XX. Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar (Elohist)
The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded in 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants of the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by Strack’s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page 364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written from a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the incident (⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁶), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure from strict veracity.
Source.――The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ (¹⁸ יהוה is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, ²ᐧ ¹³; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).――The appearing of God in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use of a source distinct from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or Priestly-Code is that Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20‒22) mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba.
=1, 2. Introductory notice.=――The method of the narrator, Gunkel points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies which follow, verses ¹ ᶠᐧ containing just enough to make these intelligible.――=1.= the land of the Negeb] see on 12⁹.――between Ḳādēsh (14⁷) and Shûr (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous clause, but introduce a new fact,――a further stage of the patriarch’s wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that Gĕrār lay as far South as Ḳadesh (v.i.).――=2.= The bareness of the narration is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting in lucidity (v.i.).――Abimelech, king of Gĕrār] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘Milk is [my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name of the god Milk (see Baethgen Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (Abi-milki) in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149‒156). There is no trace here of the anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar is an independent Canaanite kingdom.――took Sarah] sc. as wife; the same ellipsis as 19¹⁴.
* * * * *
=1.= וַיִּסַּע ] see 11².――אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges 1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).――גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 26¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷ [נַחַל גְּרָר], ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶, 2 Chronicles 14¹² ᶠᐧ†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority of Onomastica Sacra, 240²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern Umm Ǧerār (‘place of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands, Holy City, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name], Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189], Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but hardly 26¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a Wādī Ǧerūr, approximately 13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this description; and so Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea 62 f., 255) and others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns on 26¹⁷ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᐧ: so far as the present reference is concerned, we have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that ¹ᵃ is a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between ¹ᵃ and ¹ᵇ. It is true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course, conceivable that it was written by Redactorᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ to connect the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a definition of the site of Gerar.――=2.= אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’ is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³, Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.――After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 26⁷ᵇ).
* * * * *
=3‒7. Abimelech’s dream.=――This mode of revelation is peculiar to Elohist (21¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ 22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹² 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶ 22⁹ᐧ ²⁰), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.――=4a.= had not drawn near her] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but of Yahwe’s words in ⁶ᵇ. Why he had not come near her, we gather fully from ¹⁷.――=4b, 5.= Abimelech protests his innocence.――innocent folk]――‘such as I am’ (v.i.).――=5.= בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’; compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².――=6.= have kept thee back from sinning (i.e. inexpiably) against me] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage bond.――suffered thee not] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).――=7.= The situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech: if he now retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving of punishment.――he is a prophet] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms 105¹⁵.――On intercession as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy 9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 12¹⁹ᐧ ²³, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job 42⁸.――that thou mayest live] or ‘recover.’
The section (³⁻⁷) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external fact――a violation of the objective moral order, which works out its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual conscience against the decree of an unjust fate.
* * * * *
=3.= על] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על אנדת: compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis 21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.――בעלת בעל] a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².――=4.= To גּוֹי in the indefinite sense of ‘people’ (Leute) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel 11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack). Eerdmans (Die Komposition der Genesis, 41) offers the incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ δίκαιον.――=5.= נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.――=6.= מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 qq.――נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’ 31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist), 3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic): see Oxford Hexateuch, i. 192.
* * * * *
=8‒13. Abimelech and Abraham.=――=9.= a great sin] i.e., a state of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy judgement from God (see on ³⁻⁷ above).――deeds that are not done] are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹² etc.――To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12¹⁸ ᶠᐧ) has no reply, and Abimelech proceeds in――=10= to inquire into his motive for so acting.――מָה רָאִיתָ ‘What possessed thee?’ (v.i.).――=11‒13.= Abraham’s self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the narrator ad hoc (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.――=11.= There is no piety (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) in this place] Religion was the only sanction of international morality, the gêr having no civil rights; compare 42¹⁸: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden, 15. Compare 12¹².――=12.= Besides, she really is my sister] Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among the Semites (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 191 f.), and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 18⁹ᐧ ¹¹ 20¹⁷).――=13.= When God caused me to stray] The expression is peculiar, as if God had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in Canaan.
* * * * *
=8.= האנשים] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate prefix כל.――=9.= מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) = מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel――חטאתי] LXX ἡμάρτομεν.――=10.= מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is taken from Bacher, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou experienced?’).――=11.= כִּי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי יראתי כי.――רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] only,’ etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs) seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶, 1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.――=12.= אָמְנָה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers 22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences in Hexateuch.――=13.= הִתְעוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (plural eminent) with plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷, Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel 7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 i. A kindred and equally inexplicable anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so verses ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a polytheistic form of the legend.――אבי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).――כל־המקום] determined by following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴.
* * * * *
=14‒18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.=――=14.= The present to Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of mōhar or purchase-price of a wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.――=15.= The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable but peremptory dismissal of 12¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=16.= see, I give ... to thy brother] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts Sarah in the former category.――1000 (shekels) of silver] not the money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.――a covering of the eyes] seemingly a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases to be seen, i.e., is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel 12³.――The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct (v.i.). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely rehabilitated.――=17.= God healed Abimelech] The first explicit intimation (see ⁴ᐧ ⁶) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.――=18.= A superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised as a gloss; note also יהוה.――עָצַר] see on 16².
* * * * *
=14.= צֹאן] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.――ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist context.――=16.= הִנֵּה הוּא――אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate _hoc erit tibi in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque perrexeris]_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The difficulties of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes are to be covered?――Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking לָךְ as dative complement. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies that dative complement before dative of reference is unnatural: hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל = bezugs aller); i.e., “Her credit with her household, which had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.――וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת] Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate _quocunque perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל, which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text. The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to כלוh has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.――=18.= יהוה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אלהים.
* * * * *
XXI. 1‒21. Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code).
The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in a section pieced together from the three sources (¹⁻⁷). Then follows a notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the Ishmaelites (¹⁰⁻²¹). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte 16) will be found below (page 324).
Analysis.――²ᵇ⁻⁵ are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶ in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים, ²ᵇᐧ ⁴; מוֹעֵד, ²ᵇ (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. ²ᵃ is to be assigned to Yahwist (בֵּן ל ִזְקֻנָיו, v.i.); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There remain the doublets ¹ᵃ ∥ ¹ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ. Since the continuity of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, ¹ᵇ is usually assigned to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving ¹ᵃ to Yahwist (יהוה, פָּקַד). ⁶ᵇ goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: v.i.); and there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse ⁶ᵃ (אלהים), which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann, Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.――The Yahwist fragments ¹ᵃᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁶ᵇ form a completely consecutive account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the sequel to chapter 18 (see on ⁶ᵃ), and therefore belongs to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ rather than Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (Gunkel).――⁸⁻²¹ is wholly Elohistic: אלהים, ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰; אמה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³; שים לגוי, ¹³ᐧ ¹⁸ (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare expressions like חמת, ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further characteristics are the revelation of God by night (¹² ᶠᐧ), and in a voice from heaven (¹⁷).
* * * * *
=1‒7. The birth of Isaac.=――=2.= a son to his old age] so verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).――=3‒5.= The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17¹⁹ᐧ ¹² (Priestly-Code).――=6a.= God has made laughter for me] Both here and in ⁶ᵇ laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 17¹⁷ it expresses incredulity.――=6b, 7= is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been pointed out by Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 224: so Kittel, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of ⁶ᵇ to the end of ⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters):
Who would have said to Abraham, “Sarah gives children suck”? For I have borne him a son in his old age! Every one that hears will laugh at me!
* * * * *
=1a.= פקד] never used by Priestly-Code sensu bono (Strack).――=2.= אלהים] LXX יהוה――=3.= הנולד־] pointed as perfect with article (18²¹).――=6a.= צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 18¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 21⁶), while Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, Exodus 32⁶). The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 6⁵ᐧ ²¹): in four cases (Amos 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁶, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁶ᵃᐧ ⁶ᵇ) or 5 (21⁹?) different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe (compare יְרַחְמְאֵל , יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).――=6b.= יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 10 g.――=7.= מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.――On the modal use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 p; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 19.――בנים] plural of species; compare Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has singular.――לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου.
* * * * *
=8‒10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.=――=8.= The occasion was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine is said to be 2 or 3 years (ib. 116); in ancient Israel also it must often have been late (1 Samuel 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ,, 2 Maccabees 7²⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=9.= playing with Isaac her son] The last words are essential to the sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see Jubilees xvii. 4, with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹――=10.= with my son] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah, Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 296).――this slave girl (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a household slave, who has become her master’s concubine.
¹ St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac (Galatians 4²⁹, ἐδίωκεν) is based on this מְצַחֶק. For other Haggadic interpretations, see Bereshith Rabba § liii; Driver A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 503b, and _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 210. Unchastity (compare 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷), idolatry (Exodus 32⁶, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2¹⁴, Proverbs 26¹⁹), etc., are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word.
* * * * *
=9.= מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate (compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it actually occurs. 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴ it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.――On the pausal ־ֶ , see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 n.
* * * * *
=11‒13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.=――=11.= on account of his son] whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave, he has no particular affection.――=12.= It is revealed to him (by night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord with the divine purpose.――shall a seed be called to thee] i.e., ‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸, compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed in Priestly-Code (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹).――=13.= Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as such.――a great nation (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰.
* * * * *
=11= end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).――=12.= יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ ῥῆμα.――=13.= The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.――לְגוֹי [ג׳]――שֵׁים] so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist).
* * * * *
=14‒16. Mother and child in the desert.=――The sufferings and despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and insight.――=14.= a skin of water] חֵמֶת (v.i.), the usual Eastern water-bag, answering to the of the ǧirby of the modern Bedouin (Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 227, ii. 585).――and the boy he placed on her shoulder (v.i.)] compare ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶.――the wilderness of Beersheba (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt near, but not necessarily at, Beersheba.――=15.= she cast the boy (whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) under one of the bushes] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19⁴ ᶠᐧ). To save Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make cast = ‘eilends niederlegen’――with what advantage does not quite appear.――=16.= a bowshot off] out of sight of her child, but within hearing of his cry.――The last clause should be read with LXX; and the boy lifted up his voice and wept (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad. Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given by Massoretic Text.
* * * * *
=14.= חמת] Only here (¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹) = Arabic ḥamīt (√ ḥamita, ‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת, חֵ֑מֶת, or חֶ֑מֶת, חֵמֶת, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 l.――שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.――=15.= השיחם] ‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.――=16.= הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 h.――כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), hardly imply a different text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,――only here), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 kk.――ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ.
* * * * *
=17‒19. The Divine succour= comes in two forms: a voice from heaven (¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).――=17.= God heard] (twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.――While God Himself hears, the medium of His revelation is the Angel of God (as 28¹² 31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹) speaks from heaven. This goes beyond the primary conception of the Angel: see on 16⁷.――=18.= Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the future greatness of her son.――=19.= opened her eyes] compare 3⁵ᐧ ⁷. The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any case it is henceforth a sacred well.
* * * * *
=17b.= אל־קול] MSS and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch את־קִ׳.――=19.= באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,――attractive! (compare 26¹⁹).
* * * * *
=20, 21. Ishmael’s career.=――Here we expect the naming of the child, based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of Yahwist (16¹¹).――=20.= The boy grew up, amidst the perils and hardships of the desert,――a proof that God was with him.――he became a bowman] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: v.i.), the bow being the weapon of his descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).――=21.= The wilderness of Pārān is et-Tīh, bounding the Negeb on the South.――His mother took him a wife from the land of Egypt] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above.
Comparison of chapter 16 with 21¹⁻²¹.――That these two narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a theophany (16⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹² with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less anthropomorphic idea of God.――See the admirable characterisation of Gunkel, page 203 f.
¹ The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel’s view, that it was Beersheba, has little to commend it.
* * * * *
=20.= ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate juvenis sagittarius (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב = ‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering ‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not probable.
* * * * *
XXI. 22‒34. Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech (Elohist and Yahwist).
Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba, are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’ (²²⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹).――(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred tree (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³).
