XXVI. Isaac and the Philistines (Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code)…

XXVI. Isaac and the Philistines (Yahwist, Redactor, Priestly-Code)

The chapter comprises the entire cycle of Isaac-legends properly so called; consisting, as will be seen, almost exclusively of incidents already related of Abraham (compare especially chapter 20 f.). The introductory notice of his arrival in Gerar (¹⁻⁶: compare 20¹ ᶠᐧ) is followed by his denial of his marriage with Rebekah (⁷⁻¹¹ ∥ 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 20² ᶠᶠᐧ), his success in agriculture (¹²⁻¹⁶,――the only circumstance without an Abrahamic parallel), his quarrels with the Philistines about wells (¹⁷⁻²² ∥ 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ), and, lastly, the Covenant of Beersheba, with an account of the naming of the place (²³⁻³³ ∥ 21²²⁻³⁴).――The notice of Esau’s wives (³⁴ ᶠᐧ) is an excerpt from Priestly-Code.

Source.――The style, except in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ and some easily recognised redactional patches (¹ᵃ{βγ}ᐧ ²ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ³ᵇ⁻⁵ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸: see the notes), is unmistakably Yahwistic: compare יהוה‎ (²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ [even in the mouth of Abimelech, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹]); טובת מראה‎, ⁷ (24¹⁶); השקיף‎, ⁸; ‎ העתיק‎, ²² (12⁸); קרא בשם יהוה‎, ²⁵; אָלָה‎, ²⁸ (24⁴¹); בְּרוּךְ יהוה‎, ²⁹ (24³¹). Some critics find traces of Elohist in ¹ ᶠᐧ, but these are dubious.――The relation of the passage to other strata of the Yahwist document is very difficult to determine. On the one hand, the extremely close parallelism to chapter 20 f. suggests that it is a secondary compilation based on Jehovist as a composite work, with the name of Isaac substituted for that of Abraham. But it is impossible to imagine a motive for such an operation; and several considerations favour the theory that chapter 26 is a continuation of the source distinguished as Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in the history of Abraham. (1) The Abrahamic parallels all belong to the Negeb tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist); and it is natural to think that Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, representing the Hebron tradition, would connect the Negeb narratives with the name of Isaac (whether Abraham or Isaac was the original hero of these legends we cannot well ascertain). (2) The language on the whole confirms this view (compare השקיף‎, העתיק‎, קרא בשם י׳‎, וירא י׳‎, and all the phrases of ²⁵ᵃ). (3) The ideal of the patriarchal character agrees with that which we find in Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (magnanimity, peaceableness, etc.).――In any case, it is to be observed that the chapter stands out of its proper order. The Rebekah of ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ is plainly not the mother of two grown-up sons, as she is at the close of chapter 25; and 27¹ is the immediate continuation of 25³⁴ or ²⁸ (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 30).

=1‒6. Isaac migrates to Gerar.=――Cleared of interpolations, the section reads: (¹ᵃ{α}) There was a famine in the land; (¹ᵇ) and Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, to Gerar. (²ᵃ{α}) And Yahwe appeared to him and said, (³ᵃ) Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee and bless thee. (⁶) So Isaac abode in Gerar.――=1.= Isaac comes probably from Beer Laḥai-roi, 25¹¹.――On Abimelech and Gerar, see 20¹ ᶠᐧ. The assumption that Gerar was a Philistine kingdom is an anachronism (see on 10¹⁴), made also in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³²) but not in Elohist.――=3a.= and bless thee] a promise fulfilled in Isaac’s successful husbandry (¹² ᶠᶠᐧ), and other tokens of the divine favour (²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ), with no reference primarily to the blessing of Abraham.

¹ᵃ{βγ} (מלבד――אברהם‎) is a redactional gloss (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ or Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), pointing back to 12¹⁰.――²ᵃ{β}ᵇ (אל־תרד וגו׳‎) is obviously inconsistent with ³ᵃ, and is best explained as a gloss from the same hand as ¹ᵃ{βγ} (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger), Dillmann, Gunkel, al. consider it a variant from a parallel narrative of Elohist (compare אשר אמר אליך‎ with 22²), to which Dillmann quite unnecessarily assigns also ¹ᵃ{α} and ⁶; but the evidence is too weak to warrant the improbable hypothesis of a second Elohist version of 20¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――³ᵇ⁻⁵ an expansion in the manner of 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸, emphasising the immutability of the oath to Abraham (see on 15¹⁸), and showing many traces of late composition.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= הארצות‎] so verse ⁴; LXX, Jubilees read singular. The nearest analogies to this use of plural (which is rare and mostly late) are 1 Chronicles 13², 2 Chronicles 11²³ = ‘districts’ (of Palestine).――האל‎] see 19⁸.――=4a.= The comparison with the stars, as 15⁵ 22¹⁷.――=4b, 5= almost verbally identical with 22¹⁸: note especially the uncommon עקב אשר‎.――=5b= is made up of Priestly and Deuteronomic expressions: compare Leviticus 26⁴⁶, Deuteronomy 6² 28⁴⁵ 30¹⁰ etc.――שמר משמרת‎ denotes chiefly the service of priests in the sanctuary, but is here used in a wider sense (compare Leviticus 18³⁰ 22⁹, Deuteronomy 11¹, Joshua 22³, 1 Kings 2³, Malachi 3¹⁴). The expression is highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 344).――אברהם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + אָבִיךָ‎.

* * * * *

=7‒11. Rebekah’s honour compromised.=――=7, 8.= Isaac’s lie (as 12¹³ 20²), and the king’s accidental discovery of it.――looked out at a window] possibly into a court of the palace: compare 2 Samuel ‎11².――מְצַחֵק אֵת‎] exchanging conjugal caresses (see on 21⁶),――a play on the name Isaac. The verb is nowhere else construed with אֵת‎.――=9, 10.= Abimelech’s rebuke of Isaac, and the latter’s self-exculpation.――thou mightest have brought guilt] Compare 20⁹. It is an instance of the writer’s timid handling of the theme (see below) that no actual complication arises.――=11.= So stern an injunction would have been in place in chapter 12 or chapter 20, but here it is unmotived.

That the three narratives 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 20, 26⁷⁻¹¹ are variations of a common theme, appears not only from their close material resemblance, but also from particular phrases recurrent in each: e.g. אחתי הוא‎, הרג‎, מה־זאת עשית לנו‎, גור‎, טובת [יפת] מראה‎, etc. (compare Kuenen Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. 228). Although many good scholars (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Holzinger, al.) are of a different opinion, the present passage appears to be the most colourless and least original form of the tradition. In 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the leading features――the beauty of the heroine, the patriarch’s fear for his life, his stratagem, the plagues on the heathen monarch, his rebuke of the patriarch, and the rewards heaped on the latter――are combined in a strong and convincing situation, in which each element stands out in its full natural significance. In chapter 20 (Elohist), the connexion of ideas is in the main preserved; though a tendency to soften the harsher aspects of the incident appears in God’s communication to Abimelech, in the statement that no actual harm had come to Sarah, and in the recognition of the half-truth in Abraham’s account of his relation to Sarah. In 26⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) this tendency is carried so far as to obscure completely the dramatic significance of those features which are retained. Though Isaac is the guest of Abimelech (verse ¹), it is only the ‘men of the place’ who display a languid interest in his beautiful wife: no one wants to marry Rebekah, least of all the king, who is introduced merely as the accidental discoverer of the true state of affairs, and is concerned only for the morality of his subjects. No critical situation arises; and the exemplary self-restraint manifested by the men of Gerar affords no adequate basis for the stern injunction of ¹¹, which would have been appropriate enough in chapter 12 or chapter 20. It is, of course, impossible to assign absolute priority in every respect to any one of the three recensions; but it may reasonably be affirmed that in general their relative antiquity is represented by the order in which they happen to stand――Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, Elohist, Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ. The transference of the scene from Gerar to Egypt is perhaps the only point in which the first version is less faithful to tradition than the other two.――See the elaborate comparison in Gunkel 197 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =7.= אנשי המקום‎] compare 29²² 38²², Judges 19¹⁶.――לֵאמֹר‎] a very rare and questionable use of the word as a real infinitive (dicere, not dicendo). Should אשתי‎ be deleted? _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read אִשְׁתִּי הִיא‎.――=10.= כמעט‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 p.――והבאת‎] construct perfect; ‘thou wouldst (in that case) have brought.’――=11.= העם‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX עַמּוֹ‎.

* * * * *

=12‒16.――Isaac’s successful husbandry.=――=12.= Cultivation on a small scale is still occasionally practised by the Bedouin (see Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 296). The only other allusions in the patriarchal history are 30¹⁴ 37⁷.――=13‒16.= Isaac’s phenomenal prosperity excites the jealousy of the Philistines, which leads to his enforced departure.――=15.= See on ¹⁸ below.

* * * * *

=13‒16.= Gunkel thinks the verses are a pendant to the Rebekah incident, corresponding to the gifts of the heathen king (12¹⁶ 20¹⁴) and the expulsion of Abraham (12²⁰). It is more natural to consider ¹² ᶠᶠᐧ the continuation of ⁶; indeed, it might fairly be questioned whether ⁷⁻¹¹ is not a later insertion, interrupting the continuity of the main narrative.――=12.= שערים‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå wrongly שְׂעֹרִים‎, ‘barley.’ The word is שֶׂעַר‎, meaning ‘measure’ or ‘value’ (compare שָׁעַר‎ = ‘reckon,’ in Proverbs 23⁷, with allied words in Yahwist. Aramaic and New Hebrew; especially New Hebrew ‎ שׁיעור‎ = ‘measure’).――=13.= וילך הלוך וגדל‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 u.

* * * * *

=17‒22. Isaac’s wells.=――See on 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――=17.= Isaac retires to the Wādī of Gĕrār] probably the Ǧurf el-Ǧerār, above (South-east) Umm el-Ǧerār (20¹), into which several wādīs converge, including West er-Ruḥaibeh (verse ²²) and West es-Seba‛.――=19, 20.= The first well is named ‛Eseḳ (‘annoyance’); the name has not been found.――=21.= Siṭnāh (‘hostility’) is possibly to be sought in the West Šuṭnet er-Ruḥaibeh, close to Ruḥaibeh, though verse ²² seems to imply that the places were some distance apart.――=22.= Rĕḥôbôth (‘room’) is plausibly identified with er-Ruḥaibeh, in the wādī of the same name, about 20 miles South-west of Beersheba (a description in Palmer, ii. 382 f.).

In the narrative, Isaac himself was represented as the discoverer of these wells, though another tradition (partially preserved in 21²⁵ ᶠᐧ) ascribed the discovery and naming of them to Abraham. Verses ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ are an ancient gloss, inserted to harmonise the two views by the supposition that the wells had been stopped up by the Philistines,――a practice frequently resorted to in desert warfare (2 Kings 3²⁵).

* * * * *

‎ =17.= ויחן‎] so (of an individual) 33¹⁸ (Elohist).――=18.= בימי‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Jubilees עַבְדֵי‎.――ויסתמום‎] used in the same sense 2 Kings 3¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵, 2 Chronicles 32³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ³⁰. On the masculine suffix (so verse ¹⁵), see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 60 h, 135 o.――=19.= בנחל‎] LXX + Γεράρων.――=20.= עשק‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. עסק‎ is common in New Hebrew, Targum in the sense of ‘be busy, occupied’; in Syrian it means durus, asper, molestus, fuit: hence in Ethiopian _difficilem se præbuit_.――=21.= LXX prefix וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם יצחק‎] (with following verb in singular), as verse ²²: compare 12⁸.――=22.= ופרינו‎] LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ וַיַּפְרֵנוּ‎, compare 28³.

* * * * *

=23‒25. The theophany at Beersheba.=――=23.= went up] though Bīr es-Seba‛ lies considerably lower than er-Ruḥaibeh.――=24.= That an inaugural theophany (see on 12⁷) is meant, is clear from verse ²⁵. According to this narrative, no patriarch had previously visited Beersheba (compare 21³³).――my servant] LXX reads ‘thy father.’ Nowhere else in Genesis is Abraham spoken of as the servant of Yahwe.――=25a.= Note the correspondence of the phraseology with 12⁷ ᶠᐧ 13⁴ᐧ ¹⁸.――=25b.= See verse ³².

* * * * *

=24, 25aα= are regarded by Gunkel as an interpolation of the same character as ³ᵇ⁻⁵; but the linguistic marks of late authorship which abound in ³ᵇ⁻⁵ are scarcely to be detected here, and the mention of the altar before the tent is not sufficient to prove dislocation of the text. Nor is it quite correct to say that verse ³³ implies a different origin of the sacredness of Beersheba from ²⁴ ᶠᐧ: the consecration of the sanctuary and the naming of the place are separate things which were evidently kept distinct in Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (21³³).――=25.= ויכרו‎] synonymous with חָפַר‎ in Numbers 21¹⁸; elsewhere only used of a grave (50⁵) or pit (Exodus 21³³ etc.).

* * * * *

=26‒33. The treaty with Abimelech.=――=26.= ’Aḥuzzath (v.i.) his friend] his confidential adviser, or ‘vizier,’――an official title common in Egypt from an early period, and amongst the Ptolemies and Seleucids (1 Maccabees 2¹⁸ 10⁶⁵; compare 2 Samuel 16¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 4⁵, 1 Chronicles 27³³).――Pîkōl] see on 21²².――=27.= See verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=28.= The אָלָה‎ is properly the curse invoked on the violation of the covenant; בְּרִית‎ refers to the symbolic ceremony (not here described) by which it was ratified (see on 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=29.= Abimelech dictates the terms of the covenant: compare 21²³.――=30, 31.= The common meal seems to be a feature of the covenant ceremony (compare 31⁵³ ᶠᐧ), though here the essential transaction takes place on the morning of the following day.――=32, 33.= The naming of the well (²⁵ᵇ). The peculiar form Šib‛āh (v.i.) is perhaps chosen as a compromise between שְׁבֻעָה‎, ‘oath’ (as Gunkel points), and שֶׁבַע‎, the actual name of the place.

It is possible to recognise in these imperfectly preserved legends a reflexion of historic or pre-historic relations between nomadic tribes of the Negeb (afterwards incorporated in Israel) and the settled population of Gerar. The ownership of certain wells was disputed by the two parties; others were the acknowledged possession of the Hebrew ancestors. In the oldest tradition (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) the original purpose of the covenant of Beersheba still appears: it was to put a stop to these disputes, and secure the right of Israel at least to the important sanctuary of Beersheba (21³⁰). In the later variations this connexion is lost sight of, and the covenant becomes a general treaty of peace and amity, which may also have had historic importance for a later period. In Elohist there is no mention of contested wells at all, nor even a hint that Abraham had dug the well of Beersheba; while Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ seems expressly to bar any connexion between the covenant and the discovery of the well.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= אחזתּ‎] (for the ending, see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 107) has sometimes been mistaken for the noun meaning ‘possession’ (17⁸), taken in the sense of a _body holding together_ (see Rashi ad loc.); so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ סיעת ‎ רחמוהו‎, ‘company of his friends’; Jerome _collegium amicorum ejus_; Græcus-Venetus κατοχή τε τοῦ φίλου (Field).――מרע‎] a rare word for ‘companion,’ sodalis (Judges 14¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 15²ᐧ ⁶, 2 Samuel 3⁸, Proverbs 12²⁶(?) 19⁷†), whose use in the story of Samson suggested the νυμφαγωγὸς of LXX here.――=28.= בינותינו‎] need not be deleted (LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, al.). The form בינות‎ (42²³, Joshua 22³⁴, Judges 11¹⁰, 2 Samuel 21⁷, Jeremiah 25¹⁶, Ezekiel 10²ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ†) is always two-sided, and is here resolved into the commoner בֵּין ... וּבֵין‎, exactly as 2 Samuel 21⁷. Hence in the first case “us” means all the parties to the covenant, in the second only the Philistine representatives.――=29.= תעשֶׁה‎] On the ־ֵ‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 hh.――אתה עתה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עתה אתה‎, LXX וע׳ א׳‎, a more natural order.――=32.= ‎ לו‎] LXX strangely reads Οὐχ [εὕρομεν ὕδωρ].――=33.= אֹתָהּ‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå better שְׁמָהּ‎.――שִׁבְעָה‎ (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον)] LXX Ὅρκος; but Aquila, Symmachus πλησμονή, Vulgate Abundantiam, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (שֵׁבְעָה‎, Ezekiel 16⁴⁹). In spite of the interchange of sibilants, one is tempted to agree with these authorities: Jerome pertinently asks: ‘Quæ enim etymologia est, propterea vocari juramentum, quod aquam non (compare LXX) invenissent?’――שם‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix קָרָא‎.

* * * * *

=34, 35. Esau’s Ḥittite wives (Priestly-Code).=――In Priestly-Code, Esau is represented as still living with Isaac at Mamre (35²⁹).――Ḥittite for ‘Canaanite’: see on 23³. It is possible, however, that in the case of Basemath the true text was ‘Ḥivvite’ (so LXX, Peshiṭtå).――On the names, see on 36² ᶠᐧ.

XXVII. 1‒45. How Jacob secured his Father’s Blessing (Jehovist).

This vivid and circumstantial narrative, which is to be read immediately after 25³⁴ (or 25²⁸), gives yet another explanation of the historical fact that Israel, the younger people, had outstripped Edom in the race for power and prosperity. The clever but heartless stratagem by which Rebekah succeeds in thwarting the intention of Isaac, and diverting the blessing from Esau to Jacob, is related with great vivacity, and with an indifference to moral considerations which has been thought surprising in a writer with the fine ethical insight of Yahwist (Dillmann). It must be remembered, however, that “Yahwist” is a collective symbol, and embraces many tales which sink to the level of ordinary popular morality. We may fairly conclude with Gunkel (272) that narratives of this stamp were too firmly rooted in the mind of the people to be omitted from any collection of national traditions.

Sources.――The presence of a dual narrative is rendered probable by the following duplicates (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 34‒36): (a) ³³ᐧ ³⁴ ∥ ³⁵⁻³⁸. In ³⁵ (ויאמר‎) we are recalled to the same stage as the ויאמר‎ of ³³; and ³⁴ (Esau’s cry) carries us forward to the same point as ³⁸.――(b) ²¹⁻²³ ∥ ²⁴⁻²⁷ᵃ: here again ויאמר‎ commences two sections which must be alternative, since both lead up to the blessing (ויברכהו‎).――(c) A less obvious doublet may be discovered in ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ ∥ ¹⁵: in the one case Jacob is disguised by the skin of the kids, in the other by wearing Esau’s clothes.――(d) ³⁰ᵃ{α} ∥ ³⁰ᵇ{β}.――(e) ⁴⁴ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁵ᵃ{α} (to ממך‎).――The language is predominantly that of Yahwist, with occasional traces of Elohist; and that the incident was actually recorded in both these documents appears from chapters 32, 35³ᐧ ⁷. In the parallels just enumerated, however, the stylistic criteria are hard to trace; and in the attempt to disentangle them almost everything hangs on the word יהוה‎ in ²⁷. As to (b), ²⁴⁻²⁷ is certainly Yahwist, and ²¹⁻²³ consequently Elohist; it will follow that in (c) ¹⁵ belongs to Yahwist and ¹¹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ to Elohist. With regard to (a), it is almost impossible to decide which is Yahwist’s variant and which Elohist’s. Gunkel assigns ³⁵⁻³⁸ to Elohist, on the somewhat subtle ground that in Yahwist (³³ᐧ ²⁷) Isaac is ignorant who it is that has personated Esau, whereas in Elohist (³⁵ᐧ ²²) he knows very well that it is Jacob (so Oxford Hexateuch, Students’ Old Testament). Most critics have taken the opposite view, but without any decisive positive reason. See Gunkel page 270 f.; Procksch 19 f.――It is not worth while to push the precarious analysis further: anything else of importance may be reserved for the notes.

=1‒5. Isaac’s purpose to bless Esau=: explained by his partiality for his first-born son, and (more naïvely) by his fondness for venison (25²⁸). It is quite contrary to the sense of the narrative to attribute to him the design of frustrating the decree of Providence expressed in the independent legend of 25²³.――=1.= Blindness is spoken of as a frequent concomitant of old age (compare 48¹⁰, 1 Samuel 3², 1 Kings 14⁴, Ecclesiastes 12³: contrast Deuteronomy 34⁷).――=3.= thy quiver (v.i.) and thy bow] the latter, the hunter’s weapon (Isaiah 7²⁴; compare 2 Kings 13¹⁵).――=4.= that my soul may bless thee] so ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. As if the expiring nephesh gathered up all its force in a single potent and prophetic wish. The universal belief in the efficacy of a dying utterance appears often in Old Testament (48¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 50²⁴ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 23, 2 Samuel 23¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 2¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=5.= But Rebekah was listening] compare 18¹⁰.

The close connexion of the blessing and the eating, which is insisted on throughout the narrative, is hardly to be explained as a reward for the satisfaction of a sensual appetite; it rests, no doubt, on some religious notion which we can no longer recover. Holzinger compares the physical stimuli by which prophetic inspiration was induced (compare 1 Samuel 10⁵ ᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 3¹⁵); Gunkel surmises that a sacrificial meal, establishing communion with the Deity, was originally intended (compare לפני י׳‎, verse ⁷: see Numbers 23¹).

* * * * *

‎ =1.= וַתכהין‎] On vav consecutive in the subordinate clause, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 q.――The last clause (ויאמר וגו׳‎) contains a characteristic formula of Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 31¹¹: so verse ¹⁸), and is probably to be assigned to that source.――=2.= הנה־נא‎] Yahwist; see on 12¹¹.――=3.= תְּלִי‎] (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ תליתך‎): only here, from √ ‎ תלה‎, ‘hang,’ is a more suitable designation of the ‘quiver’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra) than of the ‘sword’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi).――צָֽידָה‎ Kethîb may here be noun of unity (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 122 t) = ‘piece of game’ from צָֽיִד‎ (Qĕrê) (so Tuch, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel). Elsewhere (42²⁵ 45²¹ etc.) it means ‘provisions,’ especially for a journey. This may be explained by the fact that game was practically the only kind of animal food used by the Semites (see _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 222 f.); but the identity of the √ √ is doubted (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 845 a).――=5.= להביא‎] LXX לְאָבִיו‎ is better, unless both words should be read.

* * * * *

=6‒17. Rebekah’s stratagem.=――The mother’s jealousy for her favourite son (25²⁸) is aroused by what she has overheard; and she instantly devises a scheme whose daring and ingenuity illustrate the Hebrew notion of capable and quick-witted womanhood.――=7.= before Yahwe] in the solemn consciousness of Yahwe’s presence: see on verse ⁴.――=11‒13= probably belong to Elohist (see above), and may be omitted from the other narrative, with the effect of making Rebekah’s initiative still more apparent: Jacob obeys her without a word.――=11.= a hairy man] see 25²⁵. The objection shows just enough shrewdness on Jacob’s part to throw his mother’s resourcefulness into bolder relief.――=13.= On me be thy curse] compare 16⁵.――=15.= the choice clothes] the festal raiment: the fact that this would have been put on by Esau proves once more that the blessing was a religious ceremony. Since the clothes were in Rebekah’s charge, Esau must (as Holzinger points out) have been still an unmarried man (contrast Priestly-Code 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ).――=16.= goes with ¹¹⁻¹³ (Elohist), and may be removed without breach of continuity.――=17.= Rebekah’s part being now ended, Jacob is left to his own resources.

* * * * *

‎ =6.= בנה‎] compare בְּנוֹ‎, verse ⁵; the addition of הַקָּטָן‎ (LXX) is unnecessary.――=8.= בְּקֹלִי‎ and לַֽאֲשֶׁר וגו׳‎ may be variants: accusative to Dillmann שָׁמַע בְּ‎ is characteristic of Elohist, and שׁמע לְ‎ of Yahwist.――=12.= מתעתע‎ (√ תעע‎]), properly ‘a stammerer’ (compare Arabic ta‛ta‛a) then ‘a mocker’ (2 Chronicles 36¹⁶); hence not a mere practical joker (Knobel-Dillmann), but a profaner of religious solemnities (Holzinger, Gunkel).――והבאתי‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (Second person, singular, feminine).――=13.= ‎ אַךְ‎ is given by Dillmann as a mark of Elohist, in distinction from Yahwist’s רַק‎ (19⁸ 24⁸).――=15.= בֶּגֶד‎ being masculine (except Leviticus 6²⁰), and חֲמֻדָה‎ in usage a substitute, it is best to suppose בִּגְדֵי‎ repeated as nomen regens before the genitive (otherwise Davidson § 27).

* * * * *

=18‒29. Jacob obtains the blessing.=――=20.= How very quickly thou hast found it, my son!――] an exclamation rather than a question: the answer being: Yes, for Yahwe, etc.――הִקְרָה לְפָנַי‎] caused the right thing to happen, as 24¹² (Yahwist).――=21‒23= may be the direct continuation of ¹⁹ᵃ (Elohist); the clause and so he blessed him must have been followed by the words of blessing.――=24‒27= bring the parallel narrative (Yahwist) up to the same point.――=27a.= The smelling of the garments seems to have a twofold significance: on the one hand it is a final test of Esau’s identity (otherwise the disguise verse ¹⁵ would have no meaning), on the other it supplies the sensuous impression which suggests the words of the blessing ²⁷ᵇ (so Gunkel).

The section, we have seen, is composite (perhaps ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁸ = Elohist ∥ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴⁻²⁷ = Yahwist); in the primary documents the interview was less complicated, and the movement quicker, than it now appears: but since neither has been preserved intact, we cannot tell how long Isaac’s hesitation and Jacob’s suspense lasted in each case. In Yahwist as it stands, it would seem that Isaac’s suspicions are first aroused by the promptness of the supposed hunter’s return, and perhaps only finally allayed by the smell of Esau’s garments. In Elohist it is the voice which almost betrays Jacob, and the feel of his arms which saves him from detection. For details, see the footnotes.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= ויאמר וגו׳‎ ¹ is probably to be assigned to Elohist for the same reason as ¹ᵇ, though something similar must have stood in the other source: Gunkel, however, makes ¹⁹ᵇ the direct sequel of ‎ אל־אביו (ויאמר)‎ in ¹⁸ᵃ (Yahwist), giving ¹⁹ᵃ to Elohist.――ויבא‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå וַיָּבֵא‎ (compare ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ³¹).――=23.= ויברכהו‎] Another view of the construction, avoiding the division of documents, in Driver A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew § 75. The narrator is supposed to “hasten at once to state briefly the issue of the whole, and afterwards, as though forgetting that he had anticipated, proceed to annex the particulars by the same means” (וַ‎ consecutive). Ewald and Hitzig applied the same principle to several other passages (see ib.); but the explanation seems to me not very natural.――=24.= אַתָּה‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האתה‎.――=25.= מציד בני‎] LXX ‎ מִצֵּידְךָ בְּנִי‎; but see verse ³¹.

* * * * *

=27b‒29.= The blessing is partly natural (²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸), partly political (²⁹), and deals, of course, not with the personal history of Jacob, but with the future greatness of Israel. Its nearest analogies are the blessings on Joseph, Genesis 49²² ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 33¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ; and it is not improbable that its Elohistic elements (v.i.) originated in North Israel.――=27b= (Yahwist). the smell of a rich field] compare Deuteronomy 33²³ (v.i.).――=28= (Elohist). fat places of the earth] for the image compare Isaiah 5¹ 28¹, Numbers 13²⁰. “Heaven and earth conspire to give him of their best” (Gunkel).――corn and must] often combined with ‘oil’ in pictures of agricultural felicity (Deuteronomy 7¹³, Hosea 2⁸ᐧ ²² etc.).――=29aα= (Yahwist). Peoples ... nations] compare 25²³. The reference is to the neighbouring nations subdued by David (2 Samuel 8).――=29aβ= (Elohist) resembles a tribal blessing (compare 49⁸). At all events the mention of brethren (plural) shows that the immediate situation is forgotten.――=29b= (Yahwist). Compare 12³.

* * * * *

=27b‒29.= The critical analysis of the blessing, precarious at the best, depends on such considerations as these: יהוה‎ ²⁷ᵇ points decisively to Yahwist; האלהים‎ ²⁸, less certainly, to Elohist, which is confirmed by דגן ותירש‎ (compare ³⁷). ²⁹ᵃ{α} (to לאמים‎) is Yahwist because of the last word (25²³); and ²⁹ᵇ because of the resemblance to 12³. ²⁹ᵃ{β} (from הוה‎) is Elohist (compare ³⁷): (so Gunkel). Kautzsch-Socin and Holzinger differ first in treating ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ as wholly ∥ ²⁹ᵃ{α}, thus assigning ²⁹ᵃ{α} to Elohist and ᵃ{β} to Yahwist (thus far Procksch agrees with them); then in the inference that ³⁷ is Yahwist; and, lastly, in the reflex inference that ²⁸ᵇ is Elohist.――The metrical structure is irregular. Parallelism appears in ²⁸ᵃ and in ²⁹ throughout. ²⁷ᵇ falls into three trimeters; but ²⁹ (also Yahwist) can only be scanned in tetrameters. In Elohist trimeters and tetrameters are combined. See Sievers, i. 405, 577, ii. 79, 316.――=27b.= שדה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (ungrammatically) ‎ השדה מלא‎. The מלא‎, however, is rendered in LXX, Vulgate, and should perhaps be retained.――=28.= משׁמני‎] ∥ מִטַּל‎, and therefore = שְׁמַנֵּי‎ + מִן‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 m), from שָׁמָן‎ (³⁹†).――=29.= וישתחוֻ‎] the final וּ‎ should be supplied with Qrê and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (see next clause).――הֱוֵה‎ = הֱיֵה‎] ‏(הוא) הוה‎‎ is the common Aramaic and New Hebrew form of היה‎ (compare Phœnician הוא‎ = ‎ חָיָה‎, חֲיָא‎): in Old Testament Hebrew only here, Isaiah 16⁴, Nehemiah 6⁶, Job 37⁶, Ecclesiastes 2²² 11³†, and (accusative to Exodus 3¹⁴) in the name יהוה‎. Its occurrence in early Hebrew, as here, is surprising.――גביר‎] verse ³⁷†.――לְאַחֶיךָ‎] LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לְאָחִיךָ‎, wrongly.――בני אמך‎] LXX בּ׳ אָבִיךָ‎ after 49⁸.――On the distributive singular (אָרוּר‎, בָּרוּך‎), see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 l.

* * * * *

=30‒40. Esau sues in vain for a blessing.=――=30.= Both Yahwist and Elohist bring out how narrowly Jacob escaped being detected (v.i.). =31b.= Esau’s address (jussives) is if anything a little more deferential than Jacob’s (verse ¹⁹).――=33.= Who, then, is he...?] The words express but a momentary uncertainty; before the sentence is finished Isaac knows on whom the blessing has fallen. The clause is a real parallel to ³⁵, but a difference of conception is scarcely to be thought of (Gunkel: see above).――and blessed he shall be] Not that Isaac now acquiesces in the ruling of Providence, and refuses to withdraw the blessing; but that such an oracle once uttered is in its nature irrevocable.――=34.= bless me too] parallel to the same words in ³⁸. Here Yahwist’s narrative breaks off, and ³⁵ (Elohist) resumes from the standpoint of ³².――=36.= Is it because he was named Overreacher]――that he must always be overreaching me?――Note the word-play ׃בְּכֹרָתִי‎: בִּרְכָתִי‎.――=37.= Compare ²⁹ᵃ{β}ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ (Elohist). All that makes a blessing――political supremacy, and material wealth――has been given away; what remains for Esau?――=38.= Is that the only blessing thou hast?] That the blessing can be revoked, Esau does not imagine; but he still hopes that a second (inferior) blessing may be his.――lifted up ... wept] corresponding to ³⁴ᵃ. “Those tears of Esau, the sensuous, wild, impulsive man,――almost like the cry of some ‘trapped creature,’ are among the most pathetic in the Bible” (Davidson, Hebrews, 242).――=39, 40a.= His importunity draws forth what is virtually a curse, though couched in terms similar to those of verse ²⁹:

_Away from the fat places of the earth shall thy dwelling be; And away from the dew of heaven above!_

The double entendre in the use of מִן‎ has misled Vulgate and some commentaries into thinking this a replica of the blessing of Jacob (compare Nöldeke Encyclopædia Biblica, 1184). Compare 40¹³ with 40¹⁹.――=40a.= live by thy sword] by raids on neighbouring territory, plunder of caravans, etc.¹――serve thy brother] fulfilled in the long subjection of Edom to Israel, from the time of David to that of Joram (2 Kings 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), or even Ahaz (16⁶).――=40b.= The prosaic form suggests that this may be a later addition dating from after the emancipation of Edom (Holzinger, Gunkel).――break his yoke] a common figure: Jeremiah 2²⁰ 5⁵ 28²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹¹ 30⁸, Leviticus 26¹³, Isaiah 9³ etc.

¹ Compare Josephus on the Idumæans: θορυβῶδες καὶ ἄτακτον ἔθνος αἰεί τε μετέωρον πρὸς τὰ κινήματα καὶ μεταβολαῖς χαῖρον κτλ. (War of the Jews, iv. 231), and φύσει τε ὠμότατοι φονεύειν ὄντες (ib. 310). Compare Diodorus ii. 48.

The territory of Edom is divided into two parts by the Arabah; that to the East is described by Strabo (XVI. iv. 21) as χώρα ἔρημος ἡ πλείστη καὶ μάλιστα ἡ πρὸς Ἰουδαίᾳ. Modern travellers, however, speak of it as extremely fertile (Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 154; Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 430 f.; compare Buhl, Edomiter, 15 f.). Buhl accordingly thinks the curse refers only to the barren plateau West of the Arabah; and this is perhaps better than (with Nöldeke, Driver) to assimilate the terms of the blessing and the curse.

It is probable that Yahwist’s narrative contained a form of the curse on Esau, but whether any part is preserved in ³⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is doubtful. ³⁹ is certainly from the same source as ²⁸ (Elohist); with regard to ⁴⁰ᵃ the question stands open.――On the metre, see again Sievers, i. 404 f., ii. 78 f., 317. Ball’s denial of metrical form is based wholly on the doubtful ⁴⁰ᵇ.

* * * * *

=30a= contains two variants, of which the second is connected syntactically with ³⁰ᵇ. Since the form of ᵃ resembles 18³³ 24²² 43² (all Yahwist), we may assign this to Yahwist, and the rest of the verse to Elohist.――=31.= יָקֻם‎] Pt. rather יָקֹם‎ (jussive).――=33.= מִכֹּל‎] Kautzsch-Socin conjecture אָכֹל‎ (emphatic infinitive absolute).――א׳ גם ברוך יהיה‎] The emendation of Hitzig (Olshausen, Ball) וַיְהִי‎: אֲבָ׳ גַּם בָּרוֹךְ‎ is hardly suitable: such a sentence would require to be preceded by another action, of which it was an aggravating or supplementary circumstance (compare 31¹⁵ 46⁴, Numbers 16¹³). It is better (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch) to read וְגַם‎, and (with LXX) to insert וַיְהִי‎ at the beginning of ³⁴.――=36.= הכי‎] compare 29¹⁵, 2 Samuel 9¹ (23¹⁹ ?), Job 6²²†. The rendering above, ‘is it that?’ etc., satisfies every case (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 472 a), and is simpler than that given in Gesenius-Kautzsch § 150 e.――Holzinger (so Gunkel) thinks ³⁶ᵃ a redactional expansion; but it has to be considered whether ³⁶ᵇ (∥ ³⁸ᵃ{α}) is not rather a fragment of Yahwist.――=38.= ברכני גם אני אבי‎] = ³⁴ᵇ (Yahwist). On the syntax of אני‎, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 e.――וַיִּשָּׂא וגו׳‎] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ omitted, but MSS and daughter-Versions retain, some with the addition κατανυχθέντος δὲ Ἰσαακ (וַיִּדֹּם יִצְחָק‎).――=40.= חָיָה עַל‎] compare Deuteronomy 8³, Ezekiel 33¹⁹.――תָּרִיד‎ (Jeremiah 2³¹, Hosea 12¹ [?], Psalms 55³, Judges 11³⁷ [emphatic]†) probably connected with Arabic rāda, ‘go to and fro’ (Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxvii. 539 f.): ‘when thou becomest restive.’ The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch תאדר‎, LXX καθέλῃς = תֹּורִיד‎.

* * * * *

=41‒45. Esau’s purpose of revenge.=――=41.= Esau cherished enmity (50¹⁵) against Jacob.――the days of mourning (50¹⁰)] a period of seven days, within which Esau hoped to accomplish his revenge.――=42.= Thy brother is going to take satisfaction of thee (Isaiah 1²⁴, Ezekiel 5¹³) by killing thee.――=44, 45.= a few days ... till he forget] reckoning on Esau’s well-known instability, and at the same time making light of the trial of separation.――bereaved of you both] The writer has in view the custom of blood-revenge (compare 2 Samuel 14⁷), though in the case supposed there would be no one to execute it.

* * * * *

‎ =43.= ברח־לך‎] LXX + εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν.――=44 f.= אחדים‎] as 29²⁰, Daniel 11²⁰; contrast Genesis 11¹.――עַד אשר תשוב‎ and עד־שוב‎ are obviously doublets, though there are no data for assigning either to its proper source. LXX runs both together: ἕως τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν θυμὸν καὶ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου.

* * * * *

XXVII. 46‒XXVIII. 9. Isaac’s Charge to Jacob (Priestly-Code).

This short section records the only action attributed to Isaac in the Priestly Code. Two facts are taken over from the earlier tradition (Jehovist): Isaac’s blessing of Jacob, and Jacob’s visit to Mesopotamia. But the unedifying stories of Jacob’s treachery, which were the essential link of connexion between them, are here omitted; and a new motive is introduced, viz., the inadmissibility of intermarriage with the inhabitants of Canaan. By transgressing this unwritten law, Esau forfeits his title to the ‘blessing of Abraham,’ which is thus transferred to Jacob; and Jacob’s flight is transformed into an honourable mission in search of a wife. The romantic interest of Jacob’s love-story (chapter 29) is largely discounted by this prosaic representation of the course of events (compare Gunkel 341).

Marks of Priestly-Code’s style are abundant: אֵל שֶׂדַּי‎, ³; אֱלֹהִים‎ ⁴; ‎ הָֽאֲרַמִּי‎, ⁵; פַּדַּן אֲרָם‎, ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷; פָּרָה וְרָבָה‎, ³; אֶרֶץ מְגֻרִים‎ ⁴; בְּנוֹת כְּנַעַן‎ ¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ (Yahwist בּ׳ הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי‎, 24³ᐧ ³⁷); קְהַל עַמִּים‎, ³.

=46.= is an amplification of 26³⁵ (מֹרַת רוּחַ‎), but attributes to Rebekah an initiative more in the spirit of Jehovist than of Priestly-Code. It may have been supplied by Redactor to facilitate the transition from chapter 27 to 28 (v.i.).――=XXVIII. 1.= The language seems modelled on 24³ᐧ ³⁷.――=2.= thy mother’s father] The earlier affinity between the two families is again ignored by Priestly-Code: see on 25¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=4.= the blessing (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ‘blessings’) of Abraham] Compare 17⁸. Whereas in Jehovist, Isaac is the inspired author of an original blessing, which fixes the destiny of his descendants, in Priestly-Code he simply transmits the blessing attached to the covenant with Abraham.――=9.= went to Ishmael] Not to dwell with him permanently, but to procure a wife (see 36⁶ ᶠᐧ). It is undoubtedly assumed that Ishmael was still alive (Dillmann), in spite of the chronological difficulties raised by Delitzsch.

* * * * *

=46.= The objections to assigning the verse to Priestly-Code (Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) are perhaps not decisive. If Massoretic Text be right, בנות חת‎ agrees in substance with 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, though in 28¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Priestly-Code consistently uses ב׳ כנען‎. LXX, however, omits the words ‎ מִבְּנוֹת־חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה‎.――=2.= פדנה‎] (so ⁵ᐧ ⁷) compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 i.――=3.= קהל עמים‎] 35¹¹ 48⁴ (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 23²⁴ ‎ 32³; = הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם‎ 17⁴ ᶠᐧ. In spite of Deuteronomy 33³ (Dillmann), the phrase cannot well denote the tribes of Israel. It seems to correspond to Yahwist’s ‘In thee shall all nations,’ etc. (12³ etc.), and probably expresses some sort of Messianic outlook.――=7.= ואל־אמו‎] perhaps a gloss suggested by 27⁴³ ᶠᐧ (Dillmann al.).――=9.= אל־ישמעאל‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch omitted.――מַֽחֲלַת‎] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (compare Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ); see on 36³.

* * * * *

XXVIII. 10‒22. Jacob at Bethel (Jehovist).

On his way to Ḥarran, Jacob passes the night at Bethel, where the sacredness of the ‘place’ is revealed to him by a dream of a ladder leading from earth to heaven. Awaking, he consecrates the stone on which his head had lain, as a ‘house of God,’――at the same time naming the place Bethel,――and vows to dedicate a tithe of all he has, in the event of his safe return.

Analysis.――The section consists of a complete Elohistic narrative (¹¹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), with a Yahwistic insertion (¹³⁻¹⁶). For Elohist, compare אלהים‎; ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מַצֵּבָה‎, ¹⁸ᐧ ²²; the dream, ¹²; the tithe, ²²; and the retrospective references in 31¹³ 35³ᐧ ⁷. For Yahwist, יהוה‎ ¹³ ⁽ᵇⁱˢ⁾ᐧ ¹⁶; נִצָּב עַל‎ ¹³, and the resemblances to 12³ᐧ ⁷ 13¹⁵ ᶠᐧ 18¹⁸ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁴ 32¹³. To Yahwist belong, further, ¹⁰ ‎ (חָרָֽנָה‎), and (if genuine) ²¹ᵇ, though the latter is more probably interpolated. ¹⁹ᵃ breaks the connexion of ¹⁸ and ²⁰, and may be taken from Yahwist; ¹⁹ᵇ is an explanatory gloss. (So nearly all recent critics.) Kuenen (Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. 145, 247) considers ¹³⁻¹⁶ a redactional addition to Elohist, similar to 22¹⁴⁻¹⁸, etc., on the ground that Yahwist attributes the inauguration of the worship at Bethel to Abraham (12⁸), and nowhere alludes to the theophany here recorded (so Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 236³). But (to say nothing of ¹⁹ᵃ) the parallelism of ¹⁶ and ¹⁷ appears to prove a real amalgamation of primary sources (Dillmann). Gunkel regards ¹⁴ as secondary, on account of its stereotyped phraseology.

=10‒12= (Elohist). =Jacob’s dream.=――=11.= he lighted upon the place] i.e., the ‘holy place’ of Bethel (see 12⁶), whose sanctity was revealed by what followed.――he took [at haphazard] one of the stones of the place] which proved itself to be the abode of a deity by inspiring the dream which came to Jacob that night.――=12.= a ladder] or ‘stair’ (the word only here). The origin of the idea is difficult to account for (see on verse ¹⁷). Its permanent religious significance is expressed with profound insight and truth in John 1⁵¹.――angels of God] So (in plural) only in Elohist (compare 32²) in the Hexateuch. As always in Old Testament, the angels are represented as wingless beings (compare Enoch lxi. 1).

In verse ¹¹ the rendering ‘a certain place’ would be grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 r); but it destroys the point of the sentence, which is that night overtook the patriarch just at the sacred spot (see Exodus 3⁵). The idea expressed by the primitive form of the legend is that the inherent sanctity of the place, and in particular of the stone, was unknown till it was discovered by Jacob’s dream. It is very probable, as Holzinger suggests, that this points to an ancient custom of incubation at Bethel, in which dream-oracles were sought by sleeping with the head in contact with the sacred stone (see Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 475 f.).

* * * * *

‎ =11.= מראשתיו‎] Accusative of place (literally ‘at his head-place’), as 1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 26⁷ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶, 1 Kings 19⁶.――=12.= ויחלם והנה‎] The usual vivid formula in relating a dream: 37⁷ (LXX) ⁹ 40⁹ 41¹, Judges 7¹³, Isaiah 29⁸.

* * * * *

=13‒16= (Yahwist). =The promise.=

In place of the vision of the ladder, which in Elohist constitutes the whole revelation, Yahwist records a personal appearance of Yahwe, and an articulate communication to the patriarch. That it was a nocturnal theophany (as in 26²⁴) appears from ¹⁶ᵃ{α}, as well as the word שֹׁכֵב‎ in ¹³. The promise is partly addressed to Jacob’s special circumstances (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵), partly a renewal of the blessing of Abraham (¹⁴). The latter is not improbably a later amplification of the former (see above).

=13.= Yahwe stood by him (v.i.), and announced Himself as one with the God of his fathers. This unity of Yahwe amidst the multiplicity of His local manifestations is a standing paradox of the early religion of Israel: compare verse ¹⁶.――the land whereon thou liest] a description peculiarly appropriate to the solitary and homeless fugitive who had not where to lay his head.――=14.= Compare 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ 26⁴ᐧ ²⁴ 32¹³.――On ¹⁴ᵇ see the note on 12³.――=16.= Yahwe is in this place, etc.] The underlying feeling is not joy (Dillmann), but fear, because in ignorance he had treated the holy place as common ground (Targum ᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The exclamation doubtless preserves an echo of the local tradition, more forcibly represented in Elohist (verse ¹⁷). It is the only case in Genesis where a theophany occasions surprise (compare Exodus 3³).

* * * * *

‎ =13.= נצב עליו‎] 18² 24¹³ 45¹ (all Yahwist). LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take סֻלָּם‎ as antecedent to the suffix; but the idea would have been expressed otherwise (מִמַּעַל לוֹ‎), and the translation loses all its plausibility when the composition of documents is recognised.――Before הארץ‎, LXX inserts μὴ φοβοῦ.――=14.= כעפר הארץ‎] LXX ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, after 32¹³ 41⁴⁹.――ופרצת‎] LXX וּפָרַץ‎: for the word――properly ‘break through’ [bounds],――compare 30³⁰ᐧ ⁴³, Exodus 1¹², Isaiah 54³ etc.――=15.= בכל‎] LXX + הַדָּרָךְ‎.

* * * * *

=17‒19. Consecration and naming of the place.=――=17= follows verse ¹² (Elohist) without sensible breach of continuity; even the mention of Jacob’s awaking (¹⁶) is not absolutely indispensable (see ¹⁸). The impression of fear is far more powerfully expressed than in Yahwist; the place is no ordinary ḥarām, but one superlatively holy, the most sacred spot on earth. Only a North Israelite could have written thus of Bethel.――a house of God ... the gate of heaven] The expressions rest on a materialisation of the conception of worship as spiritual intercourse between God and man.

The first designation naturally arises from the name Bêth-’ēl, which (as we see from verse ²²) was first applied to the sacred stone, but was afterwards extended to the sanctuary as a whole. When to this was added the idea of God’s dwelling in heaven, the earthly sanctuary became as it were the entrance to the true heavenly temple, with which it communicated by means of a ladder. We may compare the Babylonian theory of the temple-tower as the means of ascent to the dwelling-place of the gods in heaven (see page 226 above). It is conceivable that the ‘ladder’ of Bethel may embody cosmological speculations of a similar character, which we cannot now trace to their origin. The Egyptian theology also knew of a ‘ladder’ by which the soul after death mounted up to ‘the gate of heaven’ (Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion 96). Whether it has any connexion with the sillu, or decorated arch over a palace gate, depicted in _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 13, remains doubtful. That the image was suggested by physical features of the locality――a stony hillside rising up in terraces towards heaven――seems a fanciful explanation to one who has not visited the spot; but the descriptions given of the singular freak of nature which occurs near the summit of the slope to the north of Beitīn (“huge stones piled one upon another to make columns nine or ten feet or more in height ...”) lend some plausibility to the conjecture (see Peters, Early Hebrew Story, 110 ff.).

=18.= Jacob set up the stone, whose mystic properties he had discovered, as a maẓẓēbāh, or sacred pillar (v.i.), and poured oil on the top of it (35¹⁴), in accordance with a custom widely attested in ancient and modern times (see page 380).――=19a= gives Yahwist’s account of the naming of the place. If a similar notice occurred in Elohist (as seems implied in 31¹³ 35³), it would naturally have stood later.――=19b= is usually considered a gloss. From Joshua 16² (18¹³) it appears that Lûz was really distinct from Bethel, but was overshadowed by the more famous sanctuary in the neighbourhood.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= מַצֵּבָה‎] (‘thing set up,’ Arabic nuṣb, Phœnician מצבת‎) is the technical name of the sacred monolith which was apparently an adjunct of every fully equipped Canaanite (or Phœnician) and early Hebrew sanctuary (see Vincent, Canaan, 96, 102 f., 140). Originally a fetish, the supposed abode of a spirit or deity,――a belief of which there are clear traces in this passage,――it came afterwards to be regarded as a vague symbol of Yahwe’s presence in the sanctuary, and eventually as the memorial of a theophany or other noteworthy occurrence. In this harmless sense the word is freely used by Elohist (31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² 33²⁰ [emphatic] 35¹⁴, Exodus 24⁴); but not by Yahwist, who never mentions the object except in connexion with Canaanitish worship (Exodus 34¹³). But that the emblem retained its idolatrous associations in the popular religion is shown by the strenuous polemic of the prophets and the Deuteronomic legislation against it (Hosea 10¹ ᶠᐧ, Micah 5¹², Deuteronomy 12³ etc., especially 16²² [compare Leviticus 26¹]); and Yahwist’s significant silence is probably an earlier indication of the same tendency. It is only at a very late period that we find the word used once more without offence (Isaiah 19¹⁹). See Driver on Deuteronomy 16²¹ ᶠᐧ; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 456 f.; Moore in Encyclopædia Biblica, 2974 ff.; Whitehouse in _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 879 ff.――וַיִּצֹּק‎] On this, the usual form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71.――=19.= ואולם‎] A strong adversative, found in Pentateuch only 48¹⁹, Exodus 9¹⁶, Numbers 14²¹. For ואו׳ לוז‎, LXX has καὶ Οὐλαμμαύς; compare Judges 18²⁹ (LXX).――לוז‎] 35⁶ 48³, Joshua 16² 18¹³, Judges 1²³†. The name Λουζὰ appears to have been known in the time of Eusebius (Onomastica Sacra, 135¹); and Müller (Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 165) thinks it may be identical with Ruṣa on Egyptian inscriptions.

* * * * *

=20‒22= (Elohist). =Jacob’s vow.=――The vow in Old Testament “consists essentially of a solemn promise to render God some service, in the event of some particular prayer or wish being granted” (Driver);¹ hence it falls into two parts: a condition (²⁰ ᶠᐧ), and a promise (²²).――=20, 21a.= The conditions correspond with the divine promise in ¹⁵ (Yahwist)――(a) the presence of God; (b) protection; (c) safe return――except as regards the stipulation for bread to eat and raiment to wear. The separation of sources relieves Jacob from the suspicion of questioning the sincerity of an explicit divine promise. On =21b=, v.i.――=22.= The promise. this stone ... shall be (LXX adds to me) a house of God] i.e. (in the view of the writer), a place of worship. It is to be noted that this reverses the actual development: the stone was first the residence of the numen, and afterwards became a maẓẓēbāh.――=22b.= He will pay a tithe of all his possessions. This and Amos 4⁴ are the only pre-Deuteronomic references to the tithe (compare 14²⁰).

¹ But Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 190) remarks of the Arabian custom: “Die Araber geloben nicht _in eventum_: wenn der und der Fall eintritt, so will ich das tun; sondern sie übernehmen durch das Gelübde eine absolut bindende Pflicht.”

In its present setting the above narrative forms the transition link between the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban cycle of legends. In substance it is, we can hardly doubt, a modification of the cultus-legend of Bethel (now Beitīn, situated on an eminence about 10 miles North of Jerusalem, a little East of the road to Nābulus), the founding of which was ascribed to the patriarch Jacob. The concrete features which point to a local origin――the erection of the maẓẓebāh, the ladder, the gate of heaven, and the institution of the tithe――are all indeed peculiar to the account of Elohist, which obviously stands nearer to the sources of the native tradition than the stereotyped form of the theophany given by Yahwist. From Elohist we learn that the immemorial sanctity of Bethel was concentrated in the sacred stone which was itself the original Bêth-’ēl, i.e. the residence of a god or spirit. This belief appears to go back to the primitive stone-worship of which traces are very widely diffused over the surface of the globe.¹ The characteristic rite of anointing the stone, originally perhaps a sacrifice to the indwelling numen, was familiar to classical writers.² The most instructive parallel is the fact mentioned by Pausanias (x. 24, 6), that on a small stone in the sanctuary of Delphi oil was poured every day: we may conjecture that a similar practice was kept up at Bethel long after its original significance was forgotten. Though the monolith of Bethel is not elsewhere explicitly referred to in Old Testament, we may assume that, stripped of its pagan associations and reduced to the rank of a maẓẓebāh, it was still recognised in historic times as the chief religious symbol of that great centre of Hebrew worship.

¹ See Tylor, _Primitive Culture_³ ii. 160 ff.; Frazer, Pausanias’s Description of Greece iv. 154 f., Adonis, 21; _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 204 ff., 232 f. The wide distribution of these sacred objects seems fatal to the theory of Lagrange, that they were miniature reproductions of the Babylonian temple-towers, which again were miniature symbols of the earth conceived as a mountain,――a difficulty of which the author himself is conscious (_Études_², 192 ff.).

² On anointed stones (λίθοι λιπαροί, ἀληλιμμένοι, _lapides uncti, lubricati_, etc.), see Clement of Alexandria Stromata vii. 4, 26; and the remarkable statements of Theophrastus, Characters 16; Lucian, Alexander, 30; and Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, i. 39,――quoted by Frazer, Pausanias’s Description of Greece v. 354.――For Assyriological parallels see Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, i. 44 f., ii. 113, 151, 261.――A curious development of the ancient belief appears in the name Βαίτυλος, Βαιτύλιον, Betulus, applied to small stones (aerolites?), supposed to be self-moving and endowed with magical properties, which played a considerable part in the private superstitions of the beginning of the Christian era (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 18; Photius, Bibliotheca [Migne, ciii. 1292 f.]; Pliny, Naturalis Historia, xxxvii. 135, etc.). The existence of a Canaanitish deity Bait-ili (who can only be regarded as a personification of the temple or the sacred stone) is proved by unimpeachable Assyriological evidence (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 437 f.; Lagrange, l.c. 196). Since Βαίτυλος is also the name of a god in Philo-Byblius, it seems unreasonable to doubt the etymological and material connexion between the ancient Semitic בֵּית־אֵל‎ and the portable betyl of the Græco-Roman period, which was so named as the residence of a spirit; but see the important article of Moore, _Journal of the Archæological Institute of America_, vii. (1903), No. 2, page 198 ff.

* * * * *

‎ =21.= ושבתי‎] LXX καὶ ἀποστρέψῃ με, as verse ¹⁵.――=21b= can with difficulty be assigned either to the protasis or to the apodosis of the sentence. The word יהוה‎ shows that it does not belong to Elohist; and in all probability the clause is to be omitted as a gloss (Dillmann al.). The apodosis then has the same unusual form as in 22¹.

* * * * *

XXIX. 1‒30. Jacob’s Marriage with Laban’s Daughters (Jehovist, Priestly-Code).

Instead of spending a few days (27⁴⁴) as Laban’s guest, Jacob was destined to pass 20 years of his life with his Aramæan kinsman. The circumstances which led to this prolonged exile are recorded in the two episodes contained in this section; viz. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel at the well (¹⁻¹⁴), and the peculiar conditions of his marriage to Leah and Rachel (¹⁵⁻³⁰). The first, a purely idyllic scene reminding us of 24¹¹⁻³³ and Exodus 2¹⁵⁻²², forms a pleasing introduction to the cycle of Jacob-Laban narratives, without a trace of the petty chicanery which is the leading motive of that group of legends.¹ In the second, the true character of Laban is exposed by the unworthy trick which he practises on Jacob; and the reader’s sympathies are enlisted on the side of Jacob in the trial of astuteness which is sure to ensue.

¹ Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ thinks it necessary to introduce a hint of the coming rivalry into the conversation between Jacob and Rachel (verse ¹³).

Analysis.――Fragments of Priestly-Code’s narrative can be easily recognised in verses ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, and probably also in ²⁸ᵇ. The separation of Yahwist and Elohist is uncertain on account of the close parallelism of the two documents and the absence of material differences of representation to support or correct the literary analysis. Most subsequent critics agree with Dillmann that verse ¹ belongs to Elohist (see the notes), and ²⁻¹⁴ to Yahwist: compare רוץ לקראת‎, ¹³ (18² 24¹⁷); עצמי ובשרי‎, ¹⁴ (2²³). In ¹⁶ ᶠᐧ Rachel appears to be introduced for the first time; hence Dillmann regards Elohist as the main source of ¹⁵ (or ¹⁵ᵇ) ⁻³⁰, excluding, however, verse ²⁶, where צְעִירָה‎ and בְּכִירָה‎ reveal the hand of Yahwist: characteristic expressions of Elohist are משכרת‎, ¹⁵ ‎ (31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹); גדלה‎ and קטנה‎, ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸; יפת תאר וגו׳‎, ¹⁷. So Gunkel, Procksch nearly. Ball and Cornill assign all from ¹⁹ onwards to Yahwist.

=1‒14. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel.=――=1.= the sons of the East] Since the goal of Jacob’s journey is in Yahwist, Ḥarran (28¹⁰ 29⁴) and in Priestly-Code, Paddan Aram (28⁷), it is to be presumed that this third variation comes from Elohist (Dillmann). Now the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם‎ are everywhere else the tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, and 31²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ certainly suggests that Laban’s home was not so distant from Canaan as Ḥarran (see on 24¹⁰ ᶠᐧ [city of Nahor]). It is possible, therefore, that in the tradition followed by Elohist, Laban was the representative of the nomadic Aramæans between Palestine and the Euphrates (see page 334 above).――=2.= The well in the open country is evidently distinct, even in Yahwist, from the town-well of Ḥarran (compare 24¹³).――For ... they used to water, etc.] To the end of verse ³ is an explanatory parenthesis describing the ordinary procedure. The custom of covering the well with a heavy stone is referred to by Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, i. 490; Thomson, The Land and the Book, 589; Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus ii. 319 f.; compare also Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 94.――=4.= Jacob accosts the shepherds, and learns that they come from Ḥarran. There is nothing else in the narrative to suggest the proximity of a great city; Laban is no city-dweller as in chapter 24, but a nomad sheikh; and the life depicted is everywhere that of the desert. All this confirms the impression that the topography of Elohist (verse ¹) has been modified by Yahwist in accordance with the theory that Ḥarran was the city of Nahor.――=5.= the son of Nāḥôr] see on 24¹⁵.――=7, 8.= Jacob is puzzled by the leisurely ways of these Eastern herdsmen, whom he ironically supposes to have ceased work for the day. He is soon to show them an example of how things should be done, careless of the conventions which they plead as an excuse.――=9.= a shepherdess] compare Exodus 2¹⁶. The trait is in accordance with the freedom still allowed to unmarried girls among the Bedouin. Burckhardt found it an established rule among the Arabs of Sinai that only girls should drive the cattle to pasture (Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 351).――=10.= The removal of the stone is a feat of strength which has been thought to belong to a more primitive legend, in which Jacob figured as a giant (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.): compare 32²⁶.――=11.= wept aloud] ‘after the demonstrative fashion of the Oriental’ (Bennett),――tears of joy at the happy termination of his journey.――=12.= brother] as in verse ¹⁵ 13⁸ 14¹⁴ (24⁴⁸?).――=13.= kissed him repeatedly (Piel)] The effusive display of affection, perhaps not wholly disinterested, is characteristic of Laban (compare 24²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=14.= my bone and my flesh] as 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³ ᶠᐧ. It is an absurd suggestion that the exclamation is called forth by the recital of Jacob’s dealings with Esau, in which Laban recognised a spiritual affinity to himself! The phrase denotes literal consanguinity and nothing more.

* * * * *

=1.= The curious expression ‘lifted up his feet’ is found only here.――LXX, Vulgate omit בְּנֵי‎; and LXX adds to the verse πρὸς Λαβὰν κτλ., as 28⁵ᵇ.――=2.= והאבן גדלה‎ can only mean ‘and the stone was great’: it is perhaps better to omit the article (with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch).――=3.= העדרים‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch הרעים‎, needlessly substituted by Ball. So also verse ⁸, where The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch is supported by LXX.――=6.= Before והנה‎, LXX inserts ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (as verse ⁹). An assimilating tendency reappears at the end of the verse; and the variations have no critical value.――=9.= ב֫אה‎] perfect; contrast the participle בא֫ה‎ in verse ⁶.――רעה הוא‎] LXX + τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς.――=10.= ויגל‎] with original i in imperfect Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p).――=13.= שמע‎ (LXX שֵׁם‎) = ‘the report concerning,’ followed as always by genitive objective.――=14.= ‎ חדש ימים‎] ‘a whole month’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 131 d.

* * * * *

=15‒30. Jacob’s double marriage.=――=15.= Laban’s character begins to unfold itself as that of a man ostensibly actuated by the most honourable motives, but at heart a selfish schemer, always ready with some plausible pretext for his nefarious conduct (see verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁶). His apparently generous offer proves a well-laid trap for Jacob, whose love for Rachel has not escaped the notice of his shrewd kinsman.――=16‒18a.= An explanatory parenthesis. The manner in which Rachel is introduced, as if for the first time, is thought to mark the transition to another source (Dillmann al.).――On the names Lē’āh and Rāḥēl, v.i.――=17.= Leah’s eyes were weak (רַכּוֹת‎, LXX ἀσθενεῖς, Aquila, Symmachus ἁπαλοί): i.e. they lacked the lustrous brilliancy which is counted a feature of female beauty in the East.――=18b.= Jacob, not being in a position to pay the purchase price (mōhar) for so eligible a bride, offered seven years’ service instead. The custom was recognised by the ancient Arabs, and is still met with (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 433 f.; Burckhardt Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, i. 297 f.).――=19.= The first cousin has still a prior (sometimes an exclusive) right to a girl’s hand among the Bedouin and in Egypt (Burckhardt, Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, i. 113, 272; Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 199).――=22.= Laban proceeds to the execution of his long meditated coup. He himself arranges the marriage feast (contrast Judges 14¹⁰), inviting all the men of the place, with a view doubtless to his self-exculpation (verse ²⁶).――=23.= The substitution of Leah for Rachel was rendered possible by the custom of bringing the bride to the bridegroom veiled (24⁶⁵). To have thus got rid of the unprepossessing Leah for a handsome price, and to retain his nephew’s services for other seven years (verse ²⁷), was a master-stroke of policy in the eyes of a man like Laban.――=25.= Jacob’s surprise and indignation are vividly depicted.――=26.= It is not so done] compare 34⁷, 2 Samuel 13¹². Laban no doubt correctly states the local usage: the objection to giving a younger daughter before an older is natural, and prevails in certain countries (Lane, i. 201; compare Jubilees xxviii., Judges 15¹ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18¹⁷).――=27, 28.= Fulfil the week of this one] i.e., the usual seven days (Judges 14¹², Tobit 11¹⁹) of the wedding festival for Leah. For the bridegroom to break up the festivities would, of course, be a gross breach of decorum, and Jacob has no alternative but to fall in with Laban’s new proposal and accept Rachel on his terms.――=30.= Laban’s success is for the moment complete; but in the alienation of both his daughters, and their fidelity to Jacob at a critical time (31¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), he suffered a just retribution for the unscrupulous assertion of his paternal rights.

* * * * *

In Jacob’s marriages it has been surmised that features survive of that primitive type of marriage (called beena marriage) in which the husband becomes a member of the wife’s kin (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 207). Taken as a whole the narrative hardly bears out that view. It is true that Jacob attaches himself to Laban’s family; but it does not follow that he did not set up a house of his own. His remaining with Laban was due to his inability to pay the mōhar otherwise than in the way of personal service. As soon as the contract expired he pleads his right to ‘provide for his own house’ (30³⁰ Yahwist). On the other hand, Laban certainly claimed the right to detain his daughters, and treated them as still members of his family (31²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ Elohist); and it might be imagined that the Elohistic tradition recognised the existence of beena marriage, at least among the Aramæans. But it is doubtful if the claim is more than an extreme assertion of the right of a powerful family to protect its female relatives even after marriage.

* * * * *

‎ =15.= הכי‎] see on 27³⁶.――מַשְׂכֹּרֶת‎] 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ (Elohist), Ruth 2¹²†; ‎ שָׂכָר‎ is common to Yahwist (30²⁸ᐧ ³² ᶠᐧ) and Elohist (31⁸, Exodus ‎ 2⁹).――=16.= גדל‎ and קטן‎ are in such connexions characteristic of Elohist (verse ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴); see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 104.――רָחֵל‎ means ‘ewe’ (Arabic raḫil = she-lamb); hence by analogy לֵאָה‎ has been explained by Arabic la’āt, ‘bovine antelope’ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167; Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 ff.), and the names are cited as evidence of a primitive Hebrew totemism (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254 f.). Others prefer the derivation from Assyrian li’at, ‘lady’ (see Haupt, _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1883, 100).――=18.= ברחל‎] בְּ‎ pretii (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 p); so ²⁰ᐧ ²⁵.――=20.= ויהיו――אתה‎] LXXᴬ omits.――=21.= הב֫ה‎] Milra‛ before א‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 o).――=24.= שפחה‎] better לְשִׁ׳‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ); see verse ²⁹.――=26.= הצעירה‎] distinctive of Yahwist; see verse ¹⁶.――=27.= וְנִתְּנָה‎ is rather 3rd feminine, singular, perfect, Niphal, than 1st plural cohortative Qal (as most). The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאֶתֵּן‎.――=28b.= לו לאשה‎] The double dative is characteristic of Priestly-Code, to whom the whole clause may be assigned along with ²⁹.――=30.= The second גּם‎ has no sense, and should probably be deleted (LXX, Vulgate).

* * * * *

XXIX. 31‒XXX. 24. The Birth of Jacob’s Children (Jehovist).

A difficult section, in which the origin of the tribes of Israel is represented in the fictitious form of a family history. The popular etymologies attached to the names are here extremely forced, and sometimes unintelligible; it is remarkable that, with hardly an exception, they are based on the rivalry between Jacob’s two wives. (The names are bestowed by the mothers, as is generally the case in Jehovist.) How far genuine elements of tradition are embodied in such a narrative is a question which it is obviously impossible to answer with certainty. We cannot be wrong in attributing historical significance to the distinction between the tribes whose descent was traced to Jacob’s wives and those regarded as sons of concubines; though we are ignorant of the actual circumstances on which the classification depends. It is also certain that there is a solid basis for the grouping of the chief tribes under the names of Leah and Rachel, representing perhaps an older and a later settlement of Hebrews in Palestine (Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 112 f.). The fact that all the children except Benjamin are born in Mesopotamia may signify that the leading tribal divisions existed before the occupation of Canaan; but the principle certainly cannot be applied in detail, and the nature of the record forbids the attempt to discover in it reliable data for the history of the tribes. (For a conspectus of various theories, see Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 36 ff.; compare Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 291 f., 509 ff.)

The sources are Yahwist and Elohist, with occasional clauses from Priestly-Code.――29³¹⁻³⁵ is wholly from Yahwist (יהוה‎, ‎ ³¹ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵; עֲקָרָה‎, ³¹; הַפַּעַם‎, ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵), with the possible exception of ³²ᵇ{γ}.――30¹⁻⁸ is mainly Elohist (אלהים‎, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸; אָמָה‎, ³ᵃ); but ³ᵃ{β} reminds us of Yahwist (16²), ⁴ᵃ is assigned to Priestly-Code (שִׁפְחָה‎ and compare 16³), and in ⁷ שִׁפְחָה‎ must be either from Yahwist (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel) or Priestly-Code (Holzinger).――30⁹⁻¹³ is again mostly from Yahwist (שִׁפְחָה‎, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²; compare ⁹ᵃ with 29³¹ 30¹ 29³⁵). ⁹ᵇ is Priestly-Code.――30¹⁴⁻²⁴ presents a very mixed text, whose elements are difficult to disentangle; note the double etymologies in ¹⁸ᐧ (compare ¹⁶) ²⁰ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ The hand of Elohist clearly appears in ¹⁷ᵃᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{αβ}ᐧ ²²ᵇ{α}ᐧ (²²ᵃ may be from Priestly-Code: compare 8¹) ²³. Hence the parallels ¹⁴⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}ᐧ ²⁴ must be assigned to Yahwist, who is further characterised, according to Gunkel, by the numeration of the sons (¹⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{γ}). ²¹ is interpolated.

=31‒35. The sons of Leah.=――=31.= hated] The rendering is too strong. שְׂנוּאָה‎ is almost a technical term for the less favoured of two wives (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); where the two are sisters the rivalry is naturally most acute, hence this practice is forbidden by the later law (Leviticus 18¹⁸). The belief that Yahwe takes the part of the unfortunate wife and rewards her with children, belongs to the strongly marked family religion of Israel (1 Samuel 1² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=32.= Rĕ’ûbēn] The only plausible explanation of the etymology is that it is based on the form רְאוּבֵל‎ (v.i.) = רְאוּ־בַעַל‎, and that יהוה‎ is substituted for the divine name בַּֽעַל‎. Most commentaries suppose that the writer resolves ראובן‎ into רָאָ[ה] בְ[עָ]נְ[יִי]‎; but that is too extravagant for even a Hebrew etymologist.――=33.= Šim‛ôn] derived from שָׁמַע‎, ‘hear,’ expressing precisely the same idea as Rĕ’ûbēn.――=34.= Lēvî, as the third son, is explained by a verb for ‘adhere’ (Niphal √ לוה‎), on the principle that a threefold cord is not easily broken.――=35.= Yĕhûdāh] connected with a word meaning ‘praise’ (הוֹדָה‎: compare imperfect יְהוֹדֶה‎, Nehemiah 11¹⁷). So in 49⁸.

* * * * *

‎ =32.= רְאוּבֵן‎] LXX Ῥουβην, etc.; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Josephus Ῥουβηλος. The origin of the name has given rise to an extraordinary number of conjectures (see Hogg, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4091 ff.). We seem driven to the conclusion that the original form (that on which the etymology is based: v.s.) was ראובל. In that form the name has been connected with Arabic ri’bāl, ‘lion,’ or ‘wolf,’ in which case Reuben might have to be added to the possibly totemistic names of the Old Testament. Another plausible suggestion is that the word is softened from ‎ רְעוּ־בַעַל‎ a theophorous compound after the analogy of רְעוּאֵל‎――=33.= After בֵּן‎, LXX inserts שֵׁנִי‎, which may be correct (compare ‎ 30⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴).――שִׁמְעוֹן‎] Another supposed animal name, from Arabic sim‛, a cross between the wolf and hyæna (see William Robertson Smith The Journal of Philology ix. 80). Ewald regarded it as a diminutive of יִשְׁמָעֵאל‎, and similarly recently Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 375).――=34.= ‎ קרא‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ, Peshiṭtå קָֽרְאָה‎; LXXᴬ ἐκλήθη.――לֵוִי‎] Wellhausen’s conjecture that this is the gentilic of לֵאָה‎ is widely accepted (Stade, William Robertson Smith, Nöldeke, Meyer, al.). Hommel, on the other hand, compares South Arabian lavi’u = ‘priest,’ Levi being the priestly tribe (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 278 f.; compare Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 56).

* * * * *

=XXX. 1‒8. Rachel’s adopted sons.=――=1, 2.= A passionate scene, showing how Rachel was driven by jealousy of her sister to yield her place to her maid. Her petulant behaviour recalls that of Sarah (16⁵), but Jacob is less patient than Abraham.――Am I in God’s stead?] So 50¹⁹, compare 2 Kings 5⁷.――=3.= bear upon my knees] An allusion to a primitive ceremony of adoption, which here simply means that Bilhah’s children will be acknowledged by Rachel as her own.――obtain children by her] see on 16².――=6.= The putative mother names the adopted child.――Dân] The etymology here given (√ דִּין‎, ‘judge’) is very probably correct, the form being an abbreviated theophorous name (compare, Abi-dan, Assyrian Asshur-dan, etc.).――=8.= wrestlings of God I have wrestled] The words are very obscure (see Cheyne 376 ff.). Either ‘I have had “a veritable God’s bout” (Ball) with my sister,’ or (less probably) ‘I have wrestled with God (in prayer) like my sister.’――and have overcome] This seems to imply that Leah had only one son at the time (Gunkel); and there is nothing to prevent the supposition that the concubinage of Bilhah followed immediately on the birth of Reuben.

On the ceremony referred to, see Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. 143 ff.; Holzinger 196; Driver 274. Its origin is traced to a widespread custom, according to which, in lawful marriage, the child is actually brought forth on the father’s knees (compare Job 3¹²; Iliad ix. 455 f.; Odyssey xix. 401 ff.); then it became a symbol of the legitimisation of a natural child, and finally a form of adoption generally (50²³). Gunkel, however, thinks the rite originated in cases like the present (the slave being delivered on the knees of her mistress), and was afterwards transferred to male adoption.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= בִּלְהָה‎] (of unknown etymology) is probably to be connected with the Ḥorite clan בִּלהָן‎ (36²⁷).――=6.= דָּנַנִּי‎] On the form, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 26 g.――=7aβb= must be assigned to Yahwist, on account of שׁפחה‎ and בן שני‎ (note also the expression of subject after second verb).――=8.= נפתולי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The verb has nowhere else the sense of ‘wrestle,’ but means primarily to ‘twist’ (compare Proverbs 8⁸, Job 5¹³, Psalms 18²⁷†); hence נַפְתָּלִי‎ might be the ‘tortuous,’ ‘cunning’ one (Brown-Driver-Briggs). But a more plausible etymology derives it from a hypothetical Naphtal (from נֶפֶת‎ [Joshua 17¹¹†,――if correctly vocalised], usually taken to mean ‘height’: compare כַּרְמֶל‎ from כֶּרֶם‎), denoting the northern highlands West of the Upper Jordan (Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 539).――The Versions render the verb more or less paraphrastically, and give no help to the elucidation of the sense.

* * * * *

=9‒13. Leah’s adopted sons.=――=11.= Gad is the name of an Aramæan and Phœnician god of Luck (Τύχη), mentioned in Isaiah 65¹¹ (see Cambridge Bible, ad loc.; compare Baethgen, Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins 76 ff. 159 ff.). There is no difficulty in supposing that a hybrid tribe like Gad traced its ancestry to this deity, and was named after him; though, of course, no such idea is expressed in the text. In Leah’s exclamation the word is used appellatively: With luck! (v.i.). It is probable, however, that at an earlier time it was current in the sense ‘With Gad’s help’ (Ball, Gunkel).――=13.= The name ’Āšēr naturally suggested to Hebrew writers a word for happiness; hence the two etymologies: בְּאָשְׁרִי‎ ‘In my happiness,’ and אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎ ‘(women) count me happy.’ It is possible that the name is historically related to the Canaanite goddess ’Ašērāh (Ball, Holzinger), as Gad is to the Aramæan deity. Aser appears in Egyptian monuments as the name of a district in North-west Palestine as early as Seti and Ramses II. (Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 236 ff.).

* * * * *

=10.= Both here and verse ¹² LXX gives a much fuller text.――=11.= ‎ בְּגד‎] So Kethîb, LXX Ἐν τύχῃ, Vulgate Feliciter. But Qrê ‎ בָּא גָ֑ד‎ is ancient, being presupposed by Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. These Versions render ‘Good fortune comes’ (so Rashi): another translation, suggested by 49¹⁹, is ‘A troop (גְּדוּד‎) comes’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra).

‎ =13.= אשֶׁר‎ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――אִשְּׁרוּנִי‎] perfect of confidence (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 n). It is to be noted that perfects greatly preponderate in Elohist’s etymologies, and imperfects in those of Yahwist; the two exceptions (29³² ᶠᐧ) may be only apparent, and due to the absence of definite stylistic criteria.

* * * * *

=14‒24. The later children.=――=14‒16.= The incident of the love-apples is a piece of folklore, adopted with reserve by the writer (Yahwist), and so curtailed as to be shorn of its original significance. The story must have gone on to tell how Rachel partook of the fruit and in consequence became pregnant, while Leah also conceived through the restoration of her marriage rights (see Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 38 f.). How much of this stood in Yahwist and has been suppressed in the history of the text we cannot say; we here read just what is necessary to explain the name of Leah’s child.――=14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (v.i.) is the round, greenish-yellow, plum-like fruit of mandragora vernalis, which in Syria ripens in May――the days of wheat harvest――and is still eagerly sought in the East to promote conception (see Tuch’s note, 385 ff.). Reuben is named, probably as the only child old enough to follow the reapers in the field (compare 2 Kings 4¹⁸). The agricultural background shows that the episode is out of place in its present nomadic setting.――=15.= he shall lie with thee to-night] Jacob, therefore, had wrongly withheld from Leah her conjugal rights (עוֹנָה‎, Exodus 21¹⁰).――=16.= I have hired thee (שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ‎)] Obviously an anticipation of Yahwist’s lost etymology of Issachar.――=18.= Elohist’s interpretation of יִשָּׂשׂכָר‎, which is, of course, independent of the story of the mandrakes. The name is resolved either into אישׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘man of hire,’ or into יֵשׁ שָׂכָר‎, ‘there is a reward’ (Tuch, Dillmann); or else the י‎ and quiescent ש‎ are simply dropped (Gunkel): v.i.――=20.= Two etymologies of Zĕbûlûn; the first from Elohist (אלהים‎), and the second, therefore, from Yahwist: both are somewhat obscure (v.i.).――=21.= Dînāh] The absence of an etymology, and the fact that Dinah is excluded from the enumeration of 32²³, make it probable that the verse is interpolated with a view to chapter 34.――=22‒24.= At last Rachel bears a son, long hoped for and therefore marked out for a brilliant destiny――Yôsēph.――=23b, 24b.= Elohist derives the name from אָסַף‎, ‘take away’; Yahwist more naturally from יָסַף‎, ‘add’: May Yahwe add to me another son!

* * * * *

‎ =14.= דּוּדָאִים‎ (Canticles 7¹⁴†)] LXX μῆλα μανδραγόρου, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ יברוחין‎ (= Arabic yabrūh, explained to be the root of the plant). The singular is ‎ דּוּדַי‎, from the same √ as דּוֹד‎, ‘lover,’ and דּוֹדִים‎ ‘love’; and very probably associated with the love-god דודה‎ (Meša, 1. 12). Cheyne plausibly suggests (379) that this deity was worshipped by the Reubenites; hence Reuben is the finder of the apples.――=15.= לָהּ‎] LXX לֵאָה‎, Peshiṭtå לה לאה‎.――וְלָקַחַת‎ (infinitive)] Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 204; but וְלָקַחַתְּ‎ (perfect future) would be easier.――=16.= תָּבוֹא‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + הַלַּיְלָה‎.――בַּֽלַּיְלָה הוּא‎] see on 19³³.――=17a= is from Elohist; but =17b= probably from Yahwist, on account of the numeral.――=18aβ=, while correctly expressing the idea of Elohist, contains the word שִׁפְחָה‎, which Elohist avoids; and is therefore probably redactional.――=18b.= יִשָּׂשכָר‎] So Ben Asher regularly, with Qrê perpetuum יִשָּׂכָר‎: B. Naphtali has יִשְׂשָׂכָר‎, or יִשְׁשָׂכָר‎ (see Baer-Delitzsch Liber Genesis 84 f.; Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible_ 250 ff.). The duplication of the ש‎ cannot be disposed of as a Massoretic caprice, and is most naturally explained by the assumption that two components were recognised, of which the first was אִישׁ‎ (Wellhausen Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, page v). For the second component Wellhausen refers to the שָׂכָר‎ of 1 Chronicles 11³⁵ 26⁴; Ball compares an Egyptian deity Sokar; while Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 536) is satisfied with the interpretation ‘man of hire,’ corresponding to the description of the tribe in Genesis 49¹⁴ ᶠᐧ.――=20.= זֶבֶד‎, זְבָדַנִי‎] The √ (except in proper names) is not found in the Old Testament, but is explained by Aramaic (compare (‡ Syriac word), ‘dowry’), and is common in Palmer proper names (Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v.). The interchange of ל‎ and ד‎ is probably dialectic (compare dacrima = lacrima), and hardly justifies Cheyne’s view that the name in the writer’s mind was זַבְדּוֹן‎] (l.c. ‎ 380).――יזבלני‎] Another ἅπαξ λεγόμενον apparently connected with זְבֻל‎, poetical for ‘abode’: Versions ‘dwell with’ (as English Version). This gives a good enough sense here, and is perhaps supported by 49¹³ (see on the verse); but זְבֻלוּן‎ remains without any natural explanation. See Hogg, in Encyclopædia Biblica, 5385 ff. Meyer (538) derives it from the personal name זְבֻל‎ (Judges 9²⁸).――=21= end] LXX + ותעמד מלדת‎ (as 29³⁵).――=24.= יוֹסֵף‎] Probably a contraction of יוסף־אל‎, though the Yšp’r of the list of Thothmes III. (Number 78) is less confidently identified with Joseph than the companion Y‛ḳb’r with Jacob (compare page 360 above; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 262; Spiegelberg, Randglossen, 13 f.; Müller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, i. 23, and _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1909, 31). But Yašupili has been found in contract tablets of the Ḥammurabi period along with Yaḳub-ili (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96 [from Sayce]).

* * * * *

XXX. 25‒43. Jacob enriched at Laban’s Expense (Jehovist).

Jacob, having accomplished his 14 years of service for his wives, is now in a position to dictate terms to Laban, who, in his eagerness to keep him, invites him to name the price for which he will remain with him. It is interesting to contrast the relative attitudes of the two men with their bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ Jacob here shows a decision of purpose which causes Laban to adopt an obsequious tone very unlike his former easy assurance. He is overjoyed to find his nephew’s demands so reasonable; and correspondingly mortified (31²) when he discovers how completely he has been deceived by Jacob’s apparent moderation.――The story, as Gunkel reminds us, was originally told to shepherds, who would follow with keen interest the various tricks of their craft which Jacob so successfully applies (and of which he was probably regarded as the inventor). To more refined readers these details were irksome; hence the abridged and somewhat unintelligible form in which the narrative stands.

Sources.――In the earlier verses (²⁵⁻³¹) several duplicates show the composition of Yahwist and Elohist: ²⁵ ∥ ²⁶ᵃ; ²⁶ᵇ ∥ ²⁹ᵃ; ²⁸ ∥ ³¹ᵃ; ויאמר‎ in ²⁷ and ²⁸; אתה ידעת‎, ²⁶ᵇ and ²⁹ᵃ. Here ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ²⁹⁻³¹ are from Yahwist (יהוה‎, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰; מָצָא חֵן‎, ²⁷; בִּגְלַל‎ ²⁷), and ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸ from Elohist,――each narrative being nearly complete (compare Dillmann, Gunkel, Procksch).――In ³²⁻³⁶ it is quite possible, in spite of the scepticism of Dillmann and others, to distinguish two conceptions of Jacob’s reward (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 40 ff.). (a) In the first, Jacob is that very day to take out from Laban’s flock all abnormally coloured animals: that is to be his hire (³²). On the morrow (or in time to come), Laban may inspect Jacob’s flock: if he find in it any normally coloured animals, Jacob is at once convicted of fraud ³³. This account belongs to Elohist (compare שְׂכָרִי‎, ³², with ²⁸), though it is doubtful if to the same stratum of Elohist as 31⁷⁻¹². (b) In the other, Laban himself separates the flocks, leaving the normally coloured sheep and goats in Jacob’s keeping, and removing the others to a distance of three days’ journey, under the charge of his sons (³²ᵃ{β} [from הָסֵר‎ ³⁵ ᶠᐧ). Thus Jacob receives for the present nothing at all (³¹ Yahwist). The narrative must have gone on to explain that his hire was to consist of any variegated animals appearing in the normally coloured flock now left in his charge (³⁶ᵇ); Laban’s precautions aim at securing that these shall be few or none. Hence we obtain for Yahwist ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶, and for Elohist ³²ᵃ{αδ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴.――³⁷⁻⁴⁵ is the natural continuation of Yahwist’s account, but with numerous insertions, which may be either from variants or glosses.――The text here is very confused, and LXX has many variations.

=25‒31. Jacob proposes to provide for his own house.=――A preliminary parley, in which both parties feel their way to an understanding.――=26= (Elohist). thou knowest with what kind of service, etc.] Elohist always lays stress on Jacob’s rectitude (compare ³³).――=27= (Yahwist). If I have found favour, etc.] followed by aposiopesis, as 18³ 23¹³.――Laban continues: I have taken omens (נִחַשְׁתִּי‎; compare 44⁵ᐧ ¹⁵, 1 Kings 20³³) and (found that) Yahwe has blessed me, etc.]――an abject plea for Jacob’s remaining with him.――=28= (Elohist). Laban surrenders at once (the answer is in verse ³²), whereas――=29,30= in Yahwist, Jacob presses for a discharge: his service has been of immense value to Laban, but he has a family to consider.――=31.= anything at all] See introductory note above.――this thing] which I am about to mention.――resume herding thy flock] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 g.

* * * * *

‎ =26.= ואת־ילדי‎] Not necessarily a gloss; the children might fairly be considered included in Jacob’s wages.――=27.= On נִחַשׁ‎, verb 44⁵.――‎בגללך‎] LXX τῇ σῇ εἰσόδῳ, Armenian in pede tuo = ‎ לרגלך‎ (³⁰).――=28.= LXX, Vulgate omit ויאמר‎, smoothing over the transition from Yahwist to Elohist.――נקבה‎] ‘designate’ (literally ‘prick [off]’): compare the use of Niphal in Numbers 1¹⁷, 1 Chronicles 16⁴¹ etc.――=29.= את אשר‎] ‘the manner in which’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 c); but Peshiṭtå reads as in verse ‎ ²⁶.――=30.= לרגלי‎] contrasted with לפני‎ above. Prosperity has followed Jacob ‘wherever he went’ (compare Isaiah 41², Job 18¹¹ etc.). It is unnecessary to emend בִּגְלָלִי‎ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Cheyne).――=31.= אשמר‎] (LXX, Peshiṭtå prefix וְ‎) must be deleted on account of its awkward position.

* * * * *

=32‒36. The new contract.=――The point in both narratives is that parti-coloured animals form a very small proportion of a flock, the Syrian sheep being nearly all white (Canticles 4² 6⁶, Daniel 7⁹) and the goats black or brown (Canticles 4¹ᵇ). In Elohist, Jacob simply asks this small share as his payment.――=32.= and it shall be my hire] The rendering ‘and of this sort shall be my hire’ (in future), is merely a violent attempt to obliterate the difference between Yahwist and Elohist.――=33.= my righteousness shall testify against me] i.e., the proposal is so transparently fair that Jacob will be as it were automatically convicted of theft if he violates the compact. צְדָקָה‎, ‘unimpeachable conduct,’ here means ‘fair dealing,’ ‘honesty.’――in time to come] whenever Laban chooses to make an investigation.――=35, 36= (Yahwist). And he (Laban, see ³²ᵃ{β}) removed that day, etc.] Laban’s motive in removing the variegated animals to a distance of three days’ journey is obvious; he wishes to reduce to a minimum the chance that any such animals should henceforth be born amongst those now entrusted to Jacob.――white] Hebrew lābān, perhaps a play on Laban’s name.

* * * * *

‎ =32.= אעבר‎, הסר‎] To get rid of the change of person (and the division of sources) many construe the latter as infinitive absolute (‘removing’); but the only natural rendering is imperative (compare ³⁵). LXX has imperative both times.――כל־שה――עזים‎] LXX πᾶν πρόβατον φαιὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀρνάσιν καὶ πᾶν διάραντον λελυκὸν καὶ λευκὸν ἐν ταῖς αἰξίν, a smoother and therefore less original text. The Hebrew seems overloaded; Gunkel strikes out וְכָל־שֶׂה־חוּם בַּֽכְּשָׂבִים‎, and the corresponding clauses in ³³ᐧ ³⁵.――נָקֹד וְטָלוּא‎] ‘speckled and spotted,’ ‘parti-coloured.’ The words are practically synonymous, both being distinct from עָקֹד‎ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†), which means ‘striped.’ If there be a difference, נ׳‎ (³⁵ᐧ ³⁹ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²†) suggests smaller spots than ‎ ט׳‎ (compare Ezekiel 16¹⁶, Joshua 9⁵, the only places where the √ occurs outside this passage).――חוּם‎] only in this chapter: = ‘black’ or ‘dark-brown.’――=33.= ענה ב‎] ‘testify against’ (see 1 Samuel 12³, 2 Samuel 1¹⁶, Isaiah 3⁹). An easier sense would be obtained if we could translate ‘witness for,’ but there seem to be no examples of that usage. Driver’s interpretation: ‘there will be nothing whatever to allege against my honesty,’ seems, on the other hand, too subtle.――ביום מחר‎] ‘in time to come’ (Exodus 13¹⁴, Deuteronomy 6²⁰). If we could insist on the literal rendering ‘on the morrow,’ the proof of divergence between Yahwist and Elohist would be strengthened, but the sense is less suitable.――כי――לפניך‎] LXX ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ μισθός μου ἐνώπιόν σου.――=36.= בינו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX בינם‎.――The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch follows ³⁶ with a long addition based on 31¹¹⁻¹³.

* * * * *

=37‒43. Jacob’s Stratagem.=――The main account is from Yahwist, to whose narrative the artifice is essential, but there are many interpolations.――=37‒39.= The first step is to work on the imagination of the females by rods of poplar, etc., peeled in such a way as to show patches of white, and placed in the drinking troughs.――=38, 39.= Removing glosses, Yahwist’s account reads: And he placed the rods which he had peeled in the runnels ... in front of the flock, and they bred when they came to drink.... And the flock brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted (young).

The physiological law involved is said to be well established (Driver), and was acted on by ancient cattle breeders (see the list of authorities in Bochart, Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ ii. chapter 49; and compare Jerome Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim ad loc.). The full representation seems to be that the ewes saw the reflexion of the rams in the water, blended with the image of the parti-coloured rods, and were deceived into thinking they were coupled with parti-coloured males (Jerome, Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 41).

* * * * *

‎ =37.= לבנה‎ (Hosea 4¹³†)] the ‘white’ tree; according to some, populus alba (Dillmann al.), but very probably _styrax officinalis_ (Arabic lubnaʸ, so called from its exuding a milk-like gum), (Gesenius, Delitzsch, Driver, al.).――לוּז‎†] = Aramaic לוּזָא‎, ‘almond tree.’――עַרְמוֹן‎ (Ezekiel 31⁸†)] _platanus orientalis_ (Assyrian irmeânu).――Instead of the last three words LXX has ἐφαίνετο δὲ ἐπὶ ταῖς ῥάβδοις τὸ λευκόν, ὃ ἐλέπισεν ποικίλον,――a very sensible comment, but hardly original. The whole clause ‘(with) a laying bare (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 r) of the white on the rods,’ is superfluous, and certainly looks like a variant.――בהן‎] plural; מקל‎ being collective.――=38 ff.= The text of Yahwist, as sifted by Wellhausen, commends itself by its lucidity and continuity. It is impossible to tell whether the interpolated words are variants from another source (Elohist?) or explanatory glosses.――=38.= רַהַט‎ (verse ⁴¹, Exodus 2¹⁶†)] either ‘trough,’ from Arabic rahaṭa, ‘be collected,’ or ‘runnel,’ from Aramaic רהט‎ = רוּץ‎ (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xii. 187).――שִׁקֲתוֹת‎] construction plural of שֹׁקֶת‎, 24²†.――The words בשקתות――לשתות‎ divorce לנכח הצאן‎ from its connexion, and must be omitted from the text of Yahwist. LXX appears to have changed הצאן ויחמנה‎ to המקלֹות‎, rendering thus (³⁸ᵇ) ἵνα ὡς ἂν ἔλθωσιν τὰ πρόβατα πιεῖν, ἐνώπιον τῶν ῥάβδων [καὶ] ἐλθόντων αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ πιεῖν, ἐνκισσήσωσιν (³⁹) τὰ πρόβατα――וַיֵּחַמְנָה‎] On the unusual preference of 3rd person feminine plural, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 k.――=39a= is a doublet to the last three words of ³⁸.――ויחמו‎] ib. § 69 f; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחמנה‎.

* * * * *

=40.= And (these) lambs Jacob set apart ... and made separate flocks for himself and did not add them to Laban’s stock (Wellhausen).――=41, 42.= A further refinement: Jacob employed his device only in the case of the sturdy animals, letting the weakly ones gender freely. The difference corresponds to a difference of breeding-time (v.i.). The consequence is that Jacob’s stock is hardy and Laban’s delicate.

* * * * *

=40.= ‘He set the faces of the flock towards a (sic) streaked and every dark one in Laban’s flock,’ is an imperfect text, and an impossible statement in Yahwist, where Laban’s cattle are three days distant. LXX vainly tries to make sense by omitting לָבָן‎, and rendering פְּנֵי‎ = ἐναντίον, and אֶל־עָקֹד‎ = κριὸν (אַיִל‎!) διάλευκον.――=41.= בּכל־‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, supply ‎ עֵת‎.――=42.= הקשרים‎, העטפים‎] LXX ἐπίσημα, ἄσημα; but Symmachus (paraphrasing) πρώϊμα ὄψιμα, and similarly Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ. It is the fact that the stronger sheep conceived in summer and yeaned in winter, while the weaker conceived in autumn and yeaned in the spring: Pliny, Naturalis Historia, viii. 187 (‘postea concepti invalidi’).

* * * * *

XXXI. 1‒XXXII. 1. Jacob’s Flight from Laban: their friendly Parting (Yahwist, Elohist).

Jacob perceives from the altered demeanour of Laban and his sons that he has outstayed his welcome (¹ᐧ ²); and, after consultation with his wives, resolves on a secret flight (³⁻²¹). Laban pursues, and overtakes him at Mt. Gilead (²²⁻²⁵), where, after a fierce altercation (²⁶⁻⁴³), they enter into a treaty of peace (from which Gilead receives its name), and separate with many demonstrations of goodwill (31⁴⁴‒32¹).

Sources.――¹⁻¹⁶ is an almost homogeneous (though perhaps not continuous) excerpt from Elohist: אלהים‎, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶; מַשְׂכֹּרָת‎, ⁷ (compare ⁴¹ 29¹⁵); מֹנִים‎, ⁷ (⁴¹); מַצֵבָה‎ ¹³; the revelation by dream, ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ; the summons and answer, ¹¹ (22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹); and the explanation of Jacob’s wealth ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; compare also the reference to 28²⁰⁻²². ¹ and ³ are from a Yahwist parallel: יהוה‎, ³; מוֹלַדְתְּךָ‎, ³; the ‘sons’ of Laban, ¹ (compare 30³⁵).――In ¹⁷⁻⁵⁴ Elohist still preponderates, though Yahwist is more largely represented than some critics (Dillmann, Kuenen, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.) allow. The detailed analysis is here very intricate, and will be best dealt with under the several sections.――¹⁸ (except the first four words) is the only extract from Priestly-Code.

=1‒16. Preparations for flight.=――=1, 3= (Yahwist). The jealousy of Laban’s sons corresponds to the dark looks of Laban himself in Elohist (verse ²); the divine communication is a feature of both narratives (verse ¹³).――=4‒13.= Jacob vindicates his conduct towards Laban, and sets forth the reasons for his projected flight. The motive of the speech is not purely literary, affording the writer an opportunity to express his belief in Jacob’s righteousness (Gunkel); it is first of all an appeal to the wives to accompany him: compare the question to Rebekah in 24⁵⁸.――=6.= Ye yourselves know, etc.] Compare 30²⁶ᐧ ²⁹. But to repeat the protestation after the work of the last six years implies great hardihood on Jacob’s part; and rather suggests that the passage belongs to a stratum of Elohist which said nothing about his tricks with the flock.――=7.= changed my wages ten times] Perhaps a round number, not to be taken literally.――=8.= A sample of Laban’s tergiversations, and their frustration by God’s providence.――=9.= And so God has taken away, etc.] The hand of God has been so manifest that Laban’s displeasure is altogether unreasonable.――=10‒12.= Jacob receives through a dream the explanation of the singular good fortune that has attended him.

In the text verses ¹⁰⁻¹² form part of the same revelation as that in which Jacob is commanded to depart (¹³). But, as Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 39) asks, “How could two such dissimilar revelations be coupled together in this way?” Verse ¹⁰ recalls an incident of the past, while ¹³ is in the sphere of the present: moreover, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ must surely open the communication. Wellhausen solves the difficulty by removing ¹⁰ and ¹² (assigning them to an unknown source), and leaving ¹¹ as the introduction to ¹³: similarly Dillmann, Holzinger, Oxford Hexateuch, al. Gunkel supposes parts of Jacob’s speech to have been omitted between ⁹ and ¹⁰ and between ¹² and ¹³.――It is scarcely possible to recover the original sense of the fragment. If the dream had preceded the negotiations with Laban, it might have been a hint to Jacob of the kind of animals he was to ask as his hire (Strack, Gunkel); but that is excluded by ¹²ᵇ; and, besides, in verse ⁸ it is Laban who fixes the terms of the contract. We can only understand it vaguely as an assurance to Jacob that against all natural expectations the transaction will be overruled to his advantage.

* * * * *

‎ =2.= איננו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אינם‎ (so verse ⁵).――=6.= אתנה‎] only here and thrice in Ezekiel (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 i).――=7.= והחלף‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויחלף‎.――עשרת מנִים‎] LXX (‘nescio qua opinione ducti’ [Jerome]) τῶν δέκα ἀμνῶν (so ⁴¹――probably a transliteration, afterwards made into a Greek word). מֹנִים‎ (⁴¹†) from √ מנה‎, ‘count,’ for the usual פְּעָמִים‎.――אלהים‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ יהוה‎ (so ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ).――=9.= את־‎] LXX אָת־כָּל־‎.――אביכם‎] for אביכן‎ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 o.

* * * * *

=13.= I am the God of Bethel] links this theophany with that of 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is (in Elohist) the first assurance given to Jacob that his vow (28²⁰⁻²²) had been accepted.――=14‒16.= Jacob’s appeal has been addressed to willing ears: his wives are already alienated from their father, and eagerly espouse their husband’s cause.――=14b.= Compare 2 Samuel 20¹, 1 Kings 12¹⁶.――=15.= has sold us] like slaves.――consumed our money] i.e., the price paid for us (compare Exodus 21³⁵). The complaint implies that it was considered a mark of meanness for a man to keep the mōhar for himself instead of giving it to his daughters. A similar change in the destination of the mahr appears in Arabia before Islam (Wellhausen Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1893, 434 f.).――=16.= is ours and our children’s] Elohist never mentions sons of Laban; and apparently looks on Leah and Rachel as the sole heiresses.

* * * * *

‎ =13.= האל ביתאל‎] The article with construct violates a well known rule of syntax (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 f); and it is doubtful if the anomaly be rightly explained by supposing the ellipsis of ‎ אֵל‎ or אֱלֹהֵי‎. The original text may have been הָאֵל [הַנִּרְאָה אֵלֶיךָ בִּמְקוֹם] בֵּיתְאֵל‎; (so [but without ביתאל‎] LXX, adopted by Ball); or האל[――ב]ביתאל‎ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Kittel).――ארץ מולדתך‎] see on 11²⁸. It is the only occurrence of מ׳‎ in Elohist.――LXX adds καὶ ἔσομαι μετὰ σοῦ.――=15.= נכריות‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate כְּנָ׳‎.――גם אכול‎] see on 27³³.――=16.= עשר‎] LXX + καὶ τὴν δόξαν.

* * * * *

=17‒25. The flight and pursuit.=――=18.= and drove away all his cattle] Hence the slowness of his march as compared with Laban’s (33¹³ᵇ).――The rest of the verse is from Priestly-Code (compare 12⁵ 36⁶ 46⁶).――to Isaac his father] 35²⁷.――=19.= Now Laban had gone to shear his flock] Sheep-shearing was the occasion of an important festival in ancient Israel (38¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 13²³).――With Rachel’s theft of the tĕrāphîm (the household idol: v.i.), compare Virgil Aeneid ii. 293 f., iii. 148 f.――=20.= stole the heart] (²⁶, 2 Samuel 15⁶†) ‘deceived’; the heart being the seat of intelligence (Hosea 4¹¹): compare ἔκλεψε νόον, Iliad xiv. 217.――the Aramæan (only here and ²⁴)] The emphasising of Laban’s nationality at this point is hard to explain. That it is the correction (by Elohist²) of an older version (Elohist¹), in which Laban was not an Aramæan (Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 236), is not probable. Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 422¹) regards it as a gloss, inserted with a view to verse ⁴⁷――=21.= crossed the River (Yahwist)] the Euphrates (Exodus 23³¹, Joshua 24² etc.).――=23.= his brethren] his fellow-clansmen. In the sequel Jacob also is surrounded by his clansmen (³⁷ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁵⁴),――a proof that tribal relations are clothed in the guise of individual biography.――seven days’ journey] The distance of Gilead from Ḥarran (circa 350 miles as the crow flies) is much too great to be traversed in that time.

If the verse be from Yahwist (Gunkel, Procksch), we must assume (what is no doubt conceivable) that the writer’s geographical knowledge was defective. But it is a strong reason for assigning the verse to Elohist, that in that source nothing is said of Ḥarran or the Euphrates, and Laban’s home is placed somewhere in the eastern desert (see 29¹).

* * * * *

=17‒25.= A complete analysis of the verses cannot be effected. The hand of Elohist is recognised in ¹⁹ᵇ (תְּרָפִים‎, compare ³⁰ 35² ᶠᶠᐧ), ²⁰, (? הָֽאֲרַמִּי‎, as ²⁴), and especially ²⁴ (אלהים‎, חֲלֹם‎; compare ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²). Yahwist betrays its presence chiefly by doublets: ²¹ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁷ (וַיָּקָם‎), and ²⁵ᵃ ∥ ²³ᵇ (וַיַּשֵּׂג‎, וַיַּדְבֵּק‎). The assignment of ²¹ᵃ{β} to Yahwist is warranted by the mention of the Euphrates: hence ¹⁷ is Elohist. Further than this we cannot safely go. Gunkel’s division (¹⁹ᵃᐧ ²¹⁻²³ᐧ ²⁵ᵇ = Yahwist; ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ{α}ᐧ ¹⁹ᵇᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᵃ = Elohist) is open to the objection that it ignores the discrepancy between the seven days of ²³ᵃ and the crossing of the Euphrates in ²¹ᵃ (see on ²³ above); but is otherwise attractive. Meyer (235 ff.) gets rid of the geographical difficulty by distinguishing two strata in Elohist, of which the later had been accommodated to the representation of Yahwist.――¹⁸ (from וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכֻשׁוֹ‎) is obviously Priestly-Code.――=17.= sons and wives] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX ‘wives and sons.’――=18.= LXX omits the clause אֲשֶׁר――קִנְיָנוֹ‎ (so Peshiṭtå); and adds after אֲרָ֑ם‎, καὶ πάντα τὰ αὐτοῦ.――=19.= תְּרָפִים‎] A plural of eminence, like אֱלֹהִים‎, etc.; hence it is doubtful whether one image or several is here referred to. The teraphim was a god (³⁰), its form and size were those of a man (1 Samuel 19¹³ᐧ ¹⁶), it was used in private houses as well as in temples (Judges 17⁵ 18¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Hosea 3⁴), and was an implement of divination (Ezekiel 21²⁶, Zechariah 10²). The indications point to its being an emblem of ancestor-worship which survived in Israel as a private superstition, condemned by the enlightened conscience of the nation (35², 1 Samuel 15²³, 2 Kings 23²⁴). It seems implied by the present narrative that the cult was borrowed from the Aramæans, or perhaps rather that it had existed before the separation of Hebrews and Aramæans. (See Moore, Judges 379 ff.)――=20.= על־בלי‎] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, is difficult. על‎ for על אשר‎ is rare and poetic (Psalms 119¹³⁶: Brown-Driver-Briggs, 758 a); ‎ בלי‎ (poetic for לא‎) is also rare with finite verb (ib. 115 b). Since the following clause is a specification of the preceding, ‘wegen Mangels davon dass’ (Dillmann) is not a suitable rendering. We should expect לְבִלְתִּי הַגִּיד‎, ‘in not telling him that,’ etc.: The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch has עד בלתי‎.――=22.= ללבן‎] LXX + τῷ Σύρῳ.

* * * * *

=24.= God (not the Angel of God, as verse ¹¹) warns Laban in a dream to take heed to his words when he encounters Jacob.――good or bad] ‘anything whatever’ (24⁵⁰, 2 Samuel 13²² etc.). Laban did not interpret the prohibition literally (²⁹).――=25.= in the mountain ...] The idea suggested being that Jacob and Laban encamped each on a different mountain, we must suppose the name to have been omitted. The insertion of Miẓpāh (verse ⁴⁹) is strongly recommended by Judges 10¹⁷ (see Ball, 88).――On the situation of Mount Gilead, see page 402 f.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= אחיו‎] Better אָֽהֳלוֹ‎ (Ball).

* * * * *

=26‒43. The altercation.=

The subjects of recrimination are: on Laban’s part, (a) the secret flight, (b) the carrying off of his daughters, and (c) the theft of his god; on Jacob’s part, (d) the hardships of his 20 years’ service, and (e) the attempts to defraud him of his hire. Of these, b, c, and e certainly belong to Elohist; a and d more probably to Yahwist.――In detail, the verses that can be confidently assigned to Elohist are: ²⁶ (גָּנַב לֵב‎, as ²⁰), ²⁸ (continuation of ²⁶), ²⁹ (compare ²⁴), ³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ (תרפים‎), ⁴¹ (‘ten times’), ⁴² (compare ²⁴ᐧ ²⁹) and ⁴³ (because of the connexion with ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸): note also אֱלֹהים‎, ²⁹ᐧ ⁴²; אֲמָהֹת‎, ³³. The sequence of Elohist is interrupted by ²⁷ ⁽∥ ²⁶⁾ᐧ ³¹ᵇ (the natural answer to ²⁷), ³⁶ᵃ ⁽∥ ³⁶ᵇ⁾: these clauses are accordingly assigned to Yahwist; along with ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ (a parallel to ⁴¹ ᶠᐧ). The analysis (which is due to Gunkel) yields for Elohist a complete narrative: ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³¹ᵃᐧ ³²⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁶ᵇᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³. The Yahwistic parallel is all but complete (²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᵃᐧ ᵇᐧ ³⁶ᵃᐧ ³⁸⁻⁴⁰); but we miss something after ³¹ to account for Jacob’s exasperation in ³⁶. We may suppose (with Gunkel) that Laban had accused Jacob of stealing his flocks, and that ³⁸⁻⁴⁰ is a reply to this charge.――Procksch’s division is slightly different.

=26‒28.= Laban offers a sentimental pretext for his warlike demonstration: in Elohist his slighted affection for his offspring (²⁸); in Yahwist his desire to honour a parting guest (²⁷).――=27.= with mirth and music] This manner of speeding the parting guest is not elsewhere mentioned in Old Testament.――=29.= It is in my power (v.i.) to do you harm]――but for the interposition of God.――=30.= Thou hast gone off forsooth, because forsooth, etc.] The infinitives absolute express irony (Davidson § 86).――stolen my god(s)] This is a serious matter, and leads up to the chief scene of the dispute.――=32.= Jacob is so sure of the innocence of his household that he offers to give up the culprit to death if the theft can be proved: a similar enhancement of dramatic interest in 44⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=33‒35.= The search for the teraphim is described with a touch of humour, pointed with sarcasm at a prevalent form of idolatry.――=34.= Rachel had hidden the idol in the camel’s litter or palanquin (Burckhardt Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys ii. 85; Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 437, ii. 304; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1124), in which she was apparently resting within the tent, on account of her condition.――=35.= דֶּרֶךְ נָשִׁים‎ = אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים‎ (18¹¹, Yahwist). Women in this condition were protected by a powerful taboo (compare Leviticus 15¹⁹ etc.).――=36, 37.= Jacob now turns on Laban, treating the accusation about the teraphim as mere pretext for searching his goods.――=38‒40= (Yahwist). A fine picture of the ideal shepherd, solicitous for his master’s interests, sensitive to the least suspicion of fraud, and careless of his personal comfort.――=39.= I brought not to thee] as a witness (Exodus 22¹²). Jacob had thus gone far beyond his legal obligation.――made it good] literally ‘counted it missing.’――=40.= heat by day and frost by night] Jeremiah 36⁸⁰. Under the clear skies of the East the extreme heat of the day is apt to be followed by intense cold at night (see Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 69 ff.).――=41, 42= (Elohist). the Fear of Isaac] The deity feared and worshipped by Isaac (⁵³†). That פַּחַד יִצְחָק‎ meant originally the terror inspired by Isaac, the local deity of Beersheba (Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 254 f.), is a hazardous speculation.――=43.= Laban maintains his right, but speedily adopts a more pathetic tone, leading on to the pacific proposal of ⁴⁴.――The question what shall I do to ...?] means ‘what last kindness can I show them?’ (Gunkel, Driver); not ‘how can I do them harm?’ (Dillmann and most).

* * * * *

=26, 27.= LXX omits ותגנב את־לבבי‎, and transposes ²⁷ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᵇ.――=27.= ולא‎] LXX וְלֻא‎, which is perhaps better than Massoretic Text.――=28.= נטש‎] usually ‘reject’ or ‘abandon’; only here = ‘allow.’――עשו‎] for עֲשׂוֹת‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 n).――=29.= יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי‎] Micah 2¹, Proverbs 3²⁷, Sirach 5¹ (Deuteronomy 28³², Nehemiah 5⁵). The meaning is certain (‘be within one’s power’), but the expression is very obscure. The current explanations (both represented in the Versions) are: (1) That אֵל‎ is an abstract noun = ‘power,’ and ‎ יָדִי‎ genitive. (2) That יָדִי‎ is subject of the sentence and אֵל‎ the word for God: ‘my hand is for a God.’ The first depends on a singular sense of אֵל‎; and for the second יש לי ידי לאל‎ would have been more natural. A third view has recently been propounded by Brockelmann (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxvi. 29 ff.), who renders ‘it belongs to the God of my hand,’ a survival of a primitive belief in special deities or spirits animating different members of the body (compare Tylor, _Primitive Culture_⁴ ii. 127).――עמכם‎, אביכם‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX have singular suffix.――=30.= אביך‎] LXX + ἀπελθεῖν· καί. The וְ‎ should probably be restored.――=31.= LXX omits כי יראתי‎.――=32.= The opening words in LXX וַיֹאמֶר לוֹ יַֽעֲקֹב‎ may be original, introducing the duplicate from Elohist.――=32b.= is preceded in LXX by the variant καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω παρ’ αὐτῷ οὐθέν.――=33.= לבן‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + זיחבש‎ (read ויחפש‎); so LXX.――The clause ³³ᵃ{β} disagrees with what follows, and may be a gloss. LXX reduces the discrepancy by omissions, and a complete rearrangement of clauses.――=36.= מַה‎²] Read וּמַה‎ with Hebrew MSS The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――=39.= On אֲחַטֶּנָּה‎ for ‎ אֲחַטְּאָנָּה‎, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 k or 75 oo.――גנבתי יום ‎ וג׳ לילה‎ is probably an archaic technical phrase, preserving an old case-ending (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 l).――=40.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 a.――=41.= These twenty years] The repetition (verse ³⁸) would, as Dillmann says, not be surprising in animated speech; and is not of itself evidence of a change of source. But Jacob’s oratory is more dignified if relieved of this slight touch of affectation.――זה‎] not here a pronoun but used adverbially, as 27³⁶ etc. (see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 261 b).――=42.= אלהי אברהם‎ may be a gloss (Gunkel): LXX omits אלהי‎.

* * * * *

=44‒54. The treaty of Gilead.=

Evidences of a double recension appear in every circumstance of the narrative. (a) Two names are explained: Gilead (⁴⁸ᵇ), and Miẓpāh (⁴⁹ᵃ); (b) two sacred monuments are erected, a cairn (⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²), and a monolith (⁴⁵ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²); (c) the covenant feast is twice recorded (⁴⁶ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴); (d) the terms of the covenant are given in two forms: (1) Jacob will not ill-treat Laban’s daughters (⁵⁰), and (2) the cairn is to mark the boundary between two peoples (⁵²); (e) God is twice called to witness (⁴⁹ ᶠᐧ ⁵³). To arrange these duplicates in two parallel series is difficult, because of the numerous glosses and dislocations of the text; but some connecting lines can be drawn. Since Yahwist always avoids the word מַצֵּבָה‎ (page 378), we assume first of all that the monolith (and consequently Miẓpāh) belongs to Elohist, and the cairn to Yahwist. Now the cairn goes with the frontier treaty (⁵¹ᐧ ⁵² [removing glosses], Yahwist), and Miẓpāh with the family compact (⁴⁹, Elohist). To Yahwist we must obviously assign ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸, and also (if we may suppose that only the גַּל‎ was spoken of as an עֵד‎) ⁴⁴; while Elohist as naturally claims ⁴⁵. At the end, ⁵³ᵇ is Elohist (פחד יצחק‎, compare ⁴²), and likewise ⁵⁴ (the feast, ∥ ⁴⁶, Yahwist). ⁵³ᵃ is probably Yahwist: note the difference of divine names. Thus: ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁶ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹⁻⁵³ᵃ = Yahwist; ⁴⁵ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵³ᵇᐧ ⁵⁴ = Elohist.――The analysis is due to Holzinger and Gunkel; Procksch practically agrees, with the important difference that the parts of Yahwist and Elohist are (quite wrongly, as it seems to me) interchanged. It is superior to the schemes of Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, al., which assign the cairn and the maẓẓebāh to the same sources.――The principal glosses (many of which excite suspicion apart from the analysis) are יעקב‎ in ⁴⁵ and ⁴⁶; verses ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᵃ{α}; והנה המצבה‎ in ⁵¹; ועדה המצבה‎ and ואת־המצבה הזאת‎ in ⁵²: on these v.i. Nearly all are retained by LXX, where, however, the confusion is increased by a complete change in the order of clauses: ⁴⁸ᵃᐧ ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸ᵇᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁰ᵃᐧ ⁵²ᵇ,――⁵⁰ᵇ being inserted after ⁴⁴.――The analysis works out in translation as follows (glosses being enclosed in square brackets, and necessary additions and corrections in ⌜⌝):

Yahwist: ⁴⁴ And now (the speaker Elohist: ⁴⁵ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. is Laban), come, let us make a Laban) [Jacob] took a stone and covenant, I and thou; ... and it set it up as a pillar. ⁴⁹ᵃ{β}ᵇ shall be for a witness between ⌜and he said⌝, May ⌜God⌝ [Yahwe] me and thee. ⁴⁶ And ⌜he⌝ (i.e. watch between me and thee, Laban) [Jacob], said to his when we are hidden from one brethren, Gather stones; and another. ⁵⁰ If thou ill-treat they took stones, and made a my daughters, or take other cairn, and they ate there upon wives besides my daughters, no the cairn. [⁴⁷ And Laban called man being with us, see, God is it Yᵉgar Sāhădûthā, but Jacob witness between me and thee. ⁵³ᵇ called it Gal‛ēd.] ⁴⁸ And And Jacob swore by the Fear of Laban said, This cairn is a his father Isaac. ⁵⁴ And Jacob witness between me and thee offered a sacrifice on the this day; therefore he called mountain and called his brethren its name ⌜Gil‛ad⌝ [⁴⁹ᵃ{α} and to eat bread; and they ate Miẓpah, for he said]. ⁵¹ And bread, and spent the night on Laban said to Jacob, Behold this the mountain. cairn [and behold the pillar] which I have thrown up between me and thee――⁵² a witness is this cairn [and a witness is the pillar]: I will not pass this cairn to thee, and thou shalt not pass this cairn [and this pillar] to me, with evil intent. ⁵³ᵃ The God of Abraham and the God of Naḥor be Judge between us! [the God of their father].

=44.= Compare 21²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――The subject of וְהָיָה‎ cannot be בְּרִית‎, which is feminine, and is rather the fact to be witnessed to than a witness of something else. There must be a lacuna before והיה‎, where we must suppose that some material object (probably the cairn: compare ⁴⁸, Yahwist) was mentioned.――=45= (Elohist). And he took a stone] Since it is Laban who explains the meaning of the stone (⁴⁹), it must have been he who set it up; hence יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is to be deleted as a false explication of the implicit subject.――set it on high as a maẓẓebāh] see 28¹⁸ᐧ ²². The monolith may have stood on an eminence and formed a conspicuous feature of the landscape (Dillmann).――=46= (Yahwist). And he (Laban) said, etc.] Here יַֽעֲקֹב‎ is certainly wrong, for Laban expressly says that the cairn was raised by him (⁵¹).――a cairn] גַּל‎ means simply a heap of stones (v.i.), not a rampart (Wellhausen, Dillmann). The idea that the גַּל‎ was originally the mountain range of Gilead itself, Laban and Jacob being conceived as giants (Wellhausen, Gunkel, Meyer), has certainly no support in the text.――they ate upon the cairn] The covenant feast, which may very well have preceded the covenant ceremony; see 26³⁰.――=47.= In spite of its interesting and philologically correct notice, the verse must unfortunately be assigned to a glossator, for the reasons given below.――=48= (Yahwist). Laban explains the purpose of the cairn, and names it accordingly: cairn of witness.] The stone heap is personified, and was no doubt in ancient times regarded as animated by a deity (compare Joshua 24²⁷). ‎גַּלְעֵד‎ is, of course, an artificial formation, not the real or original pronunciation of גִּלְעָד‎.――=49= (Elohist). And [the] Miẓpāh, for he said] The text, if not absolutely ungrammatical, is a very uncouth continuation of ⁴⁸ᵇ, with which in the primary documents it had nothing to do; see further inf.――May God (read so with LXX) watch] Miẓpāh means ‘watch-post.’ On its situation, see page 403.――=50.= The purport of the covenant, according to Elohist. Jacob swears (⁵³ᵇ) that he will not maltreat Laban’s daughters, nor even marry other wives besides them. The latter stipulation has a parallel in a late Babylonian marriage contract (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iv. 187, Number XI.).――God is witness] The idea is less primitive than that of Yahwist, where the witness is an inanimate object.――We observe how the religious sanction is invoked where human protection fails (compare 20¹¹ 42¹⁸, both Elohist).――=51‒53a.= The terms of the covenant in Yahwist: neither party (people) is to pass the cairn with hostile intent. All the references to the maẓẓebāh (⁵¹ᵇᐧ ⁵²ᵃᐧ ᵇ) are to be deleted as glosses. ――The God of Abraham ... Nāḥôr] Whether a polytheistic differentiation of two gods is attributed to Laban can hardly be determined. The plural verb would not necessarily imply this in Elohist (see 20¹³), though in Yahwist it might.――=53b, 54.= The covenant oath and feast in Elohist.――The Fear of ... Isaac] See on verse ⁴².――=54.= his brethren] not Laban and his companions, but his own fellow-clansmen (verse ³⁷).――spent the night, etc.] Is this part of the religious ceremony? (Gunkel).

The Scene of the Treaty.――The name Gil‛ād (often with article) in Old Testament is sometimes applied to the whole region Elohist of the Jordan (Joshua 22⁹ etc.), but more properly denotes the mountain range (הַר הַגִּלְעָד‎) extending from the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Kings 10³³ etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into two parts (Joshua 12²), corresponding to the modern Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn and el-Belḳā, North and South respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name Ǧebel Ǧil‛ād still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit of Ǧebel Ōsha‛, North of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities Ǧil‛ād and Ǧal‛aud (Burckhardt. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the first instance for the ‘cairn of witness’ from which the mountain and the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the North, has not yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not have been so far South. These reasons have prevailed with most modern authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the North or North-east of Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either Yahwist or Elohist (see the next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob’s march applies only to Yahwist, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob’s dealings with Laban before proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion a departure from strict geographical consistency.¹――The site of Miẓpāh has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that Yahwist and Elohist thought of the same locality. East of the Jordan there was a Miẓpāh (Judges 10¹⁷ 11¹¹ᐧ ³⁴, Hosea 5¹) which is thought to be the same as מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד‎ (Judges 11²⁹) and רָמַת הַמִּצְפֶּה‎ (Joshua 13²⁶); but whether it lay South or North of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil‛ād, and of this with er-Remte, South-west of the ancient Edrei, is precarious. The name (‘watch-post’) was a common one, and may readily be supposed to have occurred more than once East of the Jordan. See Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 586; Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 262; Driver in smaller A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v.; and on the whole of this note, compare Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 149 ff.

¹ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob’s route, as described in chapters 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead, Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see page 408). The impossibility of the current identifications (e.g. those of Merrill and Conder), _as stages of an actual itinerary_, is clearly shown by Driver in _The Expository Times_, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification of Gilead with Ǧil‛ād, of Mahanaim with Maḥne (page 405), of the Ford with Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh (page 408), becomes feasible.

Historical Background of 31⁴⁴⁻⁵⁴.――The treaty of Gilead in Yahwist evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that the situation reflected is that of the Syrian wars which raged from circa 860 to circa 770 B.C. (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 320 f.). Gunkel (page 312) has, however, pointed out objections to this assumption; and has given strong reasons for believing that the narratives refer to an earlier date than 860. The story reads more like the record of a loose understanding between neighbouring and on the whole friendly tribes, than of a formal treaty between two highly organised states like Israel and Damascus; and it exhibits no trace of the intense national animosity which was generated during the Syrian wars. In this connexion, Meyer’s hypothesis that in the original tradition Laban represented the early unsettled nomads of the eastern desert (see page 334), acquires a new interest. Considering the tenacity with which such legends cling to a locality, there is no difficulty in supposing that in this case the tradition goes back to some prehistoric settlement of territorial claims between Hebrews and migratory Aramæans. It is true that Meyer’s theory is based on notices peculiar to Elohist, while the tribal compact belongs to Yahwist; and it may appear hazardous to go behind the documents and build speculations on a substratum of tradition common to both. But the only material point in which Yahwist differs from Elohist is his identification of Laban with the Aramæans of Ḥarran; and this is not inconsistent with the interpretation here suggested. In any case, his narrative gives no support to the opinion that he has in view the contemporary political relations with the kingdom of Damascus.

* * * * *

=44b.= The omitted words (v.s.) might be וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה גַל‎ or some such expression (Olshausen, Dillmann, Ball, Gunkel, al.). To the end of the verse LXX appends: εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰακωβ, Ἰδοὺ οὐθεὶς μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐστίν· ἰδὲ ὁ θεὸς μάρτυς ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ (from verse ⁵⁰).――=46.= ויקחו‎] LXX וַיִּלְקְטוּ‎.――גַּל‎] From √ גלל‎ ‘roll’ (stones, 29³, Joshua 10¹⁸, 1 Samuel 14³³, Proverbs 26²⁷). On sacred stone-heaps among the Arabs, see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 111 f. (with which compare Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta i. 26, 81, 431); Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion to-day, 80 (cairn as witness); on the eating upon the cairn, Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, 131 ff.――=47.= יְגַר שָֽׂחֲדוּתָא‎ is the precise Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew ‎ גַל עֵד‎, ‘heap of witness.’ The decisive reasons for rejecting the verse are: (1) It stands out of its proper place, anticipating ⁴⁸ᵇ; (2) it contradicts ⁴⁸ᵇ, where the Hebrew name גַּלְעֵד‎ is given by Laban; (3) it assumes (contrary to the implication of all the patriarchal narratives) that the Naḥorites spoke a different dialect from the ancestors of the Hebrews. It may be added that the Aramaic phrase shows the glossator to have taken ‎ גַּלְעֵד‎ as construct and genitive, whereas the latter in ⁴⁸ᵇ is more probably a sentence ‘the heap is witness’ (see Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 10 f.). The actual name ‏[הַ]גִּלְעָד‎ is usually, but dubiously, explained by Arabic ǧal‛ad ‘hard,’ ‘firm.’――=48.= על־כן קרא שמו‎] so 11⁹ 19²² 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ (all Yahwist), 25³⁰ (Yahwist?).――=49.= וְהַמִּצְפָּה‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch והמצבה‎, which Wellhausen thinks the original name of the place, afterwards changed to המצפה‎ because of the evil associations of the word maẓẓebāh. He instances the transcription of LXX Μασσηφα, as combining the consonants of the new name with the vowels of the old (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 44¹). The argument is precarious; but there seems to be a word-play between the names; and since the opening is evidently corrupt, it is possible that both stood in the text. Ball’s restoration והמצבה אשר [הֵרִים קָרָא הַמִּצְפָּה כִּי] אמר‎ has met with the approval of several scholars (Holzinger, Strack); but as the sequence to ⁴⁵ we should rather expect וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הַמִּצְפָּה‎. LXX has καὶ Ἡ ὅρασις, ἣν εἶπεν, following Massoretic Text.――יהוה‎] LX אלהים‎ must be adopted if the verse is rightly ascribed to Elohist.――=51.= המצבה‎] LXX + הַזֹּאת‎ (so verse ⁵²).――אשׁר יריתי‎] ‘which I have thrown up.’ ‎ ירה‎, ‘throw,’ is most commonly used of shooting arrows, and only here of piling up stones. Once it means to lay (jacere) a foundation (Job 38⁶), but it could hardly be applied to the erection of a pillar. It is an advantage of the analysis given above that it avoids the necessity of retaining the maẓẓebāh as object of יריתי‎ and rejecting the cairn.――=52.= אם――לא‎ (bis)] The double negative is contrary to the usage of asseverative sentences (compare ⁵⁰), but may be explained by an anakolouthon (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 167 b).――את־הגל הזה‎] LXX omits.――=53.= ישׁפטו‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִשְׁפֹּט‎.――אלהי אביהם‎] LXX and Hebrew MSS omit, The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch א׳ אברהם‎, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Probably a margin gloss to ⁵³ᵃ.――=XXXII. 1.= וילך וישב‎] LXX וַיָּשָׁב וַיֵּלֶךְ‎.

* * * * *

XXXII. 2‒33. _Jacob’s Measures for propitiating Esau: His Wrestling with the Deity at Peniel_ (Yahwist, Elohist).

After a vision of angels at Maḥanaim (²ᐧ ³), Jacob sends a humble message announcing his arrival to Esau, but learns to his consternation that his brother is advancing to meet him with 400 men (⁴⁻⁷). He divides his company into two bands, and invokes God’s help in prayer (⁸⁻¹⁴ᵃ); then prepares a present for Esau, and sends it on in advance (¹⁴ᵇ⁻²²). Having thus done all that human foresight could suggest, he passes a lonely night in the ravine of the Jabboḳ, wrestling with a mysterious antagonist, who at daybreak blesses him and changes his name to Israel (²³⁻³³).

Sources.――Verses ²ᐧ ³ are an isolated fragment of Elohist ‎ (מלאכי אלהים‎, פָּגַע בּ‎, [28¹¹]); ⁴⁻¹⁴ᵃ and ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² are parallels (compare ¹⁴ᵃ with ²²ᵇ), the former from Yahwist יהוה‎, ¹⁰; שפחה‎, ⁶; מולדת‎, ‎ ¹⁰; מצא חן‎, ⁶; contrast the implied etymology of מַחֲנַיִם‎ in ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ with Elohist’s in ³): ¹⁴ᵇ⁻²² must therefore be Elohist, though positive marks of that writer’s style cannot be detected.――On the complicated structure of ²³⁻³³ (Jehovist), see page 407 below.

=2, 3. The legend of Maḥanaim.=――=2.= angels ... met him] The verb for ‘meet,’ as here construed (v.i.), usually means to ‘oppose.’――=3.= This is God’s camp] or a camp of gods. The idea of divine armies appears elsewhere in Old Testament (compare Joshua 5¹⁴), and perhaps underlies the expression ‘Host of heaven’ and the name Yahwe Ẓebā’ôth.――Maḥanaim is here apparently not regarded as a dual (contrast ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹). On its site, v.i.

The brief statement of the text seems to be a torso of a legend which had gathered round the name Maḥanaim, whose original meaning has been lost. The curtailment probably indicates that the sequel was objectionable to the religious feeling of later times; and it has been surmised that the complete story told of a conflict between Jacob and the angels (originally divine beings), somewhat similar to the wrestling of verses ²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ (Gunkel, Bennett). The word ‘camp’ (compare the fuller text of LXX inf.), and the verbal phrase פגע ב‎ both suggest a warlike encounter.

* * * * *

=2.= After לדרכו‎ LXX inserts καὶ ἀναβλέψας τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἴδεν παρεμβολὴν θεοῦ παρεμβεβληκυῖαν, enhancing the vividness of the description.――פָּגַע בְּ‎] = ‘encounter with hostility,’ Judges 8²¹ 15¹² 18²⁵, 1 Samuel 22¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 1¹⁵, 1 Kings 2²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ruth 2²²; = ‘intercede,’ Job 21¹⁵, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ 27¹⁸, Ruth 1¹⁶. The neutral sense ‘meet,’ with personsal objective, is doubtfully supported by Numbers 35¹⁹ᐧ ²¹, Joshua 2¹⁶, where hostile intention is evidently implied: elsewhere this is expressed by accusative personsal (Exodus 5²⁰ 23⁴, 1 Samuel 10⁵, Amos 5¹⁹). Genesis 28¹¹ is somewhat different, the object being impersonal (compare the use in Joshua 16⁷ 17¹⁰ etc.).――=3.= מחנים‎] an important East Jordanic city and sanctuary, the capital of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 2⁸), and David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absalom (2 Samuel 17²⁴ᐧ ²⁷), the centre of a fiscal district under Solomon (1 Kings 4¹⁴). The situation of Maḥne or Miḥne on Wādī el-Ḥimār, some 14 miles North of the Jabboḳ (see Buhl, Geographie des alten Palaestina, 257), suits all the other references (compare Joshua 13²⁶ᐧ ³⁰――the boundary of Gad and Manasseh), but is too far from the Jabboḳ for this narrative (verse ²³). On the ending, which is probably no real dual, see on 24¹⁰.

* * * * *

=4‒14a. Jacob’s precautionary measures= (Yahwist).――=4.= Isaac’s death and Esau’s settlement in the country afterwards occupied by his descendants are here assumed to have already taken place: otherwise Priestly-Code (36⁶).――=5, 6.= We note the extreme servility of Jacob’s language:――my lord ... thy servant ... find grace,――dictated by fear of his brother’s vengeance (27⁴¹). In substance the message is nothing but an announcement of his arrival and his great wealth (compare 33¹² ᶠᶠᐧ) The shepherd, with all his success, is at the mercy of the fierce marauder who was to ‘live by his sword’ (27⁴⁰).――=7.= The messengers return with the ominous news that Esau is already on the march with 400 men. How he was ready to strike so far north of his own territory is a difficulty (see page 415).――=8, 9.= Jacob’s first resource is to divide his company into two camps, in the hope that one might escape while the other was being captured. The arrangement is perhaps adverted to in 33⁸.――=10‒13.= Jacob’s prayer, consisting of an invocation (¹⁰), thanksgiving (¹¹), petition (¹²), and appeal to the divine faithfulness (¹³), is a classic model of Old Testament devotion (Gunkel); though the element of confession, so prominent in later supplications, is significantly absent.――=12.= mother with (or on) children] Hosea 10¹⁴; compare Deuteronomy 22⁶. A popular saying,――the mother conceived as bending over the children to protect them (Tuch).――=14a.= spent that night there] i.e., at Maḥanaim (verse ²²). We may suppose (with Wellhausen, Gunkel) that an explicit etymology, based on the ‘two camps’ (verses ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), preceded or followed this clause.

Verses ¹⁰⁻¹³ appear to be one of the later expansions of the Yahwistic narrative, akin to 13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴. They can be removed without loss of continuity, ¹⁴ᵃ being a natural continuation of ⁹. The insertion gives an interpretation to the ‘two camps’ at variance with the primary motive of the division (verse ⁹); and its spirit is different from that of the narrative in which it is embedded. Compare also חול הים‎ with 22¹⁷, ‎ לא יספר מרב‎ with 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. See Gunkel 316.

* * * * *

‎ =4.= לפניו‎] LXX omits――שדה אדום‎] (compare Judges 5⁴) is probably a gloss on ארצה שעיר‎.――=5.= תאמרון‎] compare 18²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ――וָאֵחַר‎] for וָאֶֽאֱחַר‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 h).――=6.= ואשלחה‎] Cohortative form with vav consecutive――chiefly late; see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 69 Obsolete, § 72; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 e.――=8.= וַיֵּצֶר‎] √ צרר‎ intransitive = ‘be cramped’; on the form, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 p.――והגמלים‎] LXXᴬ omits and transposes ואת־הבקר ואת־הצאן‎.――שני מחנות‎] That this implies an etymology of Maḥanaim, and that Yahwist located the incident there, cannot reasonably be doubted (as by Holzinger). The name is obviously regarded as a dual (in contrast to verse ³), showing that the current pronunciation is very ancient (Dillmann).――=9.= האחת‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ האחד‎ (masculine), which is demanded by the context, as well as by prevailing usage (Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 52).――=11.= קטנתי ‎ מן‎] ‘too insignificant for’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 c.――הירדן הזה‎] The writer apparently locates Maḥanaim in the vicinity of the Jordan; but the allusion, in an editorial passage, has perhaps no great topographical importance.

* * * * *

=14b‒22. The present for Esau= (Elohist).――=14.= a present] Not ‘tribute’ (as often) in acknowledgment of vassalage, but (as 43¹¹, 2 Kings 8⁸ ᶠᐧ) a gift to win favour.――=17‒20.= By arranging the cattle in successive droves following at considerable intervals, Jacob hopes to wear out Esau’s resentment by a series of surprises. The plan has nothing in common with the two ‘camps’ of verse ⁸ ᶠᐧ in Yahwist.――=21a.= A repetition of ¹⁹ᵇ: Jacob lays stress on this point, because the effect would obviously be weakened if a garrulous servant were to let out the secret that other presents were to follow.――=21b.= Let me pacify him] literally ‘cover’ (or ‘wipe clean’) his face,――the same figure, though in different language, as 20¹⁶. On כִּפֶּר‎, see _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 381; A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 128 f.――see his face] ‘obtain access to his presence’: compare 43³ᐧ ⁵ 44²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 10²⁸, 2 Samuel 14 ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³², 2 Kings 25¹⁹, Esther 1¹⁴. The phrase is thought to convey an allusion to Pĕnû’ēl (Gunkel); see on 33¹⁰.――=22.= spent ... camp (בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה‎)] compare ¹⁴ᵃ. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 46) renders ‘in Maḥaneh’ (i.e. Maḥanaim), but the change is hardly justified.

* * * * *

‎ =14.= מן־הבא‎] Article with participle (not perfect); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 k; Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 57 f.――מנחה‎] see on 4³.――=17.= ‎ רֶוַח‎ (Esther 4¹⁴†)] √ רָוַח‎, ‘be wide’ (1 Samuel 16²³, Job 32²⁰).――=18.= On the forms יִֽפְגָּשְׁךָ‎ (Ben Naphtali), יָֽפִגָֽשֲׁךָ‎ (Ben Asher), see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 9 v, 10 g (c), 60 b, [and Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Genesis page 85]; and on ושאֵֽלך‎, § 64 f.――=20.= ויצו‎] LXX + τῷ πρώτῳ.――מֹצַֽאֲכֶם‎] irregular infinitive for מָצְאֲכֶם‎ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 74 h, 93 q).――=21.= ‎ יעקב‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + בָּא‎.

* * * * *

=23‒33. The wrestling at Peniel= (Jehovist).――=23, 24.= The crossing of the Jabboḳ. The Yabbōḳ is now almost universally, and no doubt correctly, identified with the Nahr es-Zerḳā (Blue River), whose middle course separates Ǧebel ‛Aǧlūn from el-Belḳā, and which flows into the Jordan about 25 miles North of the Dead Sea. See Smend, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, 137 ff.; and the descriptions in Riehm, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_² 665; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 583‒5.――The ford referred to cannot be determined; that of Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh, where the road from Ǧeraš to es-Salṭ crosses the deep narrow gorge which cleaves the mountains of Gilead, as described by Thomson (The Land and the Book, iii. 583 ff.) and Tristram (_Land of Israel_³, 549), supplies a more fitting background for the weird struggle about to be narrated than the one in the Jordan valley; but on the difficulties of this identification, see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 459.

The passage of the river seems to be twice described, ²⁴ᵃ and ²⁴ᵇ being apparently doublets. The former continues ²³ᵃ, which belongs to Yahwist (שפחה‎). Following this clue, we may divide thus: ²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᵃ = Yahwist; ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁴ᵇ = Elohist (so Gunkel). While Elohist implies that Jacob crossed with his company, the account of Yahwist is consistent with the statement of ²⁵ᵃ, that after sending the others across he himself was ‘left alone.’ On any view the action is somewhat perplexing. To cross a ford by night, with flocks, etc., was a dangerous operation, only to be explained by apprehension of an attack from Esau (Wellhausen). But Esau is represented as advancing from the south; and Jacob is in haste to put his people and possessions on that side of the river on which they were exposed to attack. Either the narrative is defective at this point, or it is written without a clear conception of the actual circumstances.

* * * * *

=23‒33.= The analysis of the passage is beset by insurmountable difficulties. While most recognise doublets in ²³ ᶠᐧ (v.s.), ²⁵⁻³³ have generally been regarded as a unity, being assigned to Yahwist by Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, Driver, al.; but by Dillmann to Elohist. In the view of more recent critics, both Yahwist and Elohist are represented, though there is the utmost variety of opinion in regard to details. In the notes above, possible variants have been pointed out in ²⁶ᵃ ∥ ²⁶ᵇ (the laming of the thigh) and ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ ∥ ³⁰ (the name and the blessing); to these may be added the still more doubtful case ³¹ ∥ ³² (Peniel, Penuel). As showing traces of more primitive conceptions, ²⁶ᵃ and ³⁰ would naturally go together, and also ²⁷ for the same reason. Since Yahwist prefers the name Israel in the subsequent history, there is a slight presumption that ²⁸ ᶠᐧ belong to him; and the אלהים‎ of ³¹ points (though not decisively) to Elohist. Thus we should obtain, for Elohist: ²⁶ᵃᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹; leaving for Yahwist: ²⁶ᵇᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³²: verse ³³ may be a gloss. The result corresponds nearly, so far as it goes, with Gunkel’s (318 f.). The reader may compare the investigations of Holzinger (209 f.), Procksch (32), Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57 f.).――=23.= בלילה הוא‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch ההוא‎)] as 19³³ ‎ 30¹⁶.――יַבֹּק‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch היבק‎) (Numbers 21²⁴, Deuteronomy 2³⁷ 3¹⁶, Joshua 12², Judges 11¹³ᐧ ²²†) is naturally explained as the ‘gurgler,’ from √ בקק‎ (Arabic baḳḳa), the resemblance to אבק‎ (verse ²⁵) being, of course, a popular word-play.――=24b.= Insert כָּל־‎ before אשר‎ (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate).

* * * * *

=25.= a man wrestled with him till the appearing of the dawn]――Only later does Jacob discover that his unknown antagonist is a god in human form (compare 18² 19⁵).――The rare word (v.i.) for ‘wrestle’ ‎(אבק‎) is chosen because of the assonance with יבֹּק‎――=26a.= he saw that he prevailed not] The ambiguity of the subject extends to the next clause, and leaves two interpretations open (v.i.).――struck the socket of his thigh] putting it out of joint.――=26b.= the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated as he wrestled with him.

The dislocation of the thigh seems to be twice recorded (see Kautzsch-Socin An. 159), and it is highly probable that the two halves of the verse come from different sources. In ²⁶ᵃ it is a stratagem resorted to by a wrestler unable to gain the advantage by ordinary means (like the trick of Ulysses in Iliad xxiii. 725 ff.); in ²⁶ᵇ it is an accident which happens to Jacob in the course of the struggle. It has even been suggested that in the original legend the subject of ²⁶ᵃ was Jacob――that it was he who disabled his antagonist in the manner described (Holzinger, Gunkel, Cheyne: see Müller, Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern, 163¹; Luther, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xxi. 65 ff.; Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 57). It is possible (though certainly not probable) that this was the view of the document (Yahwist or Elohist) to which ²⁶ᵃ belongs, and that it underlies Hosea 12⁵.

* * * * *

‎ =25.= ויאבק‎] A verb used only here and verse ²⁶, distinct from New Hebrew התאבק‎, ‘make oneself dusty,’ and very probably a modification of חבק‎, ‘clasp’ (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=26.= ‎ ותקע‎] √ יקע‎, literally ‘be rent away’ (compare Jeremiah 6⁸): LXX ἐνάρκησεν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate emarcuit, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זע‎ (‘gave way’),――all conjectural.

* * * * *

=27.= Let me go, for the dawn is breaking] Compare Plautus, Amphitryon 532 f., where Jupiter says: “Cur me tenes? Tempus est: exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo.” It is a survival of the wide-spread belief in spirits of the night which must vanish at dawn (Hamlet, Act 1. Scene i.); and as such, a proof of the extreme antiquity of the legend.――But the request reveals to Jacob the superhuman character of his adversary, and he resolves to hold him fast till he has extorted a blessing from him.――=28, 29=. Here the blessing is imparted in the form of a new name conferred on Jacob in memory of this crowning struggle of his life.――thou hast striven with God] Yisrā’ēl, probably = ‘God strives’ (v.i.), is interpreted as ‘Striver with God’; compare a similar transformation of יְרֻבַּֽעַל‎ (‘Baal contends’) in Judges 6³². Such a name is a true ‘blessing,’ as a pledge of victory and success to the nation which bears it.――and with men] This can hardly refer merely to the contests with Laban and Esau; it points rather to the existence of a fuller body of legend, in which Jacob figured as the hero of many combats, culminating in this successful struggle with deity.――=30.= Jacob vainly endeavours to extort a disclosure of the name of his antagonist. This is possibly an older variant of ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, belonging to a primitive phase of thought, where he who possesses the true name of a god can dispose of the power of its bearer (Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 401¹; A Dictionary of the Bible, v. 640). For the concealment of the name, compare Judges 13¹⁸ (the same words).――Gunkel thinks that in the original narrative the name of the wrestler was actually revealed.――=31.= Pĕnî’ēl] ‘Face of God’ (v.i.). The name is derived from an incidental feature of the experience: that Jacob had seen “God face to face” (Exodus 33¹¹, Deuteronomy 34¹⁰), and yet lived (see on 16¹³).――The site of Peniel is unknown: see Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 457 ff., and The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes 300 ff.――=32.= limping on his thigh] in consequence of the injury he had received (²⁶ᵇ). That he bore the hurt to his death, as a memorial of the conflict, is a gratuitous addition to the narrative.――=33.= The food-taboo here mentioned is nowhere else referred to in Old Testament; and the Mishnic prohibition (Ḥullîn, 7) is probably dependent on this passage. William Robertson Smith explains it from the sacredness of the thigh as a seat of life (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 380¹);¹ and Wellhausen (Reste arabischen Heidentums 168³) calls attention to a trace of it in ancient Arabia. For primitive parallels, see Frazer, Golden Bough, ii. 419 ff., Folklore in Old Testament, 142 f. The precise meaning of גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה‎ is uncertain (v.i.).

¹ “The nature of the lameness produced by injury to the sinew of the thigh socket is explained by the Arabic lexicons, s.v. ḥārifat; the man can only walk on the tips of his toes. This seems to have been a common affection, for poetical metaphors are taken from it.”

In its fundamental conception the struggle at Peniel is not a dream or vision like that which came to Jacob at Bethel; nor is it an allegory of the spiritual life, symbolising the inward travail of a soul helpless before some overhanging crisis of its destiny. It is a real physical encounter which is described, in which Jacob measures his strength and skill against a divine antagonist, and ‘prevails,’ though at the cost of a bodily injury. No more boldly anthropomorphic narrative is found in Genesis; and unless we shut our eyes to some of its salient features, we must resign the attempt to translate it wholly into terms of religious experience. We have to do with a legend, originating at a low level of religion, in process of accommodation to the purer ideas of revealed religion; and its history may have been somewhat as follows: (1) We begin with the fact of a hand-to-hand conflict between a god and a man. A similar idea appears in Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where we read that Yahwe met Moses and ‘sought to kill him.’ In the present passage the god was probably not Yahwe originally, but a local deity, a night-spirit who fears the dawn and refuses to disclose his name. Dr. Frazer has pointed out that such stories as this are associated with water-spirits, and cites many primitive customs (Folklore in the Old Testament, 136 ff.) which seem to rest on the belief that a river resents being crossed, and drowns many who attempt it. He hazards the conjecture that the original deity of this passage was the spirit of the Jabboḳ; in which case the word-play between יַבֹּק‎ and אבק‎ may have greater significance than appears on the surface. (2) Like many patriarchal theophanies, the narrative accounts for the foundation of a sanctuary――that of Peniel. Of the cultus at Peniel we know nothing; and there is very little in the story that can be supposed to bear upon it, unless we assume, with Gunkel and others, that the limping on the thigh refers to a ritual dance regularly observed there (compare 1 Kings 18²⁶).¹ (3) By Yahwist and Elohist the story was incorporated in the national epos as part of the history of Jacob. The God who wrestles with the patriarch is Yahwe; and how far the wrestling was understood as a literal fact remains uncertain. To these writers the main interest lies in the origin of the name Israel, and the blessing bestowed on the nation in the person of its ancestor. (4) A still more refined interpretation is found, it seems to me, in Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵: ‘In the womb he overreached his brother; and in his prime he strove with God. He strove (וַיִּשֶׂר‎) with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The substitution of the Angel of Yahwe for the divine Being Himself shows increasing sensitiveness to anthropomorphism; and the last line appears to mark an advance in the spiritualising of the incident, the subject being not the Angel (as Gunkel and others hold), but Jacob, whose ‘prevailing’ thus becomes that of importunate prayer.――We may note in a word Steuernagel’s ethnological interpretation. He considers the wrestling to symbolise a victory of the invading Israelites over the inhabitants of North Gilead. The change of name reflects the fact that a new nation (Israel) arose from the fusion of the Jacob and Rachel tribes (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 61 f.).

* * * * *

‎ =29.= יִשְׂרָאֵל‎] A name of the same type as ישמעאל‎, ירחמאל‎, etc., with some such meaning as ‘God strives’ or ‘Let God strive’; originally (it has been suggested) a war-cry which passed into a proper name (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 61). The verb שׂרה‎, however, only occurs in connexion with this incident (Hosea 12⁴ᐧ ⁵, where read וַיִּשֶׂר‎), and in the personal name שְׂרָיָה‎; and its real meaning is uncertain. If it be the Hebrew equivalent of Arabic šariya, Driver argues that it must mean ‘persist’ or ‘persevere’ rather than ‘strive’ (A Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 530), which hardly yields a suitable idea. Some take it as a by-form of ‎ שׂרר‎, either in a denominative sense (‘rule,’ from שַׂר‎, prince), or in its assumed primary significance ‘shine forth’ (Assyrian šarâru: see Vollers, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, ix. 184). Some doubt has even been thrown on the traditional Hebrew pronunciation by the form Ysir’r, found on an inscription of Merneptah (Steindorff, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 330 ff.), with which we may compare Assyrian Sir-’-lai (= ישראלי‎) (see Kittel, SBOT Chronicles, page 58). Compare also Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, ‎ 404.――שרית‎] LXX ἐνίσχυσας, Aquila ἦρξας, Symmachus ἤρξω, Vulgate fortis fuisti, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‎ רַב אַתּ‎.――=31.= פניאל‎] LXX Εἶδος θεοῦ, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Symmachus, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read פנואל‎ as verse ³². The formal difference arises from the old case-endings of genitive and nominative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 o). Strabo (XVI. ii. 16, 18) mentions a Phœnician promontory near Tripolis called Θεοῦ πρόσωπον: it is not improbable that in both cases the name is derived from a fancied resemblance to a face.――=33.= ‎ גיד הנשה‎] נָשֶׁה‎ is to be explained by Arabic nasᵃⁿ (for nasayᵘⁿ), which means the nervus ischiadicus, or the thigh in which it is found (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 921 f.). The question remains whether גיד‎ denotes here a nerve, an artery, a sinew, or a muscle; the first seems by far the most probable. So it seems to have been understood by Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac phrase) = tetanus-nerve), and by LXX and Vulgate, which appear to have connected נשה‎ with the verb for ‘forget’ (Græcus-Venetus, τὸ νεῦρον τὸ ἐπιλελησμένον!). The modern Jewish restriction applies, according to Delitzsch, to the “Spannader, d. h. die innere Ader des sogen. Hinterviertels mit Einschluss der äusseren und der Verästelungen beider.”

* * * * *

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

XXXIII. The Meeting of the Brothers: Jacob’s March to Shechem (Jehovist, Priestly-Code)

The dreaded meeting at last takes place; the brothers are reconciled, and part in friendship; Esau returning to Seir, while Jacob moves on by slow stages first to Succoth and then to Shechem.――It is difficult to characterise the spirit in which the main incident is conceived. Was Esau’s purpose friendly from the first, or was he turned from thoughts of vengeance by Jacob’s submissive and flattering demeanour? Does the writer regard the reconciliation as equally honourable to both parties, or does he only admire the skill and knowledge of human nature with which Jacob tames his brother’s ferocity? The truth probably lies between two extremes. That Esau’s intention was hostile, and that Jacob gained a diplomatic victory over him, cannot reasonably be doubted. On the other hand, the narrator must be acquitted of a desire to humiliate Esau. If he was vanquished by generosity, the noblest qualities of manhood were released in him; and he displays a chivalrous magnanimity which no appreciative audience could ever have held in contempt. So far as any national feeling is reflected, it is one of genuine respect and goodwill towards the Edomites.

Sources.――Verses ¹⁻¹⁷ are rightly assigned in the main to Yahwist, in spite of the fact that the only divine name which occurs is אלהים‎, in ⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹. In these verses we must recognise the hand of Elohist (compare also ⁵ᵇ with 48⁹, and ¹⁰ᵇ with 32²¹); and, for all that appears, Elohist’s influence may extend further. The chief indications, however, both material and linguistic, point to Yahwist as the leading source: the 400 men (32⁷), the ‘camp’ in verse ⁸ (32⁸), and the expressions: שׁפחות‎, ‎ ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶; רוץ לקראת‎, ⁴; מצא חן‎, ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵; כי־על־כן‎, ¹⁰. The documents are so deftly interwoven that it is scarcely possible to detect a flaw in the continuity of the narrative.――¹⁸⁻²⁰ are probably from Elohist, except ¹⁸ᵃ{β}, which is taken from Priestly-Code (see on the verse below).

=1‒7. The meeting.=――=1, 2.= Jacob’s fears revive at sight of the 400 men (32⁷). He marshals his children (not the whole company, as 32⁸ ᶠᐧ, though the motive is the same) under their mothers, and in the reverse order of his affection for them.――=3.= passed on before them] having previously been in the rear.――He approaches his brother with the reverence befitting a sovereign; the sevenfold prostration is a favourite formula of homage in the Tel Amarna tablets: “At the feet of my Lord, my Sun, I fall down seven and seven times” (38 ff. passim). It does not follow, however, that Jacob acknowledged himself Esau’s vassal (Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 12; Cheyne Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 405); compare 1 Samuel 20⁴¹.――=4.= fell on his neck] 45¹⁴ 46²⁹ (Yahwist); Luke 15²⁰.――=5‒7.= An interesting picture: the mothers with their little ones come forward in groups to pay their respects to the grim-visaged warrior, whose name had caused such terror in the camp.

* * * * *

‎ =2.= אחרנים ... אחרנים‎] LXX ὀπίσω ... ἐσχάτους Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). Read accordingly אחריהם‎ for the first א׳‎.――=4.= וׄיׄשׄקׄהׄוׄ‎] The puncta extraordinaria mark some error in the text. Dillmann observes that elsewhere (45¹⁴ 46²⁹) ‘fell on his neck’ is immediately followed by ‘wept.’ The word should probably be inserted (with LXX) after ויחבקהו‎ (so 29¹³; compare 48¹⁰).――ויבכו‎] The singular would be better, unless we add with LXX שְׁנֵיהֶם‎. ויחבקהו ‎ וישקהו‎ ∥ ויפל על צוארו ויבך‎ seem to be variants; of which one or other will be due to Elohist.――=5.= הנן‎] with double accusative, literally ‘has been gracious to me (with) them’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 ff.) = ‘has graciously given’ (so verse ¹¹); compare Judges 21²², Psalms 119²⁹.――=7.= נִגַּשׁ‎] Niphal for the previous Qal. Point――נָגַשׁ‎?――יוסף ורחל‎] LXX transposes as verse ².

* * * * *

=8‒11. The present.=――=8.= Esau remembers another great caval cade――camp――which he had met. The ‘present’ of 32¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ (Elohist) cannot be referred to, for Esau must have been told repeatedly what it was for (32¹⁸ ᶠᐧ). The word מַֽחֲנֶה‎ points rather to the arrangement of 32⁸ ᶠᐧ (Yahwist). Gunkel somewhat ingeniously explains thus: Esau had met the first division of Jacob’s company; and Jacob, ashamed to avow his original motive, by a happy inspiration now offers ‘this whole camp’ as a present to his brother.――=9.= Esau at first refuses, but, =10, 11=, Jacob insists on his accepting the gift.――as one sees the face of God] with the feelings of joy and reverence with which one engages in the worship of God. For the flattering comparison of a superior to the Deity, compare 1 Samuel 29⁹, 2 Samuel 14¹⁷ 19²⁸. It is possible that the phrase here contains a reminiscence of the meaning of Pĕnî’el in 32³¹ (Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.), the common idea being that “at Peniel the unfriendly God is found to be friendly” (Dillmann). The resemblance suggests a different form of the legend, in which the deity who wrestled with Jacob was Esau――the Usōus of Phœnician mythology (see on 25²⁵; compare Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 278).

* * * * *

‎ =10.= כי־על־כן‎] see on 18⁵. This and the preceding מצאתי חן‎ mark the verse as Yahwist’s, in spite of the appellative use of ‎ אלהים‎.――=11a= is a doublet of ¹⁰ᵃ, and may be assigned to Elohist.――ברכה‎] ‘blessing,’ hence the gift which is meant to procure a blessing: 1 Samuel 25²⁷ 30²⁶, 2 Kings 18³¹.――הֻבָאת‎] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 74 g; but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read better הֵבֵאתִי‎.

* * * * *

=12‒17. The parting.=――=12.= Esau, assuming that they are no more to be separated, proposes to march in front with his troop.――=13.= But Jacob has other objects in view, and invents a pretext for getting rid of his brother’s company.――עָלוֹת עָלַי‎] literally are giving suck upon me: i.e. their condition imposes anxiety upon me.――=14.= I will proceed by stages (? v.i.), gently, according to the pace of the cattle before me].――till I come ... to Sē‛îr] It is, of course, implied that he is to follow in Esau’s track; and the mention of Seir as a possible goal of Jacob’s journey causes difficulty. Meyer (Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 275 f.) advances the attractive theory that in Yahwist Jacob does not cross the Jordan at all, but goes round by Seir and the South of the Dead Sea to Hebron. The question has an important bearing on the criticism of chapter 34.――=15‒17.= The offer of an armed escort having been courteously declined, Jacob proceeds but a short distance, and takes up his quarters at Sukkôth (v.i.). The name is derived from the booths, or temporary shelters for cattle, which he erects there.――built himself a house] showing that he contemplated a lengthy sojourn.

Here Esau disappears from the histories of Yahwist and Elohist. We have already remarked on the change of tone in this last episode, as compared with the earlier Jacob-Esau stories of chapters 25, 27. Esau is no longer the rude natural man, the easy victim of his brother’s cunning, but a noble and princely character, whose bearing is evidently meant to inspire admiration. Jacob, too, is presented in a more favourable light: if he is still shrewd and calculating, and not perfectly truthful, he does not sink to the knavery of his earlier dealings with Esau and Laban, but exhibits the typical virtues of the patriarchal ideal. The contrast betrays a difference of spirit and origin in the two groups of legends. It is conceivable that the second group came from sanctuaries frequented by Israelites and Edomites in common (so Holzinger 212); but it is also possible that the two sets reflect the relations of Israel and Edom at different periods of history. It is quite obvious that chapters 25 and 27 took shape after the decay of the Edomite empire, when the ascendancy of Israel over the older people was assured. If there be any ethnological basis to 32, 33, it must belong to an earlier period. Steuernagel (Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan 105) suggests as a parallel Numbers 20¹⁴⁻²¹, where the Edomites resist the passage of Israel through their territory. Meyer (387¹) is disposed to find a recollection of a time when Edom had a powerful empire extending far north on the East of the Jordan, where they may have rendered assistance to Israel in the Midianite war (ib. 382), though they were unable ultimately to maintain their position. If there be any truth in either of these speculations (which must remain extremely doubtful), it is evident that chronologically 32 f. precede 25, 27; and the attempt to interpret the series (as a whole) ethnographically must be abandoned.

* * * * *

‎ =13.= עלות‎] √ עוּל‎, of which only the participle is in use (1 Samuel 6⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, Isaiah 40¹¹, Psalms 78⁷¹†).――ודפקום‎] better with The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå וּדְפַקְתִּים‎. On the syntax see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 q.――=14.= אתנהלה וגו׳‎] LXX ἐνισχύσω ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ κατὰ σχολὴν τῆς πορεύσεως. Why Cheyne (405 f.) finds it necessary to resolve the text into a series of geographical glosses is not apparent. התנהל‎, Hithpael is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, but is a natural extension of the Piel ‘guide [to a watering-place?],’ Isaiah 40¹¹ 49¹⁰. אַט‎ in the sense of ‘gentleness’ (2 Samuel 18⁵, 1 Kings 21²⁷, Isaiah 8⁶, Job 15¹¹), and רֶגֶל‎ in the sense of ‘pace’ are unexceptionable: the לְ‎ of norm with both words (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 516 b). For מלאכה‎ in the sense of ‘property,’ we have examples in Exodus 22⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, 1 Samuel 15⁹.――=15.= אציגה‎] literally ‘let me set.’ The sense suggested by the context, ‘leave behind,’ is supported by Exodus 10²⁴ (Hophal).――למה וגו׳‎] The Hebrew is peculiar. The obvious rendering would be, ‘Why should I find favour, etc.?’; but as that is hardly possible, we must translate ‘Why so? May I find, etc.’――a very abrupt transition. We should at least expect ‎ אמצא נא‎.――=17.= ויעקב‎] The precedence of subject indicates contrast, and shows that the verse continues ¹⁶ (Yahwist).――נסע‎] see on ‎ 11².――סֻכֹּת‎ was East of the Jordan, but nearer to it than Peniel (Joshua 13²⁷, Judges 8⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸). The site is unknown (see Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 585; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 206, 260; Driver The Expository Times, xiii. 458 a, n. 1). The modern Ain es-Sāḳūṭ (9 miles South of Beisan) is excluded on phonetic grounds, and is besides on the wrong side of the Jordan.

* * * * *

=18‒20. Jacob at Shechem.=――=18.= The crossing of the Jordan is not recorded; it is commonly supposed to have taken place at the ford ed-Dāmiyeh, a little South of the Jabboḳ, on the road from es-Salṭ to Shechem.――in safety (שָׁלֵם‎)] after his escape from Esau, Elohist not having recorded the lengthened stay at Succoth. On the rendering of שלם‎ as a proper name, v.i.――encamped in front of the city] in the vale to the East of it, where Jacob’s well is still shown (John 4⁶ᐧ ¹²).――=19.= The purchase of the ground is referred to in Joshua 24³² in the account of Joseph’s burial. It is significant that Israel’s claim to the grave of Joseph is based on purchase, just as its right to that of Abraham (chapter 23).――The Bnê Ḥămôr were the dominant clan in Shechem (chapter 34, Judges 9²⁸).――a hundred ḳĕsîṭāhs] an unknown sum (v.i.).――=20.= he set up there an altar] or more probably (since הִצִּיב‎ is never used of an altar) a maẓẓebāh.――called it ’Ēl, God of Israel] the stone being identified with the deity; compare 28²² 35⁷, Exodus 17¹⁵, Judges 6²⁴. For heathen parallels, see Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 295.

Israel is here the name of the nation: compare Joshua 8³⁰, where Joshua builds an altar on Ebal (East of Shechem) to Yahwe, God of Israel. The stone and its name are undoubtedly historical, and go back to an early time when Shechem (or Ebal?) was the sacred centre of the confederacy of Israelitish tribes (compare 1 Kings 12¹). We cannot therefore conclude with Dillmann that the verse refers back to 32²⁹, and comes from the same document.

* * * * *

‎ =18.= עיר שכם‎ [The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch שלום‎] ‎ שלם‎] The rendering given above is pronounced by Wellhausen to be impossible, no doubt on the ground that שלם‎, meaning properly ‘whole’ (Deuteronomy 27⁶), is nowhere else used in the sense ‘safe and sound’ of a person. Still, in view of שלום‎ (compare 28²¹ 43²⁷), and וישלם‎ in Job 9⁴, it may be reasonably supposed that it had that sense. LXX, Jubilees, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take שלם‎ as a proper noun; a view which though it derives some plausibility from the fact that there is still a village Salim about 4 miles East of Nābulus (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 275, 279), implies a sense not consonant with usage; there being no case of a village described as a ‘city’ of the neighbouring town (Delitzsch). Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 316¹) emends שְׁכֵם‎: ‘Shechem the city of (the man) Shechem.’ Procksch accepts the emendation, but regards the words as a conflation of variants from two sources (page 34). LXX distinguishes the name of the city (Σικίμων, see on 12⁶) from that of the man (Συχεμ, verse ¹⁹ 34² ᶠᶠᐧ).――ויחן‎] as 26¹⁷.――=19.= ‎ קשיטה‎ (Joshua 24³², Job 42¹¹†)] apparently a coin or weight; but the etymology is obscure. LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ render ‘lamb’; and it was thought that light had been thrown on this traditional explanation by the Aramaic Assuan papyri, where ‎ כבש‎ (lamb) is used of a coin (of the value of 10 shekels?) (so Sayce-Cowley, Aramaic papyri discovered at Assouan, page 23). But Lidzbarski (Deutsche Lzg., 1906, 3210 ff.) holds that the word there should be read כרש‎ (found on a Persian weight: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology, 1888, 464 ff.).――=20.= Read מצבה‎ for מזבח‎, and consequently לָהּ‎ for ‎ לו‎ (Wellhausen al.).――ויקרא וגו׳‎] LXX καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ.――Except the clause אשר בא׳ כ׳ בבאו מפדן ארם‎ in verse ¹⁸, which is evidently from Priestly-Code, the whole section ¹⁸⁻²⁰ may safely be assigned to Elohist.

* * * * *

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

XXXIV. The Outrage on Dinah.

Two narratives are here combined:

I. Shechem, son of Ḥamor, the II. Shechem dishonours Dinah, native princeling, falls in but lets her return to her love with Dinah, the daughter of family (¹⁻³*; compare ¹⁷); Leah, abducts her, and keeps her but continuing to love her, he in his house (¹⁻³*; compare ²⁶). appeals to Ḥamor to arrange a He asks her in marriage from her marriage (⁴). Ḥamor comes to father and brothers, offering speak to Jacob (⁶), and finds to accept any conditions they him and his sons together (⁷). may impose (¹¹ᐧ ¹²). They raise He proposes not only a marriage an objection on the score between Shechem and Dinah, but a of circumcision (¹⁴), but general connubium which would eventually consent on terms not legalise all such unions in expressed in this recension. the future (⁸⁻¹⁰). Jacob’s sons Shechem complies with the agree, on condition that all the condition, whatever it was clan be circumcised (¹³ᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁸). (¹⁹). Simeon and Levi, however, Ḥamor proceeds to the gate of decide that the insult can only the city, and persuades his be wiped out by blood; they people to undergo the operation gain access to Shechem’s house, (²⁰⁻²⁴). While the fever is on slay him, and depart with their them, the sons of Jacob rush sister (²⁵ ᶠᐧ). Their father, the city, kill all the males, fearing an uprising of the capture the women and children, country against him, reproves and carry off the spoil (²⁷⁻²⁹). them for their rash act, which ――The sequel is perhaps they proudly justify (³⁰ᐧ ³¹). summarised in 35⁵. ――The conclusion is lost.

¹ The parts left unresolved are verses ¹⁻³ and ⁵ᐧ ⁷.――In ¹⁻³, ³ᵃ looks like a first mention of Dinah; and in ²ᵇ וישכב אתה‎ is perhaps ∥ ויקח אתה ויענה‎; and with a transposition we might read thus: II. ¹ᐧ ²ᵃ And Dinah ... and Shechem ... saw her, ²ᵇ and lay with her. ³ᵇ{β} And he comforted the girl...: I. ³ᵃ And the soul [of Shechem ...] clave to Dinah ... ²ᵇ and he took her and violated her. ³ᵇ{α} And he loved the girl ...――⁵ and ⁷ seem to me to belong to II. rather than I.; but the indications are conflicting, and they are possibly redactional verses, inserted to explain the transition from the singular in ⁶ to the plural in ⁸.――Naturally the redactor has been busy smoothing over discrepancies; and to him may be attributed את־שכם ו‎ in ³ᵃ, the whole of ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ᵇ, ‎ ושכם בנו‎ in ²⁰ᵃ, עירם‎ for עירו‎ in ²⁰ᵇ (compare ²⁴), ואל־שכם בנו‎ in ‎ ²⁴; ואת־חמור ו‎ and בנו‎ in ²⁶ᵃ; and the removal of ²⁵ᵇ from ²⁷ (v.i.).

This rough analysis¹ rests mainly on the material incongruities of the narrative, viz.: (a) In II., after the seduction Dinah is still in the hands of her relatives, ¹⁷; but in I. she is in Shechem’s house and has to be rescued by force, ²⁶. (b) The negotiations are conducted by Ḥămôr alone, ⁶ᐧ ⁸⁻¹⁰ (II.); but in ¹¹ᐧ ¹² (I.) Shechem is abruptly introduced pleading his own cause. (c) Shechem has already fulfilled the compact, ¹⁹ (I.), before the people of the city are consulted, ²⁰⁻²⁴ (II.). (d) Simeon and Levi alone avenge the outrage, and are alone held responsible for the consequences, ²⁵ ᶠᐧ ³⁰ ᶠᐧ (I.); but all the sons of Jacob are implicated in the sack of the city, ²⁷⁻²⁹ (II.).

Sources.――If style alone were decisive, I. might safely be identified with Yahwist: note דבק ב‎, ³ (2²⁴); נערָ‎, ³ᐧ ¹²; מצא חן בע׳‎, ‎ ¹¹; בכנעני ובפרזי‎, ³⁰. In II., Cornill has pointed out some linguistic affinities with Elohist (see the notes on דבר על לב‎, ³; ילדה‎, ⁴; סחר‎, ¹⁰ᐧ ²¹ etc.); but they are insignificant in comparison with the strongly marked Priestly phraseology of this recension: נשיא‎, ²; ‎ טמּא‎, ⁵ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁷; נאחז‎, ¹⁰; המל לכם כל זכר‎, ¹⁵ᐧ ²²; קנין‎ and בהמה‎, ²³; כל זכר‎, ‎ ²⁴; כל יצאי שער עיר‎ ²⁴ (bis): compare the list in Kuenen Gesammelte Abhandlungen 269 f. These are so striking that Dillmann and Driver assign the narrative unhesitatingly to Priestly-Code, and all admit that it has undergone a Priestly redaction (Cornill calls attention to a very similar case in Numbers 31).

But there are grave material difficulties in assigning either recension to Yahwist or Elohist. (1) In chapter 34, Jacob’s children are grown up; and this implies a considerable lapse of time since chapter 33. (2) A bloody encounter with the natives of the land is contrary to the peaceful ideal of patriarchal life consistently maintained by Yahwist and (hardly less consistently) by Elohist. (3) Against I. = Yahwist, in particular, (a) In Yahwist the patriarch is generally named Israel after 32²⁸; and here Jacob is used throughout. (b) We have seen reason to believe that in Yahwist, Jacob was not West of the Jordan at all at this time (page 414). (c) The sons of Jacob would not be found quietly feeding their flocks at Shechem (37¹² ᶠᶠᐧ) if an incident like this had been of recent occurrence. (4) As regards II. = Elohist, there is less difficulty; but on this hypothesis the amalgamation with Yahwist must be due to Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ; and how does it happen that the assumed Priestly redaction is confined to the one component? Moreover, the incident is irreconcilable with 48²² (Elohist). (5) Finally, if Ḥōrite be the true reading in verse ², we have here a tradition differing from any of the Pentateuch documents.

These objections are urged with great force by Meyer, who also shows that in Genesis there are sporadic traces of a divergent tradition which ignored the Exodus, and traced the conquest and division of the land directly to Jacob and his sons (chapters 38. 48²²). To this (older) tradition he assigns chapter 34. The first recension must have taken literary shape within the Yahwistic school, and the second may have been current in Elohistic circles; but neither found a place in the main document of the school to which it belonged, and its insertion here was an afterthought suggested by a supposed connexion with 33¹⁹ (Elohist). This seems to me the best solution, though it leaves the dual recension, the amalgamation, and the Priestly redaction unexplained riddles.――Calling the two narratives Yahwistˣ and Elohistˣ, we divide as follows:

Yahwistˣ (= I.): ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ*ᐧ ³ᵇ{α}ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁵ᵃᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³¹.

Elohistˣ (= II.): ¹ᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ*ᐧ ³ᵇ{β}ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵{?}ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷{?}ᐧ ⁸⁻¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ᵃᐧ ²⁰⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ⁽²⁵ᵇ⁾ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹.

Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 45 f., 314 ff.; Kuenen Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1880, 257 ff. (= Gesammelte Abhandlungen 255 ff.), Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds i. 315 f.; Cornill Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xi. 1‒15; Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 412 ff.; Delitzsch 413; Dillmann 368 ff.; Holzinger 213 ff.; Gunkel 326 ff.; Strack 126 f.; Procksch 35 f.

=1‒12. Dinah is seduced by Shechem, and afterwards sought in marriage.=――=2.= the Ḥivvite] see on 10¹⁷; LXX the Ḥōrite (v.i.).――=3.= spoke to (literally over) the heart] 50²¹ (Elohist). The phrase means ‘to comfort,’ not ‘to woo’; compare Hosea 2¹⁶, Isaiah 40², Ruth 2¹³ etc.――=4.= Compare 21²¹ᐧ ²⁴ 38⁶, Judges 14².――=5.= kept silence] took no steps to redress the injury (2 Samuel 19¹¹).――=7.= wrought scandalous folly in Israel] a standing phrase for crimes of the kind here indicated (Deuteronomy 22²¹, Judges 20⁶ᐧ ¹⁰; compare Judges 19²³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Samuel 13¹² ᶠᶠᐧ); though ‘in Israel’ is an anachronism. נְבָלָה‎ is never mere foolishness, but always disgraceful conduct or language.――such things are not done] 20⁹ 29²⁶.――=8‒10.= Ḥămōr, as prince, takes a broad view: not content with arranging this particular marriage, he proposes an amalgamation of the two races; thinking apparently that the advantage to Jacob would be sufficient compensation for the offence.――=9.= Almost verbally identical with Deuteronomy 7³ (compare Joshua 23¹²).――=11, 12.= Shechem’s offer relates only to his own private affair.――Ask me ever so much] literally ‘Multiply upon me.’ The Hebrew law of compensation for seduction is given in Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ――מֹהַר‎, the price paid to the parents (Exodus 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 18²⁵), and מַתָּן‎ (so only here), the gift to the bride, are virtually distinguished in 24⁵³.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= בנות הארץ‎ 27⁴⁶ (Priestly-Code or Redactor).――=2.= החוי‎] LXX הַחֹרִי‎. Confusion of ו‎ and ר‎ is common; but LXX deserves consideration as the harder reading; and also because the only other place where LXX has חרי‎ for Massoretic Text חוי‎ is Joshua 9⁷, a passage somewhat similar to this (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 331). It is a slight confirmation of LXX that animal names are frequent among the Ḥorite clans (36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), and Ḥămôr means ‘he-ass.’――נשיא‎] a favourite word of Priestly-Code; compare 17²⁰ 23⁶ 25¹⁶.――שכב את‎ (verse ⁷ 35²² etc.)] The Massoretic always point the את‎ in this phrase as _not accusative_.――=3.= נערָ‎] see 24¹⁴.――=5.= טִמֵּא‎] in the sexual sense verses ¹³ᐧ ²⁷, Ezekiel 18⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ 22¹¹†; otherwise very frequent in Priestly-Code.――=7.= כשמעם‎] occupies an unusual position; and there are other small syntactic anomalies in ⁵ᐧ ⁷.――=8.= ‎ חשק ב‎] Deuteronomy 7⁷ 10¹⁵ 21¹¹, Psalms 91¹⁴†: contrast דבק‎, verse ³.――On the casus pendens, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 143 b.――=9.= ‎ התחתן‎] ‘enter into the relation of חֹתֵן‎ and חָתָן‎’ (1 Samuel 18²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Kings 3¹), and more generally ‘form marriage alliance’ (Deuteronomy 7³, Joshua 23¹², Ezra 9¹⁴).――=10.= סחר‎] as 42³⁴ (Elohist); but compare 23¹⁶ (Priestly-Code).――והאחזו‎] Niphal in this sense peculiar to Priestly-Code (47²⁷, Numbers 32³⁰, Joshua 22⁹ᐧ ¹⁹).――=12.= מהר ומתן‎] LXX τὴν φερνήν.

* * * * *

=13‒17. The answer.=――=13a.= with duplicity] In this recension (Elohistˣ) the requirement of circumcision is merely a pretext to render the Shechemites incapable of self-defence.――=14.= Here, on the contrary (Yahwistˣ), the family acts in good faith, and the compact is violated by Simeon and Levi alone.――that were a reproach to us] Joshua 5⁹. Circumcision is regarded as a tribal custom, which it would be a disgrace to infringe. That the custom actually existed from the earliest time among the Hebrews is extremely probable (page 296 f.); but the fact that both Yahwist (Exodus 4²⁵) and Elohist (Joshua 5³ ᶠᶠᐧ) record its introduction in the age of the Exodus is an additional proof that this chapter follows an independent tradition.――=15.= Continuing ¹³ᵃ.――Only on this condition will we consent] referring primarily to the connubium.――=16.= become one people] A result really desired by the Shechemites, but not seriously contemplated by the sons of Jacob.

* * * * *

=13b= occupies a syntactically impossible position, and must be deleted as a redactional gloss. וידברו‎ joins on to ¹⁵.――=14.= LXX καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς Συμεὼν καὶ Λευὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Δείνας υἱοὶ δὲ Λείας κτλ.――an intelligent anticipation of critical results (compare ²⁵)?――Or is this the original text?――א׳ אשר לו ערלה‎ for ‘uncircumcised’ does not recur.――=15.= נאות‎] Either (Brown-Driver-Briggs) imperfect Niphal, or (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 h) intransitive imperfect Qal of √ אוֹת‎, ‘consent’ (²²ᐧ ²³, 2 Kings 12⁹†).――להמל וגו׳‎] as 17¹⁰.

* * * * *

=18‒24. The condition accepted.=――=19.= the most honoured member of his family] emphasising the greatness of his sacrifice, and the strength of his attachment to Dinah.――=21‒23.= Ḥămōr naturally says nothing of the personal matter, but dwells on the advantages the clan will derive from union with the Israelites. The men are already on friendly terms with them; the land is spacious enough; and by adopting circumcision they will obtain a great accession to their wealth.

* * * * *

‎ =19.= אֵחַר‎] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 64 d.――=21.= רחבת ידים‎ (LXX πλατεῖα)] ‘broad on both sides’; Judges 18¹⁰, Isaiah 22¹⁸ [33²¹, 1 Chronicles 4⁴⁰, Nehemiah 7⁴, Psalms 104²⁵]†.――=24.= Between וימלו‎ and כל־זכר‎] LXX inserts τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτῶν.――כל־יצאי וגו׳‎] compare 23¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁸. The repetition of the phrase is avoided by LXX.

* * * * *

=25‒31. The vengeance of the Hebrews.=――=25.= on the third day] when the inflammation is said, in the case of adults, to be at its height (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah] compare 49⁵. In chapter 29 f., Leah had four other sons who were as much full brothers of Dinah as these two. Was there another tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (so Meyer Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme, 286¹, 426 f.)?――=26.= ‎לפי חרב‎] according to the usage of war: without quarter (compare 2 Samuel 11²⁵).――and went out] Evidently this is the close of the exploit.――=27.= came upon the slain] Compare Vulgate Quibus egressis, irruerunt super occisos cæteri filii Jacob. That is perhaps the sense intended by the redactor. But, to say nothing of the improbability of two men being able to kill all the males of the city, the second narrative (Elohistˣ) must have given an independent account of the attack on Shechem. ²⁵ᵇ must be transferred to this verse; and another word must be substituted for חֲלָלִים‎ (v.i.).――=28, 29.= Compare the similar phraseology of Numbers 31⁹ᐧ ¹¹ (Priestly-Code).――=30, 31= (continuing ²⁶). Jacob rebukes Simeon and Levi, not for their treachery and cruelty, but for their recklessness in exposing the whole tribe to the vengeance of the Canaanites.――I am few in number] it is the tribal, not the individual, consciousness which finds expression here.

The legend at the basis of chapter 34 reflects, we can scarcely doubt, an incident of the Hebrew settlement in Canaan. Shechem is the eponymus of the ancient city of that name, and Ḥămôr of the tribe dwelling there; Ḥămôr is the father of Shechem, because the tribe is older than its possession of the city. Jacob, in like manner, stands for the Israelites, who are nomads ranging the country round Shechem, and on friendly terms with its inhabitants. Whether Dînāh was a weak Hebrew clan threatened with absorption by the Ḥamorites is not so certain; it is more natural to suppose that a literal outrage of the kind described was the cause of the racial quarrel which ensued.¹――There are two historic events which seem to stand in some connexion with the narrative――the Hebrew conquest of Shechem, and the dissolution of Simeon and Levi as tribal entities. (1) The conquest of Shechem is presupposed in Joshua 24; but it is remarkable that it is never mentioned either among the cities captured by the Israelites, or among those which remained independent. The account of its destruction by Abimelech in Judges 9 appears to imply that it had been continuously in the possession of the Bnê Ḥămôr down to that time. On the other hand, the poetic fragment Genesis 48²² attributes the conquest to Jacob himself, but as an honourable feat of arms unstained by the treachery which is so prominent in chapter 34. How these conflicting data are to be reconciled, we can hardly conjecture. The differences are too great to justify the opinion that 48²² and 34 are merely legendary reflexions of the historic fact recorded in Judges 9. Yet it is scarcely credible that Shechem was thrice conquered, twice from the same people under circumstances of general similarity. One chief objection to identifying 34 with Judges 9 is the prominence of Simeon and Levi in Yahwistˣ. We may either (with Steuernagel) put back the incident (which may after all have been an unsuccessful attack on Shechem) to the early days of the Hebrew migration, while Simeon and Levi were independent and still migratory tribes; or (with Meyer) assume that the story of Dinah originated near the Simeonite territory in the South, and was afterwards transferred to Shechem because of certain points of affinity with the historic overthrow of that city under Abimelech.――(2) The dispersion of Simeon and Levi is referred to in the Blessing of Jacob (49⁶ᐧ ⁷), as the consequence of deeds of violence, disapproved by the conscience of the nation. It is universally assumed by critics that the two passages are variations of the same theme; hence it is held by many (Wellhausen, Stade, Gunkel, Steuernagel, al.) that Yahwistˣ went on to tell how the Canaanites actually retaliated by the slaughter of Simeon and Levi, while the other brothers escaped. That is just possible; but if so, the narrative departs very widely from the prevailing tradition, according to which Simeon and Levi not only survived, but went down into Egypt with the rest of the family. And there is room for doubt whether the curse on Simeon and Levi in chapter 49 is the result of any particular action of these two tribes (see page 516 f.).――The one point, indeed, which stands out with some degree of evidence from these discussions is that there was a form of the patriarchal tradition which knew nothing of the sojourn in Egypt, and connected the story of the conquest with the name of Jacob.

¹ A singularly apposite and interesting modern parallel is quoted by Bennett (page 318 f.) from Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, ii. 114.

* * * * *

=27‒29= are regarded by Dillmann as a late interpolation; and this is perhaps necessary if the second account is to be identified with Priestly-Code. The possibility that the verses have been glossed by some one who had Numbers 31 in mind is not to be denied.――=27.= חללים‎] literally ‘pierced,’ means either ‘slain’ (Numbers 19¹⁸ 31⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ etc.), or (rarely) ‘fatally wounded’ (Lamentations 2¹² etc.); neither sense being suitable here. Gunkel suggests חֹלִים‎, ‘sick’ ∥ כאבים‎, verse ‎²⁵.――=29.= שָׁב֖וּ וַיָּבֹ֑זּוּ‎] Remove athnach to שבו‎ (√ שבה‎) and omit ו‎ before את‎ (compare The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch, LXX, Peshiṭtå).――בבית‎] collective; but Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) LXX ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ ὅσα ἦν ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις.――=30.= עכר‎] = Arabic ‛akira, ‘be turbid,’ in Hebrew literally ‘make turbid’ = ‘undo,’――a strong word; compare Joshua 6¹⁸ 7²⁵, 1 Kings 18¹⁷ ᶠᐧ――מתי מספר‎] literally ‘men of number,’ numerable, and therefore few; Deuteronomy 4²⁷ 33⁶, Jeremiah 44²⁸ etc.

* * * * *

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

XXXV. Jacob in Canaan (Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly-Code)

The compiler’s interest in the story of Jacob would seem to have flagged after he had brought him safely back to Canaan; and he hurries to a close with a series of fragmentary excerpts from his sources: a second visit to Bethel, with the death and burial of Deborah, ¹⁻¹⁵; the birth of Benjamin and death of Rachel, ¹⁶⁻²⁰; Reuben’s incest, ²¹ᐧ ²²ᵃ; a list of Jacob’s sons, ²²ᵇ⁻²⁶; the death and burial of Isaac, ²⁷⁻²⁹.

Sources.――The Priestly-Code sections are easily recognised by their phraseology, viz. ⁶ᵃᐧ* ⁹⁻¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ᐧ ²⁷⁻²⁹. The last continuous extract from Priestly-Code was 28¹⁻⁹; and the connecting links are 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵇᐧ ²⁹ 30⁴ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇᐧ ²²ᵃ 31¹⁸ᵃ{βγδ}ᵇ 33¹⁸ᵃ{β}. The natural position of 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ is between 30²²ᵃ and 31¹⁸ (see verse ²⁶); and this transposition is adopted by Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 327); but perhaps a still better position would be in 37² (see page 443). A more thorough readjustment is proposed by Gunkel: 28¹⁻⁹ 35⁶ᵃᐧ ¹¹⁻¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁵ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵇᐧ ²⁹ 30⁴ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇᐧ ²²ᵃ 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ 31¹⁸ᵃ{βγδ}ᵇ 33¹⁸ᵃ{β} 35⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ²⁷⁻²⁹. This division of the Bethel-theophany into two, one on the way to Mesopotamia and the other after the return (as in Elohist), is very attractive, and relieves some critical difficulties, as shown in the notes on ⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――To Elohist belong ¹⁻⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵇ⁻⁸ᐧ ¹⁴: compare [ה]אלהים‎, ¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷; אל‎, ³ᐧ ⁷; ‎ מצבה‎, ¹⁴; אלהי הנכר‎, ²ᐧ ⁴ (compare Joshua 24²ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²³); and the reference in verse ¹ to 28²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.――¹⁶⁻²⁰ are also from Elohist in the main, though perhaps with Yahwist variants (מצבה‎, ²⁰; compare the retrospective reference in 48⁷).――The only purely Yahwistic section is ²¹ᐧ ²²ᵃ (ישראל‎ bis).

=1‒8 + 14. Bethel re-visited: the death of Deborah.=――=1.= Jacob is reminded of his vow at Bethel (28²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), and commanded to build an altar there.――go up] From Shechem to Bethel there is a continuous ascent of over 1000 feet.――and dwell there] It would almost seem that Bethel is to be Jacob’s permanent residence; and this (though contradicted by verse ¹⁶) would be in harmony with the tenor of the Elohistic tradition, which closely associates this patriarch with the chief Ephraimite sanctuary.――=2.= Jacob purifies his household for a solemn act of worship.――Put away the strange gods] The same words spoken under the same tree by Joshua (24²³ [Elohist]), point, it would appear, to the memory of a great national renunciation of idolatry at Shechem in the early history of Israel (see verse ⁴). A reference to the Teraphim stolen by Rachel (31¹⁹) does not exhaust the significance of the notice.――=3.= The use of the old name אֵל‎ here and verse ¹ (compare verse ⁷) is noticeable.――=4.= the earrings (see on 24²²)] Objects of superstition, being used as amulets, and in false worship (Hosea 2¹⁵, compare Judges 8²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――the terebinth near Shechem] See on 12⁶. The burial of idolatrous emblems under this sacred tree has some traditional meaning which we cannot now explain.――=5.= a terror of God] a πανικὸν δεῖμα (Delitzsch); compare Exodus 23²⁷, 1 Samuel 14¹⁵, 2 Chronicles 14¹³ etc.

Verse ⁵ presupposes an incident like that recorded in chapter 34. The intervening verses ¹⁻⁴ are not in keeping with this view of the situation; and the change of subject from ‘Jacob’ to ‘the sons of Jacob’ makes it highly probable that verse ⁵ is either redactional (Kuenen), or belongs to a different stratum of Elohist.

* * * * *

‎ =1.= בית־אל‎] LXX εἰς τὸν τόπον Βαιθὴλ is not unlikely to be original (compare 28¹¹ 12⁶).――=3.= ואעשה‎] LXX ונעשה‎.――=4= end] LXX + καὶ ἀπώλεσεν αὐτὰ ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας.――=5.= ויסעו‎] LXX καὶ ἐξῆρεν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ Σικίμων.――יעקב‎] LXX Ἰσραήλ.

* * * * *

=6a= (Priestly-Code). See below.――=7.= The designation of the place (i.e. the sanctuary: 12⁶ 28¹¹) as ’Ēl Bêth’ēl is not confirmed by any other Old Testament allusion. Partial analogies may be found in such place-names as Ašterôth-Ḳarnaim, Nĕbô, Baal-Ḥăẓôr, Baal-Gad, etc., where the name of the deity is extended to the sacred precincts (Gunkel 248); but the text is not above suspicion.――there the gods had revealed themselves to him] The plural verb together with the use of the article suggests that the sentence preserves a more polytheistic version of the Bethel-legend than 28¹²,――one in which the ‘angels of God’ were spoken of as simply אֱלֹהִים‎.――=8, 14.= The death and burial of Deborah.――below Bêth’ēl] means apparently ‘to the South of Bethel.’――under the oak] or ‘sacred tree’ (see on 12⁶).――tree of weeping] But v.i.――=14.= For the grounds on which this verse is connected with ⁸, see the footnote ad loc.――set up a maẓẓēbāh] So verse ²⁰ at the grave of Rachel. These monuments came to be regarded as simple grave-stones; but were doubtless originally objects of worship, as the next clause indicates.――poured out a libation on it] The libation was in the first instance an offering to the dead, according to a custom attested among many ancient peoples,¹ and found in Catholic countries at the present day.――poured oil] 28¹⁸.

¹ Egyptians (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, 307), Persians (Herodotus vii. 43), Greeks (Homer Iliad xxiii. 196, Odyssey xi. 26 ff.), Arabs (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 182 f.). It is not mentioned in Old Testament, but food-offerings to the dead are referred to in Deuteronomy 26¹⁴ (Tobit 4¹⁸, Sirach 30¹⁸).

The notice of Deborah is in many ways perplexing. The nurse who accompanied Rebekah (24⁵⁹) is nameless, and there is nothing to lead us to expect that she was to be an important figure in Hebrew legend. How she could have come into Jacob’s family is quite inexplicable; and the conjectures that have been advanced on this point are all puerile. Moreover, the sacred tree referred to is in all probability identical with the palm-tree of Deborah ‘between Ramah and Bethel’ in Judges 4⁴ ᶠᐧ. There seems to have been a confusion in the local tradition between the famous prophetess and the nurse; and the chief mystery is how the name of Rebekah got introduced in this connexion at all. If we could suppose with Cheyne (417 f.) that בכות‎ should be בְּכֹרַת‎ and that this is an alternative form of רבקה‎, so that the real name of the tree was ‘Tree of Rebekah,’ we might be a step nearer a solution. The identity of the two trees would then have to be abandoned. It is, however, an unsafe argument to say that a ‘nurse’ could not have been conspicuous in legend: compare the grave of the nurse of Dionysus at Scythopolis, in Pliny, Naturalis Historia, v. 74 (Delitzsch, Gunkel).

* * * * *

=6a.= לוזה‎] See on 28¹⁹. The clause is an amalgam of Priestly-Code and Elohist.――=7.= למקום‎] LXX τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου.――אל בית־אל‎] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ביתאל‎.――=8.= ותקבר‎] LXX omitted.――אַלּוֹן‎] see on ‎ 12⁶.――בכות‎] ‘weeping.’ The text is perhaps confirmed by בֹּכִים‎ (weepers), Judges 2⁵, which may be the same place. But though ‎ בכים‎ might plausibly be regarded as a corruption of בְּכָאִים‎ (2 Samuel 5²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Psalms 84⁷), it is difficult to think that בכות‎ is so: ‘sacred tree of the baka-trees’ is an improbable combination (see von Gall, Altisraelitische Kultstätten 103).

* * * * *

=9, 10. Jacob’s name changed= (Priestly-Code).――Compare 32²⁸ ᶠᐧ (Yahwist).――when he came from Paddan ’Ărām] On Gunkel’s rearrangement (page 423 above), there is nothing to suggest Bethel as the scene of the revelation. It is a faint echo of 32²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ from which every element of local tradition, down to the name of the sanctuary, has been eliminated.

* * * * *

‎ =9.= עוד‎] LXX + ἐν Λοῦζα.――אתו‎] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + אלהים‎.――=10.= LXX simplifies by omitting ‎ שמך יעקב‎ and ויקרא את שמו ישראל‎.

* * * * *

=6a, 11‒13, 15. The blessing transmitted to Jacob=: Priestly-Code’s parallel to 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=11, 12.= ’Ēl Shaddai] see on 17¹.――For other expressions in the verses, compare 17⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁶ 28³ᐧ ⁴ 46²⁶ 48⁴.――=13a.= God went up from him] as 17²².――=13b= is an awkward continuation, and has probably arisen through dittography from verse ¹⁵.――=15.= The naming of the place, as 28¹⁹.

That the section refers to Jacob’s outward journey, and that ⁹ ᶠᐧ describe a different theophany on his return, is probable from the following considerations: (1) The analogy of the older tradition (Jehovist). (2) בבאו מפדן ארם‎ (⁹) is superfluous after we have read (⁶ᵃ) that he had reached a spot בא׳ כנען‎. (3) That two consecutive verses (¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹) should commence with ויאמר לו א׳‎ is unnatural even in Priestly-Code (so Kautzsch-Socin). (4) The self-disclosure of the divine speaker (¹¹) must introduce the revelation (compare 17¹). (5) The עוד‎ of verse ⁹ (generally treated as redactional) presupposes a former revelation. The one difficulty in this theory of Gunkel is to imagine an adequate reason for the dislocation of Priestly-Code.

* * * * *

‎ =12.= נתתי‎] Peshiṭtå נשבעתי‎ (so a scholia in Field).――=14.= The verse cannot possibly be from Priestly-Code, who recognises no maẓẓebās, and no ritual worship of any kind before the Sinaitic legislation. As a part of the Bethel-narrative, it is unintelligible in Elohist, who has already described the origin of the maẓẓebāh there (28¹⁸), and still more in Yahwist, who does not sanction maẓẓebās at all. The impression that the scene is Bethel depends solely on the words במקום――אתו‎, which can easily be excised, as a gloss from ¹⁵. The suggestion that the verse continues ⁸ is due to Cornill (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 15 ff.), and seems the most satisfactory solution of the problem.――נֶסֶךְ‎] 2 Kings 16¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ is the only other instance of the word before Jeremiah, though the verb appears in 2 Samuel 23¹⁶, Hosea 9⁴. In Jeremiah, Ezekiel (20²⁸), and II Isaiah it is an accompaniment of heathenish worship; its legalisation for the worship of the temple appears in Ezekiel 45¹⁷ and Priestly-Code. Its mention here is a proof of the great antiquity of the notice (Cornill l.c.).

* * * * *

=16‒20. Rachel dies in child-birth= (Elohist).――=16.= The event took place on the journey from Bethel to ’Ephrāth, an unknown locality in the later territory of Benjamin (see after verse ²⁰).――=17.= This also is a son for thee] So the nurse cheers the dying woman by recalling her prayer at the birth of Joseph (30²⁴).――=18.= With her last breath Rachel names her son Ben-’ônî; but the father, to avert the omen, calls him Bin-yāmîn. The pathos of the narrative flows in sympathy with the feelings of the mother: a notice of Jacob’s life-long grief for the loss of Rachel is reserved for 48⁷.――=19.= on the way to ’Ephrāth] The next clause, that is Bethlehem, is a gloss (see Stade Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, iii. 1 ff.).――=20.= See on verse ¹⁴.

The site of Rachel’s grave is determined by 1 Samuel 10² (on the border of Benjamin, between Ramah and Gibeah) and Jeremiah 31¹⁴ (compare 40¹). Christian tradition places it about a mile North of Bethlehem, in accordance with the gloss at the end of ¹⁹. This, however, rests on a confusion of Ephrath and the better known clan-name אֶפְרָת ־ָה ־ִים‎, which is always connected with Bethlehem. It is unnecessary to assume a divergence of ancient tradition regarding the site. The beautiful verse of Jeremiah 31¹⁴ shows how vivid and persistent was the hold of these legends on the popular mind.――The birth of Benjamin in Canaan is interpreted by many critics to mean that this tribe, unlike the rest, was formed after the conquest of the country (Wellhausen, Stade, Guthe, al.): Steuern, goes further, and infers that the rise of Benjamin brought about the dissolution of the Rachel tribe. But all such speculations are precarious. The name Benjamin, however, does furnish evidence that this particular tribe was formed in Palestine (v.i. on ¹⁸).

* * * * *

‎ =16.= ויסעו מביתאל‎] LXX Ἀπάρας δὲ Ἰακώβ + ἔπηξεν τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ πύργου Γαδερ (from ²¹), showing the influence of the theory that מגדל עדר‎ was at Jerusalem, which Jacob would naturally pass on the way to Bethlehem.――כברת הארץ‎] 48⁷, 2 Kings 5¹⁹† (without article). Apparently a measure of distance (Peshiṭtå a parasang); but nothing is certain. Accusative to Hoffmann (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1890, 23 ff.), ‘as far as one can see.’――=17.= בהקשתה‎ (Hiphil) ∥ ותקש‎ (Piel) in ¹⁶,――possibly variants from Elohist and Yahwist.――Another trace of Yahwist is גם זה‎, pointing back to 30²⁴ᵇ.――=18.= בן־אוני‎] ‘son of my sorrow,’ from אָוֶן‎, ‘trouble.’ Not improbably it is an obsolete proper name, having some connexion with אוֹנוֹ‎, a city and valley in Benjamin (Bennett 325; Cheyne 420).――בן־ימין‎] Usually understood as ‘son of good fortune,’ the right hand being in antiquity the lucky or fortunate side. The original meaning is probably ‘son of the south’ (compare 1 Samuel 23¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴, Psalms 89¹³ etc.), Benjamin being the most southerly of the Rachel tribes.

* * * * *

=21, 22a. Reuben’s incest= (Yahwist).――=21.= Tower of the Flock] Such towers would be numerous in any pastoral country; and the place here referred to is unknown. Micah 4⁸ proves nothing; and the tradition which locates it near Bethlehem rests on this passage. The order of Yahwist’s narrative (see page 414) would lead us to seek it East of the Jordan, where the tribe of Reuben was settled.――=22a.= and when Israel heard] Probably a temporal clause, of which the apodosis has been intentionally omitted.

The story, no doubt, went on to tell of a curse pronounced on Reuben, which explained his loss of the birthright (so Gunkel; otherwise Dillmann). The crime is referred to in 49⁴. The original motive is perhaps suggested by the striking parallel in Iliad ix. 449 ff. (Gunkel):

ὅς μοι παλλακίδος περιχώσατο καλλικόμοιο· τὴν αὐτὸς φιλέεσκεν, ἀτιμάζεσκε δ’ ἄκοιτιν, μητέρ’ ἐμήν· ἡ δ’ αἰὲν ἐμὲ λισσέσκετο γούνων, παλλακίδι προμιγῆναι, ἵν’ ἐχθήρειε γέροντα.

Note that in 30¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ also, Reuben plays a part in the restoration of his mother’s conjugal rights.――An ethnographic reading of the legend finds its historic basis in some humiliation inflicted by Reuben on the Bilhah-tribe, or one of its branches (Dan or Naphtali). See on 49⁴.

=22b‒26. A list of Jacob’s sons= (Priestly-Code).――In two points the list deviates from the tradition of Jehovist (chapters 29. 30): The children are arranged according to their mothers; and the birth of Benjamin is placed in Mesopotamia. Otherwise the order of Jehovist is preserved: Leah precedes Rachel; but Rachel’s maid precedes Leah’s.――On the position of the section in the original Code, see pages 423, 443.

* * * * *

=22a.= The double accentuation means that ²²ᵃ was treated by the Massoretic sometimes as a whole verse, sometimes as a half; the former for private, the latter for liturgical reading (Strack 129; Wickes, Prose Accents, 130). Note the ‘gap in the middle of the verse,’ which LXX fills up with καὶ πονηρὸν ἐφάνη ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ.――ישראל‎] The name, instead of Jacob, is from this point onwards a fairly reliable criterion of the document Yahwist in Genesis.――=26.= ילד‎] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and Hebrew MSS ילדו‎.

* * * * *

=27‒29. The death of Isaac= (Priestly-Code).――In Jehovist Isaac was at the point of death when Jacob fled from Esau; whereas, according to the chronology of Priestly-Code, he survived for 80 years. An equally remarkable divergence from the earlier tradition is seen in Esau’s living on with his father in Hebron (see on 32⁴), and the unbroken friendship between him and Jacob.――=27.= Mamrē, Ḳiryath-’Arba‛, Ḥebrôn. See 13¹⁸ 23².――=29.= Compare 25⁸ᐧ ⁹.――Isaac is buried by Esau and Jacob his sons] as Abraham by Isaac and Ishmael (25⁹). Priestly-Code always lays stress on the harmony of the patriarchal family life.

* * * * *

‎ =27.= קרית הארבע‎] Read perhaps קריתה ארבע‎ (Kittel).――חברון‎] LXX, Peshiṭtå + בארץ כנען‎.――=28.= יצחק‎] LXX + אשר חי‎ (as 25⁷).――=29= end] Syriac (‡ Syriac phrase).――In Priestly-Code’s chronology, Jacob at his father’s death had reached the age of 120 years (compare 35²⁸ with 25²⁶); he was 40 years old when he set out for Paddan Aram. The interval of 80 years has to be divided between his sojourn with Laban and his subsequent residence with Isaac; but in what proportions we have no data to determine.

* * * * *

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