Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/384

 direct and incidental. The passage may therefore be the continuation of the E-sections of $1-6$, on the understanding that in E the covenant had to do with the promise of a seed, and not with the possession of the land.—13. a sojourner] (coll.): see on 12$10$.—400 years] agreeing approximately with the 430 years of Ex. 12$40$ (P).—15 is a parenthesis, if not an interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own personal lot (see on 25$8$).—16. the fourth generation] e.g. Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron (or Moses) (Ex. 6$16ff.$). To the reckoning of a generation as 100 years (cf. v.$13$) doubtful classical parallels are cited by Knobel (Varro, Ling. lat. 6, 11; Ovid, Met. xii. 188, etc.). —the guilt of the Amorites] (the inhabitants of Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in later writings (Dt. 9$6$, 1 Ki. 14$13-16$, Lv. 18$5$ etc. etc.); but the parallels from JE cited by Knobel (Gn. 18$24$ 19$24f.$ 20$20ff.$) are of quite a different character.

Vv.$1ff.$ are obviously out of place in J, because they presuppose $11$ (the promise of the land). They are generally assigned to a redactor, although it is difficult to conceive a motive for their insertion. Di.'s suggestion, that they were written to supply the interpretation of the omen of v.$13-16$, goes a certain distance; but fails to explain why the interpretation ever came to be omitted. Since $18$ is intimately connected with $11$, and at the same time has no influence on the account of J, the natural conclusion is that both $11$ and $13-16$ are documentary, but that the document is not J but E (so Gu.). It will be necessary, however, to delete the phrases in $11$ and  in $13-16$ as characteristic of the style of P; perhaps also in $14$. The whole of $15$ may be removed with advantage to the sense.—The text of $13$ is not homogeneous, so that as a whole it cannot be linked either with $15$ or with $12$. and are doublets (note the repetition of ); and the poetic (only here in Pent.) is doubtless a gloss to. The opening clause is presumably J (in E it is already night in v.$11$). E's partiality for the visionary mode of revelation may be sufficient justification for assigning the to him and the  to J; but the choice is immaterial.

Jos. 2$13ff.$ (J).—13. ] G pr. .; and apparently read , avoiding the awkward interchange of subj. and obj.—16. ] acc. of condition, 'as a fourth generation' (cf. Jer. 31$5$); G-K. § 118 q.