XIV. Abram’s Victory over Four Kings.…

XIV. Abram’s Victory over Four Kings.

While Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings in the Jordan valley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer of Elam brought from the East a great punitive expedition, in which no fewer than four powerful monarchs took part. A successful campaign――the course of which is traced in detail――ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a pitched battle in what is now the Dead Sea basin, followed by the sack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (¹⁻¹²). Abram, with a handful of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to Dan, routs them in a night attack, and rescues the captives, including Lot (¹³⁻¹⁶). On his homeward journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses him in the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes (¹⁸⁻²⁰); and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil Abram rejects with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity (¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴).――Such is in brief the content of this strange and perplexing chapter, in its present form and setting. It is obvious that the first half is merely introductory, and that the purpose of the whole is to illustrate the singular dignity of Abram’s position among the potentates of the earth. Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take the field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and considerate of others in the hour of victory, reverential towards the name and representative of the true God, he moves as a ‘great prince’ amongst his contemporaries, combining the highest earthly success with a certain detachment and unworldliness of character.――Whether the picture be historically true or not――a question reserved for a concluding note――it is unfair to deny to it nobility of conception; and it is perhaps an exaggeration to assert that it stands in absolute and unrelieved opposition to all we elsewhere read of Abram. The story does not give the impression that Abram forfeits the character of ‘Muslim and prophet’ (Wellhausen) even when he assumes the rôle of a warrior.

Literary character.――Many features of the chapter show that it has had a peculiar literary history. (a) The vocabulary, though exhibiting sporadic affinities with Priestly-Code (רְכוּשׁ‎, ‎ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹; יְלִיד בַּֽיִת‎, ¹⁴; נֶפֶשׁ‎ [= ‘person’], ²¹) or Elohist (האמרי‎, ‎ ⁷ᐧ ¹³; בִּלְעָדַי‎, ²⁴), contains several expressions which are either unique or rare (see the footnotes): חָנִיךְ‎, ¹⁴; (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον); ‎ הֵרִיק‎, ¹⁴; הַפָּלִיט‎, ¹³; קֹנֶה‎, אֵל עֶלְיוֹן‎, ¹⁸⁻²⁰ᐧ ²²; מִגֵּן‎, ²⁰; מָרַד‎, ⁴.¹――(b) The numerous antiquarian glosses and archaic names, suggesting the use of an ancient document, have no parallel except in Deuteronomy 2¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ²⁰⁻²³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴; and even these are not quite of the same character. (c) The annalistic official style, specially noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or simulated; in either case it marks the passage sharply off from the narratives by which it is surrounded.――That the chapter as it stands cannot be assigned to any of the three sources of Genesis is now universally acknowledged, and need not be further argued here. Some writers postulate the existence of a literary kernel which may either (1) have originated in one of the schools Yahwist or Elohist,² or (2) have passed through their hands.³ In neither form can the theory be made at all plausible. The treatment of documentary material supposed by (1) is unexampled in Genesis; and those who suggest it have to produce some sufficient reason why a narrative of (say) Elohist required to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be sure, no experience of how Elohist or Yahwist would have edited an old cuneiform document if it had fallen into their hands,――they were collectors of oral tradition, not manipulators of official records,――but we may presume that if the story would not bear telling in the vivid style that went to the hearts of the people, these writers would have left it alone. The objections to Priestly-Code’s authorship are equally strong, the style and subject being alike foreign to the well-marked character of the Priestly narration. Chapter xiv. is therefore an isolated boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch, a fact which certainly invites examination of its origin, but is not in itself an evidence of high antiquity.

¹ The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even in the translation of LXX, which has some unusual renderings: ἵππος for רְכוּשׁ‎, ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ (nowhere else in Old Testament); φάραγξ for עֵמֶק‎, ³ (not again in Pentateuch: twice in Joshua and 4 times in Book of Isaiah); περάτης (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) for ‎ עִבְרִי‎, ¹³,――though this might be explained by the unexpected occurrence of the gentilic in this connexion (Aquila περαΐτης).

² So Dillmann, Kittel (Geschichte der Hebräer, i. 124, 158 ff.), and (with reserve) Holzinger, all of whom think of Elohist as the most likely source.

³ So Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 26‒48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform document of legendary and mythical character, which was worked over first by Elohist and then by Yahwist (see below, page 272).

=1‒4. The revolt of the five kings.=――=1.= The four names (see below) do double duty,――as genitve after בִּימֵי‎ and as subject to עָשׂוּ מ׳‎――a faulty syntax which a good writer would have avoided (v.i.). The suggestion that the first two names are genitive and the last two subject,¹ has the advantage of putting Kĕdorlā‘omer, the head of the expedition (⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in the Hebrew text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from participation in the campaign (against ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), it necessitates a series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.――=2.= The group of five cities (Pentapolis, Wisdom 10⁶) is thought to be the result of an amalgamation of originally independent traditions.

¹ Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 27, 30; Peiser, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1897, 308 ff.; approved by Gunkel.

In chapter 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as destroyed (19²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ [18²⁰]; so 13¹⁰, Isaiah 1⁹ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 23¹⁴ etc.) and Zoar (19¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) as spared. Admah and Ẓeboim are named alone in Hosea 11⁸, in a manner hardly consistent with the idea that they were involved in the same catastrophe as Sodom and Gomorrah. The only passages besides this where the four are associated are 10¹⁹ and Deuteronomy 29²², although ‘neighbour cities’ of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in Jeremiah 49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Ezekiel 16⁴⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ. If, as seems probable, there were two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original tradition Admah and Ẓeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 66 f.).――The old name of Zoar, בֶּלַע‎ (Destruction?), appears nowhere else.

The four names in verse ¹ are undoubtedly historical, although the monumental evidence is less conclusive than is often represented. (1) אַמְרָפֶל‎ (Ἀμαρφαλ) is thought to be a faulty transcription of Ḫammurabi (Ammurab[p]i), the name of the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who put an end to the Elamite domination and united the whole country under his own sway (circa 2100 B.C.).¹ The final ל‎ presents a difficulty which has never been satisfactorily explained; but the equivalence is widely recognised by Assyriologists.² It is, however, questioned by Jensen³, absolutely rejected by Bezold,⁴ and pronounced ‘problematical’ by Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. 551.――(On שִׁנְעָר‎, see 10¹⁰.)――(2) אַרְיוֹךְ‎ (compare Daniel 2¹⁴, Judith 1⁶), it seems, is now satisfactorily identified with Eri-agu, the Sumerian equivalent of Arad-Sin, a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother, Rîm-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by Ḫammurabi in the 31st year of the latter’s reign (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 (Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften 210 f.; compare King, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings, volume i. 68²; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. page 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and Schrader’s attempt to identify Rîm-Sin with Arioch,⁵ though accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious Assyriologists, e.g. Jensen (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (op. cit. 27, 56), and Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 367). The objections do not hold against the equation Arioch = Eriagu = Arad-Sin, provided Arad-Sin be kept distinct from Rîm-Sin. The discovery by Pinches⁶ in 1892 of the name Eri-[E]aku or Eri-Ekua stands on a somewhat different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th century B.C.); the identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by King; ⁷ who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as either of the well-known contemporaries of Ḫammurabi. The real significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining names of the verse are supposed to occur.――(3) כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר‎ (Χοδολλογομορ) unquestionably stands for Kudur-lagamar, a genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known Elamite divinity Lagamar (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 485), preceded by a word which appears as a component of theophorous Elamite names (Kudur-mabug, Kudur-Nanḫundi, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The “sensational” announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it (Ku-dur-nu-uḫ-ga-mar) in a letter of Ḫammurabi to Sinidinnam, king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation of King (op. cit. xxv‒xxxix. Compare also Delitzsch Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam whose name, it was thought, might be read Kudur-laḫ-mal or Kudur-laḫ-gu-mal.⁸ The first element (Kudur) is no doubt right, but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.⁹ There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question, whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi.¹⁰ (4) ‎ תִּדְעָל‎ (LXXᴱᴸ Θαργαλ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)) was identified by Pinches with a “Tu-ud-ḫul-a, son of Gaz ...,” who is named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schrader Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance to Tid‛al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those who find ’Ariok and Kedorla‛omer in the same document; there is, however, no indication that Tudḫula was a king, or that he was contemporary with Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, op. cit.).――גּוֹיִם‎ can hardly be the usual word for ‘nations’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targum), either as an indefinite expression (Tuch) or as a “verschämtes et cetera” (Holzinger). We seem to require a proper name (Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word)); and many accept the suggestion of Rawlinson, that Guti (a people North of the Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם‎ is an attempt to render the common Babylonian title šar kiššati.

¹ See Introduction pages xiv f.

² See Schrader _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff.

³ Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1896, 252.

⁴ Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften, etc., 1904, pages 26, 54.

⁵ _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1894, xv. 279 ff.

⁶ See his Old Testament in the light, etc., 223 ff.; compare Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 181 ff.; and Sayce’s amended translation in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1906, 193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff.

⁷ Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi, i. page liii. Jensen, Peiser, and Bezold also pronounce against the identification.

⁸ This reading is questioned by King; see liv‒lvi, or the extract in Driver Genesis, Addenda on page 157 n. Sayce now (l.c. page 194 ff.) proposes to read Kudur-lakhkha-mal; but the reading appears to be purely conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing can be built upon it.

⁹ e.g. by King, Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 486¹), Peiser (who reads it Kudur-tur-bit, l.c. 310), Jensen, Bezold, al.

¹⁰ There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of Arad-Sin and Rîm-Sin) in the time of Ḫammurabi; but in our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Driver, _Genesis_⁷, Addenda xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that any fresh facts have come to light to make the guess more convincing than it was when first propounded.

The royal names in verse ² are of a different character from those of verse ¹. Several circumstances suggest that they are fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to all four (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Bereshith Rabba § 42, Rashi); and even modern scholars like Tuch and Nöldeke recognise in the first two a play on the words רַע‎ (evil) and רֶשֶׂע‎ (wickedness). And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative pairs, or that each king’s name contains exactly as many letters as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a) that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any conclusions based on the Hebrew (see the footnote); (b) the namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) Sanibu occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser IV. (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 294, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 21). These considerations do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list produces. Since the names are not repeated in verse ⁸, it is quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of course (on that view), unhistorical.――בֶּלַע‎ is elsewhere a royal name (36³²).

* * * * *

‎ =1.= בִּימֵי‎] LXX ἐν βασιλείᾳ; Vulgate in illo tempore, reading all the names in the nominative. LXX has the first in genitive and the rest nominative; LXXᴬ further inserts καί between the second and third. The reading of the Sixtine edition (first two names in genitive coupled by καί), which is appealed to in support of Winckler’s construction, has very little MS authority. “I have little doubt that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a rather carelessly written MS) and in 135 the reading is due to a scribe’s mistake, probably arising from misreading of a contracted termination and induced by the immediately preceding βασιλέως. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel sure.”¹――=2.= בֶּלַע‎] LXX Βαλλα, etc.――שִׁנְאָב‎] LXX Σεννααρ.――שֶׁמְאֵבֶר‎] LXX Συμοβορ, Συμορ The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שמאבר‎ (‘name has perished’), Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).――הִיא‎] the first of the 11 instances of this Kethîb in Pentateuch (see on 2¹²).

¹ Private communication from Mr. M‘Lean.

* * * * *

=3.= all these] not the kings from the East (Dillmann, Driver), but (see verse ⁴) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any doubt on the point is an indication of the weak style of the chapter. What exactly the verse means to say is not clear. The most probable sense is that the five cities formed a league] of the Vale of Siddim, and therefore acted in concert. This is more natural than to suppose the statement a premature mention of the preparations for battle in verse ⁸.――the Vale of Siddîm] The name is peculiar to this narrative, and its meaning is unknown (v.i.). The writer manifestly shares the belief (13¹⁰) that what is now the Dead Sea was once dry land (see page 273 f. below).――The Sea of Salt] one of the Old Testament names for the Dead Sea (Numbers 34³, Deuteronomy 3¹⁷, Joshua 3¹⁶ 15⁵ etc.): see Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements., 1904, 64. Winckler’s attempt to identify it with Lake Ḥuleh is something of a tour de force (Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 36 f.; compare 108 f.).――=4.= they rebelled] by refusal of tribute (2 Kings 18⁷ 24¹ᐧ ²⁰ etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the earlier part of Ḫammurabi’s reign is perfectly credible in the light of the monumental evidence (page 272). But the importance attributed in this connexion to the petty kings of the Pentapolis is one of the features which excite suspicion of the historicity of the narrative. To say that this is due to the writer’s interest in Lot and Sodom is to concede that his conception of the situation is determined by other influences than authentic historical information.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= חברוּ אל־‎] apparently a pregnant construct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 ee) = ‘came as confederates to’; but this is rather harsh. ‎ אֶל‎ after חבר‎ naturally refers to that to which one is joined (Exodus 26³; of a person, Sirach 12¹⁴): that being impossible here, חבר‎ must be understood absolutely as Judges 20¹¹ (vide Moore or Budde ad loc.) and the אל‎ may have some vague local reference: ‘all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the Vale of Siddim.’――עֵמֶק הַשֵּׁדִּים‎] LXX τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν, apparently a conjecture from the context, Vulgate vallem silvestrem. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ has חקליא‎ (from שָׂדֶה‎), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרדיסיא‎; Peshiṭtå ‘valley of the Sodomites’: on the renderings of Aquila and Theodotion see Field’s Note, page 30 f. It is evident the Versions did not understand the word. Nöldeke (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 160³), Renan (History i. 116), Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁵ 105), Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 351), al. think the true form is שֵׁדִים‎: ‘valley of demons.’――=4.= וּשְׁלשׁ‎] Accusative of time (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 i); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ובשלש‎ is better.――מרד‎] rare in Hexateuch (Numbers 14⁹, Joshua 22¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁹ [Priestly-Code]); and mostly late.

* * * * *

=5‒7. The preliminary campaign.=――One of the surprising things in the narrative is the circuitous route by which the Eastern kings march against the rebels. We may assume that they had followed the usual track by Carchemish and Damascus: thence they advanced southwards on the East of the Jordan; but then, instead of attacking the Pentapolis, they pass it on their right, proceeding southward to the head of the Gulf of Aḳaba. Then they turn North-west to Ḳadesh, thence North-east to the Dead Sea depression; and only at the end of this long and difficult journey do they join issue with their enemies in the vale of Siddim.

In explanation, it has been suggested that the real object of the expedition was to secure command of the caravan routes in West Arabia, especially that leading through the Arabah from Syria to the Red Sea (see Tuch 257 ff.). It must be remembered, however, that this is the account, not of the first assertion of Elamite supremacy over these regions, but of the suppression of a revolt of not more than a few months’ standing: hence it would be necessary to assume that all the peoples named were implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind the plain meaning of the Hebrew narrator; and the verisimilitude of the description is certainly not enhanced by Hommel’s wholly improbable speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of an empire embracing the whole region East of the Jordan and the land of Edom (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 149). If there were any truth in theories of this kind, we should still have to conclude that the writer, for the sake of literary effect, had given a fictitious importance to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley, and had so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the climax of the campaign. (See Nöldeke, 163 f.)

The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient certainty from the geographical names of ⁵⁻⁷; although it does not appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as the centres of the various nationalities or the battlefields in which they were defeated.――עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם‎ (‘Astarte of the two horns’:¹ Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10; or ‘Astarte of the two-peaked mountain’²) occurs as a compound name only here. A city ‛Astārôth of Bashan, the capital of Og’s kingdom, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1⁴, Joshua 9¹⁰ 12⁴ 13¹²ᐧ ³¹, 1 Chronicles 6⁵⁶ [= בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה‎, Joshua 21²⁷]. Ḳarnaim is named (according to a probable emendation) in Amos 6¹³, and in 1 Maccabees 5²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Maccabees 12²¹. It is uncertain whether these are two names for one place, or two adjacent places of which one was named after the other (‛Astārôth of [i.e. near] Ḳarnaim); and the confusing statements of the Onomastica Sacra (84⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 86³² 108¹⁷ 209⁶¹ 268⁹⁸) throw little light on the question. The various sites that have been suggested――Sheikh Sa’d, Tell ‛Aštarah, Tell el-‛Aš‛ari, and El-Muzêrîb――lie near the great road from Damascus to Mecca, about 20 miles East of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 248 ff.; Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, i. 166 f.; George Adam Smith in Encyclopædia Biblica, 335 f.). Wetzstein’s identification with Boẓrah (regarded as a corruption of Bostra, and this of בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה‎, Joshua 21²⁷), the capital of the Ḫaurân, has been shown by Nöldeke (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxix. 431¹) to be philologically untenable.――Of a place הָם‎ nothing is known. It is a natural conjecture (Tuch al.) that it is the archaic name of Rabbath, the capital of ‛Ammon; and Sayce (The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 160 f.) thinks it must be explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source of the word עַמּוֹן‎. On the text v.i.――שָׁוֵה קִרְיָתַיִם‎ is doubtless the Moabite or Reubenite city קִר׳‎, mentioned in Jeremiah 48²³, Ezekiel 25⁹, Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁹ (Onomastica Sacra, Καριαθαειμ, Καριαθα), the modern Ḳuraiyāt, East of the Dead Sea, a little South of the Wādī Zerka Ma‛īn. שָׁוֵה‎ (only here and verse ¹⁷) is supposed to mean ‘plain’ (Syriac (‡ Syriac word)); but that is somewhat problematical.――On the phrase הַרְרָם שֶׁעִיר‎, see the footnote. While שֶׁעִיר‎ alone may include the plateau to the West of the Arabah, the commoner הַר שֶׁעִיר‎ appears to be restricted to the mountainous region East of that gorge, now called eš-Šera‛ (see Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter, 28 ff.).――אֵיל פָּארָן‎ (v.i.) is usually identified with אֵילַת‎ (Deuteronomy 2⁸, 2 Kings 14²² 16⁶) or אֵילוֹת‎ (1 Kings 9²⁶, 2 Kings 16⁶), at the head of the East arm of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from the groves of date-palms for which it was and is famous (see especially Tuch 264 f.). The grounds of the identification seem slender; and the evidence does not carry us further than Tuch’s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the North of the desert is meant (see Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 3584).³ The ‘wilderness’ is the often mentioned ‘Wilderness of Paran’ (21²¹, Numbers 10¹² etc.), i.e. the desolate plateau of et-Tīh, stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus of Suez. There is obviously nothing in that definition to support the theory that ’Êl-Pârān is the original name of the later Elath.――קָדֵשׁ‎ (16¹⁴ 20¹ etc.), or ק׳ בַּֽרְנֵעַ‎ (Numbers 34⁴, Deuteronomy 1²ᐧ ¹⁹ 2¹⁴). The controversy as to the situation of this important place has been practically settled since the appearance of Trumbull’s Kadesh-Barnea in 1884 (see Guthe, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii. 183 ff.). It is the spring now known as ‛Ain Ḳadîs, at the head of the Wādī of the same name, “northward of the desert proper,” and about 50 miles South of Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, op. cit. 272‒275). The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about 80 miles, with a difficult ascent of 1500 feet. The alternative name עֵין מִשְׁפָּט‎ (‘Well of Judgement’) is found only here. Since קָדֵשׁ‎ means ‘holy’ and מִשְׁפָּט‎ ‘judicial decision,’ it is a plausible conjecture of William Robertson Smith that the name refers to an ordeal involving the use of ‘holy water’ (Numbers 5¹⁷) from the sacred well (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181). The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have occupied a prominent place in the earliest Exodus tradition (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 341 ff.); but there is no reason why the institution just alluded to should not be of much greater antiquity than the Mosaic age.――חַצְצֹן תָּמָר‎ is, according to 2 Chronicles 20², ‛Ēn-gĕdî (‛Ain Ǧidī), about the middle of the West shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for an army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous descent of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be imagined: see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the descent there: it might again have made a detour and reached its goal by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of this narrative would be better satisfied by Kurnub, on the road from Hebron to Elath, about 20 miles West-south-west of the South end of the Dead Sea. The identification, however, requires three steps, all of which involve uncertainties: (1) that ח׳ תָּמָר‎ = the תָּמָר‎ of Ezekiel 47¹⁹ 48²⁸; (2) that this is the Thamara of Onomastica Sacra (85³, 210⁸⁶), the Θαμαρω of Ptolemy xvi. 8; and (3) that the ruins of this are found at Kurnub. Compare Encyclopædia Biblica, 4890; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 184.

