It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the soundness
of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies itself by the readiness
with which the various motives assort themselves in two parallel series.
Its weak point is no doubt the awkward duplicate (8a || 9b) with which
B closes. Gu.'s bold conjecture that between the two there was an
etymological play on the name of the tower ((
Hebrew characters) or (Hebrew characters)) certainly
removes the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the
tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.[1] Against this,
however, we have to set the following considerations: the absence of
demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even in B; the facts
that only a single phrase ((Hebrew characters) in v.5) requires to be deleted as
redactional, and there is only one transposition (3b); and the facility
with which nearly all the numerous doublets (3a || 3b; 4aγ || 4b; (Hebrew characters) (5) ||
(Hebrew characters) (7); 6a(Greek characters), (Greek characters) || 6aγb; 9a || 8a + 9b) can be definitely assigned to the one recension
or the other. In particular, it resolves the difficulty presented by the
twofold descent of Yahwe in 5 and 7, from which far-reaching critical
consequences had already been deduced (see the notes). There are
perhaps some points of style, and some general differences of conception
between the two strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these
also may be reserved for the notes.
The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the
Ethnographic Table of ch. 10, and is indeed fundamentally irreconcilable
with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived as the result of
the natural increase and partition of the family, and variety of speech
as its inevitable concomitant (cf. (Hebrew characters), etc., in P, 105. 20. 31). Here, on
the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition of Yahwe;
and it is almost impossible to think that either a confusion of tongues or
a violent dispersion should follow genealogical lines of cleavage. It is
plausible, therefore, to assign the passage to that section of J (if there
be one) which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so
We. Bu. Sta. al.); although it must be said that the idea here is little
less at variance with the classification by professions of 420-22 than with
ch. 10. The truth is that the inconsistency is not of such a kind as
would necessarily hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in
historical sequence.
1-4. The Building of the City and the Tower.—(Compare the translation given above.) 1, 2. The expres-
1. (Hebrew characters) is not verbal pred. to (Hebrew characters), but merely introduces the
circumstantial sent., as in 1517 4235 etc. (Dav. § 141 and R.1). Such
a sent. is usually followed by (Hebrew characters), but see 1 Ki. 1320. It may certainly
be doubted if it could be followed by another (Hebrew characters) with inf. cl. (v.2); and
this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gu.'s analysis.—If there be
any distinction between (Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters), the former may refer to the
- ↑ In Jub. x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from the city, is
"Overthrow" ((
Greek characters)).
