision of the vv. as an interpolation.

So Di. KS. Kraetzschmar, Gu. al. Their genuineness is maintained by Bu. De. Bacon, Ho.; We. thinks they have been at least worked over. The language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The ($7$) is not a sufficient ground for rejection (see Bu. 439); and although in a J-context may be suspicious, we have no right to assume that it did not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition (see p. 239 above). But — is a decidedly Deuteronomic phrase (see OH, i. 205): on , see on v.$2$. On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage these linguistic difficulties would vanish; but the impression of a change of scene remains,—an impression, however, which the interpolation theory does not altogether remove, since the transition from $6$ to $9$ is very abrupt. Bacon's transposition of the two sections of J is also unsatisfactory.

. The construction with is usual when the obj. of faith is God (Ex. 14$31$, Nu. 14$11$ 20$12$, Dt. 1$32$, 2 Ki. 17$14$, 2 Ch. 20$20$, Ps. 78$32$, Jon. 3$5$): only Dt. 9$23$, Is. 43$10$.—] second obj. acc. The change to (Ps. 106$31$) is unnecessary.
 * 6. ] (on the tense, see Dri. T. § 133; G-K. § 112 ss): GVS add