¹ See Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 313; Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements., 1904, 15.

² Moore, Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, xvi. 156 f.

³ Trumbull places it at the oasis of Ḳala‛at Naḫl, in the middle of et-Tīh, on the Ḫaǧǧ route halfway between ‛Aḳaba and Suez (Kadesh-Barnea, page 37).

The six peoples named in verses ⁵⁻⁷ are the primitive races which, according to Hebrew tradition, formerly occupied the regions traversed by Chedorlaomer. (1) The רְפָאִים‎ are spoken of as a giant race dwelling partly on the West (15²⁰, Joshua 17¹⁵, 2 Samuel 21¹⁶, Isaiah 17⁵), partly on the East, of the Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3¹¹, Joshua 12⁴ etc.).――(2) The זוּזִים‎, only mentioned here, are probably the same as the Zamzummîm of Deuteronomy 2²⁰, the aborigines of the Ammonite country. The equivalence of the two forms is considered by Sayce (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, iv. 393) and others to be explicable only by the Babylonian confusion of m and w, and thus a proof that the narrative came ultimately from a cuneiform source.――(3) הָאֵימִים‎] a kind of Rephaim, aborigines of Moab (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰ ᶠᐧ).――(4) הַחֹרִי‎] the race extirpated by the Edomites (36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 2¹²ᐧ ²²). The name has usually been understood to mean ‘troglodytes’ (see Driver A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 38); but this is questioned by Jensen (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, x. 332 f., 346 f.) and Hommel (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 264²), who identify the word with Ḫaru, the Egyptian name for South-west Palestine.¹――(5) הָעֲמָלֵקִי‎] the Amalekite territory (שָׂדֶה‎), was in the Negeb, extending towards Egypt (Numbers 13²⁹ 14⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵, 1 Samuel 27⁸). In ancient tradition, Amalek was ‘the firstling of peoples’ (Numbers 24²⁰), although, according to Genesis 36¹² its ancestor was a grandson of Esau.――(6) הָֽאֱמֹרִי‎] see on 10¹⁶; and compare Deuteronomy 1⁴⁴, Judges 1³⁶.――While there can be no question of the absolute historicity of the last three names, the first three undoubtedly provoke speculation. Rephāîm is the name for shades or ghosts; ’Emîm probably means ‘terrible ones’; and Zamzummîm (if this be the same word as Zûzîm), ‘murmurers.’ Schwally (Das Leben nach dem Tode, 64 f., and more fully Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xviii. 127 ff.) has given reasons to show that all three names originally denoted spirits of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary race of extinct giants, the supposed original inhabitants of the country (see also William Robertson Smith in Driver A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 40). The tradition with regard to the Rephaim is too persistent to make this ingenious hypothesis altogether easy of acceptance. It is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so closely on the historicity of Genesis 14 the evidence is not more decisive.

¹ Compare Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 136 f., 148 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =5.= אֶת־רְפָאִים‎] The article should be supplied, with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_. LXX τοὺς γίγαντας; so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹח ק׳‎ The reading of the Sixtine and Aldine editions of LXX, Ἀσταρωθ καὶ Καρναιν, which even Dillmann adduces in favour of a distinction between the two cities, has, amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge editors, the support of only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains was copied from the Aldine edition. It is doubtless a conflation of Καρναιν and the και Ναιν (? Καιναιν) of LXXᴱᐧ ᵃˡᐧ (Nestle, _Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xv. 256; compare Moore, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. 155 f.).――הַזּוּזִים‎] LXX ἔθνη ἰσχυρά = עִזּוּזִים‎: so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Symmachus has Ζοιζομμειν = זַמְזֻמִּים‎.――בְּהָם‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read בָּהֶם‎ (ἅμα αὐτοῖς, etc.). Some MSS of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ have בחם‎, which Jerome expressly says is the real reading of the Hebrew text.――=6.= בְּהַרְרָם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בְּהַרֲרֵי‎. Duplication of ר‎ is rare and doubtful (Psalms 30⁸, Jeremiah 17³) in singular of this word, but common in construct plural. Buhl strikes out שֶׁעִיר‎ as an explanatory gloss, retaining בְּהַרֲרָם‎.――אֵיל פָּארָן‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå render ‘terebinth of Paran,’ and so virtually Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which have ‘plain’ (see on 12⁶). If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, אֵיל‎ is used collectively in the sense of ‘great tree’ (here ‘palms’).――=7.= For קָדֵשׁ‎, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (also Saadya) have רקם‎, apparently identifying it with Petra: see Tuch’s Note, page 271 f.――שְׂדֵה‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå שָׂרֵי‎, ‘princes.’

* * * * *

=8‒12. The final battle, and capture of Lot.=――=9.= four kings against the five] That the four Eastern kings should have been all present in person (which is the obvious meaning of the narrator) is improbable enough; that they should count heads with the petty kinglets of the Pentapolis is an unreal and misleading estimate of the opposing forces, due to a desire to magnify Abram’s subsequent achievement.――=10.= The vale of Siddim was at that time wells upon wells of bitumen] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular reasoning rather than of authentic information regarding actual facts. The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the production of bitumen, masses of which were found floating on the surface (Strabo, XVI. ii. 42; Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 98; Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still are after earthquakes, but “only in the southern part of the sea” (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 518, ii. 189, 191). It was a natural inference that the bottom of the sea was covered with asphalt wells, like those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says that the bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, “and that (und zwar) under the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt and seen”; and Strabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling water from the middle of the deepest part.――=11, 12.= Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is taken captive. The account leaves much to be supplied by the imagination. The repetition of וַיִּקְחוּ‎ and וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ‎ in two consecutive sentences is a mark of inferior style; but the phrase בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם‎, which anticipates the introduction of Abram in verse ¹³, is probably a gloss (v.i.).

* * * * *

‎ =10.= בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת‎] On the nominal appositives and duplication, see Davidson § 29, R. 8; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 e (compare § 130 e). LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ has the word but once.――וַֽעֲמֹרָה‎] better as The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX וּמֶלֶךְ ע׳‎.――הֶרָה‎] On the peculiar ֶ‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 27 q, 90 i.――=11.= ‎ רְכֻשׁ‎] LXX ἵππον (i.e. רֶכֶשׁ‎); the confusion appears in ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹, but nowhere else in the Old Testament.――=12.= בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם‎] LXX inserts the words immediately after לוֹט‎,――an indication that they have been introduced from the margin. It is to be noted also that Lot is elsewhere called simply the ‘brother’ of Abram (¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――The last clause is awkwardly placed; but considering the style of the chapter, we are not justified in treating it as an interpolation.

* * * * *

=13‒16. Abram’s pursuit and victory.=――The homeward march of the victorious army must have taken it very near Hebron,――Engedi itself is only about 17 miles off,――but Abram had ‘let the legions thunder past,’ until the intelligence reached him of his nephew’s danger.――=13.= Abram the Hebrew] is obviously meant as the first introduction of Abram in this narrative. The epithet is not necessarily an anachronism, if we accept the view that the Ḫabiri of the Tel Amarna period were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 10²¹); though it is difficult to believe that there were Ḫabiri in Palestine more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ḫammurabi (against Sellin, Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, xvi. 936; compare Paton, The Early History of Syria and Palestine 39 ff.). That, however, is the only sense in which Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a contemporary document; and the probability is that the term is used by an anachronistic extension of the later distinction between Israelites and foreigners.――Mamrē’ the Amorite] see on 13¹⁸. In Yahwist (whose phraseology is here followed) מַמְרֵא‎ is the name of the sacred tree or grove; in Priestly-Code it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the personal name of the owner of the grove. In like manner ’Eškōl is a personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (‘grape-cluster,’ Numbers 13²³ ᶠᐧ); and ‛Anēr may have a similar origin. The first two, at all events, are “heroes eponymi of the most unequivocal character” (Nöldeke Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament 166),――a misconception of which no contemporary would have been capable.¹――the confederates of Abram (LXX συνωμόται)] The expression ‎בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית‎‎ does not recur; compare בַּֽעֲלֵי שְׁבוּעָה‎, Nehemiah 6¹⁸. Kraetzschmar’s view (Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 23 f.), that it denotes the relation of patrons to client, is inherently improbable. That these men joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is presupposed in verse ²⁴,――another example of the writer’s laxity in narration.――=14.= As soon as Abram learns the fate of his brother (i.e. ‘relative’), he called up his trained men (?: on וַיָּרֶק‎ and חֲנִיכָיו‎, v.i.) and gave chase.――three hundred and eighteen] The number cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be historical. It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish Gematria, 318 being the numerical value of the letters of אליעזר‎ (15²) (Bereshith Rabba § 43: see Nestle, The Expository Times., xvii. 44 f. [compare 139 f.]). A modern Gematria finds in it the number of the days of the moon’s visibility during the lunar year (Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 27).――to Dan] Now Tell el-Ḳāḍi, at the foot of Hermon. This name originated in the period of the Judges (Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18²⁹); and it is singular that such a prolepsis should occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance of antiquity.――=15.= He divided himself] i.e. (as usually understood) into three bands,――the favourite tactical manœuvre in Hebrew warfare (Judges 7¹⁶, 1 Samuel 11¹¹ 13¹⁷, Job 1¹⁷, 1 Maccabees 5³³): but see the footnote.――smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah] Hobah (compare Judith 15⁵) has been identified by Wetzstein with Hoba, c. 20 hours’ journey North of Damascus. Sellin (934) takes it to be the Ubi of the Tel-Amarna Tablets, the district in which Damascus was situated (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, v. 139, 63; 146, 12). The pursuit must in any case have been a long one, since Damascus itself is about 15 hours from Dan. It is idle to pretend that Abram’s victory was merely a surprise attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of the booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main body of the enemy.

¹ Dillmann’s remark (page 235), that “it makes no difference whether Mamre or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,” is hard to understand. If Mamre and Eshcol were really names of places, and the writer took them for names of individual men, the fact has the most important bearing on the question of the historicity of the record. The alternative theory, that the names were originally those of persons, and were afterwards transferred to the places owned or inhabited by them, will hardly bear examination. ‘Grape-cluster’ is a suitable name for a valley, but not for a man. And does any one suppose that Yahwist would have recorded Abram’s settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13¹⁸, if he had been aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time? Yet the Yahwist’s historical knowledge is far less open to suspicion than that of the writer of chapter 14.

* * * * *

‎ =13.= הַפָּלִיט‎] Ezekiel 24²⁶ 33²¹ (compare הַמַּגִּיד‎, 2 Samuel 15¹³). For the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 r.――הָעִבְרִי‎] LXX τῷ περάτῃ (only here), Aquila τῷ περαΐτῃ.――עָנֵר‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ענרם‎, LXX Αὐναν.――=14.= וַיָּרֶק‎] Literally ‘emptied out,’ used of the unsheathing of a sword (Exodus 15⁹, Leviticus 26³³, Ezekiel 5²ᐧ ¹² etc.), but never with personal objective as here. Tuch cites the Arabic ǧarrada, which means both ‘unsheath a sword’ and ‘detach a company from an army’ (see Lane); but this is no real analogy, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has בַיָּדֶק‎ = ‘scrutinize’ (Aramaic). LXX ἠρίθμησεν (so Vulgate) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זריז‎ (‘equip’: so Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural. Winckler (Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 102²) derives from Assyrian diḳu = ‘call up troops’; so Sellin, 937. Ball changes to וַיִּפְקֹד‎.――חֲנִיכָיו‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, LXX τοὺς ἰδίους, Vulgate expeditos, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘young men.’ The √ חנך‎ suggests the meaning ‘initiated’ (see on 4¹⁷), hence ‘trained,’ ‘experienced,’ etc. Sellin (937) compares the word ḫanakuka = ‘thy men,’ found in one of the Ta‛annek tablets. If it comes direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born child (see page 116), it may have nothing to do with war, but denote simply those belonging to the household, the precise equivalent of יְלִדֵי בַיִת‎. The latter phrase is found only in Priestly-Code (17¹² ᶠᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷, Leviticus 22¹¹) and Jeremiah ‎ 2¹⁴.――=15.= וַיֵּחָלֵק‎] (compare 1 Kings 16²¹). The sense given above is not altogether natural. Ball emends וַיַּדְבֵּק‎. Winckler (Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 27²) suggests a precarious Assyrian etymology, pointing as Piel, and rendering ‘and he fell upon them by night’: so Sellin.――מִשְּׂמֹאל‎] Literally ‘on the left.’ The sense ‘north’ is rare: Joshua 19²⁷ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 16⁴⁶, Job 23⁹.

* * * * *

=17, 18‒20. Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ.=――“The scene between Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ is not without poetic charm: the two ideals (Grösse) which were afterwards to be so intimately united, the holy people and the holy city, are here brought together for the first time: here for the first time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary” (Gunkel 253). =17.= The scene of the meeting is עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה‎, interpreted as the king’s vale. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Samuel 18¹⁸ as the site of Absalom’s pillar, which, according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situation harmonises with the common view that Šalem is Jerusalem (see below); and other information does not exist.――=18.= Melkîẓedeḳ, king of Šālēm, etc.] The primitive combination of the kingly and priestly offices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.¹ The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times is perfectly credible, though not historically attested (compare the patesis of Babylonia). Šālēm is usually understood to be an archaic name for Jerusalem (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 180; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome [Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim], Abraham Ibn Ezra al.), as in Psalms 76³, the only other place where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is the typical significance attached to Melkiẓedeḳ in Psalms 110⁴, which is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem.

¹ Studies in the Kingship, 29 ff. “The classical evidence points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties and probably enjoyed a sacred character as descendants of deities” (page 31).

Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name Uru-Salim is of much greater antiquity than might have been gathered from the biblical statements (Judges 19¹⁰, 1 Chronicles 11⁴); but the shortened form Salem is as yet unattested. It has been suggested that the cuneiform uru was misread as the determinative for ‘city’ (see Sellin, 941).――The identifications with other places of the name which have been discovered――e.g. the Salim 8 Roman miles from Scythopolis (where, according to Jerome [Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus], the ruins of Melkiẓedeḳ’s palace were to be seen)――have no claim to acceptance.

* * * * *

‎ =17.= שָׁוֵה‎ (without article) must apparently be a different word from that in verse ⁵. Hommel and Winckler emend שָׁרֵי‎ (šarrē, the Assyrian word for ‘king’).――=18.= מַלְכִּי־צֶדָק‎] usually explained as ‘King of Righteousness’ (Hebrews 7²), with î as old genitive ending retained by the annexion; but more probably = ‘My king is Ẓidḳ,’ Ẓidḳ being the name of a South Arabian and Phœnician deity (Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte i. 15; Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 128). That Ẓedeḳ was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Isaiah 1 ²¹ᐧ ²⁶, Jeremiah 31²³ 50⁷, Psalms 118¹⁹) there is no reason to believe.

* * * * *

On the name אֵל עֶלְיוֹן‎ (God Most High), see below, page 270 f.――bread and wine] compare ‘food and drink’ (akalî šikarî) provided for an army, etc., in the Tel-Amarna Tablets: Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 50²² 207¹⁶ 209¹² ᶠᐧ 242¹⁶ (Sellin, 938).――=19, 20.= The blessing of Melkiẓedeḳ is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it is a liturgical formula rather than a ‘blessing’ in the proper sense. It lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences which is the note of the antique blessing and curse (compare 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 4¹¹ ᶠᐧ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ).――Creator of heaven and earth] so LXX, Vulgate. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere possession (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, al.); v. infra――By payment of the tithe, Abram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melkiẓedeḳ’s priesthood (Hebrews 7⁴), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at the same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the payment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so already in Jubilees xiii. 25‒27: compare Genesis 28²²).

The excision of the Melkiẓedeḳ episode (see Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 29), which seems to break the connexion of verse ²¹ with verse ¹⁷, is a temptingly facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The designation of Yahwe as ‘God Most High’ in the mouth of Abram (verse ²²) is unintelligible apart from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ. It may rather have been the writer’s object to bring the three actors on one stage together in order to illustrate Abram’s contrasted attitude to the sacred (Melkiẓedeḳ) and the secular (king of Sodom) authority.――Hommel’s ingenious and confident solution (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and resolves ¹⁷⁻²⁴ wholly into an interview between Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. Sellin’s view (page 939 f.), that verses ¹⁸⁻²⁰ are original and ¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴ are ‘Israelitische Wucherung,’ is simpler and more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the essential historicity of the narrative.

The mystery which invests the figure of Melkiẓedeḳ has given rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Talmud, al.) is thought to be a reaction against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos), which, through Hebrews 7¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, exercised a certain influence on Christian theology (see Jerome, Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus; compare Jewish Encyclopædia, viii. 450). From a critical point of view the question of interest is whether Melkiẓedeḳ belongs to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood in Jerusalem (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 312). In opposition to the latter view, Gunkel rightly points out that Judaism is not likely to have invented as the prototype of the High Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the figure of Aaron (253). It is more probable that Melkiẓedeḳ is, if not a historical figure, at least a traditional figure of great antiquity, on whom the monarchy and hierarchy of Jerusalem based their dynastic and priestly rights.¹ To the writer of Psalms 110, Melkiẓedeḳ was “a type, consecrated by antiquity, to which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must conform” (Driver 167); and even if that Psalm be not pre-Exilic (as Gunkel supposes), but as late as the Maccabæan period, it is difficult to conceive that the type could have originated without some traditional basis.――Some writers have sought a proof of the historical character of Melkiẓedeḳ in a supposed parallel between the ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, of Hebrews 7³ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna) of Abdḫiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV.: “Neither my father nor my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king established me in my father’s house.”² Abdḫiba might have been a successor of Melkiẓedeḳ; and it is just conceivable that Hommel is right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated with the head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abdḫiba a political turn, and is made use of to express his absolute dependence on the Egyptian king. But it must be observed that Abdḫiba’s language is perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic sense; its agreement with the words of the New Testament is only partial, and may be accidental; and it is free from the air of mystery which excites interest in the latter. This, however, is not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews drew his conception partly from other sources than the verses in Genesis.

¹ Gunkel instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction by which the imperial prestige of the Cæsars was transferred to Charlemagne and his successors.――Josephus had the same view when he spoke of Melkiẓedeḳ as Χαναναίων δυνάστης, and the first founder of Jerusalem (War of the Jews, vi. 438).

² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 155 ff.; Sayce, Monuments 175; _The Early History of the Hebrews_, 28 f.; Expository Times, vii. 340 ff., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts and letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel).

’Ēl ‘Elyôn.――’El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the divine nature, or particular local or other relations entered into by the deity: hence arose compound names like אֵל שֶׂדַּי‎ (17¹), ‎ אֵל עוֹלָם‎ (21³³), אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ (33²⁰), אֵל בֵּיתאֵל‎ (35⁷), and אֵל עֶלְיוֹן‎ (here and Psalms 78³⁵).¹ עֶלְיוֹן‎ (= ‘upper,’ ‘highest’) is not uncommonly used of God in the Old Testament, either alone (Numbers 24¹⁶, Deuteronomy 32⁸, Psalms 18¹⁴ etc.) or in combinations with יהוה‎ or אלהים‎ (Psalms 7¹⁸ (?), 47³ 57³ etc.). That it was in actual use among the Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Phœnicians had a god Ἐλιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 11, 12); and there is nothing to forbid the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of Jerusalem was worshipped under that name. On the other hand, there is nothing to prove it; and it is perhaps a more significant fact that the Maccabees were called ἀρχιερεῖς θεοῦ ὑψίστου (Josephus Antiquities of the Jews xvi. 163; Assumption of Moses, 6¹]).² This title, the frequent recurrence of עֶליוֹן‎ as a divine name in late Psalms, the name Salem in one such Psalm, and Melkiẓedeḳ in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences which go to show that the Melkiẓedeḳ legend was much in vogue about the time of the Maccabees.

¹ See Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 291 f.――Compare, in classical religion, Zeus Meilichios, -Xenios, Jupiter Terminus, -Latiaris, etc.

² Siegfried, Theologische Litteraturzeitung, 1895, 304. On the late prevalence of the title, see also _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 450, Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 70 (in and near Byblus), and Schürer, _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1897, page 200 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =19.= קָנָה‎ has two senses in the Old Testament (if, indeed, there be not two distinct roots: see Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ s.v.): (a) ‘create’ or ‘produce’ (Psalms 139¹³, Proverbs 8²², Deuteronomy 32⁶ [? Genesis 4¹]); (b) ‘purchase’ or ‘acquire by purchase’ (frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase is hardly represented (? Isaiah 1³); and since the suggestion of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense ‘create’ must be accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late examples is certainly no objection so far as the present passage is concerned: see on 4¹.――=20.= After וּבָרוּךְ‎, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ inserts יהוה‎.――מִגֵּן‎] only Hosea 11⁸, Isaiah 64⁶ (LXX, etc.), Proverbs 4⁹. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it is a denominative from מָגֵן‎, ‘shield’ (√ גנן‎, Brown-Driver-Briggs) is hardly correct (see Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 4).

* * * * *

=17, 21‒24. Abram and the king of Sodom.=――The request of the king of Sodom presupposes as the usual custom of war that Abram was entitled to the whole of the booty. Abram’s lofty reply is the climax to which the whole narrative leads up.――=22.= I lift up my hand] the gesture accompanying an oath (Exodus 6⁸, Numbers 14³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁰, Ezekiel 20²³, Daniel 12⁷ etc.).――to Yahwe, ’El ‛Elyôn] A recognition of religious affinity with Melkiẓedeḳ, as a fellow-worshipper of the one true God. The יהוה‎, however, is probably an addition to the text, wanting in LXX and Peshiṭtå while The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has האלהים‎.――=23.= lest thou shouldst say, etc.] An earlier writer (compare 12¹⁶) would perhaps not have understood this scruple: he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God, even if the medium was a heathen king.――=24.= The condescending allowance for the weakness of inferior natures is mentioned to enhance the impression of Abram’s generosity (Gunkel).

The Historic Value of Chapter 14.――There are obvious reasons why this chapter should have come to be regarded in some quarters as a ‘shibboleth’ between two opposite schools of Old Testament criticism (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 165). The narrative is unique in this respect, that it sets the figure of Abraham in the framework of world-history. It is the case that certain features of this framework have been confirmed, or rendered credible, by recent Assyriological discoveries; and by those who look to archæological research to correct the aberrations of literary criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving that the criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance must be vitiated by some radical fault of method. How far that sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however, to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads.

The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible to later readers, and required identification by explanatory glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim, etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions, is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved in the use of the name Dan (see on verse ¹⁴). The presence of archæological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps documentary) material, though of what nature that material was it is impossible to determine.¹――(2) The general verisimilitude of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine presupposed by the record――a number of petty kingships striving to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary alliances for that purpose――harmonises with all we know of the political condition of the country before the Israelitish occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the writer’s knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the Conquest in the Book of Joshua.――(3) The consideration most relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from Assyriology that the names in verse ¹ are historical. The evidence on this question has been given on page 257 ff., and need not be here recapitulated. We have seen that every one of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent Assyriologist (see, further, Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. page 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow that the author’s information is derived ultimately either from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic history in verse ¹ being thus admitted, we have to inquire how far this enters into the substance of the narrative.

¹ It is to be observed that in no single case is the correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence (see verses ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁷). Those who maintain the existence of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory of Winckler, who holds that the basis of the narrative is a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 28 ff. The question cannot be further discussed here.

Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded. This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by Nöldeke in 1869 (Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament, 156‒172): the following points may be selected as illustrations of the difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged object of the campaign,――the chastisement of the Pentapolis. That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley, leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare, and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on page 261). (b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of the personal names――especially Bĕra‛ and Birsha‛ (see on verse ²), and Mamre and Eshcol (verse ¹³)――are artificial formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer, or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer’s army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible. It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard action may have taken place; the writer does not mean that; and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place, his account is at any rate not historical (see page 267). (d) It appears to be assumed in verse ³ that the Dead Sea was formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems to have been traditional in Israel (compare 13¹⁰), but it is nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that that amazing depression in the earth’s surface had existed for ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow southern ‘Lagoon’ (South of el-Lisān), which by a partial subsidence of the ground might have been formed within historic times.¹ But even if that were the true explanation, the manner of the statement is not that which would be used by a writer conversant with the facts.――The improbabilities of the passage are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are spread over the entire surface of the narrative; and while their force may be differently estimated by different minds, it is at least safe to say that they more than neutralise the impression of trustworthiness which the precise dates, numbers, and localities may at first produce.――(2) The second class of considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency which characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint of the writer. It would be easy to show that many of the improbabilities observed spring from a desire to enhance the greatness of Abraham’s achievement; and indeed the whole tendency of the chapter is to set the figure of the patriarch in an ideal light, corresponding not to the realities of history, but to the imagination of some later age. Now the idealisation of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of tradition; the question is to what period this ideal picture of Abraham may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by a number of critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism, and has its affinities “with Priestly-Code and the midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite historians” (Moore, Encyclopædia Biblica, ii. 677). Criticism of this kind is necessarily subjective and speculative. At first sight it might appear that the conception of Abraham as a warlike hero is the mark of a warlike age, and therefore older than the more idyllic types delineated in the patriarchal legends. That judgement, however, fails to take account of the specific character of the narrative before us. It is a grandiose and lifeless description of military operations which are quite beyond the writer’s range of conception; it contains no trace of the martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable ignorance of the conditions of actual warfare; it is essentially the account of a Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic campaign for the consolidation of empire. It has been fitly characterised as the product of a time which “admires military glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself; and, having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present, revels in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in imagination towards the grotesque; the lack of the political experience which is to be acquired only in the life of the independent state produces a condition of mind which can no longer distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Thus the passage belongs to an age in which, in spite of a certain historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk almost to zero” (Gunkel 255).

¹ Compare Driver’s elaborate Note, page 168 ff.; also Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 187 f.; Gautier, Encyclopædia Biblica, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 576ᵇ.

It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit. Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from an external source into the hands of a late author, who used it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case) the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources of the Pentateuch.¹ The most acceptable form of this theory is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, xvi. 929‒951). The expedition, he thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750 B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500. This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of the Israelites through David’s conquest of that city. He thus leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ ‎ (חלק‎, דיק‎, חניך‎) should prove to be relevant. At present, however, they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity or credibility of the narrative can be based.

¹ Page 256 above.

On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names in verse ¹ are supposed to have been discovered is as late as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact. If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical material remains undetermined. The names in verse ¹ are historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested――the figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ, the importance, the revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the Kikkār and, in short, all the details of the story――are as yet unattested by any allusion in secular history.

In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem; and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary record of fact. All that the archæologist can pretend to have proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics are perfectly prepared to admit. Nöldeke, who has stated the case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional (op. cit. 159 f.).¹ Assyriology has hardly done more as yet than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual discoveries.

¹ The same admission was made by Wellhausen as long ago as 1889 (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 310). In view of the persistent misrepresentations of critical opinion, it is not unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of the names in verse ¹ has not been denied by any leading critic (e.g. Ewald, Nöldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen), even before the discoveries of later years.――For an exposure of Sayce’s extraordinary travesty of Nöldeke’s arguments, the reader should consult Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_⁷, Addenda to page 173.

* * * * *

‎ =22.= הֲרִמֹתִי‎] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 i.――=23.= On the אִם‎ of negative asseveration, § 149 a, c. The second ‎ וְאִם‎, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX or Vulgate.――=24.= בִּלְעָדַי‎ literally ‘not unto me!’ (in Hexateuch only 41¹⁶ᐧ ⁴⁴ [Elohist], Joshua 22¹⁹ [late]). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have read בִּלְעֲדֵי רַק‎ as a compound prepositional phrase (= ‘except’).

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XV. God’s Covenant with Abram (Jehovist)

In a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram’s misgivings regarding the fulfilment of the divine promises are removed by solemn and explicit assurances, and by a symbolic act in which the Almighty binds Himself by the inviolable ceremonial of the berîth.¹ In the present form of the chapter there is a clear division between the promise of a son and heir (¹⁻⁶) and the promise of the land (⁷⁻²¹), the latter alone being strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant.

¹ “Die Berîth ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in feierlicher Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend welcher Art absolut bindend und unverbrüchlich gemacht wurden” (Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_, 40 f.).

Analysis.――See, besides the commentary, Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 23 f.; Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 416¹; Bacon, Hebraica, vii. 75 ff.; Kraetzschmar, op. cit. 58 ff.――The chapter shows unmistakable signs of composition, but the analysis is beset with peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable, difficulties. We may begin by examining the solution proposed by Gunkel. He assigns ¹ᵃᐧ* ᵇ{γ}ᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{α}ᐧ ᵇᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ ᵇ{α} to Yahwist; ¹ᵇ{αβ}ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁽²ᵇ{?}⁾ ⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (to ‎ יצאו‎)ᐧ ¹⁶ to Elohist; and ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁹⁻²¹ to a redactor. On this analysis the Yahwist fragments form a consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at verse ⁷ being caused by Redactor’s insertion of ⁷ ᶠᐧ But (1) it is not so easy to get rid of ⁷ ᶠᐧ Verse ⁸ is, and ⁶ is not, a suitable point of contact for ⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ; and the omission of ⁷ ᶠᐧ would make the covenant a confirmation of the promise of an heir, whereas ¹⁸ expressly restricts it to the possession of the land. And (2) the parts assigned to Yahwist contain no marks of the Yahwistic style except the name יהוה‎; they present features not elsewhere observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas characteristic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points may be here noted: (a) the prophetic character of the divine communication to Abram (¹ᐧ ⁴); (b) the address אדני יהוה‎ (²ᵃ [compare ⁸]); (c) the theological reflexion on the nature of Abram’s righteousness (⁶: compare Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³); (d) the idea of the Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions of Jehovist, and common in Deuteronomy); to which may be added (e) the ideal boundaries of the land and the enumeration of its inhabitants (¹⁸ᵇ⁻²¹), both of which are Deuteronomistic (see on the verses below). The ceremonial of ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷ is no proof of antiquity (compare Jeremiah 34¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ), and the symbolic representation of Yahwe’s presence in ¹⁷ is certainly not decisive against the late authorship of the piece (against Gunkel). It is difficult to escape the impression that the whole of this Yahwist narrative (including ⁷ ᶠᐧ) is the composition of an editor who used the name יהוה‎, but whose affinities otherwise are with the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early Yahwistic writers.――This result, however, still leaves unsolved problems. (1) It fails to account for the obvious doublets in ²ᐧ ³. ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ are generally recognised as the first traces in the Hexateuch of the document Elohist, and ⁵ (a night scene in contrast to ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷) is naturally assigned to the same source. (2) With regard to ⁽¹²{?}⁾ ¹³⁻¹⁶, which most critics consider to be a redactional expansion of Yahwist, I incline to the opinion of Gunkel, that ¹¹ᐧ ¹³⁻¹⁶ form part of the sequel to the Elohist narrative recognised in ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇᐧ ⁵ (note האמרי‎, verse ¹⁶). (3) The renewed introduction of Yahwe in verse ⁷ forms a hiatus barely consistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be partly met by Bacon’s suggestion that the proper position of the Yahwist material in ¹⁻⁶ is intermediate between 15¹⁸ and 16¹. But though this ingenious theory removes one difficulty it creates others, and it leaves untouched what seems to me the chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both in ¹⁻⁶ and ⁷⁻²¹.――The phenomena might be most fully explained by the assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or Deuteronomic editor (probably Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), and afterwards combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence.

=1‒6. The promise of an heir= (Yahwist), =and a numerous posterity= (Elohist).――=1.= The verse presupposes a situation of anxiety on the part of Abram, following on some meritorious action performed by him. It is not certain that any definite set of circumstances was present to the mind of the writer, though the conditions are fairly well satisfied by Abram’s defenceless position amongst the Canaanites immediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gunkel). The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of chapter 14 (Jewish Commentary and a few moderns) are far-fetched and misleading.――the word of Yahwe came] On the formula v.i. The conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel in Yahwist; and even Elohist, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a נָבִיא‎ (20⁷, q.v.), does not describe his intercourse with God in technical prophetic phraseology. The representation is not likely to have arisen before the age of written prophecy.――in a vision] probably a night-vision (see verse ⁵), in which case the expression must be attributed to Elohist. The mediate character of revelation, as contrasted with the directness of the older theophanies (e.g. chapter 18), is at all events characteristic of Elohist.――thy shield] a figure for protection common in later writings: Deuteronomy 33²⁹, Psalms 3⁴ 7¹¹ often, Proverbs 2⁷ 30⁵.――thy reward [will be] very great] a new sentence (LXX, Peshiṭtå), not (as Vulgate, English Version) a second predicate to אָנֹכִי‎――=2.= seeing I go hence childless] So all versions, taking הָלַךְ‎ in the sense of ‘die’ (Psalms 39¹⁴: compare Arabic halaka), though the other sense (‘walk’ = ‘live’) would be quite admissible. To die childless and leave no name on earth (Numbers 27⁴) is a fate so melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God brings no hope or joy.――=2b= is absolutely unintelligible (v.i.). The versions agree in reading the names Eliezer and Damascus, and also (with the partial exception of LXX) in the general understanding that the clause is a statement as to Abram’s heir. This is probably correct; but the text is so corrupt that even the proper names are doubtful, and there is only a presumption that the sense agrees with ³ᵇ.――=3.= In the absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as a member of the family, might inherit (Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 391; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 113). בֶּן־בַּֽיִת‎ is a member of the household, but not necessarily a home-born slave (יְלִיד בַּֽיִת‎, 14¹⁴).――=5.= The promise of a numerous ‘seed’ (compare ³ᵃᐧ ¹³) is Elohist’s parallel to the announcement of the birth of a bodily heir in Yahwist (verse ⁴).――the stars] a favourite image of the later editors and Deuteronomy (22¹⁷ 26⁴, Exodus 32¹³, Deuteronomy 1¹⁰ 10²² 28⁶²).――=6.= counted it (his implicit trust in the character of Yahwe) as righteousness] 1 Maccabees 2⁵². צְדָקָה‎ is here neither inherent moral character, nor piety in the subjective sense, but a right relation to God conferred by a divine sentence of approval (see Wellhausen Psalms, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, 174).

This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith (Romans 4³ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²², Galatians 3⁶; compare James 2²³) must, of course, be understood in the light of Old Testament conceptions. The idea of righteousness as dependent on a divine judgment (חָשֶׂב‎) could only have arisen on the basis of legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands later in theological development than Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³, and has its nearest analogies in Psalms 106³¹ 24⁵. The reflexion is suggested by the question how Abram, who had no law to fulfil, was nevertheless ‘righteous’; and, finding the ground of his acceptance in an inward attitude towards God, it marks a real approximation to the Apostle’s standpoint. Gunkel (161) well remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of this abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram’s faith came to light.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= אחר[י] הדברים האלה‎] frequent in Elohist (22¹ 40¹ 48¹, Joshua 24²⁹), but also used by Yahwist (22²⁰ 39⁷).――הָיָה דְבַר־יהוה‎ (compare verse ⁴)] not elsewhere in the Hexateuch; found occasionally in the older writings (1 Samuel 15¹⁰, 2 Samuel 24¹¹), but chiefly in later prophets and superscriptions: specially common in Jeremiah and Ezekiel――מַֽחֲזֶה‎] Only Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 13⁷. The word is thus not at all characteristic of Elohist, though the idea of revelation through dreams and visions (מַרְאָה‎, Numbers 12⁶; מַרְאֹת הַלַּיְלָה‎, Genesis 46²) undoubtedly is. Considering the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly precarious to divide the phrases of verse ¹ between Yahwist and Elohist.――הַרְבֵּה‎ (infinitive absolute) as predicate is unusual and late (Psalms 130⁷, Ecclesiastes 11⁸). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ארבה‎, ‘I will multiply,’ is perhaps preferable.――=2.= אדני יהוה‎] (compare ⁸) is common in the elevated style of prophecy (especially Ezekiel), but rare in the Psalms. In the historical books it occurs only as a vocative (except 1 Kings 2²⁶): Joshua 7⁷, Judges 6²² 16²⁸,――Deuteronomy 3²⁴ 9²⁶, 2 Samuel 7¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹, 1 Kings 8⁵³. Of these the first three are possibly Yahwist; the rest are Deuteronomic.――ובן――אליעזר‎] LXX has ὁ δὲ υἱὸς Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς μου, οὗτος Δαμασκὸς Ἐλιέζερ,――a meaningless sentence in the connexion, unless supplemented by κληρονομήσει με, as in some MSS of Philo (before οὗτος). Peshiṭtå paraphrases: (‡ Syriac phrase) is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, which appears not to have been understood by any of the Versions. LXX treats it as the name of Eliezer’s mother, Aquila (ποτίζοντος) as = מַשְׁקֶה‎; Theodotion, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ give it the sense of ‘steward,’ which may be a mere conjecture like the συγγενὴς of Symmachus. Modern commentaries generally regard the word as a modification of ‎ מֶשֶׁךְ‎ (Job 28¹⁸?) with the sense of ‘possession’――בֶּן־מֶשֶׁךְ‎ = ‘son of possession’ = ‘possessor’ or ‘inheritor’ (so Gesenius, Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin, Strack. al.); but this has neither philological justification nor traditional support. A √ משׁק‎ (in spite of ‎ מִמְשָׁק‎, Zephaniah 2⁹) is extremely dubious. The last clause cannot be rendered either ‘This is Eliezer of Damascus,’ or ‘This is Damascus, namely Eliezer’ (Delitzsch). Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ adopt the summary expedient of turning the substantive into an adjective, and reading ‘Eliezer the Damascene’ (similarly Ὁ Ἑβραῖος in Field). It is difficult to imagine what Damascus can have to do here at all; and if a satisfactory sense for the previous words could be obtained, it would be plausible enough (with Hitzig, Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin, al.) to strike out [הוּא] דַּמֶּשֶׂק‎ as a stupid gloss on מֶשֶׁק‎. Ball’s emendation, וּמשֵׁק בֵּיתִי הֻא בֶּן־דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר‎, ‘and he who will possess my house is a Damascene――Eliezer,’ is plausible, but the singular בֶּן־‎ with the name of a city is contrary to Hebrew idiom. Bewer (_Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1908, part 2, 160 ff.) has proposed the reading――ingenious but not convincing――וּבָנִים בִּקּשְׁתִּי אֵין לִי ‎ זָרֲע‎. ²ᵃ and ³ᵃ are parallels (note the double ויאמר א׳‎), of which the former obviously belongs to Yahwist, the latter consequently to Elohist. Since ³ᵇ is Yahwist rather than Elohist (compare יוֹרֵשׁ‎ with verse ⁴), it follows that ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ must be transposed if the latter be Elohist’s parallel to ³ᵇ.――=3.= ירש‎] in the sense of ‘be heir to’: compare 21¹⁰ (Elohist), 2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah 49¹, Proverbs 30²³.――=4.= ממעיךָ‎ (LXX מִמְּךָ‎?)] of the father, 2 Samuel 7¹² 16¹¹, Isaiah 48¹⁹; of the mother, 25²³ (Yahwist), Isaiah 49¹, Ruth 1¹¹, Psalms 71⁶.――=5.= החוצה‎] in Yahwist, 19¹⁷ 24²⁹ 39¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (Joshua 2¹⁹?); but also Deuteronomy 24¹¹ 25⁵ etc.――=6.= והאמין‎] (on the tense, see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 133; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 ss): LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå add אַבְרָם‎. The construction with בְּ‎ is usual when the object of faith is God (Exodus 14³¹, Numbers 14¹¹ 20¹², Deuteronomy 1³², 2 Kings 17¹⁴, 2 Chronicles 20²⁰, Psalms 78³², Jonah 3⁵): לְ‎ only Deuteronomy 9²³, Isaiah 43¹⁰.――צְדָקָה‎] second objective accusative. The change to לִצְ׳‎ (Psalms 106³¹) is unnecessary.

