that the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack that particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral traditions and historic notices relating to the same individual proves that the former rest on a basis of fact; but it does not warrant the inference that the oral tradition is accurate in detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the circumstances of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham of oral tradition is a far more important religious personality than Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in ch. 14.
2. Ethnological theories.—The negative conclusion expressed
above (p. xvii f.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian
analogies to the patriarchal tradition, depends partly on the
assumption of the school of writers whose views were
under consideration: viz., that the narratives are a transcript
of actual family life in that remote age, and therefore
susceptible of illustration from private law as we find it
embodied in the Cod. Ḫamm. It makes, however, little
difference if for family relations we substitute those of clans
and peoples to one another, and treat the individuals as
representatives of the tribes to which Israel traced its origin.
We shall then find the real historic content of the legends
in migratory movements, tribal divisions and fusions, and
general ethnological phenomena, which popular tradition
has disguised as personal biographies. This is the line of
interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles
since Ewald;[1] and it has given rise to an extraordinary
variety of theories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it
is not necessarily inconsistent with belief in the individual
existence of the patriarchs; though its more extreme exponents
do not recognise this as credible. The theories in
question fall into two groups: those which regard the
narratives as ideal projections into the past of relations subsisting,
or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in
Canaan;[2] and those which try to extract from them a real
history of the period before the Exodus. Since the former
class deny a solid tradition of any kind behind the patriarchal
story, we may here pass them over, and confine our atten-
