Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/541

 istic of J and E respectively (exceptions are 46$2$ 48$8. 11. 21$ [50$25?$] 46$5b$). occurs only in ch. 39 (7 times); elsewhere is invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise be naturally assigned to J, though no reason appears why J should depart from his ordinary usage (e.g. 42$28$). It may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document, is obliged to admit the existence of an Israel-recension and a Jacob-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways than one. The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans, of 37$3-24$ (J + E), $28a$ (E), $29$ (E), $30-33$ (E + J), $36$ (E); 43 (J); 44 (J); 45$28$ (J), 46$1. 2a$ (JE), $28-34$ (J); 47$1-5$ (J [v.$5$, P*]), $13-27a$ (J), $27b$ (P), $29-31$ (J); 48$1$ (E), $2b$ (J), $8-22$ (J + E); 50$1-11$ (J), $14-26$ (E*). To the Jacob-recension (J-R) he assigns 37$2$ (P), $25-27$ (J), $28b$ (J), $34$ (JE), $35$ (J); 40; 41; 42 (all E); 45$1-27$ (E*), 46$2b-5$ (E*), $6. 7$ (P); 47$6-11$ (P*), $12$ (E), $28$ (P); 49$1a$ (P), $29-33$ (P); 50$12. 13$ (P) (Komp. d. Gen. 65-71): the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the symbols within brackets. How does this compare with the generally accepted critical results? (1) No distinction is recognised between P and the other sources; the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 48$3-6$ is rejected as an interpolation (p. 27). (2) Eerdmans regards ch. 39 (the incident of Potiphar's wife) as the addition of an unintelligent redactor; mainly on the ground that it contains the name (the use of the divine names is thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when it suits Eerdmans' purpose!). A more arbitrary piece of criticism could hardly be found. (3) Apart from these two eccentricities, and the finer shades of analysis which Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that except in ch. 37 his division agrees a potiori with that of the majority of critics; i.e., the I-R corresponds in the main with J and the J-R with E. (4) In ch. 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R = E, and J-R = J. But this divergence turns on a wholly arbitrary and indefensible selection of data. Since the J-R in 45$5$ speaks of a sale of Joseph (to the Ishmaelites), it is inferred that 37$25-27. 28b$ belonged to it. It is conveniently overlooked that 40$15$ (also J-R) refers back to 37$28a. 29f.$ (the stealing of Joseph), that 42$22$ (J-R) presupposes 37$22$ (I-R); to say nothing of the broad distinction that Judah's leadership is as characteristic of one source as Reuben's is of the other. If Eerdmans had duly considered the whole of the evidence, he would have seen first that it is absolutely necessary to carry the analysis further than he chooses to do, and next that the two recensions in ch. 37 must exchange places in order to find their proper connexions in the following chapters. With that readjustment, it is not unfair to claim him as an unwilling witness to the essential soundness of the prevalent theory. With the best will in the world, he has not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track; and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes entangled in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace his steps.] On the whole, it increases one's confidence in the ordinary critical method.