Sources.――The passage, except some redactional touches in ³²⁻³⁴, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has, however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin Anm. 92, 93; Kraetzschmar Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament 14, 31; von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 46 f.; Oxford Hexateuch ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel, who assigns ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁴ to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist: the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the duplicates (²⁷ᵃ ∥ ³⁰ᵃ, ²⁷ᵇ ∥ ³²ᵃ) and material discrepancies of the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code (חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in ²²ᐧ ²³, prove that the main account is from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component must be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.――³²⁻³⁴ have been considerably modified by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original Elohist verses ²² ᶠᶠᐧ preceded ¹⁻²⁰; his detailed analysis being almost identical with Gunkel’s.
=22‒24.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).――=22.= Pîkōl (v.i.), his commander-in-chief, seems here merely a symbol of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where Pîkōl is a party to the covenant.――=23.= Swear to me here] in the place afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26¹³ᐧ ²⁶).――=24.= This unreserved consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of――=25, 26= (Yahwist), which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel of 26¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, which shows that the right to several wells had been contested.――And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the wells ... Abimelech would answer]――that he knew nothing of the matter (so Gunkel).――=27.= Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings 15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer to verse ²⁶.――=28‒30= (Yahwist). the seven ewe lambs are set apart for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question ²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony (Dillmann).――=30.= that it (the acceptance of the present) may be a witness, etc.] so that in future there may be no quarrel about Beersheba.――=31.= belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare ²³ ᶠᐧ; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare ²⁷.――בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ the oath being the central feature of the berîth. The etymology is not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; Homer Iliad xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).――=32a.= Yahwist’s parallel to ²⁷ᵇ.¹――=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba (Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the sacra of that famous shrine there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a contradictio in adjecto (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.――’El ‛Ôlâm] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local numen, here identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 13 ff.), and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles 123).――=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in Philistine territory being incompatible with ³²ᵇ, the verse must be an interpolation.――On the historical background of these legends, see after 26³³.
¹ ³²ᵇ would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative (compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses, however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.――It is probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (בירא דשבע חורפן).
Beersheba is the modern Bi’r-es-Seba‛, in the heart of the Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east from Umm el-Ǧerār. Its importance as a religious centre in the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26²³ ᶠᶠᐧ ³¹ ᶠᶠ 28¹⁰ 46¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See Robinson Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 204 ff.; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 284 f.; Robinson, Biblical World, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, ib. xviii. 49 ff.; Driver The Expository Times, vii. (1896), 567 f.; _Joel and Amos_² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, The Expository Times, viii. 89.
* * * * *
=22.= ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (Orientalische Litteraturzeitung, ix. 109) considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = p{<}Ḫ-r(j), “the Syrian.”――=23.= אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 c.――נין ונכד] (proles et soboles) an alliterative phrase found in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.――=25.= והוכח] “must be corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 tt): The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויוכיח. But Massoretic Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 114 β.――באר] LXX φρεάτων, ut sup.――=28.= הצאן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 e) where article determines only its own word, and not the whole expression.――=29.= Read הכבשת with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (³⁰).――לבדָּֽנָה (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 f. The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.――=31.= באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע, 23²).――=33.= אֵשֶׁל] Arabic ’aṯl, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian ašlu; 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases probably denoting a sacred tree. The word seems to have been strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus φυτείαν, Vulgate nemus, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed by Stade (v.s.) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4892 f.――עולם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ העולם.――=34= is wanting in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (edited by Ginsburger).
* * * * *
XXII. The Sacrifice of Isaac (Elohist and Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ)
The only incident in Abraham’s life expressly characterised as a ‘trial’ of his faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch proves his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at the command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every sentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the author realises the tragic horror of the situation.
Source.――The original narrative consists of verses ¹⁻¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹. In spite of יהוה in ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴, this belongs to Elohist: compare [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; עַד־כֹּה ⁵]; the revelation by night, ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ; the Angel calling from heaven, ¹¹.――On ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ see below. Compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel.
=1‒8. Abraham’s willing preparation for the sacrifice.=――=1.= God tempted Abraham] i.e., tested him, to “know what was in his heart” (Deuteronomy 8²),――an anthropomorphic representation: compare Exodus 16⁴ 20²⁰, Deuteronomy 8¹⁶ 13⁴ 33⁸ etc. This sentence governs the narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.――=2.= thy son――thine only one――whom thou lovest――Isaac] emphasising the greatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how much He asks.――the land of Mōriyyāh (הַמֹּרִיָּה)] All attempts to explain the name and identify the place have been futile.♦――which I will name to thee] When this more precise direction was imparted, does not appear.――=3.= While the outward preparations are graphically described, no word is spared for the conflict in Abraham’s breast,――a striking illustration of the reticence of the legends with regard to mental states.――=4.= saw the place afar off] The spot, therefore, has already been indicated (verse ²). We are left to imagine the pang that shot through the father’s heart when he caught sight of it.――=5.= Another touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the story is told: the servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the reader knows.――=6.= “The boy carries the heavier load, the father the more dangerous: knife and fire” (Gunkel). It is curious that the Old Testament has no allusion to the method of producing fire.――=7, 8.= The pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of the child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and the stern ambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read without tears. Note the effect of the repetition: and they went both of them together (⁶ᐧ ⁸).――God will provide] יִרְאֶה, literally ‘look out’; as 41³³ [Deuteronomy 12¹³ 33²¹], 1 Samuel 16¹ᐧ ¹⁷. The word points forward to verse ¹⁴.
♦ reconnected with previous paragraph split in error
The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה, 2 Chronicles 3¹; τὸ Μώριον ὄρος, Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 224, compare 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler’s use of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice. (b) Even if [הַ]מֹּרִיָּה were a genuine ancient name for the Temple hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the land in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be described as ‘one of the mountains’ in the region named after it. There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [verse ¹⁴], or on the authority of 2 Chronicles 3¹) in order that the chief sanctuary of later times might not be altogether ignored in the patriarchal history. The Samaritan tradition identified Moriah with Shechem.¹ This view has been revived in two forms: (1) that the name is a corruption or variant of מוֹרֶה in 12⁶ etc. (Bleek, Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1831, 520 ff.; Tuch, von Gall [see LXX infinitive]); and (2) that it is a corruption of חֲמֹרִים (‘land of the Ḥamorites’ [33¹⁹]) (Wellhausen). But both these names are too local and restricted to suit the context; and the distance is perhaps too great. Of the attempts to recover the original name, the simplest is א׳ הָֽאֱמֹרִי, which would be a natural designation of Palestine in Elohist:² see on 10¹⁶. If the legend be very ancient, there is no certainty that the place was in the Holy Land at all. Any extensive mountainous region, well known at the time, and with a lingering tradition of human sacrifice, would satisfy the conditions. Hence, Cheyne’s suggestion that the land of ‘Muṣri’ is to be read (Encyclopædia Biblica, 3200; Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility. On Gunkel’s solution, see below.
¹ See Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, vi. 198, vii. 133.――Von Gall (Altisraelitische Kultstätten 112) seems in error when he says this was a Jewish tradition.
² But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the authority of Peshiṭtå, for that version reads (‡ Syriac phrase) in 2 Chronicles 3¹ also.
* * * * *
=1.= אחר הד׳ הא׳ 15¹.――והאלהים נסה] The reluctance of grammarians to admit that this can be the main sentence, and apodosis after time determination, is intelligible (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel), the order being that of the circumstantial clause; but it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it any other way. As circumstantial clause it could only mean ‘when God had tempted Abraham,’ which is nonsense; and to speak of it as a Verumständung of the following ויאמר (Delitzsch) is to deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――אברהם] repeated in LXX, Vulgate; compare ¹¹.――=2.= המריה] The word was no doubt popularly connected with √ רָאָה as used in ¹⁴ (compare _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ המוראה, Aquila τὴν καταφανῆ, Symmachus τῆς ὀπτασίας, Vulgate visionis), though a real derivation from that √ is impossible. LXX τὴν ὑψηλήν (compare 12⁶). Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פולחנא (‘worship’).――=3.= את־שני נ׳] So Numbers 22²². The determination is peculiar. That it means the two slaves with whom a person of importance usually travelled (Gunkel) is little probable. It is possible that in this legend Abraham was conceived as a man of moderate wealth, and that these were all the servants he had.――=5.= עד־כה] On כֹּה as demonstrative of place, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. (‘rare, chiefly in Elohist’); compare 31³⁷.――=7.= הנני בני] ‘Yes, my son’; the ‘Here am I’ of English Version is much too pompous. LXX, Vulgate excellently: τί ἐστιν, τέκνον; Quid vis, fili?――=8.= השה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX omit article (Ball).
* * * * *
=9‒14. The sacrifice averted.=――=9, 10.= The verses describe with great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the עוֹלָה in highly technical language (עָרַךְ, עָקַד, שָׁחַט); v.i.――=11, 12.= At the extreme moment Abraham’s hand is stayed by a voice from heaven.――=11= is certainly from Elohist; יהוה must therefore be a redactional accommodation to verse ¹⁵ (compare Peshiṭtå infinitive).――The repetition of Abraham expresses urgency; as 46², Exodus 3⁴ (Elohist), 1 Samuel 3¹⁰.――=12.= The Angel speaks in the name of God, as 16¹⁰, 21¹⁸.――now I know, etc.] Thus early was the truth taught that the essence of sacrifice is the moral disposition (Psalms 51¹⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=13.= The substitution of the ram for the human victim takes place without express command, Abraham recognising by its mysterious presence that it was ‘provided’ by God for this purpose.――=14a.= The naming of the place is an essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be assigned to Elohist.――יהוה יִרְאֶה alludes to verse ⁸; but that any sanctuary actually bore this name is scarcely probable. In truth, it seems to be given as the explanation, not of a name, but of a current proverbial saying (Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 450), which can hardly be the original intention (see below).――=14b.= The words בְּהַ֥ר יהו֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה yield no sense appropriate to the context.
Massoretic Text might be rendered: (a) ‘In the mount of Yahwe he (it) is seen’ (Strack), or (b) ‘In the mount of Yahwe men appear’ [for worship] (Driver 220, compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ infinitive), or (disregarding accusative) (c) ‘In the mount where Yahwe is seen’: in this case the saying would be יהוה יִרְאֶה (¹⁴ᵃ), and ¹⁴ᵇ would merely mean that it was used in the Temple mount. All these are obviously unsatisfactory. With a slight change (בָּהָר for בְּ׳) the clause would read ‘In the mount Yahwe appears’ (so LXX), or (with יִרְאֶה for יֵֽרָאֶה) ‘In ... Yahwe sees’ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).――The text has probably been altered under the same tendency which gave rise to מֹרִיָּה in verse ²; and the recovery of the original is impossible. Gunkel, with brilliant ingenuity, conjectures that the name of the sanctuary was יְרוּאֵל (2 Chronicles 20¹⁶); this he inserts after הַהוּא; and restores the remainder of the verse as follows: אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הַיּוֹם בָּהָר יִרְאֶה אֱלֹהִים = ‘for he said, “To-day, in this mountain, God provideth.”’
* * * * *
=9.= ערך] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Kings 18³³, Numbers 23⁴, Isaiah 30³³.――עקד] (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) in New Hebrew means to ‘bind the bent fore- and hind-legs of an animal for sacrifice’ (Driver): LXX συμποδίσας――=10.= שׁחט is technically to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 51).――=11.= יהוה] Peshiṭtå אֱלֹהִים; so verse ¹⁵.――=13.= אַיִל אַחַר] ‘a ram behind’; so Tuch, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack, (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Symmachus in temporal sense). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jubilees and Hebrew MSS have א׳ אֶחָד, ‘a [certain] ram’; which may be nichtssagend, but is preferable to Massoretic Text (Holzinger, Gunkel).――Read also (with LXX, Peshiṭtå) נֶֽאֱחָז (participle) for perfect.――בסבך] LXX ἐν φυτῷ σαβέκ, Symmachus ἐν δικτύῳ (בִּשְׂבָכָה), Aquila ἐν συχνεῶνι, Vulgate inter vepres.――=14.= The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ is interesting: ‘And Abraham worshipped and prayed there שָׁם for שֵׁם), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall generations worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain Abraham worshipped before the Lord.’――בְּהַר יהוה יֵֽרָאֶה] LXX ἐν τῷ ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη, Vulgate in monte Dominus videbit, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).
