exhibit their origin and mutual relationships in the form of a genealogical tree.
Analysis.—The separation of the two main sources is due to the
lucid and convincing analysis of We. (Comp.2 6 ff.). The hand of P is
easily recognised in the superscription (1a (
Hebrew characters)), and the methodical
uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening and
closing formulæ. The headings of the three sections are: (Hebrew characters) (2),
(Hebrew characters) (6), and (Hebrew characters) (22); the respective conclusions are found in 5.
(mutilated) 20. 31, v.32 being a final summary. This framework, however,
contains several continuous sections which obviously belong to J.
(a) 8-12; the account of Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by P among
the sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong contrast
to P: note also (Hebrew characters); instead of (Hebrew characters) (8), (Hebrew characters) (9). (b) 13f.: the sons of
Mizraim (v. (Hebrew characters)). (c) 15-19: the Canaanites ((Hebrew characters)). (d) 21. 25-30: the Shemites
((Hebrew characters) 21. 25; (Hebrew characters) 26).—Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold
introduction to Shem (21 22), and the discrepancy between 7 and 28f. regarding
(Hebrew characters) and (Hebrew characters). The documents, therefore, assort themselves as
follows:
P: 1a; 2-5; 6f. 20; 22f. 31; 32
J: 1b (?); 8-12; 13f.; 15-19; 21. 25-30.
Vv.9. 16-18a and 24 are regarded by We. and most subsequent writers as interpolations: see the notes. The framework of P is made the basis of the Table; and so far as appears that document has been preserved in its original order. In J the genealogy of Shem (21. 25-30) is probably complete; that of Ham (13f. 15ff.) is certainly curtailed; while every trace of Japheth has been obliterated (see, however, p. 208). Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand in their original order, we have no means of determining.
The analysis has been carried a step further by Gu. (2 74 f.), who
first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic Table, and its
connexion with the two recensions of J which appear in ch. 9. He
agrees with We. Di. al. that 918f. forms the transition from the story
of the Flood to a list of nations which is partly represented in ch. 10;
101b being the immediate continuation of 919 in that recension of J (Jj).
But he tries to show that 920-27 was also followed by a Table of Nations,
and that to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in ch. 10 belong (8. 10-12.
15. 21. 25-29 = Je). This conclusion is reached by a somewhat subtle
examination of v.21 and vv.15-19. In v.21 Shem is the 'elder brother of
Japheth,' which seems to imply that Japheth was the second son of Noah
as in 920ff.; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but
Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between
15 and 18b. 19. In 19 the northern limit of the Canaanites is Ẓidon, whereas
in 15 Canaan includes the Ḥittites, and has therefore the wider geographical
sense which Gu. postulates for 920-27 (see p. 186 above). He
also calls attention to the difference in language between the eponymous
(Hebrew characters) in 15 and the gentilic (Hebrew characters) in 18b. 19, and considers that this was a
characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these premises
the further dissection of the Table follows easily enough. Vv.8-12 may be
