Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/155

This page needs to be proofread.

position; hence ²³ may have been the original continuation of ¹⁹, to which it forms a natural sequel. There is thus some reason to believe that in this instance, at any rate, the 'tree of life' is not from the hand of the chief narrator.—(4) Other and less certain duplicates are: 2⁶ 2^{10 (11-14)} (see above), ^{8a 9a} (the planting of the garden); and ^8b ^15a (the placing of man in it); 2²³ 3²⁰ (the naming of the woman).—(5) Bu. (Urg. 232 ff.) was the first to suggest that the double name (Hebrew characters) (which is all but peculiar to this section) has arisen through amalgamation of sources. His theory in its broader aspects has been stated on p. 3, above; it is enough here to point out its bearing on the compound name in Gn. 2 f. It is assumed that two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which (J^e) employed only (Hebrew characters), the other (J^j) only (Hebrew characters). When these were combined the editor harmonised them by adding (Hebrew characters) to (Hebrew characters) everywhere in J^j, and prefixing (Hebrew characters) to (Hebrew characters) everywhere in J^e except in the colloquy between the serpent and the woman (3^1-5), where the general name was felt to be more appropriate.^[1] The reasoning is precarious; but if it be sound, it follows that 3^1-5 must be assigned to J^e; and since these vv. are part of the main narrative (that which speaks only of the tree of knowledge), there remain for J^j only 3^{22. 24}, and possibly some variants and glosses in the earlier part of the narrative.—On the whole, the facts seem to warrant these conclusions: of the Paradise story two recensions existed; in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of life (so v. Doorninck, ThT, xxxix. 225 f.) and possibly both trees;^[2] the former supplied the basis of our present narrative, and is practically complete, while the second is so fragmentary that all attempt to reconstruct even its main outlines must be abandoned as hopeless.

↑ So Gu. A still more complete explanation of this particular point would be afforded by the somewhat intricate original hypothesis of Bu. He suggested that the primary narrative (J¹) in which (Hebrew characters) was regularly used, except in 3^1-5, was re-written and supplemented by J² who substituted (Hebrew characters) for (Hebrew characters); the two narratives were subsequently amalgamated in rather mechanical fashion by J³, with the result that wherever the divine names differed both were retained, and where the documents agreed (Hebrew characters) alone appears (Urg. 233 f.). Later in the volume (471 ff.) the hypothesis is withdrawn in favour of the view that J² contained no Paradise story at all.—A similar explanation is given by v. Doorninck (l.c. 239), who thinks the retention of (Hebrew characters) in 3^1-5 was due to the redactor's desire to avoid the imputation of falsehood to Yahwe!
↑ The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed to have obtained between the two recensions. Gu., who assumes that the resemblance was very close, holds that in J^j probably both trees were concerned in the fall of man. But the text gives no indication that in J^j the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the fruit of a tree: other ways of procuring unlawful knowledge are conceivable; and it is therefore possible that in this version the tree of life alone occupied a position analogous to that of the tree of knowledge in the other (see, further, Gressmann, ARW, x. 355 f.).

[1] So Gu. A still more complete explanation of this particular point would be afforded by the somewhat intricate original hypothesis of Bu. He suggested that the primary narrative (J¹) in which (Hebrew characters) was regularly used, except in 3^1-5, was re-written and supplemented by J² who substituted (Hebrew characters) for (Hebrew characters); the two narratives were subsequently amalgamated in rather mechanical fashion by J³, with the result that wherever the divine names differed both were retained, and where the documents agreed (Hebrew characters) alone appears (Urg. 233 f.). Later in the volume (471 ff.) the hypothesis is withdrawn in favour of the view that J² contained no Paradise story at all.—A similar explanation is given by v. Doorninck (l.c. 239), who thinks the retention of (Hebrew characters) in 3^1-5 was due to the redactor's desire to avoid the imputation of falsehood to Yahwe!

[2] The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed to have obtained between the two recensions. Gu., who assumes that the resemblance was very close, holds that in J^j probably both trees were concerned in the fall of man. But the text gives no indication that in J^j the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the fruit of a tree: other ways of procuring unlawful knowledge are conceivable; and it is therefore possible that in this version the tree of life alone occupied a position analogous to that of the tree of knowledge in the other (see, further, Gressmann, ARW, x. 355 f.).

[1]

[2]