* * * * *
=15‒19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.=――=15.= The occasion seemed to a Jehovistic redaction to demand an ampler reward than the sparing of Isaac; hence a supplementary revelation (שֵׁנִית) is appended.――=16.= By myself I swear] compare Exodus 32¹³ (also Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), elsewhere Isaiah 45²³, Jeremiah 22⁵ 49¹³†.――נְאֻם יהוה] literally ‘murmur of Yahwe,’ an expression for the prophetic inspiration, whose significance must have been forgotten before it could be put in the mouth of the Angel. Even Priestly-Code (Numbers 14²⁸) is more discriminating in his use of the phrase.――=17.= occupy the gate of their enemies] i.e., take possession of their cities (LXX πόλεις); compare 24⁶⁰.――=18.= by thy seed ... bless themselves (Hithpael)] So 26⁴; compare Deuteronomy 29¹⁸, Isaiah 65¹⁶, Jeremiah 4², Psalms 72¹⁷†. See on 12³.――=19.= The return to Beersheba is the close of Elohist’s narrative, continuing verse ¹⁴.
The secondary character of ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ is clear not only from its loose connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its combination of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology, the absence of originality, the improper use of נְאֻם יהוה, etc. Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 20; Dillmann 291; Holzinger 165.――The view of Delitzsch (324 f.) and Strack (82), that ¹⁴⁻¹⁸ are from a Yahwist parallel to 22¹⁻¹⁴, is untenable.
The difficult question of the meaning of this incident is approached from two sides. (1) Those who regard it as a literal occurrence in the life of a man of eminent piety, holding views of truth in advance of his age, are undoubtedly able to give it an interpretation charged with deep religious significance. Familiar with the rite of child-sacrifice amongst the surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived as arrested by the thought that even this terrible sacrifice might rightly be demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was; and as brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him. He is led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing the act, when an inward monition stays his hand, and reveals to him that what God really requires is the surrender of the will――that being the truth in his previous impression; but that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accordance with the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped. But it must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether satisfying. The story contains no word in repudiation of human sacrifice, nor anything to enforce what must be supposed to be the main lesson, viz., that such sacrifices were to find no place in the religion of Abraham’s descendants. (2) Having regard to the origin of many other Genesis narratives, we must admit the possibility that the one before us is a legend, explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices in some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out with remarkable skill by Gunkel (211‒214), who thinks he has recovered the lost name of the sanctuary from certain significant expressions which seem to prepare the mind for an etymological interpretation: viz. אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה, ⁸ (compare ¹⁴); יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים, ¹²; and וַיַּרְא [והנה] אַיִל, ¹³. From these indications he concludes that the original name in ¹⁴ was יְרוּאֵל; and he is disposed to identify the spot with a place of that name somewhere near Tekoa, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20¹⁶ (יְרִיאֵל in 1 Chronicles 7² is excluded by geographical considerations). Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where the custom of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a ram for a human being. The basis of Genesis 22 would then be the local cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological speculations, which are certainly pushed to an extreme, it is not improbable that Gunkel’s theory correctly expresses the character of the story; and that it originally belonged to the class of ætiological legends which everywhere weave themselves round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin has been forgotten or obscured.――An older cultus-myth of the same kind is found in the Phœnician story in which Kronos actually sacrifices his only son Ἰεούδ (יחוד = יָחִיד?) or Ἰεδούδ (יָדִיד?) to his father Uranus (Eusebius Præparatio Evangelica i. 10, 29). The sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later modification in which a hind is substituted for the maiden, readily suggests itself as a parallel (Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis 1540 ff.).
* * * * *
=16.= end] Add מִמֶּנִּי as verse ¹²: so LXX, Vulgate.――=18.= עקב אשר] elsewhere only 26⁵, 2 Samuel 12⁶.
* * * * *
XXII. 20‒24. The Sons of Nāḥôr (Yahwist, Redactors).
In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham, there is here introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their descent to Nāḥôr. Very few of the names can be identified; but so far as the indications go, they point to the region East and North-east of Palestine as the area peopled by the Naḥorite family. The division into legitimate (²⁰⁻²³) and illegitimate (²⁴) sons expresses a distinction between the pure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans (Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 5).
The verses bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic genealogy: compare גַּם הִיא ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴, with 4²²ᐧ ²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸; ²¹ᵃ with 10¹⁵; ²³ᵇ with 9¹⁹ (10²⁹ 25⁴); יָלַד ²³ (see page 98). Of Priestly-Code’s style and manner there is no trace; and with regard to ‛Aramæan,’Ărām, there is a material discrepancy between the two documents (verse ²¹ compared with 10²² ᶠᐧ). The introductory formula אחרי הד׳ הא׳ is not exclusively Elohistic (see on 15¹), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for ascribing (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29 f.) the whole section to Elohist. See Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 220 ff.――The genealogy appears to have been inserted with reference to chapter 24, from which it was afterwards separated by the amalgamation of Priestly-Code (chapter 23) with the older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however, very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of Nāḥôr’s children, whereas in the present text of 24 the _grand_children (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with the excision of the gloss ²³ᵃ (v.i.), the only point of direct contact with chapter 24 disappears; and even the gloss does not agree with the view of Rebekah’s parentage originally given by Yahwist (see on 24¹⁵). Hence we must suppose that the basis of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast, annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage later than the composition of chapter 24, but earlier than the final redaction of the Pentateuch.
=20.= מִלְכָּה] see on 11²⁹.――לנחור אחיך] 11²².――=21.= עוּץ] in 10²³ a subdivision of Aram, is here the principal (בְּכוֹר) Naḥorite tribe (compare 36²⁸).――בּוּז (Βαύξ, Βαύζ, etc.)] mentioned in Jeremiah 25²³ after Dĕdān and Têmā, is probably the Bâzu of Esarhaddon’s inscription (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of North Arabia (so Job 32²).――קְמוּאֵל] unknown; see Praetorius, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1903, 780.――אֲבִי אֲרָם (πατέρα Σύρων) is possibly a gloss (Gunkel), but the classification of the powerful Aramæans (see on 10²²) as a minor branch of the Naḥorites is none the less surprising: see page 334 below.――=22.= כֶּשֶׂד] The eponym of the כַּשְׂדִּים. But whether by these the well-known Chaldæans of South Babylonia are meant is a difficult question. Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 Kings 24², Job 1¹⁷, an Arabian (or rather Aramæan) nomadic tribe is to be understood, from which the Babylonian כַּשְׂדִּים may have sprung (Winckler Altorientalische Forschungen, ii. 250 ff.; Gunkel). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpakšad in 10²² (see also on 11²⁸).――חֲזוֹ (Ἀζαῦ)] probably the Ḫazû mentioned after Bâzu in Esarhaddon’s inscription (above).――פִּלְדָּשׁ and יִדְלָף (Ἰελδάφ, Ἰεδλάφ) are not known. With the former have been compared Palmer פלדשו (Levy, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. 440) and Sin. פנדשו (Cook, A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions 98; Lidzbarski Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik 352), both personal names.――בְּתוּאֵל] as personal name 24¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwist), 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ (Priestly-Code).――=23a.= is a gloss (Dillmann, Gunkel) excluded by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in ²³ᵇ. The last consideration is decisive against Dillmann’s view that the original text was וְאֶת־לָבָן וְאֶת־רִבְקָה.――=24.= וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ] _casus pendens_: Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 111 h, 147 e. פִּילֶגֶשׁ = παλλακίς (see Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 380): a Ḥittite origin is suggested by Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a hint of Ewald).―רְאוּמָה] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch רומה, LXX Ῥεύμα, Ῥεηρά, etc.――טֶבַח] rightly read by LXX, Peshiṭtå in 2 Samuel 8⁸ (Massoretic Text בֶּטַח ∥ טִבְחַת 1 Chronicles 18⁸), a city of ’Ăram-Ẓôbāh, probably identical with the Tubiḫi of Tel-Amarna Tablets Number 127, and Papyrus Anastasi, near Ḳadesh on the Orontes (but see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 173, 396).――גַּחַם (Τααμ, Γααμ, etc.)] unknown.――תַּחַשׁ (Τοχος, Θαας, etc.)] probably Egyptian Teḫisi, on the Orontes, North of Ḳadesh (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 258; Winckler _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, i. 207).――מַֽעֲכָה (Μααχα, Μωχα,)] Deuteronomy 3¹⁴, Joshua 12⁵ 13¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 2 Samuel 10⁶ᐧ ⁸, 1 Chronicles 19⁶ ᶠᐧ; an Aramæan tribe and state occupying the modern Ǧōlān, South of Hermon, and East of the Upper Jordan.
To the discrepancies already noted (page 333) between the genealogy and chapter 24, Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that the territorial distribution of the sons of Nāḥôr fits in badly with the theory of Yahwist, which connects Nāḥôr and Laban with the city of Ḥarran. He points out that the full-blooded Naḥorites, so far as identified, are tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, while those described as hybrids belong to the settled regions of Syria, where nomadic immigrants would naturally amalgamate with the native population. Now the Syro-Arabian desert is in other parts of the Old Testament the home of the Bnê Ḳedem; and according to Elohist (see on 29¹) it was among the Bnê Ḳedem that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this was the original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in the geographical background of the list before us. In other words, the Israelites were historically related, not to the civilised Aramæans about Ḥarran, but to nomadic Aramæan tribes who had not crossed the Euphrates, but still roamed the deserts where Aramæans first appear in history (see page 206). Yahwist’s representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the name ‘Aramæan,’ which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham to the region round Ḥarran, which was known as the chief seat of Aramæan culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic document of great antiquity, which has fortunately been preserved by a Yahwistic editor in spite of its inconsistency with the main narrative. It may be added that the Palestinian view-point will explain the subordinate position assigned to the name Aram. It can hardly be denied that Meyer’s reasoning is sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the names Nāḥôr and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran (pages 232, 237 f.). Meyer’s explanation of Nāḥôr as a modification of Nāhār (the Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself.
XXIII. Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (Priestly-Code)
On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (¹ᐧ ²), Abraham becomes, through formal purchase from the Ḥittites, the owner of the field and cave of Machpelah (³⁻¹⁸), and there buries his dead (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰).――This is the second occasion (compare chapter 17) on which the Priestly epitome of Abraham’s life expands into circumstantial and even graphic narration. The transaction must therefore have had a special interest for the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what nature that interest was (see the closing note).
Source.――That the chapter belongs to Priestly-Code is proved (a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (25⁹ ᶠᐧ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 50¹³); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style; (c) by the names בני חת, מכפלה, קרית ארבע, ארץ כנען; and the expressions תושב, ⁴; אחזה, ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰; נשיא, ⁶; קוּם, ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מקנה, ¹⁸ (see the notes; and compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel). Against this we have to set the אנכי of verse ⁴, which is never elsewhere used by Priestly-Code.――At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce in the opinion that we have to do with a ‘free composition’ of the writers of Priestly-Code. The passage has far more the appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section in the whole of Priestly-Code; and its markedly secular tone (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form of representation has been partly determined. A similar view is taken by Eerdmans (Die Komposition der Genesis 88), who, however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Genesis, dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1908, 628) agrees that chapter 23 is not in Priestly-Code’s manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion of a brief notice in that document.¹
¹ Sayce’s contention (The Early History of the Hebrews, 57 ff.), that the incident ‘belongs essentially to the early Babylonian and not to the Assyrian period,’ is not borne out by the cuneiform documents to which he refers; the correspondences adduced being quite as close with contracts of the later Assyrian kings as with those of the age of Ḫammurabi. Thus, the expression ‘full silver’ (verse ⁹) is frequent under Sargon and subsequently (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 108 ff.); under the first Babylonian dynasty the phrase is ‘silver to the full price’ (ib. 7 ff.). The formula for ‘before’ (a witness) is, in the earlier tablets, maḫar; in the later, pân,――neither the precise equivalent of those here used (בְּאָזְנֵי and לְעֵינֵי). There remains only the expression ‘weigh silver,’ which does appear to be characteristic of the older contracts; but since this phrase survived in Hebrew till the latest times (Zechariah 11¹², Esther 3⁹), it is plain that nothing can be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened his case by the arguments in The Expository Times, 1907, 418 ff.; see Driver 230, and _Addenda_⁷, XXXVII f.
