Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/79



(pp. 418, 450) belong to an older stratum of tradition than the main narrative; and the same might be said of ch. 49 (p. 512), which may very plausibly be regarded as a traditional poem of the 'school' of J, and the oldest extant specimen of its repertoire.—With regard to E, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however, we have imperfectly assimilated fragments of a more ancient tradition in 34 (? if E be a component there), 35$1-7$ 48$22$ and perhaps some other passages.—The important fact is that these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the main source to which they are assigned; at least, no linguistic differentiæ of any consequence have yet been discovered. The problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity.

While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally recognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which best explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the impression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception and standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two collections, and maintain that (in the case of J especially) the stamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave much play for the activity of a 'school.' It is very difficult