Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/68



A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement of the various sections.

It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has marked the headings of the various sections by the formula [], which occurs eleven times in the book: 2$4a$ 5$1$ 6$9$ 10$1$ 11$10$ 11$27$ 25$12$ 25$19$ 36$1$ 36$9$ 37$2$. Transposing 2$4a$ to the beginning, and disregarding 36$9$ (both arbitrary proceedings), we obtain ten parts; and these are actually adopted by De. as the divisions of his commentary. But the scheme is of no practical utility,—for it is idle to speak of 11$10-26$ or 25$12-18$ as sections of Genesis on the same footing as 25$19$-35$29$ or 37$2$-50$26$; and theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will suffice to point out the incongruity that, while the histories of Noah and Isaac fall under their own Tôlĕdôth, those of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall under the Tôlĕdôth of their respective fathers. See, further, p. 40 f.   § 7. The Sources of Genesis.

The Book of Genesis has always been the strategic position of Pentateuchal literary criticism. It was the examination of this book that led Astruc, in 1753, to the important discovery which was the first positive achievement in this department of research. Having noticed the significant alternation of the divine names in different sections of the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon could not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary habit of two writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk of Genesis into two documents, one distinguished by the use of the name, and the other by the use of ; while a series of fragmentary passages where this criterion failed him brought the total number of his mémoires up to twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise the magnitude of this discovery, which Eichhorn speedily put on a broader basis by a characterisation of the style, contents, and spirit of the two documents. Neither Astruc nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further than Ex. 2,—partly because they were influenced by the traditional opinion (afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship,