Jump to content

Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/343

From Wikisource
This page needs to be proofread.

it also to Jb. With regard to ch. 24, it is impossible to say whether it belongs to Jh or Jb: we assign it provisionally to the latter.[1] The bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two parallel series as follows:

Jh: 121-8*; 132-18*; 181-16. 20-22a. 33b; 191-28; 1930-38;
Jb: 129-131; 16; 211-7*; 2122-34[*]; 24*.[2]

The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are ch. 15* (see above); and the two genealogies, 2220-24 and 251-6, both inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other passages (1314-17 1817-19. 22b-33a 2215-18) which appear to have been added during the redaction (RJ or RJE) will be examined in special notes ad locc.

2. The hand of E is recognised in the following sections: 15*; 20; 211-7*; 218-21; 2122-34*; 221-19 (24* ?). Gu. has pointed out that where J and E run parallel to one another, E's affinites are always with Jb and never with Jh (cf. the variants 129ff. 20; 16 218-21; and the compositions in 211-7 and 2122-34). This, of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that E, like Jb, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the scene of Abraham's history. But it is remarkable that in ch. 26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to E and Jb, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called Jh, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba.

Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend, which has some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it must be held with great reserve. The tradition crystallised mainly at two great religious centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The Beersheba narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic and an Elohistic, of which (it may be

  1. Gu. analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to each source. The question is discussed in the Note, pp. 340 f., where the opinion is hazarded that the subordinate source may be E, in which case the other would naturally be Jb.
  2. It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis of the
    Yahwistic portions of chs. 1-11 (pp. 2-4). In each case J appears as a
    complex document, formed by the amalgamation of prior collections of
    traditions; and the question naturally arises whether any of the component
    narratives can be traced from the one period into the other.
    It is impossible to prove that this is the case; but certain affinities of
    thought and expression suggest that Jh in the biography of Abraham
    may be the continuation of Je in the primitive history. Both use the
    phrase 'call by the name of Yahwe' (426 128 [134], [but cf. 2133 (Jb)]);
    and the optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of Noah
    (926ff.) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of Jh. Have we here
    fragments of a work whose theme was the history of the Yahwe-religion,
    from its commencement with Enosh to its establishment in the
    leading sanctuaries of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 127
    (Shechem), 128 (Bethel), 1318 (Hebron), 2625 (Beersheba).