contained the three names (Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of P, it may be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each consisting of ten generations. That that of J was not a dry list of names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has survived. The preservation of 425f. is no doubt due to the important notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (26b), the redactor having judged it more expedient in this instance to retain J's statement intact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in J would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the J document into its component strata might have run a different course.
25. And Adam knew, etc.] see on v.1 That (
Hebrew characters) denotes
properly the initiation of the conjugal relation (Bu.) is very
doubtful: see 3826, 1 Sa. 119.—And she called] see again on v.1.—God has appointed me seed] (the remainder of the v. is
probably an interpolation). Cf. 315. Eve's use of (Hebrew characters) is
not 'surprising' (Di.); it only proves that the section is not
from the same source as v.1. On the other hand, it harmonises
with the fact that in 31ff. (Hebrew characters) is used in dialogue. It
is at least a plausible inference that both passages come
from one narrator, who systematically avoided the name (Hebrew characters)
up to 426 (see p. 100).
The v. in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a knowledge of
the Cain and Abel narrative of 41-16; but it is doubtful if the allusions
to the two older brothers can be accepted as original (see Bu. 154-159).
Some of Bu.'s arguments are strained; but it is important to observe
that the word (Hebrew characters) is wanting in G, and that the addition of (Hebrew characters)
destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of substitution
being quite foreign to the connotation of the vb. (Hebrew characters). The following
clause (Hebrew characters) reads awkwardly in the mouth of Eve (who would
naturally have said (Hebrew characters)), and is entirely superfluous on the part of
25. (Hebrew characters)] here for the first time unambiguously a prop. name. There
is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the generic to the
individual sense is made by P only in 51-3, and is just as likely to have
been made by J.—G reads (Greek characters) in place of (Hebrew characters); S has both words.—Before
(Hebrew characters) GS insert (Hebrew characters).—(Greek characters)] [E] (Hebrew characters).—(Greek characters)] G (Greek characters); so V and
