whereas in 1Ch.v.10 we have 'They made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand, and they dwelt (vi) in their tents?'

49. ix.28,29, Elohist.

These verses refer plainly to vii.6, and correspond exactly with the E. data in v.7,8, &c., except that no mention is made of Noah's begetting sons and daughters' after the Flood. It would seem that he was supposed to have had only three sons, 'Shem, Ham, and Japheth,' all born before the Flood; and, indeed, the Jehovist tells us, ix. 19, that

'these were the three sons of Noah, and out of them was the whole earth overspread.'

50. x.1-32, Jehovist, except v.8-12.

(i) v.1, and these are the generations of the sons of Noah';

No formula like this occurs among the E formula in (2.iii); and E would hardly have written this, inasmuch as he writes in xi.10, 'these are the generations of Shem!'

(ii) v.1, 'and there were born (7) to them sons';

comp. 'and there was born (7) to Enoch Irad,' iv.18.

(iii) v.1, 'after the Flood,' may be taken from ix.28 (E) just preceding.

*(iv) v.5, 'out of these were separated the isles of the nations,' (47.ii).

*(v) v.5,32, 777, 'be separated,' (3.x).

(vi) v.5,20,31,32, comp. these summarising clauses at the end of the corresponding passages with ix.19.

*(vii) v.13,15,24,24,26, 7, ‘beget,' (5.xxvi).

*(viii) v.18, D, 'be spread-abroad,' (47.iv).

*(ix) v.19, at thy going-to Gerar,' 'at thy going to Sodom,' v.30, 'at thy going to Sephar';

comp. 'at thy going to Zoar,' xiii.10, 'at thy going to Asshur,' xxv.18.

*(x) v.19, ‘and the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, at thy going to Gerar, unto Gaza,-at thy going to Sodom, &c. unto Lasha'; v.30, 'and their dwelling was from Mesha, at thy going to Sephar';

comp. 'and they abode from Havilah unto Shur, at thy going to Asshur,' xxv.18. (xi) v.19, Sodom and Gomorrah,' x.19,xiii.10, xviii.20,xix.24,28, comp. Sodom,'

xiii.12,13, xviii. 16,22,26, xix. 1,1,4,—also J2 (xiv.2,8, &c.)

(xii) v.21, 'and to Shem-to him also there was born'; comp. and to Seth-to him also there was born,' iv.26.

*(xiii) v.21, 'elder brother,' (47.viii).

(xiv) v.21,25,, 'be born,' as in iv.26, vi.l.

*(xv) v.25, the name of the one was Peleg (1), for in his days the earth was divided (1)'; direct derivation as in (3.xvi).

(xvi) v.25, the earth' used for its inhabitants as in ix.19.

*(xvii) v.25, 'in his days the earth was divided,' v.32, 'out of these were separated the nations in the earth,' (47.ii).

*(xviii) v.30, D??, ‘east,' (3.vi).

(xix) comp. the remarkable amount of geographical knowledge shown by the Jehovist in this chapter with the other instances quoted in (3.vii).

51. x.8-12, Deuteronomist.

On this passage I have written as follows in IV.366:

There is one point in respect of which there is an appearance of artificiality in the list of names in this chapter, viz. that there are exactly seventy national names given in this register, if we omit the passage about Nimrod, v.8-12, which has some appearance of being a later interpolation, whether by the same or another writer,— since five sons of Cush are given in v.7, and it is strange that the story should begin again, v.8, 'and Cush begat Nimrod,'—and which at all events is concerned with the acts of an individual person, and not with a tribe or people. The number 'seventy' may have reference to the 'seventy' souls of the House of Jacob, which came into Egypt, G.xlvi.27; comp. also D.xxxii.8, 'When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.'

And I quoted also upon v.8-12 the opinion of Mr. BEVAN, Smith's Dict. of the Bible, p.545:—

It does not seem to have formed part of the original genealogical statement, but to be an interpolation of a later date. It is the only instance in which personal characteristics are attributed to any of the names mentioned. The proverbial expression, which it embodies, bespeaks its traditional and fragmentary character; and there is nothing to connect the passage either with what precedes or with what follows it.

52. HUPFELD, p.139,223, regards the passage, v.8-12, as— a separate fragment, which has thrust itself into the genealogy, but is recognisable, both through contents and form, as a foreign element.