* * * * *

=7‒21. The covenant.=――=7, 8.= The promise of the land, Abram’s request for a pledge (contrast verse ⁶), and the self-introduction of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the commencement of an interview), are marks of discontinuity difficult to reconcile with the assumption of the unity of the narrative. Most critics accordingly recommend the excision of the verses as an interpolation.

So Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Kraetzschmar, Gunkel, al. Their genuineness is maintained by Budde, Delitzsch, Bacon, Holzinger; Wellhausen thinks they have been at least worked over. The language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The אני‎ (⁷) is not a sufficient ground for rejection (see Budde 439); and although אור ‎ כשדים‎ in a Yahwist-context may be suspicious, we have no right to assume that it did not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition (see page 239 above). But לתת――לרשתה‎ is a decidedly Deuteronomic phrase (see Oxford Hexateuch, i. 205): on אדני יהוה‎, see on verse ². On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage these linguistic difficulties would vanish; but the impression of a change of scene remains,――an impression, however, which the interpolation theory does not altogether remove, since the transition from ⁶ to ⁹ is very abrupt. Bacon’s transposition of the two sections of Yahwist is also unsatisfactory.

=9, 10.= The preparations for the covenant ceremony; on which see below, page 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,¹ the operation conforms to later Levitical usage in so far as the animals are all such as were allowed in sacrifice, and the birds are not divided (Leviticus 1¹⁷).――of three years old] This is obviously the meaning of מְשֻׁלָּשׁ‎ here (compare 1 Samuel 1²⁴ [LXX]: elsewhere = ‘threefold,’ Ezekiel 42⁶, Ecclesiastes 4¹²). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, which renders ‘three’ (calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only version that misses the sense; and it is followed by Bereshith Rabba, Rashi, al. On the number three in the Old Testament, see Stade, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxvi. 124 ff. [especially 127 f.].――=11.= The descent of the unclean birds of prey (עַיִט‎), and Abram’s driving them away, is a sacrificial omen of the kind familiar to antiquity.² The interpretation seems to follow in ¹³⁻¹⁶ (Dillmann, Gunkel).――=12.= תַּרְדֵּמָה‎ (LXX ἔκστασις) is the condition most favourable for the reception of visions (see on 2²¹).――a great horror] caused by the approach of the deity (omit חֲשֵׁכָה‎ as a gloss). The text is mixed (see below), and the two representations belong, the one to Yahwist, and the other to Elohist (Gunkel). The scene is a vivid transcript of primitive religious experience. The bloody ceremony just described was no perfunctory piece of symbolism; it touched the mind below the level of consciousness; and that impression (heightened in this case by the growing darkness) induced a susceptibility to psychical influences readily culminating in ecstasy or vision.――=13‒16.= An oracle in which is unfolded the destiny of Abram’s descendants to the 4th generation. It is to be noted that the prediction relates to the fortunes of Abram’s ‘seed,’ the mention of the land (¹⁶) being indirect and incidental. The passage may therefore be the continuation of the Elohist-sections of ¹⁻⁶, on the understanding that in Elohist the covenant had to do with the promise of a seed, and not with the possession of the land.――=13.= a sojourner] (collective): see on 12¹⁰.――400 years] agreeing approximately with the 430 years of Exodus 12⁴⁰ (Priestly-Code).――=15= is a parenthesis, if not an interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own personal lot (see on 25⁸).――=16.= the fourth generation] e.g. Levi, Kohath, Amram, Aaron (or Moses) (Exodus 6¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). To the reckoning of a generation as 100 years (compare verse ¹³) doubtful classical parallels are cited by Knobel (Varro, De Lingua Latina 6, 11; Ovid, Metamorphoses xii. 188, etc.).³――the guilt of the Amorites] (the inhabitants of Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in later writings (Deuteronomy 9⁵, 1 Kings 14²⁴, Leviticus 18²⁴ ᶠᐧ etc. etc.); but the parallels from Jehovist cited by Knobel (Genesis 18²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹¹) are of quite a different character.

¹ So in the covenant between Ašur-nirâri and Mati’ilu (Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, iii. 228 ff.), the victim is expressly said not to be a sacrifice.

² Compare Virgil Aeneid iii. 225 ff.

³ Compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 308 (English translation, page 308), who cites these verses as positive proof that the generation was reckoned as 100 years (see page 135 above),――a view which, of course, cannot be held unless verse ¹³⁻¹⁶ are a unity.

Verses ¹³⁻¹⁶ are obviously out of place in Yahwist, because they presuppose ¹⁸ (the promise of the land). They are generally assigned to a redactor, although it is difficult to conceive a motive for their insertion. Dillmann’s suggestion, that they were written to supply the interpretation of the omen of verse ¹¹, goes a certain distance; but fails to explain why the interpretation ever came to be omitted. Since ¹¹ is intimately connected with ¹³⁻¹⁶, and at the same time has no influence on the account of Yahwist, the natural conclusion is that both ¹¹ and ¹³⁻¹⁶ are documentary, but that the document is not Yahwist but Elohist (so Gunkel). It will be necessary, however, to delete the phrases בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל‎ in ¹⁴ and תִּקָּבֵר בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה‎ in ¹⁵ as characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code; perhaps also אַרְבַּֽע ‎ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה‎ in ¹³. The whole of ¹⁵ may be removed with advantage to the sense.――The text of ¹² is not homogeneous, so that as a whole it cannot be linked either with ¹¹ or with ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ. וְתַרְדֵּמָה וגו׳‎ and וְהִנֵּה אֵימָה וגו׳‎ are doublets (note the repetition of נפל על‎); and the poetic חֲשֵׁכָה‎ (only here in Pentateuch) is doubtless a gloss to אימה‎. The opening clause וַיְהִי הַשּׁ׳ לָבוֹא‎ is presumably Yahwist (in Elohist it is already night in verse ⁵). Elohist’s partiality for the visionary mode of revelation may be sufficient justification for assigning the תרדמה‎ to him and the אימה‎ to Yahwist; but the choice is immaterial.

* * * * *

‎ =9.= גוזל‎ Deuteronomy 32¹¹† = young of the vulture; but here = ‘young dove’; Arabic ǧauzal; Syriac (‡ Syriac word).――=10.= ‎ וַיְבַתֵּר‎] a technical term; the verb only here; compare בֶּתֶר‎, Jeremiah ‎ 34¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹――בתוך‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בתור‎ (infinitive absolute).――אִישׁ בִּתְרוֹ וגו׳‎] compare 9⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 c.――=11.= הַפְּגָרִים‎] LXXᴬ τὰ σώματα τὰ διχοτομήματα; a conflation of הפגרים‎ and ה ַגְּזָרִים‎ (verse ¹⁷).――וַיַּשֵּׁב‎] Hiphil of נשׁב‎ only here in the sense of ‘scare away’: so Aquila (ἀπεσόβησεν) Peshiṭtå, Vulgate. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read וַיָּשֶׁב‎, which is less expressive; and LXX וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתָּם‎ is quite inadmissible.――=12.= ויהי――לבוא‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 i; compare Joshua 2⁵ (Yahwist).――=13.= ‎ ועבדום‎] LXX phrase καὶ κακώσουσιν αὐτοὺς; and apparently read וְעָבְדוּ בָם‎, avoiding the awkward interchange of subject and object.――=16.= ודור רביעי‎] accusative of condition, ‘as a fourth generation’ (compare Jeremiah 31⁸); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 q.

* * * * *

=17.= a smoking oven and a blazing torch] the two together making an emblem of the theophany, akin to the pillar of cloud and fire of the Exodus and Sinai narratives (compare Exodus 3² 19⁹ 13²¹ etc.). The oven is therefore not a symbol of Gehenna reserved for the nations (Rashi).――On the appearance of the תַּנּוּר‎, see the descriptions and illustrations in Riehm, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums 178; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 65.――passed between these pieces] compare Jeremiah 34¹⁸ ᶠᐧ (the only other allusion).

On this rite see Kraetzschmar, op. cit. 44 ff. Although attested by only one other Old Testament reference, its prevalence in antiquity is proved by many analogies in classical and other writers. Its original significance is hardly exhausted by the well-known passage in Livy (i. 24), where a fate similar to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the covenant.¹ This leaves unexplained the most characteristic feature,――the passing between the pieces. William Robertson Smith surmises that the divided victim was eaten by the contracting parties, and that afterwards “the parties stood between the pieces, as a symbol that they were taken within the mystical life of the victim” (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 480 f.).

¹ “... tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque magis ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.” Compare Iliad iii. 298 ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed with great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between Ašur-nirâri and the Syrian prince Mati’ilu: see Peiser, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, iii. 228 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =17.= ויהי――באה‎] perfect with sense of pluperfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 g).――עֲלָטָה‎] only here and Ezekiel 12⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹². LXX φλὸξ is certainly wrong (לֶהָבָה‎? לַהַט‎?).――עָשָׁן‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read the particle, hence Ball emends ‎ עָשֵׁן‎.――הַגְּזָרִים‎] the noun recurs only Psalms 136¹³; but compare the analogous use of the verb 1 Kings 3²⁵ᐧ ²⁶.

* * * * *

=18.= This ceremony constitutes a Berîth, of which the one provision is the possession of ‘the land.’ A Berîth necessarily implies two or more parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the case its stipulations are binding only on one. So here: Yahwe alone passes (symbolically) between the pieces, because He alone contracts obligation.――The land is described according to its ideal limits; it is generally thought, however, that the closing words, along with ¹⁹⁻²¹, were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in the original Yahwist the promise was restricted to Canaan proper.

The נְהַר מִצְרַיִם‎ (not, as elsewhere נַחַל מ׳‎ = Wādī el-Arīsh) must be the Nile (compare Joshua 13³, 1 Chronicles 13⁵). On an old belief that the Wādī el-Arīsh was an arm of the Nile, see Tuch.――הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל ‎ וגו׳‎] compare Deuteronomy 1⁷ 11²⁴, Joshua 1⁴. The boundary was never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice in 1 Kings 5¹ᐧ ⁴ is late and unhistorical).――=19‒21.= Such lists of pre-Israelite inhabitants are characteristic of Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic expansions of Jehovist. They usually contain 5 or 6 or at most 7 names: here there are 10 (see Budde 344 ff., and Driver’s analysis, A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy 97). The first three names appear in none of the other lists; and the same is true of the Rĕphāîm in ²⁰. The Ḳenites (see page 113) and Ḳenizzites (36¹¹) are tribes of the Negeb, both partly incorporated in Judah: the Ḳadmonites (only here) are possibly identical with the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם‎ (29¹), the inhabitants of the eastern desert.――The Ḥivvites, who regularly appear, are supplied here by The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (after Girgashites) and LXX (after Canaanites).――On the Ḥittites, see page 215; and, further, on chapter 23 below.

The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does not appear in the literature till the time of Jeremiah (11⁵) and Deuteronomy (4³¹ 7¹² 8¹⁸, 2 Kings 13²³ etc.): see Kraetzschmar, 61 ff. Of 31 passages in Jehovist where Kraetzschmar finds the conception (the list might be reduced), all but three (15¹⁸ 12⁷ 24⁷) are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction (see Staerk, Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des alten Testaments, i. 37 ff.); and of these three 12⁷ is a mere promise without an oath, while in 24⁷ the words וַֽאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽע לִי‎ have all the appearance of a gloss. It is, of course, quite possible that 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ may be very ancient, and have formed the nucleus of the theological development of the covenant-idea in the age of Deuteronomy. But it is certainly not unreasonable to suppose that it emanates from the period when Israel’s tenure of Canaan began to be precarious, and the popular religion sought to reassure itself by the inviolability of Yahwe’s oath to the fathers. And that is hardly earlier than the 7th century (Staerk, 47).

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVI. The Flight of Hagar and Birth of Ishmael (Yahwist and Priestly-Code)

Sarai, having no hope of herself becoming a mother, persuades Abram to take her Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine. Hagar, when she finds herself pregnant, becomes insolent towards her mistress, from whose harsh treatment she ultimately flees to the desert. There the Angel of Yahwe meets her, and comforts her with a disclosure of the destiny of the son she is to bear, at the same time commanding her to go back and submit to her mistress. In due course Ishmael is born.

In the carefully constructed biographical plan of the editors the episode finds an appropriate place between the promise of a bodily heir in 15 and the promise of a son through Sarai in 18 (Yahwist) or 17 (Priestly-Code). The narrative itself contains no hint of a trial of Abram’s faith, or an attempt on his part to forestall the fulfilment of the promise. Its real interest lies in another direction: partly in the explanation of the sacredness of a certain famous well, and partly in the characterisation of the Ishmaelite nomads and the explication of their relation to Israel. The point of the story is obscured by a redactional excrescence (⁹), obviously inserted in view of the expulsion of Hagar at a later stage. In reality chapter 16 (Yahwist) and 22⁸⁻²¹ (Elohist) are variants of one tradition; in the Yahwistic version Hagar never returned, but remained in the desert and bore her son by the well Lahai Roi (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 22).――The chapter belongs to the oldest stratum of the Abrahamic legends (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), and is plausibly assigned by Gunkel to the same source as 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. From the main narrative of Yahwist (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it is marked off by its somewhat unfavourable portraiture of Abram, and by the topography which suggests that Abram’s home was in the Negeb rather than in Hebron. The primitive character of the legend is best seen from a close comparison with the Elohistic parallel (see page 324).

Analysis.――Verses ¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ belong to Priestly-Code: note the chronological data in ³ᐧ ¹⁶; the naming of the child by the father ¹⁵ (contrast ¹¹); אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן‎, ³; and the stiff and formal precision of the style.――The rest is Yahwist: compare יהוה‎, ‎ ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³; שִׁפְחָה‎, ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ (also ³ [Priestly-Code]); ‎ ‎נא‎, הִנֵּה־נָא‎, ².――The redactional addition in ⁹ ᶠᐧ (v.s.) betrays its origin by the threefold repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יהוה‎, a fault of style which is in striking contrast to the exquisite artistic form of the original narrative, though otherwise the language shows no decided departure from Yahwistic usage (Dillmann, but see on verse ¹⁰).

=1‒6. The flight of Hagar.=――=1.= Hagar is not an ordinary household slave, but the peculiar property of Sarai, and therefore not at the free disposal of her master (compare 24⁵⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁹: see Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 104 f., 126 f.).¹――an Egyptian] so verse ³ (Priestly-Code), 21⁹ (Elohist); compare 21²¹. This consistent tradition points to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the Ishmaelites, the reputed descendants of Hagar.²――=2.= peradventure I may be built up――or obtain children (v.i.)――from her] by adopting Hagar’s son as her own; compare 30³.――=3= is Priestly-Code’s parallel to ²ᵇᐧ ⁴ᵃ.――=4.= and went in, etc. (see on 6⁴)] the immediate continuation of ²ᵇ in Yahwist.――was despised] a natural feeling, enhanced in antiquity by the universal conviction that the mysteries of conception and birth are peculiarly a sphere of divine action.――=5.= My wrong be upon thee] i.e. ‘May my grievance be avenged on thee!’――her injured self-respect finding vent in a passionate and most unjust imprecation.――=6.= Thy maid is in thy hand] Is this a statement of fact, or does it mean that Abram now hands Hagar back to her mistress’s authority? The latter is Gunkel’s view, who thinks that as a concubine Hagar was no longer under the complete control of Sarai.――treated her harshly] The word (עִנָּה‎) suggests excessive severity; Hagar’s flight is justified by the indignities to which she was subjected (verse ¹¹).

¹ “Some wives have female slaves who are their own property, generally purchased for them, or presented to them, before their marriage. These cannot be the husband’s concubines without their mistress’s permission, which is sometimes granted (as it was in the case of Hagar); but very seldom” (Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_ i. 233 [from Driver]).――On the resemblance to Code of Ḫammurabi § 146, see Introduction, page xvii.

² The instance is one of the most favourable in Genesis to Winckler’s theory that under מִצְרַיִם‎ we are frequently to understand the North Arabian land of Muṣri (Gunkel; compare Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 3164; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 146 f.). Yet even here the case is far from clear. An Egyptian strain among the Bedouin of Sinai would be easily accounted for by the very early Egyptian occupation of the Peninsula; and Burton was struck by the Egyptian physiognomy of some of the Arabs of that region at the present day. (Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 504ᵃ).

* * * * *

=1a= is assigned to Priestly-Code partly because of אשת אברם‎ (compare verse ³), and partly because the statement as to Sarai’s barrenness supplies a gap in that document, whereas in Yahwist it is anticipated by 11³⁰.――=1b.= שִׁפְחָה‎] (from the same √ as מִשְׁפָּחָה‎) is originally the slave-concubine; and it is a question whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a ‎ שִׁפְחָה‎ may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage proving childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with אָמָה‎, and is characteristic of Yahwist against Elohist, though not against Priestly-Code.――הגר‎] The motive of Hagar’s ‘flight’ may have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Arabic haǧara, ‘flee.’ For another etymology, see Nöldeke Encyclopædia Biblica, 1933².――=2.= אִבָּנֶה‎] (so only 30³) may be either a denominative from בֵּן‎ (so apparently LXX, Vulgate, Symmachus), or a metaphor from the family as a house (Exodus 1²¹, 1 Samuel 2³⁵, Ruth 4¹¹ etc.).――=5.= חמסי‎] genitive of objective, Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 128 h (compare Obadiah ¹⁰). LXX ἀδικοῦμαι ἐκ σοῦ.――וביניֹך‎] The point over י‎ indicates a clerical error: read (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) וּבֵינֶך‎.

