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

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

J^h: 12^1-8*; 13^2-18*; 18^{1-16. 20-22a. 33b}; 19^1-28; 19^30-38;
J^b: 12⁹-13¹; 16; 21^1-7*; 21^22-34[*]; 24*.^[2]

The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are ch. 15* (see above); and the two genealogies, 22^20-24 and 25^1-6, both inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other passages (13^14-17 18^{17-19. 22b-33a} 22^15-18) which appear to have been added during the redaction (R^J or R^JE) will be examined in special notes ad locc.

2. The hand of E is recognised in the following sections: 15*; 20; 21^1-7*; 21^8-21; 21^22-34*; 22^1-19 (24* ?). Gu. has pointed out that where J and E run parallel to one another, E's affinites are always with J^b and never with J^h (cf. the variants 12^9ff. 20; 16 21^8-21; and the compositions in 21^1-7 and 21^22-34). This, of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that E, like J^b, 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 J^b, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called J^h, 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 J^b.
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 J^h in the biography of Abraham
   may be the continuation of J^e in the primitive history. Both use the
   phrase 'call by the name of Yahwe' (4²⁶ 12⁸ [13⁴], [but cf. 21³³ (J^b)]);
   and the optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of Noah
   (9^26ff.) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of J^h. 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).