exhibit the distinctive features of the two great sources of the primitive history, J and P. The J sections are a graphic popular tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove (see 89) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms are freely introduced into the conception of God (66f. 716b 821); and the religious institutions of the author's time are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.—Still more pronounced are the characteristics of P in the other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign of the rainbow (912-17) is retained, its æsthetic beauty has evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and calculated,—the size of the ark, the number of the persons and the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real interest of the writer is in the new departure in God's dealings with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,—the modification of the original constitution of nature, 91-7, and the establishment of the first of the three great covenants, 98-17. The connexion of the former passage with Gn. 1 is unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of Noah's sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and uncleanness amongst animals.[1]
The success of the critical process is due to the care and skill with which the Redactor (RJP) has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of information that could with any plausibility be utilised for his narrative. The sequence of P he appears to have preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions. Of J he has preserved quite enough to show that it was originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunæ except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 68 and 71), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 813b and 20). The middle part of the document, however, has been broken up into minute fragments,
- ↑ Traces of P's general vocabulary are very numerous. Besides
some of those (marked by *) already enumerated in contrast to J, we
have (
Hebrew characters) (69); (Hebrew characters) (69 912); (Hebrew characters) (610); (Hebrew characters) (618 99. 11. 17) and (Hebrew characters)
(912); (Hebrew characters) in enumerations (618 713 816 etc.); (Hebrew characters) (620 714); (Hebrew characters) (620
7(8). 14. 21 817. 19 92. 3); (Hebrew characters) (721 817 97); (Hebrew characters) (621 93); (Hebrew characters) (713);
(Hebrew characters) (719); (Hebrew characters) of specification (721 817 910. 15. 16); (Hebrew characters) (817 91. 7);
(Hebrew characters) (819); (Hebrew characters) (916).—Of the style of J the positive indications
are fewer: (Hebrew characters) (68); (Hebrew characters) in the sense 'destroy' (67 74. 23) [see Ho. Hex.
101]; (Hebrew characters) (66); (Hebrew characters) (74. 23 88 (? 13 LXX)); (Hebrew characters) (821). See the comm.
of Di. Ho. Gu. etc.