* * * * *

=7‒14. The theophany at the well.=――=7.= the Angel of Yahwe] (see below) is here introduced for the first time as the medium of the theophany. The scene is a fountain of water (as yet nameless: verse ¹⁴) in the desert ... on the way to Shûr. Shûr is an unknown locality on the North-east frontier of Egypt (see Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 510ᵇ), which gave its name to the adjacent desert: 20¹ 25¹⁸, Exodus 15²², 1 Samuel 15⁷ 27⁸ (v.i.).

The מַלְאַךְ יהוה‎ (or מ׳ אֱלֹהִים‎) is “Yahwe Himself in self-manifestation,” or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This somewhat subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very many instances the Angel is at once identified with God and differentiated from Him; compare e.g. verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ with ¹¹. The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no doubt to be sought in the advance of religious thought to a more spiritual apprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of the theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (chapter 2 f., Exodus 24¹⁰, Numbers 12 etc.). A later, though still early, age took exception to this bold anthropomorphism, and reconciled the original narratives with the belief in the invisibility of God by substituting an ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of Yahwe as the agent of the theophany, without, however, effacing all traces of the primitive representation (Gunkel 164 f.). That the idea underwent a remarkable development within the Old Testament religion must, of course, be recognised (see especially Exodus 23²¹); but the subject cannot be further investigated here. See Oehler, _Theologie des Alten Testaments_³ 203‒211; Schultz, Old Testament Theology ii. 218‒223 [Engish translation]; Davidson, A Dictionary of the Bible, i. 94; Delitzsch Neuer Commentar über die Genesis 282 ff.

* * * * *

=7b= seems to be a duplicate of ¹⁴ᵇ, and one or other may be a gloss. The words במדבר――שור‎ are omitted by LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ entirely, and partly in several cursives: Peshiṭtå omits על־העין‎].――שׁוּר‎ (‘wall’)? has been supposed (doubtfully) to be a line of fortifications guarding the North-east frontier of Egypt. The חגרא‎ of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (if an Arabism) may express שׁוּר‎ in the sense of ‘wall’: Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (= גְּרָר‎, 20¹).

* * * * *

=8.= The Angel’s question reveals a mysterious knowledge of Hagar’s circumstances, who on her part is as yet ignorant of the nature of her visitant (compare 18² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=9, 10= are interpolated (v.i.).――=11, 12.= The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not ¹² alone: Gunkel) is in metrical form: two triplets with lines of 4 or 3 measures.――Behold, etc.] The form of announcement seems consecrated by usage; compare Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷, Isaiah 7¹⁴.――Yishmā‛ēl] properly, ‘May God hear,’ is rendered ‘God hears,’ in token of Yahwe’s regard for the mother’s distress (עָנְיֵךְ‎; compare וַתְּעַנֶּהָ‎, ⁶).――=12.= a wild ass of a man] or perhaps the wild ass of humanity (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.)――Ishmael being among the families of mankind what the wild ass is amongst animals (Job 39⁵⁻⁸, Jeremiah 2²⁴). It is a fine image of the free intractable Bedouin character which is to be manifested in Ishmael’s descendants.――dwell in the face of all his brethren (compare 25¹⁸)] hardly ‘to the east of,’ which is too weak a sense. עַל־פְּנֵי‎ seems to express the idea of defiance (as Job 1¹¹), though it is not easy to connect this with the verb. Possibly the meaning is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour (שָׁכֵן‎) to his settled brethren.――=13, 14.= From this experience of Hagar the local deity and the well derive their names. =13.= Thou art a God of vision] i.e. (if the following text can be trusted) both in an objective and a subjective sense,――a God who may be seen as well as one who sees.――Have I even here (? v.i.) seen after him who sees me?] This is the only sense that can be extracted from the Massoretic Text, which, however, is strongly suspected of being corrupt.――=14.= Bĕ’ēr Lahay Rōî] apparently means either ‘Well of the Living One who sees me,’ or ‘Well of “He that sees me lives”’. The name occurs again 24⁶² 25¹¹.――between Ḳadesh and Bered] On Ḳadesh, see on 14⁷. Bered is unknown. In Arab tradition the well of Hagar is plausibly enough identified with ‛Ain-Muweiliḥ, a caravan station about 12 miles to the West of Ḳadesh (Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 354 ff.). The well must have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence the later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs, identified it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca.――=15, 16.= The birth of Ishmael, recorded by Priestly-Code.

The general scope of ¹³ ᶠᐧ is clear, though the details are very obscure. By a process of syncretism the original numen of the well had come to be regarded as a particular local manifestation of Yahwe; and the attempt is made to interpret the old names from the standpoint of the higher religion. אֵל רֳאִי‎ and לַחַי ראי‎ are traditional names of which the real meaning had been entirely forgotten, and the etymologies here given are as fanciful as in all similar cases. (1) In לַחַי ראי‎ the Massoretic punctuation recognises the roots חי‎, ‘live,’ and ראה‎, ‘see,’ taking ל‎ as circumscribed genitive; but that can hardly be correct. Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 323 f.), following Michaelis and Gesenius (Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 175), conjectures that in the first element we have the word לְחִי‎, ‘jaw-bone’ (Judges 15¹⁷), and in the second an obsolete animal name: hence ‘Well of the antelope’s (?) jaw-bone.’ Von Gall (Altisraelitische Kultstätten 40 ff.) goes a step further and distinguishes two wells, עֵין (בְּאֵר) רֳאִי‎ and בְּאֵר לֶֽחִי‎, the former peculiar to Yahwist and the latter to Elohist (compare LXX of ‎ 24⁶² 25¹¹).――(2) אֵל רֳאִי‎, whatever its primary significance, is of a type common in the patriarchal narratives (see page 291). Of the suggested restorations of ¹³ᵇ, by far the most attractive is that of Wellhausen (l.c.), who changes הלם‎ to אלהים‎, reads ‎ ראי‎ as רָאְיִי‎, inserts ואחי‎ between ראיתי‎ and אחרי‎, and renders, “Have I actually seen God and lived after my vision?”――an allusion to the prevalent belief that the sight of God is followed by death (Exodus 33²⁰, Judges 6²³ 13²³ etc.). The emendation has at least the advantage of giving a meaning to both elements in the name of the well. Gunkel’s objection that the emphatic ‘here’ is indispensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately הֲלֹם‎ does not mean ‘here’ but ‘hither.’

* * * * *

=9, 10= are a double interpolation. The command to return to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of Yahwist and Elohist (22⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ); and ¹⁰ was added to soften the return to slavery (Gunkel). ¹⁰ is impossible before ¹¹, and is besides made up of phrases characteristic of redactional additions to Jehovist (compare 22¹⁷ 32¹³).――הרבָּה‎] Infinitive absolute; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 ff.――=11.= וְיֹלַדְתְּ‎ for וילֶדֶת‎] so Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 80 d).――=12.= פרא אדם‎] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 128 k, l. Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac phrase), and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ מרמי לערוד בבני נשא‎.――=13.= אתה אל ראי‎] LXX Σὺ ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐφιδών με, Vulgate Tu Deus qui vidisti me: both reading רֹאִֽי‎ (participle with suffix).――For אַתָּה‎, Ball would substitute אִתָּהּ‎, deleting אליה‎.――The רֹאִֽי‎ of ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃ is not the pausal form of the preceding רֳאִי‎ (which would be רֹֽאִי‎: 1 Samuel 16¹², Nahum 3⁶, Job 33²¹), but Qal participle with suffix. The authority of the accentuation may, of course, be questioned.――=14.= קָרָא‎] indefinite subjective, for which The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch substitutes קראה‎.――בֶּרֶד‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הגרא‎ (see on verse ⁷). Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has חלוצא‎ (Elusa), probably el-Ḥalaṣa, about 12 miles South-west of Beersheba. It has been supposed that בֶּרֶד‎ may be identical with a place Βηρδάν in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eusebius (Onomasticon, 145² [Lagarde 299⁷⁶]), who explains the name as Φρέαρ κρίσεως (= בְּאֵר דָּן‎): see von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 43.

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVII. The Covenant of Circumcision (Priestly-Code)

To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (⁵), God reveals Himself under a new name (¹), entering into a covenant with him (²⁻⁸), of which the sign is the rite of circumcision (⁹⁻¹⁴). The heir of this covenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) in the following year (¹⁵⁻²²). Abraham immediately circumcises all the males of his household (²³⁻²⁷).――To the writer of the Priestly Code the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of circumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution of Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the true God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of the four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind. On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gunkel’s note (page 233 ff.) may be consulted.

Source.――The marks of Priestly-Code’s authorship appear in every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the following expressions: אלהים‎ (throughout, except verse ¹, where ‎ יהוה‎ is either a redactional change or a scribal error); אל שדי‎, ¹; ‎ הקים ברית‎, נתן ב׳‎, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹; במאד מאד‎, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰; אתה וזרעך אחריך‎, ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ‎ ¹⁹; לדרתם‎, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; מגרים‎, ⁸; ארץ כנען‎, ⁸; אחזה‎, ⁸; כל־זכר‎, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²³; ‎ מקנה‎, ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷; בן־נכר‎, ¹²ᐧ ²⁷; ונכרתה הנפש וגו׳‎, ¹⁴; פרה ורבה‎, ²⁰; נשיאם‎, ‎ ²⁰; הוליד‎, ²⁰; בעצם היום הזה‎, ²³ᐧ ²⁶; see Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel. References to the passage in other parts of Priestly-Code are 21 ²ᐧ ⁴ 28⁴ 35¹², Exodus 2²⁴ 6³ ᶠᐧ (Leviticus 12³ ?).

The close parallelism with chapter 15 makes it probable that that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary basis of Priestly-Code’s account of the covenant. Common to the two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17¹ ∥ 15⁷); (b) the covenant (17 passim ∥ 15⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); (c) the promise of a numerous seed (17⁴ passim ∥ 15⁵); (d) of the land (17⁸ ∥ 15¹⁸), (e) of a son (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ ∥ 15⁴); (f) Abraham’s incredulity (17¹⁷ ∥ 15³ᐧ ⁸). The features peculiar to Priestly-Code, such as the sign of circumcision, the etymology of יִצְחָק‎ in verse ¹⁷, the changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest the existence of a separate tradition independent of Yahwist and Elohist.

=1‒8. The Covenant-promises.=――These are three in number: (a) Abraham will be the father of a numerous posterity (²ᵇᐧ ⁴⁻⁶); (b) God will be a God to him and to his seed (⁷ᵇᐧ ⁸ᵇ); (c) his seed shall inherit the land of Canaan (⁸ᵃ). We recognise here a trace of the ancient religious conception according to which god, land, and people formed an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of fellowship between the god and his worshippers (see _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 92 f.).――=1.= appeared to Abram] i.e., in a theophany, as is clear from verse ²². It is the only direct communication of God to Abram recorded in Priestly-Code. Priestly-Code is indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Exodus 6³ seems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while that to Jacob is twice referred to (35⁹ 48³).――I am ’El Shaddai] The origin, etymology, and significance of this title are alike obscure: see the footnote. In Priestly-Code it is the signature of the patriarchal age (Exodus 6³); or rather it designates the true God as the patron of the Abrahamic covenant, whose terms are explicitly referred to in every passage where the name occurs in Priestly-Code (28³ 35¹¹ 48³). That it marks an advance in the revelation of the divine character can hardly be shown, though the words immediately following may suggest that the moral condition on which the covenant is granted is not mere obedience to a positive precept, but a life ruled by the ever-present sense of God as the ideal of ethical perfection.――Walk before me (compare 24⁴⁰ 48¹⁵)] i.e., ‘Live consciously in My presence,’ 1 Samuel 12², Isaiah 38³; compare 1 John 1⁷.――perfect] or ‘blameless’; see on 6⁹.――=2.= On the idea and scope of the covenant (בְּרִית‎), see page 297 f. below.――=4.= father of a multitude (literally tumult) of nations] In substance the promise is repeated in 28³ 48⁴ (קְהַל עַמִּים‎) and 35¹¹ (ק׳ גּוֹיִם‎); the peculiar expression here anticipates the etymology of verse ⁵. While Yahwist (12² 18¹⁸ 46³) restricts the promise to Israel (גּוֹי גָּדוֹל‎), Priestly-Code speaks of ‘nations’ in the plural, including the Ishmaelites and Edomites amongst the descendants of Abraham. See, however, on 28³.――=5.= Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, interpreted as ‘Father of multitude.’ Compare Nehemiah 9⁷.

The equation אַבְרָהָם‎ = אַב הֲמוֹן [גוים]‎ is so forced that Dillmann al. doubt if a serious etymology was intended. The line between word-play and etymology is difficult to draw; and all that can safely be said is that the strained interpretation here given proves that אַבְרָהָם‎ is no artificial formation, but a genuine element of tradition. (1) The form אַבְרָם‎ is an abbreviation of ‎ אֲבִירָם‎ (Numbers 16¹ etc.: compare אַבְנֵר‎, 1 Samuel 14⁵¹ etc., with ‎ אֲבִינֵר‎, 1 Samuel 14⁵⁰; אַבְשָׁלוֹם‎, 2 Chronicles 11²⁰ᐧ ²¹, with אֲבִישָׁלוֹם‎, 1 Kings 15²ᐧ ¹⁰), which occurs as a personal name not only in Hebrew but also as that of an Assyrian official (Abî-râmu) under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 482)¹. (2) Of אברהם‎, on the other hand, no scientific etymology can be given. The nearest approach to Priestly-Code’s explanation would be found in the Arabic ruhām = ‘copious number’ (from a √ descriptive of a fine drizzling rain: Lane, s.v.).² Delitzsch thinks this the best explanation; but the etymology is far-fetched, and apart from the probably accidental correspondence with Priestly-Code’s interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.――With regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are propounded. Hommel (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 275 ff.; Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely orthographic, the ה‎ being inserted, after the analogy of Minæan, to mark the long ā (אַבְרָהם‎), while a later misunderstanding is responsible for the pronunciation ־רָחָם‎. Strack and Stade (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 349) suppose a dialectic distinction: according to the latter, אברהם‎ is the original (Edomite) form, of which אברם‎ is the Hebraïzed equivalent.³ Winckler (Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 26) finds in them two distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one describing him as father of the gods (Sin abu ilâni), and the other (‘father of the strife of peoples’) as god of war (Sin ḳarib ilâni). The possibility must also be considered that the difference is due to the fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures (see Paton, The Early History of Syria and Palestine 41). It is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness of the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that אברם‎ was peculiar to Yahwist and אברהם‎ to Elohist.――Outside of Genesis (with the exception of the citations 1 Chronicles 1²⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷) the form Abraham alone is found in Old Testament.

¹ Hommel’s reading of Abî-râmu on a contract tablet of Abil-Sin, the grandfather of Ḫammurabi (see _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96), has proved to be incorrect, the true reading being Abî-Eraḫ (see Ranke, _Die Personennamen in den Urkunden der Hammurabi-dynastie_, 1902, page 48). The name has, however, recently been discovered in several documents of the time of Ammizaduga, the 10th king of the same dynasty. See _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, vi. (1909), Heft 5, page 60, where Ungnad shows that the name is not West Semitic, but Babylonian, that the pronunciation was Abaram, and that the first element is an accusative. He suggests that it may mean “he loves the father” (râma = רחם‎), the unnamed subject being probably a god. Compare _The Expository Times._, xxi. (1909), 88 ff.

² The Arabic kunyā, ’Abū-ruhm is only an accidental coincidence: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlii. 484².

³ Similarly von Gall (Altisraelitische Kultstätten 53), who compares Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), Arabic bht, appearing in Hebrew as בּוֹשׁ‎.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= אֵל שֶׂדַּי‎] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 293 ff., or Kautzsch in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3326 f. (compare Cheyne ib. iv. 4419 f.); on the renderings of the ancient versions, see the synopses of Dillmann (259), Driver (404 f.), and Valeton (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 11¹).――It is unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether שֶׂדַּי‎ was originally an independent noun, or an attribute of אֵל‎: Nöldeke and Baethgen decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology resolves the word into שׁ‎ = אֲשֶׁר‎ and דַּי‎,――‘the all-sufficient’ or ‘self-sufficient’ (Bereshith Rabba § 46: compare Rashi ‎ אני הוא שיש די באלהותי לכל בדיה‎). Though this theory can be traced as far back as the rendering of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (ἱκανός), it is an utterly groundless conjecture that Priestly-Code used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nöldeke al.) that the Massoretic punctuation has no better authority than this untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological theory. The old derivation from √ שׁרד‎ = ‘destroy,’ is still the best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at least some support in Isaiah 13⁶, Joel 1¹⁵, and is free from difficulty if we accept it as an ancient title appropriated by Priestly-Code without regard to its real significance. The assumption of a by-form שׁרה‎ (Ewald, Tuch, al.) is gratuitous, and would yield a form שֶׂדָּי‎, not שֶׂדַּי‎. Other proposed etymologies are: from שֵׁד‎ originally = ‘lord’ (Arabic sayyid), afterwards = ‘demon’ (pointing שֵׁדִי‎ or שֵׁדַי‎ [plural majority]: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 735 f., xlii. 480 f.); from √ שׁדה‎ (Arabic ṯadā) = ‘be wet’ (‘the raingiver’: _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 424); from Syrian (‡ Syriac word), ‘hurl’ (Schwally, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lii. 136: “a dialectic equivalent of יהוה‎ in the sense of lightning-thrower” [שֶׂדָּי‎]). Vollers (Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xvii. 310) argues for an original שֵׁד‎ (√ שׁוד‎), afterwards, through popular etymology and change of religious meaning, fathered on √ שׁדד‎. Several Assyriologists connect the word with šadû rabû, ‘great mountain,’ a title of Bêl and other Babylonian deities (Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 109 f.; Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 358): a view which would be more plausible if, as Friedrich Delitzsch (_Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ 95 f.) has maintained, the Assyrian √ meant ‘lofty’; but this is denied by other authorities (Halevy, Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung, ii. 405 ff.; Jensen Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, i. 251). As to the origin of the name, there is a probability that אֵל שֶׂדַּי‎ was an old (compare Genesis 49²⁵) Canaanite deity, of the same class as ’El ‛Elyôn (see on 14¹⁸), whom the Israelites identified with Yahwe (so Gunkel 235).――=4.= אֲנִי‎] is casus pendens (Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 197 (4)), not emphatic anticipation of following suffix (as Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 f).――=5.= את־שמך‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 a, b; but ‎ את‎ is omitted in some MSS and in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_.

* * * * *

=6.= The promise of kings among Abraham’s descendants is again peculiar to Priestly-Code (35¹¹). The reference is to the Hebrew monarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם‎, verse ²⁰), and those of Edom (36⁴⁰) are styled אַלּוּף‎――=7.= to be to thee a God] The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently recurring formula.¹ It is important for Priestly-Code’s notion of the covenant that the correlative ‘they (ye) shall be to me a people,’ which is always added in other writings (except Ezekiel 34²⁴), is usually omitted by Priestly-Code (except Exodus 6⁷, Leviticus 26¹²). The bĕrîth is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal act of choice on man’s part being no essential feature of the relation.――=8.= land of thy sojourning] 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹, Exodus 6⁴ (all Priestly-Code).

