Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/520

 consequences, $25f. 30f.$ (I.); but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, $27-29$ (II.).

Sources.—If style alone were decisive, I. might safely be identified with J: note, $3$ (2$24$); , $3. 12$; , $11$; , $30$. In II., Corn. has pointed out some linguistic affinities with E (see the notes on, $3$; , $4$; , $10. 21$ etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: , $2$; , $5. 13. 27$; , $10$; , $15. 22$; and , $23$; , $24$;  $24$ (bis): comp. the list in Kue. ''Ges. Abh.'' 269 f. These are so striking that Di. and Dri. assign the narrative unhesitatingly to P, and all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Corn. calls attention to a very similar case in Nu. 31). But there are grave material difficulties in assigning either recension to J or E. (1) In ch. 34, Jacob's children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of time since ch. 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal life consistently maintained by J and (hardly less consistently) by E. (3) Against I. = J, in particular, (a) In J the patriarch is generally named Israel after 32$28$; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We have seen reason to believe that in J, Jacob was not W of the Jordan at all at this time (p. 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem (37$12ff.$) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence. (4) As regards II. = E, there is less difficulty; but on this hypothesis the amalgamation with J must be due to R$JE$; and how does it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48$22$ (E). (5) Finally, if Ḥōrite be the true reading in v.$2$, we have here a tradition differing from any of the Pent. documents. These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also shows that in Gen. there are sporadic traces of a divergent tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chs. 38. 48$22$). To this (older) tradition he assigns ch. 34. The first recension must have taken literary shape within the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33$19$ (E). This seems to me the best solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles.—Calling the two narratives J$x$ and E$x$, we divide as follows: J$x$ (= I.): $3a. 2b*. 3b undefined. 11. 12. 14. 19. 25a. 26. 30. 31$. E$x$ (= II.): $1. 2a. 2b*. 3bundefined. 4. 5?. 6. 7?. 8-10. 13a. 15-18a. 20-24. 27. (25b). 28. 29$. Comp. We. Comp.$2$ 45 f., 314 ff.; Kue. ThT, 1880, 257 ff. (= Ges. Abhandl. 255 ff.), Ond. i. 315 f.; Corn. ZATW, xi. 1-15; Mey. INS, 412 ff.; De. 413; Di. 368 ff.; Ho. 213 ff.; Gu. 326 ff.; Stra. 126 f.; Pro. 35 f.  '''1-12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in marriage.—2.' the Ḥivvite] see on 10$17$; G the''

1. 27$46$ (P or R).—2. ] G. Confusion of and  is