as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not quite certain.
XI. 10-26.—The Genealogy of Shem (P).
Another section of the Tôlĕdôth, spanning the interval
between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the
most carefully planned of P's genealogies next to ch. 5;
with which it agrees in form, except that in MT the framework
is lightened by omitting the total duration of each
patriarch's life. In [E] this is consistently supplied; while
G merely adds to MT the statement (
Greek characters). The
number of generations in MT is 9, but in G 10, corresponding
with ch. 5. Few of the names can be plausibly
identified; these few are mostly geographical, and point
on the whole to NW Mesopotamia as the original home of
the Hebrew race.
In G the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān between
Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 1024). That this is a secondary alteration
is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in 1 Ch. 118. 24 G; (b) Ḳênān
already occurs in the former genealogy (59ff.); and (c) the figures
simply duplicate those of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah
as the first name (Bu. 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tu. De.); but
neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence between
thel ists of ch. 5 and 1110ff. An indication of the artificial character
of these genealogies is found in the repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once
as the father, and again as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, Chron. Systeme, 7 ff.). It is not improbable that here, as in ch. 5 (corresponding
with 425f.), P has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, of
which a fragment may have been preserved in vv.28-30. We. (Comp.2 9,
Prol.6 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names left of P's
list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on 1021. 24) and the first Nāḥôr are
omitted (Abraham counting as the 7th). But there is no proof that the
Yahwistic genealogy lying behind ch. 5 was 7-membered; and J's
parallel to 1110ff. could not in any case be the continuation of 416-22.
10. (Hebrew characters)] see on 1022. He is here obviously the oldest son of Shem;
which does not necessarily involve a contradiction with ch. 10, the
arrangement there being dictated by geographical considerations.
Hommel (AA, 2221), maintaining his theory that Arp. = Ur-Kasdîm,
comes to the absurd conclusion that in the original list it was not the
name of Shem's son, but of his birthplace: 'Shem from Arpakshad'!—(Hebrew characters)]
The discrepancy between this statement and the chron-
