of the non-Priestly sections of chs. 2-11 (see pp. 3, 134). One important
consequence may here be noted. Eve's use of the name (
Hebrew characters), and the
subsequent notice of the introduction of the name (Hebrew characters), suggest that this
writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as E and P previously
to Ex. 314ff. and Ex. 62ff.). Hence, if it be the case that one
recension of the Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use
of (Hebrew characters) (see p. 53), 425. 26 will naturally be regarded as the sequel to
that recension.
3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of vv.1-16. That it
belongs to J in the wider sense is undisputed,[1] but its precise affinities
within the Yahwistic cycle are exceedingly perplexing. If the theory
mentioned at the end of the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use
of the name (Hebrew characters)[2] would show that it was unknown to the author of
vv.25. 26 and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by these vv.
Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy in which it is embedded?
It certainly contains notices—such as the introduction of agriculture
and (perhaps) the origin of sacrifice—in keeping with the idea of the
genealogy; but the length and amplitude of the narration would be
without parallel in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an
obvious incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a
fugitive unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (v.17), who as
the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of stable civilised life.[3]
Still more complicated are the relations of the passage to the history of
the Fall in ch. 3. On the one hand, a series of material incongruities
seem to show that the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption
of an already existing population on the earth could hardly have been
made by the author of ch. 3; the free choice of occupation by the two
brothers, and Yahwe's preference for the shepherd's sacrifice, ignore
the representation (319) that husbandry is the destined lot of the race;
and the curse on Cain is recorded in terms which betray no consciousness
of a primal curse resting on the ground. It is true, on the other
hand, that the literary form of 41-16 contains striking reminiscences of
that of ch. 3. The most surprising of these (47b 316b) may be set down
to textual corruption (see the note on the v.); but there are several other
turns of expression which recall the language of the earlier narrative:
cf. 49. 10. 11 with 39. 13. 17. In both we have the same sequence of sin,
investigation and punishment (in the form of a curse), the same dramatic
dialogue, and the same power of psychological analysis. But whether
these resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship is a
question that cannot be confidently answered. There is an indistinct-
- ↑ Cf. (
Hebrew characters), 1. 3. 4. 6. 9. 13. 15. 16; (Hebrew characters), 11; (Hebrew characters), 15; and obs. the resemblances
to ch. 3 noted below: the naming of the child by the mother.]. In GA(Greek characters) occurs twice (3. 13), (Greek characters) 5 times (1. 4. 9. 10. 16), and (Greek characters) 3
times (6. 15. 15) (for variants, see Cambridge LXX).
- ↑ This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in [G
- ↑ Even if we adopt Bu.'s emendation of v.17, and make Enoch the city-founder (see on the v.), it still remains improbable that that rôle should be assigned to the son of a wandering nomad.
