[2] The divergences of detail, with corresponding stylistic variations, were recognized long ago (e.g. by Father Simon in 1682).
[3] As early as 1685 Jean le Clerc observed that Ur of the Chaldees (Chasdim) in xi. 28 anticipates Chesed in xxii. 22, and implied some knowledge of the land of the Chaldaeans (cf. Ezek. i. 3, xi. 24).
[4] The Catholic priest Andrew du Maes (1570) already pointed to the names Hebron and Dan as signs of post-Mosaic date.
[5] Note the repetitions in vv. 2 and 3; Abraham’s faith, vv. 4-6, and his request, v. 8; contrast the time of day, v. 5 and v. 12, and the dates, v. 13 and v. 16. In vv. 12-15 there is a reference to the bondage in Egypt.
[6] These and other chronological embarrassments, now recognized as due to the framework of the post-exilic writer (P), have long been observed—by Spinoza, 1671.
[7] Points of resemblance in xxiii. with Babylonian usage have often been exaggerated; comparison “shows noteworthy differences” (T.G. Pinches, The Old Testament, p. 238); see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, i. 64, Driver, Gen. p. 230, and Addenda.
[8] Note, e.g., the sudden introduction of xxix. 15, the curious position of v. 24 (due to P), the double play upon the names Zebulun and Joseph, xxx. 20, 23 seq., the internal intricacies in the agreement, ib. vv. 31-43; the difficulties in the reference to the latter in xxxi. 6 sqq. (especially v. 10).
[9] See Ed. Meyer (and B. Luther), Die Israëliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), pp. 238 sqq.; also the shrewd remarks of C.T. Beke, Origines biblicae (1834), pp. 123 sqq.
[10] It is interesting to find that the Spanish Rabbi Isaac (of Toledo, A.D. 982-1057), noticing that the royal list must be later than the time of Saul (also recognized by Martin Luther and others), proposed to assign the chapter to the age of Jehoshaphat.
[11] But the chronology is hopeless, and only ten years are allowed according to another and later scheme (xxv. 26, xxxv. 28, xlvii. 9).