BOEHMER, p.157, gives to the Compiler only the words in v.8, he began to be a mighty one upon the earth,' with 'Japheth's elder brother,' v.21, and the notices each according to his tongue,' v.5, after their tongues,' v.20,31, which notices he supposes to be inserted as a preparation for the account of the dispersion of tongues in xi.1-9, (ascribing this to the same author,) and he would give to the Compiler also, p.158—

if any one prefers, the phrases by their lands and according to their families, v.5, 20,31, or even more.

He writes also, p.83:

'There is no reason to ascribe v.8-12 wholly to the Compiler with Hupfeld. The interruption of the genealogy through the insertion of historical remarks lies, as is well known, in the plan of such lists. So in the case of Enoch, v.24, we have an account of his being taken to heaven. The Compiler found this passage already before him, and himself made an insertion in it. That it belongs to B(J) is confirmed by a consideration of the political relations, under which he wrote.

53. We cannot assent to BOEHMER's views, but believe (with HUPFELD) that the whole passage, v.8-12, betrays itself manifestly as a foreign element'; and we assign it—not partially, with BOEHMER, but-entirely to the later Compiler or, in our view, Editor, whom we regard as identical with the Deuteronomist. In fact, it appears to us to be one of his antiquarian notices (16-18), similar to that in vi.4. The following analysis may serve to confirm this view, and will show, at all events, that there is nothing in these verses incongruous with his style.

(i) The fact noticed above,-that without Nimrod there are just 70 national names given in this chapter, whether or not there is any reference here to G.xlvi. 27, D.xxxii. 8, seems to imply that this passage is inserted by a strange hand. (ii) v.8, and Cush begat Nimrod,' points to a different writer from the Jchovist, who has already named the five sons and two grandsons of Cush in v.7.

(iii), 'beget,' as in D.xxxii.18; but D uses also in, iv.25, xxviii.41. (iv) v.8, he began to be a mighty-one in the earth': this personal notice differs from the general style of the chapter, and betrays a strange writer.

(v) v.8, ↳ŋŋ, ‘begin,' D.ii.24,25,31,31, iii.24, xvi.9,9, Jo.iii.7(D).

(vi) v.8,9,9, i, 'mighty-one,' vi.4(D), D.x.17,Jo,i. 14, vi. 2, viii.3, x, 2,7(D),— nowhere else in the Pentateuch.

(vii) v.9, 7th in, he was,' Jo.xvii.1 (D).

(viii) v.9, ¡y, therefore,' D.x.9.

(ix) v.9, 'before the face of Jehovah,' D.i.45, &c. xxiv.4,13, &c.

N.B. BOEHMER, p.161, note, suggests that the name 'Nimrod' may be derived from, rebel,' and, perhaps, = ?, 'let us rebel'; comp. xi.4, ‘let us build us a tower and its top reaching to heaven,' and Targ. Pal. in loco. 'He was a mighty rebel before the Lord there hath not been as Nimrod, mighty in hunt

ing, and a rebel before the Lord.'

54. HUPFELD supposes, as in the case of the Sethite names (6) in iv.17-23, that here also the Jehovist gave originally a

complete genealogy of the descendants of Noah-down to Abraham, or beyond him?--which the Compiler has cut off in v.25 at Peleg, because he was about to insert the E. list of the same names, which was identical. He writes as follows, p.137:

The genealogy of the line of Shem, standing in close connection with the sacred history, is given by the Elohist, but is left here incomplete. For this chapter gives only the first members of it as far as Peleg, which is done in order to arrive at Joktan, the oldest progenitor of the Arabians, about whom E does not trouble himself. The others-Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah, with the descent of Abraham-are left out, exactly as the members after Enos in the Sethite genealogy, and manifestly for the same reason as there, because they are given completely out of E, and so would form with these a mere repetition. This, then, would be the second omission, which the Compiler has seen it proper to make for obvious reasons in the J. document.

Ans. As before, it appears to us that the Jehovist merely wrote to supplement the matter which already lay before him, and that, having some information about the Arabian tribes, which he wished to communicate, he has simply repeated the first few members of the Shemite genealogy in xi.10-26, in order to arrive at Peleg and Joktan. The fact that his list contains exactly seventy names as it now stands (without Nimrod) seems a strong indication that it never really contained more.

It is important to observe that the Jehovistic genealogies in iv.17-22, x.1-7,13-32, relate principally to races, which are only collaterally connected with the direct line through Abraham; whereas the Elohist confines himself exclusively to the holy line through Abraham, v.1-32, xi.10-26.

55. xi.1-9, Jehovist.

=

(i) v.1, 'all the earth' its inhabitants, as in ix.19.

(ii) v.3, 'one unto his comrade,' v.7, 'one of his comrade,' comp. xxxi.49, xliii.33, --also D (xv.10).

*(iii) v.2, D, 'east,' (3.vi).

*(iv) v.3,4,7, nạņ, an, 'give here,' xi.3,4,7,xxix. 21,xxx.1°,xxxviii. 16, xlvii. 15,16. (v) v.3, ‘and the brick (njab.) was to them for stone (17), and the asphalte (p) was to them for mortar (n),'-alliterations as in (5.xvii).

*(vi) v.4,8,9, D, 'be spread-abroad,' (47.iv).

(vii) v.4,8,9, 'upon the face of all the earth,' as in vii.3, viii.9; also E (i.29). (viii) v.5, ‘Jehovah came down to see the city,' v.7, 'come on, let us go down, and

confound their language'; strong anthropomorphisms, (3.xx).

(ix) v.5, 'the sons of man,' comp. 'the daughters of man,' vi.2.

(x) v.6, and Jehovah said, Behold! &c.'; comp. similar secret speeches ascribed to Jehovah in (3.xii).

*(xi) 2.6, 5r, lukhd, ‘begin, (5.xxix).

*(xii) v.9, ‘therefore (12-by)

one called its name Babel';

comp. xi.9, xvi.14, xix.22, xxi.31, xxv.30, xxvi.33, xxix.34,35, xxx.6, xxxi.48, xxxiii.17, 1.11.

*(xiii) v.9, 1-by, therefore,' (3.xvii).

(xiv) v.9, the name ‘Babel' (7) derived from a, ‘confound,' (3.iv).

N.B. The above derivation of 'Babel,' like that of 'Noah' (11.i), is incorrect. There is little doubt among scholars that the word is properly Bab-Il, meaning 'House of God.'

(xv) This account of the confusion of tongues and dispersion of mankind appears to be connected with the J. statement that in Peleg's days 'the earth wa divided,' x.25.

was

N.B. It is not improbable that, as BоEHMER suggests, p.172, the word 'lip,' may be used in this passage repeatedly, v.1,6,7,7,9, in an unusual sense for 'language,' (for which ji, tongue, is more commonly used, x.5,20,31,) with special reference to the name Borsippa, in accordance with the Talmud (BUXTORF. Lex. p.362) ‘say not Borsiph but Balsiph, for there, He confounded the lip.'

56. BOEHMER, p.158, &c. ascribes the above section to the Compiler, and writes thus, p.159:

The commencement of the building at Shinar cannot be thought of after Nimrod, if the account is to harmonise in any way with G.x; since Babel is named there as the beginning of his kingdom. (1) He himself, that is, Ninus, founded Babel, and, doubtless, at the time of Peleg. (2)

The Jehovist in his remark upon the name of Peleg, x.25, points to this fact, that Nimrod found a political order already in existence and destroyed it;(5) for no more meaning lies in here than in the of Dan. v.28; these words

both point not to any division of territory, but rather allow just as well the idea of a strong centralisation, here being 'the kingdom,' comp.xli.36.(4) Whereas the narrative in xi.1-9 exhibits a state of things, as if Noah and his family, upon their descent from Ararat, were at that time the first and only men who traversed and inhabited that empty district, after the Flood. (5) On account of this variation in the narrative, we must ascribe to the Compiler the story in xi.1-9, and not to the Jehovist, to whom otherwise it might be ascribed, and to whom even HUPFELD ascribes it, p.139,223, as if there were no other alternative-notwithstanding that he himself (though upon other insufficient grounds, which are set aside by our own explanation) finds it in contradiction to G.x.

Ans. (1) Boehmer's difficulty arises from his having ascribed the account about Nimrod, x.8-12, mainly to the Jehovist, whereas we believe that passage to be a later-probably Deuteronomistic-interpolation (53).

(2) D says that Nimrod founded Babel, x.10; J says v.25, that in Peleg's days 'the earth was divided,' and in our view the latter was here preparing for his own narrative now before us in xi.1-9; but the later interpolator has not perceived