diff options
Diffstat (limited to '77363-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 77363-0.txt | 36498 |
1 files changed, 36498 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/77363-0.txt b/77363-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ab5b108 --- /dev/null +++ b/77363-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,36498 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77363 *** + + + + + A + CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL + COMMENTARY + ON + GENESIS + + + + + ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ + │ │ + │ Transcriber’s Notes │ + │ │ + │ │ + │ Punctuation has been standardized. │ + │ │ + │ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │ + │ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │ + │ easier reading. Abbreviations without clear meanings have │ + │ been left unchanged. │ + │ │ + │ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │ + │ │ + │ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │ + │ Italic text: --> _text_ │ + │ bold text: --> =text=. │ + │ subscripts --> x_{3} │ + │ superscripts --> x{th} │ + │ │ + │ This book was written in a period when many words had │ + │ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │ + │ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │ + │ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │ + │ with a Transcriber’s Note. │ + │ │ + │ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │ + │ │ + │ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │ + │ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │ + │ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │ + │ adequately. │ + │ │ + │ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │ + │ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │ + │ they appear. │ + │ │ + │ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │ + │ text or to provide additional information for the modern │ + │ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │ + │ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │ + │ they appear. │ + └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ + + + + + The International Critical Commentary + on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments + + + UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF + + THE REV. SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D. + _Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford_ + + THE REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. + _Late Master of University College, Durham_ + + AND + + THE REV. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D. + _Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics + Union Theological Seminary, New York_ + + + + + The International + Critical Commentary + + On the Holy Scriptures of the + Old and New Testaments + + + EDITORS’ PREFACE + +THERE are now before the public many Commentaries, written by British +and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. _The +Cambridge Bible for Schools_, the _Handbooks for Bible Classes and +Private Students_, _The Speaker’s Commentary_, _The Popular Commentary_ +(Schaff), _The Expositor’s Bible_, and other similar series, have +their special place and importance. But they do not enter into the +field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of +Commentaries as the _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten +Testament_; De Wette’s _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum +Neuen Testament_; Meyer’s _Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar_; Keil and +Delitzsch’s _Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament_; Lange’s +_Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk_; Nowack’s _Handkommentar zum +Alten Testament_; Holtzmann’s _Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament_ +Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases +enlarged and adapted, for the English-speaking public; others are +in process of translation. But no corresponding series by British or +American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared +by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, Lightfoot, +Perowne, Westcott, and others; and the time has come, in the judgment +of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to +combine British and American scholars in the production of a critical, +comprehensive Commentary that will be abreast of modern biblical +scholarship, and in a measure lead its van. + +Messrs. Charles Scribner’s Sons of New York, and Messrs. T. & T. Clark +of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the +Old and New Testaments, under the editorship of Prof. C. A. BRIGGS, +D.D., D.Litt., in America, and of Prof. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., +for the Old Testament, and the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., for the New +Testament, in Great Britain. + +The Commentaries will be international and inter-confessional, and +will be free from polemical and ecclesiastical bias. They will be based +upon a thorough critical study of the original texts of the Bible, +and upon critical methods of interpretation. They are designed chiefly +for students and clergymen, and will be written in a compact style. +Each book will be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results +of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions still +remaining open. The details of criticism will appear in their proper +place in the body of the Commentary. Each section of the Text will be +introduced with a paraphrase, or summary of contents. Technical details +of textual and philological criticism will, as a rule, be kept distinct +from matter of a more general character; and in the Old Testament the +exegetical notes will be arranged, as far as possible, so as to be +serviceable to students not acquainted with Hebrew. The History of +Interpretation of the Books will be dealt with, when necessary, in the +Introductions, with critical notices of the most important literature +of the subject. Historical and Archæological questions, as well +as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the +Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes +will constitute a uniform series. + + + + + The International Critical Commentary + + + ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS + + THE OLD TESTAMENT + +=GENESIS.= The Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old +Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church of +England, Cambridge, England. [_Now Ready._ + +=EXODUS.= The Rev. A. R. S. KENNEDY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, +University of Edinburgh. + +=LEVITICUS.= J. F. STENNING, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. + +=NUMBERS.= The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, +Mansfield College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._ + +=DEUTERONOMY.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor +of Hebrew, Oxford. [_Now Ready._ + +=JOSHUA.= The Rev. GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, +United Free Church College, Glasgow. + +=JUDGES.= The Rev. GEORGE MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theology, +Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._ + +=SAMUEL.= The Rev. H. P. SMITH, D.D., Professor of Old Testament +Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. [_Now Ready._ + +=KINGS.= The Rev. FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President and +Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, +New York City. + +=CHRONICLES.= The Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, +Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [_Now Ready._ + +=EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.= The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rector of +St. Mark’s Church, New York City, sometime Professor of Hebrew, P. E. +Divinity School, Philadelphia. + +=PSALMS.= The Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Graduate +Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, Union Theological +Seminary, New York. [_2 volumes. Now Ready._ + +=PROVERBS.= The Rev. C. H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, +Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [_Now Ready._ + +=JOB.= The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of +Hebrew, Oxford. + +=ISAIAH.= Chapters I‒XXXIX. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor +of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. + +=ISAIAH.= Chapters XL‒LXVI. The Rev. A. S. PEAKE, M.A., D.D., Dean of +the Theological Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of +Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester, England. + +=JEREMIAH.= The Rev. A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime +Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England. + +=EZEKIEL.= The Rev. G. A. COOKE, M.A., Oriel Professor of the +Interpretation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. +CHARLES F. BURNEY, D.Litt., Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John’s +College, Oxford. + +=DANIEL.= The Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor +of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. +Michael’s Church, New York City. + +=AMOS AND HOSEA.= W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President of +the University of Chicago, Illinois. [_Now Ready._ + +=MICAH TO HAGGAI.= Prof. JOHN P. SMITH, University of Chicago; Prof. +CHARLES P. FAGNANI, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, New York; +W. HAYES WARD, D.D., LL.D., Editor of _The Independent_, New York; +Prof. JULIUS A. BEWER, Union Theological Seminary, New York, and Prof. +H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Boston University. + +=ZECHARIAH TO JONAH.= Prof. H. G. MITCHELL, D.D., Prof. JOHN P. SMITH +and Prof. J. A. BEWER. + +=ESTHER.= The Rev. L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford +Theological Seminary. [_Now Ready._ + +=ECCLESIASTES.= Prof. GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical +Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [_Now Ready._ + +=RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS.= Rev. CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., +D.Litt., Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, +Union Theological Seminary, New York. + + + THE NEW TESTAMENT + +=ST. MATTHEW.= The Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer +in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [_Now Ready._ + +=ST. MARK.= Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testament +Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [_Now Ready._ + +=ST. LUKE.= The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of +University College, Durham. [_Now Ready._ + +=ST. JOHN.= The Very Rev. JOHN HENRY BERNARD, D.D., Dean of St. +Patrick’s and Lecturer in Divinity, University of Dublin. + +=HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., +Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. WILLOUGHBY +C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew, Exeter +College, Oxford. + +=ACTS.= The Rev. C. H. TURNER, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, +Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the +Bishop of London. + +=ROMANS.= The Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret +Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the +Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of King’s College, London. + [_Now Ready._ + +=CORINTHIANS.= The Right Rev. ARCHBISHOP ROBERTSON, D.D., LL.D., Lord +Bishop of Exeter, the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., and DAWSON WALKER, +D.D., Theological Tutor in the University of Durham. + +=GALATIANS.= The Rev. ERNEST D. BURTON, D.D., Professor of New +Testament Literature, University of Chicago. + +=EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.= The Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, B.D., D.Litt., +sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, now +Librarian of the same. [_Now Ready._ + +=PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON.= The Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor +of Biblical Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THESSALONIANS.= The Rev. JAMES E. FRAME, M.A., Professor of Biblical +Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. + +=THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.= The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden of Keble +College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. + +=HEBREWS.= The Rev. A. NAIRNE, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King’s +College, London. + +=ST. JAMES.= The Rev. JAMES H. ROPES, D.D., Bussey Professor of New +Testament Criticism in Harvard University. + +=PETER AND JUDE.= The Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime Regius +Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN.= The Rev. E. A. BROOKE, B.D., Fellow and +Divinity Lecturer in King’s College, Cambridge. + +=REVELATION.= The Rev. ROBERT H. CHARLES, M.A., D.D., sometime +Professor of Biblical Greek in the University of Dublin. + + + + + GENESIS + + JOHN SKINNER, D.D. + + + + + THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY + + + A + CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL + COMMENTARY + ON + GENESIS + + + BY + + JOHN SKINNER, D.D., HONORARY M.A. (CAMBRIDGE) + + PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF + OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, + WESTMINSTER COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE + + + NEW YORK + CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS + 1910 + + + + + TO + MY WIFE + + + + + PREFACE. + + +It is a little over six years since I was entrusted by the Editors +of “The International Critical Commentary” with the preparation of +the volume on Genesis. During that time there has been no important +addition to the number of commentaries either in English or in German. +The English reader still finds his best guidance in Spurrell’s valuable +_Notes_ on the text, Bennett’s compressed but suggestive exposition +in the _Century Bible_, and Driver’s thorough and masterly work in the +first volume of the _Westminster Commentaries_; all of which were in +existence when I commenced my task. While no one of these books will +be superseded by the present publication, there was still room for a +commentary on the more elaborate scale of the “International” series; +and it has been my aim, in accordance with the programme of that series, +to supply the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and +archæological questions, which the present state of scholarship demands. + +The most recent German commentaries, those of Holzinger and Gunkel, +had both appeared before 1904; and I need not say that to both, but +especially to the latter, I have been greatly indebted. Every student +must have felt that Gunkel’s work, with its æsthetic appreciation of +the genius of the narratives, its wider historical horizons, and its +illuminating use of mythological and folklore parallels, has breathed a +new spirit into the investigation of Genesis, whose influence no writer +on the subject can hope or wish to escape. The last-mentioned feature +is considerably emphasised in the third edition, the first part of +which (1909) was published just too late to be utilised for this volume. +That I have not neglected the older standard commentaries of Tuch, +Delitzsch, and Dillmann, or less comprehensive expositions like that of +Strack, will be apparent from the frequent acknowledgments in the notes. +The same remark applies to many books of a more general kind (mostly +cited in the list of “Abbreviations”), which have helped to elucidate +special points of exegesis. + +The problems which invest the interpretation of Genesis are, indeed, +too varied and far-reaching to be satisfactorily treated within +the compass of a single volume. The old controversies as to the +compatibility of the earlier chapters with the conclusions of modern +science are no longer, to my mind, a living issue; and I have not +thought it necessary to occupy much space with their discussion. Those +who are of a different opinion may be referred to the pages of Dr. +Driver, where they will find these matters handled with convincing +force and clearness. Rather more attention has been given to the recent +reaction against the critical analysis of the Pentateuch, although I am +very far from thinking that that movement, either in its conservative +or its more radical manifestation, is likely to undo the scholarly work +of the last hundred and fifty years. At all events, my own belief in +the essential soundness of the prevalent hypothesis has been confirmed +by the renewed examination of the text of Genesis which my present +undertaking required. It will probably appear to some that the analysis +is pushed further than is warranted, and that duplicates are discovered +where common sense would have suggested an easy reconciliation. That is +a perfectly fair line of criticism, provided the whole problem be kept +in view. It has to be remembered that the analytic process is a chain +which is a good deal stronger than its weakest link, that it starts +from cases where diversity of authorship is almost incontrovertible, +and moves on to others where it is less certain; and it is surely +evident that when the composition of sources is once established, +the slightest differences of representation or language assume a +significance which they might not have apart from that presumption. +That the analysis is frequently tentative and precarious is fully +acknowledged; and the danger of basing conclusions on insufficient data +of this kind is one that I have sought to avoid. On the more momentous +question of the historical or legendary character of the book, or +the relation of the one element to the other, opinion is likely to be +divided for some time to come. Several competent Assyriologists appear +to cherish the conviction that we are on the eve of fresh discoveries +which will vindicate the accuracy of at least the patriarchal +traditions in a way that will cause the utmost astonishment to some +who pay too little heed to the findings of archæological experts. It +is naturally difficult to estimate the worth of such an anticipation; +and it is advisable to keep an open mind. Yet even here it is possible +to adopt a position which will not be readily undermined. Whatever +triumphs may be in store for the archæologist,――though he should prove +that Noah and Abraham and Jacob and Joseph are all real historical +personages,――he will hardly succeed in dispelling the atmosphere of +mythical imagination, of legend, of poetic idealisation, which are the +life and soul of the narratives of Genesis. It will still be necessary, +if we are to retain our faith in the inspiration of this part of +Scripture, to recognise that the Divine Spirit has enshrined a part of +His Revelation to men in such forms as these. It is only by a frank +acceptance of this truth that the Book of Genesis can be made a means +of religious edification to the educated mind of our age. + +As regards the form of the commentary, I have endeavoured to include +in the large print enough to enable the reader to pick up rapidly +the general sense of a passage; although the exigencies of space have +compelled me to employ small type to a much larger extent than was +ideally desirable. In the arrangement of footnotes I have reverted +to the plan adopted in the earliest volume of the series (Driver’s +_Deuteronomy_), by putting all the textual, grammatical, and +philological material bearing on a particular verse in consecutive +notes running concurrently with the main text. It is possible that in +some cases a slight embarrassment may result from the presence of a +double set of footnotes; but I think that this disadvantage will be +more than compensated to the reader by the convenience of having the +whole explanation of a verse under his eye at one place, instead of +having to perform the difficult operation of keeping two or three pages +open at once. + +In conclusion, I have to express my thanks, first of all, to two +friends by whose generous assistance my labour has been considerably +lightened: to Miss E. I. M. Boyd, M.A., who has rendered me the +greatest service in collecting material from books, and to the Rev. +J. G. Morton, M.A., who has corrected the proofs, verified all the +scriptural references, and compiled the Index. My last word of all +must be an acknowledgment of profound and grateful obligation to Dr. +Driver, the English Editor of the series, for his unfailing interest +and encouragement during the progress of the work, and for numerous +criticisms and suggestions, especially on points of philology and +archæology, to which in nearly every instance I have been able to give +effect. + + JOHN SKINNER. + CAMBRIDGE, + _April 1910_. + + + + + CONTENTS. + + + ○ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS + + ○ INTRODUCTION + + ○ § 1. _Introductory: Canonical Position of the Book――its general + Scope――and Title_ + + + _A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION. + + ○ § 2. _History or Legend?_ + + ○ § 3. _Myth and Legend――Foreign Myths――Types of mythical Motive_ + + ○ § 4. _Historical Value of the Tradition_ + + ○ § 5. _Preservation and Collection of the Traditions_ + + + _B._ STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK. + + ○ § 6. _Plan and Divisions_ + + ○ § 7. _The Sources of Genesis_ + + ○ § 8. _The collective Authorship of Yahwist and Elohist_ + + ○ § 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist――their Relation to + Literary Prophecy_ + + ○ § 10. _Date and Place of Origin――Redaction of Jehovist_ + + ○ § 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction_ + + ○ COMMENTARY + + + EXTENDED NOTES:―― + + ○ The Divine Image in Man + + ○ The Hebrew and Babylonian Sabbath + + ○ Babylonian and other Cosmogonies + + ○ The Site of Eden + + ○ The ‘Protevangelium’ + + ○ The Cherubim + + ○ Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend + + ○ Origin of the Cain Legend + + ○ The Cainite Genealogy + + ○ The Chronology of Chapter 5, etc. + + ○ The Deluge Tradition + + ○ Noah’s Curse and Blessing + + ○ The Babel Legend + + ○ Chronology of 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ + + ○ Historic Value of Chapter 14 + + ○ Circumcision + + ○ The Covenant-Idea in Priestly-Code + + ○ Destruction of the Cities of the Plain + + ○ The Sacrifice of Isaac + + ○ The Treaty of Gilead and its historical Setting + + ○ The Legend of Peniel + + ○ The Sack of Shechem + + ○ The Edomite Genealogies + + ○ The Degradation of Reuben + + ○ The Fate of Simeon and Levi + + ○ The “Shiloh” Prophecy of 49¹⁰ + + ○ The Zodiacal Theory of the Twelve Tribes + + + INDEX―― + + ○ I. English + + ○ II. Hebrew + + + + + ABBREVIATIONS.¹ + + ¹ Most Abbreviations have been replaced in the text with the + full name or title for easier reading. + + + 1. SOURCES (see pages xxxiv ff.), TEXTS, AND VERSIONS. + + E Elohist, or Elohistic Narrative. + + J Yahwist, or Yahwistic Narrative. + + JE Jehovist, or the combined narrative of Yahwist and + Elohist. + + P or PC The Priestly Code. + + Pᵍ The historical kernel or framework of Priestly-Code + (see page lvii). + + Rᴱ Redactors within the schools of Elohist, Yahwist, and + Rᴶ Priestly-Code, respectively. + Rᴾ + + Rᴶᴱ The Compiler of the composite work Jehovist. + + Rᴶᴱᴾ The Final Redactor of the Pentateuch. + + EV[V] English Version[s] (Authorised or Revised). + + _Jub._ _The Book of Jubilees._ + + MT Massoretic Text. + + OT Old Testament. + + Aq. Greek Translation of Aquila. + + Θ Greek Translation of Theodotion. + + Σ Greek Translation of Symmachus. + + Gr.-Ven. Codex ‘Græcus Venetus’ (14th or 15th century.). + + Ⓖ The Greek (Septuagint) Version of the Old Testament + (edited by A. E. Brooke and N. M‘Lean, Cambridge, 1906). + + Ⓖᴸ Lucianic recension of the LXX, edited by Lagarde, + _Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior + Græce_, etc. (1883). + + Ⓖᴬᴮᴱᴹ ᵉᵗᶜᐧ Codices of LXX (see Brooke and M‘Lean, page v.). + + Ⓛ Old Latin Version. + + Ⓢ The Syriac Version (Peshiṭtå). + + ⅏ The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch (Walton’s + ‘London Polyglott’). + + Ⓣᴼ The Targum of Onkelos [2nd century A.D.] (edited by + Berliner, 1884). + + Ⓣᴶ The Targum of Jonathan [8th century A.D.] (edited by + Ginsburger, 1903). + + Ⓥ The Vulgate. + + + 2. COMMENTARIES. + + Ayles Herbert Henry Baker Ayles, _A critical Commentary on + Genesis ii. 4‒iii. 25_ (1904). + + Ba[ll] Charles James Ball, _The Book of Genesis: Critical + Edition of the Hebrew Text printed in colours + exhibiting the composite structure of the book, with + Notes_ (1896). See _SBOT_. + + Ben[nett] William Henry Bennett, _Genesis_ (Century Bible). + + Calv[in] _Mosis Libri V cum Johannis Calvini Commentariis. + Genesis seorsum_, etc. (1563). + + De[litzsch] Franz Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar über die Genesis_ + (5th edition, 1887). + + Di[llmann] _Die Genesis. Von der dritten Auflage an erklärt + von August Dillmann_ (6th edition, 1892). The work + embodies frequent extracts from earlier editions + by Knobel: these are referred to below as + “Knobel-Dillmann” + + Dr[iver] _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_, + by Samuel Rolles Driver (7th edition, 1909). + + Gu[nkel] _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_, von Hermann Gunkel + (2nd edition, 1902). + + Ho[lzinger] _Genesis erklärt_, von Heinrich Holzinger (1898). + + IEz. Abraham Ibn Ezra († _circa_ 1167). + + Jer[ome], Jerome († 420), _Quæstiones sive Traditiones + _Qu._ hebraicæ in Genesim_. + + Kn[obel] August Wilhelm Knobel. + + Kn.-Di. See Dillmann. + + Ra[shi] Rabbi Shelomoh Yiẓḥaḳi († 1105). + + Spurrell George James Spurrell, _Notes on the Text of the + Book of Genesis_ (2nd edition, 1896). + + Str[ack] _Die Genesis übersetzt und ausgelegt_, von Hermann + Leberecht Strack (2nd edition, 1905). + + Tu[ch] Friedrich Tuch, _Commentar über die Genesis_ (2nd + edition, 1871). + + + 3. WORKS OF REFERENCE AND GENERAL LITERATURE. + + Barth, _ES_ Jakob Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum semitischen + insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_ (1893). + + Barth, _NB_ _Die Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen_ + (1889‒91). + + Barton, _SO_ George Aaron Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_ + (1902). + + B.-D. Seligmann Baer and Franz Delitzsch, _Liber Genesis_ + (1869). The Massoretic Text, with Appendices. + + BDB Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles + Augustus Briggs, _A Hebrew and English Lexicon of + the Old Testament_ (1891‒ ). + + Benz[inger], Immanuel Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_ (2nd + _Arch._² edition, 1907). + + _Ber. R._ The Midrash _Bereshith Rabba_ (translated into German + by August Wünsche, 1881). + + Bochart, Samuel Bochartus, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus + _Hieroz._ de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ (edited by Rosenmüller, + 1793‒96). + + Bu[dde], Karl Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ (1883). + _Urg._ + + Buhl, _GP_ Frants Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_ (1896). + + Buhl _Geschichte der Edomiter_ (1893). + + Burck[hardt] John Lewis Burckhardt, _Notes on the Bedouins and + Wahábys_. + + _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land._ + + Che[yne], Thomas Kelly Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of + _TB[A]I_ Ancient Israel_ (1907). + + _CIS_ _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_ (1881‒ ). + + Cook, _Gl._ Stanley Arthur Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic + Inscriptions_ (1898). + + Cooke, _NSI_ George Albert Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic + Inscriptions_ (1903). + + Co[rnill], Carl Heinrich Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte + _Einl._ Testament_ (see page xl, note). + + Co[rnill], _History of the People of Israel_ (Translated, 1898). + _Hist._ + + Curtiss, _PSR_ Samuel Ives Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion + to-day_ (1902). + + Dav[idson] Andrew Bruce Davidson, _Hebrew Syntax_. + + Dav[idson] _The Theology of the Old Testament_ (1904). + _OTTh._ + + _DB_ _A Dictionary of the Bible_, edited by James Hastings + (1898‒1902). + + Del[itzsch], Friedrich Delitzsch, _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ + _Hwb._ (1896). + + Del[itzsch], _Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische + _Par._ Studie_ (1881). + + Del[itzsch], _Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen + _Prol._ Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ (1886). + + Del[itzsch] See _BA_ below. + + Doughty, _AD_ Charles Montagu Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ + (1888). + + Dri[ver], Samuel Rolles Driver, _An Introduction to the + _LOT_ Literature of the Old Testament_ (Revised edition, + 1910). + + Dri[ver], _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ + _Sam._ (1890). + + Dri[ver], _T._ _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ (3rd + edition, 1892). + + _EB_ _Encyclopædia Biblica_, edited by Thomas Kelly Cheyne + and John Sutherland Black (1899‒1903). + + _EBL_ See Hilprecht. + + Ee[rdmans] Bernardus Dirk Eerdmans, _A lttestamentliche + Studien_: + i. _Die Komposition der Genesis._ + ii. _Die Vorgeschichte Israels._ + + Erman, _LAE_ Adolf Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_ (translated by + Helen Mary Tirard, 1894). + + Erman, _Hdbk._ _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ (translated by + Agnes Sophia Griffith, 1907). + + Ew[ald], _Gr._ Heinrich Ewald, _Ausführliches Lehrbuch der + hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ (8th edition, + 1870). + + Ew[ald], _HI_ _History of Israel_ [English translation, 1871]. + + Ew[ald], _Ant._ _Antiquities of Israel_ [English translation, 1876]. + + Field Frederick Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt; + sive Veterum Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus + Testamentum Fragmenta_ (1875). + + Frazer, _AAO_ James George Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies + in the history of Oriental Religion_ (1906). + + Frazer, _GB_ _The Golden Bough; a Study in Magic and Religion_ + (2nd edition, 1900). + + Frazer _Folklore in the Old Testament_ (1907). + + v. Gall, August Freiherr von Gall, _Altisraelitische + _CSt._ Kultstätten_ (1898). + + G.-B. Wilhelm Gesenius’ _Hebräisches und aramäisches + Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament_ (14th + edition by Buhl, 1905). + + Geiger, Abraham Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen + _Urschr._ der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern + Entwickelung des Judenthums_ (1857). + + Ges[enius], Wilhelm Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus + _Th._ Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ + (1829‒58). + + G.-K. Wilhelm Gesenius’ _Hebräische Grammatik_, völlig + umgearbeitet von Emil Kautzsch (26th edition, 1896) + [English translation, 1898]. + + Glaser, Eduard Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie + _Skizze_ Arabiens_, ii. (1890). + + Gordon, _ETG_ Alexander Reid Gordon, _The Early Traditions of + Genesis_ (1907). + + Gray, _HPN_ George Buchanan Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper + Names_ (1896). + + Gu[nkel], Hermann Gunkel, _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und + _Schöpf._ Endzeit_ (1895). + + Guthe, _GI_ Hermann Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1899). + + Harrison, Jane Ellen Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of + _Prol._ Greek Religion_ (2nd edition, 1908). + + Hilprecht, Hermann Vollrat Hilprecht, _Explorations in Bible + _EBL_ Lands during the 19th century_ [with the co-operation + of Benzinger, Hommel, Jensen, and Steindorff] (1903). + + Ho[lzinger], Heinrich Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ + _Einl._ or (1893). + _Hex._ + + Hom[mel], _AA_ Fritz Hommel, _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen + arabistischsemitologischen Inhalts_ (i‒iii, 1892‒ ). + + Hom[mel], _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + _AHT_ Monuments_ (1897). + + Hom[mel], _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte + _AOD_ Testament_ (1902). + + Hom[mel], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1885). + _Gesch._ + + Hom[mel], _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ (1893). + _SA Chrest._ + + Hupf[eld], Hermann Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und die + _Qu._ Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ (1853). + + Jastrow, _RBA_ Morris Jastrow, _The Religion of Babylonia and + Assyria_ (1898). + + _JE_ _The Jewish Encyclopædia._ + + Je[remias], Alfred Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + _ATLO_² alten Orients_ (2nd edition, 1906). + + Jen[sen], Peter Jensen, _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890). + _Kosm._ + + _KAT_² _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_, by + Schrader (2nd edition, 1883). + + _KAT_³ _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament._ Third + edition, by Zimmern and Winckler (1902). + + Kent, _SOT_ Charles Foster Kent, _Narratives of the Beginnings + of Hebrew History_ [Students’ Old Testament] (1904). + + _KIB_ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, edited by Eberhard + Schrader (1889‒ ). + + Kit[tel], _BH_ Rudolf Kittel, _Biblia Hebraica_ (Genesis) (1905). + + Kit[tel], _GH_ _Geschichte der Hebräer_ (1888‒92). + + Kön[ig], Friedrich Eduard König, _Historisch-kritisches + _Lgb._ Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ (2 volumes, + 1881‒95). + + Kön[ig], _S_ _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen + Sprache_ (1897). + + KS Emil Kautzsch and Albert Socin, _Die Genesis mit + aüsserer Unterscheidung der Quellenschriften_. + + Kue[nen], Abraham Kuenen, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (see + _Ges. Abh._ page xl, _note_). + + Kue[nen], _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan + _Ond._ en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ + (see page xl, _note_). + + Lag[arde], Paul Anton de Lagarde, _Ankündigung einer neuen + _Ank._ Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_ + (1882). + + Lag[arde], _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ (1866). + _Ges. Abh._ + + Lag[arde], _Mittheilungen_, i‒iv (1884‒91). + _Mitth._ + + Lag[arde] _Orientalia_, 1, 2 (1879‒80). + + Lag[arde], _Semitica_, 1, 2 (1878). + _Sem._ + + Lag[arde], _Symmicta_, 2 parts (1877‒80). + _Symm._ + + Lag[arde], _Onomastica Sacra_ (1870). + _OS_ + + Lane, _Lex._ Edward William Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ + (1863‒93). + + Lane, _ME_ _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern + Egyptians_ (5th edition, 1860). + + Len[ormant], François Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’histoire_, + _Or._ (i‒iii, 1880‒84). + + Levy, Jacob Levy, _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die + _Ch. Wb._ Targumim und Midraschim_ (3rd edition, 1881). + + Lidz[barski], Mark Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen + _Hb._ or Epigraphik_ (1898). + _NSEpigr._ + + Lu[ther], _INS_ See Meyer, _INS_. + + Marquart Josef Marquart, _Fundamente israelitischer und + jüdischer Geschichte_ (1896). + + Meyer, _Entst._ Eduard Meyer, _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ (1896). + + Meyer, _GA¹_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (Band i. 1884). + + Meyer, _GA²_ _Geschichte des Alterthums_ (2nd edition, 1909). + + Meyer, _INS_ _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, von Eduard + Meyer, mit Beiträgen von Bernhard Luther (1906). + + Müller, _AE_ Wilhelm Max Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_ (1893). + + Nestle, _MM_ Eberhard Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_ (1893). + + Nö[ldeke], Theodor Nöldeke, _Beiträge zur semitischen + _Beitr._ Sprachwissenschaft_ (1904). + + Nö[ldeke], _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ + _Unters._ (1869). + + _OH_ _Oxford Hexateuch_ = Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, + _The Hexateuch_ (see page xl, _note_). + + Oehler, _ATTh_ Gustav Friedrich Oehler, _Theologie des Alten + Testaments_ (3rd edition, 1891). + + Ols. Justus Olshausen. + + Orr, _POT_ James Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_ (1906). + + _OS_ See Lagarde. + + P[ayne] Robert Payne Smith, _Thesaurus Syriacus_ (1879, 1901). + Sm[ith], _Thes._ + + Petrie William Flinders Petrie, _A History of Egypt_. + + Pro[cksch] Otto Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die + Elohimquelle_ (1906). + + Riehm, _Hdwb._ Eduard Carl August Riehm, _Handwörterbuch des + biblischen Altertums_ (2nd edition, 1893‒94). + + Robinson, _BR_ Edward Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_ + (2nd edition, 3 volumes, 1856). + + Sayce, _EHH_ Archibald Henry Sayce, _The Early History of the + Hebrews_ (1897). + + Sayce, _HCM_ _The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the + Monuments_ (2nd edition, 1894). + + _SBOT_ _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, a critical + edition of the Hebrew Text printed in Colours_, + under the editorial direction of Paul Haupt. + + Schenkel, _BL_ Daniel Schenkel, _Bibel-Lexicon_ (1869‒75). + + Schr[ader], Eberhard Schrader, _Keilinschriften und + _KGF_ Geschichtsforschung_ (1878). + + Schr[ader] See _KAT_ and _KIB_ above. + + Schultz, Hermann Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_ (English + _OTTh_ translation, 1892). + + Schürer, _GJV_ Emil Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im + Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (3rd and 4th editions, + 1898‒1901). + + Schw[ally] Friedrich Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_ (1892). + + _Semitische Kriegsaltertümer_, i. (1901). + + Smend, _ATRG_ Rudolf Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen + Religionsgeschichte_ (2nd edition, 1899). + + GASm[ith], George Adam Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy + _HG_ Land_ (1895). + + Rob. Smith, William Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in + _KM_² Early Arabia_ (2nd edition, 1903). + + Rob. Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd + _OTJC_² edition, 1892). + + Rob. Smith, _The Prophets of Israel_ (2nd edition, 1895). + _Pr._² + + Rob. Smith, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_ (2nd + _RS_² edition, 1894). + + Spiegelberg Wilhelm Spiegelberg, _Aegyptologische Randglossen + zum Alten Testament_ (1904). + + _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte der + aegyptischen Monumente_ (3rd edition, 1904). + + Sta[de] Bernhard Stade, _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und + Abhandlungen_ (1899). + + Sta[de], _BTh_ _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_, i. (1905). + + Sta[de], _GVI_ _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ (1887‒89). + + Steuern[agel], Carl Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der + _Einw._ israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ (1901). + + TA Tel-Amarna Tablets [_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + v; Knudtzon, _Die el-Amarna Tafeln_ (1908‒ )]. + + Thomson, _LB_ William McClure Thomson, _The Land and the Book_ + (3 volumes, 1881‒86). + + Tiele, Cornelis Petrus Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im + _Gesch._ Altertum_, i. (German edition, 1896). + + Tristram, Henry Baker Tristram, _The Natural History of the + _NHB_ Bible_ (9th edition, 1898). + + We[llhausen], Julius Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs + _Comp._² und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_ + (2nd edition, 1889). + + We[llhausen], _De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles + _De gent._ 2. 4 enumerantur_ (1870). + + We[llhausen], _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ (2nd edition, 1897). + _Heid._ + + We[llhausen], _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_ (6th edition, + _Prol._⁶ 1905). + + We[llhausen] _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._ + + We[llhausen], _Der Text der Bücher Samuelis_ (1871). + _TBS_ + + Wi[nckler], Hugo Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_ + _AOF_ (1893- ). + + Wi[nckler], _Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_ (1892). + _ATU_ + + Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ (1892). + _GBA_ + + Wi[nckler], _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_ (i. ii., + _GI_ 1895, 1900). + + Wi[nckler] See _KAT_³ above. + + Zunz, _GdV_ Leopold Zunz, _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der + Juden_ (2nd edition, 1892). + + + 4. PERIODICALS, ETC. + + _AJSL_ _American Journal of Semitic Languages and + Literatures_ (continuing _Hebraica_). + + _AJTh_ _American Journal of Theology_ (1897‒ ). + + _ARW_ _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._ + + _BA_ _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen + Sprachwissenschaft_, herausgegeben von Friedrich + Delitzsch und Paul Haupt (1890‒ ). + + _BS_ _Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_ + (1844‒ ). + + _Deutsche Litteraturzeitung_ (1880‒ ). + + _Exp._ _The Expositor._ + + _ET_ _The Expository Times._ + + _GGA_ _Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_ (1753— ). + + _GGN_ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der + Wissenschaften zu Göttingen._ + + _Hebr._ _Hebräica_ (1884‒95). See _AJSL_. + + _JBBW_ [Ewald’s] _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_ + (1849‒1865). + + _J[S]BL_ _Journal of_ [the Society of] _Biblical Literature + and Exegesis_ (1881‒ ). + + _JPh_ _The Journal of Philology_ (1872‒ ). + + _JQR_ _The Jewish Quarterly Review._ + + _JRAS_ _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great + Britain and Ireland_ (1834‒ ). + + _JTS_ _The Journal of Theological Studies_ (1900‒ ). + + _Lit[erarisches] Zentralbl[att für Deutschland]_ + (1850‒ ). + + _M[B]BA_ _Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie + der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._ Continued in + _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie + der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_ (1881‒ ). + + _MVAG_ _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_ + (1896‒ ). + + _NKZ_ _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_ (1890‒ ). + + _OLz_ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ (1898‒ ). + + _PAOS_ _Proceedings [Journal] of the American Oriental + Society_ (1851‒ ). + + _PEFS_ Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._ + + _PSBA_ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_ + (1878‒ ). + + _SBBA_ See _MBBA_ above. + + _SK_ _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_ (1828‒ ). + + _ThLz_ _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_ (1876‒ ). + + _ThT_ _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ (1867‒ ). + + _TSBA_ _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology._ + + _ZA_ _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_ (1886‒ ). + + _ZATW_ _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_ + (1881‒ ). + + _ZDMG_ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_ (1845‒ ). + + _ZDPV_ _Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_ + (1878‒ ). + + _ZKF_ _Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_ (1884‒85). + + _ZVP_ _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und + Sprachwissenschaft_ (1860‒ ). + + + 5. OTHER SIGNS AND CONTRACTIONS. + + NH ‘New Hebrew’: the language of the Mishnah, Midrashim, + and parts of the Talmud. + + _v.i._ _vide infra_ Used in references from commentary to + footnotes, and _vice versâ_. + _v.s._ _vide supra_ + + * Frequently used to indicate that a section is of + composite authorship. + + † After Old Testament references means that all + occurrences of the word or usage in question are + cited. + + √ Root or stem. + + ׳ Sign of abbreviation in Hebrew words. + + וגו׳ = וגומר = ‘and so on’: used when a Hebrew citation + is incomplete. + + + + + INTRODUCTION. + + + § 1. _Introductory: Canonical position of the book + ――its general scope――and title._ + +The Book of Genesis (on the title see at the end of this §) forms the +opening section of a comprehensive historical work which, in the Hebrew +Bible, extends from the creation of the world to the middle of the +Babylonian Exile (2 Kings 25³⁰). The tripartite division of the Jewish +Canon has severed the later portion of this work (Joshua‒Kings), under +the title of the “Former Prophets” (הנביאים הראשונים), from the earlier +portion (Genesis‒Deuteronomy), which constitutes the Law (התורה),――a +seemingly artificial bisection which results from the Tôrāh having +attained canonical authority soon after its completion in the time of +Ezra and Nehemiah, while the canonicity of the Prophetical scriptures +was not recognised till some centuries later.¹ How soon the division +of the Tôrāh into its five books (חמשה חומשי התורה: ‘the five fifths of the +Law’) was introduced we do not know for certain; but it is undoubtedly +ancient, and in all probability is due to the final redactors of the +Pentateuch.² In the case of Genesis, at all events, the division is +obviously appropriate. Four centuries of complete silence lie between +its close and the beginning of Exodus, where we enter on the history +of a nation as contrasted with that of a family; and its prevailing +character of _individual biography_ suggests that its traditions are of +a different quality, and have a different origin, from the _national_ +traditions preserved in Exodus and the succeeding books. Be that as it +may, Genesis is a unique and well-rounded whole; and there is no book +of the Pentateuch, except Deuteronomy, which so readily lends itself to +monographic treatment. + + ¹ See Ryle, _Canon of the Old Testament_, chapters iv. v.; + Wildeboer, _Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament_², 27 + ff., 101 ff.; Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_, + 8 f.; Budde, article ‘Canon,’ in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, and + Woods, ‘Old Testament Canon,’ in _A Dictionary of the Bible_. + + ² Kuenen, _Onderzoek_, i. pages 7, 331. The earliest external + evidence of the fivefold division is Philo, _De Abrahamo_, + _initial_ (Τῶν ἱερῶν νόμων ἐν πέντε βίβλοις ἀναγραφέντων, ἡ + πρώτη καλεῖται καὶ ἐπιγράφεται Γένεσις, ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου + γενέσεως, ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ περιέχει, λαβοῦσα τὴν πρόσρησιν· καίτοι + κτλ.); Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 39. It is found, however, + in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX, and + seems to have served as a model for the similar division of + the Psalter. That it follows natural lines of cleavage is + shown by Kuenen (_ll.cc._); and there is no reason to doubt + that it is as old as the canonisation of the Tôrāh. + +Genesis may thus be described as the Book of Hebrew Origins. It is a +peculiarity of the Pentateuch that it is Law-book and history in one: +while its main purpose is legislative, the laws are set in a framework +of narrative, and so, as it were, are woven into the texture of the +nation’s life. Genesis contains a minimum of legislation; but its +narrative is the indispensable prelude to that account of Israel’s +formative period in which the fundamental institutions of the theocracy +are embedded. It is a collection of traditions regarding the immediate +ancestors of the Hebrew nation (chapters 12‒50), showing how they were +gradually isolated from other nations and became a separate people; and +at the same time how they were related to those tribes and races most +nearly connected with them. But this is preceded (in chapters 1‒11) by +an account of the origin of the world, the beginnings of human history +and civilisation, and the distribution of the various races of mankind. +The whole thus converges steadily on the line of descent from which +Israel sprang, and which determined its providential position among +the nations of the world. It is significant, as already observed, that +the narrative stops short just at the point where family history ceases +with the death of Joseph, to give place after a long interval to the +history of the nation. + + _The Title._――The name ‘Genesis’ comes to us through the + Vulgate from the LXX, where the usual superscription is simply + Γένεσις (LXX{EM, most cursives}), rarely ἡ γένεσις (LXX⁷²), + a contraction of Γένεσις κόσμου (LXXᴬ ¹²¹). An interesting + variation in one cursives. (129)――ἡ βίβλος τῶν γενέσεων (compare + 2⁴ 5¹)¹――might tempt one to fancy that the scribe had in view + the series of _Tôlĕdôth_ (see page xxxiv), and regarded the book + as the book of origins in the wide sense expressed above. But + there is no doubt that the current Greek title is derived from + the opening theme of the book, the creation of the world.²――So + also in Syriac (_sephrå dabrīthå_), Theodore of Mopsuestia (ἡ + κτίσις), and occasionally among the Rabbis (ספר יצירה).――The common + Jewish designation is בראשית, after the first word of the book + (Origen, in Eusebius _Church History_, vi. 25; Jerome, _Prologus + Galeatus_, and _Questions on Genesis_); less usual is חומש ראשון, + ‘the first fifth.’――Only a curious interest attaches to the + unofficial appellation ספר הישר (based on 2 Samuel 1¹⁸) or ס׳ הישרים + (the patriarchs) see Carpzov, _Introductio in libros canonicos + bibliorum Veteris Testamenti_ page 55; Delitzsch, 10. + + ¹ _Cambridge Septuagint_, page 1. + + ² See the quotation from Philo on page i above; and compare + Pseudo-Athanasius _De synposis scripturæ sacræ_ 5. + + + + + _A._ NATURE OF THE TRADITION. + + + § 2. _History or Legend?_ + +The first question that arises with regard to these ‘origins’ is +whether they are in the main of the nature of history or of legend, +――whether (to use the expressive German terms) they are _Geschichte_, +things that happened, or _Sage_, things said. There are certain broad +differences between these two kinds of narrative which may assist us to +determine to which class the traditions of Genesis belong. + +History in the technical sense is an authentic record of actual events +based on documents contemporary, or nearly contemporary, with the +facts narrated. It concerns itself with affairs of state and of public +interest,――with the actions of kings and statesmen, civil and foreign +wars, national disasters and successes, and such like. If it deals +with contemporary incidents, it consciously aims at transmitting to +posterity as accurate a reflexion as possible of the real course of +events, in their causal sequence, and their relations to time and place. +If written at a distance from the events, it seeks to recover from +contemporary authorities an exact knowledge of these circumstances, +and of the character and motives of the leading personages of the +action.――That the Israelites, from a very early period, knew how to +write history in this sense, we see from the story of David’s court +in 2 Samuel and the beginning of 1 Kings. There we have a graphic and +circumstantial narrative of the struggles for the succession to the +throne, free from bias or exaggeration, and told with a convincing +realism which conveys the impression of first-hand information derived +from the evidence of eye-witnesses. As a specimen of pure historical +literature (as distinguished from mere annals or chronicles) there is +nothing equal to it in antiquity, till we come down to the works of +Herodotus and Thucydides in Greece. + +Quite different from historical writing of this kind is the _Volkssage_, +――the mass of popular narrative _talk_ about the past, which exists in +more or less profusion amongst all races in the world. Every nation, as +it emerges into historical consciousness, finds itself in possession of +a store of traditional material of this kind, either circulating among +the common people, or woven by poets and singers into a picture of a +legendary heroic age. Such legends, though they survive the dawn of +authentic history, belong essentially to a pre-literary and uncritical +stage of society, when the popular imagination works freely on dim +reminiscences of the great events and personalities of the past, +producing an amalgam in which tradition and phantasy are inseparably +mingled. Ultimately they are themselves reduced to writing, and give +rise to a species of literature which is frequently mistaken for +history, but whose true character will usually disclose itself to a +patient and sympathetic examination. While legend is not history, it +has in some respects a value greater than history. For it reveals the +soul of a people, its instinctive selection of the types of character +which represent its moral aspirations, its conception of its own place +and mission in the world; and also, to some indeterminate extent, +the impact on its inner life of the momentous historic experiences in +which it first woke up to the consciousness of a national existence and +destiny.¹ + + ¹ Compare Gordon, _Early Traditions_, 84: “As a real expression + of the living spirit of the nation, a people’s myths are the + mirror of its religious and moral ideals, aspirations, and + imaginations.” + +In raising the question to which department of literature the +narratives of Genesis are to be referred, we approach a subject beset +by difficulty, but one which cannot be avoided. We are not entitled to +assume _a priori_ that Israel is an exception to the general rule that +a legendary age forms the ideal background of history: whether it be +so or not must be determined on the evidence of its records. Should it +prove to be no exception, we shall not assign to its legends a lower +significance as an expression of the national spirit than to the heroic +legends of the Greek or Teutonic races. It is no question of the truth +or religious value of the book that we are called to discuss, but only +of the kind of truth and the particular mode of revelation which we are +to find in it. One of the strangest theological prepossessions is that +which identifies revealed truth with matter-of-fact accuracy either in +science or in history. Legend is after all a species of poetry, and it +is hard to see why a revelation which has freely availed itself of so +many other kinds of poetry――fable, allegory, parable――should disdain +that form of it which is the most influential of all in the life of +a primitive people. As a vehicle of religious ideas, poetic narrative +possesses obvious advantages over literal history; and the spirit of +religion, deeply implanted in the heart of a people, will so permeate +and fashion its legendary lore as to make it a plastic expression of +the imperishable truths which have come to it through its experience +of God. + + The legendary aspect of the Genesis traditions appears in + such characteristics as these: (1) The narratives are the + literary deposit of an oral tradition which, if it rests on + any substratum of historic fact, must have been carried down + through many centuries. Few will seriously maintain that the + patriarchs prepared written memoranda for the information of + their descendants; and the narrators nowhere profess their + indebtedness to such records. Hebrew historians freely refer to + written authorities where they used them (Kings, Chronicles); + but no instance of this practice occurs in Genesis. Now oral + tradition is the natural vehicle of popular legend, as writing + is of history. And all experience shows that apart from written + records there is no exact knowledge of a remote past. Making + every allowance for the superior retentiveness of the Oriental + memory, it is still impossible to suppose that an accurate + recollection of bygone incidents should have survived twenty + generations or more of oral transmission. Nöldeke, indeed, has + shown that the historical memory of the pre-Islamic Arabs was so + defective that all knowledge of great nations like the Nabatæans + and Thamudites had been lost within two or three centuries.¹ (2) + The literary quality of the narratives stamps them as products + of the artistic imagination. The very picturesqueness and + truth to life which are sometimes appealed to in proof of their + historicity are, on the contrary, characteristic marks of legend + (Dillmann, 218). We may assume that the scene at the well of + Ḥarran (chapte 24) actually took place; but that the description + owes its graphic power to a reproduction of the exact words + spoken and the precise actions performed on the occasion + cannot be supposed; it is due to the revivifying work of + the imagination of successive narrators. But imagination, + uncontrolled by the critical faculty, does not confine itself to + restoring the original colours of a faded picture; it introduces + new colours, insensibly modifying the picture till it becomes + impossible to tell how much belongs to the real situation and + how much to later fancy. The clearest proof of this is the + existence of parallel narratives of an event which can only + have happened once, but which emerges in tradition in forms so + diverse that they may even pass for separate incidents (12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ + ∥ 20¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ∥ 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ; 16. ∥ 21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ; 15. ∥ 17, etc.).――(3) The + subject-matter of the tradition is of the kind congenial to + the folk-tale all the world over, and altogether different + from transactions on the stage of history. The proper theme of + history, as has been said, is great public and political events; + but legend delights in _genre_ pictures, private and personal + affairs, trivial anecdotes of domestic and everyday life, and so + forth,――matters which interest the common people and come home + to their daily experience. That most of the stories of Genesis + are of this description needs no proof; and the fact is very + instructive.² A real history of the patriarchal period would + have to tell of migrations of peoples, of religious movements, + probably of wars of invasion and conquest; and accordingly + most modern attempts to vindicate the historicity of Genesis + proceed by way of translating the narratives into such terms + as these. But this is to confess that the narratives themselves + are not history. They have been simplified and idealised to suit + the taste of an unsophisticated audience; and in the process + the strictly historic element, down to a bare residuum, has + evaporated. The single passage which preserves the ostensible + appearance of history in this respect is chapter 14; and + that chapter, which in any case stands outside the circle + of patriarchal tradition, has difficulties of its own which + cannot be dealt with here (see page 271 ff.).――(4) The final + test――though to any one who has learned to appreciate the spirit + of the narratives it must seem almost brutal to apply it――is the + hard matter-of-fact test of self-consistency and credibility. + It is not difficult to show that Genesis relates incredibilities + which no reasonable appeal to miracle will suffice to remove. + With respect to the origin of the world, the antiquity of man + on the earth, the distribution and relations of peoples, the + beginnings of civilisation, etc., its statements are at variance + with the scientific knowledge of our time;³ and no person of + educated intelligence accepts them in their plain natural sense. + We know that angels do not cohabit with mortal women, that the + Flood did not cover the highest mountains of the world, that + the ark could not have accommodated all the species of animals + then existing, that the Euphrates and Tigris have not a common + source, that the Dead Sea was not first formed in the time of + Abraham, etc. There is admittedly a great difference in respect + of credibility between the primæval (chapters 1‒11) and the + patriarchal (12‒50) traditions. But even the latter, when taken + as a whole, yields many impossible situations. Sarah was more + than sixty-five years old when Abraham feared that her beauty + might endanger his life in Egypt; she was over ninety when the + same fear seized him in Gerar. Abraham at the age of ninety-nine + laughs at the idea of having a son; yet forty years later + he marries and begets children. Both Midian and Ishmael were + grand-uncles of Joseph; but their descendants appear as tribes + trading with Egypt in his boyhood. Amalek was a grandson of + Esau; yet the Amalekites are settled in the Negeb in the time + of Abraham. ⁴――It is a thankless task to multiply such examples. + The contradictions and violations of probability and scientific + possibility are intelligible, and not at all disquieting, in a + collection of legends; but they preclude the supposition that + Genesis is literal history. + + ¹ _Amalekiter_, page 25 f. + + ² Compare Winckler, _Abraham als Babylonier_, 7. + + ³ See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and + Notes_, XXXI ff. 19 ff. + + ⁴ See Reuss, _Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten + Testaments_², 167 f. + +It is not implied in what has been said that the tradition is destitute +of historical value. History, legendary history, legend, myth, form a +descending scale, with decreasing emphasis on the historical element, +and the lines between the first three are vague and fluctuating. In +what proportions they are combined in Genesis it may be impossible to +determine with certainty. But there are three ways in which a tradition +mainly legendary may yield solid historical results. In the first place, +a legend may embody a more or less exact recollection of the fact in +which it originated. In the second place, a legend, though unhistorical +in form, may furnish material from which history can be extracted. +Thirdly, the collateral evidence of archæology may bring to light a +correspondence which gives a historical significance to the legend. How +far any of these lines can be followed to a successful issue in the +case of Genesis, we shall consider later (§ 4), after we have examined +the obviously legendary motives which enter into the tradition. +Meanwhile the previous discussion will have served its purpose if +any readers have been led to perceive that the religious teaching of +Genesis lies precisely in that legendary element whose existence is +here maintained. Our chief task is to discover the meaning of the +legends as they stand, being assured that from the nature of the case +these religious ideas were operative forces in the life of ancient +Israel. It is a suicidal error in exegesis to suppose that the +permanent value of the book lies in the residuum of historic fact that +underlies the poetic and imaginative form of the narratives.¹ + + ¹ On various points dealt with in this paragraph, see the + admirable statement of A. R. Gordon, _Early Traditions of + Genesis_, pages 76‒92. + + + § 3. _Myth and legend――Foreign myths + ――Types of mythical motive._ + +1. Are there myths in Genesis, as well as legends? On this question +there has been all the variety of opinion that might be expected. +Some writers, starting with the theory that mythology is a necessary +phase of primitive thinking, have found in the Old Testament abundant +confirmation of their thesis.¹ The more prevalent view has been that +the mythopœic tendency was suppressed in Israel by the genius of +its religion, and that mythology in the true sense is unknown in its +literature. Others have taken up an intermediate position, denying +that the Hebrew mind produced myths of its own, but admitting that it +borrowed and adapted those of other peoples. For all practical purposes, +the last view seems to be very near the truth. + + ¹ Goldziher, _Der Mythos bei den Hebräern_ (1876). + + For attempts to discriminate between myth and legend, see + Tuch, pages I‒XV; Gunkel, page XVII; Höffding, _Philosophy + of Religion_ (Engish translation), 199 ff.; Gordon, 77 ff.; + Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch_, I. etc.――The + practically important distinction is that the legend does, + and the myth does not, start from the plane of historic fact. + The myth is properly a story of the gods, originating in an + impression produced on the primitive mind by the more imposing + phenomena of nature, while legend attaches itself to the + personages and movements of real history. Thus the Flood-story + is a legend if Noah be a historical figure, and the kernel of + the narrative an actual event; it is a myth if it be based on + observation of a solar phenomenon, and Noah a representative + of the sun-god (see page 180 f.). But the utility of this + distinction is largely neutralised by a universal tendency + to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men (Sargon of + Agadé, Moses, Alexander, Charlemagne, etc.); so that the most + indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant + the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage. + ――Gordon differentiates between spontaneous (nature) myths + and reflective (ætiological) myths; and, while recognising the + existence of the latter in Genesis, considers that the former + type is hardly represented in the Old Testament at all. The + distinction is important, though it may be doubted if ætiology + is ever a primary impulse to the formation of myths, and as a + parasitic development it appears to attach itself indifferently + to myth and legend. Hence there is a large class of narratives + which it is difficult to label either as mythical or as + legendary, but in which the ætiological or some similar motive + is prominent (see page xi ff.). + +2. The influence of foreign mythology is most apparent in the primitive +traditions of chapters 1‒11. The discovery of the Babylonian versions +of the Creation- and Deluge-traditions has put it beyond reasonable +doubt that these are the originals from which the biblical accounts +have been derived (pages 45 ff., 177 f.). A similar relation obtains +between the antediluvian genealogy of chapter 5 and Berossus’s list of +the ten Babylonian kings who reigned before the Flood (page 137 f.). +The story of Paradise has its nearest analogies in Iranian mythology; +but there are faint Babylonian echoes which suggest that it belonged to +the common mythological heritage of the East (page 90 ff.). Both here +and in chapter 4 a few isolated coincidences with Phœnician tradition +may point to the Canaanite civilisation as the medium through which +such myths came to the knowledge of the Israelites.――All these (as +well as the story of the Tower of Babel) were originally genuine +myths――stories of the gods; and if they no longer deserve that +appellation, it is because the spirit of Hebrew monotheism has +exorcised the polytheistic notions of deity, apart from which true +mythology cannot survive. The few passages where the old heathen +conception of godhead still appears (1²⁶ 3²²ᐧ ²⁴ 6¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), only +serve to show how completely the religious beliefs of Israel have +transformed and purified the crude speculations of pagan theology, +and adapted them to the ideas of an ethical and monotheistic faith. + + The naturalisation of Babylonian myths in Israel is conceivable + in a variety of ways; and the question is perhaps more + interesting as an illustration of two rival tendencies in + criticism than for its possibilities of actual solution. The + tendency of the literary school of critics has been to explain + the process by the direct use of Babylonian documents, and + to bring it down to near the dates of our written Pentateuch + sources.¹ Largely through the influence of Gunkel, a different + view has come to prevail, viz., that we are to think rather + of a gradual process of assimilation to the religious ideas + of Israel in the course of oral transmission, the myths having + first passed into Canaanite tradition as the result (immediate + or remote) of the Babylonian supremacy prior to the Tell-Amarna + period, and thence to the Israelites.² The strongest argument + for this theory is that the biblical versions, both of the + Creation and the Flood, give evidence of having passed through + several stages in Hebrew tradition. Apart from that, the + considerations urged in support of either theory do not + seem to me conclusive. There are no recognisable traces of a + specifically Canaanite medium having been interposed between the + Babylonian originals and the Hebrew accounts of the Creation and + the Flood, such as we may surmise in the case of the Paradise + myth. It is open to argue against Gunkel that if the process + had been as protracted as he says, the divergence would be much + greater than it actually is. Again, we cannot well set limits to + the deliberate manipulation of Babylonian material by a Hebrew + writer; and the assumption that such a writer in the later + period would have been repelled by the gross polytheism of the + Babylonian legends, and refused to have anything to do with + them, is a little gratuitous. On the other hand, it is unsafe to + assert with Stade that the myths could not have been assimilated + by Israelite theology before the belief in Yahwe’s sole deity + had been firmly established by the teaching of the prophets. + Monotheism had roots in Hebrew antiquity extending much further + back than the age of written prophecy, and the present form of + the legends is more intelligible as the product of an earlier + phase of religion than that of the literary prophets. But when + we consider the innumerable channels through which myths may + wander from one centre to another, we shall hardly expect to + be able to determine the precise channel, or the approximate + date, of this infusion of Babylonian elements into the religious + tradition of Israel. + + ¹ See Budde, _Die biblische Urgeschichte_, 1883), 515 f.; + Kuenen, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xviii. (1884), 167 + ff.; Kosters, _i.b._ xix. (1885), 325 ff., 344; Stade, + _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, (1895), + 159 f., (1903), 175 ff. + + ² _Schöpfung und Chaos_ (1895), 143 ff.; _Genesis_² (1902), + 64 f. Compare Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction + and Notes_, 31. + + It is remarkable that while the patriarchal legends exhibit + no traces of Babylonian mythology, they contain a few examples + of mythical narrative to which analogies are found in other + quarters. The visit of the angels to Abraham (see page 302 f.), + and the destruction of Sodom (page 311 f.), are incidents of + obviously mythical origin (stories of the gods); and to both, + classical and other parallels exist. The account of the births + of Esau and Jacob embodies a mythological motive (page 359), + which is repeated in the case of Zeraḥ and Pereẓ (chapter 38). + The whole story of Jacob and Esau presents several points of + contact with that of the brothers Hypsouranios (Šamem-rum) + and Usōos in the Phœnician mythology (Usōos = Esau: see pages + 360, 124). There appears also to be a Homeric variant of the + incest of Reuben (page 427). These phenomena are among the most + perplexing which we encounter in the study of Hebrew tradition.¹ + We can as yet scarcely conjecture the hidden source from which + such widely ramified traditions have sprung, though we may not + on that account ignore the existence of the problem. It would be + at all events a groundless anticipation that the facts will lead + us to resolve the patriarchs into mythological abstractions. + They are rather to be explained by the tendency already referred + to (page ix), to mingle myth with legend by transferring + mythical incidents to historic personages. + + ¹ See Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_, page LVI. + +3. It remains, before we go on to consider the historical elements +of the tradition, to classify the leading types of mythical, or +semi-mythical (page ix), motive which appear in the narratives of +Genesis. It will be seen that while they undoubtedly detract from the +literal historicity of the records, they represent points of view which +are of the greatest historical interest, and are absolutely essential +to the right interpretation of the legends.¹ + + ¹ The enumeration, which is not quite exhaustive, is taken, + with some simplification, from Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt + und erklärt_, page XVIII ff. + + (a) The most comprehensive category is that of _ætiological_ or + _explanatory_ myths; _i.e._, those which explain some familiar + fact of experience by a story of the olden time. Both the + questions asked and the answers returned are frequently of the + most naïve and childlike description: they have, as Gunkel, + _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ has said, all the charm which + belongs to the artless but profound reasoning of an intelligent + child. The classical example is the story of Paradise and the + Fall in chapters 2, 3, which contains one explicit instance of + ætiology (2²⁴: why a man cleaves to his wife), and implicitly a + great many more: why we wear clothes and detest snakes, why the + serpent crawls on his belly, why the peasant has to drudge in + the fields, and the woman to endure the pangs of travail, etc. + (page 95). Similarly, the account of creation explains why there + are so many kinds of plants and animals, why man is lord of them + all, why the sun shines by day and the moon by night, etc.; why + the Sabbath is kept. The Flood-story tells us the meaning of + the rainbow, and of the regular recurrence of the seasons: the + Babel-myth accounts for the existing diversities of language + amongst men. Pure examples of ætiology are practically confined + to the first eleven chapters; but the same general idea pervades + the patriarchal history, specialised under the headings which + follow. + + (b) The commonest class of all, especially in the patriarchal + narratives, is what may be called _ethnographic_ legends. It + is an obvious feature of the narratives that the heroes of them + are frequently personifications of tribes and peoples, whose + character and history and mutual relationships are exhibited + under the guise of individual biography. Thus the pre-natal + struggle of Jacob and Esau prefigures the rivalry of ‘two + nations’ (25²³); the monuments set up by Jacob and Laban mark + the frontier between Israelites and Aramæans (31⁴⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ); Ishmael + is the prototype of the wild Bedouin (16¹²), and Cain of some + ferocious nomad-tribe; Jacob and his twelve sons represent the + unity of Israel and its division into twelve tribes; and so on. + This mode of thinking was not peculiar to Israel (compare the + Hellen, Dorus, Xuthus, Aeolus, Achæus, Ion, of the Greeks);¹ but + it is one specially natural to the Semites from their habit of + speaking of peoples as _sons_ (_i.e._ members) of the collective + entity denoted by the tribal or national name (sons of Israel, + of Ammon, of Ishmael, etc.), whence arose the notion that these + entities were the real progenitors of the peoples so designated. + That in some cases the representation was correct need not be + doubted; for there are known examples, both among the Arabs and + other races in a similar stage of social development, of tribes + named after a famous ancestor or leader of real historic memory. + But that this is the case with all eponymous persons――_e.g._ + that there were really such men as Jerahmeel, Midian, Aram, + Sheba, Amalek, and the rest――is quite incredible; and, moreover, + it is never true that the fortunes of a tribe are an exact copy + of the personal experiences of its reputed ancestor, even if + he existed. We must therefore treat these legends as symbolic + representations of the ethnological affinities between different + tribes or peoples, and (to a less extent) of the historic + experiences of these peoples. There is a great danger of driving + this interpretation too far, by assigning an ethnological value + to details of the legend which never had any such significance; + but to this matter we shall have occasion to return at a later + point (see page xix ff.). + + ¹ See Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ + 112; Gordon, _The Early Traditions of Genesis_, 88. + + (c) Next in importance to these ethnographic legends are the + _cult_-legends. A considerable proportion of the patriarchal + narratives are designed to explain the sacredness of the + principal national sanctuaries, while a few contain notices of + the origin of particular ritual customs (circumcision, chapter + 17 [but compare Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ]; the abstinence from eating the + sciatic nerve, 32³³). To the former class belong such incidents + as Hagar at Lahairoi (16), Abraham at the oak of Mamre (18), + his planting of the tamarisk at Beersheba (21³³), Jacob at + Bethel――with the reason for anointing the sacred stone, and the + institution of the tithe――(28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), and at Peniel (32²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ); + and many more. The general idea is that the places were hallowed + by an appearance of the deity in the patriarchal period, or + at least by the performance of an act of worship (erection of + an altar, etc.) by one of the ancestors of Israel. In reality + the sanctity of these spots was in many cases of immemorial + antiquity, being rooted in the most primitive forms of Semitic + religion; and at times the narrative suffers it to appear that + the place was holy before the visit of the patriarch (see on + 12⁶). It is probable that inauguration-legends had grown up at + the chief sanctuaries while they were still in the possession + of the Canaanites. We cannot tell how far such legends were + transferred to the Hebrew ancestors, and how far the traditions + are of native Israelite growth. + + (d) Of much less interest to us is the _etymological_ motive + which so frequently appears as a side issue in legends of + wider scope. ♦Speculation on the meaning and origin of names + is fascinating to all primitive peoples; and in default of a + scientific philology the most fantastic explanations are readily + accepted. That it was so in ancient Israel could be easily + shown from the etymologies of Genesis. Here, again, it is just + conceivable that the explanation given may occasionally be + correct (though there is hardly a case in which it is plausible); + but in the majority of cases the real meaning of the name stands + out in palpable contradiction to the alleged account of its + origin. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the same name + explained in two different ways (many of Jacob’s sons, chapter + 30), or to have as many as three suggestions of its historic + origin (Ishmael, 16¹¹ 17²⁰ 21¹⁷; Isaac, 17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁹). To claim + literal accuracy for incidents of this kind is manifestly futile. + + ♦ “Speculalation” replaced with “Speculation” + + (e) There is yet another element which, though not mythical or + legendary, belongs to the imaginative side of the legends, and + has to be taken account of in interpreting them. This is the + element of _poetic idealisation_. Whenever a character enters + the world of legend, whether through the gate of history or + through that of ethnographic personification, it is apt to be + conceived as a type; and as the story passes from mouth to mouth + the typical features are emphasised, while those which have + no such significance tend to be effaced or forgotten. Then + the dramatic instinct comes into play――the artistic desire + to perfect the story as a lifelike picture of human nature in + interesting situations and action. To see how far this process + may be carried, we have but to compare the conception of Jacob’s + sons in the Blessing of Jacob (chapter 49) with their appearance + in the younger narratives of Joseph and his brethren. In the + former case the sons are tribal personifications, and the + characters attributed to them are those of the tribes they + represent. In the latter, these characteristics have almost + entirely disappeared, and the central interest is now the pathos + and tragedy of Hebrew family life. Most of the brothers are + without character or individuality; but the accursed Reuben + and Simeon are respected members of the family, and the ‘wolf’ + Benjamin has become a helpless child whom the father will hardly + let go from his side. This, no doubt, is the supreme instance + of romantic or ‘novelistic’ treatment which the book contains; + but the same idealising tendency is at work elsewhere, and must + constantly be allowed for in endeavouring to reach the historic + or ethnographic basis from which the legends start. + + + § 4. _Historical value of the tradition._ + +It has already been remarked (page vii) that there are three chief ways +in which an oral, and therefore legendary, tradition may yield solid +historical results: _first_, through the retention in the popular +memory of the impression caused by real events and personalities; +_secondly_, by the recovery of historic (mainly ethnographic) material +from the biographic form of the tradition; and _thirdly_, through +the confirmation of contemporary ‘archæological’ evidence. It will be +convenient to start with the last of these, and consider what is known +about―― + +1. _The historical background of the patriarchal traditions._――The +period covered by the patriarchal narratives¹ may be defined very +roughly as the first half of the second millennium (2000‒1500) B.C. +The upper limit depends on the generally accepted assumption, based +(somewhat insecurely, as it seems to us) on chapter 14, that Abraham +was contemporary with Ḫammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian +dynasty. The date of Ḫammurabi is probably _circa_ 2100 B.C.² The +lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is usually assigned +(as it must be if Exodus 1¹¹ is genuine) to the reign of Merneptah of +the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty (_circa_ 1234‒1214 B.C.). Allowing a +sufficient period for the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to +about the middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the +family left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chronology assigns +nearly the same date as above to Abraham, but a much earlier one for +the Exodus (_circa_ 1490), and reduces the residence of the patriarchs +in Canaan to 215 years; since, however, the chronological system rests +on artificial calculations (see pages 135 f., 234), we cannot restrict +our survey to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal +period in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so +numerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field than the +five centuries mentioned above.³ + + ¹ The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal + tradition, because it is only with regard to it that the + question of essential historicity arises. Every one admits + that the pre-historic chapters (1‒11) stand on a different + footing, and there are few who would claim for them the + authority of a continuous tradition. + + ² The date here assigned to Ḫammurabi is based on the recent + investigations of Thureau-Dangin (_Journal des Savants_ + [1908], 190 ff.; _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xxi. [1908], + 176 ff.), and Ungnad (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ + [1908], 13 ff.); with whom Poebel (_Zeitschrift für + Assyriologie_, xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement. + The higher estimates which formerly prevailed depended + on the natural assumption that the first three dynasties + of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880 and 1884) + reigned _consecutively_ in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King + (_Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_) published + new material, which showed conclusively that the Second + dynasty, ruling over the ‘Country of the Sea,’ was at + least partly, if not wholly, contemporaneous with the First + and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer + (_Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold + that the Third (Kaššite) dynasty followed immediately on the + First; and that consequently the previous estimates of the + chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the + total duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according + to List A). The scholars cited at the head of this note + consider, on the other hand, that the contemporaneousness + was only partial, and that there was an interval of 176 + years between the close of the First dynasty and the + accession of the Third. The chief _data_ are these: King’s + new chronicle has proved beyond dispute (1) that Ilima-ilu, + the founder of the Second dynasty, was contemporary with + Samsu-iluna and Abi-ešu’, the 7th and 8th kings of the First + dynasty; and (2) that Ea-gâmil, the last king of the Second + dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Kaššite + (king?), Kaštiliaš. Now, Kaštiliaš is the name of the + 3rd king of the Kaššite dynasty; and the question is whether + this Kaštiliaš is to be identified with the contemporary + of Ea-gâmil. Thureau-Dangin, etc., answer in the + affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the + identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty + coincides with a gap in the list of Kaššite kings (8th + to 15th), where the name of Kaštiliaš may have stood. + Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gâmil with the third + Kaššite king; but gets rid of the interregnum by a somewhat + arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty + to about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is + referred to the lucid note in Driver, _The Book of Genesis + with Introduction and Notes_⁷ XXVII. ff. (with lists).――King + believes that his date for Ḫammurabi (_circa_ 1958‒1916) + facilitates the identification of that monarch with the + Amraphel of Genesis 14 (see page 257 f. below), by bringing + the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer + accord with the biblical data; but in view of the artificial + character of the biblical chronology (_v.s._), it is + doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed to this + consideration. + + ³ Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Exodus 1¹¹) put + back to _circa_ 1450 B.C. (Hommel, _The Expository Times._, + x. [1899], 210 ff.; Orr, _The Problem of the Old Testament_, + 422 ff.); while Eerdmans would bring it down to _circa_ 1125 + B.C. (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 74; _The Expositor_ 1908, + September, 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Winckler, + al.) identified with a minister of Amenophis IV. (_circa_ + 1380‒1360), by Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche Studien_ with + a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty + (_circa_ 1205). See page 501 f. + +In the opinion of a growing and influential school of writers, this +period of history has been so illumined by recent discoveries that +it is no longer possible to doubt the essential historicity of the +patriarchal tradition.¹ It is admitted that no external evidence has +come to light of the existence of such persons as Abraham, Isaac, +Jacob, and Joseph, or even (with the partial exception of Joseph) of +men playing parts at all corresponding to theirs. But it is maintained +that contemporary documents reveal a set of conditions into which +the patriarchal narratives fit perfectly, and which are so different +from those prevailing under the monarchy that the situation could not +possibly have been imagined by an Israelite of that later age. Now, +that recent archæology has thrown a flood of light on the period in +question, is beyond all doubt. It has proved that Palestinian culture +and religion were saturated by Babylonian influences long before the +supposed date of Abraham; that from that date downwards intercourse +with Egypt was frequent and easy; and that the country was more than +once subjected to Egyptian conquest and authority. It has given us a +most interesting glimpse from about 2000 B.C. of the natural products +of Canaan, and the manner of life of its inhabitants (Tale of Sinuhe). +At a later time (Tell-Amarna letters) it shows the Egyptian dominion +threatened by the advance of Hittites from the north, and by the +incursion of a body of nomadic marauders called Ḫabiri (see page 218). +It tells us that Jakob-el (and Joseph-el?) was the name of a place in +Canaan in the first half of the 15th century (pages 360, 389 f.), and +that Israel was a tribe living in Palestine about 1200 B.C.; also that +Hebrews (‛Apriw) were a foreign population in Egypt from the time of +Ramses II. to that of Ramses IV. (Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham +und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_ 146 ff.; Eerdmans, _Alttestamentliche +Studien_ 52 ff.; _The Expositor_ _l.c._ 197). All this is of the +utmost value; and _if_ the patriarchs lived in this age, then this +is the background against which we have to set their biographies. +But the real question is whether there is such a correspondence +between the biographies and their background that the former would +be unintelligible if transplanted to other and later surroundings. +We should gladly welcome any evidence that this is the case; but +it seems to us that the remarkable thing about these narratives is +just the absence of background and their general compatibility with +the universal conditions of ancient Eastern life.² The case for +the historicity of the tradition, based on correspondences with +contemporary evidence from the period in question, appears to us to +be greatly overstated. + + ¹ Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 365: “Wir haben gezeigt, dass das Milieu + der Vätergeschichten in allen Einzelheiten zu den + altorientalischen Kulturverhältnissen stimmt, die uns die + Denkmäler für die in Betracht kommenden Zeit bezeugen.” + + ² A striking illustration of this washing out of historical + background is the contrast between the Genesis narratives + and the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe, from which Jeremias, (_Das + Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 298 ff.) + quotes at length in demonstration of their verisimilitude. + While the latter is full of detailed information about the + people among whom the writer lived, the former (except in + chapters 14. 34. 38) have hardly any allusions (24³ 37 ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) + to the aboriginal population of Palestine proper. Luther + (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 156 f.) even + maintains that the original Yahwist conceived Canaan as at + this time an uninhabited country! Without going so far as + that, we cannot but regard the fact as an indication of the + process of abstraction which the narratives have undergone + in the course of oral transmission. Would they appeal to + the heart of the world as they do if they retained, to + the extent sometimes alleged, the signature of an obsolete + civilisation? + + The line of argument that claims most careful attention is to + the following effect: Certain legal customs presupposed by the + patriarchal stories are now known to have prevailed (in Babylon) + in the age of Ḫammurabi; these customs had entirely ceased in + Israel under the monarchy; consequently the narratives could not + have been invented by legend-writers of that period (Jeremias, + _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 355 ff.). The + strongest case is the truly remarkable parallel supplied by Code + of Ḫammurabi 146 to the position of Hagar as concubine-slave + in chapter 16 (below, page 285). Here everything turns on the + probability that this usage was unknown in Israel in the regal + period; and it is surely pressing the _argumentum ex silentio_ + too far to assert confidently that if it had been known it would + certainly have been mentioned in the later literature. We must + remember that Genesis contains almost the only pictures of + intimate family life in the Old Testament, and that it refers + to many things not mentioned later simply because there was + no occasion to speak of them. Were twin-births peculiar to the + ♦patriarchal period because two are mentioned in Genesis and + none at all in the rest of the Old Testament? The fact that + the custom of the concubine-slave has persisted in Mohammedan + countries down to modern times, should warn us against such + sweeping negations.――Again, we learn (_ib._ 358) that the + simultaneous marriage with two sisters was permitted by ancient + Babylonian law, but was proscribed in Hebrew legislation as + incestuous. Yes, but the law in question (Leviticus 18¹⁸) is + late; and does not its enactment in the Priestly-Code rather + imply that the practice against which it is directed survived + in Israel till the close of the monarchy?――The distinction + between the _mōhar_, or purchase price of a wife, and the gift + to the bride (_ib._), should not be cited: the _mōhar_ is an + institution everywhere prevailing in early pastoral societies; + it is known to Hebrew jurisprudence (Exodus 22¹⁶); its + name is not old Babylonian; and even its transmutation into + personal service is in accordance with Arab practice (page 383 + below).¹――In short, it does not appear that the examples given + differ from another class of usages, “die nicht spezifisch + altbabylonisch sind, sondern auch spätern bez. intergentilen + Rechtszuständen entsprechen, die aber ... wenigstens teilweise + eine interessante Beleuchtung durch den Code Ḫammurabi erfahren.” + The “interessante Beleuchtung” will be freely admitted. + + ♦ “patriarchial” replaced with “patriarchal” + + ¹ See S. A. Cook, _Cambridge Biblical Essays_, 79 f. + + Still less has the new knowledge of the _political_ + circumstances of Palestine contributed to the direct elucidation + of the patriarchal tradition, although it has brought to + light certain facts which have to be taken into account in + interpreting that tradition. The complete silence of the + narratives as to the protracted Egyptian dominion over the + country is very remarkable, and only to be explained by a + fading of the actual situation from the popular memory during + the course of oral transmission. The existence of Philistines + in the time of Abraham is, so far as archæology can inform + us, a positive anachronism. On the whole it must be said that + archæology has in this region created more problems than it + has solved. The occurrence of the name Yaḳob-el in the time of + Thothmes III., of Asher under Seti I. and Ramses II., and of + Israel under Merneptah; the appearance of Hebrews (Ḫabiri?) + in Palestine in the 15th century, and in Egypt (‛Apriw?) from + Ramses II. to Ramses IV., present so many difficulties to + the adjustment of the patriarchal figures to their original + background. We do not seem as yet to be in sight of a historical + construction which shall enable us to bring these conflicting + data into line with an intelligible rendering of the Hebrew + tradition. + + It is considerations such as these that give so keen an edge + to the controversy about the genuineness of chapter 14. That + is the only section of Genesis which seems to set the figure of + Abraham in the framework of world history. If it be a historical + document, then we have a fixed centre round which the Abrahamic + traditions, and possibly those of the other patriarchs as well, + will group themselves; if it be but a late imitation of history, + we are cast adrift, with nothing to guide us except an uncertain + and artificial scheme of chronology. For an attempt to estimate + the force of the arguments on either side we must refer to the + commentary below (page 271 ff.). Here, however, it is in point + to observe that even if the complete historicity of chapter 14 + were established, it would take us but a little way towards the + authentication of the patriarchal traditions as a whole. For + that episode confessedly occupies a place entirely unique in + the records of the patriarchs; and all the marks of contemporary + authorship which it is held to present are so many proofs that + the remaining narratives are of a different character, and lack + that particular kind of attestation. The coexistence of oral + traditions and historic notices relating to the same individual + proves that the former rest on a basis of fact; but it does not + warrant the inference that the oral tradition is accurate in + detail, or even that it faithfully reflects the circumstances + of the period with which it deals. And to us the Abraham of oral + tradition is a far more important religious personality than + Abram the Hebrew, the hero of the exploit recorded in chapter 14. + +2. _Ethnological theories._――The negative conclusion expressed above +(page xvii f.) as to the value of ancient Babylonian analogies to the +patriarchal tradition, depends partly on the assumption of the school +of writers whose views were under consideration: viz., that the +narratives are a transcript of actual family life in that remote +age, and therefore susceptible of illustration from private law as we +find it embodied in the Code of Ḫammurabi. It makes, however, little +difference if for family relations we substitute those of clans and +peoples to one another, and treat the individuals as representatives +of the tribes to which Israel traced its origin. We shall then find +the real historic content of the legends in migratory movements, +tribal divisions and fusions, and general ethnological phenomena, which +popular tradition has disguised as personal biographies. This is the +line of interpretation which has mostly prevailed in critical circles +since Ewald;¹ and it has given rise to an extraordinary variety of +theories. In itself (as in the hands of Ewald) it is not necessarily +inconsistent with belief in the individual existence of the patriarchs; +though its more extreme exponents do not recognise this as credible. +The theories in question fall into two groups: those which regard the +narratives as ideal projections into the past of relations subsisting, +or conceptions formed, after the final settlement in Canaan;² and those +which try to extract from them a real history of the period before +the Exodus. Since the former class deny a solid tradition of any kind +behind the patriarchal story, we may here pass them over, and confine +our attention to those which do allow a certain substratum of truth in +the pictures of the pre-Exodus period. + + ¹ _History of Israel_ i. 363, 382, etc. + + ² So Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 319 ff. + [English translation 318 ff.], _Israelitische und jüdische + Geschichte_ 11 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, + i. 145 ff., _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, i. 112 ff., 347 ff. + + As a specimen of this class of theories, neither better nor + worse than others that might be chosen, we may take that of + Cornill. According to him, Abraham was a real person, who headed + a migration from Mesopotamia to Canaan about 1500 B.C. Through + the successive separations of Moab, Ammon, and Edom, the main + body of immigrants was so reduced that it might have been + submerged, but for the arrival of a fresh contingent from + Mesopotamia under the name Jacob (the names, except Abraham’s, + are all tribal or national). This reinforcement consisted + of four groups, of which the Leah-group was the oldest and + strongest. The tribe of Joseph then aimed at the hegemony, but + was overpowered by the other tribes, and forced to retire to + Egypt. The Bilhah-group, thus deprived of its natural support, + was assailed by the Leah-tribes led by Reuben; but the attempt + was foiled, and Reuben lost his birthright. Subsequently the + whole of the tribes were driven to seek shelter in Egypt, when + Joseph took a noble revenge by allowing them to settle by its + side in the frontier province of Egypt (_History of Israel_, + 29 ff.). + +It will be seen that the construction hangs mainly on two leading +ideas: _tribal affinities_ typified by various phases of the marriage +relation; and _migrations_. As regards the first, we have seen (page +xii) that there is a true principle at the root of the method. It +springs from the personification of a tribe under the name of an +individual, male or female; and we have admitted that many names in +Genesis have this significance, and probably no other. If, then, two +eponymous ancestors (Jacob and Esau) are represented as twin brothers, +we may be sure that the peoples in question were conscious of an +extremely close affinity. If a male eponym is married to a female, +we may presume (though with less confidence) that the two tribes were +amalgamated. Or, if one clan is spoken of as a wife and another as +a concubine, we may reasonably conclude that the latter was somehow +inferior to the former. But beyond a few simple analogies of this +kind (each of which, moreover, requires to be tested by the inherent +probabilities of the case) the method ceases to be reliable; and the +attempt to apply it to all the complex family relationships of the +patriarchs only lands us in confusion.¹――The idea of _migration_ is +still less trustworthy. Certainly not every journey recorded in Genesis +(_e.g._ that of Joseph from Hebron to Shechem and Dothan, 37¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ: +_pace_ Steuernagel) can be explained as a migratory movement. Even when +the ethnological background is apparent, the movements of tribes may be +necessary corollaries of the assumed relationships between them (_e.g._ +Jacob’s journey to Ḥarran: page 357); and it will be difficult to draw +the line between these and real migrations. The case of Abraham is no +doubt a strong one; for if his figure has any ethnological significance +at all, his exodus from Ḥarran (or Ur) can hardly be interpreted +otherwise than as a migration of Hebrew tribes from that region. We +cannot feel the same certainty with regard to Joseph’s being carried +down to Egypt; it seems to us altogether doubtful if this be rightly +understood as an enforced movement of the tribe of Joseph to Egypt in +advance of the rest (see page 441). + + ¹ Guthe (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1‒6) has formulated + a set of five rules which he thinks can be used (with + tact!) in retranslating the genealogical phraseology into + historical terms. There is probably not one of them which + is capable of rigorous and universal application. Thus, the + marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel does not necessarily + imply that Jacob was a tribe which successively absorbed + the two clans so named: it is just as likely that the union + of Leah and Rachel with one another _produced_ the entity + called Jacob. + +But it is when we pass from genealogies and marriages and journeys +to pictorial narrative that the breakdown of the ethnological method +becomes complete. The obvious truth is that no tribal relationship can +supply an adequate motive for the wealth of detail that meets us in the +richly coloured patriarchal legends; and the theory stultifies itself +by assigning ethnological significance to incidents which originally +had no such meaning. It will have been noticed that Cornill utilises a +few biographical touches to fill in his scheme (the youthful ambition +of Joseph; his sale into Egypt, etc.), and every other theorist does +the same. Each writer selects those incidents which fit into his own +system, and neglects those which would ♦embarrass it. Each system has +some plausible and attractive features; but each, to avoid absurdity, +has to exercise a judicious restraint on the consistent extension of +its principles. The consequence is endless diversity in detail, and no +agreement even in general outline.¹ + + ♦ “embarass” replaced with “embarrass” + + ¹ Luther (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + 1901, 36 ff.) gives a conspectus of four leading theories + (Wellhausen, Stade, Gunkel, Cornill), with the purpose of + showing that the consistent application of the method would + speedily lead to absurd results (46). He would undoubtedly + have passed no different verdict on later combinations, + such as those of Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der + israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_; Peters, _Early Hebrew + Story_, 45 ff.; Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die + Elohimquelle_, 330 ff. etc.――What Grote has written about + the allegorical interpretation of the Greek legends might + be applied word for word to these theories: “The theorist + who adopts this course of explanation finds that after one + or two simple and obvious steps, the way is no longer open, + and he is forced to clear a way for himself by gratuitous + refinements and conjectures” (_History of Greece_, edition, + 1888, page 2). + + It is evident that such constructions will never reach any + satisfactory result unless they find some point of support in + the history of the period as gathered from contemporary sources. + The second millennium B.C. is thought to have witnessed one + great movement of Semitic tribes to the north, viz., the Aramæan. + About the middle of the millennium we find the first notices of + the Aramæans as nomads in what is now the Syro-Arabian desert. + Shortly afterwards the Ḫabiri make their appearance in Palestine. + It is a natural conjecture that these were branches of the + same migration, and it has been surmised that we have here the + explanation of the tradition which affirms the common descent + of Hebrews and Aramæans. The question then arises whether we can + connect this fact with the patriarchal tradition, and if so with + what stratum of that tradition. Isaac and Joseph are out of the + reckoning, because neither is ever brought into contact with the + Aramæans; Rebekah is too insignificant. Abraham is excluded by + the chronology, unless (with Cornhill) we bring down his date + to _circa_ 1500, or (with Steuernagel) regard his migration as + a traditional duplicate of Jacob’s return from Laban. But if + Jacob is suggested, we encounter the difficulty that Jacob must + have been settled in Canaan some generations before the age of + the Ḫabiri. In the case of Abraham there may be a conflation + of two traditions,――one tracing his nativity to Ḥarran and the + other to Ur; and it is conceivable that he is the symbol of two + migrations, one of which might be identified with the arrival + of the Ḫabiri, and the other might have taken place as early as + the age of Ḫammurabi. But these are speculations no whit more + reliable than any of those dealt with above; and it has to be + confessed that as yet archæology has furnished no sure basis for + the reconstruction of the patriarchal history. It is permissible + to hope that further discoveries may bring to light facts which + shall enable us to decide more definitely than is possible at + present how far that history can be explained on ethnological + lines.¹ + + ¹ To the whole class of theories considered above (those which + try to go behind the Exodus), Luther (_l.c._ 44 f.) objects + that they demand a continuous occupation of Palestine + from the time when the legends were formed. He hints at + a solution, which has been adopted in principle by Meyer + (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 127 ff., 415, + 433), and which if verified would relieve some difficulties, + archæological and other. It is that two independent + accounts of the origin of the nation are preserved: the + Genesis-tradition, carrying the ancestry of the people back + to the Aramæans, and the Exodus-tradition, which traces the + origin of the nation no further than Moses and the Exodus. + There are indications that in an earlier phase of the + patriarchal tradition the definitive conquest of Canaan was + carried back to Jacob and his sons (chapters 34. 38. 48²²); + on Meyer’s view this does not necessarily imply that the + narratives refer to a time subsequent to Joshua. A kernel + of history may be recognised in both strands of tradition, + on the assumption (not in itself a violent one) that only + a section of Israel was in Egypt, and came out under Moses, + while the rest remained in Palestine. The extension of the + Exodus-tradition to the whole people was a natural effect of + the consolidation of the nation; and this again might give + rise to the story of Jacob’s migration to Egypt, with all + his sons. + +3. _The patriarchs as individuals._――We come, in the last place, +to consider the probability that the oral tradition, through its +own inherent tenacity of recollection, may have retained some true +impression of the events to which it refers. After what has been +said, it is vain to expect that a picture true in every detail +will be recoverable from popular tales current in the earliest ages +of the monarchy. The course of oral tradition has been too long, +the disturbing influences to which it has been exposed have been +too numerous and varied, and the subsidiary motives which have +grafted themselves on to it too clearly discernible, to admit of the +supposition that more than a _substantial nucleus_ of historic fact +can have been preserved in the national memory of Israel. It is not, +however, unreasonable to believe that such a historical nucleus exists; +and that with care we may disentangle from the mass of legendary +accretions some elements of actual reminiscence of the prehistoric +movements which determined the subsequent development of the national +life.¹ It is true that in this region we have as a rule only subjective +impressions to guide us; but in the absence of external criteria a +subjective judgement has its value, and one in favour of the historic +origin of the tradition is at least as valid as another to the contrary +effect.――The two points on which attention now falls to be concentrated +are: (a) the personalities of the patriarchs; and (b) the religious +significance of the tradition. + + ¹ Compare Winckler, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 204: “Es ist nämlich immer wahrscheinlicher, + dass ein grosses für die Entwicklung des Volkes massgebend + gewordenes Ereigniss in seiner Geschlossenheit dem + Gedächtniss besser erhalten bleibt als die Einzelheiten + seines Herganges.” + +(a) It is a tolerably safe general maxim that tradition does not invent +names, or persons. We have on any view to account for the entrance of +such figures as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph into the imagination +of the Israelites; and amongst possible avenues of entrance we must +certainly count it as one, that they were real men, who lived and were +remembered. What other explanations can be given? The idea that they +were native creations of Hebrew mythology (Goldziher) has, for the +present at least, fallen into disrepute; and there remain but two +theories as alternatives to the historic reality of the patriarchs: +viz., that they were originally personified tribes, or that they were +originally Canaanite deities. + + The conception of the patriarchs as tribal eponyms, we have + already seen to be admissible, though not proved. The idea + that they were Canaanite deities is not perhaps one that can + be dismissed as transparently absurd. If the Israelites, on + entering Canaan, found Abraham worshipped at Hebron, Isaac at + Beersheba, Jacob at Bethel, and Joseph at Shechem, and if they + adopted the cult of these deities, they might come to regard + themselves as their children; and in course of time the gods + might be transformed into human ancestors around whom the + national legend might crystallise. At the same time the theory + is destitute of proof; and the burden of proof lies on those + who maintain it. Neither the fact (if it be a fact) that the + patriarchs were objects of worship at the shrines where their + graves were shown, nor the presence of mythical traits in their + biographies, proves them to have been superhuman beings.――The + discussion turns largely on the evidence of the patriarchal + _names_; but this, too, is indecisive. The name Israel is + national, and in so far as it is applied to an individual it is + a case of eponymous personification. Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph + (assuming these to be contractions of _Yiẓḥaḳ-el_, etc.) are + also most naturally explained as tribal designations. Meyer, + after long vacillation, has come to the conclusion that they are + divine names (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 249 ff.); + but the arguments which formerly convinced him that they are + tribal seem to us more cogent than those to which he now gives + the preference. That names of this type frequently denote tribes + is a fact; that they may denote deities is only a hypothesis. + That they may also denote individuals (_Yaḳub-ilu_, _Yašup-ilu_) + is true; but that only establishes a possibility, hardly a + probability; for it is more likely that the individual was + named after his tribe than that the tribe got its name from an + individual.――The name Abram stands by itself. It represents no + ethnological entity, and occurs historically only as the name + of an individual; and though it is capable of being interpreted + in a sense appropriate to deity, all analogy is in favour of + explaining it as a theophorous human name. The solitary allusion + to the biblical Abram in the monuments――the mention of the + ‘Field of Abram’ in Shishak’s inscription (see page 244)――is + entirely consistent with this acceptation.――It is probably a + mistake to insist on carrying through any exclusive theory of + the patriarchal personalities. If we have proved that Abram was + a historical individual, we have not thereby proved that Isaac + and Jacob were so also; and if we succeed in resolving the + latter into tribal eponyms, it will not follow that Abraham + falls under the same category. + +There is thus a justification for the tendency of many writers to +put Abraham on a different plane from the other patriarchs, and +to concentrate the discussion of the historicity of the tradition +mainly on his person. An important element in the case is the clearly +conceived type of _character_ which he represents. No doubt the +character has been idealised in accordance with the conceptions +of a later age; but the impression remains that there must have +been something in the actual Abraham which gave a direction to the +idealisation. It is this perception more than anything else which +invests the figure of Abraham with the significance which it has +possessed for devout minds in all ages, and which still resists the +attempt to dissolve him into a creation of religious phantasy. If +there be any truth in the description of legend as a form of narrative +conserving the impression of a great personality on his age, we may +venture, in spite of the lack of decisive evidence, to regard him as a +historic personage, however dim the surroundings of his life may be.¹ + + ¹ Compare Höffding, _Philosophy of Religion_ 199 ff.: “Its + essence [that of legend] consists in the idea of a wonderful + personality who has made a deep impression on human + life――who excited admiration, furnished an example, and + opened new paths. Under the influence of memory, a strong + expansion of feeling takes place: this in turn gives rise + to a need for intuition and explanation, to satisfy which + a process of picture-making is set in motion.... In legends + ... the central interest is in the subject-matter, in the + centripetal power, which depends on an intensification + of memory rather than on any naïve personification and + colouring....” + +(b) It is of little consequence to know whether a man called Abraham +lived about 2000 B.C., and led a caravan from Ur or Ḥarran to Palestine, +and defeated a great army from the east. One of the evil effects of the +controversial treatment of such questions is to diffuse the impression +that a great religious value attaches to discussions of this kind. +What it really concerns us to know is the spiritual significance of +the events, and of the mission of Abraham in particular. And it is +only when we take this point of view that we do justice to the spirit +of the Hebrew tradition. It is obvious that the central idea of the +patriarchal tradition is the conviction in the mind of Israel that as +a nation it originated in a great religious movement, that the divine +call which summoned Abraham from his home and kindred, and made him +a stranger and sojourner on the earth, imported a new era in God’s +dealings with mankind, and gave Israel its mission in the world (Isaiah +41⁸ ᶠᐧ). Is this conception historically credible? + +Some attempts to find historic points of contact for this view of +Abraham’s significance for religion will be looked at presently; but +their contribution to the elucidation of the biblical narrative seems +to us disappointing in the extreme. Nor can we unreservedly assent to +the common argument that the mission of Moses would be unintelligible +apart from that of Abraham. It is true, Moses is said to have appealed +to the God of the fathers; and if that be a literally exact statement, +Moses built on the foundation laid by Abraham. But that the distinctive +institutions and ideas of the Yahwe-religion could not have originated +with Moses just as well as with Abraham, is more than we have a right +to affirm. In short, positive proof, such as would satisfy the canons +of historical criticism, of the work of Abraham is not available. +What we can say is, in the first place, that if he had the importance +assigned to him, the fact is just of the kind that might be expected +to impress itself indelibly on a tradition dating from the time of +the event. We have in it the influence of a great personality, giving +birth to the collective consciousness of a nation; and this fact is of +a nature to evoke that centripetal ‘intensification of memory’ which +Höffding emphasises as the distinguishing mark and the preserving salt +of legend as contrasted with myth. In the second place, the appearance +of a prophetic personality, such as Abraham is represented to have +been, is a phenomenon with many analogies in the history of religion. +The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the +religion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ +of divine revelation; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the +first of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated +to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself. The keynote of Abraham’s +piety is _faith_ in the unseen,――faith in the divine impulse which +drove him forth to a land which he was never to possess; and faith +in the future of the religion which he thus founded. He moves before +us on the page of Scripture as the man through whom faith, the living +principle of true religion, first became a force in human affairs. It +is difficult to think that so powerful a conception has grown out of +nothing. As we read the story, we may well trust the instinct which +tells us that here we are face to face with a decisive act of the +living God in history, and an act whose essential significance was +never lost in Israelite tradition. + + The significance of the Abrahamic migration in relation to the + general movements of religious thought in the East is the theme + of Winckler’s interesting pamphlet, _Abraham als Babylonier, + Joseph als Aegypter_ (1903). The elevation of Babylon, in the + reign of Ḫammurabi, to be the first city of the empire, and the + centre of Babylonian culture, meant, we are told, a revolution + in religion, inasmuch as it involved the deposition of Sin, + the old moon-god, from the supreme place in the pantheon in + favour of the ‘Deliverer Marduk,’ the tutelary deity of Babylon. + Abraham, a contemporary, and an adherent of the older faith, + opposed the reformation; and, after vainly seeking support + for his protest at Ur and Ḥarran, the two great centres of + the worship of Sin, migrated to Canaan, beyond the limits of + Ḫammurabi’s empire, to worship God after his fashion. How much + truth is contained in these brilliant generalisations it is + difficult for an ordinary man to say. In spite of the ingenuity + and breadth of conception with which the theory is worked + out, it is not unfair to suggest that it rests mostly on a + combination of things that are not in the Bible with things + that are not in the monuments. Indeed, the only positive point + of contact between the two data of the problem is the certainly + remarkable fact that tradition does connect Abraham with two + chief centres of the Babylonian moon-worship. But what we + chiefly desiderate is some evidence that the worship of the + moon-god had greater affinities with monotheism than the worship + of Marduk, the god of the vernal sun. [The attempt to connect + Joseph with the abortive monotheistic reform of Chuenaten + (Amenophis IV.) is destitute of plausibility.]――To a similar + effect Jeremias, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 327 ff.: “A reform movement of protest against the + religious degeneration of the ruling classes” was the motive of + the migration (333), perhaps connected with the introduction of + a new astronomical era, the Taurus-epoch (which, by the way, had + commenced nearly 1000 years before! compare 66). The movement + assumed the form of a migration――a Hegira――under Abraham as + Mahdi, who preached his doctrine as he went, made converts + in Ḥarran, Egypt, Gerar, Damascus, and elsewhere, finally + establishing the worship of Yahwe at the sanctuaries of + Palestine. This is to write a new Abrahamic legend, considerably + different from the old. + + + § 5. _Preservation and collection of the traditions._ + +In all popular narration the natural unit is the short story, which +does not too severely tax the attention of a simple audience, and which +retains its outline and features unchanged as it passes from mouth +to mouth.¹ A large part of the Book of Genesis consists of narratives +of this description,――single tales, of varying length but mostly very +short, each complete in itself, with a clear beginning and a satisfying +conclusion. As we read the book, unities of this kind detach themselves +from their context, and round themselves into independent wholes; and +it is only by studying them in their isolation, and each in its own +light, that we can fully appreciate their charm and understand, in some +measure, the circumstances of their origin. The older stratum of the +primæval history, and of the history of Abraham, is almost entirely +composed of single incidents of this kind: think of the story of the +Fall, of Cain and Abel, of Noah’s drunkenness, of the Tower of Babel; +and again of Abraham in Egypt, of the flight or expulsion of Hagar, of +the sacrifice of Isaac, etc., etc. When we pass the middle of the book, +the mode of narration begins to change. The biography of Jacob is much +more a consecutive narrative than that of Abraham; but even here the +separate scenes stand out in their original distinctness of outline +(_e.g._ the transference of the birthright, Jacob at Bethel, the +meeting with Rachel at the well, the wrestling at Peniel, the outrage +on Dinah, etc.). It is not till we come to the history of Joseph that +the principle of biographical continuity gains the upper hand. Joseph’s +story is, indeed, made up of a number of incidents; but they are made +to merge into one another, so that each derives its interest from its +relation to the whole, and ends (except the last) on a note of suspense +and expectation rather than of rest. This no doubt is due to the +greater popularity and more frequent repetition of the stories of Jacob +and Joseph; but at the same time it bears witness to a considerable +development of the art of story-telling, and one in which we cannot but +detect some degree of professional aptitude and activity. + + ¹ Compare Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ page XXXII, + to whose fine appreciation of the “Kunstform der Sagen” this + § is greatly indebted. + +The short stories of Genesis, even those of the most elementary type, +are exquisite works of art, almost as unique and perfect in their own +kind as the parables of our Lord are in theirs. They are certainly not +random productions of fireside gossip, but bear the unmistakable stamp +of individual genius (Gunkel, _Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_ page xxx). +Now, between the inception of the legends (which is already at some +distance from the traditional facts) and the written form in which +they lie before us, there stretches an interval which is perhaps in +some instances to be measured by centuries. Hence two questions arise: +(1) What was the fate of the stories during this interval? Were they +cast adrift on the stream of popular talk,――with nothing to secure +their preservation save the perfection of their original form,――and +afterwards collected from the lips of the people? Or were they taken +in hand from the first by a special class of men who made it their +business to conserve the integrity of the narratives, and under whose +auspices the mass of traditional material was gradually welded into its +present shape? And (2), how is this whole process of transmission and +consolidation related to the use of writing? Was the work of collecting +and systematising the traditions primarily a literary one, or had it +already commenced at the stage of oral narration? + +To such questions, of course, no final answers can be given. (1) It +is not possible to discriminate accurately between the modifications +which a narrative would undergo through constant repetition, and +changes deliberately made by responsible persons. On the whole, the +balance of presumption seems to us to incline towards the hypothesis +of professional oversight of some sort, exercised from a very early +time. On this assumption, too, we can best understand the formation +of legendary cycles; for it is evident that no effective grouping of +tradition could take place in the course of promiscuous popular recital. +(2) As to the use of writing, it is natural to suppose that it came +in first of all as an aid to the memory of the narrator, and that as +a knowledge of literature extended the practice of oral recitation +gradually died out, and left the written record in sole possession of +the field. In this way we may imagine that books would be formed, which +would be handed down from father to son, annotated, expanded, revised, +and copied; and so collections resembling our oldest pentateuchal +documents might come into existence.¹ + + ¹ See Gilbert Murray, _Rise of the Greek Epic_, page 92 ff. + +Here we come upon one important fact which affords some guidance in +the midst of these speculations. The bulk of the Genesis-tradition +lies before us in two closely parallel and practically contemporaneous +recensions (see page xliii ff. below). Since there is every reason to +believe that these recensions were made independently of each other, +it follows that the early traditions had been codified, and a sort +of national epos had taken shape, prior to the compilation of these +documents. When we find, further, that each of them contains evidence +of earlier collections and older strata of tradition, we must assume +a very considerable period of time to have elapsed between the +formation of a fixed corpus of tradition and the composition of Yahwist +and Elohist. Beyond this, however, we are in the region of vaguest +conjecture. We cannot tell for certain what kind of authority had +presided over the combination of the legends, nor whether it was first +done in the oral or the literary stage of translation. We may think of +the priesthoods of the leading sanctuaries as the natural custodians of +the tradition:¹ the sanctuaries were at least the obvious repositories +of the cult-legends pertaining to them. But we cannot indicate any +sanctuary of such outstanding national importance as to be plausibly +regarded as the centre of a national epic.² Or we may assign a +conspicuous share in the work to the prophetic guilds which, in the +time of Samuel, were _foci_ of enthusiasm for the national cause, and +might conceivably have devoted themselves to the propagation of the +national tradition. Or, finally, we may assume, with Gunkel, _Genesis +übersetzt und erklärt_, that there existed in Israel, as among the +Arabs, guilds of professional story-tellers, exercising their vocation +at public festivals and such like gatherings, for the entertainment +and instruction of the people. The one certainty is that a considerable +time must be allowed for the complex mental activities which lie behind +our earliest literary sources. It is true that the rise of a national +epos presupposes a strongly developed consciousness of national unity; +but in Israel the national ideal was much older than its realisation +in the form of a state, and therefore we have no reason for placing the +unification of the traditions later than the founding of the monarchy. +From the age of Samuel at least all the essential conditions were +present; and a lower limit than that will hardly meet the requirements +of the case. + + ¹ Compare Stade, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, i. 347 ff. + + ² Procksch, _Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_, + however (392 f.), suggests Shiloh as the place where the + national legend was developed. + + We may here refer to a matter of great importance in its bearing + on the possibility of accurate oral transmission of the legends: + viz. the recent effort of Sievers (_Metrische Studien_, ii., + 1904‒5) to resolve the whole of Genesis into verse. If his + theory should be established, it would not merely furnish the + most potent instrument of literary analysis conceivable, but it + would render credible a very high degree of verbal exactitude + during the period of unwritten tradition. The work of Sievers + is viewed with qualified approval both by Gunkel, _Genesis + übersetzt und erklärt_ (page xxix f.) and Procksch, _Das + nordhebräische Sagenbuch: die Elohimquelle_ (210 ff.), and it is + certain to evoke interesting discussion. The present writer, who + is anything but a ‘Metriker von Fach,’ does not feel competent + to pronounce an opinion on its merits. Neither reading aloud, + nor counting of syllables, has convinced him that the scansion + holds, or that Hebrew rhythm in general is so rigorously exact + as the system demands. The prejudice against divorcing poetic + form from poetic feeling and diction (of the latter there + is no trace in what have been considered the prose parts of + Genesis) is not lightly to be overcome; and the frequent want + of coincidence between breaks in sense and pauses in rhythm + disturbs the mind, besides violating what used to be thought + a fundamental feature of Hebrew poetry. Grave misgivings are + also raised by the question whether the Massoretic theory of + the syllable is (as Sievers assumes) a reliable guide to the + pronunciation and rhythm of the early Hebrew language. It seems + therefore hazardous to apply the method to the solution of + literary problems, whether by emendation of the text, or by + disentanglement of sources. + + + + + B. STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK. + + + § 6. _Plan and Divisions._ + +That the Book of Genesis forms a literary unity has been a commonplace +of criticism since the maiden work of Ewald¹ put an end to the +Fragmentary Hypothesis of Geddes and Vater. The ruling idea of the +book, as has already been briefly indicated (page ii), is to show +how Israel, the people of God, attained its historical position among +the nations of the world; in particular, how its peculiar relation to +God was rooted in the moral greatness and piety of its three common +ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and how through God’s promise +to them it had secured an exclusive right to the soil of Canaan.² This +purpose, however, appears less in the details of the history (which +are obviously governed by a variety of interests) than in the scope and +arrangement of the work as a whole, especially in the ‘framework’ which +knits it together, and reveals the plan to which the entire narrative +is accommodated. The method consistently followed is the progressive +isolation of the main line of Israel’s descent by brief genealogical +summaries of the collateral branches of the human family which diverge +from it at successive points. + + ¹ _Die Komposition der Genesis, kritisch untersucht_ + (1823).――In that essay Ewald fell into the natural error of + confusing unity of plan with unity of authorship,――an error, + however, which he retracted eight years later (_Theologische + Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 595 ff.), in favour of a + theory (virtually identical with the so-called Supplementary + Hypothesis) which did full justice to the unity and + skilful disposition of the book, while recognising it to + be the result of an amalgamation of several documents. The + distinction has never since been lost sight of; and all + subsequent theories of the composition of Genesis have + endeavoured to reconcile the assumption of a diversity of + sources with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed + arrangement of the material. The view which is generally + held does so in this way: three main documents, following + substantially the same historical order, are held to + have been combined by one or more redactors; one of these + documents, being little more than an epitome of the history, + was specially fitted to supply a framework into which the + rest of the narrative could be fitted, and was selected + by the redactor for this purpose; hence the plan which we + discover in the book is really the design of one particular + writer. It is obvious that such a conception quite + adequately explains all the literary unity which the Book + of Genesis exhibits. + + ² See Tuch, _Commentar über die Genesis_ XVI ff. + + A clue to the main divisions of the book is thus furnished by + the editor’s practice of inserting the collateral genealogies + (_Tôlĕdôth_) at the close of the principal sections (11¹⁰⁻³⁰; + 25¹²⁻¹⁸; 36).¹ This yields a natural and convenient division + into four approximately equal parts, namely: + + I. The Primæval History of mankind: i.‒xi.² + II. The History of Abraham: xii. 1‒xxv. 18. + III. The History of Jacob: xxv. 19‒xxxvi. 43. + IV. The Story of Joseph and his brethren: xxxvii.‒l. + + A detailed analysis of the contents is given at the commencement + of the various sections. + + ¹ The genealogies of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ and 22²⁰⁻²⁴ do not count: + these are not _Tôlĕdôth_, and do not belong to the document + used as a framework. Chapter 10 (the Table of peoples) would + naturally stand at the close of a section; but it had to be + displaced from its proper position before 11¹⁰ to find room + for the story of the Dispersion (11¹⁻⁹). It may be said, + however, that the _Tôlĕdôth_ of Adam (chapter 5) should mark + a main division; and that is probably correct, though for + practical purposes it is better to ignore the subdivision + and treat the primæval history as one section. + + ² Strictly speaking, the first part ends perhaps at 11²⁷ or ³⁰; + but the actual division of chapters has its recommendation, + and it is not worth while to depart from it. + + It is commonly held by writers on Genesis that the editor has + marked the headings of the various sections by the formula + [וִ]אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת, which occurs eleven times in the book: 2⁴ᵃ 5¹ ¹ 6⁹ + 10¹ 11¹⁰ 11²⁷ 25¹² 25¹⁹ 36¹ 36⁹ 37². Transposing 2⁴ᵃ to the + beginning, and disregarding 36⁹ (both arbitrary proceedings), + we obtain ten parts; and these are actually adopted by Franz + Delitzsch, _Neuer Commentar über die Genesis_ as the divisions + of his commentary. But the scheme is of no practical utility, + ――for it is idle to speak of 11¹⁰⁻²⁶ or 25¹²⁻¹⁸ as sections + of Genesis on the same footing as 25¹⁹‒35²⁹ or 37²‒50²⁶; and + theoretically it is open to serious objection. Here it will + suffice to point out the incongruity that, while the histories + of Noah and Isaac fall under their own _Tôlĕdôth_, those of + Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph fall under the _Tôlĕdôth_ of their + respective fathers. See, further, page 40 f. + + ¹ זָה סֵפֶר תולדות. + + + § 7. _The Sources of Genesis._ + +The Book of Genesis has always been the strategic position of +Pentateuchal literary criticism. It was the examination of this book +that led Astruc, in 1753,¹ to the important discovery which was the +first positive achievement in this department of research. Having +noticed the significant alternation of the divine names in different +sections of the book, and having convinced himself that the phenomenon +could not be explained otherwise than as due to the literary habit of +two writers, Astruc proceeded to divide the bulk of Genesis into two +documents, one distinguished by the use of the name אֱלֹהִים, and the other +by the use of יְהֹוָה; while a series of fragmentary passages where this +criterion failed him brought the total number of his _mémoires_ up to +twelve. Subsequent investigations served to emphasise the magnitude +of this discovery, which Eichhorn² speedily put on a broader basis +by a characterisation of the style, contents, and spirit of the two +documents. Neither Astruc nor Eichhorn carried the analysis further +than Exodus 2,――partly because they were influenced by the traditional +opinion (afterwards abandoned by Eichhorn) of Mosaic authorship, +and did not expect to find traces of composition in the history +contemporaneous with Moses. We shall see presently that there is a +deeper reason why this particular clue to the analysis could not at +first be traced beyond the early chapters of Exodus. + + ¹ _Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux, dont il paroît que + Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse._ + + ² _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, 1780‒3 (1st edition). + + While the earlier attempts to discredit Astruc’s discovery took + the direction of showing that the use of the two divine names is + determined by a difference of meaning which made the one or the + other more suitable in a particular connexion, the more recent + opposition entrenches itself mostly behind the uncertainties + of the text, and maintains that the Versions (especially LXX) + show the Massoretic Text to be so unreliable that no analysis + of documents can be based on its data: see Klostermann, + _Der Pentateuch_ (1893), page 20 ff.; Dahse, _Archiv für + Religionswissenschaft._, vi. (1903), 305 ff.; Redpath, _American + Journal of Theology_, viii. (1904), 286 ff.; Eerdmans, _Die + Komposition der Genesis_ (1908), 34 ff.; Wiener, _Bibliotheca + Sacra and Theological Review_ (1909), 119 ff.――It cannot be + denied that the facts adduced by these writers import an element + of uncertainty into the analysis, _so far as it depends on + the criterion of the divine names_; but the significance of + the facts is greatly overrated, and the alternative theories + propounded to account for the textual phenomena are improbable + in the extreme. (1) So far as I have observed, no attention is + paid to what is surely a very important factor of the problem, + the _proportion_ of divergences to agreements as between LXX + and Massoretic Text. In Genesis the divine name occurs in one or + other form about 340 times (in Massoretic Text, יהוה 143 times + + אלהים 177 times + י׳ א׳ 20 times). The total deviations registered + by Redpath (296 ff.) number 50; according to Eerdmans (34 f.) + they are 49; _i.e._ little more than one-seventh of the whole. + Is it so certain that that degree of divergence invalidates + a documentary analysis founded on so much larger a field of + undisputed readings? (2) In spite of the confident assertions of + Dahse (309) and Wiener (131 f.) there is not a single instance + in which LXX is ‘demonstrably’ right against Massoretic Text. + It is readily conceded that it is probably right in a few cases; + but there are two general presumptions in favour of the superior + fidelity of the Massoretic tradition. Not only (a) is the + chance of purely clerical confusion between κ̅ς and θ̅ς greater + than between יהוה and אלהים, or even between י׳ and א׳, and (b) a + change of divine names more apt to occur in _translation_ than + in _transcription_, but (c) the distinction between a proper + name יהוה and a generic אלהים is much less likely to have been + overlooked in copying than that between two appellatives κύριος + and θεός. An instructive example is 4²⁶, where LXX κύριος ὁ θεός + is ‘demonstrably’ wrong. (3) In the present state of textual + criticism it is impossible to determine in particular cases what + is the original reading. We can only proceed by the imperfect + method of averages. Now it is significant that while in Genesis + LXX substitutes θεός for יהוה 21 times, and κύριος ὁ θεός 19 times + (40 in all), there are only 4 cases of κύριος and 6 of κύριος + ὁ θεός for אלהים (10 in all: the proportions being very much the + same for the whole Pentateuch). LXX thus reveals a decided (and + very natural) preference for the ordinary Greek θεός over the + less familiar κύριος. Dahse urges (page 308) that Massoretic + Text betrays an equally marked preference for יהוה, and has + frequently substituted it for אלהים; but that is much less + intelligible. For although the pronunciation of יהוה as אֲדֹנָי might + have removed the fear of the Tetragrammaton,――and that would be + a very good reason for leaving יהוה where it was,――it suggests no + motive at all for inserting it where it was not. There is force, + however, in Gray’s remark on a particular case (_A Critical and + Exegetical Commentary on Numbers_ page 311), that “wherever [ὁ] + κ̅ς appears in LXX it deserves attention as a possible indication + of the original text.” (4) The documentary theory furnishes + a better explanation of the alternation of the names than any + other that has been propounded. Redpath’s hypothesis of a double + recension of the Pentateuch, one mainly Yahwistic and the other + wholly (?) Elohistic, of which one was used only where the other + was illegible, would explain anything, and therefore explains + nothing; least of all does it explain the frequent coincidence + of hypothetical illegibility with actual changes of style, + phraseology, and standpoint. Dahse (following out a hint of + Klostermann) accounts for the phenomena of Massoretic Text (and + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) by the desire to + preserve uniformity within the limits of each several pericope + of the Synagogue lectionary; but why some pericopes should be + Yahwistic and others Elohistic, it is not easy to conceive. He + admits that his view cannot be carried through in detail; yet + it is just of the kind which, if true, ought to be verifiable + in detail. One has but to read consecutively the first three + chapters of Genesis, and observe how the sudden change in the + divine name coincides with a new vocabulary, representation, + and spiritual atmosphere, in order to feel how paltry all such + artificial explanations are in comparison with the hypothesis + that the names are distinctive of different documents. The + experience repeats itself, not perhaps quite so convincingly, + again and again throughout the book; and though there are cases + where the change of manner is not obvious, still the theory + is vindicated in a sufficient number of instances to be worth + carrying through, even at the expense of a somewhat complicated + analysis, and a very few demands (see page xlviii f.) on the + services of a redactor to resolve isolated problems. (5) It was + frankly admitted by Kuenen long ago (see _Historisch-critisch + Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des + Ouden Verbonds_ i. pages 59, 62) that the test of the divine + names is not _by itself_ a sufficient criterion of source or + authorship, and that critics might sometimes err through a + too exclusive reliance on this one phenomenon.¹ Nevertheless + the opinion can be maintained that the Massoretic Text is far + superior to the Versions, and that its use of the names is a + valuable clue to the separation of documents. Truth is sometimes + stranger than fiction; and, however surprising it may appear + to some, we can reconcile our minds to the belief that the + Massoretic Text does reproduce with substantial accuracy the + characteristics of the original autographs. At present that + assumption can only be tested by the success or failure of the + analysis based on it. It is idle to speculate on what would + have happened if Astruc and his successors had been compelled + to operate with LXX instead of Massoretic Text; but it is a + rational surmise that in that case criticism would still have + arrived, by a more laborious route, at very much the positions + it occupies to-day. + + ¹ It should be clearly understood that as regards Priestly-Code + and Yahwist the distinction of divine names is but one + of many marks of diverse authorship (see Driver _An + Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_⁸, 131 + ff., where more than _fifty_ such distinguishing criteria + are given), and that after Exodus 6, where this particular + criterion disappears, the difference is quite as obvious as + before. As regards Yahwist and Elohist, the analysis, though + sometimes dependent on the divine names alone, is _generally_ + based on other differences as well. + +The next great step towards the modern documentary theory of the +Pentateuch was Hupfeld’s¹ demonstration that אלהים is not peculiar to +one document, but to two; so that under the name Elohist two different +writers had previously been confused. It is obvious, of course, that +in this inquiry the divine names afford no guidance; yet by observing +finer marks of style, and the connexion of the narrative, Hupfeld +succeeded in proving to the ultimate satisfaction of all critics that +there was a second Elohistic source (now called Elohist), closely +parallel and akin to the Yahwistic (Yahwist), and that both Yahwist and +Elohist had once been independent consecutive narratives. An important +part of the work was a more accurate delimitation of the first Elohist +(now called the Priestly Code: Priestly-Code), whose outlines were +then first drawn with a clearness to which later investigation has had +little to add.² + + ¹ _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ + (1853). Hupfeld’s discovery had partly been anticipated + by Ilgen (_Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses_ [1798]). + Between Eichhorn and Hupfeld, criticism had passed through + two well-defined phases: the Fragmentary Hypothesis (see + page xxxii f. above) and the Supplementary Hypothesis, of + which the classical exposition is Tuch’s fine commentary + on Genesis (1858; reissued by Arnold in 1871). The latter + theory rested partly on a prejudice――that the framework of + the Pentateuch was necessarily supplied by its oldest source; + partly on the misapprehension which Hupfeld dispelled; + and partly on the truth that Yahwistic sections are so + interlaced with Elohistic that the former could plausibly + be regarded as on the whole supplementary to the latter. + Though Tuch’s commentary did not appear till 1858, the theory + had really received its death-blow from Hupfeld five years + before. + + ² See Nöldeke, _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_, + 1869, pages 1‒144. It is worthy of mention here that this + great scholar, after long resisting the theory of the + late origin of Priestly-Code, has at last declared his + acceptance of the position of Wellhausen (see _Zeitschrift + für Assyriologie_, 1908, 203). + + Though Hupfeld’s work was confined to Genesis, it had results of + the utmost consequence for the criticism of the Pentateuch as a + whole. In particular, it brought to light a fact which at once + explains why Genesis presents a simpler problem to analysis than + the rest of the Pentateuch, and furnishes a final proof that + the avoidance of יהוה by two of the sources was not accidental, + but arose from a theory of religious development held and + expressed by both writers. For both Priestly-Code (Exodus + 6² ᶠᶠᐧ) and Elohist (Exodus 3¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ) connect the revelation of + the Tetragrammaton with the mission of Moses; while the former + states emphatically that God was not known by that name to the + patriarchs.¹ Consistency demanded that these writers should use + the generic name for Deity up to this point; while Yahwist, who + was bound by no such theory, could use יהוה from the first.² From + Exodus 6 onwards Priestly-Code regularly uses יהוה; Elohist’s + usage fluctuates between א׳ and י׳ (perhaps a sign of different + strata within the document), so that the criterion no longer + yields a sure clue to the analysis. + + ¹ A curious attempt to turn the edge of this argument will + be found in the article of H. M. Wiener referred to above + (_Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review_, 1909, 158 ff.). + + ² For a partial exception, see on 4²⁶. + +It does not lie within the scope of this Introduction to trace the +extension of these lines of cleavage through the other books of the +Hexateuch; and of the reflex results of the criticism of the later +books on that of Genesis only two can here be mentioned. One is the +recognition of the unique position and character of Deuteronomy in +the Pentateuch, and the dating of its promulgation in the eighteenth +year of Josiah.¹ Although this has hardly any direct influence on the +criticism of Genesis, it is an important landmark in the Pentateuch +problem, as furnishing a fixed date by reference to which the age of +the other documents can partly be determined. The other point is the +question of the date of Priestly-Code. The preconception in favour +of the antiquity of this document (based for the most part on the +fact that it really forms the framework of the Pentateuch) was nearly +universal among scholars down to the publication of Wellhausen’s +_Geschichte Israels_, i., in 1878; but it had already been shown to +be groundless by Graff² and Kuenen in 1866‒69. + + ¹ De Wette, _Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ + (1806‒7); Riehm, _Gesetzgebung Mose’s im Lande Moab_ (1854); + al. + + ² _Die geschichtliche Bücher des Alte Testaments_ (1866). Graf + did not at first see it necessary to abandon the earlier + date of the _narratives_ of Priestly-Code; for an account + of his subsequent change of opinion in correspondence with + Kuenen, as well as the anticipations of his final theory + by Vatke, Reuss, and others, we must refer to Kuenen _An + Historico-Critical Inquiry Into the Origin and Composition + of the Hexateuch_ xix ff., or Holzinger’s _Einleitung in den + Hexateuch_, especially page 64 ff. + + This revolutionary change was brought about by a comparison of + the layers of legislation in the later Pentateuch books with + one another, and with the stages of Israel’s religious history + as revealed in the earlier historical books; from which it + appeared that the laws belonging to Priestly-Code were later + than Deuteronomy, and that their codification took place during + and after, and their promulgation after, the Exile. There + was hesitation at first in extending this conclusion to the + _narratives_ of Priestly-Code, especially those of them in + Genesis and Exodus 1‒11. But when the problem was fairly + faced, it was perceived, not only that Priestly-Code in Genesis + presented no obstacle to the theory, but that in many respects + its narrative was more intelligible as the latest than as the + oldest stratum of the book. + +The chief positions at which literary criticism has arrived with regard +to Genesis are, therefore, briefly these: (1) The oldest sources are +Yahwist and Elohist, closely parallel documents, both dating from the +best period of Hebrew literature, but distinguished from each other by +their use of the divine name, by slight idiosyncrasies of style, and +by quite perceptible differences of representation. (2) These sources +were combined into a composite narrative (Jehovist) by a redactor +(Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), whose hand can be detected in several patches of +a literary complexion differing from either of his authorities. He has +done his work so deftly that it is frequently difficult, and sometimes +impossible, to sunder the documents. It is generally held that this +redaction took place before the composition of Deuteronomy, so that +a third stage in the history of the Pentateuch would be represented +by the symbols Jehovist + Deuteronomy. (3) The remaining source +Priestly-Code is a product of the Exilic or post-Exilic age, though it +embodies older material. Originally an independent work, its formal and +schematic character fitted it to be the framework of the Pentateuchal +narrative; and this has determined the procedure of the final redactor +(Redactorᴾᵉⁿᵗᵃᵗᵉᵘᶜʰ), by whom excerpts from Jehovist have been used to +fill up the skeleton outline which Priestly-Code gave of the primitive +and patriarchal history. + +The above statement will, it is hoped, suffice to put the reader in +possession of the main points of the critical position occupied in the +Commentary. The evidence by which they are supported will partly be +given in the next four §§; but, for a full discussion of the numerous +questions involved, we must here refer to works specially devoted to +the subject.¹ + + ¹ The following may be mentioned: Kuenen, _Historisch-critisch + onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken + des Ouden Verbonds_², i. (1885) [English translation, + _The Hexateuch_ (1886)]; and _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ + (translated into German by Budde); Wellhausen, _Composition + des Hexateuchs_, etc. (²1889); and _Prolegomena zur + Geschichte Israels_ (⁶1905) [English translation 1885]; + Westphal, _Les Sources du Pentateuch_ (1888, 1892); Reuss, + _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments_ (²1890); + Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ + (²1892); Driver, _Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament_ (⁸1909); Holzinger, _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ + (1893); Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (⁶1908); + König, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1893); Carpenter + and Harford-Battersby, _Composition of the Hexateuch_ (1902) + [= volume i. of _The Hexateuch_ (1900)]. + + Some idea of the extent to which conservative opinion has been + modified by criticism, may be gathered from the concessions made + by Professor Orr, whose book, _The Problem of the Old Testament_, + deservedly ranks as the ablest assault on the critical theory + of the Pentateuch that has recently appeared in English. Dr. + Orr admits (a) that Astruc was right in dividing a considerable + part of Genesis into Elohistic and Yahwistic sections; (b) that + Eichhorn’s characterisation of the style of the two documents + has, in the main, ‘stood the test of time’; (c) that Hupfeld’s + observation of a difference in the Elohistic sections of Genesis + ‘in substance corresponds with facts’; and (d) that even Graf + and Wellhausen ‘mark an advance,’ in making Priestly-Code a + relatively later stratum of Genesis than Jehovist (pages 196‒201). + When we see so many defences evacuated one after another, we + begin to wonder what is left to fight about, and how a theory + which was cradled in infidelity, and has the vice of its origin + clinging to all its subsequent developments (Orr, 195 f.), is + going to be prevented from doing its deadly work of spreading + havoc over the ‘believing view’ of the Old Testament. Dr. + Orr thinks to stem the torrent by adopting two relatively + conservative positions from Klostermann. (1) The first is the + denial of the distinction between Yahwist and Elohist (216 ff.). + As soon as Hupfeld had effected the separation of Elohist from + Priestly-Code, it ought to have been perceived, he seems to + suggest, that the sections thus disentangled are really parts + of Yahwist (217). And yet, even to Dr. Orr, the matter is not + quite so simple as this, and he makes another concession. The + distinction in the divine names remains; and so he is driven + to admit that Yahwist and Elohist were, not indeed independent + works, but different literary recensions of one and the same + old work (229). What is meant by two versions in circulation + alongside of each other, which never had currency as separate + documents, is a point on which Dr. Orr owes his readers some + explanation; if there were two recensions they certainly existed + separately; and he cannot possibly know how far their agreement + extended. The issue between him and his critical opponents + is, nevertheless, perfectly clear: they hold that Yahwist and + Elohist are independent recensions of a common body of tradition, + while he maintains that they were recensions of a single + document, differing in nothing but the use of יהוה or אלהים. What + reasons, then, hinder us from deserting the critical view, and + coming over to the side of Dr. Orr? In the _first_ place, the + difference between Yahwist and Elohist is _not_ confined to + the divine names. The linguistic evidence is very much clearer + than Dr. Orr represents; and differences of conception, though + slight, are real. It is all very well to quote from candid and + truth-loving opponents admissions of the close resemblance of the + narratives, and the difficulty and uncertainty of the analysis, + in particular instances, and to suggest that these admissions + amount to a throwing up of the case; but no man with an + independent grasp of the subject will be imposed on by so cheap + a device. In the _second_ place, Yahwist and Elohist consist + largely of duplicate narratives of the same event. It is true, + this argument is lost on Dr. Orr, who has no difficulty in + conceiving that Abraham twice told the same lie about his wife, + and that his son Isaac followed his example, with very similar + results in the three cases. But he will hardly affect to be + surprised that other men take a more natural view,¹ and regard + the stories as traditional variations of the same theme.――(2) + The second position is that Priestly-Code was never a distinct + or self-subsisting document, but only a “framework” enclosing + the contents of Jehovist (341‒377). Again we have to ask what Dr. + Orr means by a ‘framework,’ which, in his own words, “has also, + at certain points, its original, and, in parts, considerable + contributions to bring to the history” (272); and how he can + possibly tell that these original and considerable contributions + did not come from an independent work. The facts that it is now + closely interwoven with Jehovist, and that there are gaps in + its narrative (even if these gaps were more considerable than + there is any reason to suppose), prove nothing except that it + has passed through the hands of a redactor. That its history + presupposes a knowledge of Jehovist, and is too meagre to be + intelligible apart from it, is amply explained by the critical + view that the author wished to concentrate attention on the + great religious turning-points in the history (the Creation, + the Flood, the Covenant with Abraham, the Blessing of Jacob by + Isaac, the origin of the name Israel, the Settlement in Egypt, + etc.), and dismissed the rest with a bare chronological epitome. + When we add that on all these points, as well as others, + the ‘original and considerable contributions’ are (Dr. Orr’s + protestations notwithstanding) radically divergent from the + older tradition, we have every proof that could be desired + that Priestly-Code was an independent document, and not a mere + supplementary expansion of an earlier compilation (see, further, + page lvii ff. below). But now, supposing Dr. Orr to have made + good his contentions, what advantage has he gained? So far as + we can see, none whatever! He does indeed go on to assert a + preference for the term ‘collaboration’ as expressing the ‘kind + and manner of the activity which brought the Pentateuchal books + into their present shape’ (375).² But that preference might just + as easily have been exercised on the full literary results of + the critical theory. And Dr. Orr deceives himself if he imagines + that that flimsy hypothesis will either neutralise the force + of the arguments that have carried criticism past the barren + eccentricities of Klostermann, or save what he chooses to + consider the ‘essential Mosaicity’ of the Pentateuch. + + ¹ So even Sayce, _Early History of the Hebrews_ (1897), 62 f., + 64 f. + + ² It is a grave injustice to Dillmann to associate his name, + however remotely, with this theory of ‘collaboration’ (527). + What Dillmann is speaking of in the words cited is simply + the question whether the three documents, Priestly-Code, + Elohist, and Yahwist, were combined by a single redaction, + or whether two of them were first put together and + afterwards united with the third. Dr. Orr, on the other + hand, is thinking of “the labours of _original composers_, + working with a common aim and towards a common end” (375). + If everything beyond this is conjectural (376), there is + nothing but conjecture in the whole construction. + + Professor Eerdmans of Leiden, in a series of recent publications, + has announced his secession from the Graf-Wellhausen school, + and commenced to lay down the programme of a new era in Old + Testament criticism (_Hibbert Journal_ vii. [1909], 813 ff.). + His _Komposition der Genesis_ (1908) gives a foretaste of his + literary method; and certainly the procedure is drastic enough. + The divine names are absolutely misleading as a criterion + of authorship; and the distinction between Priestly-Code and + Jehovist goes overboard along with that between Yahwist and + Elohist. Criticism is thus thrown back into its original chaos, + out of which Eerdmans proceeds to evoke a new kosmos. His + one positive principle is the recognition of a polytheistic + background behind the traditions, which has been obscured in + various degrees by the later monotheistic interpretation. By + the help of this principle, he distinguishes four stages in the + development of the tradition. (1) The first is represented by + remnants of the original undiluted polytheism, where Yahwe does + not appear at all; _e.g._ 35¹⁻⁷; the Israel-recension of the + Joseph-stories; the groundwork of chapters 1. 20. 28¹⁻⁹ 6⁹‒9¹⁷. + (2) Legends which recognise Yahwe as one among many gods; 4. + 9¹⁸⁻²⁷ 22. 27. 28¹¹⁻²² 29. 30. 31. 39. (3) In the third stage, + polytheistic legends are transferred to Yahwe as the only God: + 2. 3. 6¹⁻⁸ 7¹⁻⁵ 8²⁰⁻²² 11¹⁻⁹ 16. 18. 19. 24. 25¹⁹⁻³⁴ 26. (4) + Late additions of purely monotheistic complexion: 15¹⁻⁶ 17. + 35⁹⁻¹⁵ 48³⁻⁶. Now, we are quite prepared to find traces of all + these stages of religion in the Genesis-narratives, if they + can be proved; and, indeed, all of them except the second are + recognised by recent critics. But while any serious attempt to + determine the age of the legends from their contents rather than + from their literary features is to be welcomed, it is difficult + to perceive the distinctions on which Eerdmans’s classification + is based, or to admit that, for example, chapter 17 is one + whit more monotheistic than 20 or 27, or 24. In any case, on + Eerdmans’s own showing, the classification affords no clue to + the composition and history of the book. In order to get a start, + he has to fall back on the acknowledged _literary_ distinction + between a Jacob-recension and an Israel-recension of the + Joseph-narratives (on this see page 439 below). Since the former + begins אלה תלדות יעקב, it is considered to have formed part of a + comprehensive history of the patriarchs, commencing with Adam + (5¹), set in a framework of _Tôlĕdôth_. This is the groundwork + of Genesis. It is destitute of monotheistic colouring (it + contains, however, legends of all the first three classes!), + Yahwe being to the compiler simply one of the gods; and must + therefore have originated before the Exile: a lower limit is + 700 B.C. This collection was soon enlarged by the addition of + legends not less ancient than its own; and by the insertion + of the Israel-recension, which is as polytheistic in character + as the _Tôlĕdôth_-collection! The monotheistic manipulation + of the work set in after Deuteronomy; but how many editions it + went through we cannot tell for certain. The last thorough-going + reviser was the author of chapter 17; but additions were made + even later than that, etc. etc. A more bewildering hypothesis + it has never been our lot to examine; and we cannot pretend to + believe that it contains the rudiments of a successful analysis. + There is much to be learned from Eerdmans’s work, which is full + of acute observations and sound reasoning in detail; but as + a theory of the composition of Genesis it seems to us utterly + at fault. What with Winckler and Jerome, and Cheyne, and now + Eerdmans, Old Testament scholars have a good many new eras + dawning on them just now. Whether any of them will shine unto + the perfect day, time will show. + + + § 8. _The collective authorship of Yahwist and Elohist._ + +In Yahwist and Elohist we have, according to what has been said above, +the two oldest written recensions of a tradition which had at one time +existed in the oral form. When we compare the two documents, the first +thing that strikes us is their close correspondence in outline and +contents. The only important difference is that Elohist’s narrative +does not seem to have embraced the primitive period, but to have +commenced with Abraham. But from the point where Elohist strikes into +the current of the history (at chapter 20, with a few earlier traces in +chapter 15), there are few incidents in the one document to which the +other does not contain a parallel.¹. What is much more remarkable, and +indeed surprising, is that the _manner_ of narration changes in the two +documents _pari passu_. Thus the transition from the loose connexion +of the Abraham legends to the more consecutive biography of Jacob, +and then to the artistic unity of the Joseph-stories (see page +xxviii f.), is equally noticeable in Yahwist and in Elohist. It is +this extraordinarily close parallelism, both in matter and form, which +proves that both documents drew from a common body of tradition, and +even suggests that that tradition had already been partly reduced to +writing.² + + ¹ The precise extent to which this is true depends, of course, + on the validity of the finer processes of analysis, with + regard to which there is room for difference of opinion. On + the analysis followed in the commentary, the only episodes + in Elohist to which there is no trace of a parallel in + Yahwist, after chapter 15, are: the sacrifice of Isaac, 22; + Esau’s selling of his birthright, 25²⁹⁻³⁴ (?); the theophany + of Mahanaim, 32²ᐧ ³; the purchase of land at Shechem, 33¹⁸⁻²⁰; + and the various incidents in 35¹⁻⁸ᐧ ¹⁴⁻²⁰. Those peculiar to + Yahwist are: the theophany at Mamre, 18; the destruction of + Sodom, 19¹⁻²⁸; Lot and his daughters, 19³⁰⁻³⁸; the birth of + Jacob and Esau, 25²¹⁻²⁸; the Isaac-narratives, 26; Jacob’s + meeting with Rachel, 29²⁻¹⁴; Reuben and the love-apples, + 30¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; the incest of Reuben, 35²¹ᐧ ²²ᵃ; Judah and Tamar, + 38; Joseph’s temptation, 39⁷⁻²⁰; the cup in Benjamin’s + sack, 44; Joseph’s agrarian policy, 47¹³⁻²⁶ (?); and the + genealogies of 22²⁰⁻²⁴ 25¹⁻⁶. + + ² One is almost tempted to go further, and say that the + facts can be best explained by the hypothesis of literary + dependence of one document on the other (so Luther _Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 169: “Elohist steht + völlig in seinem [Yahwist’s] Banne”). But the present writer + is convinced from repeated examination, that the differences + are not of a kind that can be accounted for in this way (see + Procksch, 305 f.). + +Here we come back, from the side of analysis, to a question which +was left unsettled in § 5; the question, namely, of the process by +which the oral tradition was consolidated and reduced to writing. It +has been shown with great probability that both Yahwist and Elohist +are _composite documents_, in which minor legendary cycles have +been incorporated, and different strata of tradition are embedded. +This presupposes a development of the tradition within the circle +represented by each document, and leads eventually to the theory +advocated by most recent critics, that the symbols Yahwist and Elohist +must be taken to express, not two individual writers but two _schools_, +_i.e._, two series of narrators, animated by common conceptions, +following a common literary method, and transmitting a common form of +the tradition from one generation to another. + + The phenomena which suggest this hypothesis are fully described + in the body of the commentary, and need only be recapitulated + here. In Yahwist, composite structure has been most clearly made + out in the Primæval History (chapters 1‒11), where at least two, + and probably more, strands of narrative can be distinguished + (pages 1‒4). Gunkel seems to have shown that in 12‒25 two + cycles of Abraham-legends have been interwoven (page 240); + also that in 25 ff. the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban legends + were originally independent of each other: this last, however, + applies to Yahwist and Elohist alike, so that the fusion had + probably taken place in the common tradition which lies behind + both. Further, chapters 34 and 38 (pages 418, 450) belong to an + older stratum of tradition than the main narrative; and the same + might be said of chapter 49 (page 512), which may very plausibly + be regarded as a traditional poem of the ‘school’ of Yahwist, + and the oldest extant specimen of its _repertoire_.――With regard + to Elohist, the proof of composite authorship lies chiefly in + the Books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua; in Genesis, however, + we have imperfectly assimilated fragments of a more ancient + tradition in 34 (? if Elohist be a component there), 35¹⁻⁷ 48²² + and perhaps some other passages.――The important fact is that + these passages exhibit all the literary peculiarities of the + main source to which they are assigned; at least, no linguistic + _differentiæ_ of any consequence have yet been discovered.¹ The + problem is to frame a theory which shall do justice at once to + their material incongruities and their literary homogeneity. + + ¹ The only exception would be Sievers’ metrical analysis, + which leads to results far more complicated than can be + justified by other indications (see page xxxi f.). + +While the fact of collective authorship of some kind is now generally +recognised, there is no agreement as to the interpretation which +best explains all the phenomena. Some scholars are impressed (and the +impression is certainly very intelligible) by the unity of conception +and standpoint and mode of treatment which characterise the two +collections, and maintain that (in the case of Yahwist especially) the +stamp of a powerful and original personality is too obvious to leave +much play for the activity of a ‘school.’¹ It is very difficult to +hold the balance even between the claims of unity and complexity in the +documents; but the theory of single authorship may easily be pressed +too far. If we could get through with only a Yahwist¹ and Yahwist², +Elohist¹, Elohist² etc.,――_i.e._, with the theory of one main document +supplemented by a few later additions,――it would be absurd to speak +of ‘schools.’ And even if the case were considerably more complicated, +it might still be possible to rest satisfied (as a majority of critics +do) with the idea of _literary_ schools, manipulating written documents +under the influence of tendencies and principles which had become +traditional within special circles. Gunkel goes, however, much further +with his conception of Yahwist and Elohist as first of all guilds of +oral narrators, whose stories gradually took written shape within their +respective circles, and were ultimately put together in the collections +as we now have them. The theory, while not necessarily excluding the +action of an outstanding personality in shaping either the oral or +the literary phase of the tradition, has the advantage of suggesting +a medium in which the traditional material might have assumed its +specifically Yahwistic or Elohistic form before being incorporated in +the main document of the school. It is at all events a satisfactory +working hypothesis; and that is all that can be looked for in so +obscure a region of investigation. Whether it is altogether so +artificial and unnatural as Professor Orr would have us believe, the +reader must judge for himself. + + ¹ See the lengthy excursus of Luther in _Die Israeliten und + ihre Nachbarstämme_, 107‒170, where the thesis is upheld + that the Yahwist (_i.e._ Yahwist¹) is not a stage in the + natural process of remodelling the tradition; that he does + not mean merely to retail the old stories as he found them, + but writes his book with the conscious purpose of enforcing + certain ideas and convictions which often run contrary to + the prevailing tendencies of his age (108). Luther seems + to simplify the problem too much by excluding the primæval + tradition from consideration (108), and ignoring the + distribution of the Yahwistic material over the various + stages of the redaction (155). It makes a considerable + difference to the theory if (as seems to be the case) the + sections which Luther assigns to Yahwist² (_e.g._ chapters + 34, 38, 19) really represent older phases of tradition than + the main document; for if they existed in their Yahwistic + colouring prior to the compilation of Yahwist¹, there must + have been a Yahwistic circle of some kind to preserve them; + and even if they received their literary stamp at a later + time, there must still have been something of the nature + of a school to impress the Yahwistic character so strongly + upon them. His conception of the Yahwist as an Ephraimite, + a detached and sympathetic adherent of the prophetic and + Rechabite movement of the 9th century, an opponent of the + cultus, and an upholder of the nomadic ideal against the + drift of the old tradition, seems to go far beyond the + evidence adduced, and, indeed, to be hardly reconcilable + with the religious tone and spirit of the narratives.――To + a similar effect writes Procksch, _Sagenbuch_, 284‒308; + although he does justice to the composite structure of the + document Yahwist, and describes it in terms which throw a + shade of uncertainty on the alleged unity of authorship. + When we read of an “einheitlichen Grundstock, auf den + wie in einen Stamm ♦Geschichten ganz anderer Herkunft + gewissermassen aufgepropft sind, jetzt eng damit verwachsen + durch die massgebenden Ideen” (294 f.), we cannot help + asking where these branches grew before they were engrafted + on their present stem. If we are right in distinguishing + a strand of narrative in which Yahwe was used from the + beginning, and another in which it was introduced in the + time of Enosh, it is not easy to account for their fusion on + any theory which does not allow a relative independence to + the two conceptions. + + ♦ “Geschicten” replaced with “Geschichten” + + + § 9. _Characteristics of Yahwist and Elohist + ――their relation to Literary Prophecy._ + +It is not the purpose of this section to give an exhaustive +characterisation of the literary or general features of the two older +documents of Genesis. If Yahwist and Elohist are to be regarded as, in +the main, recensions of a common body of oral tradition, and if they +are the work of schools rather than of individuals, it is obvious that +the search for characteristic differences loses much of its interest; +and in point of fact the attempt to delineate two well-defined literary +types is apt to be defeated by the widely contrasted features which +have to find a place in one and the same picture. Our object here +is simply to specify some outstanding differences which justify the +separation of sources, and which may assist us later to determine the +relative ages of the two documents. + +Yahwist presents, on the whole, a more uniform literary texture than +Elohist. It is generally allowed to contain the best examples of pure +narrative style in the Old Testament; and in Genesis it rarely, if +ever, falls below the highest level. But while Elohist hardly attains +the same perfection of form, there are whole passages, especially +in the more ample narratives, in which it is difficult to assign to +the one a superiority over the other. Yahwist excels in picturesque +‘objectivity’ of description,――in the power to paint a scene with few +strokes, and in the delineation of life and character: his dialogues, +in particular, are inimitable “for the delicacy and truthfulness with +which character and emotions find expression in them” (compare Genesis +44¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ).¹ Elohist, on the other hand, frequently strikes a deeper +vein of subjective feeling, especially of pathos; as in the account +of Isaac’s sacrifice (22), of the expulsion of Hagar (21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), the +dismay of Isaac and the tears of Esau on the discovery of Jacob’s fraud +(27³⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), Jacob’s lifelong grief for Rachel (48⁷), or his tenderness +towards Joseph’s children (48¹⁴).² But here again no absolute +distinction can be drawn; in the history of Joseph, _e.g._, the vein +of pathos is perhaps more marked in Yahwist than in Elohist. Where +parallels are sufficiently distinct to show a tendency, it is found +in several instances that Yahwist’s objectivity of treatment has +succeeded in preserving the archaic spirit of a legend which in Elohist +is transformed by the more refined sentiment of a later age. The best +example is Yahwist’s picture of Hagar, the intractable, indomitable +Bedawi woman (chapater 16), as contrasted with Elohist’s modernised +version of the incident (21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), with its affecting picture of the +mother and child all but perishing in the desert. So again, Elohist +(chapter 20) introduces an extenuation of Abraham’s falsehood about +his wife which is absent from the older narrative of Yahwist (12¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). + + ¹ Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament_, page 119. + + ² Compare Gunkel, page LXXVII. + +It is not surprising, considering the immense variety of material +comprised in both documents, that the palpable literary differences +reduce themselves for the most part to a preference for particular +phrases and turns of expression in the one recension or the other. +The most important case is, of course, the distinctive use (in the +pre-Mosaic period) of Yahwe in Yahwist and Elohim in Elohist.¹ But +round this are grouped a number of smaller linguistic differences which, +when they occur in any degree of profusion in a consecutive passage, +enable us to assign it with confidence to one or other of the sources. + + ¹ This, it is true, is more than a mere matter of phraseology; + in the case of Elohist, it is the application of a theory + of religious development which connected the revelation of + the name Yahwe with the mission of Moses (Exodus 3¹³⁻¹⁵). + It is now generally held that the original Elohist continued + to use Elohim after the revelation to Moses, and that + the occurrences of Yahwe in the later history belong to + secondary strata of the document. On either view the choice + of the general name of deity is difficult to account for. + Procksch regards it as due to the influence of the great + monotheistic movement headed by Elijah; but that is not + probable. The inspiring motive of Elijah’s crusade was + precisely jealousy for _Yahwe_, the national God of Israel. + Gunkel, on the other hand, thinks it arose from the fact + that the legends were largely of Canaanite and polytheistic + origin; and it is certainly the case that in the patriarchal + history Elohist contains several strong traces of a + polytheistic basis of the narratives (28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 32²ᐧ ³ 35⁷ + etc.). But that Elohim had a monotheistic sense to the mind + of the Elohistic writers is not to be doubted (against + Eerdmans). + + _The divine names._――While the possibility of error in the + Massoretic textual tradition is fully recognised, cases of + inadvertence in the use of יהוה and אלהים are in Genesis singularly + few. In Elohist contexts, יהוה occurs 22¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ ᵇⁱˢ 28²¹ 31⁴⁹, where + its presence seems due to the intentional action of a redactor. + Yahwist has אלהים (a) in 3¹⁻⁵ 4²⁵ (a special case: see pages 2, + 53); (b) where the contrast between the divine and the human is + to be emphasised, 32²⁹; (c) in conversations with, or references + to, heathen (real or supposed), 9²⁷ 39⁹ 41³²ᵇᐧ ³⁸ 43²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ + 44¹⁶; there are also (d) some doubtful examples which are very + probably to be assigned to Elohist, 33⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ 42²⁸. It is only + in the last group (if even there), with the possible addition + (see page 155) of 8¹, that redactional alteration or scribal + error need be suspected. + + For _the inhabitants of Canaan_, Yahwist uses כנעני, 10¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ 12⁶ + (? Redactor), 24³ᐧ ³⁷ 50¹¹ + (with פרזי, 13⁷ (Redactor?) 34³⁰); + Elohist אמרי, 15¹⁶ 48²² +.¹ + + ¹ The cross (+) means that the usage is continued in the other + books of the Hexateuch. + + For the name _Jacob_, Yahwist substitutes _Israel_ after 35²² + (except 46⁵ᵇ); Elohist consistently uses _Jacob_ (except 46² + 48⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ [50²⁵?]). + + The following are selected lists of expressions (in Genesis) + highly characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively: + + Yahwist: אבי and ושם אחיו in genealogies: the former, 4²⁰ᐧ ²¹ + 10²¹ 11²⁹ 22²¹; the latter, 4²¹ 10²⁵ (compare 22²¹ 25²⁶ + 38²⁹ ᶠᐧ).――זְקֻנִים (in connexion with a late-born child), 21²ᵃᐧ ⁷ + 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰.――מצא חן, 6⁸ 18³ 19¹⁹ 30²⁷ 32⁶ 33⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ 34¹¹ 39⁴ + 47²⁵ᐧ ²⁹ 50⁴ +.――טרם (without ב), 2⁵ 19⁴ 24¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵ +.――ידע (in sexual + sense), 4¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁵ 19⁵ᐧ ⁸ 24¹⁶ 38²⁶ (also in Priestly-Code).――ילד + (= ‘beget’), 4¹⁸ 10⁸ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁶ 22²³ 25³.――יש, 24²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹ 28¹⁶ + 39⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸ 42² 43⁴ᐧ ⁷ 44¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶ 47⁶ᵇ + (42¹ Elohist?).――Derivatives + of √ עצב, ♦3¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷ 5²⁹ 6⁶ 45⁵ᵃ.――הפעם, 2²³ 18³² 29⁴ᐧ ³⁵ 30²⁰ᵇ + 46³⁰ +.――צעיר, צעירה (for the younger of two brothers or sisters), + 19³¹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁸ 25²³ 29²⁶ 43³³ 48¹⁴.――קרא בשם י׳, 4²⁶ 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ + 26²⁵ +.――רוץ לקראת, 18² [19¹] 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴.――שפחה, 12¹⁶ 16¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ + 24³⁵ 30⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ⁴³ 32⁶ᐧ ²³ 33¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶ (20¹⁴ 30¹⁸ Redactor: also + common in Priestly-Code); see on אמה below.――השקיף, 18¹⁶ 19²⁸ + 26⁸ +.――מעט with following genitive, 18⁴ 24¹⁷ᐧ ⁴³ 43²ᐧ ¹¹ + 44²⁵.――_Particles_: בעבור, 3¹⁷ 8²¹ 12¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ 18²⁶ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³² 21³⁰ + 26²⁴ 27⁴ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ³¹ 46³⁴.――כי־על־כן, 18⁵ 19⁸ 33¹⁰ 38²⁶ +.――לבלתי, 3¹¹ + 4¹⁵ 19²¹ 38⁹ + (in Elohist and Priestly-Code once each).――נא, in + Yahwist about 40 times, in Elohist about 6 times (in Genesis). + + ♦ duplicate reference “16.” removed + + Elohist: אמה, 20¹⁷ 21¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³ 30³ 31³³ + (see שפחה above).――גדול + and קטן (‘elder’ and ‘younger’), 29¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 42¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁴ + (compare 41⁵¹ ᶠᐧ).――כלכל, 45¹¹ 47¹² 50²¹.――משכרת, 29¹⁵ 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹.――A + very characteristic idiom of Elohist is the vocative (sometimes + doubled: 22¹¹ 46², Exodus 3⁴, [1 Samuel 3⁴ LXX] +) with the + answer הנני: 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 27¹ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ 31¹¹ 37¹³ 46² +.――Elohist is + further distinguished by a number of rare or archaic words or + phrases: אמנה, 20¹² + Joshua 7²⁰; דגה, 48¹⁶ +; זבד, 30²⁰; חמת, + 21¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹ +; טחה, 21¹⁶ +; כן (‘honest’), 42¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴; + מנים, 31⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ +; נין ונכד, 21²³ (compare Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹ +); עקד, + 22⁹ +; פלל, 48¹¹; פתר, 40⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 41⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ +; פתרון, 40⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 41¹¹ +; צנום, + 41²³; קשיטה, 33¹⁹ + Joshua 24³² [Job 42¹¹] +; by a partiality for + rare infinitive forms (31²⁸ 46³ 50²⁰ 48¹¹ +), and the occasional + use of long forms of the nominal suffix (21²⁹ [31⁶] 41²¹ 42³⁶). + +The religious and theological conceptions of the two documents are in +the main identical, though a certain difference of standpoint appears +in one or two features. Both evince towards the popular cultus an +attitude of friendly toleration, with a disposition to ignore its +cruder aspects; and this tendency is carried somewhat further in +Yahwist than in Elohist. Thus, while neither countenances the Asherah, +or sacred pole, Elohist alludes, without offence, to the Maẓẓebah, +or sacred pillar (28¹⁸ᐧ ²² 31¹³ᐧ ⁴⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 35²⁰); whereas Yahwist nowhere +allows to the maẓẓebah a legitimate function in the worship of Yahwe. +A very singular circumstance is that while both frequently record the +erection of altars by the patriarchs, they are remarkably reticent +as to the actual offering of sacrifice: Elohist refers to it only +twice (22. 46¹), and Yahwist never at all in the patriarchal history +(contrast 4³ ᶠᶠᐧ 8²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). It is difficult to imagine that the omission +is other than accidental: the idea that it indicates an indifference +(Gunkel), or a conscious opposition (Luther), to the cultus, can hardly +be entertained; for after all the altar had no use or significance +except as a means of sacrifice.――The most striking diversity appears +in the representation of the Deity, and especially of the manner of His +revelation to men. The antique form of the theophany, in which Yahwe +(or the Angel of Yahwe) appears visibly in human form, and in broad +daylight, is peculiar to Yahwist (chapters 16. 18. 19), and corresponds +to the highly anthropomorphic language which is observed in other parts +of the document (chapters 2. 3. 7. 8. 11⁵ᐧ ⁷). Elohist, on the contrary, +records no daylight theophanies, but prefers the least sensible forms +of revelation,――the dream or night-vision (15¹ 20³ᐧ ⁶ 21¹² [compare ¹⁴] +22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 46²),¹ or the voice of the angel from heaven +(21¹⁷). In this respect Elohist undoubtedly represents a more advanced +stage of theological reflexion than Yahwist.――The national feeling in +both sources is buoyant and hopeful: the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’ +the sombre and melancholy view of life which marks the primæval history +of Yahwist disappears absolutely when the history of the immediate +ancestors of Israel is reached. The strongly pessimistic strain which +some writers note as characteristic of Elohist finds no expression +whatever in Genesis; and so far as it exists at all (Joshua 24), it +belongs to secondary strata of the document, with which we are not here +concerned. + + ¹ We do not include the dreams of the Joseph-stories, which + seem to stand on a somewhat different footing (page 345). + Nocturnal revelations occur, however, in Yahwist (26²⁴ 28¹³), + but whether in the oldest parts of the document is not quite + certain. + +Here we touch on a question of great importance, and one fortunately +capable of being brought to a definite issue: viz., the relation of +Yahwist and Elohist to the literary prophecy of the 8th and following +centuries. It is usual to speak of the combined Jehovist as the +_Prophetical_ narrative of the Pentateuch, in distinction from +Priestly-Code, the _Priestly_ narrative; and in so far as the name +is employed (as, _e.g._, by Driver _An Introduction to the Literature +of the Old Testament_⁸, 117) to emphasise that contrast, it is +sufficiently appropriate. As used, however, by many writers, it carries +the implication that the documents――or that one to which the epithet +is applied――show unmistakable traces of the influence of the later +prophets from Amos downwards. That view seems to us entirely erroneous. +It is undoubtedly the case that both Yahwist and Elohist are pervaded +by ideas and convictions which they share in common with the writing +prophets: such as, the monotheistic conception of God, the ethical +view of His providential government, and perhaps a conscious opposition +to certain emblems of popular cultus (asheras, maẓẓebas, teraphim, +etc.). But that these and similar principles were first enunciated +by the prophets of the 8th century, we have no reason to suppose. +Nor does the fact that Abraham, as a man of God, is called _Nābî’_ +(20⁷, compare Deuteronomy 34¹⁰) necessarily imply that the figure of +an Amos or an Isaiah was before the mind of the writers. We must bear +in mind that the 9th century witnessed a powerful prophetic movement +which, commencing in Northern Israel, extended into Judah; and that +any prophetic influences discoverable in Genesis are as likely to have +come from the impulse of that movement as from the later development +which is so much better known to us. But in truth it is questionable +if any prophetic impulse at all, other than those inherent in the +religion from its foundation by Moses, is necessary to account for the +religious tone of the narratives of Genesis. The decisive fact is that +the really distinctive ideas of written prophecy find no echo in those +parts of Yahwist and Elohist with which we have to do. These are: the +presentiment of the impending overthrow of the Israelitish nationality, +together with the perception of its moral necessity, the polemic +against foreign deities, the denunciation of prevalent oppression and +social wrong, and the absolute repudiation of cultus as a means of +recovering Yahwe’s favour. Not only are these conceptions absent from +our documents, but it is difficult to conceive that they should have +been in the air in the age when the documents were composed. For, +though it is true that very different religious ideas may exist side +by side in the same community, it is scarcely credible that Yahwist and +Elohist could have maintained their confident hope for the future of +the nation intact against the tremendous arraignment of prophecy. This +consideration gains in force from the fact that the secondary strata +of Elohist, and the redactional additions to Jehovist, which do come +within the sweep of the later prophetic movement, clearly show that the +circles from which these writings emanated were sensitively responsive +to the sterner message of the prophets. + + + § 10. _Date and place of origin――Redaction of Jehovist._ + +On the relative age of Yahwist and Elohist, there exists at present no +consensus of critical opinion. Down to the appearance of Wellhausen’s +_Geschichte Israels_ in 1878, scholars were practically unanimous +in assigning the priority to Elohist.¹ Since then, the opposite view +has been strongly maintained by the leading exponents of the Grafian +theory,² although a number of critics still adhere to the older +position.³ The reason for this divergence of opinion lies not in the +paucity of points of comparison, but partly in the subjective nature +of the evidence, and partly in the fact that such indications as exist +point in opposite directions. + + ¹ Hupfeld, Schrader, Nöldeke, Reuss, al. + + ² Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Meyer; so Luther, Procksch, al. + + ³ Dillmann, Kittel, König, Winckler al. + + To take a few examples from Genesis: Chapter 16¹⁻¹⁴ (Yahwist) + produces an impression of greater antiquity than the parallel + 21⁹⁻¹⁹ (Elohist); Yahwist’s explanation of the name Issachar, + with its story of the love-apples (30¹⁴⁻¹⁶), is more primitive + than that of Elohist (30¹⁷); Yahwist (30²⁸⁻⁴³) attributes the + increase of Jacob’s flocks to his own cunning, whereas Elohist + (31⁴⁻¹³) attributes it to the divine blessing. On the other hand, + Elohist’s recension of the Bethel-theophany (28¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) is + obviously more antique than Yahwist’s (¹³⁻¹⁶); and in the Joseph + narratives the leadership of Reuben (Elohist) is an element + of the original tradition which Yahwist has altered in favour + of Judah. A peculiarly instructive case is 12¹⁰ ᶠᶠ (Yahwist) + ∥ 20 (Elohist) ∥ 26⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwist), where it seems to us (though + Kuenen and others take a different view) that Gunkel is clearly + right in holding that Yahwist has preserved both the oldest and + the youngest form of the legend, and that Elohist represents an + intermediate stage. + +This result is not surprising when we understand that Yahwist and +Elohist are not individual writers, but guilds or schools, whose +literary activity may have extended over several generations, and who +drew on a store of unwritten tradition which had been in process of +codification for generations before that. This consideration forbids us +also to argue too confidently from observed differences of theological +standpoint between the two documents. It is beyond doubt that Elohist, +with its comparative freedom from anthropomorphisms and sensible +theophanies, with its more spiritual conception of revelation, and +its greater sensitiveness to ethical blemishes on the character of +the patriarchs (page xlviii), occupies, on the whole, a higher level +of reflexion than Yahwist; but we cannot tell how far such differences +are due to the general social _milieu_ in which the writers lived, and +how far to esoteric tendencies of the circles to which they belonged. +All that can safely be affirmed is that, while Elohist has occasionally +preserved the more ancient form of the tradition, there is a strong +presumption that Yahwist as a whole is the earlier document. + +In attempting to determine the absolute dates of Yahwist and Elohist, +we have a fixed point of departure in the fact that both are earlier +than the age of written prophecy (page li f.); in other words, 750 +B.C. is the _terminus ad quem_ for the composition of either. If it be +the case that 37⁸ in Elohist presupposes the monarchy of the house of +Joseph, the _terminus a quo_ for that document would be the disruption +of the kingdom, _circa_ 930 (compare Deuteronomy 33⁷); and indeed no +one proposes to fix it higher. Between these limits, there is little to +guide us to a more precise determination. General considerations, such +as the tone of political feeling, the advanced conception of God, and +traces of the influence of 9th-century prophecy, seem to us to point to +the later part of the period, and in particular to the brilliant reign +of Jeroboam II. (785‒745), as the most likely time of composition.¹ In +Yahwist there is no unequivocal allusion to the divided kingdom; and +nothing absolutely prevents us from putting its date as early as the +reign of Solomon. The sense of national solidarity and of confidence +in Israel’s destiny is even more marked than in Elohist; and it has +been questioned, not without reason, whether such feelings could have +animated the breast of a Judæan in the dark days that followed the +dissolution of Solomon’s empire.² That argument is not greatly to be +trusted: although the loss of the northern provinces was keenly felt +in Judah (Isaiah 7¹⁷), yet the writings of Isaiah show that there was +plenty of flamboyant patriotism there in the 8th century, and we cannot +tell how far in the intervening period religious idealism was able +to overcome the depression natural to a feeble and dependent state, +and keep alive the sense of unity and the hope of reunion with the +larger Israel of the north. In any case, it is improbable that Yahwist +and Elohist are separated by an interval of two centuries; if Elohist +belongs to the first half of the 8th century, Yahwist will hardly be +earlier than the 9th.³ + + ¹ So Procksch (178 ff.), who points out a number of indications + that appear to converge on that period of history. + Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Holzinger agree; Reuss, Dillmann, + Kittel place it in the 9th century. + + ² Procksch. 286 ff. + + ³ So Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade, Kittel, Gunkel al. + + Specific historical allusions which have been thought to + indicate a more definite date for Yahwist (or Elohist) prove + on examination to be unreliable. If 31⁴⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 49²³ ᶠᶠᐧ contained + references to the wars between Israel and Aram under Omri and + his successors, it would be necessary to bring the date of + both documents down to that time; but Gunkel has shown that + interpretation to be improbable.――27⁴⁰ᵇ presupposes the revolt + of Edom from Judah (_circa_ 840); but that prosaic half-verse is + probably an addition to the poetic passage in which it occurs, + and therefore goes to show that the blessing itself is earlier, + instead of later, than the middle of the 9th century.――The curse + on Canaan (9²³ ᶠᶠᐧ) does not necessarily assume the definite + subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel; and if it did, would + only prove a date not earlier than Solomon.――Other arguments, + such as the omission of Asshur and the inclusion of Kelaḥ and + Nineveh in the list of Assyrian cities in 10¹¹ etc., are still + less conclusive. + +While it is thus impossible to assign a definite date to Yahwist and +Elohist, there are fairly solid grounds for the now generally accepted +view that the former is of Judæan and the latter of Ephraimite origin. +Only, it must be premised that the body of patriarchal tradition which +lies behind both documents is native to northern, or rather central, +Israel, and must have taken shape there.¹ The favourite wife of +Jacob is not Leah but Rachel, the mother of Joseph (Ephraim-Manasseh) +and Benjamin; and Joseph himself is the brightest figure in +all the patriarchal gallery. The sacred places common to both +recensions――Shechem, Bethel, Mahanaim, Peniel, Beersheba――are, except +the last, all in Israelite territory; and Beersheba, though belonging +geographically to Judah, was for some unknown reason a favourite resort +of pilgrims from the northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴, 1 Kings 19³).――It +is when we look at the divergence between the two sources that +the evidence of the Ephraimite origin of Elohist and the Judæan of +Yahwist becomes consistent and clear. Whereas Elohist never evinces +the slightest interest in any sanctuary except those mentioned above, +Yahwist makes Hebron the scene of his most remarkable theophany, +and thus indelibly associates its sanctity with the name of Abraham. +It is true that he also ascribes to Abraham the founding of the +northern sanctuaries, Shechem and Bethel (12⁷ᐧ ⁸); but we can hardly +fail to detect something perfunctory in his description, as compared +with Elohist’s impressive narrative of Jacob’s dream at Bethel +(28¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ¹⁷⁻²²), or his own twofold account of the founding of +Beersheba (chapters 21. 26). It is Elohist alone who records the place +of Rachel’s grave (35¹⁹), of those of Rebekah’s nurse Deborah (⁸), of +Joseph (Joshua 24³²), and Joshua (³⁰),――all in the northern territory. +The sections peculiar to Yahwist (page xliii) are nearly all of local +Judæan interest: in 18 the scene is Hebron; 19¹⁻²⁸ is a legend of the +Dead Sea basin; 19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ deals with the origin of the neighbouring +peoples of Moab and Ammon; 38 is based on the internal tribal history +of Judah (and is not, as has been supposed, charged with animosity +towards that tribe: see page 455). Finally, while Joseph’s place of +honour was too firmly established to be challenged, it is Yahwist +who, in defiance of the older tradition, transfers the birthright +and the hegemony from Reuben to Judah (49⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 35²² ᶠᐧ, the Joseph +narratives).――These indications make it at least relatively probable +that in Yahwist we have a Judæan recension of the patriarchal tradition, +while Elohist took its shape in the northern kingdom. + + ¹ Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 317. It is + the neglect of this fact that has mainly led to the belief + that Yahwist, like Elohist, is of Ephraimite origin (Kuenen, + Reuss, Schrader, Fripp, Luther, al.). + +The composite work Jehovist is the result of a redactional operation, +which was completed before the other components (♦D and Priestly-Code) +were incorporated in the Pentateuch.¹ The redactors (Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ) +have done their work (in Genesis) with consummate skill and care, +and have produced a consecutive narrative whose strands it is often +difficult to unravel. They have left traces of their hand in a few +harmonising touches, designed to remove a discrepancy between Yahwist +and Elohist (16⁹ ᶠᐧ 28²¹ᵇ? 31⁴⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ ⁽ᵖᵃˢˢⁱᵐ⁾ 39¹ 41⁵⁰? 46¹ 50¹⁰ ᶠᐧ): +some of these, however, may be later glosses. Of greater interest +are a number of short additions, of similar import and complexion but +occurring both in Yahwist and Elohist, which may, not with certainty +but with great probability, be assigned to these editors (13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ +18¹⁷⁻¹⁹ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸ 26³ᵇ⁻⁵ 28¹⁴ 32¹⁰⁻¹³ 46³ᵇ{β}): to this redaction we are +disposed also to attribute a thorough revision of chapter 15. In these +passages we seem to detect a note of tremulous anxiety regarding the +national future of Israel and its tenure of the land of Canaan, which +is at variance with the optimistic outlook of the original sources, +and suggests that the writers are living under the shadow of impending +exile. A slight trace of Deuteronomic phraseology in 18¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ and +26³ᵇ ᶠᶠᐧ confirms the impression that the redaction took place at some +time between the publication of Deuteronomy and the Exile. + + ♦ Abbreviation “D” undefined in forward or text; probably + Deuteronomy. + + ¹ So Nöldeke, Wellhausen, and most; against Hupfeld, Dillmann, + al. + + + § 11. _The Priestly Code and the Final Redaction._ + +It is fortunately not necessary to discuss in this place all the +intricate questions connected with the history and structure of the +Priests’ Code. The Code as a whole is, even more obviously than Yahwist +or Elohist, the production of a school,――in this case a school of +juristic writers, whose main task was to systematise the mass of +ritual regulations which had accumulated in the hands of the Jerusalem +priesthood, and to develop a theory of religion which grew out of them. +Evidence of stratification appears chiefly in the legislative portions +of the middle Pentateuch, where several minor codes are amalgamated, +and overlaid with considerable accretions of later material. Here, +however, we have to do only with the great historical work which forms +at once the kernel of the Code and the framework of the Pentateuch, the +document distinguished by Wellhausen as Q (_Quatuor foederum liber_), +by Kuenen as Priestly-Code², by others as Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ.¹ +Although this groundwork shows traces of compilation from pre-existing +material (see pages 8, 35, 40, 130, 169, 428 f., etc.), it nevertheless +bears the impress of a single mind, and must be treated as a unity. + + ¹ Kuenen’s Priestly-Code¹ is the so-called Law of Holiness + (Priestly-Codeʰ), which is older than the date usually + assigned to Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ. + + No critical operation is easier or more certain than the + separation of this work, down even to very small fragments, + from the context in which it is embedded. When this is done, and + the fragments pieced together, we have before us, almost in its + original integrity, an independent document, which is a _source_, + as well as the framework, of Genesis. We have seen (page xli) + that the opposite opinion is maintained by Klostermann and Orr, + who hold that Priestly-Code is merely a supplementing redactor + of, or ‘collaborator’ with, Jehovist. But two facts combine to + render this hypothesis absolutely untenable. (1) The fragments + form a consecutive history, in which the _lacunæ_ are very few + and unimportant, and those which occur are easily explicable + as the result of the redactional process. The precise state + of the case is as follows: In the primæval history no _hiatus_ + whatever can be detected. Dr. Orr’s assertion (_The Problem of + the Old Testament_, 348 f.) that Priestly-Code’s account of the + Flood _must_ have contained the episodes of the birds and the + sacrifice, because both are in the Babylonian version, will + be worth considering when he has made it probable either that + Priestly-Code had ever read the Babylonian story, or that, if + he had, he would have wished to reproduce it intact. As matter + of fact, neither is in the least degree probable; and, as we + shall see presently, Noah’s sacrifice is an incident which + Priestly-Code would certainly have suppressed if he had known + of it.――In the history of Abraham there is again no reason + to suspect any omission. Here is a literal translation of the + _disjecta membra_ of Priestly-Code’s epitome of the biography + of Abraham, with no connexions supplied, and only one verse + transposed (19²⁹): 12⁴ᵇ “Now Abram was 75 years old when he went + out from Ḥarran. ⁵ And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his + brother’s son, and all their possessions which they had acquired, + and all the souls whom they had procured; and they went out to + go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan. + 13⁶ And the land could not bear them so that they might dwell + together, for their possessions were great, and they were not + able to dwell together. ¹¹ᵇ So they separated from one another: + ¹²ᵃᵇ Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the + cities of the Oval. 19²⁹ And when God destroyed the cities + of the Oval, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away from + the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in + which Lot dwelt.――16¹ Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no + children. ³ So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her + maid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and + gave her to Abram her husband for a wife to him. ¹⁵ And Hagar + bore to Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son whom + Hagar bore to him Ishmael. ¹⁶ And Abram was 86 years old when + Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.――17¹ And when Abram was 99 years + old, _Yahwe_ appeared to Abram, and said to him,” etc. Here + follows the account of the covenant with Abraham, the change + of his name and that of Sarai, the institution of circumcision, + and the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Sarah (chapter + 17).――The narrative is resumed in 21¹ᵇ “And _Yahwe_ did to + Sarah as he had spoken, ²ᵇ at the appointed time which God had + mentioned. ³ And Abraham called the name of his son who was born + to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. ⁴ And Abraham circumcised + Isaac his son when he was 8 days old, as God had commanded him. + ⁵ And Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac his son was born + to him.――23¹ And the life of Sarah was 127 years; ² and Sarah + died in Kiryath Arba, that is Hebron, in the land of Canaan.” + This introduces the story of the purchase of Machpelah as a + burying-place (chapter 23), and this brings us to――25⁷ “And + these are the days of the years of the life of Abraham which he + lived: 175 years; ⁸ and he expired. And Abraham died in a good + old age, an old man and full [of years], and was gathered to his + father’s kin. ⁹ And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the + cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar, the + Hittite, which is opposite Mamre: ¹⁰ the field which Abraham + bought from the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and + Sarah his wife.――¹¹ And after the death of Abraham, God blessed + Isaac his son.” The reader can judge for himself whether + a narrative so continuous as this, every isolated sentence + of which has been detached from its context by unmistakable + criteria of the style of Priestly-Code, is likely to have been + produced by the casual additions of a mere supplementer of an + older work. And if he objects to the transposition of 19²⁹, + let him note at the same time how utterly meaningless in its + present position that verse is, considered as a supplement to + 19¹⁻²⁸.――In the sections on Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, there + are undoubtedly omissions which _we_ can only supply from + Jehovist; and if we were to judge from these parts alone, the + supplementary theory would be more plausible than it is. We + miss, _e.g._, accounts of the birth of Jacob and Esau, of Jacob’s + arrival in Paddan Aram, of his marriage to Leah and Rachel, + of the birth of Joseph, of his slavery and elevation in Egypt, + his reconciliation with his brethren, and perhaps some other + particulars. Even here, however, the theory is absolutely + negatived by the contradictions to Jehovist which will be + specified immediately. Dr. Orr’s argument on this point (_The + Problem of the Old Testament_, 343 ff.) really assumes that + the account of Jehovist is the _only_ way in which the gaps of + Priestly-Code could be filled up; but the examination of the + story of Abraham has shown that that is not the case. The facts + are fully explained by the supposition that a short epitome + of the history, similar to that of the history of Abraham, has + been abridged in the redaction, by the excision of a very few + sentences, in favour of the fuller narrative of Jehovist.――(2) + The second fact which makes Dr. Orr’s hypothesis untenable is + this, that in almost every instance where Priestly-Code expands + into circumstantial narration it gives a representation of the + events which is distinctly at variance with the older documents. + The difference between Priestly-Code’s cosmogony and Yahwist’s + account of the Creation is such that it is ludicrous to speak + of the one as a supplement or a ‘framework’ to the other; and + the two Flood stories are hardly less irreconcilable (see page + 148). In the life of Abraham, we have two parallel accounts + of the covenant with Abraham in chapter 15 (Jehovist) and 17 + (Priestly-Code); and it is evident that the one supersedes and + excludes the other. Again, Priestly-Code’s reason for Jacob’s + journey to Mesopotamia (28¹⁻⁹) is quite inconsistent with + that given by Jehovist in chapter 27 (page 374 f.); and his + conception of Isaac’s blessing as a transmission of the blessing + originally bestowed on Abraham (28⁴) is far removed from + the idea which forms the motive of chapter 27. In Jehovist, + Esau takes up his abode in Seir before Jacob’s return from + Mesopotamia (32³); in Priestly-Code he does not leave Canaan + till after the burial of Isaac (35⁶). Priestly-Code’s account + of the enmity between Joseph and his brethren is unfortunately + truncated, but enough is preserved to show that it differed + essentially from that of Jehovist (see page 444). It is + difficult to make out where Jacob was buried according to + Yahwist and Elohist, but it certainly was not at Machpelah, + as in Priestly-Code (see page 538 f.). And so on. Everywhere + we see a tendency in Priestly-Code to suppress or minimise + discords in the patriarchal households. It is inconceivable + that a supplementer should thus contradict his original at + every turn, and at the same time leave it to tell its own story. + When we find that the passages of an opposite tenor to Jehovist + form parts of a practically complete narrative, we cannot + avoid the conclusion that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is an independent + document, which has been preserved almost entire in our + present Book of Genesis. The question then arises whether these + discrepancies spring from a divergent tradition followed by + Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ or from a deliberate re-writing of the + history as told by Jehovist, under the influence of certain + theological ideals and principles, which we now proceed to + consider. + +The central theme and objective of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the +institution of the Israelitish theocracy, whose symbol is the +Tabernacle, erected, after its heavenly antitype, by Moses at Mount +Sinai. For this event the whole previous history of mankind is a +preparation. The Mosaic dispensation is the last of four world-ages: +from the Creation to the Flood, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to +Moses, and from Moses onwards. Each period is inaugurated by a divine +revelation, and the last two by the disclosure of a new name of God: El +Shaddai to Abraham (17¹), and Yahwe to Moses (Exodus 6³). Each period, +also, is marked by the institution of some permanent element of the +theocratic constitution, the Levitical system being conceived as a +pyramid rising in four stages: the Sabbath (2² ᶠᐧ); permission of the +slaughter of animals, coupled with a restriction on the use of the +blood (9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); circumcision (17); and, lastly, the fully developed +Mosaic ritual. Not till the last stage is reached is sacrificial +worship of the Deity authorised. Accordingly neither altars nor +sacrifices are ever mentioned in the pre-Mosaic history; and even the +distinction between clean and unclean animals is supposed to be unknown +at the time of the Flood. It is particularly noteworthy that the +profane, as distinct from the sacrificial, slaughter of animals, which +even the Deuteronomic law treats as an innovation, is here carried back +to the covenant with Noah. + +Beneath this imposing historical scheme, with its ruling idea of a +progressive unfolding of God’s will to men, we discover a theory of +religion which, more than anything else, expresses the spirit of the +Priestly school to which the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ belonged. +The exclusive emphasis on the formal or _institutional_ aspect of +religion, which is the natural proclivity of a sacerdotal caste, +appears in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ in a very pronounced fashion. Religion +is resolved into a series of positive enactments on the part of God, +and observance of these on the part of man. The old cult-legends (page +xii f.), which traced the origin of existing ritual usages to historic +incidents in the lives of the fathers, are swept away; and every +practice to which a religious value is attached is referred to a direct +command of God. In the deeper problems of religion, on the other hand, +such as the origin of evil, the writer evinces no interest; and of +personal piety――the disposition of the heart towards God――his narrative +hardly furnishes an illustration. In both respects he represents a +theology at once more abstract and shallower than that of Yahwist +or Elohist, whose more imaginative treatment of religious questions +shows a true apprehension of the deeper aspects of the spiritual life +(chapter 3. 6⁵ 8²¹ 18²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 45⁸ etc.), and succeeds in depicting the +personal religion of the patriarchs as a genuine experience of inward +fellowship with God (compare 22. 24¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 32⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 48¹⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would +be unfair to charge the author of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with indifference +to the need for vital godliness, for he lacks the power of delineating +character and emotion in any relation of life; but his defects are +none the less characteristic of the type of mind that produced the +colourless digest of history, which suffices to set forth the dominant +ideas of the Priestly theology. + +Another characteristic distinction between Jehovist and Priestly-Code +is seen in the enhanced _transcendentalism_ of the latter’s conception +of Deity. Anthropomorphic, and still more anthropopathic, expressions +are studiously avoided (an exception is Genesis 2² ᶠᐧ: compare Exodus +31¹⁷ᵇ); revelation takes the form of simple _speech_; angels, dreams, +and visions are never alluded to. Theophanies are mentioned, but not +described; God is said to ‘appear’ to men, and to ‘go up from them’ +(Genesis 17¹ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ 35⁹ᐧ ¹³ 48³, Exodus 6³), but the manner of His +appearance is nowhere indicated save in the supreme manifestation +at Sinai (Exodus 24¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²⁹ᵇ 40³⁴ ᶠᐧ). It is true that a similar +inconcreteness often characterises the theophanies of Yahwist and +Elohist, and the later strata of these documents exhibit a decided +approximation to the abstract conceptions of Priestly-Code. But a +comparison of the parallels chapter 17 with 15, or 35⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ with 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, +makes it clear that Priestly-Code’s departure from the older tradition +springs from a deliberate intention to exclude sensuous imagery from +the representation of Godhead. + + It remains to consider, in the light of these facts, + Priestly-Code’s attitude to the traditional history of the + patriarchs. In the first place, it is clear that he accepts the + main outline of the history as fixed in tradition. But whether + he knew that tradition from other sources than Yahwist and + Elohist, is a question not so easily answered. For the primitive + period, _direct_ dependence on Yahwist is improbable, because + of the marked diversity in the accounts of the Creation and the + Flood: here Priestly-Code seems to have followed a tradition + closely akin to, but not identical with, that of Yahwist. In + the history of the patriarchs there seems no reason to suppose + that he had any other authorities than Yahwist and Elohist. The + general course of events is the same, and differences of detail + are all explicable from the known tendencies of the Code. But + the important facts are that nearly the whole of the history, + both primitive and patriarchal, is reduced to a meagre summary, + with little save a chronological significance, and that the + points where the narrative becomes diffuse and circumstantial + are (with one exception) precisely those which introduce a + new religious dispensation: viz. the Creation, the Flood, the + Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus. The single exception is the + purchase of Machpelah (chapter 23), an event which doubtless + owes its prominence to its connexion with the promise of the + land to Abraham and his seed. For the rest, a certain emphasis + naturally lies on outstanding events, like the origin of + the name Israel (35⁹ ᶠᐧ), or the settlement of Jacob’s family + in Egypt (47⁵⁻¹¹); and the author lingers with interest on + the transmission of the patriarchal blessing and promise + from Isaac to Jacob (28³ 35¹²), and from Jacob to his sons + (48³ ᶠᐧ). But these are practically all the incidents to which + Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ attaches any sort of significance of + their own; and even these derive much of their importance from + their relation to the chronological scheme into which they are + fitted.――Hence to say that Priestly-Code’s epitome would be + ‘unintelligible’ apart from Jehovist, is to confuse his point of + view with our own. It is perfectly true that from Priestly-Code + alone we should know very little of the characters of the + patriarchs, of the motives which governed their actions, or + of the connexion between one event and another. But these + are matters which Priestly-Code had no interest in making + ‘intelligible.’ He is concerned solely with events, not with + causes or motives. The individual is sufficiently described when + we are told whose son he was, how long he lived, what children + he begot, and such like. He is but a link in the generations + that fill up the history; and even where he is the recipient of + a divine revelation, his selection for that privilege depends on + his place in the divine scheme of chronology, rather than on any + personal endowment or providential training. + +The _style_ of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ can be characterised without the +reserves and qualifications which were necessary in speaking of the +difference between Yahwist and Elohist (page xlvii f.); there is +no better illustration of the dictum _le style c’est l’homme_ than +in this remarkable document. Speaking broadly, the style reflects +the qualities of the legal mind, in its stereotyped terminology, +its aim at precise and exhaustive statement, its monotonous +repetitions, and its general determination to leave no loophole for +misinterpretation or misunderstanding. The jurist’s love of order and +method appears in a great facility in the construction of schemes and +schedules――genealogical tables, systematic enumerations, etc.――as well +as in the carefully planned disposition of the narrative as a whole. It +is necessary to read the whole work consecutively in order to realise +the full effect of the laboured diffuseness, the dry lucidity and +prosaic monotony of this characteristic product of the Priestly school +of writers. On the other hand, the style is markedly deficient in the +higher elements of literature. Though capable at times of rising to an +impressive dignity (as in Genesis 1. 47⁷⁻¹¹), it is apt to degenerate +into a tedious and meaningless iteration of set phrases and rigid +formulæ (see Numbers 7). The power of picturesque description, or +dramatic delineation of life and character, is absent: the writer’s +imagination is of the mechanical type, which cannot realise an object +without the help of exact quantitative specification or measurement. +Even in chapter 23, which is perhaps the most lifelike narrative in +the Code, the characteristic formalism asserts itself in the measured +periodic movement of the action, and the recurrent use of standing +expressions from the opening to the close. That such a style might +become the property of a school we see from the case of Ezekiel, +whose writings show strong affinities with Priestly-Code; but of all +the Priestly documents, Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is the one in which the +literary bent of the school is best exemplified, and (it may be added) +is seen to most advantage. + + The following selection (from Driver, _An Introduction to the + Literature of the Old Testament_⁸, 131 ff.) of distinctive + expressions of Priestly-Code, occurring in Genesis, will give a + sufficient idea of the stylistic peculiarity of the book, and + also of its linguistic affinities with the later literature, but + especially with the Book of Ezekiel. + + אלהים as the name of God, uniformly in Genesis, except 17¹ + 21¹ᵇ.――מין, ‘kind’: 1¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ (Leviticus 11, + Deuteronomy 14; only again Ezekiel 47¹⁰).――שָׁרַץ, ‘to swarm’: + 1²⁰ᐧ ²¹ 7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷ +¹ (outside of Priestly-Code only Psalms + 105³⁰, Ezekiel 47⁹).――שֶׁרֶץ, ‘swarming things’: 1²⁰ 7²¹ + (only in + Priestly-Code and Deuteronomy 14¹⁹).――פרה ורבה: 1²²ᐧ ²⁸ 8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷ + 17²⁰ 28³ 35¹¹ 47²⁷ 48⁴ (Exodus 1⁷, Leviticus 26⁹; elsewhere only + Jeremiah 3¹⁶ [inverted], 23³, Ezekiel 36¹¹).――לאכלה: 1²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ 6²¹ + 9³ + (elsewhere only in Ezekiel (10 times), and (as infinitive) + Jeremiah 12⁹).――תולדות: 10³² 25¹³ + (elsewhere 1 Chronicles + 5⁷ 7²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ 8²⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 26³¹). The phrase [ו]אלה תולדות occurs in + Priestly-Code 10 times in Genesis (see page xxxiv), and in + Numbers 3¹; elsewhere only Ruth 4¹⁸, 1 Chronicles 1²⁹.――גוע: + 6¹⁷ 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²³ + (elsewhere poetical: Zechariah 13⁸, + Psalms 88¹⁶ 104²⁹, Lamentations 1¹⁹, and 8 times in Job).――עִמְּךָ, + אִתְּךָ, etc. (appended to enumerations): 6¹⁸ 7⁷ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 9⁸ 28⁴ + 46⁶ᐧ ⁷ +.――אחריכם, etc. (after ‘seed’): 9⁹ 17⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁹ 35¹² + 48⁴ +.――עצם היום הזה: 7¹³ 17²³ᐧ ²⁶ +; only in Priestly-Code and + Ezekiel 2³ 24² 40¹ (Joshua 10²⁷ redactional).――יהם――למשפחותם: + 8¹⁹ 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹ 36⁴⁰ + (very often in Priestly-Code: elsewhere + only Numbers 11¹⁰ [Jehovist], 1 Samuel 10²¹, 1 Chronicles 5⁷ 6⁴⁷ᐧ + ⁴⁸).――ברית עולם: 9¹⁶ 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ +, only in Priestly-Code.――במאד מאד: + 17²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰ + Exodus 1⁷; elsewhere only Ezekiel 9⁹ 16¹³.――רכוש: 12⁵ + 13⁶ 31¹⁸ 36⁷ 46⁶ +; elsewhere Genesis 14¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ 15¹⁴; and + 15 times in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel.――רָכַשׁ: 12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶ + +.――נפש (= ‘person’): 12⁵ 36⁶ 46¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ +; “much more + frequent in Priestly-Code than elsewhere.”――יכם――לדרתם: 17⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹² + + 36 times (only in Priestly-Code).――מגורים: 17⁸ 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹ + + Exodus 6⁴; elsewhere Ezekiel 20³⁸, Psalms 55¹⁶ 119⁵⁴, Job + 18¹⁹ +.――אחזה: 17⁸ 23⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰ 36⁴³ 47¹¹ 48⁴ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +. Often in + Ezekiel (44²⁸ 45⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 46¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 48²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²); elsewhere Psalms + 2⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸ 9² [= Nehemiah 11³], 2 Chronicles 11¹⁴ 31¹ + +.――מקנה: 17¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ 23¹⁸ + (confined to Priestly-Code except + Jeremiah 32¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――עמים (= ‘father’s kin’): 17¹⁴ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ + 35²⁹ 49³³ + (also Ezekiel 18¹⁸; elsewhere Judges 5¹⁴?, Hosea + 10¹⁴ +).――תושב: 23⁴ + 10 times (also 1 Kings 17¹?, 1 Chronicles + 29¹⁵, Psalms 39¹³).――קנון: 31¹⁸ [34²³] 36⁶ + (outside of + Priestly-Code, only Ezekiel 38¹² ᶠ; Proverbs 4⁷, Psalms 104²⁴ + 105²¹). + + ¹ As on page xlix, the cross (+) indicates that further + examples are found in the rest of the Pentateuch. It should + be expressly said, however, that the + frequently covers + a considerable number of cases; and that a _selection_ of + phrases, such as is here given, does not fully represent + the strength of the linguistic argument, as set forth in + the more exhaustive lists of Driver (_l.c._) or the _Oxford + Hexateuch_ (volume i. pages 208‒221). + + In the choice of synonymous expressions, Priestly-Code exhibits + an exclusive preference for הוליד in the sense of ‘beget’ over ילד + (in the genealogies of Yahwist), and for the form אני of the 1st + person pronoun (אנכי only in Genesis 23⁴). + + Geographical designations peculiar to Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ are: + _Kiryath-’Arba‛_ (for Hebron) 23² 35²⁷ +; _Machpelah_, 23⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ + 25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³ +; _Paddan-Aram_, 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶ + 46¹⁵ +.――To these may be added ארץ כנען, 11³¹ 12⁵ 13¹² 16³ 17⁸ + 23²ᐧ ¹⁹ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁶ 37¹ +; the expression is found in + Jehovist only in the Joseph-section (chapters 42, 44, 45, 47). + Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ has כנען without ארץ only in בנות כנען (28¹ 36²). + + In view of all these and similar peculiarities (for the list + is by no means exhaustive), the attempt to obliterate the + linguistic and stylistic distinction between Priestly-Code and + Jehovist (Eerdmans) is surely a retrograde step in criticism. + +The _date_ of the composition of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ lies between the +promulgation of the Deuteronomic law (621 B.C.), and the post-Exilic +reformation under Ezra and Nehemiah (444). It is later than Deuteronomy, +because it assumes without question the centralisation of worship +at one sanctuary, which in Deuteronomy is only held up as an ideal +to be realised by a radical reform of established usage. A nearer +determination of date depends on questions of the internal analysis +of Priestly-Code which are too complex to be entered on here. That the +Code as a whole is later than Ezekiel is proved by the fact that the +division between priests and Levites, which is unknown to the writer +of Deuteronomy, and of which we find the origin and justification in +Ezekiel 44⁶⁻¹⁶, is presupposed as already established (Numbers 3. 4. +8, etc.). It is possible, however, that that distinction belongs to +a stratum of the legislation not included in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ; +in which case Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ might very well be earlier than +Ezekiel, or even than the Exile. The question does not greatly concern +us here. For the understanding of Genesis, it is enough to know that +Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, both in its theological conceptions and its +attitude towards the national tradition, represents a phase of thought +much later than Yahwist and Elohist. + + The view that Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ was written before the Exile + (in the end of the 7th century) is advocated by Procksch (_l.c._ + 319 ff.), who reduces this part of Priestly-Code to narrower + limits than most critics have done. He regards it as an + essentially historical work, of considerable literary merit, + embracing hardly any direct legislation except perhaps the + Law of Holiness (Priestly-Codeʰ), and recognising the priestly + status of the entire tribe of Levi, just as in Deuteronomy + (Numbers 17¹⁶⁻²⁴ and Priestly-Codeʰ in its original form). If + that fact could be established, it would go far to show that the + document is older than Ezekiel. It is admitted both by Kuenen + and Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 116) that + the disparity of priests and Levites is accentuated in the later + strata of Priestly-Code as compared with Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, + but that it is not recognised in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ is not + clear. As to _pre-Exilic_ origin, the positive arguments + advanced by Procksch are not very cogent; and it is doubtful + whether, even on his own ground, he has demonstrated more than + the _possibility_ of so early a date. In Genesis, the only fact + which points in that direction is one not mentioned by Procksch: + viz. that the priestly Table of Nations in chapter 10 bears + internal evidence of having been drawn up some considerable + time before the 5th century B.C. (page 191 below); but that may + be sufficiently explained by the assumption that the author of + Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ made use of pre-existing documents in the + preparation of his work. + +The last distinguishable stage in the formation of the Pentateuch is +the amalgamation of Priestly-Code with the older documents,――in Genesis +the amalgamation of Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ with Jehovist. That this +process has left traces in the present text is quite certain _a priori_; +though it is naturally difficult to distinguish redactional changes of +this kind from later explanatory glosses and modifications (compare 6⁷ +7⁷ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ 10²⁴ 27⁴⁶ etc.). The aim of the redactor was, in general, to +preserve the _ipsissima verba_ of his sources as far as was consistent +with the production of a complete and harmonious narrative; but he +appears to have made it a rule to find a place for every fragment of +Priestly-Code that could possibly be retained. It is not improbable +that this rule was uniformly observed by him, and that the slight +_lacunæ_ which occur in Priestly-Code after chapter 25 are due to +the activity of later scribes in smoothing away redundancies and +unevennesses from the narrative. That such changes might take place +after the completion of the Pentateuch we see from 47⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, where LXX +has preserved a text in which the dovetailing of sources is much more +obvious than in Massoretic Text.――If the lawbook read by Ezra before +the congregation as the basis of the covenant (Nehemiah 8¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was the +entire Pentateuch (excepting late additions),¹ the redaction must have +been effected before 444 B.C., and in all probability the redactor was +Ezra himself. On the other hand, if (as seems to the present writer +more probable) Ezra’s lawbook was only the Priestly Code, or part of +it (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ + Priestly-Codeʰ),² then the final redaction +is brought down to a later period, the _terminus ad quem_ being the +borrowing of the Jewish Pentateuch by the Samaritan community. That +event is usually assigned, though on somewhat precarious grounds, to +Nehemiah’s second term of office in Judæa (_circa_ 432 B.C.). + + ¹ So Wellhausen, Dillmann, Kittel al. + + ² So Cornill, Holzinger al. + +Of far greater interest and significance than the date or manner +of this final redaction, is the fact that it was called for by the +religious feeling of post-Exilic Judaism. Nothing else would have +brought about the combination of elements so discordant as the naïve +legendary narratives of Jehovist and the systematised history of the +Priestly Code. We can hardly doubt that the spirit of the Priestly +theology is antipathetic to the older recension of the tradition, or +that, if the tendencies represented by the Code had prevailed, the +stories which are to us the most precious and edifying parts of the +Book of Genesis would have found no place in an authoritative record +of God’s revelation of Himself to the fathers. But this is not the +only instance in which the spiritual insight of the Church has judged +more wisely than the learning of the schools. We know that deeper +influences than the legalism and institutionalism of Priestly-Code’s +manifesto――necessary as these were in their place――were at work in the +post-Exilic community: the individualism of Jeremiah, the universalism +of the second Isaiah, the devotion and lyric fervour of the psalmists, +and the daring reflexion of the writer of Job. And to these we may +surely add the vein of childlike piety which turned aside from the +abstractions and formulas of the Priestly document, to find its +nutriment in the immortal stories through which God spoke to the heart +then, as He speaks to ours to-day. + + + + + COMMENTARY. + + + + + THE PRIMÆVAL HISTORY. + + + CHAPTERS I‒XI. + + It has been shown in the Introduction (page xxxiii) that the + most obvious division of the book of Genesis is into four nearly + equal parts, of which the first (chapters 1‒11) deals with the + Creation of the world, and the history of primitive mankind + prior to the call of Abraham. These chapters are composed of + excerpts from two of the main sources of the Pentateuch, the + Priestly Code, and the Yahwistic document. Attempts have been + made from time to time (_e.g._ by Schrader, Dillmann, and + more recently Winckler) to trace the hand of the Elohist in + chapters 1‒11; but the closest examination has failed to produce + any substantial evidence that Elohist is represented in the + Primitive History at all. By the great majority of critics the + non-Priestly traditions in this part of Genesis are assigned to + the Yahwistic cycle: that is to say, they are held to have been + collected and arranged by the school of rhapsodists to whose + literary activity we owe the document known as Yahwist. + + To the Priests’ Code, whose constituents can here be isolated + with great certainty and precision, belong: 1. The Cosmogony + (1¹‒2⁴ᵃ); 2. The List of Patriarchs from Adam to Noah (5); 3. + An account of the Flood (6⁹‒9²⁹*); 4. A Table of Peoples (10*); + 5. The Genealogies of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶), and Terah (11²⁷⁻³²*), + ending with Abraham. There is no reason to suppose either that + the original Priestly-Code contained more than this, or, on + the other hand, that Priestly-Code was written to supplement + the older tradition, and to be read along with it. It is in + accordance with the purpose and tendency of the document + that the only events recorded in detail――the Creation and the + Flood――are those which inaugurate two successive World-ages + or Dispensations, and are associated with the origin of two + fundamental observances of Judaism――the Sabbath (2³), and the + sanctity of the blood (9⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ). + + * The asterisk denotes that the passages so marked are + interspersed with extracts from another source. The detailed + analysis will be found in the commentary on the various + sections. + + In marked contrast to the formalism of this meagre epitome + is the rich variety of life and incident which characterises + the Yahwistic sections, viz.: 1. The Creation and Fall of Man + (2⁴ᵇ‒3²⁴); 2. Cain and Abel (4¹⁻¹⁶); 3. The Genealogy of Cain + (4¹⁷⁻²⁴); 4. A fragmentary Sethite Genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...); + 5. The marriages with divine beings (6¹⁻⁴); 6. An account of + the Flood (6⁵‒8²²*); 7. Noah’s Curse and Blessing (9²⁰⁻²⁷); + 8. A Table of Peoples (10*); 9. The Tower of Babel (11¹⁻⁹); + 10. A fragment of the Genealogy of Teraḥ (11²⁸⁻³⁰). Here we + have a whole gallery of varied and graphic pictures, each + complete in itself and essentially independent of the rest, + arranged in a loosely chronological order, and with perhaps a + certain unity of conception, in so far as they illustrate the + increasing wickedness that accompanied the progress of mankind + in civilisation. Even the genealogies are not (like those of + Priestly-Code) bare lists of names and figures, but preserve + incidental notices of new social or religious developments + associated with particular personages (4¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁶ 5²⁹), + besides other allusions to a more ancient mythology from which + the names have been drawn (4¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ ᶠᐧ). + + _Composition of Yahwist._――That a narrative composed of so + many separate and originally independent legends should present + discrepancies and discontinuities is not surprising, and is + certainly by itself no proof of literary diversity. At the same + time there are many indications that Yahwist is a composite work, + based on older collections of Hebrew traditions, whose outlines + can still be dimly traced. (1) The existence of two parallel + genealogies (Cainite and Sethite) at once suggests a conflate + tradition. The impression is raised almost to certainty when we + find that both are derived from a common original (page 138 f.). + (2) The Cainite genealogy is incompatible with the Deluge + tradition. The shepherds, musicians, and smiths, whose origin is + traced to the last three members of the genealogy, are obviously + not those of a bygone race which perished in the Flood, but + those known to the author and his contemporaries (page 115 f.). + (3) Similarly, the Table of Nations and the story of the + Confusion of Tongues imply mutually exclusive explanations of + the diversities of language and nationality: in one case the + division proceeds slowly and naturally on genealogical lines, in + the other it takes place by a sudden interposition of almighty + power. (4) There is evidence that the story of the Fall was + transmitted in two recensions (page 52 f.). If Gunkel be right, + the same is true of Yahwist’s Table of Peoples, and of the + account of the Dispersion; but there the analysis is less + convincing. (5) In 4²⁶ we read that Enosh introduced the worship + of Yahwe. The analogy of Exodus 6² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code) affords + a certain presumption that the author of such a statement will + have avoided the name יהוה up to this point; and as a matter + of fact אֱלֹהִים occurs immediately before in verse ²⁵. It is true + that the usage is observed in no earlier Yahwistic passage + except 3¹⁻⁵, where other explanations might be thought of. But + throughout chapters 2 and 3 we find the very unusual compound + name יהוה אלהים, and it is a plausible conjecture that one recension + of the Paradise story was distinguished by the use of Elohim, + and that Yahwe was inserted by a harmonising Yahwistic editor + (so Budde, Gunkel, al.: see page 53). + + To what precise extent these phenomena are due to documentary + differences is a question that requires to be handled with the + utmost caution and discrimination. It is conceivable that a + single author should have compiled a narrative from a number + of detached legends which he reported just as he found them, + regardless of their internal consistency. Nevertheless, there + seems sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that (as + Wellhausen has said) we have to do not merely with _aggregates_ + but with _sequences_; although to unravel perfectly the various + strands of narrative may be a task for ever beyond the resources + of literary criticism. Here it will suffice to indicate the + principal theories.――(a) Wellhausen (_Die Composition des + Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² + 9‒14) seems to have been the first to perceive that 4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ is a + late expansion based (as he supposed) on 4¹⁶⁻²⁴ and on chapters + 2, 3; that originally chapters 2‒4 existed not only without + 4¹⁻¹⁶ᵃ, but also without 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ and 5²⁹; and that chapters 2. 3. + 4¹⁶⁻²⁴ 11¹⁻⁹ form a connexion to which the story of the Flood + is entirely foreign and irrelevant.――(b) The analysis was + pushed many steps further by Budde (_Biblische Urgeschichte_, + passim), who, after a most exhaustive and elaborate examination, + arrived at the following theory: the primary document (Yahwist¹) + consisted of 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁹ᐧ ¹⁶⁻²⁵ 3¹⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ 6³ 3²³ 4¹ᐧ ²ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹⁷⁻²⁴ + 6¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁴ 10⁹ 11¹⁻⁹ 9²⁰⁻²⁷. This was recast by Yahwist² + (substituting אלהים for יהוה down to 4²⁶), whose narrative + contained a Cosmogony (but no Paradise story), the Sethite + genealogy, the Flood-legend, the Table of Nations, and a + seven-membered Shemite genealogy. These two recensions were then + amalgamated by Yahwist³, who inserted dislocated passages of + Yahwist¹ in the connexion of Yahwist², and added 4¹⁻⁵ 5²⁹ etc. + Yahwist² attained the dignity of a standard official document, + and is the authority followed by Priestly-Code at a later time. + The astonishing acumen and thoroughness which characterise + Budde’s work have had a great influence on critical opinion, + yet his ingenious transpositions and reconstructions of the + text seem too subtle and arbitrary to satisfy any but a slavish + disciple. One feels that he has worked on too narrow a basis by + confining his attention to successive overworkings of the same + literary tradition, and not making sufficient allowance for the + simultaneous existence of relatively independent forms.――(c) + Stade (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + xiv. 274 ff. [= _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ + 244‒251]) distinguishes three main strata: (1) chapters 2. 3. + 11¹⁻⁹; (2) 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷⁻²² 9²⁰⁻²⁷ 10⁹? 6¹ᐧ ²?; (3) the Flood-legend, + added later to the other two, by a redactor who also compiled a + Sethite genealogy (4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ...) and inserted the story + of Cain and Abel, and the Song of Lamech (4²³ ᶠᐧ).――(d) Gunkel + (_Genesis übersetzt und erklärt_² 1 ff.) proceeds on somewhat + different lines from his predecessors. He refuses in principle + to admit incongruity as a criterion of source, and relies on + certain verses which bear the character of connecting links + between different sections. The most important is 5²⁹ (belonging + to the Sethite genealogy), where we read: “This (Noah) shall + comfort us from our labour and from the toil of our hands on + account of the ground which Yahwe has cursed.” Here there is an + unmistakable reference backward to 3¹⁷, and forward to 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. + Thus we obtain a faultless sequence, forming the core of a + document where יהוה was not used till 4²⁶, and hence called + Yahwistᵉ, consisting of: one recension of the Paradise story; + the (complete) Sethite genealogy; and Noah’s discovery of + wine. From this sequence are excluded obviously: the second + recension of the Paradise story; the Cainite genealogy; and (as + Gunkel thinks) the Flood-legend, where Noah appears in quite a + different character: these belong to a second document (Yahwistʲ). + Again, 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ form a connecting link between the Flood and the + Table of Nations; but Gunkel distinguishes two Yahwistic strata + in the Table of Nations and assigns one to each of his documents: + similarly with the section on the Tower of Babel. The legend of + Cain and Abel is regarded (with Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.) + as an editorial expansion. + + In this commentary the analysis of Gunkel is adopted in the + main; but with the following reservations: (1) The account of + the Flood cannot be naturally assigned to Yahwistʲ, because of + its admitted incompatibility with the assumption of the Cainite + genealogy (see above). Gunkel, indeed, refuses to take such + inconsistencies into account; but in that case there is no + reason for giving the Flood to Yahwistʲ rather than to Yahwistᵉ. + There is no presumption whatever that only two documents are + in evidence; and the chapters in question show peculiarities + of language which justify the assumption of a separate source + (Stade), say Yahwistᵈ. (2) With the Flood passage goes the + Yahwistic Table of Peoples (9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ). The arguments for two + Yahwists in chapter 10 are hardly decisive; and Yahwistᵉ at + all events had no apparent motive for attaching an ethnographic + survey to the name of Noah. (3) Gunkel’s analysis of 11¹⁻⁹ + appears on the whole to be sound; but even so there is no ground + for identifying the two components with Yahwistᵉ and Yahwistʲ + respectively. On the contrary, the tone of both recensions has + a striking affinity with that of Yahwistʲ: note especially (with + Wellhausen) the close resemblance in form and substance between + 11⁶ and 3²². Thus: + + Yahwistʲ = 3²⁰⁻²²ᐧ ²⁴ 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ 6¹⁻⁴ 11¹⁻⁹; + Yahwistᵉ = 22⁴ᵇ‒3¹⁹*ᐧ ²³ 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ ... 5²⁹ ... 9²⁰⁻²⁷; + Yahwistᵈ = 6⁵‒8²²* 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ 10*; + Yahwistʳ = 4¹⁻¹⁶*. + + Such constructions, it need hardly be added, are in the highest + degree precarious and uncertain; and can only be regarded as + tentative explanations of problems for which it is probable that + no final solution will be found. + + + I. 1‒II. 3. + _Creation of the World in Six Days: + Institution of the Sabbath._ + +A short Introduction describing the primæval chaos (1¹ᐧ ²) is followed +by an account of the creation of the world in six days, by a series of +eight divine fiats, viz.: (1) the creation of light, and the separation +of light from darkness, ³⁻⁵; (2) the division of the chaotic waters +into two masses, one above and the other below the ‘firmament,’ ⁶⁻⁸; +(3) the separation of land and sea through the collecting of the lower +waters into “one place,” ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰; (4) the clothing of the earth with its +mantle of vegetation, ¹¹⁻¹³; (5) the formation of the heavenly bodies, +¹⁴⁻¹⁹; (6) the peopling of sea and air with fishes and birds, ²⁰⁻²³; +(7) the production of land animals, ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵; and (8) the creation of man, +²⁶⁻³¹. Finally, the Creator is represented as resting from His works on +the seventh day; and this becomes the sanction of the Jewish ordinance +of the weekly Sabbath rest (2¹⁻³). + +_Character of the Record._――It is evident even from this bare outline +of its contents that the opening section of Genesis is not a scientific +account of the actual process through which the universe originated. +It is a world unknown to science whose origin is here described,――the +world of antique imagination, composed of a solid expanse of earth, +surrounded by and resting on a world-ocean, and surmounted by a vault +called the ‘firmament,’ above which again are the waters of a heavenly +ocean from which the rain descends on the earth (see on verses ⁶⁻⁸).¹ +That the writer believed this to be the true view of the universe, +and that the narrative expresses his conception of how it actually +came into being, we have, indeed, no reason to doubt (Wellhausen, +_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 296). But the fundamental +difference of standpoint just indicated shows that whatever the +significance of the record may be, it is not a revelation of physical +fact which can be brought into line with the results of modern science. +The key to its interpretation must be found elsewhere. + + ¹ The fact referred to above seems to me to impose an absolute + veto on the attempt to harmonise the teaching of the chapter + with scientific theory. It may be useful, however, to + specify one or two outstanding difficulties of detail. + (1) It is recognised by all recent harmonists that the + definition of ‘day’ as ‘geological period’ is essential + to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible. (2) + The creation of sun and moon _after_ the earth, after the + alternation of day and night, and even after the appearance + of plant-life, are so many scientific impossibilities. (3) + Palæontology shows that the origin of vegetable life, if + it did not actually follow that of animal life, certainly + did not _precede_ it by an interval corresponding to two + ‘days.’ (4) The order in which the various living forms are + created, the manner in which they are grouped, and their + whole development compressed into special periods, are all + opposed to geological evidence. For a thorough and impartial + discussion of these questions see Driver, _Genesis_, 19‒26. + It is there shown conclusively, not only that the modern + attempts at reconciliation fail, but (what is more important) + that the point at issue is not one of science, but simply + of _exegesis_. The facts of science are not in dispute; the + only question is whether the language of Genesis will bear + the construction which the harmonising scientists find it + necessary to put upon it. + +In order to understand the true character of the narrative, we must +compare it with the _cosmogonies_ which form an integral part of all +the higher religions of antiquity. The demand for some rational theory +of the origin of the world as known or conceived is one that emerges +at a very early stage of culture; and the efforts of the human mind in +this direction are observed to follow certain common lines of thought, +which point to the existence of a cosmological tradition exerting a +widespread influence over ancient speculation on the structure of the +universe. There is ample evidence, as will be shown later (below, page +45 ff.), that the Hebrew thinkers were influenced by such a tradition; +and in this fact we find a clue to the inner meaning of the narrative +before us. The tradition was plastic, and therefore capable of being +moulded in accordance with the genius of a particular religion; at the +same time, being a tradition, it retained a residuum of unassimilated +material derived from the common stock of cosmological speculation +current in the East. What happened in the case of the biblical +cosmogony is this: that during a long development within the sphere of +Hebrew religion it was gradually stripped of its cruder mythological +elements, and transformed into a vehicle for the spiritual ideas which +were the peculiar heritage of Israel. It is to the depth and purity of +these ideas that the narrative mainly owes that character of sobriety +and sublimity which has led many to regard it as the primitive revealed +cosmogony, of which all others are grotesque and fantastic variations +(Dillmann, page 10). + +The religious significance of this cosmogony lies, therefore, in the +fact that in it the monotheistic principle of the Old Testament has +obtained classical expression. The great idea of God, first proclaimed +in all its breadth and fulness by the second Isaiah during the Exile, +is here embodied in a detailed account of the genesis of the universe, +which lays hold of the imagination as no abstract statement of the +principle could ever do. The central doctrine is that the world is +_created_,――that it originates in the will of God, a personal Being +transcending the universe and existing independently of it. The pagan +notion of a Theogony――a generation of the gods from the elementary +world-matter――is entirely banished. It is, indeed, doubtful if the +representation goes so far as a _creatio ex nihilo_, or whether a +pre-existent chaotic material is postulated (see on verse ¹); it +is certain at least that the _kosmos_, the ordered world with which +alone man has to do, is wholly the product of divine intelligence +and volition. The spirituality of the First Cause of all things, and +His absolute sovereignty over the material He employs, are further +emphasised in the idea of the _word_ of God――the effortless expression +of His thought and purpose――as the agency through which each successive +effect is produced; and also in the recurrent refrain which affirms +that the original creation in each of its parts was ‘good,’ and as a +whole ‘very good’ (verse ³¹), _i.e._ that it perfectly reflected the +divine thought which called it into existence. The traces of mythology +and anthropomorphism which occur in the body of the narrative belong +to the traditional material on which the author operated, and do +not affect his own theological standpoint, which is defined by the +doctrines just enumerated. When to these we add the doctrine of man, +as made in the likeness of God, and marked out as the crown and goal +of creation, we have a body of religious truth which distinguishes the +cosmogony of Genesis from all similar compositions, and entitles it to +rank among the most important documents of revealed religion. + + _The Framework._――The most noteworthy literary feature of the + record is the use of a set of stereotyped formulæ, by which the + separate acts of creation are reduced as far as possible to a + common expression. The structure of this ‘framework’ (as it may + be called) is less uniform than might be expected, and is much + more regular in LXX than in Massoretic Text. It is impossible to + decide how far the irregularities are due to the original writer, + and how far to errors of transmission. Besides the possibility + of accident, we have to allow on the one hand for the natural + tendency of copyists to rectify apparent anomalies, and on + the other hand for deliberate omissions, intended to bring out + Sacred numbers in the occurrences of the several formulæ.¹ + + ¹ A familiar instance is the ‘ten sayings’ of _Pirḳê ’Abôth_, + 5, 1: בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם, where the number 10 is arrived at + by adding to the 8 fiats the two other occurrences of ויאמר + in Massoretic Text (verses²⁸ᐧ ²⁹). + + The facts are of some importance, and may be summarised here: + (a) The fiat (_And God said, Let_ ...) introduces (both in + Massoretic Text and LXX) each of the eight works of creation + (verses³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁶). (b) _And it was so_ occurs + literally 6 times in Massoretic Text, but virtually 7 times: + _i.e._ in connection with all the works except the sixth + (verses⁽³⁾ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰); in LXX also in verse ²⁰. (c) + The execution of the fiat (_And God made_ ...――with variations) + is likewise recorded 6 times in Massoretic Text and 7 times + in LXX (verses⁷ᐧ ⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷). (d) The sentence of + divine approval (_And God saw that it was good_) is pronounced + over each work except the second (in LXX there also), though + in the last instance with a significant variation: see + verses⁴ᐧ ⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³¹. (e) The naming of the objects + created (_And God called_ ...) is peculiar to the three acts of + separation (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰). (f) _And God blessed_ ... (3 times) + is said of the sixth and eighth works and of the Sabbath day + (verses²²ᐧ ²⁸ 2³). (g) The division into days is marked by the + closing formula, _And it was evening, etc._, which, of course, + occurs 6 times (verses⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ³¹), being omitted after the + third and seventh works. + + The occurrence of the ויהו כן _before_ the execution of the fiat + produces a redundancy which may be concealed but is not removed + by substituting _so_ for _and_ in the translation (_So God made_, + etc.). When we observe further that in 5 cases out of the 6 (in + LXX 5 out of 7) the execution is described as a _work_, that + the correspondence between fiat and fulfilment is often far + from complete, and finally that 2²ᵃ seems a duplicate of 2¹, the + question arises whether all these circumstances do not point to + a literary manipulation, in which the conception of creation as + a series of _fiats_ has been superimposed on another conception + of it as a series of _works_. The observation does not carry us + very far, since no analysis of sources can be founded on it; but + it is perhaps a slight indication of what is otherwise probable, + viz. that the cosmogony was not the free composition of a single + mind, but reached its final form through the successive efforts + of many writers (see below).¹ + + ¹ See, now, Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ + i. 349 and Schwally in _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, + ix. 159‒175, which have appeared since the above paragraph + was written. Both writers point out the twofold conception + of the creation which runs through the chapter; and Schwally + makes out a strong case for the composition of the passage + from two distinct recensions of the cosmogony. + + _The Seven Days’ Scheme._――The distribution of the eight + works over six days has appeared to many critics (Ilgen, + Ewald, Schrader, Wellhausen, Dillmann, Budde, Gunkel, al.) a + modification introduced in the interest of the Sabbath law, and + at variance with the original intention of the cosmogony. Before + entering on that question, it must be pointed out that the + adjustment of days to works proceeds upon a clear principle, and + results in a symmetrical arrangement. Its effect is to divide + the creative process into two stages, each embracing four works + and occupying three days, the last day of each series having two + works assigned to it. There is, moreover, a remarkable, though + not perfect, parallelism between the two great divisions. Thus + the _first_ day is marked by the creation of light, and the + _fourth_ by the creation of the heavenly bodies, which are + expressly designated ‘light-bearers’; on the _second_ day the + waters which afterwards formed the seas are isolated and the + space between heaven and earth is formed, and so the _fifth_ + day witnesses the peopling of these regions with their living + denizens (fishes and fowls); on the _third_ day the dry land + emerges, and on the _sixth_ terrestrial animals and man are + created. And it is hardly accidental that the second work of + the _third_ day (trees and grasses) corresponds to the last + appointment of the _sixth_ day, by which these products are + assigned as the food of men and animals. Broadly speaking, + therefore, we may say that “the first three days are days of + preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment” (Driver + _Genesis_ 2). Now whether this arrangement belongs to the + original conception of the cosmogony, or at what stage it was + introduced, are questions very difficult to answer. Nothing at + all resembling it has as yet been found in Babylonian documents; + for the division into seven tablets of the _Enuma eliš_ series + has no relation to the seven days of the biblical account.¹ If + therefore a Babylonian origin is assumed, it seems reasonable to + hold that the scheme of days is a Hebrew addition; and in that + case it is hard to believe that it can have been introduced + without a primary reference to the distinctively Israelitish + institution of the weekly Sabbath. It then only remains to + inquire whether we can go behind the present seven days’ scheme, + and discover in the narrative evidence of an earlier arrangement + which either ignored the seven days altogether, or had them in a + form different from what we now find. + + ¹ See below, page 43 ff. On the other hand there are Persian + and Etruscan analogies; see page 50. + + The latter position is maintained by Wellhausen (_Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 187 ff.), who holds that the scheme of days is a + secondary addition to the framework as it came from the hand + of its Priestly author (Q). In the original cosmogony of Q a + division into seven days was recognised, but in a different form + from what now obtains; it was moreover not carried through in + detail, but merely indicated by the statement of 2² that God + finished His work on the seventh day. The key to the primary + arrangement he finds in the formula of approval, the absence + of which after the second work he explains by the consideration + that the separation of the upper waters from the lower and of + the lower from the dry land form really but one work, and were + so regarded by Q. Thus the seven works of creation were (1) + separation of light from darkness; (2) separation of waters + (⁶⁻¹⁰); (3) creation of plants; (4) luminaries; (5) fish + and fowl; (6) land animals; (7) man. The statement that God + finished His work on the seventh day Wellhausen considers to + be inconsistent with a six days’ creation, and also with the + view that the seventh was a day of rest; hence in chapter 2, he + deletes ²ᵇ and ³ᵇ, and reads simply: “and God finished His work + which He made on the seventh day, and God blessed the seventh + day and sanctified it.”――This theory has been subjected to a + searching criticism by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 487 + ff.; compare also Dillmann 15), who rightly protests against + the subsuming of the creation of heaven and that of land and sea + under one rubric as a ‘separation of waters,’ and gets rid of + the difficulty presented by 2²ᵃ by reading _sixth_ instead of + _seventh_ (see on the verse). Budde urges further that the idea + of the Sabbath as a day on which work might be done is one not + likely to have been entertained in the circles from which the + Priestly Code emanated,¹ and also (on the ground of Exodus 20¹¹) + that the conception of a creation in six days followed by a + divine Sabbath rest must have existed in Israel long before + the age of that document.――It is to be observed that part of + Budde’s argument (which as a whole seems to me valid against + the specific form of the theory advanced by Wellhausen) only + pushes the real question a step further back; and Budde himself, + while denying that the seven days’ scheme is secondary to + Priestly-Code, agrees with Ewald, Dillmann, and many others + in thinking that there was an earlier Hebrew version of the + cosmogony in which that scheme did not exist. + + ¹ See Jerome’s polemical note, in _Quæstiones sive Traditiones + hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._ + + The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight + works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an + attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has + been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting + (Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other + way; for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained + in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had + some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the + originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of + two entirely dissimilar works under the third day; (b) the + separation of two closely related works on the second and third + days; (c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the + existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated + (thus far Dillmann 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the + fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These + objections are not all of equal weight; and explanations more + or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the + whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions: that + the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally + incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the + former during the Hebrew development of the cosmogony, that + this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of + the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later + than Priestly-Code, and in all probability long before his time. + + _Source and Style._――As has been already hinted, the section + belongs to the Priestly Code (Priestly-Code). This is the + unanimous opinion of all critics who accept the documentary + analysis of the Hexateuch, and it is abundantly proved both by + characteristic words and phrases, and general features of style. + Expressions characteristic of Priestly-Code are (besides the + divine name אלהים): ברא (see on verse¹), זכר ונקבה ²⁷, חיתו ארץ [חית ה׳] + ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ³⁰, לאכלה ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, מין ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵, מקוה ¹⁰, פרה ורבה ²²ᐧ ²⁸, + רָמַשׂ, רֶמֶשׂ ²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ³⁰, שָׁרַץ, שֶׁרֶץ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹, and תולדות in + 2⁴ᵃ.――Compare the lists in Dillmann, page 1; Gunkel, page 107, + and _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 208‒220; and for details see the + Commentary below.――Of even greater value as a criterion of + authorship is the unmistakable literary manner of the Priestly + historian. The orderly disposition of material, the strict + adherence to a carefully thought out plan, the monotonous + repetition of set phraseology, the aim at exact classification + and definition, and generally the subordination of the concrete + to the formal elements of composition: these are all features of + the ‘juristic’ style cultivated by this school of writers,――“it + is the same spirit that has shaped Genesis 1 and Genesis 5” + (Gunkel).――On the artistic merits of the passage very diverse + judgments have been pronounced. Gunkel, whose estimate is on + the whole disparaging, complains of a lack of poetic enthusiasm + and picturesqueness of conception, poorly compensated for by a + marked predilection for method and order. It is hardly fair to + judge a prose writer by the requirements of poetry; and even + a critic so little partial to Priestly-Code as Wellhausen is + impressed by “the majestic repose and sustained grandeur” of the + narrative, especially of its incomparable exordium (_Prolegomena + zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 297). To deny to a writer capable + of producing this impression all sense of literary effect is + unreasonable; and it is perhaps near the truth to say that + though the style of Priestly-Code may, in technical descriptions + or enumerations, degenerate into a pedantic mannerism (see an + extreme case in Numbers 7), he has found here a subject suited + to his genius, and one which he handles with consummate skill. + It is a bold thing to desiderate a treatment more worthy of + the theme, or more impressive in effect, than we find in the + severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the first + chapter of Genesis. + + In speaking of the style of Priestly-Code it has to be borne + in mind that we are dealing with the literary tradition of a + school rather than with the idiosyncrasy of an individual. It + has, indeed, often been asserted that this particular passage + is obviously the composition ‘at one heat’ of a single writer; + but that is improbable. If the cosmogony rests ultimately on + a Babylonian model, it “must have passed through a long period + of naturalisation in Israel, and of gradual assimilation to + the spirit of Israel’s religion before it could have reached + its present form” (Driver, _Genesis_ 31). All, therefore, that + is necessarily implied in what has just been said is that the + _later stages_ of that process must have taken place under the + auspices of the school of Priestly-Code, and that its work has + entered very deeply into the substance of the composition.――Of + the earlier stages we can say little except that traces of them + remain in those elements which do not agree with the ruling + ideas of the last editors. Budde has sought to prove that the + story had passed through the school of Yahwist before being + adopted by that of Priestly-Code; that it was in fact the form + into which the cosmogony had been thrown by the writer called + Yahwist². Of direct evidence for that hypothesis (such as + would be supplied by allusions to Genesis 1 in other parts of + Yahwist²) there is none: it is an inference deduced mainly from + these premises: (1) that the creation story shows traces of + overworking which presuppose the existence of an older Hebrew + recension; (2) that in all other sections of the prehistoric + tradition Priestly-Code betrays his dependence on Yahwist²; and + (3) that Yahwist² in turn is markedly dependent on Babylonian + sources (see _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 463‒496, and the + summary on page 491 f.). Even if all these observations be + well founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a + demonstration of Budde’s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture + so long as we assume that little was written beyond what we have + direct or indirect evidence of (_ib._ 463¹); but when we realise + how little is known of the diffusion of literary activity in + ancient Israel, the presumption that Yahwist² was the particular + writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes very + slender indeed. + +=1.= We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome question of +syntax which affects the sense of every member of verse ¹. While all +ancient versions and many moderns take the verse as a complete sentence, +others (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause, +subordinate either to verse ³ (Rashi, and so most) or verse ² (Ibn Ezra, +apparently). On the latter view the verse will read: _In the beginning +of God’s creating the heavens and the earth_: בְּרֵאשִׁית being in the +construct state, followed by a clause as genitive (compare Isaiah 29¹, +Hosea 1² etc.; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 130 _d_; Davidson § 25). +In a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to +the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with verse ¹ +it is necessary to leave the alternative open.――_In the beginning_] +If the clause be subordinate the reference of ראשית is defined by what +immediately follows, and no further question arises. But if it be an +independent statement _beginning_ is used absolutely (as in John 1¹), +and two interpretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts +the creation (_ex nihilo_) of the primæval chaos described in verse ²; +or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process narrated in the +chapter. The former view has prevailed in Jewish and Christian theology, +and is still supported by the weighty authority of Wellhausen. But +(1) it is not in accordance with the usage of ראשית (see below); (2) +it is not required by the word ‘create,’――a created chaos is perhaps +a contradiction (Isaiah 45¹⁸ לֹא־תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ), and Wellhausen himself admits +that it is a remarkable conception; and (3) it is excluded by the +object of that verb: _the heavens and the earth_. For though that +phrase is a Hebrew designation of the universe as a whole, it is only +the _organised_ universe, not the chaotic material out of which it +was formed, that can naturally be so designated. The appropriate name +for chaos is ‘the earth’ (verse ²); the representation being a chaotic +earth from which the heavens were afterwards made (⁶ ᶠᐧ). The verse +therefore (if an independent sentence at all) must be taken as an +introductory heading to the rest of the chapter.¹――_God created._] +The verb בָּרָא contains the central idea of the passage. It is partly +synonymous with עָשָׂה (compare verses ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ with ²⁵), but 2³ shows that +it had a specific shade of meaning. The idea cannot be defined with +precision, but the following points are to be noted: (a) The most +important fact is that it is used exclusively of _divine_ activity――a +restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in other +languages (see Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 304). +(b) The idea of _novelty_ (Isaiah 48⁶ ᶠᐧ 41²⁰ 65¹⁷ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 31²¹) or +_extraordinariness_ (Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ [Yahwist]) of result is +frequently implied, and it is noteworthy that this is the case in the +only two passages of certainly early date where the word occurs. (c) It +is probable also that it contains the idea of _effortless_ production +(such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition² (Psalms 33⁹). (d) It +is obvious (from this chapter and many passages) that the sense stops +short of _creatio ex nihilo_,――an idea first explicitly occurring in 2 +Maccabees 7²⁸. At the same time the facts just stated, and the further +circumstance that the word is always used with accusative of product +and never of material, constitute a long advance towards the full +theological doctrine, and make the word ‘create’ a suitable vehicle +for it. + + ¹ The view that verse ¹ describes an earlier creation of heaven + and earth, which were reduced to chaos and then re-fashioned, + needs no refutation. + + ² The same thought was associated by the Babylonians with their + word _banû_ (see philosophical note); but the association + seems accidental; and its significance is exaggerated by + Gunkel when he says “the idea of creation is that man may + form with his hands, the god brings to pass through his + word” (_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 23). + _Banû_ is quite synonymous with _ipisû_ (make), and is not + restricted to the divine activity. + + * * * * * + + =1.=――ראשית] The form is probably contracted from רְאֵשִׁית (compare + שְׁאֵרִית), and therefore not derived directly from רֹאשׁ. It signifies + primarily the _first_ (or _best_) part of a thing: Genesis 10¹⁰ + (‘nucleus’), 49³ (‘first product’), Deuteronomy 33²¹, Amos 6⁶ + etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc., see + Gray’s note, _Numbers_ 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into + a temporal sense, as the _first stage_ of a process or series of + events: Hosea 9¹⁰ (‘in its first stage’), Deuteronomy 11¹² (of + the year), Job 8⁷ 40¹⁹ (a man’s life), Isaiah 46¹⁰ (starting + point of a series), etc. Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte + Israels_⁶ 386) has said that Deuteronomy 11¹² is the earliest + instance of the temporal sense; but the distinction between + ‘first part’ and ‘temporal beginning’ is so impalpable that not + much importance can be attached to the remark. It is of more + consequence to observe that at no period of the language does + the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given, + viz. the first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated + or clearly implied. That being so, the prevalent determinate + construction becomes intelligible. That in its ceremonial + sense the word should be used absolutely was to be expected (so + Leviticus 2¹² [Numbers 18¹²] Nehemiah 12⁴⁴: with these may be + taken also Deuteronomy 33²¹). In its temporal applications it + is always defined by genitive or suffix except in Isaiah. 46¹⁰, + where the antithesis to אחרית inevitably suggests the intervening + series of which ר׳ is the initial phase. It is therefore doubtful + if בָּר׳ could be used of an absolute beginning detached from + its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like בָּראשנה or בַּתּחלה (see + Isaiah 1²⁶, Genesis 13³).――This brings us to the question of + syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) verse ¹ an + independent sentence (_all_ versions and the great majority of + commentaries, including Calvin, Delitzsch, Tuch, Wellhausen, + Driver). _In sense_ this construction (taking the verse as + superscription) is entirely free from objection: it yields an + easy syntax, and a simple and majestic opening. The absence + of the article tells against it, but is by no means decisive. + At most it is a matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek + transliterations Βαρησηθ (Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ + supersunt; sive Veterum Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus + Testamentum Fragmenta_), and Βαρησεθ (Lagarde, _Ankündigung + einer neuen Ausgabe der griech. Uebersezung des Alte Testament_ + 5), alongside of Βρησιθ, may show that in ancient times the + first word was sometimes read בָּר׳. Even the Massoretic pointing + does not necessarily imply that the word was meant as construct; + ר׳ is never found with articles, and Delitzsch has well pointed + out that the stereotyped use or omission of articles with + certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which + eludes our analysis (_e.g._ מִקֶּדֶם, מֵרֹאשׁ, בָּרִאשֹׁנָה: compare König + _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_ + § 294 g). The construction seems to me, however, opposed to + the essentially _relative_ idea of ר׳,――its express reference to + _that of which_ it is the beginning (see above). (b) verse ¹ + protasis: verse ² parenthesis: verse ³ apodosis;――_When God + began to create ...――now the earth was ...――God said, Let + there be light._ So Rashi, Ewald, Dillmann,¹ Holzinger, Gunkel, + al.――practically all who reject (a). Although first appearing + explicitly in Rashi († 1105), it has been argued that this + represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in + under the influence of LXX from a desire to exclude the idea + of an eternal chaos preceding the creation.² But the fact that + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ agrees with LXX militates against that opinion. + The one objection to (b) is the ‘verzweifelt geschmacklose + Construction’ (Wellhausen) which it involves. It is replied + (Gunkel, al.) that such openings may have been a traditional + feature of creation stories, being found in several Babylonian + accounts, as well as in Genesis 2⁴ᵇ⁻⁶. In any case a lengthy + parenthesis is quite admissible in good prose style (see 1 + Samuel 3²ᵃ{β}⁻³, with Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the + Books of Samuel_, _ad loc._), and may be safely assumed here + if there be otherwise sufficient grounds for adopting it. The + clause as genitive is perfectly regular, though it would be + easy to substitute infinitive בְּרֹא (mentioned but not recommended + by Rashi). (c) A third view, which perhaps deserves more + consideration than it has received, is to take verse ¹ as + protasis and verse ² as apodosis, ‘_When God began to create the + heavens and the earth, the earth was, etc._’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra? + but see Cheyne, in _Hebräica_ ii. 50). So far as sense goes + the sequence is eminently satisfactory; the ויאמר of verse ³ is + more natural as a continuation of verse ² than of verse ¹. The + question is whether the _form_ of verse ² permits its being + construed as apodosis. The order of words (subject before + predicate) is undoubtedly that proper to the circumstantial + clause (Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in + Hebrew_ § 157; Davidson § 138 (_c_)); but there is no + absolute rule against an apodosis assuming this form after a + time-determination (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the + Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78). Close parallels (for it is hard to + see that the ויהי makes any essential difference) are Genesis 7¹⁰ + (Yahwist), 22¹ (Elohist), or (with imperfect), Leviticus 7¹⁶ᵇ + (Priestly-Code). The construction is not appreciably harsher + than in the analogous case of 2⁵, where it has been freely + adopted.――ברא] enters fully into Old Testament usage only on the + eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious passages + (Amos 4¹³, Isaiah 4⁵, Jeremiah 31²¹), its first emergence in + prophecy is in Ezekiel (3 times); it is specially characteristic + of II Isaiah (20 times), in Priestly-Code 10 times, and in other + late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic use rests on + Exodus 34¹⁰, Numbers 16³⁰ (Yahwist), Deuteronomy 4³². There + is no reason to doubt that it belongs to the early language; + what can be fairly said is that at the Exile the thought of the + divine creation of the world became prominent in the prophetic + theology, and that for this reason the term which expressed it + technically obtained a currency it had not previously enjoyed. + The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as the + root of a Piel meaning ‘cut,’ hence ‘form by cutting,’ ‘carve,’ + ‘fashion,’ (Aramaic _baraʸ_, Phœnician ברא [_Corpus Inscriptionum + Semiticarum_, i. 347⁴]: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._; Lane, + _A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament_ 197 b; + Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 244 + [with ?]); but the evidence of the connexion is very slight. The + only place where בֵּרֵא could mean ‘carve’ is Ezekiel 21²⁴ ᵇⁱˢ; and + there the text is almost certainly corrupt (see Cornill, Toy, + Kraetschmar, _ad loc._). Elsewhere it means ‘cut down’ (Ezekiel + 23⁴⁷) or ‘clear ground by hewing down trees’ (Joshua 17¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ + [Yahwist])――a sense as remote as possible from fashion or make + (Dillmann, Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur + Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387). The Aramaic _bara’a_ (used chiefly + of creation of animate beings) is possibly borrowed from + Hebrew. Native philologists connect it, very unnaturally, with + _bari’a_, ‘be free’; so that ‘create’ means to _liberate_ (from + the clay, etc.) (Lane, 178 b, c): Dillmann’s view is similar. + Barth (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 58) has proposed to + identify ברא (through mutation of liquids) with the Assyrian verb + for ‘create,’ _banū_; but rejects the opinion that the latter is + the common Semitic בנה ‘build’ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 498¹), with which ברא alternates in Sabæan (Müller + in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + xxxvii. 413, 415). + + ¹ Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of + a redactional operation. Originally the place of verse ¹ was + occupied by 2⁴ᵃ in its correct form: אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בְּבָרְאָם אלהים. + When this was transposed it was necessary to frame a new + introduction, and in the hands of the editor it assumed the + form of verse ¹ (similarly, Stade _Biblische Theologie des + Alten Testaments_ i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely + accepted view of the original position of 2⁴ᵃ (see on the + verse), and Dillmann’s intricate hypothesis would seem to me + an additional argument against it. + + ² See Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer + Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums_ + 344, 439, 444. The _Mechilta_ (on Exodus 12⁴⁰: Winter and + Wünsche’s German translation, page 48) gives verse ¹ as one + of thirteen instances of things ‘written for King Ptolemy’; + and Geiger infers that the change was deliberately made for + the reason mentioned. The reading alleged by _Mechilta_ is + אלהים ברא בראשית, which gives the _sense_ but not the _order_ of + LXX. The other variations given are only partly verified by + our texts of LXX; see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ 2² 11⁷ 18¹² 49⁶. + + * * * * * + +=2. Description of Chaos.=――It is perhaps impossible to unite the +features of the description in a single picture, but the constitutive +elements of the notion of chaos appear to be Confusion (תהו ובהו), +Darkness, and Water (תהום, מים). The weird effect of the language is +very impressive. On the syntax, see above.――_waste and void_] The exact +meaning of this alliterative phrase――_Tōhû wā-Bōhû_――is difficult to +make out. The words are nouns; the connotation of תהו ranges from the +concrete ‘desert’ to the abstract ‘nonentity’; while בהו possibly means +‘emptiness’ (_v.i._). The exegetical tendency has been to emphasise the +latter aspect, and approximate to the Greek notion of chaos as empty +space (Gunkel). But our safest guide is perhaps Jeremiah’s vision of +Chaos-come-again (4²³⁻²⁶), which is simply that of a darkened and +devastated earth, from which life and order have fled. The idea here +is probably similar, with this difference, that the distinction of land +and sea is effaced, and the earth, which is the subject of the sentence, +must be understood as the amorphous watery mass in which the elements +of the future land and sea were commingled.――_Darkness_ (an almost +invariable feature of ancient conceptions of chaos) _was upon the face +of the Deep_] The _Deep_ (תְּהוֹם) is the subterranean ocean on which the +earth rests (Genesis 7¹¹ 8² 49²⁵, Amos 7⁴ etc.); which, therefore, +before the earth was formed, lay bare and open to the superincumbent +darkness. In the Babylonian Creation-myth the primal chaos is +personified under the name _Ti’āmat_. The Hebrew narrative is free +from mythological associations, and it is doubtful if even a trace +of personification lingers in the name תהום. In Babylonian, _ti’āmatu_ +or _tāmtu_ is a generic term for ‘ocean’; and it is conceivable that +this literal sense may be the origin of the Hebrew conception of +the Deep (see page 47).――_The Spirit of God was brooding_] not, as +has sometimes been supposed, a _wind_ sent from God to dry up the +waters (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and a few moderns), but the +divine Spirit, figured as a bird brooding over its nest, and perhaps +symbolising an immanent principle of life and order in the as yet +undeveloped chaos. Compare Milton, _Paradise Lost_, i. 19 ff., vii. +233 ff. It is remarkable, however, if this be the idea, that no further +effect is given to it in the sequel. (1) The idea of the Spirit as +formative principle of the kosmos, while _in the line_ of the Old +Testament doctrine that he is the source of life (Psalms 33⁶ 104²⁹ ᶠᐧ), +yet goes much beyond the ordinary representation, and occurs only here +(possibly Isaiah 40¹³). (2) The image conveyed by the word _brooding_ +(מְרַחֶפֶת) is generally considered to rest on the widespread cosmogonic +speculation of the world-egg (so even Delitzsch and Dillmann), in +which the organised world was as it were hatched from the fluid chaos. +If so, we have here a fragment of mythology not vitally connected +with the main idea of the narrative, but introduced for the sake of +its religious suggestiveness. In the source from which this myth was +borrowed the brooding power might be a bird-like deity¹ (Gunkel), or an +abstract principle like the Greek Ἔρως, the Phœnician Πόθος, etc.: for +this the Hebrew writer, true to his monotheistic faith, substitutes the +Spirit of God, and thereby transforms a “crude material representation +... into a beautiful and suggestive figure” (Driver _The Book of +Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 5). + + ¹ In Polynesian mythology the supreme god Tangaloa is + often represented as a bird hovering over the waters + (Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturvölker_ vi. 241). + + The conceptions of chaos in antiquity fluctuate between that + of empty space (Hesiod, Aristotle, Lucretius, etc.) and the + ‘rudis indigestaque moles’ of Ovid (_Metamorphoses _ i. 7). + The Babylonian representation embraces the elements of darkness + and water, and there is no doubt that this is the central idea + of the Genesis narrative. It is singular, however, that of the + three clauses of verse ² only the second (which includes the two + elements mentioned) exercises any influence on the subsequent + description (for on any view the ‘waters’ of the third must + be identical with the _Tĕhôm_ of the second). It is possible, + therefore, that the verse combines ideas drawn from diverse + sources which are not capable of complete synthesis. Only + on this supposition would it be possible to accept Gunkel’s + interpretation of the first clause as a description of empty + space. In that case _the earth_ is probably not inclusive + of, but contrasted with, _Tĕhôm_: it denotes the space _now_ + occupied by the earth, which being empty leaves nothing but the + deep and the darkness. + + * * * * * + + =2.= תהו ובהו] LXX ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος; Aquila κένωμα καὶ + οὐθέν; Symmachus ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον; Theodotion κενὸν (or + οὐθὲν) καὶ οὐθὲν; Vulgate _inanis et vacua_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + צדיא וריקניא (‘desolate and empty’); Peshiṭtå (‡ 2 Syriac words). + The fragmentary Jerome Targum has a double translation: “And the + earth was תהיא ובהיא, and (compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ) _desolate_ from + the sons of men, and _empty_ of work.” תהו occurs along with בהו + in Jeremiah 4²³, Isaiah 34¹¹; תהו alone in 17 passages besides. + The meaning varies between two extremes: (a) a (trackless) + _desert_ (Job 12²⁴ [= Psalms 107⁴⁰] 6¹⁸, Deuteronomy 32¹⁰), and + (b) _unsubstantiality_ (שאין לו ממש, Abraham Ibn Ezra) or ‘nonentity,’ + a sense all but peculiar to II Isaiah (also 1 Samuel 12²¹, + and _perhaps_ Isaiah 29²¹), but very frequent there. The primary + idea is uncertain. It is perhaps easier on the whole to suppose + that the abstract sense of ‘formlessness,’ or the like, gave + rise to a poetic name for desert, than that the concrete + ‘desert’ passed over into the abstract ‘formlessness’; but we + have no assurance that either represents the actual development + of the idea. It seems not improbable that the Old Testament + usage is entirely based on the traditional description of the + primæval chaos, and that the word had no definite connotation + in Hebrew, but was used to express any conception naturally + associated with the idea of chaos――‘formlessness,’ ‘confusion,’ + ‘unreality,’ etc.――בהו] (never found apart from תהו) may be + connected with _bahiya_ = ‘be empty’; though Aramaic is hardly + a safe guide in the case of a word with a long history behind + it. The identification with Βααυ, the mother of the first man + in Phœnician mythology (see page 49 f.), is probable.――תהום] is + undoubtedly the philological equivalent of Babylonian _Ti’āmat_: + a connexion with Aramaic _Tihāmat_, the Red Sea littoral + province (Hoffmann in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, iii. 118), is more dubious (see Lane, 320 b, c; + Jensen, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 560). In early + Hebrew the word is rare, and always (with possible exception + of Exodus 15⁵ᐧ ⁸) denotes the subterranean ocean, which is the + source from which earthly springs and fountains are fed (Genesis + 49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³, Amos 7⁴, and so Deuteronomy 8⁷, Genesis + 7¹¹ 8² (Priestly-Code); compare Homer _Iliad_ xxi. 195), and + is a remnant of the primal chaos (Genesis 1², Psalms 104⁶, + Proverbs 8²⁷). In later writings it is used of the sea (plural, + seas), and even of torrents of water (Psalms 42⁸); but, the + passages being poetic, there is probably always to be detected + a reference to the world-ocean, either as source of springs, + or as specialised in earthly oceans (see Ezekiel 26¹⁹). Though + the word is almost confined to poetry (except Genesis 1² + 7¹¹ 8², Deuteronomy 8⁷, Amos 7⁴), the only clear cases of + personification are Genesis 49²⁵, Deuteronomy 33¹³ (_Tĕhôm_ that + coucheth beneath). The invariable absence of the article (except + with plural in Psalms 106⁹, Isaiah 63¹³) proves that it is a + proper name, but _not_ that it is a personification (compare + the case of שְׁאוֹל). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that תהום, + unlike most Hebrew names of fluids, is feminine, becoming + occasionally masculine only in later times when its primary + sense had been forgotten (compare Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvi. 62): this might be + due to an original female personification.――מרחפת] Greek Versions + and Vulgate express merely the idea of motion (ἐπεφέρετο, + ἐπιφερόμενον, _ferebatur_); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ מנשבא (‘blow’ or + ‘breathe’); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). Jerome (_Quæstiones sive + Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_): “incubabat sive confovebat in + similitudinem volucris ova calore animantis.” It is impossible + to say whether ‘brood’ or ‘hover’ is the exact image here, or + in Deuteronomy 32¹¹,――the only other place where the Piel occurs + (the Qal in Jeremiah 23⁹ may be a separate root). The Syriac + verb has great latitude of meaning; it describes, _e.g._, the + action of Elisha in laying himself on the body of the dead + child (2 Kings 4³⁴); and is used of angels _hovering_ over the + dying Virgin. It is also applied to a waving of the hands (or of + fans) in certain ecclesiastical functions, etc. (see Payne Smith, + _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3886). + + * * * * * + +=3‒5. First work: Creation of light.=――_[And] God said_] On the +connexion, see above, pages 13 ff.; and on the significance of the +_fiat_, page 7.――_Let there be light_] The thought of light as the +first creation, naturally suggested by the phenomenon of the dawn, +appears in several cosmogonies; but is not expressed in any known form +of the Babylonian legend. There the creator, being the sun-god, is +in a manner identified with the primal element of the kosmos; and the +antithesis of light and darkness is dramatised as a conflict between +the god and the Chaos monster. In Persian cosmogony also, light, as +the sphere in which Mazda dwells, is uncreated and eternal (Tiele, +_Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_ ii. 295 f.). In Isaiah 45⁷ both +light and darkness are creations of Yahwe, but that is certainly not +the idea here. Compare Milton’s _Paradise Lost_, iii. 1 ff.: + + “Hail, holy Light! offspring of heaven first-born; + Or, of the Eternal co-eternal beam,” etc. + + * * * * * + + =3.= ויהי אור corresponds to the ויהי כן of subsequent acts. + + * * * * * + +=4.= _saw that the light was good_] The formula of approval does +not extend to the darkness, nor even to the coexistence of light +and darkness, but is restricted to the light. “Good” expresses the +contrast of God’s work to the chaos of which darkness is an element. +Gunkel goes too far in suggesting that the expression covers a ‘strong +anthropomorphism’ (the possibility of failure, happily overcome). But +he rightly calls attention to the bright view of the world implied +in the series of approving verdicts, as opposed to the pessimistic +estimate which became common in later Judaism.――_And God divided, +etc._]. To us these words merely suggest alternation in time; but +Hebrew conceives of a _spatial_ distinction of light and darkness, each +in its own ‘place’ or abode (Job 38¹⁹ ᶠᐧ). Even the separate days and +nights of the year seem thought of as having independent and continuous +existence (Job 3⁶). + + The Hebrew mind had thus no difficulty in thinking of the + existence of light before the heavenly bodies. The sun and + moon _rule_ the day and night, but light and darkness exist + independently of them. It is a mistake, however, to compare + this with the scientific hypothesis of a cosmical light diffused + through the nebula from which the solar system was evolved. + It is not merely light and darkness, but day and night, and + even the alternation of evening and morning (verse ⁵), that + are represented as existing before the creation of the sun. + + * * * * * + + =4.= האור כי טוב ] with attracted object: see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 117 _h_; Davidson § 146. + + * * * * * + +=5.= _And God called, etc._] The name――that by which the thing is +summoned into the field of thought――belongs to the full existence of +the thing itself. So in the first line of the Babylonian account, “the +heaven was not yet named” means that it did not yet exist.――_And it +became evening, etc._] Simple as the words are, the sentence presents +some difficulty, which is not removed by the supposition that the +writer follows the Jewish custom of reckoning the day from sunset to +sunset (Tuch, Gunkel, Bennett, etc.). The Jewish day may have begun +at sunset, but it did not end at sunrise; and it is impossible to take +the words as meaning that the evening and morning _formed_ the first +(second, etc.) day. Moreover, there could be no evening before the +day on which light was created. The sentence must refer to the _close_ +of the first day with the first evening and the night that followed, +leading the mind forward to the advent of a new day, and a new display +of creative power (Delitzsch, Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). One must not +overlook the majestic simplicity of the statement. + + The interpretation of יום as _æon_, a favourite resource of + harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain + sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Hebrew usage (not + even Psalms 90⁴). It is true that the conception of successive + creative periods, extending over vast spaces of time, is found + in other cosmogonies (Delitzsch 55); but it springs in part + from views of the world which are foreign to the Old Testament. + To introduce that idea here not only destroys the analogy on + which the sanction of the sabbath rests, but misconceives the + character of the Priestly Code. If the writer had had æons in + his mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating + how many millenniums each embraced. + + * * * * * + + =5.= יום in popular parlance denotes the period between dawn and + dark, and is so used in ⁵ᵃ. When it became necessary to deal + with the 24-hours’ day, it was most natural to connect the night + with the _preceding_ period of light, reckoning, _i.e._, from + sunrise to sunrise; and this is the prevailing usage of Old + Testament (יום ולילה). In post-exilic times we find traces of the + reckoning from sunset to sunset in the phrase לילה ויום (νυχθήμερον), + Isaiah 27³ 34¹⁰, Esther 4¹⁶. Priestly-Code regularly employs the + form ‘day and night’; and if Leviticus 23³² can be cited as a + case of the later reckoning, Exodus 12¹⁸ is as clearly in favour + of the older (see Marti, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1036; König, + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lx. + 605 ff.). There is therefore no presumption in favour of the + less natural method in this passage.――קָ֫רָא] _Mil‛el_, to avoid + concurrence of two accented syllables.――♦לַ֫יְלָה] (also _Mil‛el_) + a reduplicated form (לַיְלַי; compare Aramaic ליליא): see Nöldeke, + _Mandäische Grammatik_ § 109; Prätorius, _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 218; König ii. § 52 c.――יום + אחד] ‘a first day,’ or perhaps better ‘one day.’ On אהד as ordinal, + see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 98 _a_, 134 _p_; Davidson § 38, _R._ 1; + but compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 387. + + ♦ “לַיְ֫לָה” replaced with “לַ֫יְלָה” + + * * * * * + +=6‒8. Second work: The firmament.=――The second fiat calls into +existence a _firmament_, whose function is to divide the primæval +waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as +the theatre of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the +dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a +material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Psalms +104¹³, Amos 9⁶) supported by “pillars” (Job 26¹¹), and resembling in +its surface a “molten mirror” (Job 37¹⁸). Above this are the heavenly +waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” +(Genesis 7¹¹ 8², 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹) opened and shut by God at His pleasure +(Psalms 78²³). The general idea of a forcible separation of heaven and +earth is widely diffused; it is perhaps embodied in our word ‘heaven’ +(from _heave?_) and Old English ‘lift.’ A graphic illustration of +it is found in Egyptian pictures, where the god Shu is seen holding +aloft, with outstretched arms, the dark star-spangled figure of the +heaven-goddess, while the earth-god lies prostrate beneath (see +Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 7).¹ +But the special form in which it appears here is perhaps not fully +intelligible apart from the Babylonian creation-myth, and the climatic +phenomena on which it is based (see below, page 46). + + ¹ Compare also the Maori myth reported in Waitz, _Anthropologie + der Naturvölker_ vi. 245 ff.; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, 45 ff. + + Another interpretation of the firmament has recently been + propounded (Winckler, _Himmels- und Weltbild der Babylonier_, + 25 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 164, + 174) which identifies it with the Babylonian _šupuk šamē_, and + explains both of the Zodiac. The view seems based on the highly + artificial Babylonian theory of a point-for-point correspondence + between heaven and earth, according to which the Zodiac + represents a heavenly earth, the northern heavens a heavenly + heaven (atmospheric), and the southern a heavenly ocean. But + whatever be the truth about _šupuk šamē_, such a restriction + of the meaning of רקיע is inadmissible in Hebrew. In Psalms + 19², Daniel 12³ it might be possible; but even there it is + unnecessary, and in almost every other case it is absolutely + excluded. It is so emphatically in this chapter, where the + firmament is _named_ heaven, and birds (whose flight is not + restricted to 10° on either side of the ecliptic) are said to + fly ‘in front of the firmament.’ + + * * * * * + + =6.= רָקִיעַ] (LXX στερέωμα, Vulgate _firmamentum_) a word found + only in Ezekiel, Priestly-Code, Psalms 19² 150¹, Daniel 12³. The + absence of article shows that it is a _descriptive_ term, though + the only parallels to such a use would be Ezekiel 1²² ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ + 10¹ (compare Phœnician מרקע = ‘dish’ [_Blechschale_]: _Corpus + Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i. 90¹; see Lidzbarski 370, 421). + The idea is _solidity_, not thinness or extension: the sense + ‘beat thin’ belongs to the Piel (Exodus 39³ etc.); and this + noun is formed from the Qal, which means either (intransitive) + to ‘stamp with the foot’ (Ezekiel 6¹¹), or (transitive), ‘stamp + firm,’ ‘consolidate’ (Isaiah 42⁵ etc.). It is curious that the + verb is used of the creation of the earth, never of heaven, + except Job 37¹⁸.――ויחי מבדיל] on participle expressing permanence, + see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ + § 135, 5.――בֵּין־לְ: König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der + hebräischen Sprache_ § 319 n.――וַיַּבְדֵּל] LXX supplies as subject + ὁ θεός.――=7.= ויהי כן] transposed in LXX to end of verse ⁶, its + normal position,――if indeed it be not a gloss in both places + (Wellhausen).――=8.= LXX also inserts here the formula of + approval: on its omission in Hebrew, see above, pages 8, 9. + + * * * * * + +=9, 10. Third work: Dry land and sea.=――The shoreless lower ocean, +which remained at the close of the second day, is now replaced by +land and sea in their present configuration. The expressions used: +_gathered together ... appear_――seem to imply that the earth already +existed as a solid mass covered with water, as in Psalms 104⁵ᐧ ⁶; but +Dillmann thinks the language not inconsistent with the idea of a muddy +mixture of earth and water, as is most naturally suggested by verse ². +Henceforth the only remains of the original chaos are the subterranean +waters (commonly called _Tĕhôm_, but in Psalms 24² ‘sea’ and ‘streams’), +and the circumfluent ocean on which the heaven rests (Job 26¹⁰, Psalms +139⁹, Proverbs 8²⁷), of which, however, earthly seas are parts. + + Wellhausen’s argument, that verses ⁶⁻¹⁰ are the account of a + single work (above, page 9 f.), is partly anticipated by Abraham + Ibn Ezra, who points out that what is here described is no true + creation, but only a manifestation of what was before hidden and + a gathering of what was dispersed. On the ground that earth and + heaven were made on one day (2⁴), he is driven to take ויאמר as + pluperfect, and assign verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ to the second day. Some such + idea may have dictated the omission of the formula of approval + at the close of the second day’s work. + + * * * * * + + =9.= יִקָּווּ] in this sense, only Jeremiah 3¹⁷. For מָקוֹם read with LXX + מִקְוֶה = ‘gathering-place,’ as in verse ¹⁰. Nestle (_Marginalien + und Materialien_, 3) needlessly suggests for the latter + מִקְרֶה, and for יקוו, יִקָּרוּ.――מִתַּחַת] not ‘from under’ but simply + ‘under’ (see verse ¹⁰); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _c_².――וְתֵרָאֶה] + jussive unapocopated, as often near the principal pause; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _a_.――At the end of the verse LXX adds: + καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς + αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά: _i.e._ וַיִּקָּווּ הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מִקְוֵיהֶם וַתֵּרָא הַיַּבָּשָׁה. + The addition is adopted by Ball, and the plural αὐτῶν proves at + least that it rests on a Hebrew original, ὕδωρ being singular + in Greek (Wellhausen).――=10.= יַמִּים] the plural (compare Genesis + 49¹³, Deuteronomy 33¹⁹, Psalms 46³ ᶠᐧ [where it is construed + as singular] 24² etc.) is mostly poetic and late prose; it is + probably not numerical, but plural of extension like מַיִם, שָׁמַיִם, + and therefore to be rendered as singular. + + * * * * * + +=11‒13. Fourth work: Creation of plants.=――The appearing of the earth +is followed on the same day, not inappropriately, by the origination +of vegetable life. The earth itself is conceived as endowed with +productive power――a recognition of the principle of development not +to be explained as a mere imparting of the power of annual renewal +(Dillmann); see to the contrary verse ¹² compared with verse ²⁴.――=11.= +_Let the earth produce verdure_] דֶּשֶׁא means ‘fresh young herbage,’ and +appears _here_ to include all plants in the earliest stages of their +growth; hence the classification of flora is not _three_fold――grass, +herbs, trees (Dillmann, Driver, al.)――but _two_fold, the generic דשא +including the two kinds עֵשֶׂב and עֵץ (Delitzsch, Gunkel, Holzinger, etc.). +The distinction is based on the methods of reproduction; the one kind +producing seed merely, the other fruit which contains the seed.――The +verse continues (amending with the help of LXX): _grass producing +seed after its kind, and fruit-tree producing fruit in which_ +(_i.e._ the fruit) _is its_ (the tree’s) _seed after its_ (the tree’s) +_kind_.――_after its kind_] _v.i._――_upon the earth_] comes in very +awkwardly; it is difficult to find any suitable point of attachment +except with the principal verb, which, however, is too remote. + + * * * * * + + =11.= תַּֽדְשֵׁא דֶּשֶׁא] literally ‘vegetate vegetation,’ the noun being + accusative cognate with the verb.――תַּֽ׳ is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; on the + pointing with _Metheg_ (Baer-Delitzsch page 74) see König i. + § 42, 7. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) must have read תוצא as verse + ¹².――דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב] LXX (βοτάνην χόρτου) and Vulgate treat the words as + in annexion, contrary to the accents and the usage of the terms. + It is impossible to define them with scientific precision; and + the twofold classification given above――herb and tree――is more + or less precarious. It recurs, however, in Exodus 9²⁵ 10¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ + (all Yahwist), and the reasons for rejecting the other are, + first, the absence of וְ before עשב; and, second, the syntactic + consideration that דשא as cognate accusative may be presumed to + define completely the action of the verb.――דשׁא denotes especially + fresh juicy herbage¹ (Proverbs 27²⁵) and those grasses which + never to appearance get beyond that stage. עשב, on the other + hand (unlike דּ׳), is used of human food, and therefore includes + cultivated plants (the cereals, etc.) (Psalms 104¹⁴).――עץ] + read וִעֵץ with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, and 3 Hebrew MSS (Ball).――למינו, למינהו] On + form of suffix see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _d_. LXX in verse ¹¹ + inserts the word after זרע (rendering strangely κατὰ γένος καὶ + καθ’ ὁμοιότητα,――and so verse ¹²), and later in the verse (κατὰ + γένος εἰς ὁμοιότητα) transposes as indicated in the translation + above.――מין] a characteristic word of Priestly-Code, found + elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 14¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (from Leviticus + 11), and (dubiously) Ezekiel 47¹⁰,――everywhere with suffix. The + etymology is uncertain. If connected with תְּמוּנָה (form, likeness), + the meaning would be ‘form’ (Latin, _species_); but in usage + it seems to mean simply ‘kind,’ the singular suffix here + being distributive: “according to its several kinds.” In + Syriac the corresponding word denotes a family or tribe. For + another view, see Friedrich Delitzsch, _Prolegomena eines + neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ + 143 f.――=12.= ותוצא] One is tempted to substitute the rare ותדשא + as in verse ¹¹ (so Ball).――After עץ LXX adds פרי: Ball deletes the + פרי in verse ¹¹. + + ¹ In Aramaic this sense is said to belong to _‛ušb_, but Hebrew + עשׂב has no such restriction. + + * * * * * + +=14‒19. Fifth work: The heavenly luminaries.=――On the parallelism +with the first day’s work see above, page 8 f. The verses describe +only the creation of sun and moon; the clause _and the stars_ in +verse ¹⁶ appears to be an addition (_v.i._). The whole conception +is as unscientific (in the modern sense) as it could be――(a) in its +geocentric standpoint, (b) in making the distinction of day and night +prior to the sun, (c) in putting the creation of the vegetable world +before that of the heavenly bodies. Its religious significance, however, +is very great, inasmuch as it marks the advance of Hebrew thought from +the heathen notion of the stars to a pure monotheism. To the ancient +world, and the Babylonians in particular, the heavenly bodies were +animated beings, and the more conspicuous of them were associated or +identified with the gods. The idea of them as an animated host occurs +in Hebrew poetry (Judges 5²⁰, Isaiah 40²⁶, Job 38⁷ etc.); but here +it is entirely eliminated, the heavenly bodies being reduced to mere +_luminaries_, i.e. either embodiments of light or perhaps simply +‘lamps’ (_v.i._). It is possible, as Gunkel thinks, that a remnant +of the old astrology lurks in the word _dominion_; but whereas +in Babylonia the stars ruled over human affairs in general, their +influence here is restricted to that which obviously depends on them, +viz. the alternation of day and night, the festivals, etc. Compare +Job 38³³, Psalms 136⁷⁻⁹ (Jeremiah 31³⁵). It is noteworthy that this +is the only work of creation of which the purpose is elaborately +specified.――_luminaries_ (מְא[וֹ]רֹת)] _i.e._ bearers or embodiments of +light. The word is used most frequently of the sevenfold light of +the tabernacle (Exodus 25⁶ etc.); and to speak of it as expressing a +markedly prosaic view of the subject (Gunkel) is misleading.――_in the +firmament, etc._] moving in prescribed paths on its lower surface. +This, however, does not justify the interpretation of רקיע as the Zodiac +(above, page 22).――_to separate between the day, etc._]. Day and night +are independent entities; but they are now put under the _rule_ of +the heavenly bodies, as their respective spheres of influence (Psalms +121⁶).――_for signs and for seasons, etc._] מוֹעֲדִים (seasons) appears never +(certainly not in Priestly-Code) to be used of the natural seasons +of the year (Hosea 2¹¹, Jeremiah 8⁷ are figurative), but always of +a time conventionally agreed upon (see Exodus 9⁵), or fixed by some +circumstance. The commonest application is to the _sacred seasons_ of +the ecclesiastical year, which are fixed by the moon (compare Psalms +104¹⁹). If the natural seasons are excluded, this seems the only +possible sense here; and Priestly-Code’s predilection for matters +of cultus makes the explanation plausible.――אֹתֹת (signs) is more +difficult, and none of the explanations given is entirely satisfactory +(_v.i._).――=16.= _for dominion over the day ... night_] in the sense +explained above; and so verse ¹⁸.――_and the stars_] Since the writer +seems to avoid on principle the everyday names of the objects, and to +describe them by their nature and the functions they serve, the clause +is probably a gloss (but _v.i._). On the other hand, it would be too +bold an expedient to supply an express naming of the planets after the +analogy of the first three works (Tuch). + + The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies + is confused, and suggests overworking (Holzinger). The clauses + which most excite suspicion are the two beginning with והיו (the + difficult ¹⁴ᵇ and ¹⁵ᵃ{α});――note in particular the awkward + repetition of למארות וגו׳. The functions are stated with perfect + clearness in ¹⁶⁻¹⁸: (a) to give light upon the earth, (b) to + rule day and night, and (c) to separate light from darkness. I + am disposed to think that ¹⁴ᵇ was introduced as an exposition + of the idea of the verb משׁל, and that ¹⁵ᵃ{α} was then added to + restore the connexion. Not much importance can be attached to + the insertions of LXX (_v.i._), which may be borrowed from verse + ¹⁷ ᶠᐧ. + + * * * * * + + =14.= יהי מארת] (∥ יהי אור in verse ³). On the breach of concord, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _o_; Davidson § 113 _b_.――מאור] a late + word, is used of heavenly bodies in Ezekiel 32⁸, Psalms 74¹⁶; + it never means ‘lamp’ exactly, but is often applied collectively + to the seven-armed lampstand of the tabernacle; once it is used + of the eyes (Proverbs 15³⁰), and once of the divine countenance + (Psalms 90⁸).――ברקיע הש׳] the genitive is not partitive but + explicative: Davidson § 24 (_a_).――LXX inserts at this point: + εἰς φαῦσιν τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἄρχειν τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς, + καί.――לאתת] In Jeremiah 10² אתות השמים are astrological portents + such as the heathen fear, and that is commonly taken as the + meaning here, though it is not quite easy to believe the writer + would have said the sun and moon were _made_ for this purpose.¹ + If we take אֹת in its ordinary sense of ‘token’ or ‘indication,’ + we might suppose it defined by the words which follow. Tuch + obtains a connexion by making the double ו = _both ... and_ + (“as signs, both for [sacred] seasons and for days and years”): + others by a _hendiadys_ (“signs _of_ seasons”). It would be less + violent to render the first ו _und zwar_ (_videlicet_): “as signs, + _and that_ for seasons,” etc.; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._ וְ + 1. b, where some of the examples come, at any rate, very near the + sense proposed. Olshausen arrives at the same sense by reading + לְמוֹ׳ simply (_Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie + der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, 1870, 380).――=16.= ואת הכ׳] Driver + (_Hebrew_ ii. 33) renders “and the lesser light, as also the + stars, to rule,” etc. The construction is not abnormal; but + would the writer have said that the stars rule the night?――=18.= + וּֽלְהַבדיל] On the comparative sheva see König i. § 10, 6 e. + + ¹ The prophetic passages cited by Driver (_The Book of Genesis + with Introduction and Notes_ 10¹) all contemplate a reversal + of the order of nature, and cannot safely be appealed to as + illustrations of its normal functions. + + * * * * * + +=20‒23. Sixth work: Aquatic and aërial animals.=――_Let the waters +swarm with swarming things――living creatures, and let fowl fly, etc._] +The conjunction of two distinct forms of life under one creative act +has led Gunkel to surmise that two originally separate works have been +combined in order to bring the whole within the scheme of six days. +Bennett (rendering _and fowl that may fly_) thinks the author was +probably influenced by some ancient tradition that birds as well +as fishes were produced by the water (so Rashi and Abraham Ibn Ezra +on 2¹⁹). The conjecture is attractive, and the construction has the +support of all Greek versions and Vulgate; but it is not certain that +the verb can mean “_produce_ a swarm.” More probably (in connexions +like the present: see Exodus 7²⁸ [Yahwist] [English Version 8³], +Psalms 105³⁰) the sense is simply _teem with_, indicating the place +or element in which the swarming creatures abound, in which case it +cannot possibly govern עוֹף as objective.――שֶׁרֶץ has a sense something like +‘vermin’: _i.e._ it never denotes ‘a swarm,’ but is always used of the +creatures that appear in swarms (_v.i._).――נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה] literally, ‘living +soul’; used here collectively, and with the sense of נפש weakened, as +often, to ‘individual’ or ‘being’ (contrast verse ³⁰ and see on 2⁷). +The creation of the aquatic animals marks, according to Old Testament +ideas, the first appearance of life on the earth, for life is nowhere +predicated of the vegetable kingdom.――_over the earth in front of +the firmament_] _i.e._ in the atmosphere, for which Hebrew has no +special name.――=21.= _created_] indistinguishable from _made_ in +verse ²⁵.――_the great sea monsters_] The introduction of this new +detail in the execution of the fiat is remarkable. הַתַּנִינִם here denotes +actual marine animals; but this is almost the only passage where it +_certainly_ bears that sense (Psalms 148⁷). There are strong traces of +mythology in the usage of the word: Isaiah 27¹ 51⁹ (Gunkel _Schöpfung +und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30‒33), Psalms 74¹³(?); and it may +have been originally the name of a class of legendary monsters like +Ti’āmat. The mythological interpretation lingered in Jewish exegetical +tradition (see below).――=22.= _And God blessed them, etc._] In +contrast with the plants, whose reproductive powers are included in +their creation (verse ¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), these living beings are endowed with +the right of self-propagation by a separate act――a benediction (see +verse ²⁸). The distinction is natural.――_be fruitful, etc._] “There is +nothing to indicate that only a single pair of each kind was originally +produced” (Bennett); the language rather suggests that whole species, +in something like their present multitude, were created. + + * * * * * + + =20.= ישרצו ... שרץ] On syntax see Davidson § 73, _R._ 2. The root + has in Aramaic the sense of ‘creep,’ and there are many passages + in Old Testament where that idea would be appropriate (Leviticus + 11²⁹ᐧ ⁴¹⁻⁴³ etc.); hence Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the + Religion of the Semites_², 293), ‘creeping vermin generally.’ + But here and Genesis 8¹⁷ 9⁷, Exodus 1⁷ 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ it + can only mean ‘teem’ or ‘swarm’; and Driver (_Genesis_ 12) is + probably right in extending that meaning to all the passages + in Hebrew Genesis 1²⁰ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 7²⁸, Psalms 105³⁰ are the only + places where the construct with cognitive accusative appears; + elsewhere the animals themselves are subject of the verb. The + words, except in three passages, are peculiar to the vocabulary + of Priestly-Code.――But for the fact that שֶׁרָץ never means ‘swarm,’ + but always ‘swarming thing,’ it would be tempting to take it as + construct state before נפש חיה (LXX, Aquila, Vulgate). As it is, + נ׳ ח׳ has all the awkwardness of a gloss (see 2¹⁹). The phrase is + applied once to man, 2⁷ (Yahwist); elsewhere to animals,――mostly + in Priestly-Code (Genesis 1²¹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³⁰ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶, Leviticus + 11¹⁰ᐧ ⁴⁶ etc.).――ועוף יעופף] The order of words as in verse ²² + (והעוף ירב), due to emphasis on the new subject. The use of + descriptive imperfect (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, + Vulgate) is mostly poetic, and for reasons given above must here + be refused.――על פני] = ‘in front of’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s._ + פנה, II. 7, a,――LXX inserts ויהי כן at the end of the verse.――=21.= + התנינם] It is naturally difficult to determine exactly how far + the Hebrew usage of the word is coloured by mythology. The + important point is that it represents a power hostile to God, + not only in the passages cited above, but also in Job 7¹². + There are resemblances in the Aramaic _tinnīn_, a fabulous + amphibious monster, appearing now on land and now in the sea + (personification of the waterspout? _Lectures on the Religion of + the Semites_², 176), concerning which the Arabian cosmographers + have many wonderful tales to relate (Mas‛ūdī, i. 263, 266 ff.; + Kazwīnī, Ethé’s translation i. 270 ff.). Rashi, after explaining + literally, adds by way of Haggada that these are ‘Leviathan and + his consort,’ who were created male and female, but the female + was killed and salted for the righteous in the coming age, + because if they had multiplied the world would not have stood + before them (compare Enoch 60⁷⁻⁹, 4 Esdras 6⁴⁹⁻⁵², _Bereshith + Rabba_ chapter 7).¹――ואת כל־נפש הח׳ Compare 9¹⁰, Leviticus 11¹⁰; נ׳ + though without article is really determined by כל (but see + Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209 + (1)).――אשר שרצו] א׳, accusative of definition, as שֶׁרֶץ in verse + ²⁰.――=22.= פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ] highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (only 3 times + elsewhere). + + ¹ In Babylonian _tannînu_ is said to be a mythological + designation of the earth (Jensen _Die Kosmologie der + Babylonier_ 161; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 136⁷; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ + 109²⁴); but that throws no light on Hebrew. + + * * * * * + +=24, 25. Seventh work: Terrestrial animals.=――=24.= _Let the +earth bring forth living creatures_] נפש חיה (again collectively) is +here a generic name for _land_ animals, being restricted by what +precedes――‘living animals that spring from the earth.’ Like the plants +(verse ¹²), they are boldly said to be produced by the earth, their +bodies being part of the earth’s substance (2⁷ᐧ ¹⁹); this could not be +said of fishes in relation to the water, and hence a different form +of expression had to be employed in verse ²⁰.――The classification of +animals (best arranged in verse ²⁵) is threefold: (1) wild animals, +חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ (roughly, _carnivora_); (2) domesticated animals, בְּהֵמָה +(_herbivora_); (3) reptiles, רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, including perhaps creeping +insects and very small quadrupeds (see Driver _A Dictionary of the +Bible_, i. 518). A somewhat similar threefold division appears in +a Babylonian tablet――‘cattle of the field, beasts of the field and +creatures of the city’ (Jensen _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. +1, 42 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ 112 f.).――=25.= _God +saw that it was good_] The formula distinctly marks the separation of +this work from the creation of man, which follows on the same day. The +absence of a benediction corresponding to verses ²²ᐧ ²⁸ is surprising, +but it is idle to speculate on the reason. + + * * * * * + + =24.= The distinctions noted above are not strictly observed + throughout the Old Testament. בהמה (from a root signifying ‘be + dumb’――Aramaic and Ethiopic) denotes collectively, _first_, + animals as distinguished from man (Exodus 9¹⁹ etc.), but chiefly + the larger mammals; _then_, domestic animals (the dumb creatures + with which man has most to do), (Genesis 34²³ 36⁶ etc.). Of + _wild_ animals specially it is seldom used alone (Deuteronomy + 32²⁴, Habakkuk 2¹⁷), but sometimes with an addition (אֶרֶץ, שָׂדֶה, + יַעַר) which marks the unusual reference. As a noun of unity, + Nehemiah 2 ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴. See Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._――חַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ] an + archaic phrase in which וֹ represents the old case ending of the + nominative, _u_ or _um_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 90 _n_). So Psalms + 79²; חיתו in other combinations Isaiah 56⁹, Zephaniah 2¹⁴, Psalms + 104¹¹; Psalms 50¹⁰ 104²⁰. In sense it is exactly the same as the + commoner חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ 1²⁵ᐧ ³⁰ 9²ᐧ ¹⁰ etc.), and usually denotes _wild_ + animals, though sometimes animals in general (ζῶον).――רמש and שרץ + naturally overlap; but the first name is derived from the manner + of movement, and the second from the tendency to swarm (Driver + _l.c._). + + * * * * * + +=26‒28. Eighth work: Creation of man.=――As the narrative approaches its +climax, the style loses something of its terse rigidity, and reveals +a strain of poetic feeling which suggests that the passage is moulded +on an ancient creation hymn (Gunkel). The distinctive features of +this last work are: (a) instead of the simple jussive we have the +cohortative of either self-deliberation or consultation with other +divine beings; (b) in contrast to the lower animals, which are made +each after its kind or type, man is made in the image of God; (c) man +is designated as the head of creation by being charged with the rule of +the earth and all the living creatures hitherto made.――=26.= _Let us +make man_] The difficulty of the 1st person plural has always been felt. + + Amongst the Jews an attempt was made to get rid of it by + reading נַֽעֲשֶׂה as participle Niphal――a view the absurd grammatical + consequences of which are trenchantly exposed by Abraham Ibn + Ezra. The older Christian commentaries generally find in the + expression an allusion to the Trinity (so even Calvin); but that + doctrine is entirely unknown to the Old Testament, and cannot + be implied here. In modern times it has sometimes been explained + as plural of self-deliberation (Tuch), or after the analogy of + the ‘we’ of royal edicts; but Dillmann has shown that neither is + consistent with native Hebrew idiom. Dillmann himself regards it + as based on the idea of God expressed by the plural אלהים, as ‘the + living personal synthesis of a fulness of powers and forces’ (so + Driver); but that philosophic rendering of the concept of deity + appears to be foreign to the theology of the Old Testament. + + * * * * * + + =26.= בצלמנו כדמותנו] LXX κατ’ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν. + _Mechilta_ (see above, page 14), gives as LXX’s reading + בצלם ובדמות.――On the בְּ ‘of a model,’ compare Exodus 25⁴⁰; + Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ III. 8.――צלם] Assyrian _ṣalmu_, + the technical expression for the statue of a god (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 476³); Aramaic and + Syrian צַלְמָא, = ‘image’; the root is not _ẓalima_, ‘be dark,’ + but possibly _ṣalama_, ‘cut off’ (Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 185 f.). The idea of + ‘pattern’ or ‘model’ is confined to the Priestly-Code passages + cited above; it stands intermediate between the concrete sense + just noted (an artificial material reproduction: 1 Samuel 6⁵ + etc.) and another still more abstract, viz. ‘an unreal + semblance’ (Psalms 39⁷ 73²⁰).――דְּמוּת is the abstract noun + _resemblance_; but also used concretely (2 Chronicles 4³, + like Syrian (‡ Syriac word); Aramaic _dumyat_ = ‘effigy.’ The + ו is radical (form דִּמְוַת, compare Aramaic); hence the ending וּת + is no proof of Aramaic influence (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur + Geschichte Israels_⁵ 388); see Driver _The Journal of Philology_ + xi. 216.――ובכל־הארץ] Insert חַיַּת with Peshiṭtå (_v.s._). Other + versions agree with Massoretic Text. + + * * * * * + +The most natural and most widely accepted explanation is that God +is here represented as taking counsel with divine beings other +than Himself, viz. the angels or host of heaven: compare 3²² 11⁷, +Isaiah 6⁸, 1 Kings 22¹⁹⁻²² (so Philo, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, +Delitzsch, Holzinger, Gunkel, Bennett, al.). Dillmann objects to this +interpretation, _first_, that it ascribes to angels some share in +the creation of man, which is contrary to scriptural doctrine;¹ and, +_second_, that the very existence of angels is nowhere alluded to +by Priestly-Code at all. There is force in these considerations; and +probably the ultimate explanation has to be sought in a pre-Israelite +stage of the tradition (such as is represented by the Babylonian +account: see below, page 46), where a polytheistic view of man’s +origin found expression. This would naturally be replaced in a Hebrew +recension by the idea of a heavenly council of angels, as in 1 Kings +22, Job 1, 38⁷, Daniel 4¹⁴ 7¹⁰ etc. That Priestly-Code retained the +idea in spite of his silence as to the existence of angels is due to +the fact that it was decidedly less anthropomorphic than the statement +that man was made in the image of the one incomparable Deity.――_in our +image, according to our likeness_] The general idea of likeness between +God and man frequently occurs in classical literature, and sometimes +the very term of this verse (εἰκών, _ad imaginem_) is employed. To +speak of it, therefore, as “the distinctive feature of the Bible +doctrine concerning man” is an exaggeration; although it is true that +such expressions on the plane of heathenism import much less than in +the religion of Israel (Dillmann). The idea in this precise form is in +the Old Testament peculiar to Priestly-Code (5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶); the conception, +but not the expression, appears in Psalms 8⁶: later biblical examples +are Sirach 17³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Wisdom 2²³ (where the ‘image’ is equivalent to +immortality), 1 Corinthians 11⁷, Colossians 3¹⁰, Ephesians 4²⁴, +James 3⁹. + + ¹ Compare Calvin: “Minimam vero tam præclari operis partem + Angelis adscribere abominandum sacrilegium est.” + + The origin of the conception is probably to be found in the + Babylonian mythology. Before proceeding to the creation of + Ea-bani, Aruru forms a mental image (_zikru_: see Jensen + _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 401 f.) of the God Anu + (_ib._ 120, l. 33); and similarly, in the Descent of Ištar, Ea + forms a _zikru_ in his wise heart before creating Aṣūšunamir + (_ib._ 86. l. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously + to the bodily form of the created being. See, further, _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³ 506; _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 167. + + The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine + lie beyond the scope of this commentary;¹ and it is sufficient + to observe with regard to them――(1) that the ‘image’ is not + something peculiar to man’s original state, and lost by the + Fall; because Priestly-Code, who alone uses the expression, + knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9⁶ employs the term, without + any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction + between εἰκών (_imago_) and ὁμοίωσις (_similitudo_)――the former + referring to the essence of human nature and the latter to + its accidents or its endowments by grace――has an apparent + justification in LXX, which inserts καί between the two phrases + (see below), and _never mentions the ‘likeness’ after_ 1²⁶; so + that it was possible to regard the latter as something belonging + to the divine idea of man, but not actually conferred at his + creation. The Hebrew affords no basis for such speculations: + compare 5¹ᐧ ³ 9⁶.――(3) The view that the divine image consists + in dominion over the creatures (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, + Socinians, etc.) is still defended by Holzinger; but it cannot + be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, + and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the + creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, + already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image + marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so + qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not + the essence, of the divine image (compare Psalms 8⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, Sirach + 17²⁻⁴)――(4) Does the image refer primarily to the spiritual + nature or to the bodily form (upright attitude, etc.) of man? + The idea of a corporeal resemblance seems free from objection + on the level of Old Testament theology; and it is certainly + strongly suggested by a comparison of 5³ with 5¹. God is + expressly said to have a ‘form’ which can be seen (תְּמוּנָה, + Numbers 12⁸, Psalms 17¹⁵); the Old Testament writers constantly + attribute to Him bodily parts; and that they ever advanced to + the conception of God as formless spirit would be difficult to + prove. On the other hand, it may well be questioned if the idea + of a spiritual _image_ was within the compass of Hebrew thought. + Dillmann, while holding that the central idea is man’s spiritual + nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is + the expression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual + qualities.² It might be truer to say that it denotes primarily + the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of + which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol.³――Note + the striking parallel in Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 76 ff. + + ¹ A good summary is given by Zapletal, _Alttestamentliches_, + 1‒15. + + ² So Augustine, _On Genesis against the Manichaeans_ 1. 17: + “Ita intelligitur per animum maxime, attestante etiam erecta + corporis forma, homo factus ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.” + + ³ Compare Engert, _Die Weltschöpfung_, 33. + +_Man_ (אָדָם) is here generic (the human race), not the proper name of +an individual, as 5³. Although the great majority of commentaries take +it for granted that a single pair is contemplated, there is nothing in +the narrative to bear out that view; and the analogy of the marine and +land animals is against it on the whole (Tuch and Bennett).――_fish of +the sea, etc._] The enumeration coincides with the classification of +animals already given, except that _the earth_ occurs where we should +expect _wild beast of the earth_. חַיַּת should undoubtedly be restored +to the text on the authority of Peshiṭtå.――=27.= _in his image, in the +image of God, etc._] The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the +language, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man, +like Psalms 8 (Gunkel).――_male and female_] The persistent idea that +man as first created was bi-sexual and the sexes separated afterwards +(mentioned by Rashi as a piece of Haggada, and recently revived by +Schwally, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), is far +from the thought of the passage.――=28.= A benediction is here again +the source of fertility, but this time also of dominion: Gunkel regards +this as another fragment of a hymn. + + * * * * * + + =27.= בצלמו] LXX omitted. The curious paraphrase of Symmachus + appears to reflect the Ebionite tendency of that translator: ἐν + εἰκόνι διαφόρῳ ὄρθιον ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτόν (Geiger, _Jüdische + Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben_, i. 40 f.). See, however, + Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 3 f., who calls attention + to the ὄρθιον in LXX of 1 Samuel 28¹⁴, and considers this word + the source of the idea that the upright form of man is part of + the divine image. But LXX in 1 Samuel probably misread זקן as + זקף.――אֹתוֹ] _constructio ad formam_: אֹתָם _constructio ad sensum_, + אדם being collective: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 132 _g._――זכר ונקבה] + The phrase confined to Priestly-Code except Deuteronomy 4¹⁶; נ׳ + alone in Jeremiah 31²¹ (a gloss?). Although the application + to a single pair of individuals predominates in the Law, the + collective sense is established by Genesis 7¹⁶, and is to be + assumed in some other cases (Numbers 5³ etc.). On its etymology + see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et + Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_, _s.v._, and (for a different view) + Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + xi. 181 f.――=28.= ויאמר להם] LXX λέγων; perhaps original.――וכבשֻׁהָ] + The only instance of a verbal suffix in this chapter: a strong + preference for expression of accusative by את with suffix + is characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen + _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 389).――הרמשת] participle + with article = relative clause: see Davidson § 99, _R._ 1. The + previous noun is defined by כל, as in verse ²¹ (_The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts the article).――After שמים + Peshiṭtå read ובבהמה (so Ball). LXX has for the end of the verse: + καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων [τῶν ἑρπετῶν] + τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. + + * * * * * + +=29‒31.= The record of creation closes with another (tenth) divine +utterance, which regulates in broad and general terms the relation of +men and animals to the vegetable world. The plants are destined for +food to man and beast. The passage is not wholly intelligible apart +from 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, from which we see that its point is the restriction on the +use of animal food, particularly on the part of man. In other words, +the first stage of the world’s history――that state of things which the +Creator pronounced very good――is a state of peace and harmony in the +animal world. This is Priestly-Code’s substitute for the garden of Eden. + +A distinction is made between the food of man and that of animals: +to the former (a) seeding plants (probably because the seed is +important in cultivation, and in cereals is the part eaten), and +(b) fruit-bearing trees; to the latter _all the greenness of herbage_, +_i.e._ the succulent leafy parts. The statement is not exhaustive: no +provision is made for fishes, nor is there any mention of the use of +such victuals as milk, honey, etc. Observe the difference from chapters +2. 3, where man is made to live on fruit alone, and only as part of the +curse has herbs (עשב) assigned to him.――=31.= The account closes with +the divine verdict of approval, which here covers a survey of all that +has been made, and rises to the superlative ‘very good.’ + + Verses ²⁹ ᶠᐧ differ significantly in their phraseology from + the preceding sections: thus זֹרֵעַ instead of מַזְרִיעַ (¹¹ᐧ ¹²); + העץ אשר בו פרי עץ זרע זרע instead of the far more elegant עץ עשה פרי אשר זרעו בו; + the classification into beasts, birds, and reptiles (contrast + ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵); נפש חיה of the inner principle of life instead of + the living being as in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁴; ירק עשב instead of דשא. These + linguistic differences are sufficient to prove literary + discontinuity of some kind. They have been pointed out by + Kraetschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 103 f.), + who adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition + of animal food to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in + verses ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. But his inference (partly endorsed by Holzinger) + that the verses are a later addition to Priestly-Code does + not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 9² ᶠᶠᐧ, and + must have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The + facts point rather to a distinction in the sources with which + Priestly-Code worked,――perhaps (as Gunkel thinks) the enrichment + of the creation-story by the independent and widespread myth of + the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably with one another + and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep in the human + heart――horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower animals, the + longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that on the + whole the course of things has been from good to worse――all have + contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the + idea of its poetic and ethical value. + + * * * * * + + =29.= נתתי] = ‘I give’; Davidson § 40 _b_; Driver _A Treatise + on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 13.――זרע (over Athnach)] + wrongly omitted by LXX.――אכלה] found only in Priestly-Code and + Ezekiel, and always preceded by לְ. It is strictly feminine + infinitive, and perhaps always retains verbal force (see Driver + _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 217). The ordinary cognate + words for food are אֹכֶל and מַֽאֲכָל.――=30.= ולכל וגו׳ The construction + is obscure. The natural interpretation is that ³⁰ expresses + a contrast to ²⁹――the one specifying the food of _man_, the + other that of _animals_. To bring out this sense clearly it is + necessary (with Ewald al.) to insert נתתי before את־כל־ירק. The text + requires us to treat לכם יהיה לאכלה in ²⁹ as a parenthesis (Dillmann) + and את־כל־ירק as still under the regimen of the distant נתתי.――רוֹמֵשׂ] + LXX ἑρπετῷ τῷ ἕρποντι――assimilating.――נֶפֶשׁ] here used in its + primary sense of the _soul_ or animating principle (see later on + 2⁷), with a marked difference from verses ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ ²⁴.――ירק עשׂב] so + 9³, = י׳ דֶּשֶׁא Psalms 37². יֶרֶק (verdure) alone may include the foliage + of trees (Exodus 10¹⁵); י׳ הַשָּׂדֶה = ‘grass’ (Numbers 22⁴). The + word is rare (6 times); a still rarer form יָרָק may sometimes be + confounded with it (Isaiah 37²⁷ = 2 Kings 17²⁶?).――=31.= יום הששי] + The article with the number appears here for the first time + in the chapter. On the construction, see Driver _A Treatise on + the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 209 (1), where it is treated + as the beginning of a usage prevalent in post-biblical Hebrew, + which often in a definite expression uses the article with the + adjective alone (כנסת הגדולה, etc.). Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 + _w_ (with footnote); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 465; + Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi. 229 f. + + * * * * * + +=II. 1‒3. The rest of God.=――The section contains but one idea, +expressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness of language,――the +institution of the Sabbath. It supplies an answer to the question, +Why is no work done on the last day of the week? (Gunkel). The answer +lies in the fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work +of creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and sanctity.――The +writer’s idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity is almost too realistic +for the modern mind to grasp: it is not an institution which exists or +ceases with its observance by man; the divine rest is a fact as much +as the divine working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether +man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the idea that +the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; it is an +ordinance of the kosmos like any other part of the creative operations, +and is for the good of man in precisely the same sense as the whole +creation is subservient to his welfare. + +=1.= _And all their host_] The ‘host of heaven’ (צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם) is frequently +mentioned in the Old Testament, and denotes sometimes the heavenly +bodies, especially as objects of worship (Deuteronomy 4¹⁹ etc.), +sometimes the angels considered as an organised army (1 Kings 22¹⁹ +etc.). The expression ‘host of the earth’ nowhere occurs; and it is +a question whether the plural suffix here is not to be explained as +a _denominatio a potiori_ (Holzinger), or as a species of attraction +(Driver). If it has any special meaning as applied to the earth, +it would be equivalent to what is elsewhere called מְלֹא הארץ (Isaiah +6³ 34¹, Deuteronomy 33¹⁶ etc.)――the _contents_ of the earth, and +is most naturally limited to those things whose creation has just +been described.¹ In any case the verse yields little support to the +view of Smend and Wellhausen, that in the name ‘Yahwe of Hosts’ the +word denotes the complex of cosmical forces (Smend, _Lehrbuch der +alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte_ 201 ff.), or the demons +in which these forces were personified (Wellhausen, _Die kleinen +Propheten_ 77).――=2.= _And God finished, etc._] The duplication of +verse ¹ is harsh, and strongly suggests a composition of sources.――_on +the seventh day_] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, +Peshiṭtå read _sixth day_ (so also _Jubilees_, ii. 16, and Jerome, +_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_), which is accepted +as the original text by many commentaries (Ilgen, Olshausen, Budde, +al.).² But _sixth_ is so much the easier reading that one must hesitate +to give it the preference. To take the verb as pluperfect (Calvin al.) +is grammatically impossible. On Wellhausen’s explanation, see above, +page 9 f. The only remaining course is to give a purely negative sense +to the verb _finish_: _i.e._ ‘desisted from,’ ‘did not continue’ +(Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Driver, al.). The last view +may be accepted, in spite of the absence of convincing parallels.――_and +he rested_] The idea of שָׁבַת is essentially negative: cessation of work, +not relaxation (Driver): see below. Even so, the expression is strongly +anthropomorphic, and warns us against exaggerating Priestly-Code’s +aversion to such representations.³――=3.= _blessed ... sanctified_] The +day is blessed and sacred in itself and from the beginning; to say that +the remark is made in view of the future institution of the Sabbath +(Driver), does not quite bring out the sense. Both verbs contain +the idea of selection and distinction (compare Sirach 36 [33] ⁷⁻⁹), +but they are not synonymous (Gunkel). A blessing is the effective +utterance of a good wish; applied to things, it means their endowment +with permanently beneficial qualities (Genesis 27²⁷, Exodus 23²⁵, +Deuteronomy 28¹²). This is the case here: the Sabbath is a constant +source of well-being to the man who recognises its true nature and +purpose. To _sanctify_ is to set apart from common things to holy uses, +or to put in a special relation to God.――_which God creatively made_] +see the footnote.――Although no closing formula for the seventh day is +given, it is contrary to the intention of the passage to think that +the rest of God means His work of providence as distinct from creation: +it is plainly a rest of one day that is thought of. It is, of course, +a still greater absurdity to suppose an interval of twenty-four hours +between the two modes of divine activity. The author did not think in +our dogmatic categories at all. + + ¹ Compare Nehemiah 9⁶ “the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, + and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the + seas and all that is in them.” + + ² Expressly mentioned as LXX’s reading in _Mechilta_: see + above, page 14, and Geiger, _l.c._ 439. + + ³ In another passage of Priestly-Code, Exodus 31¹⁷, the + anthropomorphism is greatly intensified: “God rested and + refreshed Himself” (literally ‘took breath’).――See Jastrow + (_American Journal of Theology_ ii. 343 ff.), who thinks + that God’s ‘resting’ meant originally “His purification + after His conquest of the forces hostile to the order of + the world,” and was a survival of the mythological idea of + the appeasement of Marduk’s anger against Ti’āmat. The verb + there used is _nâḫu_, the equivalent of Hebrew נוח, used in + Exodus 20¹¹. + + The origin of the Hebrew Sabbath, and its relation to Babylonian + usages, raise questions too intricate to be fully discussed here + (see Lotz, _Quaestiones de historia Sabbati_ [1883]; Jastrow, + _American Journal of Theology_ ii. [1898], 312 ff.; _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 592 ff.; Driver _A + Dictionary of the Bible_, _s.v._, and _The Book of Genesis with + Introduction and Notes_ 34; Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten + Testaments_ § 88, 2). The main facts, however, are these: (1) + The name _šab[p]attu_ occurs some five or six times in cuneiform + records; but of these only two are of material importance + for the Sabbath problem, (a) In a syllabary (II R. 32, 16 a, b) + _šabattu_ is equated with _ûm nûḫ libbi_, which has been + conclusively shown to mean ‘day of the appeasement of the heart + (of the deity),’――in the first instance, therefore, a day of + propitiation or atonement (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, + iv. 274 ff.; Jastrow _l.c._ 316 f.). (b) In a tablet discovered + by Pinches in 1904, the name _šapattu_ is applied to the + fifteenth day of the month (as full-moon-day?) (Pinches + _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xxvi. + 51 ff.; Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, lviii. 199 ff., 458 ff.). (2) The only trace of a + Babylonian _institution_ at all resembling the Hebrew Sabbath is + the fact that in certain months of the year (Elul, Marchešvan, + but possibly the rest as well) the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days, + and also the 19th (probably as the 7 × 7th from the beginning of + the previous month), had the character of _dies nefasti_ (‘lucky + day, unlucky day’), on which certain actions had to be avoided + by important personages (king, priest, physician) (IV R. 32 f., + 33). Now, no evidence has ever been produced that these _dies + nefasti_ bore the name _šabattu_; and the likelihood that this + was the case is distinctly lessened by the Pinches fragment, + where the name is applied to the 15th day, but not to the 7th, + although it also is mentioned on the tablet. The question, + therefore, has assumed a new aspect; and Meinhold (_Sabbat und + Woche im Alten Testament_ [1905], and more recently [1909], + _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxix. 81 + ff.), developing a hint of Zimmern, has constructed an ingenious + hypothesis on the assumption that in Babylonian _šabattu_ + denotes the day of the full moon. He points to the close + association of new-moon and Sabbath in nearly all the pre-exilic + references (Amos 8⁵, Hosea 2¹³, Isaiah 1¹³, 2 Kings 4²² ᶠᐧ); + and concludes that in early Israel, as in Babylon, the Sabbath + was the full-moon festival and nothing else. The institution + of the weekly Sabbath he traces to a desire to compensate for + the loss of the old lunar festivals, when these were abrogated + by the Deuteronomic reformation. This innovation he attributes + to Ezekiel; but steps towards it are found in the introduction + of a weekly day of rest during harvest only (on the ground of + Deuteronomy 16⁹; compare Exodus 34²¹), and in the establishment + of the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25), which he considers to + be older than the weekly Sabbath. The theory involves great + improbabilities, and its net result seems to be to leave the + actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it without any point of contact + in Babylonian institutions. It is hard to suppose that there is + no historical connexion between the Hebrew Sabbath and the _dies + nefasti_ of the Babylonian calendar; and if such a connexion + exists, the chief difficulties remain where they have long been + felt to lie, viz., (a) in the substitution of a weekly cycle + running continuously through the calendar for a division of + each month into seven-day periods, probably regulated by the + phases of the moon; and (b) in the transformation of a day of + superstitious restrictions into a day of joy and rest. Of these + changes, it must be confessed, no convincing explanation has + yet been found. The established sanctity of the number seven, + and the decay or suppression of the lunar feasts, might be + contributory causes; but when the change took place, and whether + it was directly due to Babylonian influence, or was a parallel + development from a lunar observance more primitive than either, + cannot at present be determined. See Hehn, _Siebenzahl und + Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament_, 91 ff., + especially 114 ff.; compare Gordon, _The Early Traditions of + Genesis_, 216 ff. + + * * * * * + + =1.= צבא] Literally ‘host’ or ‘army’; then ‘period of service’ + (chiefly military), LXX κόσμος and Vulgate _ornatus_ look like + a confusion with צְבִי. Used of the host of heaven, Deuteronomy + 4¹⁹ 17³, Isaiah 24²¹ 40²⁶, where Vulgate has in the first case + _astra_, in the others _militia_; LXX κόσμος in all.――=2.= ויכל] + For the alleged negative sense of Piel (see above), examine + Numbers 17²⁵, or (with מן) 1 Samuel 10¹³, Exodus 34³³ etc.――מלאכה] + the word “used regularly of the work or business forbidden on + the Sabbath (Exodus 20⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 35², Jeremiah 17²²ᐧ ²⁴ al.)” (Driver); + or on holy convocations (Exodus 12¹⁶, Leviticus 16²⁹ 23²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, + Numbers 29⁷). It has the prevailing sense of regular occupation + or business, as Genesis 39¹¹, Jonah 1⁸.――השביעי¹] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, _The Book of + Jubilees._, _Bereshith Rabba_ הששי, given as LXX’s reading + in _Mechilta_ (compare page 14 above).――וישבת] The omission of + continued subject (אלהים) might strengthen Wellhausen’s contention + that the clause is a gloss (see page 10 above): it occurs + nowhere else in the passage except _possibly_ 1⁷. The verb + שבת (possibly connected with Aramaic _sabata_ = ‘cut off,’ + or Assyrian _šabātu_ = ‘cease,’ ‘be completed’: but see _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 593 f.) appears in + Old Testament in three quite distinct senses: (a) ‘cease to + be,’ ‘come to an end’; (b) ‘desist’ (from work, etc.); (c) ‘keep + Sabbath’ (denominative). Of the last there are four undoubted + cases, all very late: Leviticus 25² 23³² 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles + 36²¹. But there are five others where this meaning is at least + possible: Genesis 2²ᐧ ³, Exodus 16³⁰ 23¹² 34²¹ 31¹⁷; and of + these Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ are pre-exilic. Apart from these doubtful + passages, the sense ‘desist’ (b) is found only in Hosea 7⁴, Job + 32¹ (Qal); Exodus 5⁵, Joshua 22²⁵, Ezekiel 16⁴¹ 34¹⁰ (Hiphil); + of which Hosea 7⁴ (a corrupt context) and Exodus 5⁵, alone are + _possibly_ pre-exilic. In all other occurrences (about 46 in + all; 9 Qal, 4 Niphal, 33 Hiphil) the sense (a) ‘come to an end’ + obtains; and this usage prevails in all stages of the literature + from Amos to Daniel; the pre-exilic examples being Genesis 8²², + Joshua 5¹²(?) (Qal); Isaiah 17³ (Niphal); Amos 8⁴, Hosea 1⁴ 2¹³, + Isaiah 16¹⁰(?) 30¹¹, Deuteronomy 32²⁶, 2 Kings 23⁵ᐧ ¹¹, Jeremiah + 7³⁴ 16⁹ 36²⁹ (Hiphil). These statistics seem decisive against + Hehn’s view (_l.c._ 93 ff.) that שָׁבַת is originally a denominative + from שַׁבָּת. If all the uses are to be traced to a single + root-idea, there can be no doubt that (b) is primary. But + while a dependence of (a) on (b) is intelligible (compare the + analogous case of חָדַל), ‘desist’ from work, and ‘come to an end’ + are after all very different ideas; and, looking to the immense + preponderance of the latter sense (a), especially in the early + literature, it is worth considering whether the old Hebrew verb + did not mean simply ‘come to an end,’ and whether the sense + ‘desist’ was not imported into it under the influence of the + denominative use (c) of which Exodus 23¹² 34²¹ might be early + examples. [A somewhat similar view is now expressed by Meinhold + (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, 1909, 100 + f.), except that he ignores the distinction between ‘desist’ and + ‘come to an end,’ which seems to me important.]――=3.= ברא ... לעשות] + The awkward construction is perhaps adopted because ברא could not + directly govern the substantive מלאכה. LXX has ἤρξατο ... ποιῆσαι. + + * * * * * + +=4a.= _These are the generations, etc._] The best sense that can be +given to the expression is to refer the pronoun to what precedes, +and render the noun by ‘origin’: ‘This is the origin of,’ etc. But +it is doubtful if תולדות can bear any such meaning, and altogether the +half-verse is in the last degree perplexing. It is in all probability +a redactional insertion. + + The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic + of Priestly-Code; and in that document it invariably stands as + introduction to the section following. But in this case the next + section (2⁴ᵇ‒4²⁶) belongs to Yahwist; and if we pass over the + Yahwist passages to the next portion of Priestly-Code (chapter + 5), the formula would collide with 5¹, which is evidently the + proper heading to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the + improbable hypothesis of Strack, that a part of Priestly-Code’s + narrative has been dropped, the attempt to treat 2⁴ᵃ in its + present position as a superscription must be abandoned. On this + ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen, + that the clause stood originally before 1¹, as the heading + of Priestly-Code’s account of the creation.¹ But this theory + also is open to serious objection. It involves a meaning of + תולדות which is contrary both to its etymology and the usage of + Priestly-Code (see footnote). Whatever latitude of meaning be + assigned to the word, it is the fact that in this formula it + is always followed by genitive of the progenitor, never of the + progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which + is generated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by + which they themselves are generated (so Lagarde, _Orientalia_ + ii. 38 ff., and Holzinger). And even if that difficulty could + be overcome (see Lagarde), generation is a most unsuitable + description of the process of creation _as conceived by + Priestly-Code_. In short, neither as superscription nor as + subscription can the sentence be accounted for as an integral + part of the Priestly Code. There seems no way out of the + difficulty but to assume with Holzinger that the formula in this + place owes its origin to a mechanical imitation of the manner of + Priestly-Code by a later hand. The insertion would be suggested + by the observation that the formula divides the book of Genesis + into definite sections; while the advantage of beginning a + new section at this point would naturally occur to an editor + who felt the need of sharply separating the two accounts + of the creation, and regarded the second as in some way the + continuation of the first. If that be so, he probably took + ת׳ in the sense of ‘history’ and referred אֵלֶּה to what follows. + The analogy of 5¹, Numbers 3¹ would suffice to justify the use + of the formula before the ביום of ⁴ᵇ.――It has been thought that + LXX has preserved the original form of the text: viz. זה ספר ת׳ וגו׳ + (compare 5¹); the redactor having, “before inserting a section + from the other document, accidentally copied in the opening + words of 5¹, which were afterwards adapted to their present + position” (Bennett). That is improbable. It is more likely + that LXX deliberately altered the text to correspond with 5¹. + See Field, _Origenis Hexaplorum quæ supersunt; sive Veterum + Interpretum Græcorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta_, _ad + loc._; Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, 4. + + * * * * * + + =4a.= תולדות] only in plural constructs or with suffix; and + confined to Priestly-Code, Chronicles and Ruth 4¹⁸. Formed + from Hiphil of ילד, it means properly ‘begettings’; not, however, + as noun of action, but concretely (= ‘progeny’); and this is + certainly the prevalent sense. The phrase א׳ ת׳ (only Priestly-Code + [all in Genesis except Numbers 3¹], 1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸) + means primarily “These are the descendants”; but since a _list_ + of descendants is a genealogy, it is practically the same thing + if we render, “This is the genealogical register.” In the great + majority of instances (Genesis [5¹] 10¹ 11¹⁰ 11²⁷ 25¹² 36¹ᐧ ⁹, + 1 Chronicles 1²⁹, Ruth 4¹⁸) this sense is entirely suitable; + the addition of a few historical notices is not inconsistent + with the idea of a genealogy, nor is the general character of + these sections affected by it. There are just three cases where + this meaning is inapplicable: Genesis 6⁹ 25¹⁹ 37². But it is + noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment + of a genealogy follows; and it is fair to inquire whether 37² + may not have been originally followed by a genealogy (such as + 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ or 46⁸⁻²⁷ [see Hupfeld, _Die Quellen der Genesis und + die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_, 102‒109, 213‒216]) which was + afterwards displaced in the course of redaction (see page 423, + below). With that assumption we could explain every occurrence + of the formula without having recourse to the unnatural view + that the word may mean a “family history” (Gesenius-Buhl + _s.v._), or “an account of a man and his descendants” + (Brown-Driver-Briggs). The natural hypothesis would then be + that a series of תולדות formed one of the sources employed by + Priestly-Code in compiling his work: the introduction of this + genealogical document is preserved in 5¹ (so Holzinger); the + recurrent formula represents successive sections of it, and 2⁴ᵃ + is a redactional imitation. When it came to be amalgamated with + the narrative material, some dislocations took place: hence the + curious anomaly that a man’s history sometimes appears under his + own _Tôlĕdôth_, sometimes under those of his father; and it is + difficult otherwise to account for the omission of the formula + before 12¹ or for its insertion in 36⁹. On the whole, this + theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary + view that the formula was devised by Priestly-Code to mark the + divisions of the principal work.――ב{ה}בראם] ‘in their creation’ + or ‘when they were created.’ If the _literal minuscule_ has + critical significance (Tuch, Dillmann) the primary reading was + infinitive Qal (בְּבָרְאָם); and this requires to be supplemented by + אלהים as subject. It is in this form that Dillmann thinks the + clause originally stood at the beginning of Genesis. (see on 1¹). + But the omission of אלהים and the insertion of the ה _minuscule_ + are no necessary consequences of the transposition of the + sentence; and the small ה may be merely an error in the + archetypal MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all + copies. + + ¹ On Dillmann’s modification of this theory, see above on 1¹. + + * * * * * + + + _Babylonian and other Cosmogonies._ + + 1. The outlines of Babylonian cosmogony have long been known + from two brief notices in Greek writers: (1) an extract from + Berossus (3rd century B.C.) made by Alexander Polyhistor, and + preserved by Syncellus from the lost Chronicle of Eusebius (lib. + i.); and (2) a passage from the Neo-Platonic writer Damascius + (6th century A.D.). From these it was apparent that the biblical + account of creation is in its main conceptions Babylonian. + The interest of the fragments has been partly enhanced, but + partly superseded, since the discovery of the closely parallel + ‘Chaldæan Genesis,’ unearthed from the debris of Asshurbanipal’s + library at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. It is therefore + unnecessary to examine them in detail; but since the originals + are not very accessible to English readers, they are here + reprinted in full (with emendations after _Die Keilinschriften + und das Alte Testament_³, 488 ff.): + + (1) Berossus: Γενέσθαι φησὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ τὸ πᾶν σκότος καὶ ὕδωρ + εἶναι, καὶ ἐν τούτοις ζῶα τερατώδη, καὶ ἰδιοφυεῖς [emphatic + by Richt., codex εἰδιφυεῖς] τὰς ἰδέας ἔχοντα ζωογονεῖσθαι· + ἀνθρώπους γὰρ διπτέρους γεννηθῆναι, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ τετραπτέρους + καὶ διπροσώπους· καὶ σῶμα μὲν ἔχοντας ἕν, κεφαλὰς δὲ δύο, + ἀνδρείαν τε καὶ γυναικείαν, καὶ αἰδοῖα δὲ [corrected by von + Gutschmid, codex τε], δισσὰ, ἄῤῥεν καὶ θῆλυ· καὶ ἑτέρους + ἀνθρώπους τοὺς μὲν αἰγῶν σκέλη καὶ κέρατα ἔχοντας, τοὺς δὲ ἵππου + πόδας [corrected by von Gutschmid, codex ἱππόποδας], τοὺς δὲ + τὰ ὀπίσω μὲν μέρη ἵππων, τὰ δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἀνθρώπων, οὓς [ὡς? von + Gutschmid] ἱπποκενταύρους τὴν ἰδέαν εἶναι. Ζωογονηθῆναι δὲ καὶ + ταύρους ἀνθρώπων κεφαλὰς ἔχοντας καὶ κύνας τετρασωμάτους, οὐρὰς + ἰχθύος ἐκ τῶν ὄπισθεν μερῶν ἔχοντας, καὶ ἵππους κυνοκεφάλους καὶ + ἀνθρώπους, καὶ ἕτερα ζῶα κεφαλὰς μὲν καὶ σώματα ἵππων ἔχοντα, + οὐρὰς δὲ ἰχθύων· καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ζῶα παντοδαπῶν θηρίων μορφὰς ἔχοντα. + Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἰχθύας καὶ ἑρπετὰ καὶ ὄφεις καὶ ἄλλα ζῶα πλείονα + θαυμαστὰ καὶ παρηλλαγμένας [emphatic by von Gutschmid, codex + παρηλλαγμένα] τὰς ὄψεις ἀλλήλων ἔχοντα· ὧν καὶ τὰς εἰκόνας ἐν + τῷ τοῦ Βηλου ναῷ ἀνακεῖσθαι, ἄρχειν δὲ τούτων πάντων γυναῖκα ᾗ + ὄνομα Ὀμορκα [corrected by Scaliger, codex Ὁμορωκα] εἶναι· τοῦτο + δὲ Χαλδαϊστὶ μὲν Θαμτε [corrected by W. R. Smith, _Zeitschrift + für Assyriologie_, vi. 339, codex Θαλατθ], Ἑλληνιστὶ δὲ + μεθερμηνεύεται θάλασσα κατὰ δὲ ἰσόψηφον σελήνη. Οὕτως δὲ τῶν + ὅλων συνεστηκότων, ἐπανελθόντα Βηλον σχίσαι τὴν γυναῖκα μέσην, + καὶ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ αὐτῆς ποιῆσαι γῆν, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ἥμισυ οὐρανὸν, + καὶ τὰ ἐν [σὺν? von Gutschmid] αὐτῇ ζῶα ἀφανίσαι, ἀλληγορικῶς δέ + φησι τοῦτο πεφυσιολογῆσθαι· ὑγροῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ ζώων + ἐν αὐτῷ γεγεννημένων [A]¹ τοιῶνδε [emphatic by von Gutschmid, + codex τὸν δὲ] Βηλον, ὃν Δία μεθερμηνεύουσι, μέσον τεμόντα τὸ + σκότος χωρίσαι γῆν καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ διατάξαι τὸν + κόσμον. Τὰ δὲ ζῶα οὐκ ἐνεγκόντα τὴν τοῦ φωτὸς δύναμιν φθαρῆναι, + ἰδόντα δὲ τὸν Βηλον χώραν ἔρημον καὶ ἀκαρποφόρον [emphatic by + Gunkel, codex καρποφόρον] κελεῦσαι ἑνὶ τῶν θεῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν + ἀφελόντι ἑαυτοῦ τῷ ἀποῤῥυέντι αἵματι φυρᾶσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ + διαπλάσαι ἀνθρώπους καὶ θηρία τὰ δυνάμενα τὸν ἀέρα φέρειν. + Ἀποτελέσαι δὲ τὸν Βηλον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς + πέντε πλανήτας. Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ πολυΐστωρ Ἀλέξανδρος τὸν Βηρωσσὸν + ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ φάσκειν [B]¹ τοῦτον τὸν θεὸν ἀφελεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ + κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ ῥυὲν αἷμα τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς φυρᾶσαι τῇ γῇ, καὶ + διαπλάσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· διὸ νοερούς τε εἶναι καὶ φρονήσεως + θείας μετέχειν. + + ¹ The sections commencing with [A] and [B] stand in the + reverse order in the text. The transposition is due to + von Gutschmid, and seems quite necessary to bring out any + connected meaning, though there may remain a suspicion + that the two accounts of the creation of man are variants, + and that the second is interpolated. Jeremias _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 134, plausibly + assigns the section from ἀλληγορικῶς to φθαρῆναι to another + recension (restoring [B] to its place in the text). + + (2) Damascius: Τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων ἐοίκασι Βαβυλώνιοι μὲν τὴν μίαν + τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν σιγῇ παριέναι, δύο δὲ ποιεῖν Ταυθε καὶ Ἀπασων, + τὸν μὲν Ἀπασων ἄνδρα τῆς Ταυθε ποιοῦντες, ταύτην δὲ μητέρα θεῶν + ὀνομάζοντες, ἐξ ὧν μονογενῆ παῖδα γεννηθῆναι τὸν Μωυμιν, αὐτὸν + οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον ἐκ τῶν δυοῖν ἀρχῶν παραγόμενον. Ἐκ δὲ + τῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλην γενεὰν προελθεῖν, Λαχην [codex Δαχην] καὶ Λαχον + [codex Δαχον]. Εἶτα αὖ τρίτην ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν, Κισσαρη καὶ Ἀσσωρον, + ἐξ ὧν γενέσθαι τρεῖς, Ἀνον καὶ Ἰλλινον καὶ Ἀον· τοῦ δὲ Ἀου καὶ + Δαυκης υἱὸν γενέσθαι τὸν Βηλον, ὃν δημιουργὸν εἶναί φασιν.[B]¹ + + ¹ The Greek text of Berossus will be found in Müller, + _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii. 497 f.; that of + Damascius in _Damascii philosophi de primis principiis_ + (edited by Kopp, 1826), cap. 125. For translations of both + fragments, see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 488 ff.; G. Smith, _Chaldean Genesis_ (edited by Sayce), + pages 34 ff., 43 f. (from Cory, _Ancient Fragments_); Gunkel + _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 17 ff.; Nikel, + _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 24 f., 28. + + 2. The only cuneiform document which admits of close and + continuous comparison with Genesis 1 is the great Creation Epos + just referred to. Since the publication, in 1876, of the first + fragments, many lacunæ have been filled up from subsequent + discoveries, and several duplicates have been brought to light; + and the series is seen to have consisted of seven Tablets, + entitled, from the opening phrase, _Enuma eliš_ (= ‘When + above’).¹ The actual tablets discovered are not of earlier + date than the 7th century B.C., but there are strong reasons + to believe that the originals of which these are copies are of + much greater antiquity, and may go back to 2000 B.C., while the + myth itself probably existed in writing in other forms centuries + before that. Moreover, they represent the theory of creation on + which the statements of Berossus and Damascius are based, and + they have every claim to be regarded as the authorised version + of the Babylonian cosmogony. It is here, therefore, if anywhere, + that we must look for traces of Babylonian influences on the + Hebrew conception of the origin of the world. The following + outline of the contents of the tablets is based on King’s + analysis of the epic into five originally distinct parts (_The + Seven Tablets of Creation_, page lxvii). + + ¹ The best collection and translation of the relevant texts in + English is given in L. W. King’s _Seven Tablets of Creation_, + volume i. (1902); with which should be compared Jensen + _Mythen und Epen_, in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. + 1 (1900), and now (1909) Gressmann, _Altorientalische Texte + und Bilder zum Alten Testament_, i. 4 ff. See also Jensen + _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ (1890), 268‒301; Gunkel + _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ (1894) 401‒420, + and the summaries in _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 492 ff.; Lukas, _Die Grundbegriffe in den + Kosmogonien der alten Völker_ (1893), 2 ff.; Jastrow _The + Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (1898) 410 ff.; Jeremias + _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 132 ff.; + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, article CREATION. + + i. _The Theogony._――The first twenty-one lines of Tablet I. + contain a description of the primæval chaos and the evolution of + successive generations of deities: + + When in the height heaven was not named, + And the earth beneath did not bear a name, + And the primæval Apsu,¹ who begat them, + And chaos, Ti’āmat,² the mother of them both,―― + Their waters were mingled together, + * * * * * + Then were created the gods in the midst of (heaven), etc. + + First Laḥmu and Laḥamu,³ then Ansar and Kisar,⁴ and lastly (as + we learn from Damascius, whose report is in accord with this + part of the tablet, and may safely be used to make up a slight + defect) the supreme triad of the Babylonian pantheon, Anu, Bel, + and Ea.⁵ + + ¹ Damascius, Ἀπασων. + + ² Damascius Ταυθε, Berossus Θαμτε (emphatic, see above). + + ³ Damascius Λαχη and Λαχος (emphatic). + + ⁴ Ἀσσωρος and Κισσαρη. + + ⁵ Ἀνος, Ἰλλινος (In-lil = Bel), and, Ἀος. + + ii. _The Subjugation of Apsu by Ea._――The powers of chaos, Apsu, + Tiamat, and a third being called Mummu (Damascius Μωυμις), take + counsel together to ‘destroy the way’ of the heavenly deities. + An illegible portion of Tablet I. must have told how Apsu and + Mummu were vanquished by Ea, leaving Tiamat still unsubdued. + In the latter part of the tablet the female monster is again + incited to rebellion by a god called Kingu, whom she chooses as + her consort, laying on his breast the ‘Tables of Destiny’ which + the heavenly gods seek to recover. She draws to her side many of + the old gods, and brings forth eleven kinds of monstrous beings + to aid her in the fight. + + iii. _The conflict between Marduk and Tiamat._――Tablets II. and + III. are occupied with the consultations of the gods in view + of this new peril, resulting in the choice of Marduk as their + champion; and Tablet IV. gives a graphic description of the + conflict that ensues. On the approach of the sun-god, mounted on + his chariot and formidably armed, attended by a host of winds, + Tiamat’s helpers flee in terror, and she alone confronts the + angry deity. Marduk entangles her in his net, sends a hurricane + into her distended jaws, and finally despatches her by an arrow + shot into her body. + + iv. _The account of creation_ commences near the end of Tablet + IV. After subduing the helpers of Tiamat and taking the Tables + of Destiny from Kingu, Marduk surveys the carcase, and ‘devised + a cunning plan’: + + He split her up like a flat fish into two halves; + One half of her he stablished as a covering for the heaven. + He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman, + And bade them not to let her waters come forth. + He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions + (thereof), + And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.¹ + And the lord measured the structure of the Deep + And he founded E-šara, a mansion like unto it. + The mansion E-šara which he created as heaven, + He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit. + + ¹ Ea. + + Berossus says, what is no doubt implied here, that of the other + half of Tiamat he made the earth; but whether this is meant by + the founding of E-šara, or is to be looked for in a lost part + of Tablet V., is a point in dispute (see Jensen _Die Kosmologie + der Babylonier_ 185 ff., 195 ff.; and _Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 344 f.). Tablet V. opens with the creation + of the heavenly bodies: + + He made the stations for the great gods; + The stars, their images, as the stars of the Zodiac, he + fixed. + He ordained the year and into sections he divided it; + For the twelve months he fixed three stars. + * * * * * + The Moon-god he caused to shine forth, the night he entrusted + to him. + He appointed him, a being of the night, to determine the days; + Every month without ceasing with the crown he covered(?) him, + (saying,) + “At the beginning of the month, when thou shinest upon the + land, + Thou commandest the horns to determine six days, + And on the seventh day,” etc. etc. + + The rest of Tablet V., where legible, contains nothing bearing + on the present subject; but in Tablet VI. we come to the + creation of man, which is recorded in a form corresponding to + the account of Berossus: + + When Marduk heard the word of the gods, + His heart prompted him, and he devised (a cunning plan). + He opened his mouth and unto Ea (he spake), + (That which) he had conceived in his heart he imparted (unto + him): + “My blood will I take and bone will I (fashion), + I will make man, that man may ... (...) + I will create man, who shall inhabit (the earth), + That the service of the gods may be established,” etc. etc. + + At the end of the tablet the gods assemble to sing the praises + of Marduk; and the last tablet is filled with a + + v. _Hymn in honour of Marduk._――From this we learn that to + Marduk was ascribed the creation of vegetation and of the + ‘firm earth,’ as well as those works which are described in + the legible portions of Tablets IV.‒VI. + + How far, now, does this conception of creation correspond with + the cosmogony of Genesis 1? (1) In both we find the general + notion of a watery chaos, and an etymological equivalence in + the names (_Ti’āmat_, _Tĕhôm_) by which it is called. It is + true that the Babylonian chaos is the subject of a double + personification, Apsu representing the male, and Tiamat + the female principle by whose union the gods are generated. + According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 559 f.), + Apsu is the fresh, life-giving water which descends from heaven + in the rain, while Tiamat is the ‘stinking,’ salt water of the + ocean: in the beginning these were mingled (Tablet I. 5), and + by the mixture the gods were produced. But in the subsequent + narrative the rôle of Apsu is insignificant; and in the central + episode, the conflict with Marduk, Tiamat alone represents the + power of chaos, as in Hebrew _Tĕhôm_.――(2) In _Enuma eliš_ the + description of chaos is followed by a theogony, of which there + is no trace in Genesis. The Babylonian theory is essentially + monistic, the gods being conceived as emanating from a material + chaos. Lukas, indeed (_l.c._ 14 ff., 24 ff.), has tried to show + that they are represented as proceeding from a supreme spiritual + principle, Anu. But while an independent origin of deity may be + consistent with the opening lines of Tablet I., it is in direct + opposition to the statement of Damascius, and is irreconcilable + with the later parts of the series, where the gods are + repeatedly spoken of as children of Apsu and Tiamat. The + biblical conception, on the contrary, is probably dualistic + (above, pages 7, 15), and at all events the supremacy of the + spiritual principle (_Elohim_) is absolute. That a theogony + must have originally stood between verses ² and ³ of Genesis 1 + (Gunkel) is more than can be safely affirmed. Gunkel thinks it + is the necessary sequel to the idea of the world-egg in the end + of verse ². But he himself regards that idea as foreign to the + main narrative; and if in the original source something must + have come out of the egg, it is more likely to have been the + world itself (as in the Phœnician and Indian cosmogonies) than + a series of divine emanations.――(3) Both accounts assume, but in + very different ways, the existence of light before the creation + of the heavenly bodies. In the Babylonian legend the assumption + is disguised by the imagery of the myth: the fact that Marduk, + the god of light, is himself the demiurge, explains the omission + of light from the category of created things. In the biblical + account that motive no longer operates, and accordingly light + takes its place as the first creation of the Almighty.――(4) A + very important parallel is the conception of heaven as formed + by a separation of the waters of the primæval chaos. In _Enuma + eliš_ the _septum_ is formed from the body of Tiamat; in Genesis + it is simply a _rākî‛a_――a solid structure fashioned for the + purpose. But the common idea is one that could hardly have been + suggested except by the climatic conditions under which the + Babylonian myth is thought to have originated. Jensen has shown, + to the satisfaction of a great many writers, how the imagery of + the Babylonian myth can be explained from the changes that pass + over the face of nature in the lower Euphrates valley about the + time of the vernal equinox (see _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_ + 307 ff.; compare Gunkel _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und + Endzeit_ 24 ff.; Gordon). Chaos is an idealisation of the + Babylonian winter, when the heavy rains and the overflow of the + rivers have made the vast plain like a sea, when thick mists + obscure the light, and the distinction between heaven and sea + seems to be effaced. Marduk represents the spring sun, whose + rays pierce the darkness and divide the waters, sending them + partly upwards as clouds, and partly downwards to the sea, + so that the dry land appears. The ‘hurricane,’ which plays so + important a part in the destruction of the chaos-monster, is the + spring winds that roll away the dense masses of vapour from the + surface of the earth. If this be the natural basis of the myth + of Marduk and Tiamat, it is evident that it must have originated + in a marshy alluvial region, subject to annual inundations, + like the Euphrates valley.――(5) There is, again, a close + correspondence between the accounts of the creation of the + heavenly bodies (see page 21 f.). The Babylonian is much fuller, + and more saturated with mythology: it mentions not only the + moon but the signs of the Zodiac, the planet Jupiter, and the + stars. But in the idea that the function of the luminaries is + to regulate time, and in the destination of the moon to rule + the night, we must recognise a striking resemblance between the + two cosmogonies.――(6) The last definite point of contact is the + creation of man (page 30 f.). Here, however, the resemblance + is slight, though the deliberative 1st person plural in Genesis + 1²⁶ is probably a reminiscence of a dialogue like that between + Marduk and Ea in the _Enuma eliš_ narrative.――(7) With regard + to the order of the works, it is evident that there cannot + have been complete parallelism between the two accounts. In the + tablets the creation of heaven is followed naturally by that of + the stars. The arrangement of the remaining works, which must + have been mentioned in lost parts of Tablets V. and VI., is, + of course, uncertain; but the statement of Berossus suggests + that the creation of land animals followed instead of preceding + that of man. At the same time it is very significant that the + separate works themselves, apart from their order: Firmament, + Luminaries, Earth, Plants, Animals, Men,――are practically + identical in the two documents: there is even a fragment + (possibly belonging to the series) which alludes to the creation + of marine animals as a distinct class (King, _The Seven Tablets + of Creation_, lix, lxxxvi). Gordon (_Early Traditions of + Genesis_) holds that the differences of arrangement can be + reduced to the single transposition of heavenly bodies and + plants (see his table, page 51). + + In view of these parallels, it seems impossible to doubt that + the cosmogony of Genesis 1 rests on a conception of the process + of creation fundamentally identical with that of the _Enuma + eliš_ tablets. + + 3. There is, however, another recension of the Babylonian + creation story from which the fight of the sun-god with chaos is + absent, and which for that reason possesses a certain importance + for our present purpose. It occurs as the introduction to a + bilingual magical text, first published by Pinches in 1891.¹ + Once upon a time, it tells us, there were no temples for the + gods, no plants, no houses or cities, no human inhabitants: + + The Deep had not been created, Eridu had not been built; + Of the holy house, the house of the gods, the habitation had + not been made. + All lands were sea (_tāmtu_). + + Then arose a ‘movement in the sea’; the most ancient shrines + and cities of Babylonia were made, and divine beings created + to inhabit them. Then + + Marduk laid a reed¹ on the face of the waters; + He formed dust and poured it out beside the reed, + That he might cause the gods to dwell in the habitation + of their heart’s desire. + He formed mankind; the goddess Aruru together with him + created the seed of mankind. + + ¹ So King; but Jeremias ‘a reed-hurdle’ (_Rohrgeflecht_); + while Jensen renders: ‘Marduk placed a canopy in front + of the waters, He created earth and heaped it up against + the canopy’――a reference to the firmament (so _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³). + + Next he formed beasts, the rivers, grasses, various kinds of + animals, etc.; then, having ‘laid in a dam by the side of the + sea,’ he made reeds and trees, houses and cities, and the great + Babylonian sanctuaries. The whole description is extremely + obscure, and the translations vary widely. The main interest + of the fragment lies in its non-legendary, matter-of-fact + representation of the primæval condition of things, and of + the process of world-building. Of special correspondences + with Genesis 1 there are perhaps but two: (a) the impersonal + conception of chaos implied in the appellative sense of _tāmtu_ + (_Tĕhôm_) for the sea; (b) the comparison of the firmament to + a canopy, if that be the right interpretation of the phrase. + In the order of the creation of living beings it resembles more + the account in Genesis 2; but from that account it is sharply + distinguished by its assumption of a watery chaos in contrast + to the arid waste of Genesis 2⁵. It is therefore inadmissible + to regard this text as a more illuminating parallel to Genesis 1 + than the _Enuma eliš_ tablets. The most that can be said is that + it suggests the possibility that in Babylonia there may have + existed recensions of the creation story in which the mythical + motive of a conflict between the creator and the chaos-monster + played no part, and that the biblical narrative goes back + directly to one of these. But when we consider that the Tiamat + myth appears in both the Greek accounts of Babylonian cosmogony, + that echoes of it are found in other ancient cosmogonies, + and that in these cases its imagery is modified in accordance + with the religious ideas of the various races, the greater + probability is that the cosmogony of Genesis 1 is directly + derived from it, and that the elimination of its mythical + and polytheistic elements is due to the influence of the + pure ethical monotheism of the Old Testament.――Gunkel in + his _Schöpfung und Chaos_ was the first to call attention + to possible survivals of the creation myth in Hebrew poetry. + We find allusions to a conflict between Yahwe and a monster + personified under various names (Rahab, the Dragon, Leviathan, + etc.――but never _Tĕhôm_); and no explanation of them is so + natural as that which traces them to the idea of a struggle + between Yahwe and the power of chaos, preceding (as in the + Babylonian myth) the creation of the world. The passages, + however, are late; and we cannot be sure that they do not + express a literary interest in foreign mythology rather than + a survival of a native Hebrew myth.² + + ¹ _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain + and Ireland_, 1891, 393 ff.; translated in King, _The + Seven Tablets of Creation_, 131 ff.; _Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, 39 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 129 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 27 f.; + Sayce, _Early Israel_, 336 f. Compare the summary in _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 498. + + ² The chief texts are Isaiah 51⁹ ᶠᐧ, Psalms 89⁸⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Job + 26¹² ᶠᐧ (Rahab); Psalms 74¹² ᶠᶠᐧ, Isaiah 27¹ (Leviathan); Job + 7¹² (the Dragon), etc. See the discussion in _Schöpfung und + Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 30‒111; and the criticisms of + Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 950 f., and Nikel, pages + 90‒99. + + 4. The Phœnician cosmogony, of which the three extant recensions + are given below,¹ hardly presents any instructive points of + comparison with Genesis 1. It contains, however, in each of + its recensions, the idea of the world-egg――a very widespread + cosmological speculation to which no Babylonian analogies have + been found, but which is supposed to underlie the last clause of + Genesis 1². In Sanchuniathon, the union of ‘gloomy, breath-like + Air’ with ‘turbid dark Chaos’ produces a miry watery mixture + called Μωτ, in which all things originate, and first of all + certain living beings named ‘watchers of heaven’ (צֹפֵי שָׁמַיִם). These + appear to be the constellations, and it is said that they are + ‘shaped _like the form of an egg_,’ i.e., probably, are arranged + in the sky in that form. In Eudemos, the first principles are + Χρόνος, Πόθος, and Ὀμίχλη: the two latter give birth to Ἀήρ and + Αὔρα, and from the union of these again proceeds ‘an _egg_.’ + More striking is the expression of the idea in Mochos. Here + the union of Αἰθήρ and Ἀήρ produces Οὐλωμος (עוֹלָם), from which + proceed Χουσωρος, ‘the first opener,’ and then ‘an _egg_.’ It is + afterwards explained that the egg is the heaven, and that when + it is split in two (? by Χουσωρος) the one half forms the heaven + and the other the earth. It may introduce consistency into these + representations if we suppose that in the process of evolution + the primæval chaos (which is coextensive with the future + heaven and earth) assumes the shape of an egg, and that this is + afterwards divided into two parts, corresponding to the heaven + and the earth. The function of Χουσωρος is thus analogous to + the act of Marduk in cleaving the body of Tiamat in two. But + obviously all this throws remarkably little light on Genesis + 1².