=1, 2. The death of Sarah.=――=2.= Ḳiryath-’Arba‛] an old name of Hebron, v.i.――וַיָּבֹא] not ‘came,’ but went in――to where the body lay.――to wail ... weep] with the customary loud demonstrations of grief (Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 20; A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 453 ff.).
* * * * *
=1.= After ויהיו it is advisable to insert שְׁנֵי (Ball, Kittel: compare 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸). The omission may have caused the addition of the gloss שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה at the end (wanting in LXX).――=2.= קרית ארבע (LXX ἐν πόλει Ἀρβόκ)] The old name of Hebron (Joshua 14¹⁵, Judges 1¹⁰), though seemingly in use after the Exile (unless Nehemiah 11²⁵ be an artificial archaism [Meyer Die Entstehung des Judenthums 106]). The name means ‘Four cities’ (see on בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע, page 326). The personification of אַרְבַּֽע as heros eponymus (Joshua 14¹⁵ 15¹³ 21¹¹) has no better authority (as LXX shows) than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, Judges 25). Jewish Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others from the 4 patriarchs buried there――Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Adam (Bereshith Rabba; P. R. Eliezer, 20, 36; Rashi)――the last being inferred from הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל in Joshua 14¹⁵ (Jerome, Onomastica Sacra, 84¹²). The addition of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אל עמק (LXX ἥ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ κοιλώματι) seems a corruption of אבי ענק (Ball) or (with LXX) אֵם ע׳ in Joshua 15¹³ 21¹¹.――לספד] In Hebrew usage, as in that of all the cognate languages, ספד means ‘to wail’; see Micah 1⁸.
* * * * *
=3‒7. The request for a burying-place.=――The negotiations fall into three well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely courtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance of the Ḥittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase (Gunkel). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of their sepulchres is at his disposal.――=3.= arose] from the sitting posture of the mourner (2 Samuel 12¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰).――the sons of Ḥēth] see on 10¹⁵.
Priestly-Code is the only document in which Ḥittites are definitely located in the South of Canaan (compare 26³⁴ 36²); and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned. It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Ḥittites (page 215) had extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Hebrew invasion. But taking into account that Priestly-Code appears to use ‘Ḥēth’ interchangeably with ‘Canaan’ (compare 26³⁴ 27⁴⁶ 36²ᵇ with 28¹ᐧ ⁸ 36²ᵃ), it may be more reasonable to hold that with him ‘Ḥittite’ is a general designation of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, as ‘Canaanite’ with Yahwist and ‘Amorite’ with Elohist (compare Joshua 1⁴, Ezekiel 16³). It may, of course, be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the Ḥittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and that this assumption would best explain the all but constant occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see page 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was the case; and a historic connexion between the northern Ḥittites and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another solution is propounded by Jastrow (Encyclopædia Biblica, 2094 ff.), viz., that Priestly-Code’s Ḥittites are an entirely distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with either the ‘conventional’ Ḥittites of the enumerations or the great empire of North Syria. See Driver 228 ff.
=4.= a sojourner and dweller] so Leviticus 25³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁷, Numbers 35¹⁵, and (in a religious sense) Psalms 39¹³ (compare 1 Peter 2¹¹). The technical distinction between גֵּר and תּוֹשָׁב is obscure (v.i.).――=6.= O if thou wouldst hear us (read לוּ שְׁמָעֵנוּ, v.i.)]. The formula always introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: compare ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ¹⁵.――נְשֵׁיא אֱלֹהִים is more than ‘a mighty prince’ (as Psalms 36⁷ 68¹⁶ 104¹⁶ etc.); it means one deriving his patent of nobility straight from Almighty God.――Not a man of us will withhold, etc.] therefore there is no need to buy. Behind their generosity there lurks an aversion to the idea of purchase.――=7.= The verse has almost the force of a refrain (compare 12). The first stage of the negotiations is concluded.
* * * * *
=4.= תּוֹשָׁב] Abraham Ibn Ezra הוא הגר היושב בארץ. According to Bertholet (_Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_ 156‒166), the תּ׳ is simply a gêr (see on 12¹⁰) who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and perhaps incapable of holding land; see Encyclopædia Biblica, 4818.――=5.= לֵאמֹר לוֹ (so verse ¹⁴) is an abnormal combination, doubtfully supported by Leviticus 11¹. The last word must be joined to verse ⁶, and read either לֹא (as verse ¹¹: so _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX), or לוּ (as ¹³). The last is the only form suitable in all four cases (⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵). On לוּ with imperative, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 e.――=6.= יִכְלֶה] = יִכְלָא, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 qq.
* * * * *
=8‒12. The appeal to ‛Ephrôn.=――In his second speech Abraham shows his tact first by ignoring tacitly the suggestion of a free gift, and then by bringing the favourable public opinion just expressed to bear on the individual he wishes to reach.――=9.= On the cave of Makpēlāh, see at the close.――in the end of his field] Abraham apparently does not contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust on him by ‛Ephrôn’s offer.――for full money] see page 335 above (footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Chronicles 21²²ᐧ ²⁴.――=10.= entering the gate, etc.] i.e., his fellow-citizens, with the right of sitting in public assembly at the gate (compare יֹצְאֵי שׁ׳ ע׳, 34²⁴).
* * * * *
=8.= את־נפשכם] ‘in accordance with your [inner] mind.’ Compare 2 Kings 9¹⁵, 1 Samuel 20⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 661 a.――=9.= הַמַּכְפֵּלָה] Elsewhere only 25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³; always with article, showing that it retained an appellative sense. LXX (τὸ σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν), Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ are probably right in deriving it from √ כפל, ‘double’ (see page 339).――=10.= לכל] לְ = ‘namely’ (see on 9¹⁰: compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, 514 b); in ¹⁸ it is replaced by בְּ = ‘among.’――=11.= For לֹא point לֻא: see on ⁵.――נתתי לך] LXX omitted.――נְתַתִּיהָ is perfect of instant action: ‘I give it’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 m.
* * * * *
=13‒16. The purchase of the field.=――With the same tactful persistency, Abraham seizes on ‛Ephrôn’s expression of goodwill, while waving aside the idea of a gift.――=13.= If only thou――pray hear me!] The anakolouthon expresses the polite embarrassment of the speaker.――=14, 15.= ‛Ephrôn’s resistance being now broken down, he names his price with the affectation of generosity still observed in the East.¹――land [worth] 400 shekels ... what is that...?] The word for ‘land’ is better omitted with LXX; it is not the land but the money that ‛Ephrôn pretends to disparage.――=16.= Abraham immediately pays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain.――current with the merchant] The precious metals circulated in ingots, whose weight was approximately known, without, however, superseding the necessity for ‘weighing’ in important transactions (Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 197; Kennedy, A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 420; Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, iii. 391 f.).²
¹ “The peasants will often say, when a person asks the price of any thing which they have for sale, ‘Receive it as a present’: this answer having become a common form of speech, they know that advantage will not be taken of it; and when desired again to name the price, they will do so, but generally name a sum that is exhorbitant.” Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. 13 f.
² Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to prove that shekels “stamped with a seal” were in use in the time of Ḫammurabi. See Sayce, The Contemporary Review, August, 1907, page 259.
* * * * *
=13.= For לוּ, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (? Peshiṭtå) read לִי, mistaking the idiom.――=14.= לוּ: לֵאמֹר] as ⁵.――=15.= LXX (Οὐχί, κύριε, ἀκήκοα γάρ) does not render אֶרֶץ, but the γάρ is odd.――ואת־] better וְאַתָּ (LXX).――=16.= עבר לסחר] The only other instance of this use of עבר (2 Kings 12⁵) is corrupt (read עֶרֶךְ, LXX).
* * * * *
=17‒20. Summary and conclusion.=――=17, 18= are in the form of a legal contract. Specifications of the dimensions and boundaries of a piece of land, and of the buildings, trees, etc., upon it, are common in ancient contracts of sale at all periods; compare e.g. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Babylonian dynasty), 101, and 161 (8th century B.C.), 223‒5 (6th century); the Assouan Papyri (5th century); and especially the Petra Inscription cited in Authority and Archæology, page 135.
The traditional site of the Cave of Makpēlāh is on the East side of the narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within the modern city (el-Ḫalīl). The place is marked by a sacred enclosure (the Ḥarām), within which Christians have seldom been admitted. The South-east half is occupied by a mosque, and six cenotaphs are shown: those of Abraham and Sarah in the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the South-east (within the mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the North-west: that of Joseph is just outside the Ḥarām on the North-west. The cave below has never been examined in modern times, but is stated by its guardians to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the tradition as to the site has descended from biblical times; and it is quite probable that the name Makpēlāh is derived from the feature just referred to. That the name included the field attached to the cave (verse ¹⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³) is natural; and even its extension to the adjacent district (see on ¹⁷) is perhaps not a decisive objection.――For further particulars, see Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 75 ff.; Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³ 141 f.; Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements, 1882, 197‒214; Warren, A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 197 ff.; Driver, The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 228.
Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative, Priestly-Code’s peculiar interest in the transaction is a fact that has to be explained. The motive usually assigned is that the purchase was a pledge of the possession of the land by Abraham’s descendants; that view is, indeed, supported by nothing in the passage (see Gunkel 241), but it is difficult to imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that the elaboration of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the possession of the sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the age of Priestly-Code. It has been held probable on independent grounds that the Edomites had advanced as far north as Hebron during the Exile (see Meyer Die Entstehung des Judenthums 106, 114), and from Nehemiah 11²⁵ we learn that a colony of Jews settled there after the return. We can at least imagine that a contest for the ownership of the holy place (like those which have so largely determined the later history of Palestine) would arise; and that such a situation would account for the emphasis with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim of the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of its ancestors. So Gunkel¹ 251; Students’ Old Testament, 99: otherwise Gunkel² 241 f.
* * * * *
=17.= קוּם] = ‘pass into permanent possession,’ as Leviticus 25³⁰ 27¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ (Priestly-Code).――אשר במכפלה] LXX ὃς ἦν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ σπηλαίῳ is nonsense; but Vulgate in quo erat spelunca duplex suggests a reading אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַמּ׳ which (if it were better attested) would remove the difficulty of supposing that the name ‘double cave’ was applied to the district around.――לפני] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch על פני as in ¹⁹ = ‘in front of,’ perhaps ‘to the East of.’
* * * * *
XXIV. Procuring a Wife for Isaac (Yahwist, [Elohist?])
Abraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his Mesopotamian relatives (¹⁻⁹). The servant is providentially guided to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (¹⁰⁻⁴⁹). Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden herself (⁵⁰⁻⁶¹), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her (⁶²⁻⁶⁷).
The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes and incidents, and a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 39 f.). But if such a historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220).
Source and Unity of the Narrative.――From the general character of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain ‘unevennesses of representation’ occur; and the question arises whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing to follow him (⁵ᐧ ³⁹), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (⁷ᐧ ⁴⁰), and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission should miscarry (⁸ᐧ ⁴¹). In ²⁹ ᶠᐧ Laban twice goes out to the man at the well (²⁹ᵇ ∥ ³⁰ᵇ); ²⁸ speaks of the mother’s house, ²³ᵇ of the father’s: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with Laban and Bethuel, in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with the brother and mother of the bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the relatives without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ the decision is left to herself; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her nurse, in ⁶¹ᵃ she takes her own maidens with her; her departure is twice recorded (⁶¹ᵃ ∥ ⁶¹ᵇ). These doublets and variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences in the oral tradition (Students’ Old Testament, 96); and although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness and skill by Gunkel (215‒221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground that a fusion of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (Gunkel) is without parallel, whereas Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist are combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above).
¹ יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᐧ ⁵⁶; ארם נהרים, ¹⁰ (against Priestly-Code’s פדן ארם); ארצי ומולדתי, ⁴ (12¹); בא בימים ¹ (see on 18¹¹); טבת מראה, ¹⁶ (26⁷, compare 12¹¹); ידע, ¹⁶ (see on 4¹); יש with suffix and participle ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹; טרם, ¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵; הצליח, ²¹ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁵⁶ (39²ᐧ ³ᐧ ²³); הקרה, ¹² (27²⁰); רוץ לקראת, ¹⁷ (see 18²); נא, ²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵.
