examining the solution proposed by Gu. He assigns 1a.* bγ. 2a. 3b. 4. 6. 9.
10. 12aα. b. 17. 18a. bα to J; 1bαβ. 3a. [2b?] 5. 11. 12αβ. 13a. 14 (to (
Hebrew characters)) 16 to E; and 7. 8.
13b. 14bβ. 15. 18bβ. 19-21 to a redactor. On this analysis the J fragments
form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at v.7
being caused by R's insertion of 7f. But (1) it is not so easy to get
rid of 7f. V.8 is, and 6 is not, a suitable point of contact for 9ff.; and
the omission of 7f. would make the covenant a confirmation of the
promise of an heir, whereas 18 expressly restricts it to the possession of
the land. And (2) the parts assigned to J contain no marks of the
Yahwistic style except the name (Hebrew characters); they present features not elsewhere
observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas characteristic
of the Deuteronomic age. The following points may be here noted:
(a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram (1. 4);
(b) the address (Hebrew characters) (2a [cf.8]); (c) the theological reflexion on the
nature of Abram's righteousness (6: cf. Dt. 625 2413); (d) the idea of the
Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of JE, and
common in Dt.); to which may be added (e) the ideal boundaries of the
land and the enumeration of its inhabitants (18b-21), both of which are
Deuteronomistic (see on the vv. below). The ceremonial of 9f. 17 is no
proof of antiquity (cf. Jer. 3417ff.), and the symbolic representation of
Yahwe's presence in 17 is certainly not decisive against the late authorship
of the piece (against Gu.). It is difficult to escape the impression
that the whole of this J narrative (including 7f.) is the composition of an
editor who used the name (Hebrew characters), but whose affinities otherwise are with
the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.—This
result, however, still leaves unsolved problems. (1) It fails to
account for the obvious doublets in 2. 3. 2b and 3a are generally recognised
as the first traces in the Hex. of the document E, and 5 (a night
scene in contrast to 12. 17) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2)
With regard to [12?] 13-16, which most critics consider to be a redactional
expansion of J, I incline to the opinion of Gu., that 11. 13-16 form part of
the sequel to the E narrative recognised in 3a. 2b. 5 (note (Hebrew characters), v.16). (3)
The renewed introduction of Yahwe in v.7 forms a hiatus barely consistent
with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by
Bacon's suggestion that the proper position of the J material in 1-6 is
intermediate between 1518 and 161. But though this ingenious theory
removes one difficulty it creates others, and it leaves untouched what
seems to me the chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both
in 1-6 and 7-21.—The phenomena might be most fully explained by the
assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic
editor (probably RJE), and afterwards combined with extracts from its
own original; but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward
with any confidence.
1-6. The promise of an heir (J), and a numerous posterity (E).—1. The v. presupposes a situation of
1. (Hebrew characters)] frequent in E (221 401 481, Jos. 2429), but also
used by J (2220 397).—(Hebrew characters) (cf. v.4)] not elsewhere in the Hex.;