――Another supposed point of contact is the resemblance + between the name Βααυ and the Hebrew בֹּהוּ. In Sanchuniathon + Βααυ is explained as night, and is said to be the wife of the + Kolpia-wind, and mother of Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος, the first pair + of mortals. It is evident that there is much confusion in this + part of the extract; and it is not unreasonably conjectured that + Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος were really the first pair of emanations, + and Kolpia and Baau the chaotic principles from which they + spring; so that they may be the cosmological equivalents of Tōhû + and Bōhû in Genesis. There is a strong probability that the name + Βααυ is connected with Bau, a Babylonian mother-goddess (see + _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 161); but + the evidence is too slight to enable us to say that specifically + Phœnician influences are traceable in Genesis 1². + + ¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited by Heinichen, + page 37 ff.; compare Orelli, _Sanchoniathonis Berytii Quae + Feruntur Fragmenta_ [1826]), gives the following account + of the cosmogony of Sanchuniathon (a Phœnician writer of + unknown date, and even of uncertain historicity) taken from + Philo Byblius: + + “Τὴν τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεται ἀέρα ζοφώδη καὶ πνευματώδη, + ἢ πνοὴν ἀέρος ζοφώδους, καὶ χάος θολερὸν, ἐρεβῶδες. Ταῦτα + δὲ εἶναι ἄπειρα, καὶ διὰ πολὺν αἰῶνα μὴ ἔχειν πέρας. Ὅτε + δέ, φησιν, ἠράσθη τὸ πνεῦμα τῶν ἰδίων ἀρχῶν, καὶ ἐγένετο + σύγκρασις, ἡ πλοκὴ ἐκείνη ἐκλήθη Πόθος. Αὕτη δὲ ἀρχὴ κτίσεως + ἁπάντων· αὐτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκε τὴν αὐτοῦ κτίσιν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς + αὐτοῦ συμπλοκῆς τοῦ πνεύματος, ἐγένετο Μώτ. Τοῦτό τινές + φασιν ἰλύν, οἱ δὲ, ὑδατώδους μίξεως σῆψιν. Καὶ ἐκ ταύτης + ἐγένετο πᾶσα σπορὰ κτίσεως, καὶ γένεσις τῶν ὅλων. Ἦν δέ τινα + ζῶα οὐκ ἔχοντα αἴσθησιν, ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο ζῶα νοερὰ, καὶ ἐκλήθη + Ζωφασημὶν [Ζωφησαμιμ] τοῦτ’ ἔστιν οὐρανοῦ κατόπται. Καὶ + ἀνεπλάσθη ὁμοίως [+ ὠοῦ, see Orr] σχήματι· καὶ ἐξέλαμψε Μὼτ + ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη, ἀστέρες τε καὶ ἄστρα μεγάλα” ... “Καὶ + τοῦ ἀέρος διαυχάσαντος, διὰ πύρωσιν καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ + τῆς γῆς ἐγένετο πνεύματα, καὶ νέφη, καὶ οὐρανίων ὑδάτων + μέγισται καταφοραὶ καὶ χύσεις. Καὶ ἐπειδὴ διεκρίθη, καὶ τοῦ + ἰδίου τόπου διεχωρίσθη διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πύρωσιν, καὶ πάντα + συνήντησε πάλιν ἐν ἀέρι τάδε τοῖσδε, καὶ συνέῤῥαξαν· βρονταί + τε ἀπετελέσθησαν καὶ ἀστραπαὶ, καὶ πρὸς τὸν πάταγον τῶν + βροντῶν τὰ προγεγραμμένα νοερὰ ζῶα ἐγρηγόρησεν καὶ πρὸς + τὸν ἦχον ἐπτύρη, καὶ ἐκινήθη ἔν τε γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ ἄῤῥεν + καὶ θῆλυ.” ... Ἑξῆς τούτοις ὀνόματα τῶν ἀνέμων εἰπὼν, Νότου + καὶ Βορέου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἐπιλέγει· “Ἀλλ’ οὗτοί γε πρῶτοι + ἀφιέρωσαν τὰ τῆς γῆς βλαστήματα, καὶ θεοὺς ἐνόμισαν, καὶ + προσεκύνουν ταῦτα, ἀφ’ ὧν αὐτοί τε διεγίνοντο, καὶ οἱ + ἑπόμενοι, καὶ οἱ πρὸ αὐτῶν πάντες, καὶ χοὰς καὶ ἐπιθύσεις + ἐποίουν.” Καὶ ἐπιλέγει· “Αὗται δ’ ἦσαν αἱ ἐπίνοιαι τῆς + προσκυνήσεως, ὅμοιαι τῇ αὐτῶν ἀσθενείᾳ, καὶ ψυχῆς ἀτολμίᾳ. + Εἶτά φησι γεγενῆσθαι ἐκ τοῦ Κολπία ἀνέμου, καὶ γυναικὸς + αὐτοῦ Βάαυ, τοῦτο δὲ νύκτα ἑρμηνεύειν, Αἰῶνα καὶ Πρωτόγονον + θνητοὺς ἄνδρας, οὕτω καλουμένους.” ... [the sequel on page + 124 below]. + + The other versions are from Eudemos (a pupil of Aristotle) + and a native writer Mōchos: they are preserved in the + following passage of Damascius (cap. 125; edited by Kopp, + page 385): + + Σιδώνιοι δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν συγγραφέα (_i.e._ Eudemos) πρὸ + πάντων Χρόνον ὑποτίθενται καὶ Πόθον καὶ Ὀμίχλην. Πόθου δὲ + καὶ Ὀμίχλης μιγέντων ὡς δυοῖν ἀρχῶν Ἀέρα γενέσθαι καὶ Αὔραν, + Ἀέρα μὲν ἄκρατον τοῦ νοητοῦ παραδηλοῦντες, Αὔραν δὲ τὸ ἐξ + αὐτοῦ κινούμενον τοῦ νοητοῦ ζωτικὸν προτύπωμα. Πάλιν δὲ ἐκ + τούτων ἀμφοῖν ὦτον [read ὠὸν] γεννηθῆναι κατὰ τὸν νοῦν οἶμαι + τὸν νοητόν. Ὡς δὲ ἔξωθεν Εὐδήμου τὴν Φοινίκων εὑρίσκομεν + κατὰ Μῶχον μυθολογίαν, Αἰθὴρ ἦν τὸ πρῶτον καὶ Ἀὴρ αἱ + δύο αὗται ἄρχαι, ἐξ ὧν γεννᾶται Οὐλωμὸς, ὁ νοητὸς θεὸς, + αὐτὸ οἶμαι τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ νοητοῦ· ἐξ οὗ ἑαυτῷ συνελθόντος + γεννηθῆναί φησι Χουσωρὸν, ἀνοιγέα πρῶτον, εἶτα ὠόν· τοῦτον + μὲν οἶμαι τὸν νοητὸν νοῦν λέγοντες, τὸν δὲ ἀνοιγέα Χουσωρὸν, + τὴν νοητὴν δύναμιν ἅτε πρώτην διακρίνασαν τὴν ἀδιάκριτον + φύσιν, εἰ μὴ ἄρα μετὰ τὰς δύο ἀρχὰς τὸ μὲν ἄκρον ἐστὶν + ἄνεμος ὁ εἷς, τὸ δὲ μέσον οἱ δύο ἄνεμοι Λίψ τε καὶ Νότος· + ποιοῦσι γάρ πως καὶ τούτους πρὸ τοῦ Οὐλωμοῦ· ὁ δὲ Οὐλωμὸς + αὐτὸς ὁ νοητὸς εἴη νοῦς, ὁ δὲ ἀνοιγεὺς, Χουσωρὸς, ἡ μετὰ + τὸ νοητὸν πρώτη τάξις, τὸ δὲ ὠὸν ὁ οὐρανός· λέγεται γὰρ + ἐξ αὐτοῦ ῥαγέντος εἰς δύο, γενέσθαι οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ, τῶν + διχοτομημάτων ἑκάτερον. + + 5. A division of creation into six stages, in an order similar + to that of Genesis 1, appears in the late book of the Bundehesh + (the Parsee Genesis), where the periods are connected with the + six annual festivals called Gahanbars, so as to form a creative + year, parallel to the week of Genesis 1. The order is: 1. Heaven; + 2. Water; 3. Earth; 4. Plants; 5. Animals; 6. Men. We miss from + the enumeration: Light, which in Zoroastrianism is an uncreated + element; and the Heavenly bodies, which are said to belong + to an earlier creation (Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im + Altertum_, ii. 296). The late date of the Bundehesh leaves + room, of course, for the suspicion of biblical influence; but + it is thought by some that the same order can be traced in + a passage of the younger Avesta, and that it may belong to + ancient Iranian tradition (Tiele, _l.c._, and _Archiv für + Religionswissenschaft._, vi. 244 ff.; Caland, _Theologisch + Tijdschrift_, xxiii. 179 ff.).――The most remarkable of all + known parallels to the six days’ scheme of Genesis is found + in a cosmogony attributed to the ancient Etruscans by Suidas + (_Lexicon_, _s.v._ Τυρρηνία). Here the creation is said to have + been accomplished in six periods of 1000 years, in the following + order: 1. Heaven and Earth; 2. the Firmament; 3. Sea and Water; + 4. Sun and Moon; 5. Souls of Animals; 6. Man (see K. O. Müller, + _Die Etrusker_, ii. 38; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 154 f.). Suidas, however, lived not earlier than the + 10th century A.D., and though his information may have been + derived from ancient sources, we cannot be sure that his account + is not coloured by knowledge of the Hebrew cosmogony. + + + + + II. 4b‒III. 24. + _The Creation and Fall of Man_ + (Yahwist). + + +The passage forms a complete and closely articulated narrative,¹ of +which the leading motive is man’s loss of his original innocence and +happiness through eating forbidden fruit, and his consequent expulsion +from the garden of Eden. The account of creation in 2⁴ᵇ ᶠᶠᐧ had +primarily, perhaps, an independent interest; yet it contains little +that is not directly subservient to the main theme developed in chapter +3. It is scarcely to be called a cosmogony, for the making of ‘earth +and heaven’ (2⁴ᵇ) is assumed without being described; the narrative +springs from an early phase of thought which was interested in +the beginnings of human life and history, but had not advanced to +speculation on the origin of heaven and earth (compare Frankenberg +in Gunkel² 24). From chapter 1 it differs fundamentally both in its +conception of the primal condition of the world as an arid, waterless +waste (2⁵ ᶠᐧ: contrast 1²), and in the order of creative works: viz. +Man (⁷), Trees (⁹), Animals (¹⁸⁻²⁰), Woman (²¹⁻²³). Alike in this +arrangement and in the supplementary features――the garden (⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), +the miraculous trees (⁹ᵇ), the appointments regarding man’s position +in the world (¹⁵⁻¹⁷), and the remarkable omissions (plants, fishes, +etc.)――it is governed by the main episode to which it leads up (chapter +3), with its account of the temptation by the serpent (¹⁻⁵), the +transgression (⁶ᐧ ⁷), the inquest (⁸⁻¹³), the sentences (¹⁴⁻¹⁹), and +the expulsion from Eden (²²⁻²⁴). + + ¹ Compare especially 2⁴ᵇ{β} with 3¹⁹ᐧ ²³; 2⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ ᶠᐧ with + 3¹⁻⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²²; 2⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁵ with 3²³ ᶠᐧ; 2¹⁹ with 3¹ᵃᐧ ¹⁴; 2²¹⁻²³ + with 3¹²; (2²⁴ with 3¹⁶ᵇ); 2²⁵} with 3⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ. + + The story thus summarised is one of the most charming idylls + in literature: chapter 3 is justly described by Gunkel as the + ‘pearl of Genesis.’ Its literary and æsthetic character is best + appreciated by comparison with chapter 1. Instead of the formal + precision, the schematic disposition, the stereotyped diction, + the aim at scientific classification, which distinguish the + great cosmogony, we have here a narrative marked by childlike + simplicity of conception, exuberant though pure imagination, + and a captivating freedom of style. Instead of lifting God far + above man and nature, this writer revels in the most exquisite + anthropomorphisms; he does not shrink from speaking of God as + walking in His garden in the cool of the day (3⁸), or making + experiments for the welfare of His first creature (2¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), or + arriving at a knowledge of man’s sin by a searching examination + (3⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), etc. While the purely mythological phase of thought + has long been outgrown, a mythical background everywhere + appears; the happy garden of God, the magic trees, the speaking + serpent, the Cherubim and Flaming Sword, are all emblems derived + from a more ancient religious tradition. Yet in depth of moral + and religious insight the passage is unsurpassed in the Old + Testament. We have but to think of its delicate handling of + the question of sex, its profound psychology of temptation and + conscience, and its serious view of sin, in order to realise + the educative influence of revealed religion in the life of + ancient Israel. It has to be added that we detect here the first + note of that sombre, almost melancholy, outlook on human life + which pervades the older stratum of Genesis 1‒11. Compare the + characterisation in Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte + Israels_⁶ 302 ff.; Gunkel page 22 ff. + + _Source._――The features just noted, together with the use of + the divine name יהוה, show beyond doubt that the passage belongs + to the Yahwistic cycle of narratives (Yahwist). Expressions + characteristic of this document are found in קדמת 2¹⁴, הפעם 2²³, + מה־זאת 3¹³, ארור 3¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, עצבון 3¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷, בעבור 3¹⁷; and (in contrast to + Priestly-Code) יצר, ‘create,’ instead of ברא, חית השדה instead of ח׳ + הארץ, נשמת חיים instead of רוח ח׳ (see on 7²²); and the constant use + of accusative suffix to the verb. + + _Traces of Composition._――That the literary unity of the + narrative is not perfect there are several indications, more or + less decisive. (1) The geographical section 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ is regarded + by most critics (since Ewald) as a later insertion, on the + grounds that it is out of keeping with the simplicity of the + main narrative, and seriously interrupts its sequence. The + question is whether it be merely an isolated interpolation, + or an extract from a parallel recension. If the latter be in + evidence, we know too little of its character to say that 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ + could not have belonged to it. At all events the objections + urged would apply only to ¹¹⁻¹⁴; and there is much to be said, + on this assumption, for retaining ¹⁰ (or at least ¹⁰ᵃ) as a + parallel to verse ⁶ (Holzinger).――(2) A more difficult problem + is the confusion regarding the two trees on which the fate of + man depends, a point to which attention was first directed by + Budde. According to 2⁹ᵇ the tree of life and the tree of the + knowledge of good and evil grew together in the midst of the + garden, and in 2¹⁷ the second alone is made the test of the + man’s obedience. But chapter 3 (down to verse ²¹) knows of only + one tree in the midst of the garden, and that obviously (though + it is never so named) the tree of knowledge. The tree of life + plays no part in the story except in 3²²ᐧ ²⁴, and its sudden + introduction there only creates fresh embarrassment; for if this + tree also was forbidden, the writer’s silence about it in 2¹⁷ + 3³ is inexplicable; and if it was not forbidden, can we suppose + that in the author’s intention the boon of immortality was + placed freely within man’s reach during the period of his + probation? So far as the main narrative is concerned, the tree + of life is an irrelevance; and we shall see immediately that the + part where it does enter into the story is precisely the part + where signs of redaction or dual authorship accumulate.――(3) + The clearest indication of a double recension is found in the + twofold account of the expulsion from Eden: 3²³ᐧ ²⁴. Here ²² + and ²⁴ clearly hang together; ²⁰ and ²¹ are as clearly out + of their proper position; hence ²³ may have been the original + continuation of ¹⁹, to which it forms a natural sequel. There + is thus some reason to believe that in this instance, at any + rate, the ‘tree of life’ is not from the hand of the chief + narrator.――(4) Other and less certain duplicates are: 2⁶ ∥ + 2¹⁰ ⁽¹¹⁻¹⁴⁾ (see above), ⁸ᵃ ∥ ⁹ᵃ (the planting of the garden); + and ⁸ᵇ ¹⁵ᵃ (the placing of man in it); 2²³ ∥ 3²⁰ (the naming of + the woman).――(5) Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 232 ff.) + was the first to suggest that the double name יהוה אלהים (which + is all but peculiar to this section) has arisen through + amalgamation of sources. His theory in its broader aspects has + been stated on page 3, above; it is enough here to point out its + bearing on the compound name in Genesis 2 f. It is assumed that + two closely parallel accounts existed, one of which (Yahwistᵉ) + employed only אלהים, the other (Yahwistʲ) only יהוה. When these + were combined the editor harmonised them by adding אלהים to יהוה + everywhere in Yahwistʲ, and prefixing יהוה to אלהים everywhere + in Yahwistᵉ except in the colloquy between the serpent and + the woman (3¹⁻⁵), where the general name was felt to be more + appropriate.¹ The reasoning is precarious; but if it be sound, + it follows that 3¹⁻⁵ must be assigned to Yahwistᵉ; and since + these verses are part of the main narrative (that which speaks + only of the tree of knowledge), there remain for Yahwistʲ only + 3²²ᐧ ²⁴, and possibly some variants and glosses in the earlier + part of the narrative.――On the whole, the facts seem to warrant + these conclusions: of the Paradise story two recensions existed; + in one, the only tree mentioned was the tree of the knowledge of + good and evil, while the other certainly contained the tree of + life (so van Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 225 f.) + and possibly both trees;² the former supplied the basis of our + present narrative, and is practically complete, while the second + is so fragmentary that all attempt to reconstruct even its main + outlines must be abandoned as hopeless. + + ¹ So Gunkel. A still more complete explanation of this + particular point would be afforded by the somewhat intricate + original hypothesis of Budde. He suggested that the primary + narrative (Yahwist¹) in which יהוה was regularly used, + except in 3¹⁻⁵, was re-written and supplemented by Yahwist² + who substituted אלהים for יהוה; the two narratives were + subsequently amalgamated in rather mechanical fashion by + Yahwist³, with the result that wherever the divine names + differed both were retained, and where the documents agreed + אלהים alone appears (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 233 f.). + Later in the volume (471 ff.) the hypothesis is withdrawn in + favour of the view that Yahwist² contained no Paradise story + at all.――A similar explanation is given by van Doorninck + (_l.c._ 239), who thinks the retention of אלהים in 3¹⁻⁵ was + due to the redactor’s desire to avoid the imputation of + falsehood to Yahwe! + + ² The point here depends on the degree of similarity assumed + to have obtained between the two recensions. Gunkel, who + assumes that the resemblance was very close, holds that + in Yahwistʲ probably both trees were concerned in the fall + of man. But the text gives no indication that in Yahwistʲ + the knowledge of good and evil was attained by eating the + fruit of a tree: other ways of procuring unlawful knowledge + are conceivable; and it is therefore possible that in this + version the tree of life alone occupied a position analogous + to that of the tree of knowledge in the other (see, further, + Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 355 f.). + + + 4b‒7. + The creation of man. + +On the somewhat involved construction of the section, see the +footnote.――=4b.= _At the time when Yahwe Elohim made, etc._] The double +name יַהְוֶה אֱלֹהִים, which is all but peculiar to Genesis 2 f., is probably +to be explained as a result of redactional operations (_v.i._), rather +than (with Reuss, Ayles, al.) as a feature of the isolated source from +which these two chapters were taken.――_earth and heaven_] The unusual +order (which is reversed by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, +LXX, Peshiṭtå) appears again only in Psalms 148¹³.――=5.= _there was +as yet no bush, etc._] Or (on Dillmann’s construction) _while as yet +there was no, etc._ The rare word שִׂיחַ denotes elsewhere (21¹⁵ [Elohist], +Job. 30⁴ᐧ ⁷) a desert shrub (so Syrian, Arabic); but a wider sense is +attested by Assyrian and Phœnician. It is difficult to say whether +here it means wild as opposed to cultivated plants (Hupfeld, Gunkel), +or perennials as opposed to annuals (Holzinger).――For the earth’s +barrenness two reasons are assigned: (1) the absence of rain, and (2) +the lack of cultivation. In the East, however, the essence of husbandry +is irrigation; hence the two conditions of fertility correspond broadly +to the Arabian (and Talmudic) contrast between land watered by the +Baal and that watered by human labour (Robinson, Smend, _Lectures on +the Religion of the Semites_², 96 ff.).――_to till the ground_] This, +therefore, is man’s original destiny, though afterwards it is imposed +on him as a curse,――an indication of the fusion of variant traditions. +אֲדָמָה, both here and verse ⁶, has probably the restricted sense of +‘soil,’ ‘arable land’ (compare 4¹⁴).――=6.= _but a flood_ (or _mist_, +_v.i._) _used to come up_ (periodically)] “The idea of the author +appears to be that the ground was rendered capable of cultivation by +the overflow of some great river” (Ayles). + + It is certainly difficult to imagine any other purpose to be + served by the ‘flood’ than to induce fertility, for we can + hardly attribute to the writer the trivial idea that it had + simply the effect of moistening the soil for the formation of + man, etc. (Rashi, al., compare Gunkel, Cheyne, _Traditions and + Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 87). But this appears to neutralise + ⁵ᵇ{α}, since rain is no longer an indispensable condition + of vegetation. Holzinger, accordingly, proposes to remove ⁶ + and to treat it as a variant of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴. The meaning might be, + however, that the flood, when supplemented by human labour, + was sufficient to fertilise the _’ădāmāh_, but had, of course, + no effect on the steppes, which were dependent on rain. The + difficulty is not removed if we render ‘mist’; and the brevity + of the narrative leaves other questions unanswered; such as, + When was rain first sent on the earth? At what stage are we to + place the creation of the cereals? etc. + + If the above explanation be correct, there is a confusion of + two points of view which throws an interesting light on the + origin of the story. The rain is suggested by experience of + a dry country, like Palestine. The flood, on the other hand, + is a reminiscence of the entirely different state of things + in an alluvial country like the Euphrates valley, where + husbandry depends on artificial irrigation assisted by periodic + inundations. While, therefore, there may be a Babylonian basis + to the myth, it must have taken its present shape in some drier + region, presumably in Palestine. To say that it “describes ... + the phenomena witnessed by the first colonists of Babylonia,” + involves more than ‘mythic exaggeration’ (Cheyne _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 949). + + * * * * * + + =4b‒7.= The sudden change of style and language shows that + the transition to the Yahwistic document takes place at the + middle of verse ⁴. The construction presents the same syntactic + ambiguity as 1¹⁻³ (see the note there); except, of course, that + there can be no question of taking ⁴ᵇ as an independent sentence. + We may also set aside the conjecture (Wellhausen _Prolegomena + zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 297 f.; Kautzsch-Socin, al.) that + the clause is the conclusion of a lost sentence of Yahwist, as + inconsistent with the natural position of the time determination + in Hebrew. ⁴ᵇ must therefore be joined as protasis to what + follows; and the question is whether the apodosis commences at ⁵ + (Tuch, Strack, Driver, al.), or (with ⁵ ᶠᐧ as a parenthesis) at ⁷ + (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). In syntax either view is admissible; + but the first yields the better sense. The state of things + described in ⁵ ᶠᐧ evidently lasted some time; hence it is + not correct to say that Yahwe made man at the time when He + made heaven and earth: to connect ⁷ directly with ⁴ᵇ is “to + identify a _period_ (verse ⁶) with a _point_ (verse ⁷) of + time” (Spurrell).――On the form of apodosis, see again Driver + _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78.――=4.= בְּיוֹם + always emphasises contemporaneousness of two events (compare + 2¹⁷ 3⁵); the indefiniteness lies in the substantive, which often + covers a space of time (= ‘when’: Exodus 6²⁸ 32³⁴, Jeremiah + 11⁴ etc.).――יהוה אלהים] in Hexateuch only Exodus 9³⁰; elsewhere 2 + Samuel 7²²ᐧ ²⁵, Jonah 4⁶, Psalms 72¹⁸ 84⁹ᐧ ¹², 1 Chronicles 17¹⁶, + 2 Chronicles 6⁴¹. LXX uses the expression frequently up to 9¹², + but its usage is not uniform even in chapters 2. 3. The double + name has sometimes been explained by the supposition that an + editor added אלהים to the original יהוה in order to smooth the + transition from Priestly-Code to Yahwist, or as a hint to the + Synagogue reader to substitute אלהים for יהוה; but that is scarcely + satisfactory. A more adequate solution is afforded by the theory + of Budde and Gunkel, on which see page 53. Barton and Cheyne + (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 99 f.) take it + as a compound of the same type as _Melek-Aštart_, etc., an + utterly improbable suggestion.――=5.= שיח is probably the same as + Assyrian _šiḫtu_, from √ = ‘grow high’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches + Handwörterbuch_), and hence might include trees, as rendered by + Peshiṭtå, Targum.――On עשב, see on 1¹¹. The genitive השדה, common + to both, denotes open country, as opposed sometimes to cities + or houses, sometimes to enclosed cultivated land (Delitzsch, + 96).――On טֶרֶם with imperfect, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _c_; + Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 27 β. + The rendering ‘before’ (LXX [one of the deviations mentioned + in Mechilta――see on 1¹] Vulgate) would imply בְּטֶרֶם, and is + wrong.――=6.= אֵד] LXX πηγή Aquila ἐπιβλυσμός, Vulgate _fons_, + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ עננא. Cheyne conjecture יְאֹר; + others עַיִן (after versions). The word has no etymology in Hebrew, + and the only other occurrence (Job 36²⁷) is even more obscure + than this. ‘Cloud’ (Targum) or ‘mist’ is a natural guess, and it + is doubtful if it be anything better. The meaning ‘flood’ comes + from Assyrian _edû_, applied to the annual overflow of a river + (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_),――note the frequent + imperfect. Gunkel thinks it a technical semi-mythological term + of the same order as _Tĕhôm_, with which Rashi seems to connect + it; while Abraham Ibn Ezra interprets ‘cloud,’ but confounds + the word with אֵיד, ‘calamity’ (Zephaniah 1¹⁵); so Aquila, who + renders the latter by ἐπιβλυσμός in Proverbs 1²⁶, Job 30¹² (see + _Bereshith Rabba_ § 13).――On the tenses, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 112 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ + § 113, 4 (β). + + * * * * * + +=7.= _Yahwe Elōhîm moulded man_] The verb יָצַר (avoided by Priestly-Code) +is used, in the participle, of the potter; and that figure underlies +the representation. An Egyptian picture shows the god Chnum forming +human beings on the potter’s disc (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte +des alten Orients_², 146).――The idea of man as made of clay or earth +appears in Babylonian; but is indeed universal, and pervades the +whole Old Testament.――_breath of life_] Omit the article. The phrase +recurs only 7²² (Yahwist), where it denotes the animal life, and there +is no reason for supposing another meaning here. “Subscribere eorum +sententiæ non dubito qui de animali hominis vita locum hunc exponunt” +(Calvin).――_man became a living being_] נֶפֶשׁ here is not a constituent +of human nature, but denotes the personality as a whole. + + The verse has commonly been treated as a _locus classicus_ of + Old Testament anthropology, and as determining the relations + of the three elements of human nature――flesh, soul, spirit――to + one another. It is supposed to teach that the soul (נֶפֶשׁ) arises + through the union of the universal life-principle (רוּחַ) with the + material frame (בָּשָׂר): compare _e.g._ Grüneisen, _Ahnenkultus_, 34 + f. No such ideas are expressed: neither בשר nor רוח is mentioned, + while נפשׁ is not applied to a separate element of man’s being, + but to the whole man in possession of vital powers. “All that + seems in question here is just the giving of vitality to man. + There seems no allusion to man’s immaterial being, to his + spiritual element.... Vitality is communicated by God, and he + is here represented as communicating it by breathing into man’s + nostrils that breath which is the sign of life” (Davidson, _The + Theology of the Old Testament_ 194). At the same time, the fact + that God imparts his own breath to man, marks the dignity of man + above the animals: it is Yahwist’s equivalent for the ‘image of + God.’ + + * * * * * + + =7.= אדם ... אדמה] Both words are of uncertain etymology. The + old derivation from the verb ‘be red’ (... πυῤῥόν· ἐπειδήπερ + ἀπὸ τῆς πυῤῥᾶς γῆς φυραθείσης ἐγεγόνει: Josephus _Antiquities + of the Jews_ i. 34) is generally abandoned, but none better + has been found to replace it (recent theories in Dillmann + 53 f.). According to Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 722), אדם appears in Arabic + as _’ānām_ (compare Haupt, _ib._ lxi. 194). Friedrich Delitzsch’s + view, that both words embody the idea of tillage, seems (as + Dillmann says) to rest on the ambiguity of the German _bauen_; + but it is very near the thought of this passage: man is made + from the soil, lives by its cultivation, and returns to it at + death.――עפר] Accusative of material, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _hh_. + Gunkel regards it as a variant to האדמה from Yahwistʲ.――נפש חיה] + This appears to be the only place where the phrase is applied + to man; elsewhere to animals (1²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ etc.). נ׳, primarily + ‘breath,’ denotes usually the vital principle (with various mental + connotations), and ultimately the whole being thus animated――the + person. The last is the only sense consistent with the structure + of the sentence here. + + * * * * * + + + 8‒17. + The garden of Eden. + +That the planting of the garden was subsequent to the creation of man +is the undoubted meaning of the writer; the rendering _plantaverat_ +(Vulgate: so Abraham Ibn Ezra) is grammatically impossible, and is +connected with a misconception of מקדם below.――_a garden in Eden_] This +is perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geographical designation) is +distinguished from the garden (compare 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ 3²³ᐧ ²⁴ 4¹⁶, Isaiah 51³, +Ezekiel 28¹³ 31⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ 36³⁵, Joel 2³, Sirach 40²⁷). The common phrase +גַּן עֵדֶן would suggest to a Hebrew the idea ‘garden of delight,’ as it is +rendered by LXX (often) and Vulgate (_v.i._). There is no probability +that the proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived +by the younger Delitzsch and Schrader from Babylonian _edinu_, ‘plain,’ +‘steppe,’ or ‘desert’ (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 80; _Die +Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 26 f.; _Die Keilinschriften +und das Alte Testament_³, 539); but it is a somewhat precarious +inference that the garden was conceived as an oasis in the midst of +a desert (Holzinger).――מִקֶּדֶם] ‘_in the_ (far) _East_’; _i.e._ from the +Palestinian standpoint of the author; not, of course, to be identified +with any other עֶדֶן within the geographical horizon of the Israelites +(see 2 Kings 19¹² [= Isaiah 37¹²], Ezekiel 27²³, Amos 1⁵). + + Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden + appears also in Genesis 13¹⁰, Ezekiel 31⁸. Usually it is a mere + symbol of luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its + lordly trees (Ezekiel 31⁸ ᶠᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸); but in Ezekiel 28¹³ it + is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine being. Most of + the allusions are explicable as based on Genesis 2 f.; but the + imagery of Ezekiel 28 reveals a highly mythological conception + of which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the + idea be primitive Semitic (and גַּן is common to all the leading + dialects), it may originate in the sacred grove (_Hima_) “where + water and verdure are united, where the fruits of the sacred + trees are _taboo_, and the wild animals are _’anīs_, _i.e._ on + good terms with man, because they may not be frightened away” + (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 303²; compare + _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 141; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic + Origins_¹, 96). In early times such spots of natural fertility + were the haunts of the gods or supernatural beings (_Lectures + on the Religion of the Semites_², 102 ff.). But from the wide + diffusion of the myth, and the facts pointed out on page 93 f. + below, it is plain that the conception has been enriched by + material from different quarters, and had passed through a + mythological phase before it came into the hands of the biblical + writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and + mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the + religious literature (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 195 ff.). + + * * * * * + + =8.= גן] LXX παράδεισος (compare פרדס, Canticles 4¹³, Ecclesiastes + 2⁵, Nehemiah 2⁸: probably from Persian), and so Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå.――עֵדֶן] is regularly treated as a proper noun by + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Peshiṭtå, by Vulgate only 4¹⁶ (everywhere + else as appellative: _voluptas, deliciæ_). LXX has Ἐδεμ + only in 2⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ 4¹⁶; elsewhere τρυφή[ς], except Isaiah 51³ + (παράδεισος).――מקדם] Literally ‘in front’ (on the מן see König + _Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ + ii. page 318; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 578ᵇ): in the history + books it always means ‘east’ or ‘eastward’; but in prophets + and Psalms it usually has temporal sense (‘of old’); and so + it is misunderstood here by all versions except LXX (Vulgate + _in principio_, etc.).――=9.= כל־עץ] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 + _b_.――הדעת] The use of article with infitive construct is very + rare (Davidson § 19), but is explained by the frequent use of + דעת as abstract noun. Otherwise the construction is regular, טוב ורע + being accusative, not genitive of object.――Budde (_Die biblische + Urgeschichte_ 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound + object by the secondary predicate בתוך הגן, and thinks the original + text must have been ובתוך הגן עץ הדעח וגו׳; thus finding a confirmation of + the theory that the primary narrative knew of only one tree, and + that the tree of knowledge (page 52; so Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel, + al.). In view of the instances examined by Driver in _Hebraica_, + ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be + sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead + to the excision of the second member rather than of the first + (Kuenen _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1884, 136; van Doorninck, + _ib._, 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, _ib._ 494 ff.). A more important + point is the absence of את before the definite object. The + writer’s use of this participle is very discriminating; and + its omission suggests that ⁹ᵇ is really a nominal clause, as + rendered above. If we were to indulge in analysis of sources, + we might put ⁹ᵇ (in whole or in part) after ⁸ᵃ, and assign it to + that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly spoke of a + tree of life (3²²). + + * * * * * + +=9.= _all sorts of trees ... food_] The primitive vegetation is +conceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit man was to +subsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of the curse pronounced +on the ground (3¹⁷ ᶠᐧ).――_and the tree of life_ (was) _in the midst_] +On Budde’s strictures on the form of the sentence, _v.i._ The intricate +question of the two trees must be reserved for separate discussion +(pages 52 f., 94); for the present form of the story both are +indispensable. The tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3²²; +compare Proverbs 3¹⁸ 11³⁰ 13¹² 15⁴; further, Ezekiel 47¹², Revelation +22²), is a widely diffused idea (see Dillmann 49; Wünsche, _Die Sagen +vom Lebensbaum und Lebenswasser_). The tree of knowledge is a more +refined conception; its property of communicating knowledge of good +and evil is, however, magical, like that of the other; a connexion +with oracular trees (Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. 85 f.; +Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_ ii. 227) is +not so probable. As to what is meant by ‘knowing good and evil,’ see +page 95 ff. + + The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by + Barton (_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 92 f.) to have been + the date-palm; and this corresponds to the sacred palm in + the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu (IV R. 15*), and also to the + conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and palace-reliefs, + which is considered to be a palm combined with some species of + conifer. Compare also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of + _Gilgamesh_, _Tablets_ IV. V. For these and other Babylonian + parallels, see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 195 ff. + +=10.= _a river issued_ (or _issues_) _from Eden_] The language does not +necessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside the garden (Driver, +Bennett); the verb יָצָא is used of the rise of a stream at its source +(Exodus 17⁶, Numbers 20¹¹, Judges 15¹⁹, Ezekiel 47¹, Zechariah 14⁸, +Joel 4¹⁸). Whether the participle expresses past or present time cannot +be determined.――_from thence it divides itself_] The river issues from +the garden as a single stream, then divides into four branches, which +are the four great rivers of the world. The site of Paradise, therefore, +is at the common source of the four rivers in question (page 62‒66 +below). That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent it +may be with physical geography.――=11.= _Pîšôn_] The name occurs (along +with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon) in Sirach 24²⁵, but nowhere +else in Old Testament. That it was not a familiar name to the Hebrews +is shown by the topographical description which follows. On the various +speculative identifications, see Delitzsch and Dillmann, and page 64 f. +below.――_the whole land of Ḥăvîlāh_] The phraseology indicates that the +name is used with some vagueness, and considerable latitude. In 10⁷ᐧ ²⁹ +25¹⁸ etc., Ḥavilah seems to be a district of Arabia (see page 202); +but we cannot be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically +coloured geography of this passage.――=12.= Two other products of the +region are specified; but neither helps to an identification of the +locality.――_bĕdōlaḥ_] a substance well known to the Israelites (Numbers +11⁷), is undoubtedly the fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks +βδέλλιον or βδέλλα. Pliny (_Naturalis Historia_, xii. 35 f.) says +the best kind grew in Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in +Arabia, India, Media, and Babylonia.――_the šōham stone_] A highly +esteemed gem (Job 28¹⁶), suitable for engraving (Exodus 28⁹ etc.), +one of the precious stones of Eden (Ezekiel 28¹³), and apparently +used in architecture (1 Chronicles 29²). From the Greek equivalents +it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the beryl (_v.i._). +According to Pliny, the latter was obtained from India, the former +from India and Arabia (_Naturalis Historia_, xxxvii. 76, 86).――=13.= +_Gîḥôn_] The name of a well on the East of Jerusalem (the Virgin’s +spring: 1 Kings 1³³ etc.), which Abraham Ibn Ezra strangely takes to +be meant here. In Jewish and Christian tradition it was persistently +identified with the Nile (Sirach 24²⁷; LXX of Jeremiah 2¹⁸ [where שִׁחוֹר +is translated Γηών]; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 39, and +the Fathers generally). The great difficulty of that view is that the +Nile was as well known to the Hebrews as the Euphrates, and no reason +appears either for the mysterious designation, or the vague description +appended to the name.――_land of Kûš_] Usually Ethiopia; but see on +10⁶.――=14.= _Ḥiddeḳel_] is certainly the Tigris, though the name occurs +only once again (Daniel 10⁴).――_in front of ’Aššûr_] Either between +it and the spectator, or to the east of it: the latter view is adopted +by nearly all commentaries; but the parallels are indecisive, and +the point is not absolutely settled. Geographically the former would +be more correct, since the centre of the Assyrian Empire lay East of +the Tigris. The second view can be maintained only if אַשּׁוּר be the city +which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now _Ḳal‛at Šerḳāt_ on the +West bank of the river. But that city was replaced as capital by Kalḫi +as early as 1300 B.C., and is never mentioned in Old Testament. It +is at least premature to find in this circumstance a conclusive proof +that the Paradise legend had wandered to Palestine before 1300 B.C. +(Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 347).――_Euphrates_] +The name (פְּרָת) needed no explanation to a Hebrew reader: it is the נָהָר +_par excellence_ of the Old Testament (Isaiah 8⁷ and often). + + _The site of Eden._――If the explanation given above of verse + ¹⁰ be correct,――and it is the only sense which the words will + naturally bear,――it is obvious that a real locality answering + to the description of Eden exists and has existed nowhere on + the face of the earth. The Euphrates and Tigris are not and + never were branches of a single stream; and the idea that two + other great rivers sprang from the same source places the whole + representation outside the sphere of real geographical knowledge. + In ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, in short, we have to do with a semi-mythical geography, + which the Hebrews no doubt believed to correspond with fact, + but which is based neither on accurate knowledge of the region + in question, nor on authentic tradition handed down from the + ancestors of the human race. Nevertheless, the question where + the Hebrew imagination located Paradise is one of great interest; + and many of the proposed solutions are of value, not only for + the light they have thrown on the details of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, but also for + the questions they raise as to the origin and character of the + Paradise-myth. This is true both of those which deny, and of + those which admit, the presence of a mythical element in the + geography of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴. + + 1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the + locality of Paradise, and of all the data of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, at the cost + of a somewhat unnatural exegesis of verse ¹⁰. That of Friedrich + Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_, 1881) is based partly on + the fact that North of Babylon (in the vicinity of Bagdad) the + Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles of each + other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water + through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded + as an offshoot of it. The _land_ of Eden is the plain (_edinu_) + between the two rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a + hundred miles North of Bagdad) and ‛Ana (on the Euphrates) to + the Persian Gulf; the _garden_ being one specially favoured + region from the so-called ‘isthmus’ to a little South of + Babylon. The _river_ of verse ¹⁰ is the Euphrates; Pishon is + the Pallakopas canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the + right a little above Babylon and running nearly parallel with + it to the Persian Gulf; Giḥon is the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_, another + canal running East of the Euphrates from near Babylon and + rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; Ḥiddeḳel and Euphrates + are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates + respectively, the former regarded as replenished through the + canal system from the latter. Ḥavilah is part of the great + Syrian desert lying West and South of the Euphrates; and Kush + is a name for northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the + Kaššite dynasty that once ruled there. In spite of the learning + and ingenuity with which this theory has been worked out, it + cannot clear itself of an air of artificiality at variance with + the simplicity of the passage it seeks to explain. That the + Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-stream and + one of the ‘heads’ into which it breaks up is a glaring anomaly; + while verse ¹⁴ shows that the narrator had distinctly before + his mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and + is therefore not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent + of the Euphrates. The objection that the theory confuses + rivers and canals is fairly met by the argument that the + Babylonian equivalent of נָהָר is used of canals, and also by + the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably + ancient river-beds; but the _order_ in which the rivers are + named tells heavily against the identifications. Moreover, the + expression ‘the _whole_ land of Ḥavilah’ seems to imply a much + larger tract of the earth’s surface than the small section of + desert enclosed by the Pallakopas; and to speak of the _whole_ + of northern Babylonia as ‘surrounded’ by the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_ is + an abuse of language.――According to Sayce _The Higher Criticism + and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 95 ff.; _A Dictionary of the + Bible_, i. 643 f.), the garden of Eden is the sacred garden of + Ea at Eridu; and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf, + on the shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches + are, in addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times + entered the Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes + (now the _Kerkha_), the sacred river of the Persians, from whose + waters alone their kings were allowed to drink (Herodotus i. + 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing that the writer of + verse ¹⁰ meant to trace the streams _upwards_ towards their + source above the garden, the theory does not account for the + order in which the rivers are given; for the Pallakopas is West + of Euphrates, while the Choaspes is East of the Tigris.¹ Further, + although the description of the Persian Gulf as a ‘river’ is + fully justified by its Babylonian designation as _Nâr Marratum_ + (‘Bitter River’), it has yet to be made probable that either + Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a garden as + watered by ‘bitter’ (_i.e._ salt) water.――These objections + apply with equal force to the theory of Hommel (_Aufsätze und + Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, iii. 1, page + 281 ff., etc., _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing + Paradise at Eridu, in making the single stream the Persian Gulf, + and one of the four branches the Euphrates. But the three other + branches, Pishon, Giḥon, and Ḥiddeḳel, he identifies with three + North Arabian wādīs,――Wadi Dawāsir, Wadi Rummā, and Wadi Sirhān + (the last the ‘wādī of Diḳlah’ = _ḫad-deḳel_ [see on verse ¹⁴ + above], the name having been afterwards _transferred_ to the + Tigris). + + ¹ This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson, + who identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further East + than the Kerkha. But that removes it from all connexion with + Ḥavilah, which is one of the recommendations of Sayce’s view. + + 2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory + solution of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears + the natural interpretation of verse ¹⁰, and take along with + it the utopian conception of four great rivers issuing from a + single source. The site of Paradise is then determined by the + imaginary common source of the two known rivers, Euphrates and + Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of the Euphrates + and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently near each + other to make the supposition of a common source possible to + ancient cosmography; and there is no difficulty in believing + that the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains + of Armenia. The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the + Giḥon. To seek them amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and + Trans-Caucasia is a hopeless quest; for a knowledge of these + rivers would imply a knowledge of the country, which must have + dispelled the notion of a common source. Van Doorninck has + suggested the Leontes and Orontes (_Theologisch Tijdschrift_, + xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that + these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris. + There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the + two great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must + have been even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and + Tigris, and might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown + region from Armenia to Turkestan.¹ The attraction of this view + is that it embraces all rivers of the first magnitude that can + have been known in western Asia (for, as we shall see, even the + Nile is not absolutely excluded); and it is no valid objection + to say that the Indian rivers were beyond the horizon of the + Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter the myth + had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no modern + writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness. + Delitzsch and Dillmann identify the Pishon with the Indus, but + follow the traditional identification of Giḥon with the Nile + (see page 61 above). But if the biblical narrator believed the + Nile to rise with Euphrates and Tigris, it is extremely likely + that he regarded its upper waters as the Indus, as Alexander + the Great did in his time;² and we might then fall back on + the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.³ But it + must be admitted that the names Ḥavilah and Kush are a serious + difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may + retain its usual Old Testament meaning if Giḥon be the upper + Nile, either as a continuation of the Indus or a separate river; + but if it be the Indus alone, Kush must be the country of the + Kaššites, conceived as extending indefinitely East of Babylonia. + Ḥavilah has to be taken as a name for India considered as an + extension of North-east Arabia, an interpretation which finds + no support in the Old Testament. At the same time, as Dillmann + observes, the language employed (‘the whole land of Ḥavilah’) + suggests some more spacious region than a limited district + of Arabia; and from the nature of the passage we can have no + certainty that the word is connected with the Ḥavilah of Genesis + 10.――An interesting and independent theory, based on ancient + Babylonian geographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt. + The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been + a large (imaginary) basin of water in North Mesopotamia: the + Euphrates and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon + (suggested by the Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the _Nâr + Marratum_ (Persian Gulf) and the Red Sea, and so ‘encompasses’ + the whole of Ḥavilah (Arabia); beyond this there was supposed + to be land, through which the Giḥon (suggested by the Karun) was + supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia), whence it flowed northwards + as the Nile. The theory perhaps combines more of the biblical + data in an intelligible way than any other that has been + proposed; and it seems to agree with those just considered in + placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers, to + the North of Mesopotamia.⁴ + + ¹ Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian + rivers rise in the Caucasus (XV. 1. 13). The fact that in + mediæval Arabian geographers _Ǧeiḫun_ is a proper name of + the Oxus and the Cilician Pyramus, and an appellative of + the Araxes and the Ganges, might seem at first sight to have + a bearing on the question at issue; but its importance is + discounted by the possibility that the usage is based on + this passage, due to Jewish and Christian influences in the + Middle Ages. + + ² From the presence in both of crocodiles: Arrian, _Anabasis_ + vi. 1, 2 f.; compare Strabo, XV. 1. 25, and the similar + notion about the Nile and Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2. + + ³ Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there + seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas + Indicopleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of + Nile and Indus was a fixed idea? + + ⁴ The summary is taken from Driver, page 59 f.; the original + article, in _Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894‒95, I have not been + able to consult. + + 3. It seems probable that the resources of philology and + scientific geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such + as have been described above, and that further advance towards + a solution of the problem of Paradise will be along the line of + comparative mythology. Discussions precisely similar to those + we have examined are maintained with regard to the Iranian + cosmography――whether, _e.g._, the stream Ranḥa be the Oxus + or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that Ranḥa is a + mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly equivalents + might be named (see Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_ + ii. 291 f.). If we knew more of the diffusion and history of + cosmological ideas in ancient religions, we should probably find + additional reason to believe that Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ is but one of + many attempts to localise on earth a representation which is + essentially mythical. Gunkel (¹33, ²31), adopting a suggestion + of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been at the + North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the + gods: compare Ezekiel 28¹⁴), and the river to be the Milky Way, + branching out――[but does it?]――into four arms (there is some + indication that the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus + were regarded in Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of + Euphrates and Tigris: see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was + the idea in the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the + conception of the mysterious river of Paradise with its four + branches _originated_ in mythological speculation of this kind. + If this be the case, we need not be surprised if it should prove + impossible to identify Pishon and Giḥon with any known rivers: + on the other hand, the mention of the well-known Tigris and + Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth preserved + in Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ located the earthly Paradise in the unknown + northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion + is almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered + by these two rivers,――in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann, + _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 346 f.). + + * * * * * + + =10.= יפרד] Frequently imperfect? So Driver, _A Treatise + on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ §§ 30 α, 113, 4 β; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _d_ (‘always taking place afresh’), + Davidson § 54 (_b_). That seems hardly natural. Is it possible + that for once מִשָּׁם could have the effect of אָז in transporting + the mind to a point whence a new development takes place? + (Davidson § 45, _R._ 2).――רָאשִׁים] Not ‘sources’ but ‘branches’; as + Arabic _ra’s en- nahr_ (as distinct from _ra’s el-‛ain_) means + the point of divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by + Delitzsch, page 82). So Assyrian _rîš nâri_ or _rîš nâr_, of the + point of divergence (_Ausgangsort_) of a canal (Delitzsch _Wo + lag das Paradies?_ 98, 191).――=11.= האחד] See on 1⁵.――הוא הסבב] On + the determination of predicate, Davidson § 19, _R._ 3; compare + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _k_ (so verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ).――החוילה] If the + article be genuine, it shows that the name was significant + (‘sandland,’ from חוֹל?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits it here.――=12.= + וּֽזֲהב] On metheg and hataf-pathach, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10 + _g_, 16 _e_, _f_; König i. § 10, 6 _e_ δ (compare 1¹⁸).――הִוא] + The first instance of this _Qrê perpetuum_ of the Pentateuch, + where the regular הִיא is found only Genesis 14² 20⁵ 38²⁵, + Leviticus 2¹⁵ 11³⁹ 13¹⁰ᐧ ²¹ 16³¹ 21⁹, Numbers 5¹³ ᶠᐧ. König + (_Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ i. + page 124 ff.) almost alone amongst modern scholars still holds + to the opinion that the epicene consonantal form is genuinely + archaic; but the verdict of philology and of Hexateuch criticism + seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error of + some scribe or school of scribes: whether proceeding from the + original _script definition_ הִא or not does not much matter (see + Driver and White’s note on Leviticus 1¹³ in _The Sacred Books of + the Old Testament_, page 25 f.).――טוב] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ + מְאֹד.――הבדלח] Of the ancient versions LXX + alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here ὁ ἄνθραξ + (red garnet), and in Numbers 11⁷ (the only other occurrence) + κρύσταλλος. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) can only be a clerical + error. That it is _not_ a gem is proved by the absence of + אבן.――אבן השהם] LXX ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (leek-green stone); other + Greek versions ὄνυξ, and so Vulgate (_onychinus_); Peshiṭtå (‡ + Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בורלא. Philology has as yet thrown no + light on the word, though a connexion with Babylonian _sâmtu_ + is probable. Myres (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4808 f.) makes the + interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite, + which is at once _striped_ and _green_, and that after malachite + ceased to be valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped) + and the beryl (green). Petrie, on the other hand (_A Dictionary + of the Bible_, iv. 620), thinks that in early times it was green + felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is at least + noteworthy that Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. + 1, 405) is led on independent grounds to identify _sâmtu_ with + malachite. But is malachite found in any region that could be + plausibly identified with Ḥavilah?――=13.= גיחון] Probably from √ גיח + (Job 38⁸ 40²³) = ‘bursting forth.’――=14.= שֵׁם] LXX omitted.――חדקל] + Babylonian _Idigla_, _Diglat_, Aramaic דִּגְלַת and (‡ Syriac word), + Arabic _Diǧlat_; then Old Persian _Tigrâ_, Pehlevi _Digrat_, + Greek Τίγρις and Τίγρης. The Persian _Tigrâ_ was explained by + a popular etymology as ‘arrow-swift’ (Strabo); and similarly it + was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound of חַד, + ‘sharp,’ and קַל, ‘swift,’――a view given by Rashi, and mentioned + with some scorn by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Hommel’s derivation (_The + Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 315) + from _ḫadd_, ‘wādī,’ and דִּקְלָה (= ‘wādī of Diḳlah,’ Genesis 10²⁷), + is of interest only in connexion with his peculiar theory of the + site of Paradise.――קדמת] Rendered ‘in front’ by LXX (κατέναντι), + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) and Vulgate (_contra_); as ‘eastward’ + by Aquila, Symmachus (ἐξ ἀνατολῆς) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (למדנחא). + This last is also the view of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and + of most moderns. But see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxiii. 532, where the sense + ‘eastward’ is decisively rejected. The other examples are 4¹⁶, + 1 Samuel 13⁵, Ezekiel 39¹¹†.――פרת] Babylonian _Purâtu_, Old + Persian _Ufrâtu_, whence Greek Εὐφράτης. + + * * * * * + +=15.= _to till it and to guard it_] To reject this clause (Budde), +or the second member (Dillmann), as inconsistent with 3 ¹⁷ ᶠᶠ are +arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is not idle enjoyment, +but easy and pleasant work; “the highest aspiration of the Eastern +peasant” (Gunkel) being to keep a garden. The question from what the +garden had to be protected is one that should not be pressed.――=16 f.= +The belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees +(observe the difference from 1²⁹) was widespread in antiquity, and +appears in Phœnician mythology.¹ Here, however, the point lies rather +in the restriction than the permission,――in the imposition of a _taboo_ +on one particular tree.――For the words _of the knowledge of good and +evil_ it has been proposed to substitute “which is in the midst of the +garden” (as 3³), on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious +property of the tree was the essence of the serpent’s temptation and +must not be anticipated (3⁵) (Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). But the +narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical tests; and, +after all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose, +viz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.――_in the +day ... die_] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to +be weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became +mortal (Jerome, al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries +and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calvin, al.). The +simple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of +the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty. + + ¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (from Philo Byblius): + εὑρεῖν δὲ τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δενδρῶν τροφήν. + + =15.= The verse is either a resumption of ⁸ᵇ after the insertion + of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too + original to be a gloss; and since there was no motive for + making an interpolation at ⁸ᵇ, the excision of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴ seems to + lead necessarily to the conclusion that two sources have been + combined.――את־האדם] LXX + ὃν ἔπλασεν (as verse ⁸).――וינּיחהו] On + the two Hiphils of נוח and their distinction in meaning, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 _ee_, and the Lexicon.――עדן] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + and most cursives render τῆς τρυφῆς: LXXᴬ and uncials omit the + word.――לעבדָהּ וגו׳] Since גן is nowhere feminine, it is better to point + לעבדֹה ולשמרֹה (see Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xvi. 53).――=16.= האדם] LXX Ἀδαμ, Vulgate _ei_. + Except in verse ¹⁸, the word is regularly, but wrongly, + treated as a proper noun by these two versions from this point + onwards.――=17.= מות תמות] Symmachus θνητὸς ἔσῃ. In LXX the verbs + of this verse are all plural (as 3³ᐧ ⁴). + + * * * * * + + + 18‒25. + Creation of animals and woman. + +The Creator, taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to +provide him with a suitable companion. The naïveté of the conception is +extraordinary. Not only did man exist before the beasts, but the whole +animal creation is the result of an unsuccessful experiment to find a +mate for him. Of the revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual +intercourse with the beasts (see page 91), there is not a trace.――=18.= +_a helper_] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2⁵), not of the +original, but of the present familiar conditions of human life.――כְּנֶגְדּוֹ] +(only here) literaly ‘as in front of him,’ _i.e._ _corresponding to +him_.――=19.= The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been +created, and are now brought to be named (Calvin, al. and recently +Delitzsch, Stade): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Driver +_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 76, _Obsolete_), and +misses the point of the passage.――_to see what he would call it_] To +watch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would recognise +in it the associate he needed,――as one watches the effect of a new +experience on a little child.――_whatever the man should call it, +that_ (was to be) _its name_] The spontaneous ejaculation of the first +man becomes to his posterity a name: such is the origin of (Hebrew) +names.――The words נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה are incapable of construction, and are to be +omitted as an explanatory gloss (Ewald, al.).――=20.= The classification +of animals is carried a step further than in ¹⁹ (domestic and wild +animals being distinguished), but is still simpler than in chapter 1. +Fishes and ‘creeping things’ are frankly omitted as inappropriate to +the situation.――=21.= It has appeared that no fresh creation ‘from +the ground’ can provide a fit companion for man: from his own body, +therefore, must his future associate be taken.――תַּרְדֵּמָה] is a hypnotic +trance, induced by supernatural agency (compare Duhm on Isaiah 29¹⁰). +The purpose here is to produce anæsthesia, with perhaps the additional +idea that the divine working cannot take place under human observation +(Dillmann, Gunkel).――_one of his ribs_] A part of his frame that +(it was thought) could easily be spared. There is doubtless a deeper +significance in the representation: it suggests “the moral and social +relation of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man, +her close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature +for ... the feelings with which each should naturally regard the +other” (Driver). The Arabs use similarly a word for ‘rib,’ saying +_hūa lizḳī_ or _hūa bilizḳī_ for ‘he is my bosom companion.’ On the +other hand, the notion that the first human being was androgynous, +and afterwards separated into man and woman (see Schwally _Archiv für +Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), finds no countenance in the +passage.――=22.= _built up the rib ... into a woman_] So in the Egyptian +“Tale of the two brothers,” the god Chnum ‘built’ a wife for his +favourite Batau, the hieroglyphic determinative showing that the +operation was actually likened to the building of a wall (see Wiedemann, +_A Dictionary of the Bible_, Sup. 180).――=23.= By a flash of intuition +the man divines that the fair creature now brought to him is part of +himself, and names her accordingly. There is a poetic ring and rhythm +in the exclamation that breaks from him.――_This at last_] Literally, +‘This, this time’ (_v.i._): note the thrice repeated זֹאת.――_bone of +my bones, etc._] The expressions originate in the primitive notion of +kinship as resting on “participation in a common mass of flesh, blood, +and bones” (William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the +Semites_², 273 f.: compare _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 175 +f.), so that all the members of a kindred group are parts of the same +substance, whether acquired by heredity or assimilated in the processes +of nourishment (compare 29¹⁴ 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³). The +case before us, where the material identity is expressed in the manner +of woman’s creation, is unique.――_shall be called Woman_] English is +fortunate in being able to reproduce this assonance (_’Κ_, _’Iššā_) +without straining language: other translations are driven to _tours +de force_ (_e.g._ Jerome _Virago_; Luther, _Männin_). Whether even in +Hebrew it is more than an assonance is doubtful (_v.i._).――=24.= An +ætiological observation of the narrator: _This is why a man leaves ... +and cleaves ... and they become, etc._] It is not a prophecy from the +standpoint of the narrative; nor a recommendation of monogamic marriage +(as applied in Matthew 19⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Mark 10⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Corinthians 6¹⁶, +Ephesians 5³¹); it is an answer to the question, What is the meaning of +that universal instinct which impels a man to separate from his parents +and cling to his wife? It is strange that the man’s attachment to the +woman is explained here, and the woman’s to the man only in 3¹⁶. + + It has been imagined that the verse presupposes the primitive + custom called _beena_ marriage, or that modification of it in + which the husband parts from his own kindred for good, and + goes to live with his wife’s kin (so Gunkel: compare _Kinship + and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 87, 207); and other instances + are alleged in the patriarchal history. But this would imply + an almost incredible antiquity for the present form of the + narrative; and, moreover, the dominion of the man over the wife + assumed in 3¹⁶ᵇ is inconsistent with the conditions of _beena_ + marriage. Compare Benzinger _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2675: “The + phrase ... may be an old saying dating from remote times when + the husband went to the house (tent) of the wife and joined her + clan. Still the passage may be merely the narrator’s remark; + and even if it should be an old proverb we cannot be sure that + it really carries us so far back in antiquity.”――See, however, + Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 353¹; van + Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 238 (who assigns + 2²⁴ and 3¹⁶ to different recensions). + +_one flesh_] If the view just mentioned could be maintained, this +phrase might be equivalent to ‘one clan’ (Leviticus 25⁴⁹); for “both in +Hebrew and Arabic ‘flesh’ is synonymous with ‘clan’ or kindred group” +(_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 274). More probably it +refers simply to the _connubium_.――=25.= _naked ... not ashamed_] The +remark is not merely an anticipation of the account given later of +the origin of clothing (3⁷, compare ²¹). It calls attention to the +difference between the original and the actual condition of man as +conceived by the writer. The consciousness of sex is the result of +eating the tree: before then our first parents had the innocence of +children, who are often seen naked in the East (Doughty, _Travels in +Arabia Deserta_, ii. 475). + + Verse ²⁵ is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme + to which all that goes before is but the prelude. How long the + state of primitive innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains + to inform us. This indifference to the non-essential is as + characteristic of the popular tale as its graphic wealth of + detail in features of real interest. The omission afforded + an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity; + _Jubilees_ iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R. + Eliezer (_Bereshith Rabba_) finds that it did not last six hours. + + * * * * * + + =18.= אעשה] May be cohortative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _l_); + LXX, Vulgate render as 1st person plural (as 1²⁶).――עזר] + (usually ‘succour’) = ‘helper’ (_abstractum pro concreto_) + is used elsewhere chiefly of God (Deuteronomy 33⁷ᐧ ²⁶, Psalms + 33²⁰ 115⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); possible exceptions are Ezekiel 12¹⁴ + (if text right), Hosea 13⁹ (if emended with Wellhausen): see + Brown-Driver-Briggs.――כנגדו] LXX κατ’ αὐτόν (but verse ²⁰ ὅμοιος + αὐτῷ); Aquila ὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ; Symmachus ἀντικρὺς αὐτοῦ; + Vulgate _similis sibi_ (_ejus_, verse ²⁰); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac + word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כקיבליהּ.――=19.= _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_, LXX insert עוֹד after אלהים.――Omission of את־ before + כל־חית is remarkable in this chapter (see on verse ⁹), and is + rectified by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_.――נפש + חיה] The only construction possible would be to take לו as _dative + ethical_, and נ׳ ח׳ as direct object to יקרא; but that is contrary + to the writer’s usage, and yields a jejune sense. Even if (with + Rashi) we transpose and read ‘every living thing which the man + called [by a name], that was its name,’ the discord of gender + would be fatal, to say nothing of the addition of שֵׁם.――=20.= + ולעוף] Read with MSS LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ולכלֹ־עוף + (Ball).――וּלְאָדָם] Here the Massoretic takes Adam as a proper name. + Delitzsch, al. explain it as generic = ‘for a human being’ + (Gunkel); Olshausen emends וְהָאדם. The truth is that the Massoretic + loses no opportunity presented by the _Kethîb_ of treating + אדם as _noun proper_. Point וְלָֽאָדָם.――לא מצא] Tuch, al. take God as + subject; but it may be passive expressed by indefinite subject + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_, _e_) = ‘there was not found.’――=21.= + תרדמה] LXX ἔκστασιν; Aquila καταφοράν; Symmachus κάρον; Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) (‘tranquillity’); Vulgate _sopor_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + and some Greek versions (Field) have ‘sleep’ simply. The + examples of its use (15¹², 1 Samuel 26¹², Isaiah 29¹⁰, Job + 4¹³ 33¹⁵, Proverbs 19¹⁵†), all except the last, confirm Duhm’s + view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the + verb (Niphal) that sense is less marked.――=23.= זאת הפעם] The + construction rendered above takes זאת as subject of the sentence + and הפעם = ‘this time,’ the article having full demonstrative + force, as in 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ 30²⁰ 46³⁰, Exodus 9²⁷ (so LXX, Symmachus, + Theodotion, Vulgate; Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). The + accents, however, unite the words in one phrase ‘this time,’ + after the rather important analogy of זֶה פַעֲמַיִם (27³⁶ 43¹⁰), leaving + the subject unexpressed. This sense is followed by Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and advocated by Stade (_Zeitschrift + für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 210 ff.); but + it seems less acceptable than the other.――אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה] The old + derivation of these words from a common √ אנשׁ is generally + abandoned, אישׁ being assigned to a hypothetical √ אוּשׁ = ‘be + strong’ (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ + et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_). Arabic and Aramaic, indeed, + show quite clearly that the √ seen in the plural אֲנָשִׁים (and in + אֱנוֹשׁ) and that of (אִנְשָׁה) אשָּׁה are only apparently identical, the one + having _s_ where the other has _ṯ_. The masculine and feminine + are therefore etymologically distinct, and nothing remains but a + very strong assonance. The question whether we are to postulate + a third √ for the singular אִישׁ does not greatly concern us + here; the arguments will be found in Brown-Driver-Briggs, + _s.v._ See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, xl. 740 (“Aber אִישׁ möchte ich doch bei אנשׁ + lassen”). In imitation of the assonance, Symmachus has ἄνδρις, + Vulgate _Virago_. Theodotion λῆψις, represents אֶשָּׂא, ‘I will + take’: a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by the + quotation from Origen given in Field, page 15³².――For מאיש, + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + read מֵאִישָׁהּ, which is by no means an improvement.――לֽקֳחָה־זּאת] + See Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10 _h_, 20 _c_.――=24.= והיו] Add שְׁנֵיהֶם + with LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and New Testament + citations. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has והיה + משניהם, referring to the offspring.――=25.= עֲרוּמִּים] עָרוּם ‘naked,’ to + be carefully distinguished from עָרוּם (√ ערם) ‘crafty,’ in 3¹, is + either a by-form of עֵירֹם (√ עוּר = ‘be bare’) in 3¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, or (more + probably) a different formation from √ ערה (‘be bare’). See + Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.vv._――יתבששו] The Hithpael (only here) + probably expresses reciprocity (‘ashamed before one another’); + the imperfect is frequentative. + + * * * * * + + + III. 1‒7. + The temptation. + +Attention is at once directed to the quarter where the possibility of +evil already lurked amidst the happiness of Eden――the preternatural +subtlety of the serpent: _But the serpent was wily_] The wisdom of +the serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Matthew 10¹⁶: see Bochart, +_Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ +iii. 246 ff.), a belief probably founded less on observation of the +creature’s actual qualities than on the general idea of its divine +or demonic nature: πνευματικώτατον γὰρ τὸ ζῶον πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν +(Sanchuniathon, in Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10). Hence +the epithet עָרוּם might be used of it _sensu bono_ (φρόνιμος), though +the context here makes it certain that the bad sense (πανοῦργος) is +intended (see below).――_beyond any beast, etc._] The serpent, therefore, +belongs to the category of ‘beasts of the field,’ and is a creature of +Yahwe; and an effort seems to be made to maintain this view throughout +the narrative (verse ¹⁴). At the same time it is a being possessing +supernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and animated by +hostility towards God. It is this last feature which causes some +perplexity. To say that the thoughts which it instils into the mind +of the woman were on the serpent’s part not evil, but only extremely +sagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness (so +Merx, Dillmann, al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the +narrative. It is more probable that behind the sober description of the +serpent as a mere creature of Yahwe, there was an earlier form of the +legend in which he figured as a god or a demon. + +The ascription of supernatural characters to the serpent +presents little difficulty even to the modern mind. The +marvellous agility of the snake, in spite of the absence +of visible motor organs, its stealthy movements, its rapid +death-dealing stroke, and its mysterious power of fascinating +other animals and even men, sufficiently account for the +superstitious regard of which it has been the object amongst +all peoples.¹ Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the +abode of a spirit, sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that +_ǧānn_ and _ġūl_ and even _Shaitān_ are given as designations +of the serpent (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 152 f.; +compare William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the +Semites_², 120¹, 129 f., 442).² What is more surprising to us is +the fact that in the sphere of religion the serpent was usually +worshipped as a _good_ demon. Traces of this conception can be +detected in the narrative before us. The demonic character of +the serpent appears in his possession of occult divine knowledge +of the properties of the tree in the middle of the garden, and +in his use of that knowledge to seduce man from his allegiance +to his Creator. The enmity between the race of men and the race +of serpents is explained as a punishment for his successful +temptation; originally he must have been represented as a being +hostile, indeed, to God, but friendly to the woman, who tells +her the truth which the Deity withheld from man (see Gressman +_l.c._ 357). All this belongs to the background of heathen +mythology from which the materials of the narrative were drawn; +and it is the incomplete elimination of the mythological element, +under the influence of a monotheistic and ethical religion, +which makes the function of the serpent in Genesis 3 so +difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty +was solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent +of Eden was the mouthpiece or impersonation of the devil. The +idea appears first in Alexandrian Judaism in Wisdom 2²⁴ (‘by +the envy of the devil, death entered into the world’): possibly +earlier is the allusion in _Enoch_ lxix. 6, where the seduction +of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Compare _Secrets +of Enoch_ xxxi. 3 ff., _Psalms of Solomon_ 4⁹; also _Bereshith +Rabba_ 29, the name נָחָשׁ הַקַּדְמֹנִי (_Sifrê_ 138 b), and in the New +Testament, John 8⁴⁴, 2 Corinthians 11³, Romans 16²⁰, Apocalypse +12⁹ 20² (see Whitehouse, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 408 +ff.). Similarly in Persian mythology the serpent Dahâka, to whose +power Yima, the ruler of the golden age, succumbs, is a creature +and incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo (_Vend._ i. 8, +xxii. 5, 6, 24; _Yaçna_ ix. 27; compare Dillmann 70). The Jewish +and Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension +of the teaching of Genesis 3, when the problem of evil came to +be apprehended in its real magnitude; but it is foreign to the +thought of the writer, although it cannot be denied that it +may have some affinity with the mythological background of his +narrative. The religious teaching of the passage knows nothing +of an evil principle _external_ to the serpent, but regards +himself as the subject of whatever occult powers he displays: he +is simply a creature of Yahwe distinguished from the rest by his +superior subtlety. The Yahwistic author does not speculate on +the ultimate origin of evil; it was enough for his purpose to +have so analysed the process of temptation that the beginning of +sin could be assigned to a source which is neither in the nature +of man nor in God. The personality of the Satan (the Adversary) +does not appear in the Old Testament till after the Exile +(Zechariah, Job, Chronicles). + + ¹ Compare the interesting sequel to the sentence from + Sanchuniathon quoted above: ... καὶ πυρῶδες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ + παρεδόθη παρ’ ὃ καὶ τάχος ἀνυπέρβλητον διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος + παρίστησι, χωρὶς ποδῶν τε καὶ χειρῶν, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν + ἔξωθεν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ λοιπὰ ζώα τὰς κινήσεις ποιεῖται· καὶ + ποικίλων σχημάτων τύπους ἀποτελεῖ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν πορείαν + ἑλικοειδεῖς ἔχει τὰς ὁρμὰς, ἐφ’ ὃ βούλεται τάχος· καὶ + πολυχρονιώτατον δέ ἐστιν, οὐ μόνον τῷ ἐκδυόμενον τὸ γῆρας + νεάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὔξησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι μείζονα πέφυκε.... Διὸ + καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον καὶ ἐν μυστηρίοις συμπαρείληπται + κτλ. (Orelli, page 44). + + ² Compare Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie + und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413: “Das geheimnissvolle, + dämonische Wesen der Schlange, das sie vor allen grösseren + Thieren auszeichnet, die tückische, verderbenbringende + Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem einfachen semitischen + Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne etwas + Göttliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So + finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so + ist sie im Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand + orientalischer Zauberei. So glaubte auch der Araber, die + Schlange (wie einige andere schädliche Thiere) sei kein + gewöhnliches Geschöpf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist. Schon + die Sprache drückt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit _Džānn_, + einem Worte welches mit _Džinn_ eng verwandt ist, eine + Schlangenart bezeichnet, etc.” + +The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first temptation +to the more mobile temperament of the woman (Rashi, al.), and by the +skilful _innuendo_ with which he at once invites conversation and masks +his ultimate design.