The Death of Abraham.――It is impossible to escape the impression that in verses ¹⁻⁹ Abraham is very near his end, and that in ⁶²⁻⁶⁷ his death is presupposed. It follows that the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that of Priestly-Code (25 ⁷⁻¹¹), according to which Abraham survived the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only question is whether it happened before or after the departure of the servant. Except in ¹⁴ᵇ{α}, the servant invariably speaks as if his master were still alive (compare ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᵇᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᐧ ⁵⁶). In ⁶⁵, on other hand, he seems to be aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to which ¹⁴ᵇ{α}ᐧ ³⁶ᵇ and ⁶⁵ belong (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), the death was recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in the other (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it was first noticed in connexion with the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s return.――Verse ³⁶ᵇ is thought to point back to 25⁵; and hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose that 25¹⁻⁶ ⁽¹¹ᵇ⁾ originally preceded chapter 24; while others (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place for 25⁵ (with or without ¹¹ᵇ) between 24¹ and 24². See, further, on 25 ¹⁻⁶ below.
=1‒9. The servant’s commission.=――=1.= had blessed, etc.] His life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.――=2.= the oldest (i.e. senior in rank) servant, etc.] who, in default of an heir, would have succeeded to the property (15² ᶠᐧ), and still acts as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position of Ziba in 2 Samuel 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――put thy hand, etc.] Only again 47²⁹)――another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of death that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to live, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel).
The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems of the life-giving power of deity,――a survival of primitive religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts of the world: see Ewald Antiquities of Israel 19⁶ [English translation]; Dillmann 301; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 395; and especially the striking Australian parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant of circumcision (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch). Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰) to maintain the sanctity of the oath.
¹ “One native remains seated on the ground with his heels tucked under him...; the one who is about to narrate a death to him approaches ... and seats himself cross-legged upon the thighs of the other; ... and the one who is seated uppermost places his hands under the thighs of his friend; ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the death has by this ceremony passed between the two.”
=3.= God of heaven and of earth] an expression for the divine omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God’s providence which pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found (see verse ⁷).――thou shalt not take, etc.] The motive is a natural concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden 67.――=5‒8.= The servant’s fear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that the woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to Ḥarran? The suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his unclouded faith in God.――=7.= God of heaven] v.i.――send his Angel] compare Exodus 23²⁰ᐧ ²³ 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; contrast the older conception in 16⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ.
* * * * *
=3.= לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.――=4.= כי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי אם.――At the end LXX, Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.――=5.= אָבָה] always with negative, except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).――=7.= אלהי השמים] appears only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1², Nehemiah 1⁴ ᶠᐧ 2⁴ᐧ ²⁰: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).――ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.――=8.= אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.――לא תשב (but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 d.
* * * * *
=10‒14. The servant at the well.=――On the fidelity of the picture to Eastern life, see Thomson, The Land and the Book, i. 261.――=10.= ten camels] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But “such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other animals, nor with a less number.”――goodly things] for presents to the bride and her relations (²²ᐧ ⁵³).――On ’Aram Naharaim, see the footnote.――the city of Nāḥôr in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to ’Aram Naharaim, in which case a much less distant locality may be referred to (see on 29¹).――=12‒14.= The servant’s prayer. The request for a sign is illustrated by Judges 6³⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 14⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ: note הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,――in any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.――=13.= the daughters ... to draw water] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹.
* * * * *
=10.= Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).――וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).――ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60², 1 Chronicles 19⁶†. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארם דעל פרת. The identity of the second element with Egyptian Naharin, Tel-Amarna Tablets Naḫrima (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 249 ff.); all that can be certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced both sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?), or a locative termination, to be read -ām (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 45¹; Meyer, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 c, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in this last case be no need to find a second river (Tigris, Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, Judges 87, 89; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f.――=12.= הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).――=14.= הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה; so verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁷ 34³ᐧ ¹², Deuteronomy 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²³⁻²⁹. הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch reads so throughout. It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 c.――אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται πίνουσαι.――הֹכַחְתָּ] decide, adjudicate, here = ‘allot’; so only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 31³⁷ᐧ ⁴²† (Elohist), Leviticus 19¹⁷† (Priestly- Code).――ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 p.
* * * * *
=15‒27. The servant and Rebekah.=――=15.= who was born to Bethuel, etc.] compare ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷.
The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1908, 2, page 8 f.
* * * * *
=15.= After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 c.――The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵).
* * * * *
=16.= Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden went down to the fountain (עַיִן) ... and came up] In Eastern wells the water is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John 4¹¹.――=19, 20.= The writer lingers over the scene, with evident delight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.――=21.= The servant meanwhile has stood gazing at her in silence, watching the ample fulfilment of the sign.――=22.= The nose-ring and bracelets are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 453².――=23‒25.= In the twofold question and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; v.i.――=24.= See on ¹⁵. Read the daughter of Milkah whom she bore to Nāḥôr (as 34¹).――=26, 27.= The servant’s act of worship marks the close of the scene.
* * * * *
=18= end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two words of verse ¹⁹.――=20.= השקת] the stone trough for watering animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶).――=21.= משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but ‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 a.――=22.= משקלו] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + וישם על אפה, a necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a ‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 32²ᐧ ³ (Elohist) an earring.――בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).――=23‒25.= The theory of two recensions derives some little support from the repeated ותאמר אליו of ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵. A mere rearrangement such as Ball proposes (²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁵) only cures one anomaly by creating another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.――=25.= ללון] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive elsewhere is always לוּן.――=27.= אנכי emphasises the following accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 b, 135 d, e). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי (Kittel); if not a mistake for (‡ Syriac word).――אחי] Point אֲחִי (singular) with versions.
* * * * *
=28‒32. Laban’s hospitality= is inspired by the selfish greed for which that worthy was noted in tradition.――=28.= her mother’s house cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban belongs to it, and ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ imply that the father (whether Bethuel or Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference is that the father was dead.――=31.= seeing I have cleared the house] turning part of it into a stable.――=32.= he (Laban) brought the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels] without removing the pack-saddles.¹――to wash his feet, etc.] compare 18⁴.
¹ “The camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill if the saddle were taken away imprudently; and on no account can the camel stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then taken into the house, part of which is turned into a stable” (Baldensperger, _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements_, 1904, 130).
* * * * *
=28.= אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (wrongly).――=30.= כראותו (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) is better than Massoretic Text כראת.――והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 s; Davidson § 100 (a).――=31.= פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus 14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ fanaʸ IV. = _effecit ut dispareret_.――=32.= וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause. Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of documentary analysis.
* * * * *
=33‒49. The servant’s narrative.=――A recapitulation of the story up to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone before, but its readings need not be considered.――=35.= Compare 12¹⁶ 13².――=36b.= has given him all that he had] This is the only material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with 25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page 341 above).――=40.= before whom I have walked] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised and unnecessary addition to the Tikkûnê Sōpherîm (see 18²²).――=41.= אָלָה (bis) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of oath and curse, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 192 f.――=45‒47.= Greatly abbreviated from ¹⁵⁻²⁵.――the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of Nāḥôr; etc.] see on ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴.――=48.= daughter of my master’s brother] ‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (29¹²ᐧ ¹⁵); but if Bethuel be interpolated in ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷, Rebekah was actually first cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).――=49.= that I may turn, etc.] not to seek a bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’
* * * * *
=33.= וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance. The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 73 f), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke, Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 39 f.).――ויאמר²] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ, which is perhaps better.――=36.= זקנתה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.――=38.= אִם לֹא never has the sense of Aramaic אֶלָּא (sondern), and must be taken as the common form of adjuration (Delitzsch), _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (London Polyglott) has כי אם.――=41.= מאלתי] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 n.――The verse contains a slight redundancy (ᵃ{α} ∥ ᵇ{β}), but nothing is gained by interposing a clause between ᵃ{β} and ᵇ{α} (Kautzsch-Socin).――=46.= מעליה] LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate _de humero_ (compare ¹⁸).
* * * * *
=50‒61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her relatives.=――=50.= The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer bad or good: i.e., anything whatever, as 31²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, Numbers 24¹³ etc.
The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘we cannot speak, because Yahwe has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel. It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of ⁵⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, that he has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest of the verse with ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ (‘we cannot speak: let the maiden decide’).――On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵. Since the mention of the father after the brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban.
=51.= Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with custom, without consulting the bride.――=53.= The presents are given partly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we may have a survival of the מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the narrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the notion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam mahr and ṣadaḳ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms for dowry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 93, 96): compare Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 106.――=55.= The reluctance to part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, v.i.――=56.= The servant’s eagerness to be gone arises from the hope of finding his old master still alive.――=57, 58.= The question here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait a few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the wishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.); but a discrepancy with ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.――=59.= their sister] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå and MSS of LXX.――her nurse] see on 35⁸.――=60.= The blessing on the marriage (compare Ruth 4¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ)), rhythmic in form, is perhaps an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of Rebekah.――possess the gate] as 22¹⁷.――=61a= and =61b= seem to be variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².――her maidens] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹.
* * * * *
=53.= מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’ from √ מגד, Arabic maǧada = ‘be noble.’――=55.= וְאָחִיהָ] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many Greek cursives in ⁵³.――ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year or ten months’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi) is hardly admissible. But the text seems uncertain: _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (compare 29¹⁴). In deference to The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).――תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so all Versions).――=59.= מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a word of Priestly-Code.――=60.= אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (soror nostra es, Vulgate).――הֲיִי] with abnormal ־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 q).――שנאיו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ איביו, as 22¹⁷.
* * * * *
=62‒67. The home-bringing of Rebekah.=――=62.= Now Isaac had come ...] What follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that during the servant’s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-laḥai-roi, and that near that well the meeting took place.
The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (v.i.), partly in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch: Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was coming from a walk in the direction of Beersheba’, when he met the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s life (transposing 25¹¹ᵇ before 24²), and that now he comes from that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death. Dillmann reads ⁶²ᵃ ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words the notice of Isaac’s migration to Beersheba.――Kautzsch-Socin, reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between ⁶¹ᵃ and ⁶¹ᵇ: the servant on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (⁶¹ᵇ) took Rebekah and went further; and (⁶²ᵃ) came to Laḥairoi.――Gunkel (operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel to ⁶¹ᵃ in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘to the entrance of’). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried through independently of his division of sources. For even if the death followed the departure, it might very well have been recorded in the early part of the chapter (after ¹⁰).
* * * * *
=62.= מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French il vint d’arriver (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom. Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵; Delitzsch v.s.); for the direction in which Isaac took his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger s.). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre). Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba to’: Ball).――באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above.
* * * * *
=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly to roam (v.i.).――toward the approach of evening] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).――camels were coming] In the distance he cannot discern them as his own.――=64.= At the sight of a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect still observed in the East (The Land and the Book, i. 762; Seetzen, Reisen, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.――=65.= It is my master] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is dead.――The putting on of the veil (compare nubere viro), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the wedding ceremony (see Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, i. 217 f.).――=67.= brought her into the tent] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental rule of syntax, and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac’s own tent is referred to. This is the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 108 f.).――comforted himself after [the death of] his mother] It is conjectured (Wellhausen al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded by Yahwist or Elohist.
* * * * *
=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ = ‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila (ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (ad meditandum: so Tuch, Delitzsch), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ (21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture. Nöldeke (Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 43 f.) suggests a connexion with Arabic sāḥa = ‘stroll’ (point לָשׁוּחַ).――הגמלים of The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is wrong (v.s.).――=65.= הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הלז.――הצעיף] 38¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹† (Yahwist). On the article compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 s. After Lagarde’s brilliant note (Semitica 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any material.――=67.= ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.――האהלה שרה] article with construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f.――For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) v.s.
* * * * *
XXV. 1‒6. The Sons of Ḳeṭurah (Yahwist? Redactor?).
The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles 1³² ᶠᐧ).
The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse ¹⁸. The fact that in Judges 8²⁴ Midianites are classed as Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) points to some confusion between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29¹) has dropped a hint that Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;¹ Holzinger conjectures that the names in ²⁻⁴ are taken from Yahwist’s lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (Students’ Old Testament, i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on verse ¹⁸ below.
¹ So Jewish interpreters: Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Bereshith Rabba, Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim, Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra).
Source.――(a) The genealogy (¹⁻⁴) contains slight traces of Yahwist in יָלַר, ³; כָּל־אֵלָּה בְּנֵי ⁴ (compare 10²⁹ 9¹⁹); Priestly-Code is excluded by ילד, and the discrepancy with 10⁷ as to Sheba and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given for Sheba in 10²⁸.――(b) The section as a whole cannot, however, belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and 24³⁶ refers back to 25⁵.¹ We must conclude that 25¹⁻⁶ is the work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and taken verse ⁵ from its original position (see on 24³⁶) to bring it into connexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham’s death was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view of ¹¹ᵇ and ¹⁸) to hold that the adjustments were effected during the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the chronological scheme of Priestly-Code.
¹ The mere transposition of 25¹⁻⁶ before chapter 24 (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger).
=1.= Ḳĕṭûrāh, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chronicles 1³² (compare verse ⁶ below), is here a wife, the death of Sarah being presupposed. The name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious, though Arabian genealogists speak of a tribe Ḳaṭūra in the vicinity of Mecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no ‘absurdity’ (Delitzsch) in the suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense (קְטוֹרָה) which passed through these regions (see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 313).――=2‒4.= The Ḳeṭurean stock is divided into 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained historic importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including the well-known names Sheba and Dedan.
=2.= זִמְרָן (Ζεβράν, Ζομβράν, etc.) has been connected with the Ζαβράμ [Ζαδραμ?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel); and with the Zamareni of Pliny, Naturalis Historia, vi. 158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South. The name is probably derived from זֶמֶר = ‘wild goat,’ the ending ān (which is common in the Ḳeṭurean and Ḥorite lists and rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare זִמְרִי, Numbers 25¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 2⁶ 8³⁶ 9⁴². A connexion with זִמְרִי (Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)), Jeremiah 25²⁵ is very doubtful. On יָקְשָׁן (Ἰεξάν, Ἱεκτάν, etc.) see on verse ³――מְדָן (Μαδαίμ)] unknown. Wetzstein instances a Wādī Medān near the ruins of Daidan.――מִדְיָן (Μαδιάμ)] The name appears as Μοδίανα = Μαδιαμα in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27 (compare Josephus Antiquities of the Jews ii. 257; Eusebius Onomasticon, page 276), the Madyan of Arab geography, a town on the East side of the Gulf of Aḳaba, opposite the South end of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Nöldeke Encyclopædia Biblica, 3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must therefore have been in the northern Ḥiǧāz, whence roving bands ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36³⁵), and Israel (Judges 6‒8). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 3 f.); and after the time of the Judges they practically disappear from history. “As to their occupations, we sometimes find them described as peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Genesis 37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶, Isaiah 60⁶], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to raid the more settled districts” (Nöldeke).――יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ have been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 91 f., Wo lag das Paradies? 297 f.) and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with Yasbuḳ and Sûḫu of Assyrian monuments (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, i. 159, 33, 99, 101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since abandoned the latter identification (Hiob, 139) for phonetic reasons.――=3.= שְׁבָא and דְּדָן] see on 10⁷. As they are there bracketed under רַֽעֲמָה, so here under יָקְשָׁן, a name otherwise unknown. The equation with יָקְטָן (10²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), proposed by Tuch and accepted by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabæans are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy goes farther back than that of the Yokṭanite Arabs in chapter 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts Θαιμάν (= תֵימָא, verse ¹⁵).――=3b.= The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles, and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX has in addition Ραγουὴλ (compare 36¹⁰) καὶ Ναβδεήλ (compare verse ¹³).――אַשּׁוּרִם] certainly not the Assyrians (אַשּׁוּר), but some obscure North Arabian tribe,――possibly the אאשר mentioned on two Minæan inscriptions along with מצר (Egypt), עבר נהרן, and Gaza (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 248 f., 252 f., _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455 ff.; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i. 28 f.; König, Fünf Landschaften, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, xi. 327 ff., _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 320 ff.).――לְטוּשִׁם] The personal name לטשו (as also אשורו) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xiv. 403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence of craftsmen’s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of ל׳ with לֹטֵשׁ in 4²² is suggested.――=4.= Five sons of Midian.――עֵיפָה is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60⁶ as a trading tribe. It has been identified with the Ḫayapa (= עֲיָפָה?) mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other rebellious Arab tribes (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 304, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 58.――With עֵפֶר, Wetzstein compares the modern ‛Ofr (Dillmann); Glaser (449), Assyrian Apparu (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 223).――חֲנֹךְ] Perhaps Hanākiya near ‛Ofr (Knobel-Dillmann).――It is noteworthy that these three names――עיפה, 1 Chronicles 2⁴⁶ ᶠᐧ; עפר, 1 Chronicles 4¹⁷ 5²⁴; חנך, Genesis 46⁹, Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³――are found in the Hebrew tribes most exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? (Nöldeke).――אֲבִידָע (‛Abî-yada‛a) and אֶלְדָּעָה (’Il- yeda‛ and Yeda-’il) are personal names in Sabæan, the former being borne by several kings (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449).
=5.= See on 24³⁶.――=6.= The exodus of the Bnê Ḳedem (composed by a redactor).――the concubines] apparently Hagar and Ḳeṭurah, though neither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16³ Hagar is even called אִשָּׁה. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to Yahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.――sent them away from off Isaac] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare Judges 11².――eastward to the land of Ḳedem] the Syro-Arabian desert.
So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two phrases קֵדְמָה and אֶל־אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם as variants. But קֶדֶם in Old Testament is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29¹, Numbers 23⁷, Judges 6³ᐧ ³³ 7¹² 8¹⁰, Isaiah 11¹⁴, Jeremiah 49²⁸, Ezekiel 25⁴ᐧ ¹⁰, Job 1³); and although its appellative significance could, of course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (circa 1900 B.C.): see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 46 f.; Winckler Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen, 52 ff.; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 243 f.
* * * * *
=5= end] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå + בְּנוֹ.――=6.= פִּילֶגֶשׁ (see on 22²⁴) is used of שִׁפְחָה in 35²².――אשר לאברהם] LXX αὐτοῦ.
* * * * *
XXV. 7‒11. The Death and Burial of Abraham (Priestly-Code).
⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ are the continuation of 23²⁰ in Priestly-Code. Note the characteristic phrases: יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי, ⁷; גָּוַע, בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה, נֶֽאֱסַף אֶל־עַמָּיו ⁸; אֱלֹהִים, ¹¹ᵃ; the chronology ⁷, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the backward reference in 49³¹.――¹¹ᵇ belongs to Yahwist.
=8.= gathered to his kindred (see on 17¹⁴)] Originally, this and similar phrases (15¹⁵ 47³⁰, Deuteronomy 31¹⁶ etc.) denoted burial in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Sheôl as a vast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the language to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were buried far from their ancestors.――Isaac and Ishmael] The expulsion of Ishmael is consistently ignored by Priestly-Code.――=11a.= Transition to the history of Isaac (25¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).
¹¹ᵇ (like verse ⁵) has been torn from its context in Yahwist, where it may have stood after 24¹ 25⁵, or (more probably) after the notice of Abraham’s death (compare 24⁶²). Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 253, 323) makes the improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse ¹⁸, the conclusion of chapter 16.
* * * * *
=8.= ויגוע וימת] verse ¹⁷ 35²⁹; see on 6¹⁷.――ושבע] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX better ושבע ימים, as 35²⁹.――ויאסף וגו׳] so 25¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²⁹ᐧ ³³, Numbers 20²⁴ᐧ ²⁶ 27¹³ 31², Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰† (all Priestly-Code).――=10.= השדה] LXX + καὶ τὸ σπήλαιον.――=11.= לחי ראי] see on 24⁶².
* * * * *
XXV. 12‒18. The Genealogy and Death of Ishmael (Priestly-Code).
With the exception of verse ¹⁸, which is another isolated fragment of Yahwist, the passage is an excerpt from the Tôledôth of the Priestly Code.――The names of the genealogy (¹³⁻¹⁶) represent at once ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם: compare the promise of 17²⁰) and ‘peoples’ (אֻמֹּת, ¹⁶); that is to say, they are the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which are here treated as forming a political confederacy under the name of Ishmael.
In the geography of Priestly-Code the Ishmaelites occupy a territory intermediate between the Arabian Cushites on the South (10⁷), the Edomites, Moabites, etc., on the West, and the Aramæans on the North (10²² ᶠᐧ); i.e., roughly speaking, the Syro-Arabian desert north of Ǧebel Shammar. In Yahwist they extend West to the border of Egypt (verse ¹⁸).――The Ishmaelites have left very little mark in history. From the fact that they are not mentioned in Egyptian or Assyrian records, Meyer infers that their flourishing period was from the 12th to the 9th centuries B.C. (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 324). In Old Testament the latest possible traces of Ishmael as a people are in the time of David (compare 2 Samuel 17²⁵, 1 Chronicles 2¹⁷ 27³⁰), though the name occurs sporadically as that of an individual or clan in much later times (Jeremiah 40⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 25²³, 1 Chronicles 8³⁸ 9⁴⁴, 2 Chronicles 19¹¹ 23¹, Ezra 10²²). In Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 8²⁴, it is possible that ‘Ishmaelites’ is synonymous with Bedouin in general (see Meyer, 326).
=13.= נְבָיֹת וְקֵדָר] are the Nabayati and Ḳidri of Assyrian monuments (Asshurbanipal: Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 215 ff.; compare Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 297, 299; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 151), and possibly the Nabatæi and Cedrei of Pliny, v. 65 (compare vi. 157, etc.). The references do not enable us to locate them with precision, but they must be put somewhere in the desert East of Palestine or Edom. The Nabatæans of a later age (see Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_³ᐧ ⁴, i. 728 ff.) were naturally identified with נְבָיֹת by Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 220 f.), Jerome (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [נבט], as they still are by Schrader, Schürer, and some others. But since the native name of the Nabatæans was נבטו, the identification is doubtful, and is now mostly abandoned. The two tribes are mentioned together in Isaiah 60⁷: נְבָיֹת alone only Genesis 28⁹ 36³; but קֵדָר is alluded to from the time of Jeremiah downwards as a typical nomadic tribe of the Eastern desert. In late Hebrew the name was extended to the Arabs as a whole (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ערב).――אַדְבְּאֵל (Ναβδεήλ: see on verse ³)] Perhaps an Arab tribe Idibi’il which Tiglath-pileser IV. (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, ii. 21) appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the border of Egypt proper).――מִבְשָׂם] a Simeonite clan (1 Chronicles 4²⁵), otherwise not known.――=14.= מִשְׁמָע follows מבשם in 1 Chronicles 4²⁵. Dillmann compares a Ǧebel Misma’ South-east of Kāf, and another near Ḥāyil East of Teima.――דּוּמָה] Several places bearing this name are known (Dillmann); but the one that best suits this passage is the Dūmah which Arabic writers place 4 days’ journey North of Teima: viz. Dūmat el-Ǧendel, now called el-Ǧōf, a great oasis in the South of the Syrian desert and on the border of the Nefūd (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ ii. 607; compare Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land._ 602). It is probably the Δούμαιθα of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 7, the Domata of Pliny vi. 157.――מַשָּׂא] See on 10³⁰, and compare Proverbs 31¹. A tribe Mas’a is named by Tiglath-pileser IV. along with Teima (verse ¹⁵), Saba’, Hayapa (⁴), Idibi’il (¹³), and may be identical with the Μασανοι of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 2, North-east of Δούμαιθα.――=15.= חֲדַד] unknown.――תֵּימָא (Isaiah 21¹⁴, Jeremiah 25²³, Job 6¹⁹) is the modern Teima, on the West border of the Neǧd, circa 250 miles South-east of Aḳāba, still an important caravan station on the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscriptions show) in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation: see the descriptions in Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 285 ff., 549 ff.――יְטוּר and נָפִישׁ are named together in 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated by the Reubenites in the time of Saul. יטור is no doubt the same people which emerges about 100 B.C. under the name Ἰτουραῖοι, as a body of fierce and predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i. 707 ff.).――Of קֵדְמָה nothing is known. Should we read נוֹדָב as 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ (Ball, Kittel)?――=16.= בְּחַצְרֵיהֶם] ‘in their settlements’ or ‘villages’; compare Isaiah 42¹¹ ‘the villages that Kedar doth inhabit.’――וּבְטִירֹתָם] טִרָה (Numbers 31¹⁰, Ezekiel 25⁴, Psalms 69²⁶, 1 Chronicles 6³⁹) is apparently a technical term for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According to Doughty (i. 261), the Arabic dīrah denotes the Bedouin circuit, but also, in some cases, their town settlements.――לְאֻמֹּתָם] ‘according to their peoples.’ אֻמֶּה is the Arabic ’ummat, rare in Hebrew (Numbers 25¹⁵, Psalms 117¹†).――=17.= Compare verses ⁷ᐧ ⁸.
Verse ¹⁸ is a stray verse of Yahwist, whose original setting it is impossible to determine. There is much plausibility in Holzinger’s conjecture that it was the conclusion of Yahwist’s lost genealogy of Ishmael (compare 10¹⁹ᐧ ³⁰). Gunkel thinks it was taken from the end of chapter 16: similarly Meyer, who makes ¹¹ᵇ (page 352 above) a connecting link. Dillmann suggests that the first half may have followed 25⁶, the reference being not to the Ishmaelites but to the Ḳeṭureans; and that the second half is a gloss from 16¹². But even ¹⁸ᵃ is not consistent with ¹¹ᵇ, for we have seen that the Ḳeṭureans are found East and South-east of Palestine, and Shûr is certainly not ‘eastward’ from where Abraham dwelt.――If Ḥavîlah has been rightly located on page 202 above, Yahwist fixes the eastern limit of the Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the Ǧōf es-Sirhān, while the western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on Shûr, see on 16⁷). This description is, of course, inapplicable to Priestly-Code’s Ishmaelites; but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of Elohist (21²¹) that their home was the wilderness of Paran; and it includes Lahai-roi, which was presumably an Ishmaelite sanctuary. Since a reference to Assyria is here out of place, the words בֹּאֲכָה אַשּׁוּרָה must be either deleted as a gloss (Wellhausen, Dillmann, Meyer, al.), or else read בּ׳ אָשׁוּרָה; אָשׁוּר being the hypothetical North Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in 25³ (so Gunkel; compare Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 240 f.; König Fünf Neue Arabische Landschaftsnamen im Alten Testament 11 ff.), a view for which there is very little justification.――¹⁸ᵇ is an adaptation of 16¹²ᵇ, but throws no light on that difficult sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Judges 7¹², where again the verb נָפַל has the sense of ‘settle’ (= שָׁכֵן in 16¹²). Hommel’s restoration עַל־פְּנֵי כֶלַח, ‘in front of Kelaḥ’ (a secondary gloss on אַשּׁוּר), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity.
THE HISTORY OF JACOB. CHAPTERS XXV. 19‒XXXVI.
Setting aside chapter 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history of Abraham: see page 363), and chapter 36 (Edomite genealogies), the third division of the Book of Genesis is devoted exclusively to the biography of Jacob. The legends which cluster round the name of this patriarch fall into four main groups (see Gunkel 257 ff.).
A. Jacob and Esau:
1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25¹⁹⁻²⁸). 2. The transference of the birthright (25²⁹⁻³⁴). 3. Jacob procures his father’s blessing by a fraud (27).
B. Jacob and Laban:
1. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel (29¹⁻¹⁴). 2. His marriage to Leah and Rachel (29¹⁵⁻³⁰). 3. The births of Jacob’s children (29³¹‒30²⁴). 4. Jacob’s bargain with Laban (30²⁵⁻⁴³). 5. The flight from Laban and the Treaty of Gilead (31¹‒32¹).
C. Jacob’s return to Canaan (loose and fragmentary):
1. Jacob’s measures for appeasing Esau (32⁴⁻²²).¹ 2. The meeting of the brothers (33¹⁻¹⁷).¹ 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The visit to Bethel, etc. (35¹⁻¹⁵). 5. The birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel (35¹⁶⁻²⁰). 6. Reuben’s incest (35²¹ ᶠᐧ).
D. Interspersed amongst these are several cult-legends, connected with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed founder.
1. The dream at Bethel (28¹⁰⁻²²)――a transition from A to B. 2. The encounter with angels at Mahanaim――a fragment (32² ᶠᐧ). 3. The wrestling at Peniel (32²³⁻³³). 4. The purchase of a lot at Shechem (33¹⁸⁻²⁰). 5. The second visit to Bethel――partly biographical (see below) (35¹⁻¹⁵).
¹ Gunkel recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in C. 1, 2; but these are entirely different in character from the group A. To all appearance they are conscious literary creations, composed in a biographical interest, and without historical or ethnographic significance.
The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion of sources than that on Abraham. The disjecta membra of Priestly-Code’s epitome can, indeed, be distinguished without much difficulty, viz. 25¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶ᵇ 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ 28¹⁻⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵇᐧ ²⁹ 30⁴ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇᐧ ²²ᵃ 31¹⁸ᵃ{βγδ}ᵇ 33¹⁸ᵃ{β} 35⁶ᵃᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹¹⁻¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ᐧ ²⁷⁻²⁹ 36¹. Even here, however, the redactor has allowed himself a freedom which he hardly uses in the earlier portions of Genesis. Not only are there omissions in Priestly-Code’s narrative to be supplied from the other sources, but transposition seems to have been resorted to in order to preserve the sequence of events in Jehovist.――The rest of the material is taken from the composite Jehovist, with the exception of chapter 34, which seems to belong to an older stage of tradition (see page 418). But the component documents are no longer represented by homogeneous sections (like chapters 16. 18 f. [Yahwist], 20. 22 [Elohist]); they are so closely and continuously blended that their separation is always difficult and occasionally impossible, while no lengthy context can be wholly assigned to the one or to the other.――These phenomena are not due to a deliberate change of method on the part of the redactors, but rather to the material with which they had to deal. The Yahwist and Elohist recensions of the life of Jacob were so much alike, and so complete, that they ran easily into a single compound narrative whose strands are naturally often hard to unravel; and of so closely knit a texture that Priestly-Code’s skeleton narrative had to be broken up here and there in order to fit into the connexion.
To trace the growth of so complex a legend as that of Jacob is a tempting but perhaps hopeless undertaking. It may be surmised that the Jacob-Esau (A) and Jacob-Laban (B) stories arose independently and existed separately, the first in the south of Judah, and the second east of the Jordan. The amalgamation of the two cycles gave the idea of Jacob’s flight to Aram and return to Canaan; and into this framework were fitted various cult-legends which had presumably been preserved at the sanctuaries to which they refer. As the story passed from mouth to mouth, it was enriched by romantic incidents like the meeting of Jacob and Rachel at the well, or the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau; and before it came to be written down by Yahwist and Elohist, the history of Jacob as a whole must have assumed a fixed form in Israelite tradition. Its most remarkable feature is the strongly marked biographic motive which lends unity to the narrative, and of which the writers must have been conscious,――the development of Jacob’s character from the unscrupulous roguery of chapters 25, 27 to the moral dignity of 32 ff. Whether tradition saw in him a type of the national character of Israel is more doubtful.
As regards the historicity of the narratives, it has to be observed in the first place that the ethnographic idea is much more prominent in the story of Jacob than in that of any other patriarch. It is obvious that the Jacob-Esau stories of chapters 25, 27 reflect the relations between the nations of Israel and Edom; and similarly at the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramæans. It has been supposed that the ethnographic motive, which comes to the surface in these passages, runs through the entire series of narratives (though disguised by the biographic form), and that by means of it we may extract from the legends a kernel of ancient tribal history. Thus, according to Steuernagel, Jacob (or Ya‛ăḳōb-ēl) was a Hebrew tribe which, being overpowered by the Edomites, sought refuge among the Aramæans, and afterwards, reinforced by the absorption of an Aramæan clan (Rachel), returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed between the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 38 ff., 56 ff.: compare Bennett 286). There are indeed few parts of the patriarchal history where this kind of interpretation yields more plausible results; and it is quite possible that the above construction contains elements of truth. At the same time, the method is one that requires to be applied with very great caution. In the first place, it is not certain that Jacob, Esau, and Laban were originally personifications of Israel, Edom, and Aram respectively: they may be real historic individuals; or they may be mythical heroes round whose names a rich growth of legend had gathered before they were identified with particular peoples. In the second place, even if they were personified tribes, the narrative must necessarily contain many features which belong to the personifications, and have no ethnological significance whatever. If, e.g., one set of legends describes Israel’s relations with Edom in the south and another its relations with the Aramæans in the east, it was necessary that the ideal ancestor of Israel should be represented as journeying from the one place to the other; but we have no right to conclude that a similar migration was actually performed by the nation of Israel. And there are many incidents even in this group of narratives which cannot naturally be understood of dealings between one tribe and another. As a general rule, the ethnographic interpretation must be confined to those incidents where it is either indicated by the terms of the narrative, or else confirmed by external evidence.
XXV. 19‒34. The Birth of Esau and Jacob, and the Transference of the Birthright (Priestly-Code, Jehovist).
In answer to Isaac’s prayer, Rebekah conceives and bears twin children, Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances of their birth (²¹⁻²⁶), and in their contrasted modes of life (²⁷ᐧ ²⁸), Hebrew legend saw prefigured the national characteristics, the close affinity, and the mutual rivalry of the two peoples, Edom and Israel; while the story of Esau selling his birthright (²⁹⁻³⁴) explains how Israel, the younger nation, obtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom.
Analysis.――verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ are taken from Priestly-Code; note וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת, הוֹלִיד, הָאֲרַמִּי (bis), פַּדַּן אֲרָם. To Priestly-Code must also be referred the chronological notice ²⁶ᵇ, which shows that an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been suppressed in favour of Yahwist. There is less reason to suspect a similar omission of the marriage of Isaac before verse ²⁰.――The rest of the passage belongs to the composite work Jehovist. The stylistic criteria (יהוה 21 ²¹ ᵇⁱˢᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³; עָתַר, ²¹ ᵇⁱˢ; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ²²; צָעִיר, ²³) and the resemblance of ²⁴⁻²⁶ to 38²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ point to Yahwist as the leading source of ²¹⁻²⁸; though Elohistic variants may possibly be detected in ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ (Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch, al.). Less certainty obtains with regard to ²⁹⁻³⁴, which most critics are content to assign to Yahwist (so Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Driver, al.), while others (Oxford Hexateuch, Gunkel, Students’ Old Testament. Procksch) assign it to Elohist because of the allusion in 27³⁶. That reason is not decisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour of Yahwist (נָא, ³⁰; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ³² [Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 36]; על־כן קרא שמו, ³⁰).
=19, 20. Isaac’s marriage.=――Priestly-Code follows Elohist (31²⁰ᐧ ²⁴) in describing Rebekah’s Mesopotamian relatives as Aramæans (compare 28⁵), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it naturally means descendants of ’Ărām, the fifth son of Shem (10²³). That this is a conscious divergence from the tradition of Yahwist is confirmed by 28²: see Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 420 ff.――On Bĕthû’ēl, see page 247 above.――Paddan ’Ărām] (28²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶ 46¹⁵ [פַּדָּן alone 48⁷]: LXX Μεσοποταμίας) is Priestly-Code’s equivalent for ’Ăram Nahăraim in Yahwist (24¹⁰); and in all probability denotes the region round Ḥarran (v.i.).
* * * * *
=19.= ואלה ת׳ יצחק] commonly regarded as the heading of the section (of Genesis or) of Priestly-Code ending with the death of Isaac (35²⁹); but see the notes on pages 40 f., 235 f. The use of the formula is anomalous, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac, already recorded in Priestly-Code, is included in his own genealogy. It looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat freely, inserting the words יִצְחָק בֶּן־ in the original heading תּוֹלְדֹת אַבְרָהָם] (compare verse ¹²).――=20.= פדן] Syriac (‡ Syriac word), Arabic faddān = ‘yoke of oxen’; hence (in Arabic) a definite measure of land (jugerum: compare Lane, 2353 b). A similar sense has been claimed for Assyrian padanu on the authority of II R. 62, 33 a, b (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 135). On this view פ׳ ארם would be equivalent to שְׂדֵה אֲרָם = ‘field of Aram’ in Hosea 12¹³. Ordinarily, padanu means ‘way’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that the word is another designation of Ḥarran (see 11³¹), in the neighbourhood of which a place Paddānā (vicus prope Ḥarran: Robert Payne Smith Thesaurus Syriacus 3039) has been known from early Christian times: Nöldeke, however, thinks this may be due to a Christian localisation of the biblical story (Encyclopædia Biblica, i. 278). Others less plausibly connect the name with the kingdom of Patin, with its centre North of the Lake of Antioch (Winckler _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 38).
* * * * *
=21‒23. The pre-natal oracle.=――=21.= With the prolonged barrenness of Rebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (29³¹), the mothers of Samson (Judges 13²), Samuel (1 Samuel 1²), and John the Baptist (Luke 1⁷).――Isaac prayed to Yahwe] Compare 1 Samuel 1¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. No miraculous intervention is suggested; and our only regret is that this glimpse of everyday family piety is so tantalisingly meagre.――=22.= During pregnancy the children crushed one another] ( v.i.) in a struggle for priority of birth.
Compare the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apollodorus Bibliotheca ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons of Abas, king of Argos, who κατὰ γαστρὸς μὲν ἔτι ὄντες ἐστασίαζον πρὸς ἀλλήλους. The sequel presents a certain parallelism to the history of Esau and Jacob, which has a bearing on the question whether there is an element of mythology behind the ethnological interpretation of the biblical narrative (see pages 455 f.). Another parallel is the Polynesian myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 356).
* * * * *
=21.= עתר] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch: Exodus 8⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ 9²⁸ 10¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸. In Arabic ‛atr and ‛atīrat mean animals slain in sacrifice; hence Hebrew הַעְתִּיר (Hiphil may everywhere be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the former idea survives in Hebrew: “Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder die Interpretation des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei einander” (Wellhausen 142).
* * * * *
Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her dismay in words not quite intelligible in the text: If it [is to] be so, why then am I...?] v.i.――to inquire of Yahwe] to seek an oracle at the sanctuary.――=23.= The oracle is communicated through an inspired personality, like the Arabic kāhin (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_², 134 ff.), and is rhythmic in form (ib. 135).――two nations] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the struggle of the infants.――The point of the prophecy is in the last line: The elder shall serve the younger (see on 27²⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰).
* * * * *
=22.= ויתרצצו] LXX ἐσκίρτων (the same word as Luke 1⁴¹ᐧ ⁴⁴), perhaps confusing רוץ, ‘run,’ with רצץ, ‘break.’ More correctly, Aquila συνεθλάσθησαν; Symmachus διεπάλαιον.――אם כן למה זה אנכי] LXX εἰ οὕτως μοι μέλλει γένεσθαι, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; But the זָה merely emphasises the interrogative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 c), and the latter part of the sentence seems incomplete: Vulgate quid necesse fuit concipere? Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). Graetz supplies הָרָה; Dillmann, Ball, Kittel חַיָּה (compare 27⁴⁶); Frankenberg (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1901, 697) changes אנכי to אחיה, while Gunkel makes it אֻנָּה לִי (Psalms 91¹⁰), with זה as subject.――=23.= לְאֹם] a poetic word; in Hexateuch only 27²⁹ (Yahwist).――צעיר] ‘the small[er],’ in the sense of ‘younger,’ is characteristic of Yahwist (19³¹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁸ 29²⁶ 43³³, Joshua 6²⁶ [1 Kings 16³⁴]†).
* * * * *
=24‒26. Birth and naming of the twins.=――=24.= Compare 38²⁷⁻³⁰, the only other description of a twin-birth in the Old Testament.――=25.= אַדְמוֹנִי――either tawny or red-haired――is a play on the name Edom (see on verse ³⁰); similarly, all over like a mantle of hair (שֶׁעָר) is a play on Sē‛îr, the country of the Edomites (36⁸). It is singular that the name ‛Ēsāw itself (on which v.i.) finds no express etymology.――=26a.= with his hand holding Esau’s heel] (Hosea 12⁴) a last effort (verse ²²) to secure the advantage of being born first. There are no solid grounds for thinking (with Gunkel, Luther [Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 128], Nowack, al.) that Hosea 12⁴ᵃ (בבטן עָקַב את־אחיו) presupposes a different version of the legend, in which Jacob actually wrested the priority from his brother (compare 38²⁸ ᶠᐧ). The clause is meant as an explanation of the name ‘Jacob.’
* * * * *
=24.= תּוֹמִים] properly תְּאֹמִים (so _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_), as 38²⁷.――=25.= אַדְמוֹנִי used again only of David, 1 Samuel 16¹² 17⁴². It is usually explained of the ‘reddish brown’ hue of the skin; but there is much to be said for the view that it means ‘red-haired’ (LXX πυρράκης, Vulgate rufus: so Gesenius, Tuch, al.). The incongruity of the word with the name עֵשָׂו creates a suspicion that it may be either a gloss or a variant from a parallel source (Dillmann): for various conjectures see Budde Die biblische Urgeschichte 217²; Cheyne Encyclopædia Biblica, 1333; Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 344 f.――עֵשָׂו has no Hebrew etymology. The nearest comparison is Arabic ’a‛taʸ (so most) = ‘hirsute’ (also ‘stupid’), though that would require as strict Hebrew equivalent עֵשָׁו (Driver). A connexion with the Phœnician Οὐσωος, brother of Šamêmrûm, and a hero of the chase, is probable, though not certain. There is also a goddess ‛Asît, figured on Egyptian monuments, who has been thought to be a female form of Esau (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 316 f.).――ויקראו] LXX, Peshiṭtå ליקרא, as verse ²⁶; but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has plural both times. In any case the subject is indefinite.――=26.= יַֽעֲקֹב is a contraction of יעקבאל (compare יִפְתָּח, Joshua 15⁴³), Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ with יִפְתַּח־אֵל, Joshua 19¹⁴ᐧ ²⁷; יַבְנֶה, 2 Chronicles 26⁶ with יַבְנְאֵל, Joshua 15¹¹) which occurs (a) as a place name in central Palestine on the list of Thothmes III. (No 102: Y‛ḳb’r);¹ and (b) as a personal name (Ya‛ḳub-ilu)² in a Babylonian contract tablet of the age of Ḫammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of names of this type is to take them as verbal sentences, with ’Ēl as subject: ‘God overreaches,’ or ‘follows,’ or ‘rewards,’ according to the sense given to the √ עקב (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 218).³ They may, however, be nominal sentences: ‘Ya‛ḳōb is God’ (see Meyer 282); in which case the meaning of the name יַֽעֲקֹב is pushed a step farther back. The question whether Jacob was originally a tribe, a deity, or an individual man, thus remains unsettled by etymology.――At end of verse, LXX adds Ῥεβέκκα,――an improvement in style.
¹ Meyer Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 8; Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 251 f., 281 f.; Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 162 f.; Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 60 ff.――The name has since been read by Müller in a list of Ramses II., and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III.: see Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1907, i. 27.――Questioned by Langdon, The Expository Times, xxi. (1909), page 90.
² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96, 112. According to Hommel, the contracted form Yaḳubu also occurs in the Tablets (ib. 203¹).
³ In Hebrew the verb (a denominative from עָקֵב, ‘heel’) is only used with allusion to the story or character of Jacob (27³⁶, Hosea 12⁴, Jeremiah 9³†: in Job 37⁴ the text is doubtful), and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery. So עָקֵב (Psalms 49⁶†), עָקֹב (Jeremiah 17⁹), עָקְבָּה (2 Kings 10¹⁹†). The meanings ‘follow’ and ‘reward’ are found in Arabic (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 784 a).
* * * * *
=27, 28. Their manner of life.=――=27.= Esau becomes a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field] It is hardly necessary to suppose that the phrases are variants from different documents. Though this conception of Esau’s occupation is not consistently maintained (see 33⁹), it has doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game is said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, Edomiter, 43).――Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic pastoral life which was the patriarchal ideal. אִישׁ תָּם, elsewhere ‘an ethically blameless man’ (Job 1⁸ etc.), here describes the orderly, well-disposed man (Scoticè, ‘douce’), as contrasted with the undisciplined and irregular huntsman.――=28.= A preparation for chapter 27, which perhaps followed immediately on these two verses. Verse ²⁷, however, is also presupposed by♦
♦ Text missing in original book.
* * * * *
=28.= כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו] A curious phrase, meaning ‘venison was to his taste.’ It would be easier to read (with Ball al.) לְפִיו; or an adjective (טוֹב?) may have fallen out. LXX, Peshiṭtå appear to have read צֵידוֹ.
* * * * *
=29‒34. Esau parts with the birthright.=――The superiority of Israel to Edom is popularly explained by a typical incident, familiar to the pastoral tribes bordering on the desert, where the wild huntsman would come famishing to the shepherd’s tent to beg for a morsel of food. At such times the ‘man of the field’ is at the mercy of the tent-dweller; and the ordinary Israelite would see nothing immoral in a transaction like this, where the advantage is pressed to the uttermost.――The legend takes no account of the fact that Edom, as a settled state older than Israel, must have been something more than a mere nation of hunters. The contrasted types of civilisation――Jacob the shepherd and Esau the hunter――were firmly fixed in the popular mind; and the supremacy of the former was an obvious corollary.――=29.= Jacob stewed something: an intentionally indefinite description, the nature of the dish being reserved as a surprise for verse ³⁴.――=30.= Let me gulp some of the red――that red there!] With a slight vocalic change (v.i.), we may render: some of that red seasoning (strictly ‘obsonium’).――’Ĕdōm] a play on the word for ‘red’ (אָדֹם). The name is “a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the ancestor” (Gunkel).――=31.= Jacob seizes the opportunity to secure the long-coveted ‘birthright,’ i.e. the superior status which properly belonged to the first-born son.
The rare term בְּכֹרָה denotes the advantages and rights usually enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural vigour of body and character (Genesis 49³, Deuteronomy 21¹⁷: ∥ רֵאשִׁית אוֹן), creating a presumption of success in life, (b) a position of honour as head of the family (Genesis 27²⁹ 49⁸), and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ). By a legal fiction this status was conceived as transferable from the actual first-born to another son who had proved himself more worthy of the dignity (1 Chronicles 5¹ ᶠᐧ). When applied to tribes or nations, it expresses superiority in political might or material prosperity; and this is the whole content of the notion in the narrative before us. The idea of spiritual privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested in Hebrews 12¹⁶ ᶠᐧ) between the birthright and the blessing of chapter 27, is foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends, which owe their origin to ætiological reflexion on the historic relations of Israel and Edom. The passage furnishes no support to the ingenious theory of Jacob’s (Biblical Archaeology 46 ff.), that an older custom of “junior right” is presupposed by the patriarchal tradition.
* * * * *
=29.= ויזד――נזיד] זוּד only here in the literal sense; elsewhere = ‘act presumptuously.’ The derivative נזיד (2 Kings 4³⁸, Haggai 2¹²) with rare prefix na (common in Assyrian).――=30.= הַלְעִיטֵנִי (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον)] a coarse expression suggesting bestial voracity; used in New Hebrew of the feeding of cattle.――האדם האדם] The repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression of impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists in reading the first הָֽאֱדֹם after Arabic ’idām = ‘seasoning or condiment for bread’ (compare verse ³⁴): so Boysen (cited in Schleusner², i. 969), T. D. Anderson (ap. Dillmann). This is better than (Driver al.) to make the change in both places, LXX (τοῦ ἑψέματος τοῦ πυρροῦ τούτου) and Vulgate (_de coctione hac rufa_) seem to differentiate the words.――=31.= כַּיּוֹם] = ‘first of all,’ as ³³, 1 Samuel 2¹⁶, 1 Kings 1⁵¹ 22⁵ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b).
* * * * *
=32.= Esau’s answer reveals the sensual nature of the man: the remoter good is sacrificed to the passing necessity of the moment, which his ravenous appetite leads him to exaggerate.――הֹלֵךְ לָמוּת does not mean ‘exposed to death sooner or later’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, al.), but ‘at the point of death now.’――=34.= The climax of the story is Esau’s unconcern even when he discovers that he has bartered the birthright for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup.――עֲדָשִׁים (2 Samuel 17²⁸, 23¹¹, Ezekiel 4⁹), still a common article of diet in Egypt and Syria, under the name ‛adas: the colour is said to be ‘a darkish brown’ (A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 95a).――The last clause implies a certain moral justification of the transaction: if Esau was defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable of appreciating.