¹ The list of passages as given by Driver (page 186) is as follows: In Priestly-Code, Exodus 6⁷ 29⁴⁵, Leviticus 11⁴⁵; in Priestly-Codeʰ, Leviticus 22³³ 25³⁸ 26¹²ᐧ ⁴⁵, Numbers 15⁴¹; elsewhere, Deuteronomy 29¹³ (compare 26¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), Jeremiah 7²³ 11⁴ 24⁷ 30²² 31¹ᐧ ³³, Ezekiel 11²⁰ 14¹¹ 34²⁴ 36²⁸ 37²³ᐧ ²⁷, 2 Samuel 2²⁴ (= 1 Chronicles 17²²), Zechariah 8⁸.

* * * * *

‎ =6.= ממך‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) = מִמֵּעֶיךָ‎; see on 15⁴.――=8.= ‎ אֲחֻזָּה‎] a common word in Priestly-Code; elsewhere only Psalms 2⁸, Ezekiel 44²⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸.

* * * * *

=9‒14. The sign of the Covenant.=――To the promises of verses ²⁻⁸ there is attached a single command, with regard to which it is difficult to say whether it belongs to the content of the covenant (verse ¹⁰), or is merely an adjunct,――an external mark of the invisible bond which united every Jew to Yahwe (¹¹): see page 297. The theme at all events is the institution of circumcision. The legal style of the section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the book of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd person plural from ¹⁰ onwards).――=9.= And God said] marks a new section (compare ¹⁵), וְאַתָּה‎ being the antithesis to אֲנִי‎ in ⁴.――keep my covenant] שָׁמַר‎ is opposed to הֵפַֽר‎, ‘break,’ in ¹⁴; hence it cannot mean ‘watch over’ (Valeton), but must be used in the extremely common sense of ‘observe’ or ‘act according to.’ The question would never have been raised but for a disinclination to admit anything of the nature of a stipulation into Priestly-Code’s idea of the covenant.――=10.= This is my covenant] Circumcision is both the covenant and the sign of the covenant: the writer’s ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both representations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Olshausen and Ball) to read זאת אֹת בריתי‎ (see verse ¹³).――=11.= for a covenant-sign] i.e., after the analogy of 9¹² ᶠᐧ, a token by which God is reminded of the existence of the covenant. The conception rises out of the extraordinary importance of the rite when the visible fabric of Hebrew nationality was dissolved, and nothing remained but this corporal badge as a mark of the religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe.――=12a.= at the age of eight days] connected with the period of the mother’s uncleanness: Leviticus 12¹ᐧ ³; compare Genesis 21⁴, Luke 1⁵⁹ 2²¹, Philippians 3⁵; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 214.――=12b, 13= go together (Delitzsch), extending the obligation to slaves, who as members of the household follow the religion of their master.――The penalty of disobedience is death or excommunication, according as one or the other is meant by the obscure formula: be cut off from its kindred (v.i.).

* * * * *

‎ =10.= ובין זרעך אחריך‎] LXX + εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν. The whole is possibly a gloss (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel), due to confusion between the legislative standpoint of ¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ with its plural address, and the special communication to Abraham; see, however, verses ¹² ᶠᐧ――המול‎] infinitive absolute used as jussive; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 cc, gg: compare Exodus 12⁴⁸, Leviticus 6⁷, Numbers 6⁵.――=11.= וּנְמַלְתֶּם‎] treated by Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ as active, from √ נמל‎, but really abbreviated Niphal of √ מלל‎ (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 dd), a rare by-form (Joshua 5²) of מוּל‎.――והיה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ והיתה‎, adopted by Ball.――=12.= יליד בית‎] see 14¹⁴.――מקנת כסף‎] only verses ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ and Exodus 12⁴⁴.――מזרעך‎ is the individualising use of 2nd person singular, frequently alternating with 2nd plural in legal enactments. So verse ‎ ¹³.――=14.= ערלתו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX + ביום השמיני‎ (Ball).――ונכרתה――מעמיה‎] So Exodus 30³³ᐧ ³⁸ 31¹⁴, Leviticus 7²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ 17⁹ 19⁸ 23²⁹, Numbers 9¹³,――all in Priestly-Code, who employs a number of similar phrases――‘his people,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘the congregation of Israel,’ ‘the assembly,’ etc.――to express the same idea (see Driver 187²). עַמִּים‎ is here used in the sense of ‘kin,’ as occasionally in Old Testament (see 19³⁸ 25⁸). It is the Arabic ‛amm, which combines the two senses of ‘people,’ and ‘relative on the father’s side’: see Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 480, and compare Driver on Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰ (page 384); Krenkel, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, viii. 280 ff.; Nestle, ib. xvi. 322 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula there are two questions: (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or merely exclusion from the sacra of the clan and from burial in the family grave; and (b) whether the punishment is to be inflicted by the community, or by God in His providence. The interpretation seems to have varied in different ages. Exodus 31¹³ ᶠᐧ clearly contemplates the death penalty at the hands of the community; while Leviticus 17⁹ ᶠᐧ 20³ᐧ ⁶ point as clearly to a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to be used vaguely “as a strong affirmation of divine disapproval, rather than as prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced” (Driver). See Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 421 f.; Holzinger page 127 f.――הֵפַֽר‎] pausal form for הֵפֵר‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 q).

* * * * *

=15‒22. The heir of the Covenant.=――The promise of the birth of Isaac is brought into connexion with the main idea of the chapter by the assurance (¹⁹ᐧ ²¹) that the covenant is to be established with him and not with Ishmael.――=15.= Sarai’s name is changed to Sarah. The absence of an etymological motive is remarkable (v.i.).――=16b.= In LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate and Peshiṭtå, the blessing on Sarah is by slight changes of text turned into a blessing on the son whose birth has just been foretold (v.i.). The Massoretic Text, however, is more likely to be correct.――=17.= Abraham’s demeanour is a strange mixture of reverence and incredulity: “partim gaudio exultans, partim admiratione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit” is Calvin’s comment. It is Priestly-Code’s somewhat unnatural clothing of the traditional etymology of Isaac (יִצְחָק‎, verse ¹⁹); compare 18¹² (Yahwist), 21⁶ (Elohist).――=18.= The prayer, O that Ishmael might live before thee!――under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hosea 6²)――is a fine touch of nature; but the writer’s interest lies rather in the ‘determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,’ which overrides human feeling and irrevocably decrees the election of Israel (¹⁹).――=19a.= Compare the language with 16¹¹, and observe that the naming of the child is assigned to the father.――=20.= שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ‎] a remote allusion to the popular explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל‎, ‘May God hear’ (compare 16¹¹ 21¹⁷). Ishmael is to be endowed for Abraham’s sake with every kind of blessing, except the religious privileges of the covenant.――twelve princes] (compare 25¹⁶) as contrasted with the ‘kings’ of ⁶ᐧ ¹⁶.――=22.= The close of the theophany.—וַיַּעַל—מֵעַל‎ as 35¹³.

* * * * *

‎ =15.= שָׂרַי‎ (LXX Σάρα) and שָׂרָה‎ (LXX Σάῤῥα)] According to Nöldeke (Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xl. 183, xlii. 484), ־ַי‎ is ♦an old feminine terminator surviving in Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian. On this view שָׂרַי‎ may be either the same word as שָׂרָה‎, ‘princess’ (√ שרר‎), or (as the differentiation of LXX suggests) from √ שרה‎, ‘strive,’ with which the name Israel was connected (Genesis 32²⁹, Hosea 12⁴: see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 34 f. [Nöldeke dissents]). On Lagarde’s (Mittheilungen ii. 185) attempt to connect the name with Arabic šaraʸ = ‘wild fertile spot,’ and so to identify Abraham (as ‘husband of Sarai’) with the Nabatean god Dusares (ḏū-ššaraʸ), see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture raised beyond doubt by the discovery of the name Šarayat as consort of Dusares on an inscription at Boṣra in the Ḥaurân. The identification remains highly problematical.――=16.= וברכתיה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ וברכתיו‎. So LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, which consistently maintain the masculine to the end of the verse.――=17.= ואם――הֲ׳‎] a combination of the disjunctive question with casus pendens; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 150 g.

♦ duplicate word “an” removed

‎ =19.= אבל‎] ‘Nay, but,’――a rare asseverative (42²¹, 2 Samuel 14⁵, 2 Kings 4¹⁴, 1 Kings 1⁴³) and adversative (Daniel 10⁷ᐧ ²¹, Ezra 10¹³, 2 Chronicles 1⁴ 19³ 33¹⁷) particle. See the interesting note in Burney, Notes on Kings, page 11; and compare König, ii. ‎ 265.――לזרעו אחריו‎] LXX καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτὸν appears to imply a preceding clause εἶναι αὐτῷ θεός, which is found in many cursives. This is probably the correct reading.――=20.= נשיאם‎] LXX ἔθνη.

* * * * *

=23‒27. Circumcision of Abraham’s household.=――=23.= on that very day (compare 7¹³)] repeated in verse ²⁶. Throughout the section, Priestly-Code excels himself in pedantic and redundant circumstantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, however, is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign of the covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=25.= thirteen years old] This was the age of circumcision among the ancient Arabs, according to Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews i. 214. Origen (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica vi. 11:¹ compare Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 175³); and Ambrose (de Abraham ii. 348) give a similar age (14 years) for the Egyptians. It is possible that the notice here is based on a knowledge of this custom. Among the modern Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to fifteen years: see Dillmann 264; Driver in A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 504ᵇ.

¹ Edited by Heinichen, page 310 f.

Circumcision is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion, of whose introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic tradition. One account (Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᐧ) suggests a Midianite origin, another (Joshua 5² ᶠᶠᐧ) an Egyptian: the mention of flint knives in both these passages is a proof of the extreme antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).¹ The anthropological evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty, as a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood. This primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in infancy; and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained by the inherited belief that it was an indispensable condition of participation in the common cultus of the clan or nation. ♦Passages like Deuteronomy 10¹⁶ 30⁶, Ezekiel 44⁷ᐧ ⁹, show that in Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance to Yahwe; and in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable development which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the Exile (partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension of public worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which (like the Sabbath and circumcision) could be observed by the individual, and served to distinguish him from his heathen neighbours. In this way we can understand how, while the earlier legal codes have no law of circumcision, in Priestly-Code it becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed above the Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the Sabbath. The explicit formulating of the idea that circumcision is the sign of the national covenant with Yahwe was the work of the Priestly school of jurists; and very few legislative acts have exercised so tremendous an influence on the genius of a religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently trivial adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, _Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker_² (1894), i. 342‒372; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 174 f., _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 338 ff.; Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 132‒143; the articles in A Dictionary of the Bible (Macalister) and Encyclopædia Biblica (Benzinger); and the notes in Dillmann 258; Holzinger 129; Gunkel 237; Driver 189 ff.; Strack², 67; Matthes, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxix. 70 ff.

¹ In a tomb of the Old Empire at Sakkara there are wall-pictures of the operation, where the surgeon uses a flint knife: see G. Elliot Smith in _British Medical Journal_, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes); and the illustration in Texte und Bilder, ii. page 126.

♦ “Passsages” replaced with “Passages”

The Covenant-idea in Priestly-Code (see also page 290 f. above). In Priestly-Code’s scheme of four world-ages, the word בְּרִית‎ is used only of the revelations associated with Noah and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is avoided because the constitution of nature then appointed was afterwards annulled, whereas the Bĕrîth is a permanent and irreversible determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic revelation as a covenant is Jehovistic (Exodus 24³⁻⁸ 34¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.) and Deuteronomic (Deuteronomy 4¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 5² ᶠᶠᐧ 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata of Priestly-Code (Leviticus 26⁴⁵ [Priestly-Codeʰ], Exodus 31¹⁶ ᶠᐧ¹ [Priestly-Codeˢ]); but it is not found in the historical work which is the kernel of the Code (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ). Hence in trying to understand the religious significance of the Bĕrîth in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, we have but two examples to guide us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly discussed whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of God, irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving reciprocal obligations between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 183 ff.). The answer depends on the view taken of circumcision in this chapter. According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing more; i.e., a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant. According to Kraetzschmar, it is both a sign and a constituent of the covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant is entered into. The truth seems to lie somewhere between two extremes. The Bĕrîth is neither a simple divine promise to which no obligation on man’s part is attached (as in 15¹⁸), nor is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination of God’s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate; but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the individual from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement when Kraetzschmar (l.c. 201) infers from the expressions ‎ הֵקִים‎ and נָתַן‎ that for Priestly-Code there is only one eternal divine Bĕrîth, immutably established by God and progressively revealed to man.

¹ Could this, however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a ‘sign’ of the Adamic dispensation conceived as a covenant?

* * * * *

‎ =24.= שנה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ שנים‎.――בהמלו‎] The Niphal is here either reflexive or passive; in ²⁵ it is passive.――=26.= נמול‎] irregular perfect Niphal; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 ee. Peshiṭtå takes it as active. ‎ (√ נמל‎?) with Ishmael as object; and so LXX in verse ²⁷ (περιέτεμεν αὐτούς).

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XVIII. The Theophany at Hebron: Abraham’s Intercession for Sodom (Yahwist)

Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably entertains three mysterious visitors (¹⁻⁸), and is rewarded by the promise of a son to be born to Sarah in her old age (⁹⁻¹⁵). The three ‘men,’ whose true nature had been disclosed by their supernatural knowledge of Sarah’s thoughts, then turn towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (¹⁶), who, on learning Yahwe’s purpose to destroy that city (¹⁷⁻²¹), intercedes eloquently on its behalf (²²⁻³³).

The first half of the chapter (¹⁻¹⁶) shows at its best the picturesque, lucid, and flexible narrative style of Yahwist, and contains many expressions characteristic of that document: יהוה‎, ‎ ¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴; רוּץ לִקְרַאת‎, ² (only in Yahwist 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴); מָצָא חַן‎, ³; ‎ נָא‎, ³ᐧ ⁴; עַבְדְּךָ‎ (for 1st person), ³ᐧ ⁵; כִּי־עַל־כֵּן‎, ⁵; לָמָּה זֶּה‎, ¹³; השקיף‎, ¹⁶. The latter part (¹⁷⁻³³) is also Yahwistic (יהוה‎, ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ‎ ³³; [הִנֵּה]־נָא‎, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; חָלִלָה‎, ²⁵; הַפַּעַם‎, ³²), but contains two expansions of later date than the primary narrative. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 27 f.) appears to have proved that the original connexion between 18¹⁵ and 19¹ consists of ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ; and that ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ are editorial insertions reflecting theological ideas proper to a more advanced stage of thought (see below). A more comprehensive analysis is attempted by Kraetzschmar in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvii. 81 ff., prompted by the perplexing alternation of the singular ([יהוה‎] ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷⁻²¹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³) and plural (²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²²ᵃ)¹ in the dialogue between Abraham and his guests. The theory will repay a closer examination than can be given to it here; but I agree with Gunkel in thinking that the texture of ¹⁻¹⁶ is too homogeneous to admit of decomposition, and that some other explanation of the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption of an interweaving of a singular and a plural recension of the legend (see on verse ¹ and page 303 below).² With Gunkel also, we may regard the chapter as the immediate sequel to 13¹⁸ in the legendary cycle which fixes the residence of Abraham at Hebron (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ). The conception of Abraham’s character is closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of Yahwist, and differs appreciably from the representation of him in 12¹⁰⁻²⁰ and 16.

¹ It is important, however, to observe that in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (if we except the introductory ¹ᵃ) the singular does not appear till ¹⁰, but after that regularly up to ¹⁵.

² The same solution had occurred to Ball (_The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, 1896), but was rightly set aside by him as unproved.

=1‒8. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.=――The description “presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee sheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately orders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other animal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing milk and any other provisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and the meat that he has dressed, sets them before his guests: if they are persons of high rank he also stands by them while they eat” (Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 364: from Driver).――=1.= Yahwe appeared, etc.] This introductory clause simply means that the incident about to be related has the value of a theophany. In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present in the three men――whether He was one of the three, or whether all three were Yahwe in self-manifestation (Delitzsch)――we can hardly tell. The common view that the visitors were Yahwe accompanied by two of His angels does not meet the difficulties of the exegesis; and it is more probable that to the original Yahwist the ‘men’ were emissaries and representatives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see page 304 f.).――כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם‎] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day (2 Samuel 4⁵).――=2.= and behold] The mysteriously sudden advent of the strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Joshua 5¹³), though this makes no impression on Abraham at the time. The interest of the story turns largely on his ignorance of the real character of his guests.――=3.= The Massoretic pointing אֲדֹנָי‎ implies that Abraham recognised Yahwe as one of the three (Tuch, Delitzsch, al.); but this we have just seen to be a mistake. The correct form is either ‎אֲדֹנִי‎ (as 23⁶ᐧ ¹¹, etc.: so Dillmann, Driver), or (better, as 19²) אֲדֹנַי‎: Sirs!――restoring (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) the plural throughout the verse.――The whole of Abraham’s speech is a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-depreciatory courtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.――=4.= wash your feet] Compare 19² 24³² 43²⁴, Judges 19²¹, 2 Samuel 11⁸, Luke 7⁴⁴, 1 Timothy 5¹⁰.――recline yourselves] not at meat (Gunkel), but during the preparation of the meal. Even in the time of Amos (6⁴) reclining at table seems to have been a new-fangled and luxurious habit introduced from abroad: contrast the ancient custom 27¹⁹, Judges 19⁶, 1 Samuel 20⁵ᐧ ²⁴, 1 Kings 13²⁰.――=5.= support your heart] with the food, Judges 19⁵ᐧ ⁸, 1 Kings 13⁷, Psalms 104¹⁵; compare bread the ‘staff’ of life, Leviticus 26²⁶, Isaiah 3¹.――seeing that, etc.] Hospitality is, so to speak, the logical corollary of passing Abraham’s tent.――=6‒8.= The preparation of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily baked cakes of bread, flesh, and milk in two forms. On the items, v.i.――=8.= and they ate] So 19³――the only cases in Old Testament where the Deity is represented as eating (contrast Judges 6²⁰ ᶠᐧ 13¹⁶). The anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews i. 197: οἱ δὲ δόξαν αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων; compare Tobit 12¹⁹), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= יהוה‎] LXX ὁ θεός.――In אליו‎ the suffix may refer back directly to 13¹⁸ (see on the verse).――באלני ממרא‎] LXX πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῇ; see on 13¹⁸.――=3.= Read with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בעיניכם‎, תעברו‎, עבדכם‎.――=5.= אחר תעברו‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is the better reading, to which LXX adds εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῶν (compare ‎ 19²).――כי־על־כן‎ is not to be resolved into כִּי‎ and עַל־כֵּן‎, _denn eben desshalb_ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 308 a; Delitzsch, al.); but is a compound conjunction = quandoquidem, ‘inasmuch as’ (Tuch, Dillmann, Driver), as usage clearly shows; compare 19⁸ 33¹⁰ 38²⁶ Numbers 10³¹ 14⁴³ (all Yahwist), Judges 6²², 2 Samuel 18²⁰, Jeremiah 29²⁸ 38⁴†; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 158 _b_³; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.――עברתם על‎ LXX ἐξεκλίνατε πρός = סַרְתֶּם אֶל‎ (19² ᶠᐧ), which is too rashly accepted by Ball.――וַיֹּאמְרוּ‎] LXX has the singular wrongly.――=6.= Three seahs would be (according to Kennedy’s computation, A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 912) approximately equal to 4½ pecks.――קמח סלת‎] LXX σεμιδάλεως, [Vulgate similæ] which might stand either for קמח‎ (1 Samuel 1²⁴) or סלת‎ (as in every other instance). The latter (the finer variety) is here probably a gloss on קמח‎.――עגות‎] (LXX ἐγκρυφίας, Vulgate subcinericios panes) are thin round cakes baked on hot stones or in the ashes (Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² ‎ 64).――=8.= חמאה‎ is the Arabic laban, milk slightly soured by fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria and Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see Encyclopædia Biblica, iii. 3089 f.).

