Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/442

 reinforcement of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, Einw. 39 f.). But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe's providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (cf. Gu. 220).

Source and Unity of the Narrative.—From the general character of the style, and the consistent use of the name, critical opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to J. It is admitted, however, that certain 'unevennesses of representation' occur; and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. Thus, the servant's objection that the maiden may not be willing to follow him ($5. 39$), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen ($7. 40$), and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry ($8. 41$). In $29f.$ Laban twice goes out to the man at the well ($29b 30b$; $28$ speaks of the mother's house, $23b$ of the father's: in $50$ the servant negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in $53. 55$ with the brother and mother of the bride; in $51$ the request is at once agreed to by the relatives without regard to Rebekah's wish, whereas in $57f.$ the decision is left to herself; in $59$ Rebekah is sent away with her nurse, in $61a$ she takes her own maidens with her; her departure is twice recorded ($61a 61 b$). These doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either by transpositions of the text (Di. al.) or by divergences in the oral tradition (SOT, 96); and although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is J is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions. The problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gu. (215-221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability E, mainly on the ground that a fusion of J$1. 3. 7. 12. 21. 26. 27. 31. 35. 40. 42. 44. 48. 50. 51. 52. 56$ and J$10$ (Gu.) is without parallel, whereas J$4$ and E are combined in ch. 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one of which is free from positive marks of J; while, in the other,