Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/154

examination (3^9ff.), etc. While the purely mythological phase of thought has long been outgrown, a mythical background everywhere appears; the happy garden of God, the magic trees, the speaking serpent, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, are all emblems derived from a more ancient religious tradition. Yet in depth of moral and religious insight the passage is unsurpassed in the OT. We have but to think of its delicate handling of the question of sex, its profound psychology of temptation and conscience, and its serious view of sin, in order to realise the educative influence of revealed religion in the life of ancient Israel. It has to be added that we detect here the first note of that sombre, almost melancholy, outlook on human life which pervades the older stratum of Gn. 1-11. Cf. the characterisation in We. Prol.⁶ 302 ff.; Gu. p. 22 ff.

Source.—The features just noted, together with the use of the divine name (Hebrew characters), show beyond doubt that the passage belongs to the Yahwistic cycle of narratives (J). Expressions characteristic of this document are found in (Hebrew characters) 2¹⁴, (Hebrew characters) 2²³, (Hebrew characters) 3¹³, (Hebrew characters) 3^{14. 17}, (Hebrew characters) 3^{16. 17}, (Hebrew characters) 3¹⁷; and (in contrast to P) (Hebrew characters), 'create,' instead of (Hebrew characters) instead of (Hebrew characters), (Hebrew characters) instead of (Hebrew characters) (see on 7²²); and the constant use of acc. suff. to the verb.

Traces of Composition.—That the literary unity of the narrative is not perfect there are several indications, more or less decisive. (1) The geographical section 2^10-14 is regarded by most critics (since Ewald) as a later insertion, on the grounds that it is out of keeping with the simplicity of the main narrative, and seriously interrupts its sequence. The question is whether it be merely an isolated interpolation, or an extract from a parallel recension. If the latter be in evidence, we know too little of its character to say that 2^10-14 could not have belonged to it. At all events the objections urged would apply only to ^11-14; and there is much to be said, on this assumption, for retaining ¹⁰ (or at least ^10a) as a parallel to v.⁶ (Ho.).—(2) A more difficult problem is the confusion regarding the two trees on which the fate of man depends, a point to which attention was first directed by Bu. According to 2^9b the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew together in the midst of the garden, and in 2¹⁷ the second alone is made the test of the man's obedience. But ch. 3 (down to v.²¹) knows of only one tree in the midst of the garden, and that obviously (though it is never so named) the tree of knowledge. The tree of life plays no part in the story except in 3^{22. 24}, and its sudden introduction there only creates fresh embarrassment; for if this tree also was forbidden, the writer's silence about it in 2¹⁷ 3³ is inexplicable; and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose that in the author's intention the boon of immortality was placed freely within man's reach during the period of his probation? So far as the main narrative is concerned, the tree of life is an irrelevance; and we shall see immediately that the part where it does enter into the story is precisely the part where signs of redaction or dual authorship accumulate.—(3) The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the twofold account of the expulsion from Eden: 3^{23. 24}. Here ²² and ²⁴ clearly hang together; ²⁰ and ²¹ are as clearly out of their proper