* * * * *

=9‒15. The promise of a son to Sarah.=――The subject is introduced with consummate skill. In the course of the conversation which naturally follows the meal, an apparently casual question leads to an announcement which shows superhuman knowledge of the great blank in Abraham’s life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature of the visitors. See Gunkel’s fine exposition, 172 f.; and contrast the far less delicate handling of an identical situation in 2 Kings 4¹³⁻¹⁶.――=9.= The question shows that Sarah had not been introduced to the strangers, in accordance probably with Hebrew custom (Gunkel).――=10.= I will return] The definite transition to the singular takes place here (see on verse ³). In the original legend the plural was no doubt kept up to the end; but the monotheistic habit of thought was too strong for Hebrew writers, when they came to words which could be properly ascribed only to Yahwe.――On כָּעֵת חַיָּה‎, v.i.――Sarah was listening] with true feminine curiosity; compare 27⁵. The last two words should probably be rendered: she being behind it (the tent or the door); compare the footnote.――=11.= A circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah’s incredulity (verse ¹²).――after the manner of women (compare 31³⁵)] “quo genere loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt” (Calvin); LXX τὰ γυναίκια; Vulgate muliebria.――=12.= Sarah laughed (וַתִּצְחַק‎) within herself] obviously a proleptic explanation of the name יִצְחָק‎ (see on 17¹⁷), although the sequel in this document has not been preserved.――waxed old] literally ‘worn away,’ a strong word used, e.g., of worn out garments (Deuteronomy 8⁴ 29⁴ etc.).――עֶדְנָה‎ (only here), ‘sensuous enjoyment’ (Liebeswonne).――=13.= This leads to a still more remarkable proof of divine insight: the speaker knows that Sarah has laughed, though he has neither seen nor heard her (בְּקִרְבָּהּ‎, verse ¹²). The insertion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the occurrence of the name in the next verse.――=14.= Is anything too strange for Yahwe?] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not imply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather a distinction analogous to that frequently drawn between Yahwe and the angel of Yahwe (see on 16⁷).――=15.= Sarah denied it] startled by the unexpected exposure of her secret thoughts into fear of the mysterious guests.

From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just considered, with its sequel in chapter 19, is one of the most obscure in Genesis. According to Gunkel (174 ff.), whose genial exposition has thrown a flood of light on the deeper aspects of the problem, the narrative is based on a widely diffused Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron in the pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were originally three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the function described in the lines of Homer (Odyssey xvii. 485 ff.):

Καί τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν, παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας, ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες.¹

Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods with the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to hospitality, and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic features of a Dioscuric visitation (Cult of the Heavenly Twins, 37 ff.). Of the numerous parallels that are adduced, by far the most striking is the account of the birth of Orion in Ovid, Fasti, v. 495 ff.: Hyrieus, an aged peasant of Tanagra, is visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, and shows hospitality to them; after the repast the gods invite him to name a wish; and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son. ‘Pudor est ulteriora loqui’; but at the end of ten months Orion is miraculously born. The resemblance to Genesis 18 is manifest; and since direct borrowing of the Bœotian legend from Jewish sources is improbable, there is a presumption that we have to do with variations of the same tale. The theory is rendered all the more plausible by the fact that a precisely similar origin is suggested by the leading motives of chapter 19 (see below).――Assuming that some such pagan original is the basis of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion between the singular and plural which has been already referred to as a perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the rank of Yahwe’s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive Hebraïzing of the conception, but never consistently carried through. An opposite view is taken by Fripp (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xii. 23 ff.), who restores the singular throughout, and by Kraetzschmar, who, as we have seen, distinguishes between a singular and a plural recension, but regards the former as the older. The substitution of angels for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthropomorphic representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the resolution of the one Yahwe into three angels would be unaccountable, especially in Yahwist, who appears never to speak of angels in the plural (see on 19¹). See Gunkel 171, and Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, iv. 4667 f.

¹ The belief appears to be very ancient. Dr. Frazer cites several primitive rites in which strangers are treated as deities――not always to their advantage (Golden Bough, ii. 225, 232, 234 f., and especially 237; Adonis Attis Osiris, 21 ff.).

* * * * *

‎ =9.= ויאמרו‎] LXX ויאמר‎ (wrongly).――אֹליֹוֹ‎] The superlinear points (compare 16⁵) are thought to indicate a reading לו‎.――=10.= כָּעֵת חַיָּה‎] This peculiar phrase (recurring only verse ¹⁴, 2 Kings 4¹⁶ ᶠᐧ) is now almost invariably rendered ‘at the (this) time, when it revives,’ i.e., next year, or spring (so Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra; compare Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 470; Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 202 a; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 312 a; Ewald _Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ § 337 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 u; König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_ § 387 e); but the sense is extremely forced. It is surprising that no one seems to suspect a reference to the period of pregnancy. In New Hebrew חַיָּה‎ means a woman in child-birth (so perhaps חָיָה‎ in Exodus 1¹⁹ [Holzinger ad v.]); and here we might point כְּעֵת חַיָּה‎ or כּ׳ חָיָה‎, rendering ‘according to the time of a pregnant woman,’ or 9 months hence. לַמּועֵד‎ in verse ¹⁴ is no obstacle, for מוֹעֵד‎ is simply the time determined by the previous promise, and there is no need to add הַזֶּה‎ (LXX after 17²¹). 2 Kings 4¹⁶ (לַמּ׳ הַזֶּה‎) does present a difficulty; but that late passage is modelled on this, and the original phrase may have been already misunderstood, as it is by all versions: e.g. LXX κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘at a time when you are living’; Peshiṭtå ‘at this time, she being alive’; Vulgate tempore isto, vita comite. Ball also points as construct, but thinks חַיָּה‎ an old name for spring.――והנה‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְהָיָה‎.――והוא אחריו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ והיא א׳‎; so LXX οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ. Massoretic Text is perhaps a neglect of the Qĕrê perpet (וְהִוא‎).――=11.= באים בימים‎] compare 24¹, Joshua 13¹ 23¹ᐧ ², 1 Kings 1¹.――ארח כנשים‎] Ball, Kittel more smoothly, כְּאֹרַח נָשִׁים‎.――=12.= אַֽחֲרֵי――עֶדְנָה‎] LXX Οὔπω μέν μοι γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν presupposes an impossible text בִּלְתִּי הָֽיְתָה לִי עֲדָנָה‎. The change is perhaps alluded to in Mechilta on Exodus 12⁴⁰ (see page 14 above; Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums_ 439, 442).――אַֽחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי‎] Aquila μετὰ τὸ κατατριβῆναί με; Symmachus (less accurately) μετὰ τὸ παλαιωθῆναί με.――=14.= ‎ היפלא מן‎] Jeremiah 32¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷, Deuteronomy 17⁸ 30¹¹.

* * * * *

=16‒22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.=

The soliloquy of Yahwe in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ breaks the connexion between ¹⁶ and ²⁰, and is to all appearance a later addition (see page 298). (a) The insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the three strangers; but this is hardly the intention of the main narrative, which continues to speak of ‘the men’ in the plural (²²ᵃ). (b) In ¹⁷ Yahwe has resolved on the destruction of Sodom, whereas in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ He proposes to abide by the result of a personal investigation. (c) Both thought and language in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ show signs of Deuteronomic influence (see Holzinger and Gunkel). Dillmann’s assertion (265), that ²⁰ ᶠᐧ have no motive apart from ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ and ²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign a reason for the addition of ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. The idea seems to be that Abraham (as a prophet: compare Amos 3⁷) must be initiated into the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in the ways of Yahwe.

=16.= and looked out in view of Sodom (compare 19²⁸)] The Dead Sea not being visible from Hebron, we must understand that a part of the journey has been accomplished. Tradition fixed the spot at a village over 3 miles East of Hebron, called by Jerome Caphar Barucha, now known as Beni Na‛im, but formerly Kefr Barîk, from which the Sea is seen through gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 490 f.; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 158 f.).――=17.= But Yahwe had said] sc. ‘to Himself’; the construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.――=18.= Seeing Abraham, etc.] Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the religious importance of the individual beside Him.――and all nations, etc.] See the notes on 12³. בּוֹ‎ possibly refers not to Abraham but to גּוֹי‎; compare 22¹⁸ (Wellhausen).――=19.= Compare Deuteronomy 6¹⁻³.――For I have known (i.e. ‘entered into personal relations with’: as Amos 3², Hosea 13⁵) him in order that, etc.] There is a certain incongruity between the two parts of the verse: here the establishment of the true religion is the purpose of Abraham’s election; in ¹⁹ᵇ the end of the religion is the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.――=20.= Resuming verse ¹⁶. An earlier form of the story no doubt read וַיֹּאמְרוּ‎ instead of וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה‎].――On the peculiar construction, v.i.――=21.= Restoring the plural as before, the verse reads as a disjunctive question: We will go down that we may see whether ... or not: we would know.

* * * * *

‎ =16.= סְדֹם‎] LXX + καὶ Γομόρρας.――=17.= After אַבְרָהָם‎ LXX, Peshiṭtå read עַבְדִּי‎.――=19.= ידעתיו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate omit the suffix, while LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå treat what follows as an object clause (quod, etc.), through a misunderstanding of the sense of ידע‎.――=20.= זעקת‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ צעקת‎ as verse ²¹.――כִּי‎ (bis)] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארי‎. The particle is ignored by LXX, Vulgate; also by Peshiṭtå, which supplies (‡ Syriac phrase) and omits כִּי רַבָּה‎. If the text be retained the כִּי‎ is either corroborative (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 148 d, 159 ee), or causal (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 473 b); but neither construction is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is itself objectionable; for whether the ‘sin’ actually corresponds to the ‘cry’ is the very point to be investigated (verse ²¹). This material difficulty is not removed by the addition of ‎ שָׁמַעְתִּי‎ (Olshausen) or בָּאָה אֵלַי‎ (Kittel). Its removal is the sole recommendation of Wellhausen’s proposal to omit וְ‎ before ‎ חַטָּאתָם‎ and render, ‘There is a rumour about Sodom and Gomorrah that their sin is great, that it is very grievous.’――=21.= Read with LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָם‎.――On הַבָּֽאָה‎ for הַבָּאָֽה‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 k.――כָּלָה‎ is difficult: compare Exodus 11¹, another doubtful passive. Wellhausen here suggests כֻּלָּהּ‎, Olshausen כֻּלָּם‎.

* * * * *

=22b‒33. Abraham’s intercession.=

The secondary character of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ (see page 298) appears from the following considerations: (a) In ²²ᵃ ‘the men’ (i.e. all three) have moved away to Sodom; in ²²ᵇ Yahwe remains behind with Abraham. That Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the view of the later editors (see on 19¹); but if that had been the original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this point. (b) In ²⁰ ᶠᐧ we have seen that the fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in ²³ ᶠᶠᐧ its destruction is assumed as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the section was composed. The precise point of view here represented appears most clearly in such passages as Jeremiah 15¹, Ezekiel 14¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and in general it was not till near the Exile that the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience in Israel.

* * * * *

=22b= contains one of the 18 תִּקֻּנֵי סֹפְרִים‎ (corrections of the scribes). The original reading ויהוה עדנו עמד לפני אב׳‎ is said to have been changed out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all versions as well as by 19²⁷; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested restoration (Tuch, Dillmann, against Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel, al.).

* * * * *

=23.= Wilt thou even sweep away, etc.] The question strikes the keynote of the section,――a protest against the thought of an indiscriminate judgement (compare Job 9²²).――=24.= Suppose there should be fifty, etc.] A small number in a city, but yet sufficient to produce misgiving if they should perish unjustly.――and not forgive the place] In Old Testament, righteousness and clemency are closely allied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent persons than in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what limits is the application of this principle subject?――=25.= Shall not the Judge, etc.] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the world would make piety impossible: compare Romans 3⁶.――=27.= I have ventured] compare Jeremiah 12¹. הוֹאִיל‎ expresses the overcoming of a certain inward reluctance (Joshua 7⁷).――dust and ashes] an alliterative combination (Job 30¹⁹ 42⁶, Sirach 40³). As a description of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sirach 10⁹ 17³².――=28.= בַּחֲמִשָּׁה‎] literally ‘on account of the 5’; a somewhat paradoxical form of expression.――=30‒32=. Emboldened by success, Abraham now ventures on a reduction by 10 instead of 5 (Delitzsch); this is continued till the limit of human charity is reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.――=33.= went] not to Sodom, but simply ‘departed.’――=33b= would be equally appropriate after ³³ᵃ or ²²ᵃ.

* * * * *

‎ =23, 24.= האף‎] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הבירגז‎, mistaking for אַף‎ = ‘anger’: so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――=23= end] LXX + καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής (²⁵ᵃ).――=24.= תשא‎] sc. עָוֹן‎ = ‘forgive’: Numbers 14¹⁹, Isaiah 2⁹, Hosea 1⁶ etc.――=25.= חָלִלָה‎] literally ‘profanum (sit),’ construed with מִן‎, as 44⁷ᐧ ¹⁷, often. The full formula is ח׳ ל׳ מיהוה‎ (1 Samuel 24⁷ 26¹¹ etc.).――לא יעשה משפט‎] Vulgate (nequaquam facies judicium hoc) and Peshiṭtå (which takes השׁפט‎ as vocative) mistake the sense.――=28.= יחסרון‎] The regular use of the ending וּן‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 m) from this point onwards is remarkable (Dillmann). The form, though etymologically archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in Old Testament, and is peculiarly frequent in Deuteronomic style (Driver on Deuteronomy 1¹⁷).――=32.= הפעם‎] see on 2²³.

* * * * *

XIX. 1‒29. The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance of Lot (Yahwist and Priestly-Code).

The three men (see on verse ¹) who have just left Abraham reach Sodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot (¹⁻³), but are threatened with outrage by the Sodomites (⁴⁻¹¹). Thus convinced of the depravity of the inhabitants, they secure the safety of Lot’s household (¹²⁻²²), after which the city is destroyed by fire and brimstone (²³⁻²⁸).

Thus far Yahwist: compare יהוה‎, ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁷; נא‎, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ‎ ²⁰; טרם‎, ⁴; כי־על־כן‎, ⁸; לקראת‎, ¹; פצר‎, ³ᐧ ⁹; השקיף‎, ²⁸.――The summary in ²⁹ is from Priestly-Code: compare אלהים‎, שחת‎, ערי הככר‎, (compare 6¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵).――The passage continues 18²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ), and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham’s tent (18¹⁻¹⁵). The alternation of singular and plural is less confusing than in 18; and Kraetzschmar’s theory (see page 298 f.) does less violence to the structure of the passage. Indeed, Gunkel himself admits that the singular section ¹⁷⁻²² (with ²⁶) is an ‘intermezzo’ from another Yahwistic author (Gunkel 181).

=1‒3. Lot’s hospitality.=――Compare Judges 19¹⁵⁻²¹.――=1a.= the two angels] Read ‘the men,’ as 18¹⁶ [19⁵ᐧ ⁸] ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶; see the footnote.――in the gate] the place of rendezvous in Eastern cities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ¹¹, Job 29⁷ etc.――Compare 18².――אֲדֹנַי‎] Sirs! See on 18³. Delitzsch’s inference that Lot’s spiritual vision was less clear than Abraham’s may be edifying, but is hardly sound.――=2b.= The refusal of the invitation may be merely a piece of Oriental politeness, or it may contain a hint of the purpose of the visit (18²¹). In an ordinary city it would be no great hardship to spend the night in the street: Lot knows only too well what it would mean in Sodom.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= שני המלאכים‎] This word has not been used before, and recurs only in verse ¹⁵ (in The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch also verse ¹², and in LXX verse ¹⁶). The phrase is, no doubt, a correction for הָֽאֲנָשִׁים‎, caused by the introduction of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ, and the consequent identification of Yahwe with one of the original three, and the other two with His angels (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 27 f.).――=2=. הִנֶּה נָּא‎] so pointed only here: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 __d_, 100 o.――=3.= פצר‎] Only again 19⁹ 33¹¹ (Yahwist), Judges 19⁷, 2 Kings 2¹⁷ 5¹⁶.

* * * * *

=4‒11. The assault of the Sodomites.=――=4.= They had not yet retired to rest when, etc.] That all the men of the city were involved in the attack is affirmed with emphasis (מִקָּצֶה‎: v.i.): an instance of the ‘shamelessness’ of Sodom (Isaiah 3⁹).――=5.= The unnatural vice which derives its name from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest depth of moral corruption: compare Leviticus 18²² ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹³ᐧ ²³, Ezekiel 16⁵⁰, Judges 19²².――=6‒8.= Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges 19²⁵ᐧ ³⁰), shows him as a courageous champion of the obligations of hospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment, and is recorded to his credit. Compare 12¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ――=8.= inasmuch as they have come under the shadow (i.e. ‘protection’) of my roof-tree] קֹרָה‎, ‘beam’ (like μέλαθρα), for ‘house.’――=9=. Lot is reminded of his solitary ‎(הָֽאֶחָד‎, der Eine da) and defenceless position as a gêr (see on 12¹⁰).――=11.= The divine beings smite the rabble with demonic blindness (סַנְוֵרִים‎: v.i.).

* * * * *

‎ =4.= אנשי סדם‎] probably a gloss (Olshausen).――מקצה‎] (LXX ἅμα‎) an abbreviation of מן־הקצה ועד־הקצה‎ (Genesis 47²¹, Exodus 26²⁸, Deuteronomy 13⁸ etc.) = ‘exhaustively’: so Isaiah 56¹¹, Jeremiah 51³¹, Ezekiel 25⁹.――=6.= הפתחה‎] omitted by LXX, Vulgate.――=8.= ‎ האל‎] = הָאֵלֶּה‎ (only again 19²⁵ 26³ ᶠ, Leviticus 18²⁷, Deuteronomy 4⁴² 7²² 19¹¹, 1 Chronicles 20⁸) is an orthographic variant (not in The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch), meant originally to be pronounced הָאֵלָּ‎. See Driver on Deuteronomy ‎ 4⁴².――כי־על־כן‎] as 18⁵.――=9.= הלאה‎ [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ גשה‎]גֶּשׁ־‎] LXX ἀπόστα ἐκεῖ: ‘stand back there’; compare ‎ גְּשָׁה־לִּי‎, Isaiah 49²⁰.――וישפט שפוט‎] Consecutive imperfect expressing ‘paradoxical consequence’ (Delitzsch); compare 32³¹ 40²³, Job 2³: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 l, m. The infinitive absolute after its verb properly denotes continuance of the action; here its position seems due to the consecutive ו‎, and its force as if it had stood first (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 r, p)――=11.= סַנְוֵרִים‎] (2 Kings 6¹⁸†) is related to ordinary blindness (עִוָּרוֹן‎, Deuteronomy 28²⁸, Zechariah 12⁴†), somewhat as תַּרְדֵּמָה‎ (2²¹) is to ordinary sleep. If from √ נור‎ (‘shine’), it is either a common oriental euphemism (König ii. page 404), or dazzling from excess of light (Acts 9³): compare Hoffmann, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, ii. 68¹. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבריריא‎ means both ‘brightness’ and ‘blindness’; and in the Talmud Shabriri is a demon of blindness (Jewish Encyclopædia, iv. 517 a). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), ‘hallucinations.’

