of plan.  When the subject treated is not history but legends about pre-historic times, the arrangement of the materials does not come with the materials themselves, but must arise out of the plan of a narrator:  even the architecture of the generations, which forms the scaffolding of Genesis, is not inseparably bound up with the matters to be disposed of in it.  From the mouth of the people there comes nothing but the detached narratives, which may or may not happen to have some bearing on each other:  to weave them together in a connected whole is the work of the poetical or literary artist.  Thus the agreement of the sources in the plan of the narrative is not a matter of course, but a matter requiring explanation, and only to be explained on the ground of the literary dependence of one source on the other.  The question how this relation of dependence is to be defined is thus a much more pressing one than is commonly assumed. 1

***************************************** 1.  The agreement extends not only to the thread of the narrative, but also to particulars, and even to expressions.  I do not speak of mabbul (flood), or tebah (ark), but the following examples have struck me:-In Q Genesis vi. 9, Noah is said to be righteous in his generations, in J E vii. 1 he is righteous in his generation—­ an unusual form of speech, which gave a vast amount of trouble to the Rabbins and to Jerome.  Similarly Q Genesis xvii. 21, the son whom Sarah shall bear at this set time next year, and JE xviii. 14:  at the same time I will come to thee again next year, and then Sarah shall have a son.  In the same way Q Exodus vi. 12 vii. 1.  (Moses) I am of uncircumcised lips. (Jehovah) See, I make thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet; compared with JE iv. 10, 16. (Moses) I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue; (Jehovah) Aaron shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.  Comp.  Genesis xxvii. 46, with xxv:  22. *************************************

This, however, is not the place to attempt a history of the development of the Israelite legend.  We are only to lay the foundation for such a work, by comparing the narrative of the Priestly Code with the Jehovistic one.  In doing so we shall see that Buttmann (Mythologus, i. p. 122 seq.) is right in asserting against de Wette (Beitraege, ii.), that, the Jehovistic form of the legend is the earlier of the two . 2

**************************************** 2.  The line indicated by Buttmann was first taken up again by Th.  Noldeke in his Essay on the main-stock of the Pentateuch, which opened the way to a proper estimate of the narrative part of the work. ****************************************

VIII.I.