Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/520

consequences, ^{25f. 30f.} (I.); but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, ^27-29 (II.).

Sources.—If style alone were decisive, I. might safely be identified with J: note (Hebrew characters), ³ (2²⁴); (Hebrew characters), ^{3. 12}; (Hebrew characters), ¹¹; (Hebrew characters), ³⁰. In II., Corn. has pointed out some linguistic affinities with E (see the notes on (Hebrew characters), ³; (Hebrew characters), ⁴; (Hebrew characters), ^{10. 21} etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: (Hebrew characters), ²; (Hebrew characters), ^{5. 13. 27}; (Hebrew characters), ¹⁰; (Hebrew characters), ^{15. 22}; (Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters), ²³; (Hebrew characters), ²⁴; (Hebrew characters) ²⁴ (bis): comp. the list in Kue. Ges. Abh. 269 f. These are so striking that Di. and Dri. assign the narrative unhesitatingly to P, and all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Corn. calls attention to a very similar case in Nu. 31). But there are grave material difficulties in assigning either recension to J or E. (1) In ch. 34, Jacob's children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of time since ch. 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal life consistently maintained by J and (hardly less consistently) by E. (3) Against I. = J, in particular, (a) In J the patriarch is generally named Israel after 32²⁸; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We have seen reason to believe that in J, Jacob was not W of the Jordan at all at this time (p. 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem (37^12ff.) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence. (4) As regards II. = E, there is less difficulty; but on this hypothesis the amalgamation with J must be due to R^JE; and how does it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48²² (E). (5) Finally, if Ḥōrite be the true reading in v.², we have here a tradition differing from any of the Pent. documents. These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also shows that in Gen. there are sporadic traces of a divergent tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chs. 38. 48²²). To this (older) tradition he assigns ch. 34. The first recension must have taken literary shape within the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33¹⁹ (E). This seems to me the best solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles.—Calling the two narratives J^x and E^x, we divide as follows:

 J^x (= I.): ^{3a. 2b*. 3b _{(Greek characters)}. 11. 12. 14. 19. 25a. 26. 30. 31}. E^x (= II.): ^{1. 2a. 2b*. 3b_{(Greek characters)}. 4. 5?. 6. 7?. 8-10. 13a. 15-18a. 20-24. 27. (25b). 28. 29}.

Comp. We. Comp.² 45 f., 314 ff.; Kue. ThT, 1880, 257 ff. (= Ges. Abhandl. 255 ff.), Ond. i. 315 f.; Corn. ZATW, xi. 1-15; Mey. INS, 412 ff.; De. 413; Di. 368 ff.; Ho. 213 ff.; Gu. 326 ff.; Stra. 126 f.; Pro. 35 f. 1-12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in marriage.—2. the Ḥivvite] see on 10¹⁷; G the

1. (Hebrew characters) 27⁴⁶ (P or R).—2. (Hebrew characters)] G (Hebrew characters). Confusion of (Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters) is