* * * * *

=12‒16. The deliverance of Lot.=――=12=. On the construction, v.i.――=13.= Yahwe has sent us] i.e. the ‘three’ are agents of Yahwe, who is therefore not present in person.――=14.= Lot warns his (prospective) sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters: so Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 202, Vulgate, Tuch, Dillmann, Driver, al. Others (LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.) take לֹקְחֵי‎ as referring to the past, which is possible (compare 27⁴⁶).――as one that jested] see on 21⁹.――=15.= as the dawn appeared] The judgement must be accomplished by sunrise (²³ ᶠᐧ); hence the urgency of the summons.――the angels] ‘the men,’ as verse ‎¹.――הנִּמְצָאֹת‎] who are at hand (1 Samuel 21⁴).――=16.= he hesitated] reluctant, and only half-convinced.――through Yahwe’s compassion on him].――left him without the city] rather suggests, as Gunkel (186) holds, that there he is in safety.

* * * * *

‎ =12.= עד מי־לך וגו׳‎] The stiff construction has led to various operations on the text. LXX, Vulgate seem to have read חֲתָנִים וּבָנִים ‎ וּבָנֹת‎; Peshiṭtå has חֲתָנֶיךָ‎. Dillmann suggests that the letters ובנ‎ have been accidentally thrust into the word חתנ־יך‎; Holzinger and Gunkel omit ו‎ in ובניך‎ (so _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) and commence a new sentence there; Ball, Kittel delete חתן ו‎. The text may be retained if we take the first clause as indirect question: ‘Whomsoever thou hast here as a son-in-law, and thy sons ... bring forth,’ etc.――At end add הַזָּה‎ with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX.――=15.= ‎ כמו‎] “rare and poetic” (Dillmann). Here used as conjunction ‎ (= כאשר‎).――הנמצאת‎] LXX ἃς ἔχεις καὶ ἔξελθε; Vulgate _quas habes_.――=16.= חמלת‎] future infinitive construct.――=16b= is omitted by LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, but is found in many cursives.

* * * * *

=17‒22. The sparing of Zoar.=――=17.= the mountain] the elevated Moabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights of 2500‒3000 feet. from the East side of the Sea.――look not behind thee] Such prohibitions are frequent in legends and incantations; compare the story of Orpheus and Eurydice (Ovid, Metamorphoses x. 51; Virgil Georgics iv. 491); compare also Virgil Eclogues viii. 102; Ovid Fasti, v. 439.――=20.= is near enough to flee to].――מִצְעָר‎] a trifle: repeated with a view to the etymology of ²²ᵇ.

The city of Ẓō‛ar (LXX Σηγωρ) was well known, not only in Old Testament times (13¹⁰ 14²ᐧ ⁸, Deuteronomy 34³, Isaiah 15⁵, Jeremiah 48³⁴), but also in the time of the Crusades, and to the Arabic geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea of Zuġar. That this mediæval Zoar was at the South end of the lake is undisputed; and there is no good reason to question its identity with the biblical city (see Josephus War of the Jews, iv. 482; _Onomastica Sacra_¹, 261³⁷). Since Wetzstein, it is usually located at Ghōr eṣ-Ṣāfiyeh, about 5 miles South-east from the present shore of the Sea (compare Dillmann 273; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 271; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 505 ff.; and especially Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 985b ff.). The situation of the city naturally gave birth to the secondary legend that it had been saved from the fate of the adjacent cities on account of the intercession of Lot; while the name in Hebrew readily suggested the etymology of ²²ᵇ.

* * * * *

‎ =17.= ויאמר‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå have plural, which is supported by the previous הוציאם‎ and the following אלהם‎, though the singular is maintained in the rest of the section.――תביט‎] for תַּבַּֽט‎; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 p.――המלט‎] five times repeated in the six verses is thought by Ball to be a play on the name ‎ לוֹט‎.――=20.= ותחי נפשי‎] LXX + ἕνεκεν σοῦ, a slavish imitation of ‎ 12¹³.――=21.= נשאתי פניך‎] ‘have accepted thee’ (literally ‘lifted up thy face’: opposite השיב פנים‎)――here in a good sense (as 32²¹, 2 Kings 3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ ᶠᐧ), more frequent in the bad sense of partiality in judgement (Leviticus 19¹⁵, Deuteronomy 10¹⁷, Malachi 2⁹, Job 13¹⁰ etc.).

* * * * *

=23‒28. The catastrophe.=――Brevity in the description of physical phenomena is in accord with the spirit of the Hebrew legend, whose main interest is the dramatic presentation of human character and action.――=23, 24.= The clause when Lot entered Zoar, presupposes ¹⁷⁻²², and, if the latter be from a separate source, must be deleted as an interpolation (Gunkel). The connexion is improved by the excision: just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 b).――sulphur and fire (Ezekiel 38²², Psalms 11⁶)] a feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of the region (see below).――Yahwe rained ... from Yahwe] A distinction between Yahwe as present in the angels and Yahwe as seated in heaven (Dillmann) is improbable. We must either suppose that the original subject was ‘the men’ (so Gunkel: compare verse ¹³), or that מֵאֵת יהוה‎ is a doublet to מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם‎: the latter phrase, however, is generally considered to be a gloss (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, Kittel).――=25.= וַֽיַּהֲפֹךְ‎] see on ²⁹.――=26.= Lot’s wife transgresses the prohibition of ¹⁷, and is turned into a pillar of salt.

The literal interpretation of this notice, though still maintained by Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The pillar is mentioned as still existing in Wisdom of Solomon 10⁷, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 203; the reference obviously being to some curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the popular imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the story of Lot. Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical column, 40 feet high, on the East side of Ǧebel Usdum, described by Lynch, is, of course, doubtful.¹ The fact that Ǧebel Usdum is on the South-west side of the lake, while Zoar was on the South-east, would not preclude the identification: it would simply mean that the whole region was haunted by the legend of Lot. But the disintegration of the rock-salt of which that remarkable ridge is mainly composed, proceeds so rapidly, and produces so many fantastic projections and pinnacles, that the tradition may be supposed to have attached itself to different objects at different periods. See Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 152.

¹ I cannot find the proof of Gunkel’s assertion that this pillar is now called ‘the daughter of Lot.’

* * * * *

‎ =23.= ‎יצא‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch יצאה‎; compare 15¹⁷.――=25.= האל‎ (verse ⁸)] LXX + אֲשֶׁר יָשֶׂב בָּהֵן לוֹט‎, as verse ²⁹.――=26.= The verse stands out of its proper position (note the ו‎ consecutive, and the suffixes), and belongs to ¹⁷⁻²² rather than to the main narrative (Gunkel).

* * * * *

=27, 28.= Abraham’s morning visit to the spot where he had parted from his heavenly guests forms an impressive close to the narrative.――and he looked, etc.] an effective contrast to 18¹⁶.――the smoke of the land was afterwards believed to ascend permanently from the site of the guilty cities (Wisdom 10⁷).――The idea may have been suggested by the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface of the Dead Sea (see Dillmann).

* * * * *

‎ =27=. וישכם――אל־‎] pregnant construct.――=27b.= must have been interpolated after the expansion of chapter 18 by verses ‎ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ.――=28.= ארץ הככר‎ does not occur elsewhere. The variations of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå warrant the emendation כָּל־הַכִּכָּר‎ (Kittel)――כקיטר הככשן‎] the same simile in Exodus 19¹⁸ (also Yahwist).――קִיטֹר‎] Psalms 119⁸³ 148⁸†.

* * * * *

=29.= (From Priestly-Code: see page 306.) Gunkel conjectures that the verse formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and that its original position in Priestly-Code was after 13¹²ᵃ. The dependence of Priestly-Code on Yahwist is very manifest.――the cities in [one of] which Lot dwelt] as 8⁴, Judges 12⁷.

The destruction of the Cities of the Plain.――The narrative of chapter 19 appears at first sight to be based on vague recollection of an actual occurrence,――the destruction of a group of cities situated in what is now the Dead Sea, under circumstances which suggested a direct interposition of divine power. It seems unreasonable to suppose that a legend so firmly rooted in Hebrew tradition, so full of local colour, and preserving so tenaciously the names of the ruined cities, should be destitute of historic foundation; and to doubt whether any such cities as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea basin appears an unduly sceptical exercise of critical judgement. It has been shown, moreover, that a catastrophe corresponding in its main features to the biblical description is an extremely probable result of volcanic and other forces, acting under the peculiar geological conditions which obtain in the Dead Sea depression. According to Sir J. W. Dawson, it might have been caused by an explosion of bitumen or petroleum, like those which so frequently prove destructive in Canada and the United States (see The Expositor 1886, i. page 74; Modern Science in Bible Lands, 486 ff.). A similar theory has been worked out in elaborate and picturesque detail by Blanckenhorn in Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, xix. 1‒64, xxi. 65‒83 (see Driver page 202 f.).¹ These theories are very plausible, and must be allowed their full weight in determining the question of historicity. At the same time it requires to be pointed out that they do not prove the incident to be historical; and several considerations show that a complete explanation of the legend cannot be reached on the lines of physical science. (a) It is impossible to dissociate the legend altogether from the current Old Testament representation (13¹⁰ 14³ᐧ ¹⁰) that prior to this event the Dead Sea did not exist,――an idea which geology proves to be absolutely erroneous. It is true that the narrative does not state that the cities were submerged by the waters of the Dead Sea; and it is possible to suppose that they were situated either south of the present margin of the lake, or in its shallow southern bay (which might possibly have been formed within historic times). The fact, however, remains, that the Israelites had a mistaken notion of the origin of the Dead Sea; and this fact throws some suspicion on the whole legend of the ‘cities of the Plain.’ (b) It is remarkable that the legend contains no mention of the Dead Sea, either as the cause of the catastrophe, or as originating contemporaneously with it (Gunkel). So important an omission suggests the possibility that the Sodom-legend may have arisen in a locality answering still more closely to the volcanic features of the description (such as the ‘dismal Ḥarras of Arabia’ [Meyer]), and been transferred to the region of the Dead Sea valley. (c) The stereotyped term מַהְפֵּכָה‎ (see on verse ²⁹), which seems to have been imported with the legend, points clearly to an earthquake as the main cause of the overthrow; and there is no mention of an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 4668 f.)――another indication that it has been transplanted from its native environment. (d) The most important consideration is that the narrative seems to belong to a widely diffused class of popular tales, many interesting examples of which have been published by Cheyne in The New World, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical explanation of the cataclysm furnishes any clue to the significance of the angels’ visit to Lot; but a study of the folklore parallels shows that the connexion between that incident and the destruction of Sodom is not accidental, but rests on some mythological motive whose origin is not as yet explained. Thus in the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, Metamorphoses viii. 625 ff.), an aged Phrygian couple give shelter in their humble dwelling to Zeus and Hermes in human guise, when every other door is closed against them. As a reward for their hospitality they are directed to flee to the mountain, and there, looking back, they see the whole district inundated by a flood, except their own wretched hut, which has been transformed into a temple, etc. The resemblance here is so great that Cheyne (l.c. 240) pronounces the tale a secondary version of Genesis 19; but other parallels, hardly less striking, present the same combination of kindness to divine beings rewarded by escape from a destructive visitation in which a whole neighbourhood perishes for its impious neglect of the duties of hospitality.――On these grounds some writers consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew adaptation of a widespread legend, its special features being suggested by the weird scenery of the Dead Sea region,――its barren desolation, the cloud of vapour hanging over it, its salt rocks with their grotesque formations, its beds of sulphur and asphalt, with perhaps occasional conflagrations bursting out amongst them (see Gunkel 188 f.). Dr. Rendel Harris (Heavenly Twins, 39 ff.) takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and thus a natural sequel to 18¹⁻¹⁵ (see page 302 above). Assyriologists have found in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jastrow Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xiii. 291, 297; _The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_¹, 507), or of the World-conflagration which is the astronomical counterpart of that conception (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 360 ff.): both forms of the theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 559 f.).――Whatever truth there may be in these speculations, the religious value of the biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story, it retains the power to touch the conscience of the world as a terrible example of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness and unnatural lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another testimony to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient Israel.

¹ Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current in ancient times. Strabo (XVI. ii. 44) says that it took place ὑπὸ σεισμῶν καὶ ἀναφυσημάτων πυρὸς καὶ θερμῶν ὑδάτων ἀσφαλτωδῶν τε καὶ θειωδῶν, in consequence of which the lake burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and so on. Compare Josephus War of the Jews, iv. 484 f., _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 203; Tacitus, Histories v. 7.

* * * * *

‎ =29.= ההפכה‎ ‘the overthrow,’ ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The usual verbal noun is מהפכה‎ (Deuteronomy 29²², Isaiah 1⁷ [read סְדֹם‎ for זָרִים‎], 13¹⁹, Jeremiah 49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Amos 4¹¹†), which is never used except in connexion with this particular judgement. The unhebraic form of infinitive, with the fact that where subject is expressed it is always (even in Amos) אלהים‎ and not יהוה‎, justify the conclusion that the phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of the story (Kraetzschmar, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 87 f.). Compare the use of the verb 19²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁹, Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 20¹⁶, Lamentations ‎ 4⁶.――בהפך‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch בהפכו‎ is easier. LXX בה׳ יהוה‎.

* * * * *

=XIX. 30‒38.――Lot and his Daughters (Yahwist).=

This account of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites is a pendant to the destruction of Sodom, just as the story of Noah’s drunkenness (9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ) is an appendix to the Deluge narrative. Although it has points of contact with ¹⁻²⁸, it is really an independent myth, as to the origin and motives of which see the concluding Note (page 314).

Source.――Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there is no reason to doubt that the section belongs to Yahwist: note the two daughters, and the mention of Zoar in ³⁰; and compare ‎ חִיָּה זֶרַע‎, ³²ᐧ ³⁴; with 7³; and צְעִירָה‎‎, בְּכִירָה‎, ³¹ᐧ ³³⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ³⁸, with 29²⁶.

=30a= is a transition clause, connecting what follows with ¹⁻²⁸, especially with ¹⁷⁻²².――in the mountain] of Moab; compare verse ¹⁷.――he was afraid to dwell in Zoar] lest it should be consumed, though the motive involves a slight discrepancy with ²¹.――=30b.= in the cave] probably a particular cave which was named after Lot (compare 1 Kings 19⁹). It is pointed out that לוֹטָן‎, a possible variant of לוֹט‎, is named as a Ḥōrite (Troglodyte?) in 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹. The habit is said to have persisted till modern times in that region (Dillmann, Driver, after Buckingham, Travels in Syria [1825]).――=31.= there is no man in the earth] ‘We are the survivors of a universal catastrophe.’ So Gunkel, following Pietschmann, Geschichte der Phönizier, 115; Jastrow, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xiii. 298 (see below). The usual explanations: ‘no man in the vicinity’ (Dillmann al.), or ‘all men will shrink from us’ (Driver), hardly do justice to the language.――כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ‎] So in the Jewish marriage formula ‎ואנא אעל לותך כאורח כל ארעא‎ (Delitzsch).――=32.= The intoxication of Lot shows that the revolting nature of the proposal was felt by the Hebrew conscience. “When the existence of the race is at stake, the woman is more eager and unscrupulous than the man” (Gunkel 192).――מֵאָבִינוּ‎] repeated in ³⁴ᐧ ³⁶, anticipating the etymology of ³⁷.――=33, 35.= he knew not, etc.] still minimising Lot’s culpability (compare 38¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=37.= מוֹאָב‎] as if = מֵאָב‎, ‘from a (my?) father’ (v.i.).――=38.= בֶּן־עַמִּי‎] not ‘son of my people,’ which would be nothing distinctive of any child, but ‘son of my (paternal) kinsman’ (see 17¹⁴). Note the formal correspondence with בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן‎, which (and not עַמּוֹן‎ simply) is the invariable designation of the people in Old Testament (except Psalms 83⁸, and Massoretic Text of 1 Samuel 11¹¹ [LXX בְּנֵי ע׳‎]). Both etymologies are obviously pointless except as expressing the thought of the mothers, who, as is usual in Yahwist, name the children.

Original idea of the legend.――It is very natural to regard this account of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of intense national hatred and contempt towards these two peoples. It has further been surmised (though with little proof)¹ that incestuous marriages, such as are here spoken of, were customary in these lands, and gave an edge to this Hebrew taunt (so Dillmann). That the story was so understood by later readers is indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend this feeling to ancient times appears from chapter 38, where the ancestry of the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by Yahwist) is represented as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to be that while incest was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the ancient Arabs; see Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 441), it was at one time regarded as justified by extreme necessity, so that deeds like those here related could be told without shame. Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gunkel (190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It is, he thinks, originally a Moabite legend tracing the common ancestry of Moab and Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped at the ‘cave’ referred to in verse ³⁰. Verse ³¹, however, presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which the whole human race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters. In the ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is to avert this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate expedient here described. That such an origin should have been a subject of national pride is conceivable, though one may fail to find that feeling reflected in the forced etymologies of ³⁷ ᶠᐧ. If Gunkel’s theory is anywhere near the truth, we are here on the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the Flood, which is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Lot is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so the Lot of 19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ was identified with the entertainer of deity in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ²

¹ Compare the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (page 515 below). It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer’s curious observation that in that region a wife is commonly spoken of as bint (daughter): Desert of the Exodus, ii. 478; see Driver 205.

² The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by Jastrow in the article already cited, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii. 197 f.――It is a flood of water which destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid cited above (page 312).

* * * * *

=30.= end] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate + עִמּוֹ‎.――=31.= בוא על׳‎] in this sense only Deuteronomy ‎ 25⁵.――=32.= לכה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ‎ לכי‎.――=33.= ותשקין‎] (so ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 l.――בלילה הוא‎] (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ההוא‎). On omission of article with demonstrative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 y; compare 30¹⁶ 32²³ 38²¹, 1 Samuel 19¹⁰.――את־אביה‎] LXX + τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην.――וּבְקוּׄמָהּ‎] ‘Appungunt desuper, quasi incredibile’! (Jeremias). In reality the point probably marks a superfluous letter (compare verse ³⁵).――=34.= אבי‎] LXX אָבִינוּ‎.――=37=. מוֹאָב‎] LXX + λέγουσα, Ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου (מֵאָבִ[י]‎). For the equivalence of מוֹ‎ and ‎ מֵ‎, compare Numbers 11²⁶ ᶠᐧ (מֵידָד‎ = The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch מודד‎, LXX Μωδαδ), Jeremiah 48²¹ (מֵיפַעַת‎, Qrê perpetuum = ‎ מופעת‎, Kittel), etc.: see Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 322 f. The real etymology is, of course, uncertain. Hommel ingeniously and plausibly explains the name as a contraction of אִמּוֹאָב‎, ‘his mother is the father,’ after the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names (Verhand. d. XIII. Orient.-Kong. 261). The view of Knobel and Delitzsch that מוֹ‎ is Aramaic מוי‎ (= מֵי‎), ‘water,’ and that the word meant ‘water (i.e. semen) of a father,’ hardly deserves consideration.――=38.= ‎ בן־עמי‎] LXX Ἀμμάν, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ γένους μου, missing the significance of the בֵּן‎ (v.s.).

* * * * *

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us