――_Ay, and so God has said, etc.!_] Something like +this seems to be the force of אַף כִּי (_v.i._). It is a half-interrogative, +half-reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long over +the paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome conclusion.――_Ye +shall not eat of any tree_] The range of the prohibition is purposely +exaggerated in order to provoke inquiry and criticism. The use of the +name אֱלֹהִים is commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of +Yahwist, where the name יהוה is avoided in conversation with heathen +(39⁹ etc.), or when the contrast between the divine and the human +is reflected upon (32²⁹). But Yahwist’s usage in such cases is not +uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true explanation here (see +page 53).――=2, 3.= The woman’s first experience of falsehood leads to +an eager repudiation of the serpent’s intentional calumny, in which +she emphasises the generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously +intensifies the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words: +_nor shall ye touch it_] A Jewish legend says that the serpent took +advantage of this innocent and immaterial variation by forcing her to +touch the fruit, and then arguing that as death had not followed the +touch, so it would not follow the eating (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). +Equally futile inferences have been drawn by modern commentaries, +and the surmise that the clause is redactional (Budde _Die biblische +Urgeschichte_ 241) is hypercritical.――_the tree ... midst_] See page +66 f.――=4.= _Ye shall assuredly not die_] On the syntax, _v.i._ The +serpent thus advances to an open challenge of the divine veracity, and +thence to the imputation of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. +a jealous fear on God’s part lest they should become His equals.――=5.= +_But God knoweth, etc._] And therefore has falsely threatened you +with death. The gratuitous insinuation reveals the main purpose of the +tempter, to sow the seeds of distrust towards God in the mind of the +woman.――_your eyes shall be opened_] The expression denotes a sudden +acquisition of new powers of perception through supernatural influence +(21¹⁹, Numbers 22³¹, 2 Kings 6¹⁷).――_as gods_] or ‘divine beings,’ +rather than ‘as God’: the rendering ‘as angels’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra) +expresses the idea with substantial accuracy. The likeness to divinity +actually acquired is not equality with Yahwe (see Gunkel on verse +²²).――_knowing good and evil_] See page 95 ff.――“The facts are all, in +the view of the narrator, correctly stated by the serpent; he has truly +represented the mysterious virtue of the tree; knowledge really confers +equality with God (3²²); and it is also true that death does not +immediately follow the act of eating. But at the same time the serpent +insinuates a certain construction of these facts: God is envious, +inasmuch as He grudges the highest good to man:――φθονερὸν τὸ θεῖον, an +antique sentiment familiar to us from the Greeks” (Gunkel).――=6.= The +spiritual part of the temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent +is silent, leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest. The woman +looks on the tree with new eyes; she observes how attractive to taste +and sight its fruit seems, and how desirable _for obtaining insight_ +(so most) or _to contemplate_ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå; so Tuch, +Gesenius, Delitzsch, Gunkel, al.). The second translation is the more +suitable――for how could she tell by sight that the fruit would impart +wisdom?――although the verb is not elsewhere used in Hebrew for mere +looking (_v.i._).――_gave also to her husband_] “The process in the +man’s case was no doubt the same as that just described, the woman +taking the place of the serpent” (Bennett). That Adam sinned with his +eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has been a common +idea both among Jews and Christians (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham +Ibn Ezra, Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention of the +narrative.――=7.= _the eyes ... opened_] The prediction of the serpent +is so far fulfilled; but the change fills them with guilty fear and +shame.――_they knew that they were naked_] The new sense of shame +is spoken of as a sort of _Werthurtheil_ passed by the awakened +intelligence on the empirical fact of being unclothed. A connexion +between sexual shame and sin (Dillmann) is not suggested by the passage, +and is besides not true to experience. But to infer from this single +effect that the forbidden fruit had aphrodisiac properties (see Barton, +_A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 93 ff.; Gressmann, page 356) is a still +greater perversion of the author’s meaning; he merely gives this as an +example of the new range of knowledge acquired by eating of the tree. +It is the kind of knowledge which comes with maturity to all,――the +transition “from the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which +belongs to adult age” (Driver).――_foliage of the fig-tree_] To the +question, Why fig-leaves in particular? the natural answer is that +these, if not very suitable for the purpose, were yet the most suitable +that the flora of Palestine could suggest (Dillmann, Driver, Bennett, +al.). An allusion to the so-called fig-tree of Paradise, a native of +India (probably the plantain), is on every ground improbable;――“ein +geradezu philisterhafter Einfall” (Budde). For allegorical +interpretations of the fig-leaves, see Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_ +i. 73 ff., who adds a very original and fantastic one of his own. + + * * * * * + + =1.= והנחש היה] The usual order of words when a new subject is + introduced, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 142 _d_; Davidson § 105.――ערום] + LXX φρονιμώτατος, Aquila, Theodotion πανοῦργος, Symmachus + πανουργότερος Vulgate _callidior_. The good sense (which appears + to be secondary, compare Arabic _‛arama_ = ‘be ill-natured’) is + confined to Proverbs; elsewhere (Job 5¹² 15⁵) it means ‘crafty,’ + ‘wily.’ The same distinction is observed in all forms of the √ + except that in Job 5¹³ עֹרֶם has the good sense. The resemblance + to ערומים in 2²⁵ is perhaps accidental.――ויאמר LXX, Peshiṭtå + + הנחש.――אף כי] as a compound particple generally means ‘much more + (or less),’ ‘not to mention,’ etc., as in 1 Samuel 14³⁰, 1 Kings + 8²⁷, Proverbs 11³¹ etc. In some cases the simple אף has this + sense, and the כי (= ‘when,’ ‘if’) introduces the following + clause (1 Samuel 23³, 2 Samuel 4¹⁰ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would be easy + to retain this sense in verse ¹ (‘How much more _when_ God + has said,’ etc.), if we might assume with many commentaries + that some previous conversation had taken place; but that is + an unwarrantable assumption. The rendering on which Driver + (Brown-Driver-Briggs) bases the ordinary meaning of אף כי――‘_’Tis + indeed that_’――requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of + the voice to yield the shade of meaning given above: ‘So it is + the case that God,’ etc.? The versions all express a question: + LXX τί ὅτι, Aquila μὴ ὅτι, Symmachus πρὸς τί, Vulgate _cur_, + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בקושטא (= ‘really’?).――לא + ... מכל] = ‘not of any’: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _b_.――=2.= מפרי] + LXX מִכֹּל, Peshiṭtå מפרי כל.――=3.= ומפרי] Not ‘concerning the tree.’ + There is an _anakolouthon_ at אמר אלהים, and the emphatically + placed מפרי is resumed by ממנו.――העץ] _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ + הַזָּה.――תמתון] On the ending, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + §§ 47 _m_, 72 _u_.――=4.= לא מות תמתון] On the unusual order, see + Davidson § 86 (_b_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _v_. It is often + explained as a negation of the threat in 2¹⁷, adopting the same + form of words; but the phrase had not been used by the woman, + and the exact words are _not_ repeated. More probably its effect + is to concentrate the emphasis on the negative participle rather + than on the verbal idea (compare Amos 9⁸, Psalms 49⁸).――=5.= + כאלהים] LXX ὡς θεοί, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כרברבין.――=6.= העץ²] LXX Vulgate + omitted.――להשכיל] LXX κατανοῆσαι, Vulgate _adspectu_, and + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) all take the verb as verb of sight; + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לאסתכלא ביה is indeterminate (see Levy, _Chaldäisches + Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim_ 163 a). In Old + Testament the word is used of mental _vision_ (insight, or + attentive consideration: Deuteronomy 32²⁹, Psalms 41², Proverbs + 21¹² etc.); in New Hebrew and Aramaic it means ‘to look at,’ + but only in Hithpael (Ithp.). On the other view the Hiph. is + intransitive (= ‘for acquiring wisdom’: Psalms 94⁸) rather + than causative (= ‘to impart wisdom’: Psalms 32⁸ etc.).――Gunkel + considers the clause ונחמד העץ לה׳ a variant from another + source.――ותקח] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + האשׁה.――ויאכל] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX ויאכלו.――=7.= עירמים] See on 2²⁵.――עלה] + collectively; but some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ have עֲלֵי. + + * * * * * + + + 8‒13. + The inquest. + +Thus far the narrative has dealt with what may be called the +natural (magical) effects of the eating of the tree――the access of +enlightenment, and the disturbance thus introduced into the relations +of the guilty pair to each other. The ethical aspect of the offence +comes to light in their first interview with Yahwe; and this is +delineated with a skill hardly surpassed in the account of the +temptation itself.――=8.= _they heard the sound_] קוֹל used of footsteps, +as 2 Samuel 5²⁴, 1 Kings 14⁶, 2 Kings 6³²: compare Ezekiel 3¹² ᶠᐧ, Joel +2⁵.――_of Yahwe God as He walked_] The verb is used (Leviticus 26¹², +Deuteronomy 23¹⁵, 2 Samuel 7⁶) of Yahwe’s majestic marching in the +midst of Israel; but it mars the simplicity of the representation if +(with Delitzsch) we introduce that idea here.――_in the cool_ (literally +‘at the breeze’) _of the day_] _i.e._ towards evening, when in Eastern +lands a refreshing wind springs up (compare Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶: but +_v.i._), and the master, who has kept his house or tent during the +‘heat of the day’ (18¹), can walk abroad with comfort (24⁶³). Such, +we are led to understand, was Yahwe’s daily practice; and the man and +woman had been wont to meet Him with the glad confidence of innocence. +But on this occasion they _hid themselves, etc._――=9.= _Where art +thou?_] (compare 4⁹). The question expresses ignorance; it is not +omniscience that the writer wishes to illustrate, but the more +impressive attribute of sagacity.――=10.= _I feared ... naked_] With +the instinctive cunning of a bad conscience, the man hopes to escape +complete exposure by acknowledging part of the truth; he alleges +nakedness as the ground of his fear, putting fear and shame in a false +causal connexion (Holzinger).――=11.= _Hast thou eaten, etc.?_] All +unwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret: he has shown himself +possessed of a knowledge which could only have been acquired in one +way.――=12.= The man cannot even yet bring himself to make a clean +breast of it; but with a quaint mixture of cowardice and effrontery +he throws the blame directly on the woman, and indirectly on God who +gave her to him.――=13.= The woman in like manner exculpates herself by +pleading (truly enough) that she had been deceived by the serpent.――The +whole situation is now laid bare, and nothing remains but to pronounce +sentence. No question is put to the serpent, because his evil motive +is understood: he has acted just as might have been expected of him. +Calvin says, “the _beast_ had no sense of sin, and the _devil_ no hope +of pardon.” + + * * * * * + + =8.= מתהלך] accusative of condition: Davidson § 70 (_a_).――לרוח היום] + LXX τὸ δειλινόν, Vulgate _ad auram post meridiem_, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac phrase), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ למנח יומא. On this use of לְ + (= ‘towards’), see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 6 a; and compare + 8¹¹ 17²¹, Isaiah 7¹⁵, Job 24¹⁴. With רוח compare Arabic _rawāḥ_ + = _tempus vespertinum_. Jewish exegesis (_Bereshith Rabba_) + and Calvin suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be meant, as is + probably the case in Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶, and would seem more in + accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly + improbable here.――עץ] collectively, as often. LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + omitted.――=9.= איכה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 _o_. LXX supplies + ‘Adam’ before, and Peshiṭtå after, the interrogative.――=10.= + שׁמעתי] LXX + περιπατοῦντος (as verse ⁸).――=11.= לבלתי] See + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _s_.――Before μὴ φαγεῖν LXX has τούτου + μόνου.――=13.= מה־זאת] So commonly with עשה; with other verbs מה־זה + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 _c_; Davidson § 7 (_c_)). + + * * * * * + + + 14‒19. + Significance of the Fall. + +This section contains the key to the significance of the story of the +Fall. It is the first example of a frequently recurring motive of the +Genesis narratives, the idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in +the history of men and peoples are the working out of a doom or ‘weird’ +pronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this case) by +the Almighty Himself: see 4¹⁵ 8²¹ ᶠᶠ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹² 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ 48¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, +chapter 49; compare Numbers 23 f., Deuteronomy 33. Here certain +fixed adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced back +to a primæval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence of man’s first +transgression. See, further, page 95 below.――The form of the oracles is +poetic; but the structure is irregular, and no definite metrical scheme +can be made out. + +=14, 15. The curse on the serpent= is legible, partly in its degraded +form and habits (¹⁴), and partly in the deadly feud between it and +the human race (¹⁵).――=14.= _on thy belly, etc._] The assumption +undoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not +necessarily that its organism was changed (_e.g._ by cutting off its +legs, etc. _Rabbis_). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power +of erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological +representations the serpent often appears in the upright position +(Bennett). The idea probably is that this was its original posture: +how it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.――_dust shalt +thou eat_] Compare Micah 7¹⁷, Isaiah 65²⁵. It is a prosaic explanation +to say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently +swallows a good deal of dust (Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum +opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 245; Dillmann, al.); and +a mere metaphor for humiliation (like Assyrian _ti-ka-lu ip-ra_; +_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for +this passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the +Arabian notion that the _ǧinn_ eat dirt (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen +Heidentums_ 150).――_all the days of thy life_] i.e. _each_ serpent as +long as it lives, and the _race_ of serpents as long as it lasts. It +is not so certain as most commentaries seem to think that these words +exclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the +punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew +jurisprudence (9⁵, Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Leviticus 20¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). But it is quite +possible that here (as in verse ¹⁵) the archetypal serpent is conceived +as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each +member of the species.――=15.= The serpent’s attempt to establish unholy +fellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity +between them.¹――_thy seed and her seed_] The whole brood of serpents, +and the whole race of men.――_He shall bruise thee on the head, etc._] +In the first clause the subject (הוּא) is the ‘seed’ of the woman +individualised (or collectively), in the second (אַתָּה) it is the serpent +himself, acting through his ‘seed.’ The current reading of Vulgate +(_ipsa_) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis +to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the +sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former +will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the +heel. The difficulty is in the verb שׁוּף, which in the sense ‘bruise’ +is inappropriate to the serpent’s mode of attack. We may speak of +a serpent _striking_ a man (as in Latin _feriri a serpente_), but +hardly of _bruising_. Hence many commentaries (following LXX al.) take +the verb as a by-form of שָׁאַף (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be +eager for,’ ‘aim at’ (Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, al.); while others +(Gunkel al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means ‘bruise’ in +the first clause, and ‘aim at’ in the second. But it may be questioned +whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Driver). +A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (_v.i._). + + ¹ “Fit enim arcano naturæ sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat + homo” (Calvin). Compare (with Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive + bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 250) + “quam dudum dixeras te odisse æque atque angues” (Plautus, + _Mercator_ 4); and ἐκ παιδὸς τὸν ψυχρὸν ὄφιν τὰ μάλιστα + δέδοικα (Theocritus _Idyll_ 15). + + The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ + appears in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and Targum Jerome, where the verse + is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the + devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person + of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally + accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent + is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the + _ipsa_ of the Vulgate, applied the expression directly to the + Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, + recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In + Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable + view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over + the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That + even this goes beyond the original meaning of the verse is + admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if, + from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage + can be regarded as in any sense a _Protevangelium_. Dillmann + (with whom Driver substantially agrees) finds in the words + the idea of man’s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the + ‘serpent-brood’ of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of + the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation, + however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of + hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and + punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in + the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only + of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chapters + 1‒11 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal + history that the “note of promise and of hope” is firmly struck. + (2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol + of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation + of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic + creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but + there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart + from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but + only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses + making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man + was contemplated. Dillmann admits that no such assurance is + expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: “a + conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.” + But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If + it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the + serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it + may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity + established between him and the human race, and that the feud + between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that + antagonism.――It is thus possible that in its primary intention + the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the + unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically + true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the + worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing + which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind; + and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object + of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history + of religion (see Gressman _l.c._ 360). The essence of the + temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the + religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and + insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment + is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has + seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that + is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have + appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the + Old Testament.――The conjecture of Gunkel, that originally the + ‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been + mythological personages (compare _Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology, + would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator. + + * * * * * + + =14.= מכל] On this use of מן (= _e numero_), see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 119 _w_, and compare Exodus 19⁵, Deuteronomy 14² 33²⁴, + Judges 5²⁴ etc. Stade’s argument (_Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 209) for deleting מכל הבהמה ו, + on the ground that the serpent belongs to the category of + חית השדה but not to בהמה, is logical, but hardly convincing.――גחון] + Probably from √ גחן (Aramaic) = ‘curve’ or ‘bend’ (Delitzsch, + Brown-Driver-Briggs), occurs again only Leviticus 11⁴², of + reptiles. Vulgate renders _pectus_, LXX combines στῆθος and + κοιλία.――=15.= זֶרַע] in the sense of ‘offspring,’ is nearly always + collective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual + child (4²⁵{?} 21¹³, 1 Samuel 1¹¹) it denotes the immediate + offspring as the pledge of posterity, never a remote descendant + (see Nöldeke _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, viii. 164 + ff.). The Messianic application therefore is not justified in + grammar.――הוא] the rendering _ipsa_ (Vulgate) is said not to be + found in the Fathers before Ambrose and Augustine (Zapletal, + _ATliches_, 19). Jerome at all events knew that _ipse_ should + be read.――ישופך ... תשופנו] The form שוף recurs only Job 9¹⁷, Psalms + 139¹¹, and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aramaic + and New Hebrew the √ (ע״ו or ע״ע) has the primary sense of ‘rub,’ + hence ‘wear down by rubbing’ = ‘crush’; in Syriac it also means + to crawl. There are a few examples of a tendency of ע״ו verbs to + strengthen themselves by insertion of א (König i. 439), and it + is often supposed that in certain passages (Ezekiel 36³, Amos + 2⁷ 8⁴, Psalms 56²ᐧ ³ 57⁴) שׁוף is disguised under the by-form שׁאף. + But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are + Amos 2⁷ 8⁴, where the א may be simply _mater lectionis_ for the + _â_ of the participle (compare וְקָאם, Hosea 10¹⁴); in the other + cases the proper sense of שָׁאַף ‘pant’ or metaphor ‘long for’) + suffices. The reverse process (substitution of שוף for שאף) is + much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Job + 9¹⁷, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is + thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this verse; + and Delitzsch points out that verbs of hostile _endeavour_, + as distinct from hostile achievement הכּה, רצח, etc.), are never + construed with double accusative. The gain in sense is so + doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning ‘crush.’ + The old versions felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of + crushing is represented by Aquila προστρίψει, Symmachus θλίψει, + LXXᶜᵒᵈᵉˣ ᶜᵒⁱˢˡⁱⁿⁱᵃⁿᵘˢ τρίψει (see Field) and Jerome (_Quæstiones + sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) _conterere_; ‘pant + after’ by LXXᴬ ᵃˡᐧ τηρήσει[ς] (if not a mistake for τρήσει[ς] or + τειρήσει[ς]). A double sense is given by Vulgate _conteret ... + insidiaberis_, and perhaps Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); while + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ paraphrases: הוא יהא דכיר מה דעבדת ליה מלקדמין ואת תהי נטר ליה לסופא. + + * * * * * + +=16. The doom of the woman=: consisting in the hardships incident to +her sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth, +and the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed +the ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to +be accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.――_I +will multiply, etc._] More strictly, ‘I will cause thee to have much +suffering and pregnancy’ (see Davidson § 3, _R._ (2)). It is, of course, +not an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is +meant.――For הֵרֹנַךְ, LXX read some word meaning ‘groaning’ (_v.i._); but to +prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent +pregnancy a blessing (Gunkel) makes a too general statement. It is +better (with Holzinger) to assume a _hendiadys_: ‘the pain of thy +conception’ (as in the explanatory clause which follows).――_in pain +... children_] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in Old Testament +for the extremity of human anguish (Isaiah 21³ 13⁸, Micah 4⁹, Psalms +48⁶, and often: Exodus 1¹⁹ cannot be cited to the contrary).――_to +thy husband ... desire_] It is quite unnecessary to give up the rare +but expressive תְּשׁוּקָה of the Hebrew for the weaker תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX, etc. +(_v.i._). It is not, however, implied that the woman’s sexual desire is +stronger than the man’s (Knobel, Gunkel); the point rather is that by +the instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions +of her lot, both the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and +subjection to the man.――_while he_ (on his part) _shall rule over +thee_] The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the +verb; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the man, and so +liable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by the marriage customs +of the East. It is noteworthy that to the writer this is not the ideal +relation of the sexes (compare 2¹⁸ᐧ ²³). There is here certainly no +trace of the matriarchate or of polyandry (see on 2²⁴). + + * * * * * + + =16.= אל] Read וְאֶל־, with _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――הרבה ארבה] So 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. On the + irregular form of infinitive absolute, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 75 ff.――עצבון] (3¹⁷) 5²⁹† [Yahwist]). LXX λύπας (= עַצְּבוֹתֵךְ + ?).――והרנך] (√ הרה): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + והריונך (Ruth 4¹³, Hosea 9¹¹). Olshausen (_Monatsberichte der + Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, + 1870, 380) conjecture בְּהריונך, to avoid the harsh use of וְ. LXX + τὸν στεναγμόν σου probably = הגיונך; יְגוֹנַךְ (‘sorrow’) has also been + suggested (Gunkel); and צָרָתֵךְ (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). The + other versions follow Massoretic Text.――בעצב] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ בעצבון; LXX likewise repeats ἐν + λύπαις.――תשוקה] Probably connected with Arabic _šauḳ_, ‘ardent + desire’ (Rahlfs “עָנִי _und_ עָנָו,” page 71); compare שקק, Isaiah 29⁸, + Psalms 107⁹. Aquila συνάφεια, Symmachus ὁρμή. Although it + recurs only 4⁷ and Canticles 7¹¹, it is found in New Hebrew + and should not be suspected. LXX ἡ ἀποστροφή σου and Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) point to the reading תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ, preferred by many, + and defended by Nestle (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6) as + a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the + basis of LXX’s text of 2 Samuel 17³. His parallel between the + _return_ of the woman to her source (the man) and the return + of the man to _his_ source (the ground, verse ¹⁹) is perhaps + fanciful. + + * * * * * + +=17‒19. The man’s sentence.=――The hard, unremitting toil of the +husbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from the grudging and +intractable ground, is the standing evidence of a divine curse, +resting, not, indeed, on man himself, but on the earth for his sake. +Originally, it had provided him with all kinds of fruit good for +food,――and this is the ideal state of things; now it yields nothing +spontaneously but thorns and briars; bread to eat can only be extorted +in the sweat of the brow,――and this is a curse: formerly man had been a +gardener, now he is a _fellaḥ_. It does not appear that death itself is +part of the curse. The name death is avoided; and the fact is referred +to as part of the natural order of things,――the inevitable ‘return’ of +man to the ground whence he was taken. The question whether man would +have lived for ever if he had not sinned is one to which the narrative +furnishes no answer (Gunkel).――=17.= _And to the man_] _v.i._ The +sentence is introduced by a formal recital of the offence.――_Cursed is +the ground_] As exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing +(27²⁸ etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Isaiah 24⁶, +Jeremiah 23¹⁰), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole earth in +comparison with man’s expectations and ideals is here regarded as the +permanent effect of a curse.――_in suffering_ (bodily fatigue and mental +anxiety) _shalt thou eat_ [of] _it_] See 5²⁹. The ‘laborious work’ +of the husbandman is referred to in Sirach 7¹⁵; but this is not the +prevailing feeling of the Old Testament; and the remark of Knobel, that +“agriculture was to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same +time a heavy burden,” needs qualification. It is well to be reminded +that “ancient Israel did not live constantly in the joy of the harvest +festival” (Gunkel); but none the less it would be a mistake to suppose +that it lived habitually in the mood of this passage.――=18.= _the herb +of the field_] See on 1¹¹. The creation of this order of vegetation +has not been recorded by Yahwist. Are we to suppose that it comes into +existence simply in consequence of the earth’s diminished productivity +caused by the curse? It seems implied at all events that the earth +will not yield even this, except under the compulsion of human labour +(see 2⁵).――=19.= _in the sweat of thy brow, etc._] A more expressive +repetition of the thought of ¹⁷ᵇ{β}. The phrase _eat bread_ may +mean ‘earn a livelihood’ (Amos 7¹²), but here it must be understood +literally as the immediate reward of man’s toil.――_till thou return, +etc._] hardly means more than ‘all the days of thy life’ (in verse ¹⁷). +It is not a threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no +right to say (with Dillmann) that verses ¹⁶⁻¹⁹ are simply an expansion +of the sentence of 2¹⁷. That man was by nature immortal is not taught +in this passage; and since the Tree of Life in verse ²² belongs +to another recension, there is no evidence that the main narrative +regarded even endless life as within man’s reach. The connexion of the +closing words is rather with 2⁷: man was taken from the ground, and +in the natural course will return to it again.――_and to dust, etc._] +Compare Job 10⁹ 34¹⁵, Psalms 90³ 146⁴, Ecclesiastes 3²⁰ 12⁷ etc.: ἐκ +γαίας βλαστὼν γαῖα πάλιν γέγονα. + + The arrangement of the clauses in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ is not very natural, + and the repeated variations of the same idea have suggested + the hypothesis of textual corruption or fusion of sources. In + _Jubilees_ iii. 25 the passage is quoted in an abridged form, + the line ‘Cursed ... sake’ being immediately followed by ‘Thorns + ... to thee,’ and ¹⁸ᵇ, being omitted. This is, of course, a + much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential; but ¹⁷ᵇ + is guaranteed by 5²⁹. Holzinger rejects ¹⁸ᵇ, and to avoid the + repetition of אכל proposes תעבדנה instead of תאכלנה in ¹⁷. Gunkel + is satisfied with verse ¹⁷ ᶠᐧ as they stand, but assigns ¹⁹ᵃ{α} + (to לחם) and ¹⁹ᵇ to another source (Yahwistʲ), as doublets + respectively of ¹⁷ᵇ{β} and ¹⁹ᵃ{β}. This is perhaps on the whole + the most satisfactory analysis.――The poetic structure of the + verses, which might be expected to clear up a question of this + kind, is too obscure to afford any guidance. Sievers, _e.g._ + (II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except in verse ¹⁹, to distinguish + the rhythm from that of the narrative in which it is embedded, + and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only tentative. + + * * * * * + + =17.= Point וְלָאדם; there is no conceivable reason why אדם should + be a proper name here (compare 2²⁰ 3²¹).――לאמר ... ממנו] LXX + reads τούτου μόνου (see verse ¹¹) μὴ φαγεῖν, ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ + ἔφαγες.――בעבורך] LXX (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου), Symmachus, Vulgate + read בַּֽעֲבָדֶךָ, Theodotion ἐν τῇ παραβάσει σου (בְּעָבְרְךָ). The phrase + is characteristic of Yahwist; out of 22 instances in the + Hexateuch, only about 3 can be assigned to Elohist (none to + Priestly-Code).――תאכלנה] The government of direct accusative seems + harsh, but is not unexampled: see Jeremiah 36¹⁶.――=18.= LXX + omits initial וְ: so Vulgate _Jubilees_.――קוץ ודרדר] Hosea 10⁸; דרדר + occurs nowhere else in Old Testament. It is still used in Syria + (_dardār_) as a general name for thistles.――=19.= זעה] (√ יזע, + _waḏa‛a_) is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; compare יָזַע, Ezekiel 44¹⁸.――לחם] LXX + _Jubilees_ לחמך. + + * * * * * + + + 20‒24. + The expulsion from Eden. + +=20.= The naming of the woman can hardly have come in between the +sentence and its execution, or before there was any experience of +motherhood to suggest it. The attempts to connect the notice with the +mention of child-bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (Delitzsch al.), or with the thought +of mortality in ¹⁹ (Knobel), are forced. The most suitable position in +the present text would be before (so _Jubilees_ iii. 33) or after 4¹; +and accordingly some regard it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of +that verse. But when we consider (a) that the name _Ḥavvāh_ must in any +case be traditional, (b) that it is a proper name, whereas הָאָדָם remains +appellative throughout, and (c) that in the following verses there +are unambiguous traces of a second recension of the Paradise story, +it is reasonable to suppose that verse ²⁰ comes from that recension, +and is a parallel to the naming of the woman in 2²³, whether it stands +here in the original order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been +preserved, while there is no distinctive name for the man, suggests +that חוה is a survival from a more primitive theory of human origins in +which the first mother represented the unity of the race.――_the mother +of every living thing_] According to this derivation, חַוָּה would seem +to denote first the idea of life, and then the source of life――the +mother.¹ But the form חוה is not Hebrew, and the real meaning of the +word is not settled by the etymology here given (_v.i._).――כָּל־חַי commonly +includes all animals (8²¹ etc.), but is here restricted to mankind +(as Psalms 143², Job 30²³). Compare however, πότνια θηρῶν, ‘Lady of +wild things,’ a Greek epithet of the Earth-mother (Miss Harrison, +_Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion_ 264).――=21.= Another +detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is, of course, +not inconsistent with verse ⁷, but neither can it be said to be the +necessary sequel to that verse; most probably it is a parallel from +another source.――_coats of skin_] “The simplest and most primitive kind +of clothing in practical use” (Driver). + + ¹ So Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 148, + who appends the note: “Im holsteinischen Plattdeutsch + ist ‘Dat Leben’ euphemistischer Ausdruck für das pudendum + muliebre”――a meaning by the way which also attaches to + Arabic _ḥayy_ (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ 681 b). + + An interesting question arises as to the connexion between this + method of clothing and the loss of pristine innocence. That + it exhibits God’s continued care for man even after the Fall + (Dillmann al.) may be true as regards the present form of the + legend; but that is hardly the original conception. In the + Phœnician legend of Usōos, the invention is connected with the + hunting of wild animals, and this again with the institution of + sacrifice: ... ὃς σκέπην τῷ σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε + συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ... ἅμα τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε + θηρίων (_Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; Orelli, page 17 f.). + Since sacrifice and the use of animal food were inseparably + associated in Semitic antiquity, it may be assumed that this is + conceived as the first departure from the Golden Age, when men + lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Similarly, William + Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 306 + ff.) found in the verse the Yahwistic theory of the introduction + of the sacrifice of _domestic_ animals, which thus coincided, as + in Greek legend, with the transition from the state of innocence + to the life of agriculture. + + * * * * * + + =20.= חוה] LXX Εὕα [Εὔα] (in 4¹), Aquila Αὖα, Vulgate _Heva_, + Jerome _Eva_ (English _Eve_); in this verse LXX translates + Ζωή, Symmachus Ζωογόνος. The similarity of the name to the + Aramaic word for ‘serpent’ (חַוֵּי, חִוְיָא, Syriac (‡ Syriac word), + Syro-Palestinian (‡ Syriac word) [Matthew 7¹⁰]); (compare Arabic + _ḥayyat_ from _ḥauyat_ [Nöldeke]) has always been noticed, and + is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological + equivalence (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, xlii. 487; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, + i. 633; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154). The + ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done the + serpent’s work in tempting Adam (_Bereshith Rabba_; Philo, _De + Agricultura Noë_, 21; Clement of Alexandria _Protrepticus_ ii. + 12. 1). Quite recently the philological equation has acquired + fresh significance from the discovery of the name חות on a leaden + Punic _tabella devotionis_ (described by Lidzbarski _Ephemeris_, + i. 26 ff.; see Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_, + 135), of which the first line reads: “O Lady _ḤVT_, goddess, + queen...!” Lidzbarski sees in this mythological personage a + goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity; and + identifies her with the biblical Ḥavvah. Ḥavvah would thus be a + ‘depotentiated’ deity, whose prototype was a Phœnician goddess + of the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and + bearing the title of ‘Mother of all living’ (see Gressman _l.c._ + 359 f.). Precarious as such combinations may seem, there is no + objection in principle to an explanation of the name Ḥavvah on + these lines. Besides the Ḥivvites of the Old Testament (who + were probably a serpent-tribe), Wellhausen cites examples of + Semitic princely families that traced their genealogy back to + a serpent. The substitution of human for animal ancestry, and + the transference of the animal name to the human ancestor, are + phenomena frequently observed in the transition from a lower to + a higher stage of religion. If the change took place while a law + of female descent still prevailed, the ancestry would naturally + be traced to a woman (or goddess); and when the law of male + kinship was introduced she would as naturally be identified with + the wife of the first man. It need hardly be said that all this, + while possibly throwing some light on the mythical background + of the biblical narrative, is quite apart from the religious + significance of the story of the Fall in itself.――אם כל־חי] William + Robertson Smith renders ‘mother of every _ḥayy_,’――_ḥayy_ being + the Arabic word which originally denoted a group of female + kinship. Thus “Eve is the personification of the bond of kinship + (conceived as exclusively mother-kinship), just as Adam is + simply ‘man,’ _i.e._ the personification of mankind” (_Kinship + and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 208). The interpretation has + found no support.――=21.= Point לָאָדָם, as in verse ¹⁷. + + * * * * * + +=22‒24. The actual expulsion.=――=22.= _Behold ... one of us_] This +is no ‘ironica exprobatio’ (Calvin al.), but a serious admission that +man has snatched a divine prerogative not meant for him. The feeling +expressed (compare 11⁶) is akin to what the Greeks called the ‘envy of +the gods,’ and more remotely to the Old Testament attribute of the zeal +or jealousy of Yahwe,――His resentment of all action that encroaches +on His divinity (see page 97). In verse ⁵ the same words are put in +the mouth of the serpent with a distinct imputation of envy to God; +and it is perhaps improbable that the writer of that verse would +have justified the serpent’s insinuation, even in form, by a divine +utterance. There are several indications (_e.g._ the phrase ‘like +one of us’) that the secondary recension to which verse ²² belongs +represents a cruder form of the legend than does the main narrative; +and it is possible that it retains more of the characteristically pagan +feeling of the envy of the gods.――_in respect of knowing, etc._] Man +has not attained complete equality with God, but only God-likeness +in this one respect. Gressman’s contention that the verse is +self-contradictory (man has become like a god, and yet lacks the +immortality of a god) is therefore unfounded.――_And now, etc._] There +remains another divine attribute which man will be prompt to seize, +viz. immortality: to prevent his thus attaining complete likeness to +God he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The expression _put +forth his hand_ suggests that a single partaking of the fruit would +have conferred eternal life (Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 52); +and at least implies that it would have been an easy thing to do. The +question why man had not as yet done so is not impertinent (Delitzsch), +but inevitable; so momentous an issue could not have been left to +chance in a continuous narrative. The obvious solution is that in this +recension the Tree of Life was a (or _the_) forbidden tree, that man in +his first innocence had respected the injunction, but that now when he +knows the virtue of the tree he will not refrain from eating. It is to +be observed that it is only in this part of the story that the idea of +immortality is introduced, and that not as an essential endowment of +human nature, but as contingent on an act which would be as efficacious +after the Fall as before it.――On the _aposiopesis_ at the end of the +verse, _v.i._――=23= is clearly a doublet of ²⁴; and the latter is the +natural continuation of ²². Verse ²³ is a fitting conclusion to the +main narrative, in which it probably followed immediately on verse +¹⁹.――=24.= _He drove out the man and made [him] dwell on the east of +... [and stationed] the Cherubim, etc._] This is the reading of LXX +(_v.i._), and it gives a more natural construction than Massoretic +Text, which omits the words in brackets. On either view the assumption +is that the first abode of mankind was east of the garden. There is no +reason to suppose that the verse represents a different tradition as to +the site of Eden from 2⁸ or 2¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. It is not said in 2⁸ that it was +in the _extreme_ east, or in 2¹⁰ that it was in the extreme north; nor +is it here implied that it was further west than Palestine. The account +of the early migration of the race in 11² is quite consistent with the +supposition that mankind entered the Euphrates valley from a region +still further east.――_the Cherubim and the revolving sword-flame_] +Literally ‘the flame of the whirling sword.’ It has usually been +assumed that the sword was in the hand of one of the cherubim; +but probably it was an independent symbol, and a representation of +the lightning. Some light may be thrown on it by an inscription of +Tiglath-pileser I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 36 f.), where +the king says that when he destroyed the fortress of Ḫunusa he made ‘a +lightning of bronze.’ The emblem appears to be otherwise unknown, but +the allusion suggests a parallel to the ‘flaming sword’ of this passage. + + =The Cherubim.=――See the notes of Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver; + _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 529 f., 631 ff.; + Cheyne in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 741 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 218; Haupt, _The Sacred + Books of the Old Testament_, _Numbers_, 46; _Polychrome Bible_, + 181 f.; Furtwängler, in Roscher’s _Ausführliches Lexikon der + griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ article GRYPS.――The + derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a + connexion with γρύψ (_Greif_, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of + plausibility, but lacks proof. The often quoted statement of + Lenormant (_Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. 118), that _kirubu_ + occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name of + the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely + disproved (see Jeremias 218).――A great part of the Old Testament + symbolism could be explained from the hypothesis that the + Cherubim were originally wind-demons, like the Harpies of + Greek mythology (Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek + Religion_ 178 ff.). The most suggestive analogy to this verse + is perhaps to be found in the winged genii often depicted by + the side of the tree of life in Babylonian art. These figures + are usually human in form with human heads, but sometimes + combine the human form with an eagle’s head, and occasionally + the human head with an animal body. They are shown in the act + of fecundating the date-palm by transferring the pollen of the + male tree to the flower of the female; and hence it has been + conjectured that they are personifications of the winds, by + whose agency the fertilisation of the palm is effected in nature + (Tylor, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xii. + 383 ff.). Starting with this clue, we can readily explain (1) + the function of the Cherub as the living chariot of Yahwe, or + bearer of the Theophany, in Psalms 18¹¹ (2 Samuel 22¹¹). It is + a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe rides, just + as the Babylonian storm-god Zû was figured as a bird-deity. + The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud + is a mere conjecture based on Psalms 18¹¹ ᶠ, and has no + more intrinsic probability than that here suggested. (2) The + association of the winged figures with the Tree of Life in + Babylonian art would naturally lead to the belief that the + Cherubim were denizens of Paradise (Ezekiel 28¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶), and + guardians of the Tree (as in this passage). (3) Thence they came + to be viewed as guardians of sacred things and places generally, + like the composite figures placed at the entrances of Assyrian + temples and palaces to prevent the approach of evil spirits. To + this category belong probably in the first instance the colossal + Cherubim of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 8⁶ ᶠᐧ), and the + miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle (Exodus + 25¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears + in the alternation of cherubim and _palm-trees_ in the temple + decoration (1 Kings 6²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 41¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ;; see, further, 1 + Kings 7²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 26¹ᐧ ³¹). (4) The most difficult embodiment + of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel’s visions――four + composite creatures combining the features of the ox, the + lion, the man, and the eagle (Ezekiel 1⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 10¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). These may + represent primarily the ‘four winds of heaven’; but the complex + symbolism of the _Merkābāh_ shows that they have some deeper + cosmic significance. Gunkel (page 20) thinks that an older form + of the representation is preserved in Apocalypse 4⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where + the four animal types are kept distinct. These he connects + with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four + quarters of the heavens: Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in the earliest + astronomy a scorpion-_man_), and Aquila (near Aquarius). See + _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 631 f. + + * * * * * + + =22.= כאחד] Construct before preposition; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 130 _a_.――מִמֶּנּוּ] The so-called oriental punctuation (which + distinguishes 1st plural from 3rd singular masculine suffix) + has מִמֵּנֿוּ, ‘from us’ (Baer-Delitzsch page 81). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + (יחידי בעלמא מינה) and Symmachus (ὁμοῦ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ) treat the form + as 3rd singular: compare Rashi’s paraphrase: “alone below, as + I am alone above.”――לדעת] ‘in [respect of] knowing’: gerundial + infinitive; Davidson § 93; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _o_; Driver + _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 205.――The + pregnant use of פֶּן־ (= ‘I fear lest’) is common (Genesis 19¹⁹ + 26⁹ 38¹¹ 44³⁴, Exodus 13¹⁷ etc.). Here it is more natural to + assume an _anakolouthon_, the clause depending on a cohortative, + converted in verse ²³ into a historic tense.――גם] LXX, Peshiṭtå + omit.――=24.= LXX καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν + ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς, καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβὶν κτλ. + = ויגרש את־האדם וישכן מקדם לגן עדן וַיָּשֶׂם את־הכרובים וגו׳. Ball rightly adopts this + text, inserting אֹתוֹ after וישכן, against Yahwist’s usage. There is + no need to supply any pronoun object whatever: see 2¹⁹ 18⁷ 38¹⁸, + 1 Samuel 19¹³ etc. For the first three words Peshiṭtå has simply + (‡ Syriac word), and for וישכן (‡ Syriac word) (with the cherubim, + etc., as object).――המתהפכת] Hithpael in the sense of ‘revolve,’ + Judges 7¹³, Job 37¹²; in Job 38¹⁴ it means ‘be transformed.’ + + * * * * * + + + _The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend._ + + 1. _Ethnic parallels._――The Babylonian version of the Fall of + man (if any such existed) has not yet been discovered. There + is in the British Museum a much-debated seal-cylinder which + is often cited as evidence that a legend very similar to the + biblical narrative was current in Babylonia. It shows two + completely clothed figures seated on either side of a tree, + and each stretching out a hand toward its fruit, while a + crooked line on the left of the picture is supposed to exhibit + the serpent.¹ The engraving no doubt represents some legend + connected with the tree of life; but even if we knew that it + illustrates the first temptation, the _story_ is still wanting; + and the details of the picture show that it can have had very + little resemblance to Genesis 3.――The most that can be claimed + is that there are certain remote parallels to particular + features or ideas of Genesis 2⁴‒3²⁴, which are yet sufficiently + close to suggest that the ultimate source of the biblical + narrative is to be sought in the Babylonian mythology. Attention + should be directed to the following:―― + + ¹ Reproduced in Smith’s _Chaldean Genesis_, 88; Delitzsch + _Babel und Bibel_ (M‘Cormack’s translation, page 48); _Das + Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 203, etc. + Jeremias has satisfied himself that the zigzag line _is_ + a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake cannot be + tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit. + + (a) The _account of Creation_ in 2⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ has undoubted + resemblances to the Babylonian document described on page 47 f., + though they are hardly such as to prove dependence. Each starts + with a vision of chaos, and in both the prior existence of + heaven and earth seems to be assumed; although the Babylonian + chaos is a waste of waters, while that of Genesis 2⁵ ᶠᐧ is based + rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see page 56 above). + The _order_ of creation, though not the same, is alike in its + promiscuous and unscientific character: in the Babylonian we + have a hopeless medley――mankind, beasts of the field, living + things of the field, Tigris and Euphrates, verdure of the + field, grass, marshes, reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep of the + fold, orchards, forests, houses, and cities, etc. etc.――but no + separate creation of woman.――The creation of _man_ from earth + moistened by the blood of a god, in another document, may be + instanced as a distant parallel to 2⁷ (pages 42, 45). + + (b) The _legend of Eabani_, embedded in the Gilgameš-Epic + (Tablet I. Column ii. line 33 ff.: _Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, vi. 1, page 120 ff.), seems to present us (it has + been thought) with a ‘type of primitive man.’ Eabani, created as + a rival to Gilgameš by the goddess Aruru from a lump of clay, is + a being of gigantic strength who is found associating with the + wild animals, living their life, and foiling all the devices + of the huntsman. Eager to capture him, Gilgameš sends with the + huntsman a harlot, by whose attractions he hopes to lure Eabani + from his savagery. Eabani yields to her charms, and is led, a + willing captive, to the life of civilisation: + + When she speaks to him, her speech pleases him, + One who knows his heart he seeks, a friend. + + But later in the epic, the harlot appears as the cause of his + sorrows, and Eabani curses her with all his heart. Apart from + its present setting, and considered as an independent bit of + folk-lore, it cannot be denied that the story has a certain + resemblance to Genesis 2¹⁸⁻²⁴. Only, we may be sure that if + the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be implied in + the picture of Eabani, the moral purity of the Hebrew writer + never stooped so low (see Jastrow, _American Journal of Semitic + Languages and Literatures_, xv. 198 ff.; Stade, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 174 f.). + + (c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive + of the story of the Fall are found in the myth of _Adapa and + the South-wind_, discovered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets, + and therefore known in Palestine in the 15th century B.C. + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 92‒101). Adapa, the + son of the god Ea, is endowed by him with the fulness of divine + wisdom, but denied the gift of immortality: + + “Wisdom I gave him, immortality I gave him not.” + + While plying the trade of a fisherman on the Persian Gulf, the + south-wind overwhelms his bark, and in revenge Adapa breaks + the wings of the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned by + Anu to appear before the assembly of the gods in heaven; and Ea + instructs him how to appease the anger of Anu. Then the gods, + disconcerted by finding a mortal in possession of their secrets, + resolve to make the best of it, and to admit him fully into + their society, by conferring on him immortality. They offer + him food of life that he may eat, and water of life that he may + drink. But Adapa had previously been deceived by Ea, who did + not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would + be offered to him would be food and water of death, and had + strictly cautioned him to refuse. He did refuse, and so missed + immortal life. Anu laments over his infatuated refusal: + + “Why, Adapa! Wherefore hast thou not eaten, + not drunken, so that + Thou wilt not live...?” “Ea, my lord, + Commanded, ‘Eat not and drink not!’” + “Take him and bring him back to his earth!” + + This looks almost like a travesty of the leading ideas of + Genesis 3; yet the common features are very striking. In both + we have the idea that wisdom and immortality combined constitute + equality with deity; in both we have a man securing the first + and missing the second; and in both the man is counselled in + opposite directions by supernatural voices, and acts on that + advice which is contrary to his interest. There is, of course, + the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and + immortality to man, Ea confers the first (and thus far plays + the part of the biblical serpent) but withholds the second, and + Anu is ready to bestow both. Still, it is not too much to expect + that a story like this will throw light on the mythological + antecedents of the Genesis narrative, if not directly on that + narrative itself (see below, page 94). + + What is true of Babylonian affinities holds good in a lesser + degree of the ancient mythologies as a whole: everywhere we find + echoes of the Paradise myth, but nowhere a story which forms + an exact parallel to Genesis 2. 3. The Græco-Roman traditions + told of a ‘golden age,’ lost through the increasing sinfulness + of the race,――an age when the earth freely yielded its fruits, + and men lived in a happiness undisturbed by toil or care or sin + (Hesiod, _Opera et Dies_, 90‒92, 109‒120; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ + i. 89‒112, etc.); but they knew nothing of a sudden fall. Indian + and Persian mythologies told, in addition, of sacred mountains + where the gods dwelt, with bright gold and flashing gems, and + miraculous trees conferring immortality, and every imaginable + blessing; and we have seen that similar representations + were current in Babylonia. The nearest approach to definite + counterparts of the biblical narrative are found in Iranian + legends, where we read of Meshia and Meshiane, who lived at + first on fruits, but who, tempted by Ahriman, denied the good + god, lost their innocence, and practised all kinds of wickedness; + or of Yima, the ruler of the golden age, under whom there was + neither sickness nor death, nor hunger nor thirst, until (in one + tradition) he gave way to pride, and fell under the dominion of + the evil serpent Dahaka (see Dillmann page 47 ff.). But these + echoes are too faint and distant to enable us to determine the + quarter whence the original impulse proceeded, or where the myth + assumed the form in which it appears in Genesis. For answers + to these questions we are dependent mainly on the uncertain + indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features (the + name _Ḥavvah_ [page 85 f.], and elements of chapter 4) seem to + point to Phœnicia as the quarter whence this stratum of myth + entered the religion of Israel; others (the Paradise-geography) + point rather to Babylonia, or at least Mesopotamia. In the + present state of our knowledge it is a plausible conjecture + that the myth has travelled from Babylonia, and reached + Israel through the Phœnicians or the Canaanites (Wellhausen + _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 307; Gressman _Archiv für + Religionswissenschaft._, x. 345 ff.; compare Bevan, _The Journal + of Theological Studies_, iv. 500 f.). A similar conclusion + might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea of chaos, if + the explanation given above of 2⁶ be correct: it looks as if + the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through + transference to a dry climate (see page 56). The fig-leaves of + 3⁷ are certainly not Babylonian; though a single detail of that + kind cannot settle the question of origin. But until further + light comes from the monuments, all speculations on this subject + are very much in the air. + + 2. _The mythical substratum of the narrative._――The strongest + evidence of the non-Israelite origin of the story of the + Fall is furnished by the biblical account itself, in the many + mythological conceptions, of which traces still remain in + Genesis. “The narrative,” as Driver says, “contains features + which have unmistakable counterparts in the religious traditions + of other nations; and some of these, though they have been + accommodated to the spirit of Israel’s religion, carry + indications that they are not native to it” (_The Book of + Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 51). Amongst the features + which are at variance with the standpoint of Hebrew religion we + may put first of all the fact that the abode of Yahwe is placed, + not in Canaan or at Mount Sinai, but in the far East. The + strictly mythological background of the story emerges chiefly + in the conceptions of the garden of the gods (see page 57 f.), + the trees of life and of knowledge (page 59), the serpent (page + 72 f.), Eve (page 85 f.), and the Cherubim (page 89 f.). It + is true, as has been shown, that each of these conceptions is + rooted in the most primitive ideas of Semitic religion; but it + is equally true that they have passed through a mythological + development for which the religion of Israel gave no opportunity. + Thus the association of trees and serpents in Semitic folk-lore + is illustrated by an Arabian story, which tells how, when an + untrodden thicket was burned down, the spirits of the trees made + their escape in the shape of white serpents (_Lectures on the + Religion of the Semites_², 133); but it is quite clear that a + long interval separates that primitive superstition from the + ideas that invest the serpent and the tree in this passage. + If proof were needed, it would be found in the suggestive + combinations of the serpent and the tree in Babylonian and + Phœnician art; or in the fabled garden of the Hesperides, with + its golden fruit guarded by a dragon, always figured in artistic + representations as a huge snake coiled round the trunk of + the tree (compare Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’Histoire_, i. + 93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher, _Ausführliches Lexikon + der griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ 2599 f.). How the + various elements were combined in the particular myth which lies + immediately behind the biblical narrative, it is impossible to + say; but the myth of Adapa suggests at least some elements of a + possible construction, which cannot be very far from the truth. + Obviously we have to do with a polytheistic legend, in which + rivalries and jealousies between the different deities are + almost a matter of course. The serpent is himself a demon; and + his readiness to initiate man in the knowledge of the mysterious + virtue of the forbidden tree means that he is at variance + with the other gods, or at least with the particular god who + had imposed the prohibition. The intention of the command + was to prevent man from sharing the life of the gods; and the + serpent-demon, posing as the good genius of man, defeats that + intention by revealing to man the truth (similarly Gunkel 30). + To the original heathen myth we may also attribute the idea of + the envy of the gods, which the biblical narrator hardly avoids, + and the note of weariness and melancholy, the sombre view + of life,――the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’――which is the + ground-tone of the passage. + + It is impossible to determine what, in the original myth, was + the nature of the tree (or trees) which man was forbidden to eat. + Gressman (_l.c._ 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three + primitive conceptions: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good + and evil, whose fruit imparts the knowledge of magic,――the only + knowledge of which it can be said that it makes man at once the + equal and the rival of the deity; (2) the tree of knowledge, + whose fruit excites the sexual appetite and destroys childlike + innocence (3⁷); (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers + immortality (3²²). The question is immensely complicated by the + existence of two recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly + inseparable as Gressman thinks. In the main recension we have + the tree of knowledge, of which man eats to his hurt, but no + hint of a tree of life. In the secondary recension there is + the tree of life (of which man does not eat), and _apparently_ + the tree of knowledge of which he had eaten; but this depends + on the word גַּם in 3²², which is wanting in LXX, and may be an + interpolation. Again, the statement that knowledge of good and + evil really amounts to equality with God, is found only in the + second recension; in the other it is doubtful if the actual + effect of eating the fruit was not a cruel disappointment of + the hope held out by the serpent. How far we are entitled to + read the ideas of the one into the other is a question we cannot + answer. Eerdmans’ ingenious but improbable theory (_Theologisch + Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 504 ff.) need not here be discussed. What + is meant by knowledge of good and evil in the final form of the + narrative will be considered under the next head. + + 3. _The religious ideas of the passage._――Out of such crude + and seemingly unpromising material the religion of revelation + has fashioned the immortal allegory before us. We have now + to inquire what are the religious and moral truths under the + influence of which the narrative assumed its present form, + distinguishing as far as possible the ideas which it originally + conveyed from those which it suggested to more advanced + theological speculation. + + (1) We observe, in the first place, that the ætiological motive + is strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of + many of the facts of universal experience,――the bond between man + and wife (2²⁴), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence + (3⁷), the use of clothing (3²¹), the instinctive antipathy to + serpents (3¹⁵). But chiefly it seeks the key to the darker side + of human existence as seen in a simple agricultural state of + society,――the hard toil of the husbandman, the birth-pangs of + the woman, and her subjection to the man. These are evils which + the author feels to be contrary to the ideal of human nature, + and to the intention of a good God. They are results of a curse + justly incurred by transgression, a curse pronounced before + history began, and shadowing, rather than crushing, human life + always and everywhere. It is doubtful if death be included in + the effects of the curse. In verse ¹⁹ it is spoken of as the + natural fate of a being made from the earth; in verse ²² it + follows from being excluded from the tree of life. Man was + capable of immortality, but not by nature immortal; and God did + not mean that he should attain immortality. The death threatened + in 2¹⁷ is immediate death; and to assume that the death which + actually ensues is the exaction of that deferred penalty, is + perhaps to go beyond the intention of the writer. Nor does it + appear that the narrative seeks to account for the origin of + sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the first sin; but it + describe it as something intelligible, not needing explanation, + not a mystery like the instinct of shame or the possession of + knowledge, which are produced by eating the fruit of the tree. + + (2) Amongst other things which distinguish man’s present from + his original state, is the possession of a certain kind of + knowledge which was acquired by eating the forbidden fruit. This + brings us to the most difficult question which the narrative + presents: what is meant by the knowledge of good and evil?¹ + Keeping in mind the possibility that the two recensions may + represent different conceptions, our data are these: In 3²² + knowledge of good and evil is an attainment which (a) implies + equality with God, (b) was forbidden to man, (c) is actually + secured by man. In the leading narrative (b) certainly holds + good (2¹⁷), but (a) and (c) are doubtful. Did the serpent speak + truth when he said that knowledge of good and evil would make + man like God? Did man actually attain such knowledge? Was the + perception of nakedness a first flash of the new divine insight + which man had coveted, or was it a bitter disenchantment and + mockery of the hopes inspired by the serpent’s words? It is + only the habit of reading the ideas of 3²² into the story of the + temptation which makes these questions seem superfluous. Let us + consider how far the various interpretations enable us to answer + them.――i. The suggestion that magical knowledge is meant may be + set aside as inadequate to either form of the biblical narrative: + magic is not godlike knowledge, nor is it the universal property + of humanity.――ii. The usual explanation identifies the knowledge + of good and evil with the moral sense, the faculty of discerning + between right and wrong. This view is ably defended by Budde + (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 69 ff.), and is not to be lightly + dismissed, but yet raises serious difficulties. Could it be + said that God meant to withhold from man the power of moral + discernment? Does not the prohibition itself presuppose that man + already knew that obedience was right and disobedience sinful? + We have no right to say that the restriction was only temporary, + and that God would in other ways have bestowed on man the gift + of conscience; the narrative suggests nothing of the sort.――iii. + Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 299 ff.) holds + that the knowledge in question is insight into the secrets of + nature, and intelligence to manipulate them for human ends; + and this as a quality not so much of the individual as of + the race,――the knowledge which is the principle of human + civilisation. It is the faculty which we see at work in the + invention of clothing (3²¹ ?), in the founding of cities (4¹⁷), + in the discovery of the arts and crafts (4¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), and in the + building of the tower (11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). The undertone of condemnation + of the cultural achievements of humanity which runs through + the Yahwistic sections of chapters 1‒11 makes it probable that + the writer traced their root to the knowledge acquired by the + first transgression; and of such knowledge it might be said + that it made man like God, and that God willed to withhold it + permanently from His creatures.――iv. Against this view Gunkel + (11 f., 25 f.) urges somewhat ineptly that the myth does not + speak of arts and aptitudes which are learned by education, + but of a kind of knowledge which comes by nature, of which the + instinct of sex is a typical illustration. Knowledge of good and + evil is simply the enlargement of capacity and experience which + belongs to mature age,――ripeness of judgment, reason,――including + moral discernment, but not identical with it.――The difference + between the last two explanations is not great; and possibly + both are true. Wellhausen’s seems to me the only view that does + justice to the thought of 3²²; and if 4¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ and 11¹⁻⁹ be the + continuation of this version of the Fall, the theory has much + to recommend it. On the other hand, Gunkel’s acceptation may be + truer to the teaching of 3¹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Man’s primitive state was one + of childlike innocence and purity; and the knowledge which he + obtained by disobedience is the knowledge of life and of the + world which distinguishes the grown man from the child. If it + be objected that such knowledge is a good thing, which God could + not have forbidden to man, we may be content to fall back on + the paradox of Christ’s idea of childhood: “Except ye turn, and + become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the + kingdom of heaven.” + + ¹ In Old Testament usage, knowledge of good and evil marks + the difference between adulthood and childhood (Deuteronomy + 1³⁹, Isaiah 7¹⁵ ᶠᐧ)), or second childhood (2 Samuel 19³⁶); + it also denotes (with different verbs) judicial discernment + of right and wrong (2 Samuel 14¹⁷, 1 Kings 3⁹), which is + an intellectual function, quite distinct from the working + of the conscience. The antithesis of good and evil may, of + course, be ethical (Amos 5¹⁴ ᶠᐧ, Isaiah 5²⁰ etc.); but it + may also be merely the contrast of pleasant and painful, + or wholesome and hurtful (2 Samuel 19³⁶). Hence the phrase + comes to stand for the whole range of experience,――“a + comprehensive designation of things by their two polar + attributes, according to which they interest man for his + weal or hurt”: compare 2 Samuel 14¹⁷ with ²⁰ ‘all things + that are in earth’ (Genesis 24⁵⁰ 31²⁴). Wellhausen maintains + that the non-ethical sense is fundamental, the expressions + being transferred to virtue and vice only in so far as their + consequences are advantageous or the reverse. Knowledge of + good and evil may thus mean knowledge in general,――knowing + one thing from another. + + (3) The next point that claims attention is the author’s + conception of sin. Formally, sin is represented as an act + of disobedience to a positive command, imposed as a test of + fidelity; an act, therefore, which implies disloyalty to God, + and a want of the trust and confidence due from man to his + Maker. But the essence of the transgression lies deeper: God + had a reason for imposing the command, and man had a motive + for disobeying it; and the reason and motive are unambiguously + indicated. Man was tempted by the desire to be as God, and Yahwe + does not will that man should be as God. Sin is thus in the + last instance presumption,――an overstepping of the limits of + creaturehood, and an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity. + It is true that the offence is invested with every circumstance + of extenuation,――inexperience, the absence of evil intention, + the suddenness of the temptation, and the superior subtlety + of the serpent; but sin it was nevertheless, and was justly + followed by punishment.――How far the passage foreshadows + a doctrine of hereditary sin, it is impossible to say. The + consequences of the transgression, both privative and positive, + are undoubtedly transmitted from the first pair to their + posterity; but whether the sinful tendency itself is regarded as + having become hereditary in the race, there is not evidence to + show. + + (4) Lastly, what view of God does the narrative present? It + has already been pointed out that 3²² borders hard on the pagan + notion of the ‘envy’ of the godhead, a notion difficult to + reconcile with the conceptions of Old Testament religion. But + of that idea there is no trace in the main narrative of the + temptation and the Fall, except in the lying insinuation of the + serpent: the writer himself does not thus ‘charge God foolishly.’ + His religious attitude is one of reverent submission to the + limitations imposed on human life by a sovereign Will, which + is determined to maintain inviolate the distinction between the + divine and the human. The attribute most conspicuously displayed + is closely akin to what the prophets called the ‘holiness’ of + God, as illustrated, _e.g._, in Isaiah 2¹² ᶠᶠᐧ. After all, the + world is God’s world and not man’s, and the Almighty is just, + as well as holy, when He frustrates the impious aspiration of + humanity after an independent footing and sphere of action in + the universe. The God of Genesis 3 is no arbitrary heathen deity, + dreading lest the sceptre of the universe should be snatched + from his hand by the soaring ambition of the race of men; + but a Being infinitely exalted above the world, stern in His + displeasure at sin, and terrible in His justice; yet benignant + and compassionate, slow to anger, and ‘repenting Him of the + evil.’ Through an intensely anthropomorphic medium we discern + the features of the God of the prophets and the Old Testament; + nay, in the analogy of human fatherhood which underlies the + description, we can trace the lineaments of the God and Father + of Jesus Christ. That is the real _Protevangelium_ which lies in + the passage: the fact that God tempers judgment with mercy, the + faith that man, though he has forfeited innocence and happiness, + is not cut off from fellowship with his Creator. + + + + + CHAPTER IV. + _Beginnings of History and Civilisation._ + + + _Critical Analysis._――Chapter 4 consists of three easily + separable sections: (a) the story of Cain and Abel (¹⁻¹⁶), (b) + a Cainite genealogy (¹⁷⁻²⁴),¹ and (c) a fragment of a Sethite + genealogy (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶). As they lie before us, these are woven into + a consecutive history of antediluvian mankind, with a semblance + of unity sufficient to satisfy the older generation of critics.² + Closer examination seems to show that the chapter is composite, + and that the superficial continuity conceals a series of + critical problems of great intricacy. + + ¹ Wellhausen unites verse ¹⁶ᵇ with ¹⁷⁻²⁴. + + ² _e.g._ Hupfeld, _Quellen_, 126 ff. + + 1. We have first to determine the character and extent of the + Cainite genealogy. It is probable that the first link occurs + in verse ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and has to be disentangled from the Cain legend + (so Wellhausen, Budde); whether it can have included the whole + of that legend is a point to be considered later (page 100). We + have thus a list of Adam’s descendants through Cain, continued + in a single line for seven generations, after which it branches + into three, and then ceases. It has no explicit sequel in + Genesis; the sacred number 7 marks it as complete in itself; and + the attempts of some scholars to remodel it in accordance with + its supposed original place in the history are to be distrusted. + Its main purpose is to record the origin of various arts and + industries of civilised life; and apart from the history of Cain + there is nothing whatever to indicate that it deals with a race + of sinners, as distinct from the godly line of Seth. That this + genealogy belongs to Yahwist has hardly been questioned except + by Dillmann, who argues with some hesitation for assigning it + to Elohist, chiefly on the ground of its discordance with verses + ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶. Budde (page 220 ff.) has shown that the stylistic criteria + point decidedly (if not quite unequivocally) to Yahwist;¹ and + in the absence of any certain trace of Elohist in chapters + 1‒11, the strong presumption is that the genealogy represents a + stratum of the former document. The question then arises whether + it be the original continuation of chapter 3. An _essential_ + connexion cannot, from the nature of the case, be affirmed. + The primitive genealogies are composed of desiccated legends, + in which each member is originally independent of the rest; + and we are not entitled to assume that an account of the Fall + necessarily attached itself to the person of the first man. If + it were certain that 3²⁰ is an integral part of one recension + of the Paradise story, it might reasonably be concluded that + that recension was continued in 4¹, and then in 4¹⁷⁻²⁴. In the + absence of complete certainty on that point the larger question + must be left in suspense; there is, however, no difficulty in + supposing that in the earliest written collection of Hebrew + traditions the genealogy was preceded by a history of the Fall + in a version partly preserved in chapter 3. The presumption that + this was the case would, of course, be immensely strengthened if + we could suppose it to be the intention of the original writer + to describe not merely the progress of culture, but also the + rapid development of sin (so Wellhausen). + + ¹ יָלַד = ‘beget,’ ¹⁸; גם הוא, ²² (_in genealogies_, confined to + Yahwist, 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ 4²⁶); ושם אחיו, ²¹ (compare 10²⁵); + compare ¹⁹ with 10²⁵ etc. (Budde _l.c._). + + 2. The fragmentary genealogy of verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ corresponds, so + far as it goes, with the Sethite genealogy of Priestly-Code + in chapter 5. It will be shown later (page 138 f.) that the + lists of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ and 5 go back to a common original; and if the + discrepancy had been merely between Yahwist and Priestly-Code, + the obvious conclusion would be that these two documents had + followed different traditional variants of the ancient genealogy. + But how are we to account for the fact that the first three + names of Priestly-Code’s list occur also in the connexion + of Yahwist? There are four possible solutions. (1) It is + conceivable that Yahwist, not perceiving the ultimate identity + of the two genealogies, incorporated both in his document + (compare Ewald _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi. + page 4); and that the final redactor (Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ) + then curtailed the second list in view of chapter 5. This + hypothesis is on various grounds improbable. It assumes (see + ²⁵ᵇ) the murder of Abel by Cain as an original constituent + of Yahwist’s narrative; now that story takes for granted + that the worship of Yahwe was practised from the beginning, + whereas ²⁶ᵇ explicitly states that it was only introduced + in the third generation. (2) It has not unnaturally been + conjectured that verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ are entirely redactional (Ewald, + Schrader, al.); _i.e._, that they were inserted by an editor + (Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ) to establish a connexion between the + genealogy of Yahwist and that of Priestly-Code. In favour of + this view the use of אדם (as a proper name) and of אלהים has been + cited; but again the statement of ²⁶ᵇ presents an insurmountable + difficulty. Priestly-Code has his own definite theory of + the introduction of the name יהוה (see Exodus 6² ᶠᶠᐧ), and it + is incredible that any editor influenced by him should have + invented the gratuitous statement that the name was in use from + the time of Enosh. (3) A third view is that verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ stood + originally before verse ¹ (or before verse ¹⁷), so that the + father of Cain and Abel (or of Cain alone) was not Adam but + Enosh; and that the redactor who made the transposition is + responsible also for some changes on verse ²⁵ to adapt it to its + new setting (so Stade) (see on the verse). That is, no doubt, a + plausible solution (admitted as possible by Dillmann), although + it involves operations on the structure of the genealogy + too drastic and precarious to be readily assented to. It is + difficult also to imagine any sufficient motive for the supposed + transposition. That it was made to find a connexion for the + (secondary) story of Cain and Abel is a forced suggestion. The + tendency of a redactor must have been to keep that story as + far from the beginning as possible, and that the traditional + data should have been deliberately altered so as to make it + the opening scene of human history is hardly intelligible. (4) + There remains the hypothesis that the two genealogies belong + to separate strata within the Yahwistic tradition, which had + been amalgamated by a redactor of that school (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) + prior to the incorporation of Priestly-Code; and that the second + list was curtailed by Redactorᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ because of its + substantial identity with that of the Priestly Code in chapter 5. + The harmonistic glossing of verse ²⁵ is an inevitable assumption + of any theory except (1) and (2); it must have taken place after + the insertion of the Cain and Abel episode; and on the view we + are now considering it must be attributed to Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ. + In other respects the solution is free from difficulty. The + recognition of the complex character of the source called + Yahwist is forced on us by many lines of proof; and it will + probably be found that this view of the genealogies yields a + valuable clue to the structure of the non-Priestly sections of + chapters 2‒11 (see pages 3, 134). One important consequence may + here be noted. Eve’s use of the name אלהים, and the subsequent + notice of the introduction of the name יהוה, suggest that this + writer had previously avoided the latter title of God (as + Elohist and Priestly-Code previously to Exodus 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ and Exodus + 6² ᶠᶠᐧ). Hence, if it be the case that one recension of the + Paradise story was characterised by the exclusive use of אלהים + (see page 53), 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ will naturally be regarded as the sequel + to that recension. + + 3. There remains the Cain and Abel narrative of verses ¹⁻¹⁶. + That it belongs to Yahwist in the wider sense is undisputed,¹ + but its precise affinities within the Yahwistic cycle are + exceedingly perplexing. If the theory mentioned at the end of + the last paragraph is correct, the consistent use of the name + יהוה² would show that it was unknown to the author of verses + ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ and of that form of the Paradise story presupposed by + these verses. Is it, then, a primary element of the genealogy + in which it is embedded? It certainly contains notices――such + as the introduction of agriculture and (perhaps) the origin of + sacrifice――in keeping with the idea of the genealogy; but the + length and amplitude of the narration would be without parallel + in a genealogy; and (what is more decisive) there is an obvious + incongruity between the Cain of the legend, doomed to a fugitive + unsettled existence, and the Cain of the genealogy (verse ¹⁷), + who as the first city-builder inaugurates the highest type of + stable civilised life.³ Still more complicated are the relations + of the passage to the history of the Fall in chapter 3. On the + one hand, a series of material incongruities seem to show that + the two narratives are unconnected: the assumption of an already + existing population on the earth could hardly have been made + by the author of chapter 3; the free choice of occupation by + the two brothers, and Yahwe’s preference for the shepherd’s + sacrifice, ignore the representation (3¹⁹) that husbandry is + the destined lot of the race; and the curse on Cain is recorded + in terms which betray no consciousness of a primal curse resting + on the ground. It is true, on the other hand, that the literary + form of 4¹⁻¹⁶ contains striking reminiscences of that of chapter + 3. The most surprising of these (4⁷ᵇ ∥ 3¹⁶ᵇ) may be set down to + textual corruption (see the note on the verse); but there are + several other turns of expression which recall the language of + the earlier narrative: compare 4⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ with 3⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷. In both + we have the same sequence of sin, investigation and punishment + (in the form of a curse), the same dramatic dialogue, and + the same power of psychological analysis. But whether these + resemblances are such as to prove identity of authorship + is a question that cannot be confidently answered. There + is an indistinctness of conception in 4¹⁻¹⁶ which contrasts + unfavourably with the convincing lucidity of chapter 3, as + if the writer’s touch were less delicate, or his gift of + imaginative delineation more restricted. Such impressions are + too subjective to be greatly trusted; but, taken along with + the material differences already enumerated, they confirm the + opinion that the literary connexion between chapter 3 and 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ + is due to conscious or unconscious imitation of one writer by + another.――On the whole, the evidence points to the following + conclusion: The story of Cain and Abel existed as a popular + legend entirely independent of the traditions regarding the + infancy of the race, and having no vital relation to any part + of its present literary environment. It was incorporated in + the Yahwistic document by a writer familiar with the narrative + of the Fall, who identified the Cain of the legend with the + son of the first man, and linked the story to his name in the + genealogy. How much of the original genealogy has been preserved + it is impossible to say: any notices that belonged to it have + certainly been rewritten, and cannot now be isolated; but verse + ¹ (birth of Cain) may with reasonable probability be assigned + to it (so Budde), possibly also ²ᵇ{β} (Cain’s occupation), and + ³ᵇ (Cain’s sacrifice).――Other important questions will be best + considered in connexion with the original significance of the + legend (page 111 ff.). + + ¹ Compare יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶; ארור, ¹¹; לבלתי, ¹⁵; and + obsolete the resemblances to chapter 3 noted below: the + naming of the child by the mother. + + ² This uniformity of usage is not, however, observed in + LXX. In LXXᴬ Κύριος occurs twice (³ᐧ ¹³), ὁ θεός 5 times + (¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶), and Κύριος ὁ θεός 3 times (⁶ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁵) (for + variants, see Cambridge LXX). + + ³ Even if we adopt Budde’s emendation of verse ¹⁷, and make + Enoch the city-founder (see on the verse), it still remains + improbable that that rôle should be assigned to the son of a + wandering nomad. + + + IV. 1‒16. + _Cain and Abel._ + +Eve bears to her husband two sons, Cain and Abel; the first becomes +a tiller of the ground, and the second a keeper of sheep (¹ᐧ ²). Each +offers to Yahwe the sacrifice appropriate to his calling; but only +the shepherd’s offering is accepted, and Cain is filled with morose +jealousy and hatred of Abel (³⁻⁵). Though warned by Yahwe (⁶ ᶠᐧ), he +yields to his evil passion and slays his brother (⁸). Yahwe pronounces +him accursed from the fertile ground, which will no longer yield +its substance to him, and he is condemned to the wandering life of +the desert (¹⁰⁻¹²). As a mitigation of his lot, Yahwe appoints him a +sign which protects him from indiscriminate vengeance (¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and he +departs into the land of Nod, east of Eden (¹⁶). + +=1‒5. Birth of Cain and Abel: their occupation, and sacrifice.=――=1.= +On the naming of the child by the _mother_, see Benzinger, _Hebräische +Archäologie_² 116. It is peculiar to the oldest strata (Yahwist and +Elohist) of the Hexateuch, and is not quite consistently observed even +there (4²⁶ 5²⁹ 25²⁵ ᶠᐧ, Exodus 2²²): it may therefore be a relic of the +matriarchate which was giving place to the later custom of naming by +the father (Priestly-Code) at the time when these traditions were +taking shape.――The difficult sentence קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יַהְוֶה connects the name קַיִן +with the verb קָנָה. But קנה has two meanings in Hebrew: (a) to (create, +or) produce, and (b) to acquire; and it is not easy to determine which +is intended here. + + The second idea would seem more suitable in the present + connexion, but it leads to a forced and doubtful construction + of the last two words, (a) To render אֵת ‘with the help of’ + (Dillmann and most) is against all analogy. It is admitted + that את itself nowhere has this sense (in 49²⁵ the true reading + is וְאֵל, and Micah 3⁸ is at least doubtful); and the few cases + in which the synonym עִם can be so translated are not really + parallel. Both in 1 Samuel 14⁴⁵ and Daniel 11³⁹, the עם denotes + association _in the same act_, and therefore does not go beyond + the sense ‘along with.’ The analogy does not hold in this verse + if the verb means ‘acquire’; Eve could not say that she had + _acquired_ a man along with Yahwe. (b) We may, of course, assume + an error in the text and read מֵאֵת = ‘from’ (Budde al. after + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). (c) The idea that את is the sign of accusative + (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, al.), and that Eve imagined she had given + birth to the divine ‘seed’ promised in 3¹⁵ (Luther, al.) may be + disregarded as a piece of antiquated dogmatic exegesis.――If we + adopt the other meaning of קנה, the construction is perfectly + natural: _I have created_ (or _produced_) _a man with_ (the + co-operation of) _Yahwe_ (compare Rashi: “When he created me + and my husband he created us alone, but in this case we are + associated with him”). A strikingly similar phrase in the + bilingual Babylonian account of Creation (above, page 47) + suggests that the language here may be more deeply tinged with + mythology than has been generally suspected. We read that “Aruru, + together with him [Marduk], created (the) seed of mankind”: + _Aruru zí-ír a-mí-lu-ti it-ti-šu ib-ta-nu_ (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 40 f.; King, _The Seven Tablets of Creation_ + i. 134 f.). Aruru, a form of Ištar, is a mother-goddess of the + Babylonians (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 430), _i.e._, a deified ancestress, and therefore so far the + counterpart of the Hebrew חַוָּה (see on 3²⁰). The exclamation + certainly gains in significance if we suppose it to have + survived from a more mythological phase of tradition, in which + Ḥawwah was not a mortal wife and mother, but a creative deity + taking part with the supreme god in the production of man. + See Cheyne, _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 104, + who thinks it “psychologically probable that Eve congratulated + herself on having ‘created’ a man.”――That אִישׁ is not elsewhere + used of a man-child is not a serious objection to any + interpretation (compare גָּבֶר in Job 3³); though the thought + readily occurs that the etymology would be more appropriate to + the name אֱנוֹשׁ (4²⁶) than to קַיִן. + + * * * * * + + =1.= והאדם ידע] A pluperfect sense (Rashi) being unsuitable, + the peculiar order of words is difficult to explain; see on + 3¹, and compare 21¹. Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden + und Abhandlungen_ 239) regards it as a proof of editorial + manipulation.――The euphemistic use of ידע is peculiar to Yahwist + in the Hexateuch (7 times): Numbers 31¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ³⁵ (Priestly-Code: + compare Judges 21¹¹ᐧ ¹²) are somewhat different. Elsewhere + Judges 11³⁹ 19²²ᐧ ²⁵, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹, 1 Kings 1⁴,――all in the + older historiography, and some perhaps from the literary school + of Yahwist.――קַיִן] √ קין (Arabic _ḳāna_). In Arabic _ḳain_ means + ‘smith’; = Syrian (‡ Syriac word), ‘worker in metal’ (see 4²² + 5⁹). Nöldeke’s remark, that in Arabic _ḳain_ several words are + combined, is perhaps equally true of Hebrew קַיִן (_Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 130). Many critics (Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, + Holzinger, al.) take the name as eponym of the Ḳenites (קַיִן, קַינִי): + see page 113 below.――קָנִיתִי] All versions express the idea of + ‘acquiring’ (ἐκτησάμην, _possedi_, etc.). The sense ‘create’ + or ‘originate,’ though apparently confined to Hebrew and + subordinate even there, is established by Deuteronomy 32⁶, + Proverbs 8²², Psalms 139¹³, Genesis 14¹⁹ᐧ ²².――את] Of the + versions Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ alone can be thought to have read מֵאֵת + (מן קדם); one anonymous Greek translation (see Field) took the + word as _notional accusative_ (ἄνθρωπον κύριον); the rest vary + greatly in rendering (as was to be expected from the difficulty + of the phrase), but there is no reason to suppose they had + a different text: LXX διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, Symmachus σὺν κ., ὁ Ἑβρ. + καὶ Σύρ.: ἐν θ., Vulgate _per Deum_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word). + Conjectures: Marti (_Lit. Centralbl._, 1897, xx. 641) and + Zeydner (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + xviii. 120): אִישׁ אֹת יַהְוֶה = ‘the man of the Jahwe sign’ (verse ¹⁵); + Gunkel אִישׁ אָתְאַוֶּה = ‘man whom I desire.’ + + * * * * * + +=2.= _And again she bare, etc._] The omission of the verb הָרָה is not to +be pressed as implying that the brothers were twins, although that may +very well be the meaning. The Old Testament contains no certain trace +of the widespread superstitions regarding twin-births.――The sons betake +themselves to the two fundamental pursuits of settled life: the elder +to agriculture, the younger to the rearing of small cattle (sheep and +goats). The previous story of the Fall, in which Adam, as representing +the race, is condemned to husbandry, seems to be ignored (Gunkel). + + The absence of an etymology of הֶבֶל is remarkable (but compare + verse ¹⁷), and hardly to be accounted for by the supposition + that the name was only coined afterwards in token of his brief, + fleeting existence (Dillmann). The word (= ‘breath’) might + suggest that to a Hebrew reader, but the original sense is + unknown. Gunkel regards it as the proper name of an extinct + tribe or people; Ewald, Wellhausen, al. take it to be a variant + of יָבָל, the father of nomadic shepherds (4²⁰); and Cheyne has + ingeniously combined both names with a group of Semitic words + denoting domestic animals and those who take charge of them + (_e.g._ Syrian (‡ Syriac word) = ‘herd’; Arabic _’abbāl_ = + ‘camel-herd,’ etc.): the meaning would then be ‘herdsman’ + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 6). The conjecture is retracted in + _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, in the interests of + Yeraḥme’el. + +=3.= _An offering_] מִנְחָה, literally a present or tribute (32¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 33¹⁰ +43¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 10²⁷ etc.): see below. The use of this word shows +that the ‘gift-theory’ of sacrifice (_Lectures on the Religion of the +Semites_², 392 ff.) was fully established in the age when the narrative +originated.――_of the fruit of the ground_] “Fruit in its natural state +was offered at Carthage, and was probably admitted by the Hebrews in +ancient times.” “The Carthaginian fruit-offering consisted of a branch +bearing fruit, ... it seems to be clear that the fruit was offered at +the altar, ... and this, no doubt, is the original sense of the Hebrew +rite also” (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 221 and _note_ +3). Cain’s offering is thus analogous to the first-fruits (בִּכּוּרִים: +Exodus 23¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ 34²²ᐧ ²⁶, Numbers 13²⁰ etc.) of Hebrew ritual; and it +is arbitrary to suppose that his fault lay in not selecting the best of +what he had for God.――=4.= Abel’s offering consisted of _the firstlings +of his flock, namely_ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 154 _a_, _N._ 1 (_b_)) +_of their fat-pieces_] compare Numbers 18¹⁷. Certain fat portions of +the victim were in ancient ritual reserved for the deity, and might not +be eaten (1 Samuel 2¹⁶ etc.: for Levitical details, see Driver-White, +_Leviticus_, _Polychrome Bible_, pages 4, 65).――=4b, 5a.= How did Yahwe +signify His acceptance of the one offering and rejection of the other? +It is commonly answered (in accordance with Leviticus 9²⁴, 1 Kings 18³⁸ +etc.), that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel’s offering +(Theodotion, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.). Others (Dillmann, +Gunkel) think more vaguely of some technical sign, _e.g._ the manner +in which the smoke ascended (Ewald, Strack); while Calvin supposes that +Cain inferred the truth from the subsequent course of God’s providence. +But these conjectures overlook the strong anthropomorphism of the +description: one might as well ask how Adam knew that he was expelled +from the garden (3²⁴). Perhaps the likeliest analogy is the acceptance +of Gideon’s sacrifice by the Angel of Yahwe (Judges 6²¹).――_Why_ was +the one sacrifice accepted and not the other? The distinction must +lie either (a) in the disposition of the brothers (so nearly all +commmentaries), or (b) in the material of the sacrifice (Tuch). In +favour of (a) it is pointed out that in each case the personality +of the worshipper is mentioned before the gift. But since the reason +is not stated, it must be presumed to be one which the first hearers +would understand for themselves; and they could hardly understand that +Cain, apart from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable +to God than Abel. On the other hand, they would readily perceive that +the material of Cain’s offering was not in accordance with primitive +Semitic ideas of sacrifice (see _Lectures on the Religion of the +Semites_², Lecture VIII.). + + From the fact that the altar is not expressly mentioned, it + has been inferred that sacrifice is here regarded as belonging + to the established order of things (Stade al.). But the whole + manner of the narration suggests rather that the incident is + conceived as the initiation of sacrifice,――the first spontaneous + expression of religious feeling in cultus.¹ If that impression + be sound, it follows also that the narrative proceeds on a + _theory_ of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal sacrifice + alone is acceptable to Yahwe. It is true that we cannot go + back to a stage of Hebrew ritual when vegetable offerings were + excluded; but such sacrifices must have been introduced after + the adoption of agricultural life; and it is quite conceivable + that in the early days of the settlement in Canaan the view was + maintained among the Israelites that the animal offerings of + their nomadic religion were superior to the vegetable offerings + made to the Canaanite Baals. Behind this may lie (as Gunkel + thinks) the idea that pastoral life as a whole is more pleasing + to Yahwe than husbandry. + + ¹ It may be a mere coincidence that in Philo Byblius the + institution of animal sacrifice occurs in a legend of + two brothers who quarrelled (_Præparatio Evangelica_ + i. 10). Kittel (_Studien zur hebräischen Archäologie und + Religionsgeschichte_ 103¹) suggests that our narrative + may go back to a time prior to the introduction of the + fire-offering and the altar. + + * * * * * + + =3.= מקץ ימים] _After some time_, which may be longer (1 Samuel 29³) + or shorter (24⁵⁵). To take ימים in the definite sense of ‘year’ + (1 Samuel 1²¹ 2¹⁹ 20⁶ etc.) is unnecessary, though not altogether + unnatural (Abraham Ibn Ezra al.).――הֵבִיא] the ritual use is well + established: Leviticus 2²ᐧ ⁸, Isaiah 1¹³, Jeremiah 17²⁶ etc.――מִנְחָה: + Arabic _minḥat_ = ‘gift,’ ‘loan’: √ _manaḥa._¹ On the uses of + the word, see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 587b. + In sacrificial terminology there are perhaps three senses to be + distinguished: (1) Sacrifice in general, conceived as a tribute + or propitiatory present to the deity, Numbers 16¹⁵, Judges 6¹⁸, + 1 Samuel 2¹⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 26¹⁹, Isaiah 1¹³, Zephaniah 3¹⁰, Psalms 96⁸ etc. + (2) The conjunction of מנחה and זֶבַח 1 Samuel 2²⁹ 3¹⁴, Isaiah 19²¹, + Amos 5²⁵ etc.) may show that it denotes vegetable as distinct + from animal oblations (see _Lectures on the Religion of the + Semites_², 217, 236). (3) In Priestly-Code and late writings + generally it is restricted to cereal offerings: Exodus 30⁹, + Numbers 18⁹ etc. Whether the wider or the more restricted + meaning be the older it is difficult to say.――=4.= וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵֿהֶן] + On Metheg, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 16 _d_. We might point as + singular of the noun (חֶלְבְּהֶן, Leviticus 8¹⁶ᐧ ²⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 91 _c_); but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + has _scriptio plena_ of the plural ומחלביהן.――וישע] LXX καὶ ἔπιδεν + (in verse ⁵ προσέσχεν); Aquila ἐπεκλίθη; Symmachus ἐτέρφθη; + Theodotion ἐνεπύρισεν (see above); ὁ Σύρ. εὐδόκησεν; Vulgate + _respexit_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ והות רעוא קדם יי. + There is no _exact_ parallel to the meaning here; the nearest + is Exodus 5⁹ (‘_look away_ [from their tasks] _to_’ idle + words).――=5.= חרה] in Hebrew always of _mental_ heat (anger); + LXX wrongly ἐλύπησεν; so Peshiṭtå. On impersonal construct, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _b_; compare 18³⁰ᐧ ³² 31³⁶ 34⁷, Numbers + 16¹⁵ etc. The word is not used by Priestly-Code.――For נפל, + Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (literally ‘became black’). + + ¹ Some, however, derive it from נחה = ‘direct’; and Hommel + (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, 322) cites a Sabæan inscription where + _tanaḥḥayat_ (V conjecture) is used of offering a sacrifice + (see Lagrange, _Études_, 250). If this be correct, what was + said above about the ‘gift theory’ would fall to the ground. + + * * * * * + +=5b.= Cain’s feeling is a mixture of anger (_it became very hot to_ +him) and dejection (_his face fell_: compare Job 29²⁴, Jeremiah 3¹²). +This does not imply that his previous state of mind had been bad +(Dillmann al.). In tracing Cain’s sin to a disturbance of his religious +relation to God, the narrator shows his profound knowledge of the human +heart. + +=6‒12. Warning, murder, and sentence.=――=7.= The point of the +remonstrance obviously is that the cause of Cain’s dissatisfaction +lies in himself, but whether in his general temper or in his defective +sacrifice can no longer be made out. Every attempt to extract a meaning +from the verse is more or less of a _tour de force_, and it is nearly +certain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruption +(_v.i._).――=8=. _And Cain said_] אָמַר never being quite synonymous with +דִּבֵּר, the sentence is incomplete: the missing words, _Let us go to the +field_, must be supplied from versions; see below (so Ewald, Dillmann, +Driver, al.). That Cain, as a first step towards reconciliation, +communicated to Abel the warning he had just received (Tuch al.), +is perhaps possible grammatically, but psychologically is altogether +improbable.――_the field_] the open country (see on 2⁵), where they were +safe from observation (1 Kings 11²⁹).――=9.= Yahwe opens the inquisition, +as in 3⁹, with a question, which Cain, unlike Adam, answers with a +defiant repudiation of responsibility. It is impossible to doubt that +here the writer has the earlier scene before his mind, and consciously +depicts a terrible advance in the power of sin.――=10=. _Hark! Thy +brother’s blood is crying to me, etc._] צָעַק denotes strictly the cry +for help, and specially for redress or vengeance (Exodus 22²²ᐧ ²⁶, +Judges 4³, Psalms 107 ⁶ᐧ ²⁸). The idea that blood exposed on the ground +thus clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the Old Testament +(Job 16¹⁸, Isaiah 26²¹, Ezekiel 24⁷ᐧ ⁸, 2 Kings 9²⁶): see _Lectures on +the Religion of the Semites_², 417⁵. In this passage we have more than +a mere metaphor, for it is the blood which is represented as drawing +Yahwe’s attention to the crime of Cain.――=11.= _And now cursed art +thou from_ (off) _the ground_] _i.e._, not the earth’s surface, but +the cultivated ground (compare verse ¹⁴, and see on 2⁵). To restrict +it to the soil of Palestine (Wellhausen, Stade, Holzinger) goes beyond +the necessities of the case.――_which has opened her mouth, etc._] a +personification of the ground similar to that of Sheol in Isaiah 5¹⁴ +(compare Numbers 16³²). The idea cannot be that the earth is a monster +greedy of blood; it seems rather akin to the primitive superstition +of a physical infection or poisoning of the soil, and through it of +the murderer, by the shed blood (see Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to +the study of Greek Religion_, 219 ff.). The ordinary Old Testament +conception is that the blood remains _uncovered_ (compare Euripides +_Electra_, 318 f.). The relation of the two notions is obscure.――=12.= +The curse ‘from off the ground’ has two sides: (1) The ground will _no +longer yield its strength_ (Job 31³⁹) to the murderer, so that even if +he wished he will be unable to resume his husbandry; and (2) he is to +be a _vagrant and wanderer in the earth_. The second is the negative +consequence of the first, and need not be regarded as a separate curse, +or a symbol of the inward unrest which springs from a guilty conscience. + + * * * * * + + =7.= The difficulties of the present text are “the curt and + ambiguous expression שְׂאֵת; further, the use of חַטָּאת as masculine, + then the whole tenor of the sentence, _If thou doest not + well..._; finally, the exact and yet incongruous parallelism of + the second half-verse with 3¹⁶” (Olshausen _Monatsberichte der + Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, + 1870, 380).――As regards ⁷ᵃ, the main lines of interpretation are + these: (1) The infinitive שְׂאֵת may be complementary to תֵּיטיב as a + _relative_ verb (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120, 1), in which case שׂ׳ + must have the sense of ‘offer’ sacrifice (compare 43³⁴, Ezekiel + 20³¹). So (a) LXX οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, + ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον (reading לְנַתַּח for לַפֶּתַח, and pointing the next + two words חָטָאתָ רְבַץ) = ‘Is it not so――if thou offerest rightly, but + dost not cut in pieces rightly, thou hast sinned? Be still!’ Ball + strangely follows this fantastic rendering, seemingly oblivious + of the fact that נַתַּח (compare Exodus 29¹⁷, Leviticus 1⁶ᐧ ¹², + 1 Kings 18²³ᐧ ³³ etc.)――for which he needlessly substitutes + בַּֽתֵּר (15¹⁰)――has no sense as applied to a fruit-offering.――(b) + Somewhat similar is a view approved by Budde as “völlig + befriedigend” (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 204 f.): ‘Whether + thou make thine offering costly or not, at the door,’ etc. + [‘Whether thou offerest _correctly_ or not,’ would be the safer + rendering].――(2) The infinitive may be taken as compressed + apodosis, and תּ׳ as an independent verb = ‘do well’ (as often). + שׂ׳ might then express the idea of (a) _elevation of countenance_ + (= שׂ׳ פנים: compare Job 11¹⁵ 22²⁶): ‘If thou doest well, shall there + not be lifting up?’ etc. (so Tuch, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann, + Driver, al.); or (b) _acceptance_ (שׂ׳ פ׳ as Genesis 19²¹, 2 Kings + 3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ᐧ ⁹): so Aquila (ἀρέσεις), Theodotion (δεκτόν), + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Vulgate (_recipies_); or (c) + _forgiveness_ (as Genesis 50¹⁷, Exodus 32³²): so Symmachus + (ἀφήσω), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, and recently Holzinger. Of these + renderings 2 (a) or 1 (b) are perhaps the most satisfying, though + both are cumbered with the unnatural metaphor of sin as a wild + beast couching at the door (of what?), and the harsh discord of + gender. The latter is not fairly to be got rid of by taking רֹבֵץ + as a noun (‘sin is at the door, a lurker’: Ewald al.), though + no doubt it might be removed by a change of text. Of the image + itself the best explanation would be that of Holzinger, who + regards רָבַץ as a technical expression for unforgiven sin (compare + Deuteronomy 29¹⁹). Jewish interpreters explain it of the evil + impulse in man (יֵצֶר הָרַע), and most Christians similarly of the + overmastering or seductive power of sin; ⁷ᵇ being regarded as a + summons to Cain to subdue his evil passions.――=7b= reads smoothly + enough by itself, but connects badly with what precedes. The + antecedent to the pronoun suffix is usually taken to be Sin + personified as a wild beast, or less commonly (Calvin al.) Abel, + the object of Cain’s envy. The word תְּשׁוּקָה is equally unsuitable, + whether it be understood of the wild beast’s eagerness for its + prey or the deference due from a younger brother to an older; + and the alternative תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX and Peshiṭtå (see on 3¹⁶) is no + better. The verbal resemblance to 3¹⁶ᵇ is itself suspicious; + a facetious parody of the language of a predecessor is not + to be attributed to any early writer. It is more likely that + the erroneous words were afterwards adjusted to their present + context: in Peshiṭtå the suffix are actually reversed (‡ Syriac + phrase).――The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ affords no help, + and the textual confusion is probably irremediable; tentative + emendations like those of Gunkel (page 38) are of no avail. + Cheyne _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 105, would + remove verse ⁷ as a gloss, and make ⁸ᵃ (reading אחי) Cain’s + answer to verse ⁶. + + =8.= אָמַר, in the sense of ‘speak,’ ‘converse’ (2 Chronicles 32²⁴), + is excessively rare and late: the only instance in early Hebrew + is apparently Exodus 19²⁵, where the context has been broken by + a change of document. It might mean ‘mention’ (as 43²⁷ etc.), + but in that case the object must be indicated. Usually it is + followed, like English ‘say,’ by the actual words spoken. Hence + נֵלְכָה הַשָּׂדֶה is to be supplied with _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, but _not_ Aquila (Tuch, + Delitzsch: see the scholia in Field): a _Pisqa_ in some Hebrew + MSS, though not recognised by the Massoretic, supports this + view of the text. To emend וַיִּשְׁמֹר (Olshausen al.) or וַיָּמֶר, וַיֵּמַר + (Gesenius-Kautzsch) is less satisfactory.――=9.= אֵי] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ אַיֵּה.――=10.= On the interjectional + use of קוֹל, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146 _b_; Nöldeke _Mandäische + Grammatik_ page 482.――צֹעֲקִים] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ צעק, agreeing with קוֹל (?).――=11.= אָרוּר ... מִן] pregnant + construct, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _x, y, ff._ This sense of מִן + is more accurately expressed by מֵעַל in verse ¹⁴, but is quite + common (compare especially 27³⁹). Other renderings, as _from_ + (indicating the direction from which the curse comes) or + _by_, are less appropriate; and the comparison _more than_ is + impossible.――=12.= תֹסֵף] jussive form with לֹא (Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 109 _d_, _h_; Davidson §§ 63, _R._ 3, 66, _R._ 6); followed + by infinitive without ל (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _m_).――נָע וָנָד] + an alliteration, as in 1². Best rendered in anonymous Greek + versions (Field): σαλευόμενος καὶ ἀκαταστατῶν; Vulgate _vagus + et profugus_; LXX (incorrectly) στένων καὶ τρέμων. + + * * * * * + +=13‒16. Mitigation of Cain’s punishment.=――=13.= _My punishment is +too great to be borne_] So the plea of Cain is understood by all +modern authorities. The older rendering: _my guilt is too great to be +forgiven_ (which is in some ways preferable), is abandoned because the +sequel shows that Cain’s reflexions run on the thought of suffering +and not of sin; see below.――=14=. _from Thy face I shall be hidden_] +This anguished cry of Cain has received scant sympathy at the hands +of commentaries (except Gunkel). Like that of Esau in 27³⁴, it reveals +him as one who had blindly striven for a spiritual good,――as a man +not wholly bad who had sought the favour of God with the passionate +determination of an ill-regulated nature and missed it: one to whom +banishment from the divine presence is a distinct ingredient in his +cup of misery.――_every one that findeth me, etc._] The object of Cain’s +dread is hardly the vengeance of the slain man’s kinsmen (so nearly all +commentaries); but rather the lawless state of things in the desert, +where any one’s life may be taken with impunity (Gunkel). That the +words imply a diffusion of the human race is an incongruity on either +view, and is one of many indications that the Cain of the original +story was not the son of the first man. + + This expostulation of Cain, with its rapid grasp of the + situation, lights up some aspects of the historic background of + the legend. (1) It is assumed that Yahwe’s presence is confined + to the cultivated land; in other words, that He is the God of + settled life, agricultural and pastoral. To conclude, however, + that He is the God of Canaan in particular (compare 1 Samuel + 26¹⁹), is perhaps an over-hasty inference. (2) The reign of + right is coextensive with Yahwe’s sphere of influence: the outer + desert is the abode of lawlessness; justice does not exist, and + human life is cheap. That Cain, the convicted murderer, should + use this plea will not appear strange if we remember the + conditions under which such narratives arose. + + * * * * * + + =13.= On עָוֹן (√ _ġawaʸ_ = ‘go astray’: Driver _Notes on + the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 134 f.) in the + sense of _punishment_ of sin, see the passages cited in + Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3. נשא ע׳, in the sense of ‘bear + guilt,’ seems peculiar to Priestly-Code and Ezekiel; elsewhere + it means to ‘pardon iniquity’ (Exodus 34⁷, Numbers 14¹⁸, Hosea + 14³, Micah 7¹⁸, Psalms 32⁵). This consideration is not decisive; + but there is something to be said for the consensus of ancient + versions (LXX ἀφεθῆναι; Vulgate _veniam merear_, etc.) in favour + of the second interpretation, which might be retained without + detriment to the sense if the sentence could be read as a + question.――=14.= אֹתִי] instead of suffix is unlike Yahwist. In the + next verse אֹתוֹ after infinitive was necessary to avoid confusion + between subject and object. + + * * * * * + +=15.= What follows must be understood as a divinely appointed +amelioration of Cain’s lot: although he is not restored to +the amenities of civilised life, Yahwe grants him a special +protection, suited to his vagrant existence, against indiscriminate +homicide.――_Whoso kills Ḳayin_ (or ‘whenever any one kills Ḳ’), _it_ +(the murder) _shall be avenged sevenfold_] by the slaughter of seven +members of the murderer’s clan. See below.――_appointed a sign for +Ḳayin_] or _set a mark on Ḳ_. The former is the more obvious rendering +of the words; but the latter has analogies, and is demanded by the +context. + + The idea that the sign is a pledge given once for all of the + truth of Yahwe’s promise, after the analogy of the prophetic + אוֹת, is certainly consistent with the phrase שֵׁים ... לְ: compare + _e.g._ Exodus 15²⁵, Joshua 24²⁵ with Exodus 10² etc. So some + authorities in _Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch, al. + But Exodus 4¹¹ᵃ proves that it may also be something attached + to the person of Cain (Calvin, _Bereshith Rabba_, Delitzsch, and + most); and that אוֹת may denote a mark appears from Exodus 13⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ + etc. Since the sign is to serve as a warning to all and sundry + who might attempt the life of Cain, it is obvious that the + second view alone meets the requirements of the case: we must + think of something about Cain, visible to all the world, marking + him out as one whose death would be avenged sevenfold. Its + purpose is protective and not penal: that it brands him as a + murderer is a natural but mistaken idea.――It is to be observed + that in this part of the narrative _Ḳayin_ is no longer a + personal but a collective name. The clause כָל־הֹרֵג ק׳ (not מִי יַֽהֲרֹג, or + אֲשֶׁר י׳) has frequentative force (examples below), implying that the + act might be repeated many times on members of the tribe Ḳayin: + similarly the sevenfold vengeance assumes a kin-circle to which + the murderer belongs. See, further, page 112. + + * * * * * + + =15.= לָכֵן] οὐχ οὕτως (LXX, Symmachus, Theodotion) implies לֹא כֵן: + so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate; but this would require to be followed by + כִּי.――כָּל־הֹרֵג ק׳] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _w_; compare Exodus 12¹⁵, + Numbers 35³⁰, 1 Samuel 2¹³ 3¹¹ etc.――יֻקַּםh] The subject might be + קַיִן (as verse ²⁴) or (more probably) impersonal (Exodus 21²¹), + certainly not the murderer of Cain.――שִׁבְעָתַיִם] = ‘7 times’: + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _r_. Versions: LXX ἑπτὰ ἐκδικούμενα + παραλύσει; Aquila ἑπταπλασίως ἐκδικηθήσεται; Symmachus ἑβδόμως + ἐκδίκησιν δώσει; Theodotion δι’ ἑβδομάδος ἐκδικήσει; Vulgate + _septuplum punietur_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + לשבעא דרין יתפרע מיניה (hence the idea that Cain was killed by Lamech + the 7th from Adam [see on verse ²⁴]). + + * * * * * + +=16.= _and dwelt in the land of Nôd_] The verb יָשֶׂב is not necessarily +inconsistent with nomadic life, as Stade alleges (see Genesis +13¹², 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ etc.). It is uncertain whether the name נוֹד is +traditional (Wellhausen, Gunkel), or was coined from the participle +נָד = ‘land of wandering’ (so most); at all events it cannot be +geographically identified. If the last words קדמת עדן belong to +the original narrative, it would be natural to regard Ḳayin as +representative of the nomads of Central Asia (Knobel al.); but the +phrase may have been added by a redactor to bring the episode into +connexion with the account of the Fall. + + * * * * * + + =16.= נוד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נד, LXX Ναϊδ + (ניד ?) with variants (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, + page 9).――Symmachus, Theodotion, Vulgate (_habitavit profugus in + terra_) [Targum?] take the word as a participle; but the order + of words forbids this.――קדמת] see on 2¹⁴. ‘In front of Eden’ and + ‘East of Eden’ would here be the same thing (3²⁴). + + * * * * * + + + _The Origin of the Cain Legend._ + + The exposition of 4¹⁻¹⁶ would be incomplete without some account + of recent speculations regarding the historical or ethnological + situation out of which the legend arose. The tendency of opinion + has been to affirm with increasing distinctness the view that + the narrative “embodies the old Hebrew conception of the lawless + nomad life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer + in the desert from falling a victim to the first man who meets + him.”¹ A subordinate point, on which undue stress is commonly + laid, is the identity of Cain with the nomadic tribe of the + Ḳenites. These ideas, first propounded by Ewald,² adopted by + Wellhausen,³ and (in part) by William Robertson Smith,⁴ have + been worked up by Stade, in his instructive essay on ‘The sign + of Cain,’⁵ into a complete theory, in which what may be called + the nomadic motive is treated as the clue to the significance + of every characteristic feature of the popular legend lying at + the basis of the narrative. Although the questions involved are + too numerous to be fully dealt with here, it is necessary to + consider those points in the argument which bear more directly + on the original meaning of verses ¹⁻¹⁶. + + ¹ Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 251. + + ² _Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, vi. 5 ff. + + ³ _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 10 f. + + ⁴ _l.c._ + + ⁵ _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_, 229‒73. + + 1. That the figure of Cain represents some phase of nomadic + life may be regarded as certain. We have seen (page 110) that + in verse ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ the name Cain has a collective sense; and every + descriptive touch in these closing verses is characteristic + of desert life. His expulsion from the אדמה and the phrase נע ונד, + express (though not by any means necessarily,――see below) the + fundamental fact that his descendants are doomed to wander + in the uncultivated regions beyond the pale of civilisation. + The vengeance which protects him is the self-acting law of + blood-revenge,――that ‘salutary institution’ which, in the opinion + of Burckhardt, has done more than anything else to preserve + the Bedouin tribes from mutual extermination.¹ The sign which + Yahwe puts on him is most naturally explained as the “_sharṭ_ + or tribal mark which every man bore in his person, and without + which the ancient form of blood-feud, as the affair of a whole + stock and not of near relations alone, could hardly have been + worked.”² And the fact that this kind of existence is traced to + the operation of a hereditary curse embodies the feeling of a + settled agricultural or pastoral community with regard to the + turbulent and poverty-stricken life of the desert. + + ¹ _Bedouins and Wahabys_, 148.――The meaning is that the + certainty of retaliation acts as a check on the warlike + tribesmen, and renders their fiercest conflicts nearly + bloodless. + + ² Smith, _l.c._――It may be explained that at present the + kindred group for the purpose of the blood-feud consists + of all those whose lineage goes back to a common ancestor + in the fifth generation. There are still certain tribes, + however, who are greatly feared because they are said to + ‘strike sideways’; _i.e._ they retaliate upon any member + of the murderer’s tribe whether innocent or guilty. See + Burckhardt 149 ff., 320 f. + + 2. While this is true, the narrative cannot be regarded as + expressing reprobation of every form of nomadism known to the + Hebrews. A disparaging estimate of Bedouin life as a whole is, + no doubt, conceivable on the part of the settled Israelites + (compare Genesis 16¹²); but Cain is hardly the symbol of that + estimate. (1) The ordinary Bedouin could not be described as + ‘fugitives and vagabonds in the earth’: their movements are + restricted to definite areas of the desert, and are hardly less + monotonous than the routine of husbandry.¹ (2) The full Bedouin + are breeders of camels, the half-nomads of sheep and goats; and + both live mainly on the produce of their flocks and herds (see + Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff.). But to + suppose Cain to exemplify the latter mode of life is inconsistent + with the narrative, for sheep-rearing is the distinctive + profession of Abel; and it is hardly conceivable that Hebrew + legend was so ignorant of the proud spirit of the full Bedouin + as to describe them as degraded agriculturists. If Cain be the + type of any permanent occupation at all, it must be one lower + than agriculture and pasturage; _i.e._ he must stand for some of + those rude tribes which subsist by hunting or robbery. (3) It is + unlikely that a rule of sevenfold revenge was generally observed + amongst Semitic nomads in Old Testament times. Among the modern + Arabs the law of the blood-feud is a life for a life: it is + only under circumstances of extreme provocation that a twofold + revenge is permissible. We are, therefore, led to think of Cain + as the impersonation of an inferior race of nomads, maintaining + a miserable existence by the chase, and practising a peculiarly + ferocious form of blood-feud.――The view thus suggested of the + fate of Cain finds a partial illustration in the picture given + by Burckhardt and Doughty of a group of low-caste tribes called + Solubba or Sleyb. These people live partly by hunting, partly by + coarse smith-work and other gipsy labour in the Arab encampments; + they are forbidden by their patriarch to be cattle-keepers, + and have no property save a few asses; they are excluded from + fellowship and intermarriage with the regular Bedouin, though on + friendly terms with them; and they are the only tribes that are + free of the Arabian deserts to travel where they will, ranging + practically over the whole peninsula from Syria to Yemen. It + is, perhaps, of less significance that they sometimes speak of + themselves as decayed Bedouin, and point out the ruins of the + villages where their ancestors dwelt as owners of camels and + flocks.² The name קַיִן, signifying ‘smith’ (page 102), would be a + suitable eponym for such degraded nomads. The one point in which + the analogy absolutely fails is that tribes so circumstanced + could not afford to practise the stringent rule of blood-revenge + indicated by verse ¹⁵.――It thus appears that the known conditions + of Arabian nomadism present no exact parallel to the figure of + Cain. To carry back the origin of the legend to pre-historic + times would destroy the _raison d’être_ of Stade’s hypothesis, + which seeks to deduce everything from definite historical + relations: at the same time it may be the only course by which + the theory can be freed from certain inconsistencies with which + it is encumbered.³ + + ¹ Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 130. + + ² Burckhardt 14 f.; Doughty, _Arabia Deserta_, i. 280 ff. + + ³ An interesting parallel might be found in the account given + by Merker (_Die Masai_, page 306 ff.) of the smiths (_ol + kononi_) among the Masai of East Africa. Apart from the + question of the origin of the Masai, it is quite possible + that these African nomads present a truer picture of the + conditions of primitive Semitic life than the Arabs of the + present day. See also Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen + und Vergleiche_ (1878), 156 ff. + + 3. The kernel of Stade’s argument is the attractive combination + of Cain the fratricide with the eponymous ancestor of the + Ḳenites.¹ In historical times the Ḳenites appear to have been + pastoral nomads (Exodus 2¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ 3¹) frequenting the deserts south + of Judah (1 Samuel 27¹⁰ 30²⁹), and (in some of their branches) + clinging tenaciously to their ancestral manner of life (Judges + 4¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷ 5²⁴, Jeremiah 35⁷ compared with 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵). From + the fact that they are found associated now with Israel (Judges + 1¹⁶ etc.), now with Amaleḳ (Numbers 24²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 15⁶), and + now with Midian (Numbers 10²⁹), Stade infers that they were a + numerically weak tribe of the second rank; and from the name, + that they were smiths. The latter character, however, would + imply that they were pariahs, and of that there is no evidence + whatever. Nor is there any indication that the Ḳenites exercised + a more rigorous blood-feud than other Semites: indeed, it seems + an inconsistency in Stade’s position that he regards the Ḳenites + as at once distinguished by reckless bravery in the vindication + of the tribal honour, and at the same time too feeble to maintain + their independence without the aid of stronger tribes. There + is, in short, nothing to show that the Ḳenites were anything + but typical Bedouin; and all the objections to associating Cain + with the higher levels of nomadism apply with full force to his + identification with this particular tribe. When we consider, + further, that the Ḳenites are nearly everywhere on friendly + terms with Israel, and that they seem to have cherished the most + ardent attachment to Yahwism, it becomes almost incredible that + they should have been conceived as resting under a special curse. + + ¹ The tribe is called קַיִן in Numbers 24²², Judges 4¹¹; elsewhere + the gentilic קֵינִי is used (in 1 Chronicles 2⁵⁵ קֵינִים). + + 4. It is very doubtful if any form of the nomadic or Ḳenite + theory can account for the rise of the legend as a whole. The + evidence on which it rests is drawn almost exclusively from + verses ¹³⁻¹⁶. Stade justifies his extension of the theory to + the incident of the murder by the analogy of those temporary + alliances between Bedouin and peasants in which the settled + society purchases immunity from extortion by the payment of + a fixed tribute to the nomads (compare 1 Samuel 25² ᶠᐧ). This + relation is spoken of as a brotherhood, the tributary party + figuring as the _sister_ of the Bedouin tribe. The murder of + Abel is thus resolved into the massacre of a settled pastoral + people by a Bedouin tribe which had been on terms of formal + friendship with it. But the analogy is hardly convincing. It + would amount to this: that certain nomads were punished for a + crime by being transformed into nomads: the fact that Cain was + previously a husbandman is left unexplained.――Gunkel, with more + consistency, finds in the narrative a vague reminiscence of an + actual (prehistoric) event,――the extermination of a pastoral + tribe by a neighbouring agricultural tribe, in consequence of + which the latter were driven from their settlements and lived + as outlaws in the wilderness. Such changes of fortune must + have been common in early times on the border-land between + civilisation and savagery;¹ and Gunkel’s view has the advantage + over Stade’s that it makes a difference of sacrificial ritual + an intelligible factor in the quarrel (see page 105 f.). But the + process of extracting history from legend is always precarious; + and in this case the motive of _individual_ blood-guilt appears + too prominent to be regarded as a secondary interest of the + narrative. + + ¹ Instances in Merker, _Die Masai_, pages 3, 7, 8, 14, 328, + etc. + + The truth is that in the present form of the story the figure of + Cain represents a fusion of several distinct types, of which it + is difficult to single out any one as the central idea of the + legend. (1) He is the originator of agriculture (verse ²). (2) + He is the founder of sacrifice, and (as the foil to his brother + Abel) exhibits the idea that vegetable offerings alone are not + acceptable to Yahwe (see on verse ³). (3) He is the individual + murderer (or rather shedder of kindred blood) pursued by the + curse, like the Orestes, Alcmæon, Bellerophon, etc., of Greek + legend (verse ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ). Up to verse ¹² that motive not only is + sufficient, but is the only one naturally suggested to the mind: + the expression נָע וָנָד being merely the negative aspect of the curse + which drives him from the ground.¹ (4) Lastly, in verses ¹³⁻¹⁶ + he is the representative of the nomad tribes of the desert, as + viewed from the standpoint of settled and orderly civilisation. + Ewald pointed out the significant circumstance, that at the + beginning of the ‘second age’ of the world’s history we find + the counterparts of Abel and Cain in the shepherd Jabal and + the smith Tubal-Cain (verse ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). It seems probable that some + connexion exists between the two pairs of brothers: in other + words, that the story of Cain and Abel embodies a variation + of the tradition which assigned the origin of cattle-breeding + and metal-working to two sons of Lamech. But to resolve the + composite legend into its primary elements, and assign each to + its original source, is a task obviously beyond the resources of + criticism. + + ¹ For a Semitic parallel to this conception of Cain, compare + Doughty’s description of the wretched Harb Bedouin who had + accidentally slain his antagonist in a wrestling match: + “None accused Aly; nevertheless the _mesquin_ fled for + his life; and he has gone ever since thus armed, lest + the kindred of the deceased finding him should kill him.” + (_Travels in Arabia Deserta_ ii. 293, cited by Stade). + + + IV. 17‒24. + _The line of Cain._ + +This genealogy, unlike that of Priestly-Code in chapter 5, is not +a mere list of names, but is compiled with the view of showing the +origin of the principal arts and institutions of civilised life.¹ +These are: Husbandry (verse ²; see above), city-life (¹⁷), [polygamy +(¹⁹) ?], pastoral nomadism, music and metal-working (²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ). The +Song of Lamech (²³ ᶠᐧ) may signalise an appalling development of the +spirit of blood-revenge, which could hardly be considered an advance +in culture; but the connexion of these verses with the genealogy +is doubtful.――It has commonly been held that the passage involves a +pessimistic estimate of human civilisation, as a record of progressive +degeneracy and increasing alienation from God. That is probably true of +the compiler who placed the section after the account of the Fall, and +incorporated the Song of Lamech, which could hardly fail to strike the +Hebrew mind as an exhibition of human depravity. In itself, however, +the genealogy contains no moral judgment on the facts recorded. The +names have no sinister significance; polygamy (though a declension +from the ideal of 2²⁴) is not generally condemned in the Old Testament +(Deuteronomy 21¹⁵); and even the song of Lamech (which is older than +the genealogy) implies no condemnation of the reckless and bloodthirsty +valour which it celebrates.――The institutions enumerated are clearly +those existing in the writer’s own day; hence the passage does +not contemplate a rupture of the continuity of development by a +cataclysm like the Flood. That the representation involves a series of +anachronisms, and is not historical, requires no proof (see Driver _The +Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 68).――On the relation of +the section to other parts of the chapter, see page 98 above: on some +further critical questions, see the concluding Note (page 122 ff.). + + ¹ Gunkel, however (page 47), considers the archæological + notices to be insertions in the genealogy, and treats them + as of a piece with the similar notices in 2¹⁵ 3⁷ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³. + +=17. Enoch and the building of the first city.=――The question where +Cain got his wife is duly answered in _Jubilees_ iv. 1, 9: she was his +sister, and her name was _‛Âwân_. For other traditions, see Marmorstein, +‘_Die Namen der Schwestern Kains und Abels_,’ etc., _Zeitschrift für +die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 141 ff.――_and he became a +city-builder_] So the clause is rightly rendered by Delitzsch, Budde, +Holzinger, Gunkel, al. (compare 21²⁰ᵇ, Judges 16²¹, 2 Kings 15⁵). The +idea that he happened to be engaged in the building of a city when +his son was born would probably have been expressed otherwise, and is +itself a little unnatural. + + That קַיִן is the subject of וַיְהִי only appears from the phrase + כְּשֵׁם בְּנוֹ towards the end. Budde (120 ff.) conjectures that the + original text was כִּשְׁמוֹ, making Enoch himself the builder of + the city called after him (so Holzinger). The emendation is + plausible: it avoids the ascription to Cain of _two_ steps in + civilisation――agriculture and city-building; and it satisfies + a natural expectation that after the mention of Enoch we should + hear what _he_ became, not what his father became after his + birth,――especially when the subject of the immediately preceding + verbs is Cain’s wife. But the difficulty of accounting for the + present text is a serious objection, the motive suggested by + Budde (123) being far-fetched and improbable.――The incongruity + between this notice and verses ¹¹⁻¹⁶ has already been mentioned + (page 100). Lenormant’s examples of the mythical connexion of + city-building with fratricide (_Les Origines de l’histoire_², + i. 141 ff.) are not to the point; the difficulty is not that + the first city was founded by a murderer, but by a nomad. More + relevant would be the instances of cities originating in hordes + of outlaws, collected by Frazer, as parallels to the peopling + of Rome (_Fort. Rev._ 1899, April, 650‒4). But the anomaly is + wholly due to composition of sources: the Cain of the genealogy + was neither a nomad nor a fratricide. It has been proposed + (Holzinger, Gunkel) to remove ¹⁷ᵇ as an addition to the + genealogy, on the ground that no intelligent writer would + put city-building before cattle-rearing; but the Phœnician + tradition is full of such anachronisms, and shows how little they + influenced the reasoning of ancient genealogists.――The name חֲנוֹךְ + occurs (besides 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Chronicles 1³) as that of a Midianite + tribe in 25⁴ (1 Chronicles 1³³), and of a Reubenite clan in + 46⁹ (Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³). It is also + said that חנך is a Sabæan tribal name (Gesenius-Buhl¹² _s.v._),¹ + which has some importance in view of the fact that קֵינָן (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ) + is the name of a Sabæan deity. As the name of a city, the word + would suggest to the Hebrew mind the thought of ‘initiation’ + (_v.i._). The city חנוך cannot be identified. The older + conjectures are given by Dillmann (page 99); Sayce (_Zeitschrift + für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 404; _Hibbert Lectures_, 185) + and Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 624; but see now _Traditions + and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 106) connect it with _Unuk_, the + ideographic name of the ancient Babylonian city of Erech. + + ¹ Omitted in 13th edition. + + * * * * * + + =17.= On וידע, see on verse ¹.――The verb חָנַךְ appears from Arabic + _ḥanaka_ to be a denominative from _ḥanak_ (Hebrew חֵךְ), and + means to rub the palate of a new-born child with chewed dates: + hence tropically ‘to initiate’ (Lane, _s.v._; Wellhausen _Reste + arabischen Heidentums_ 173). In Hebrew it means to ‘dedicate’ + or ‘inaugurate’ a house, etc. (Deuteronomy 20⁵, 1 Kings 8⁶³: + compare חֲנֻכָּה, Numbers 7¹¹, Nehemiah 12²⁷ etc.); and also to + ‘teach’ (Proverbs 22⁶). See, further, on 5¹⁸. + + * * * * * + +=18.= The next four generations are a blank so far as any advance in +civilisation is concerned. The only question of general interest is the +relation of the names to those of chapter 5. + + On the first three names, see especially Lagarde, _Orientalia_, + ii. 33‒38; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 123‒9.――עִירָד] LXX + Γαιδαδ (= עֵידָד), Peshiṭtå עִידָר (the latter supported by Philo), + corresponds to יֶרֶד in 5¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. The initial guttural, and the want + of a Hebrew etymology, would seem to indicate עירד as the older + form which has been Hebraized in ירד; but the conclusion is not + certain. If the root be connected with Arabic _‛arada_ (which + is doubtful in view of LXX’s Γ), the idea might be either + ‘fugitive’ (Dillmann al.), or ‘strength, hardness, courage’ + (Budde). Sayce (_Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. + 404) suggests an identification with the Chaldean city _Eridu_; + Holzinger with עֲרָד in the Negeb (Judges 1¹⁶ etc.).――The next two + names are probably (but not certainly: see Gray, _Studies in + Hebrew Proper Names_, 164 f.) compounds with אֵל. The first is + given by Massoretic Text in two forms, מְחוּיָאֵל and מְחִיָּ[י]אֵל. The + variants of LXX are reducible to three types, Μαιηλ (מחייאל), + Μαουιηλ (מחויאל), Μαλελεηλ (= מהללאל, 5¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ). Lagarde considers + the last original, though the first is the best attested. + Adopting this form, we may (with Budde) point the Hebrew מַחְיִי אֵל + or מְחַיִּי אֵל = ‘God makes me live’: so virtually Philo ἀπὸ ζωῆς θεοῦ, + and Jerome _ex vita Deus_ (cited by Lagarde). Both Massoretic + forms undoubtedly imply a bad sense: ‘destroyed (or smitten) + of God’ (though the form is absolutely un-Hebraic, see Driver + _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 14).――מְתוּשָׁאֵל is + now commonly explained by Assyrian _mutu-ša-ili_, ‘Man of God,’¹ + though the relative ša presents a difficulty (Gray, _l.c._). + The true LXX reading is Μαθουσαλα (= מְתוּשֶׁלַח, 5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Μαθουσαηλ + occurs as a correction in some MSS――לֶמֶךְ] again inexplicable from + Hebrew or even Arabic. Sayce (_Hibbert Lectures_ 186) and Hommel + connect it with _Lamga_, a Babylonian name of the moon-god, + naturalised in South Arabia.² + + ¹ Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 262 f., Dillmann, + Budde, al. Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625. It does not + appear that _mutu-ša-ili_ occurs as an _actual_ name. + + ² Hommel, _Die altisraelitische überlieferung in + inschriftlicher beleuchtung_ 117 n.: “Lamga ist ein + babylonischer Beiname des Sin; daraus machten die Sabäer, + mit volksetymologischer Anlehnung an ihr Verbum lamaka + (wahrsch. glänzen), einen Plural Almâku.” + + * * * * * + + =18.= On accusative אֵת with passive see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 + _a_, _b_.――יָלַד in the sense of ‘beget’ is a sure mark of the + style of Yahwist (see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ + 99).――מְתוּ] archaic nominative case (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 90 _o_) + of an old Semitic word (also Egyptian according to Erman) מֵת = + ‘man’ (male, husband, etc.): compare Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._ + + * * * * * + +=19. The two wives of Lamech.=――No judgment is passed on Lamech’s +bigamy, and probably none was intended. The notice may be due simply +to the fact that the names of the wives happened to be preserved in the +song afterwards quoted. + + Of the two female names by far the most attractive explanation + is that of Ewald (_Jahrbücher der biblischen Wissenschaft_, + vi. 17), that עָדָה means Dawn (Arabic _ġadⁱⁿ_, but LXX has Ἀδα), + and צִלָּה (feminie of צֵל) Shadow,――a relic of some nature-myth + (compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² 183 f.). + Others (Holzinger) take them as actual proper names of inferior + stocks incorporated in the tribe Lamech; pointing out that עדה + recurs in 36² ᶠᶠᐧ as a Canaanite clan amalgamated with Esau. This + ethnographic theory, however, has very little foothold in the + passage. For other explanations, see Dillmann page 100. + +=20‒22. The sons of Lamech and their occupations.=――At this point the +genealogy breaks up into three branches, introducing (as Ewald thinks) +a second age of the world. But since it is nowhere continued, all +we can say is that the three sons represent three permanent social +divisions, and (we must suppose) three modes of life that had some +special interest for the authors of the genealogy. On the significance +of this division, see at the close.――=20.= _Yābāl_, son of ‛Adah, +_became the father_ (_i.e._ originator: Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ רַב) _of tent- and +cattle-dwellers_ (_v.i._); _i.e._ of nomadic shepherds. מִקְנֶה, however, +is a wider term than צאן (verse ²), including all kinds of cattle, +and even camels and asses (Exodus 9³). The whole Bedouin life is thus +assigned to Jabal as its progenitor.――=21.= _Yûbāl_, also a son of +‛Adah, is the father of _all who handle lyre and pipe_; the oldest +and simplest musical instruments. These two occupations, representing +the bright side of human existence, have ‛Adah (the Dawn?) as their +mother; recalling the classical association of shepherds with music +(see Lenormant i. 207).――=22.= Equally suggestive is the combination +of _Tûbal-ḳáyin_, the smith, and _Na‛ămāh_ (‘pleasant’), as children +of the dark Ẓillah; compare the union of Hephæstos and Aphrodite in +Greek mythology (Dillmann al.).――The opening words of ᵃ{β} are corrupt. +We should expect: _he became the father of every artificer in brass +and iron_ (see footnote). The persistent idea that Tubal-cain was the +inventor of weapons, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, and most, which has led +to a questionable interpretation of the Song, has no foundation. He is +simply the metal-worker, an occupation regarded by primitive peoples as +a species of black-art,¹ and by Semitic nomads held in contempt. + + ¹ See Andree, _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_ + (1878), 157. + + On the names in these verses see the interesting discussion + of Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 192 ff.――The + alliterations, _Yābāl_――_Yûbāl_――_Tûbal_, are a feature of + legendary genealogies: compare Arabic Habîl and Ḳabîl, Shiddîd + and Shaddâd, Mâlik and Milkân, etc. (Lenormant. 192). יבל + (LXX Ἰωβελ -ηλ) and יובל (Ἰουβαλ) both suggest יֹבֵל (Hebrew and + Phœnician), which means primarily ‘ram,’ then ‘ram’s horn’ as + a musical instrument (Exodus 19¹³), and finally ‘joyous music’ + (in the designation of the year of Jubilee). On a supposed + connexion of יבל with הֶבֶל in the sense of ‘herdsman,’ see above, + page 103.――תּוּבַל is a Japhetic people famous in antiquity for + metal-working (see on 10²); and it is generally held that their + _heros eponymus_ supplies the name of the founder of metallurgy + here; but the equation is doubtful. A still more precarious + combination with a word for smith (_tumā́l_, _dubalanza_, etc.) + in Somali and other East African dialects, has been propounded + by Merker (_Die Masai_, 306). The compound תובל קין (written in + Oriental MSS as one word) may mean either ‘Tubal [the] smith’ + (in which case קין [we should expect הקין] is probably a gloss), or + ‘Tubal of (the family of) Cain.’¹ LXX has simply Θοβελ; but see + the footnote. Tuch and others adduce the analogy of the Τελχῖνες, + the first workers in iron and brass, and the makers of Saturn’s + scythe (Strabo, XIV. ii. 7); and the pair of brothers who, + in the Phœnician legend, were σιδήρου εὑρεταὶ καὶ τῆς τούτου + ἐργασίας.――נַֽעֲמָה (LXX Νοεμα) seems to have been a mythological + personage of some importance. A goddess of that name is known + to have been worshipped by the Phœnicians.² In Jewish tradition + she figures as the wife of Noah (_Bereshith Rabba_), as a demon, + and also as a sort of St. Cecilia, a patroness of _vocal_ music + (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ: compare Lagarde _Onomastica Sacra_, 180, 56: + Νοεμὶν ψάλλουσα φωνῇ οὐκ ἐν ὀργάνῳ [Nestle, _Marginalien und + Materialien_, 10]). + + ¹ So Ewald, who thinks the קין belongs to each of the three + names. + + ² Lenormant 200 f.; Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im + Altertum_ i. 265; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte + Cölestins_ 150. + + * * * * * + + =20.= ישֵׁב אֹהֶל וּמִקְנֶה] LXX οἰκούντων ἐν σκηναῖς κτηνοτρόφων, perhaps + reading אהלי מקנה as in 2 Chronicles 14¹⁵ (so Ball). Vulgate + (_atque pastorum_) takes מַקְנֶה as a participle; Peshiṭtå inserts + (‡ Syriac word), and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ומרי, before ‘cattle’; + similarly Kuenen proposed וקנה מקנה. The zeugma is somewhat hard, + but is retained by most commentaries for the sake of conformity + with verse ²¹ ᶠᐧ; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _bb_, 118 _g_.――=21.= + וְשֵׁם אָחִיו] compare 10²⁵ (Yahwist) (1 Chronicles 7¹⁶).――אבי וגו׳] LXX + καταδείξας ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν.――כִּנּוֹר וְעוּגָב] Vulgate _cithara et + organo_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כנורא ואבובא + (∥ נבלא). See Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_², 237‒246; + Wellhausen _Psalms_ (_Polychrome Bible_), 219 f., 222 f.; Riehm, + _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 1043 ff. The כנור is + certainly a stringed instrument, played with the hand (1 Samuel + 16²³ etc.), probably the lyre (Greek κινύρα). The עוגב (associated + with the כנור in Job 21¹² 30³¹: elsewhere only Psalms 150⁴) is + some kind of wind instrument (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ),――a flute + or reed-pipe, perhaps the Pan’s pipe (σύριγξ).――=22.= גם הוא] + _in genealogies_ (as here, 4²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸ 22²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ [Judges 8³¹]) + is characteristic of Yahwist.――תובל קין] LXX Θοβελ· καὶ ἦν. Other + versions have the compound name, and on the whole it is probable + that καὶ ἦν is a corruption of Καιν, although the next clause + has Θοβελ alone.――לֹטֵשׁ וגו׳] LXX καὶ ἦν σφυροκόπος, χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ + καὶ σιδήρου, Vulgate _qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta + opera aer. et f_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + רבהון דכל ידעי עיבידת נ׳ וב׳. To get any kind of sense from Massoretic Text, + it is necessary either (a) to take לֹטֵשּׁ (‘sharpener’ or ‘hammerer’) + in the sense of ‘instructor’; or (b) take חֹרֵשׁ as neuter (‘a + hammerer of every cutting implement of,’ etc.); or (c) adopt the + quaint construction (mentioned by Budde 138): ‘a hammerer of all + (sorts of things),――a (successful) artificer in bronze,’ etc.! + All these are unsatisfactory; and neither the omission of כל + with LXX (Dillmann), nor the insertion of אבי before it yields + a tolerable text. Budde’s emendation (139 ff.) ויהי למך חֹרֵשׁ וגו׳ [for + קין] is much too drastic, and stands or falls with his utterly + improbable theory that Lamech and not Tubal-cain was originally + designated as the inventor of weapons. The error must lie in + the words קין לטש, for which we should expect, הוא היה אבי (Olshausen, + Ball). The difficulty is to account for the present text: it + is easy to say that לטש and קין are glosses, but there is nothing + in the verse to require a gloss, and neither of these words + would naturally have been used by a Hebrew writer for that + purpose.――בַּֽרְזָל] The Semitic words for ‘iron’ (Assyrian _parzillu_, + Aramaic פַּרְזָל (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _farzil_) have no Semitic + etymology, and are probably borrowed from a foreign tongue. On + the antiquity of iron in West Asia, see Ridgeway, _Early Age of + Greece_ i. 616 ff. + + * * * * * + +=23, 24. The song of Lamech.=――A complete poem in three distichs, +breathing the fierce implacable spirit of revenge that forms the +chief part of the Bedouin’s code of honour. It is almost universally +assumed (since Herder) that it commemorates the invention of weapons +by Tubal-cain, and is accordingly spoken of as Lamech’s ‘Sword Song.’ +But the contents of the song furnish no hint of such an occasion +(Wellhausen); and the position in which it stands makes its connexion +with the genealogy dubious. On that point see, further, below. It is +necessary to study it independently, as a part of the ancient legend +of Lamech which may have supplied some of the material that has been +worked into the genealogy.――The verses may be rendered: + + ²³Adah and Zillah, hear my voice! + Wives of Lamech, attend to my word! + For I kill a man for a wound to me, + And a boy for a scar. + ²⁴For Cain takes vengeance seven times, + But Lamech seventy times and seven! + +=23a.= Holzinger raises the question whether the words ‘Adah and +Zillah’ belong to the song or the prose introduction; and decides +(with Vulgate) for the latter view, on the ground that in the remaining +verses the second member is shorter than the first (which is not the +case). The exordium of the song might then read: + + Hear my voice, ye women of Lamech! + Attend to my word!―― + +the address being not to the wives of an individual chieftain, but +to the females of the tribe collectively. It appears to me that the +alteration destroys the balance of clauses, and mars the metrical +effect: besides, strict syntax would require the repetition of the +לְ.――=23b.= The meaning is that (the tribe?) Lamech habitually avenges +the slightest personal injury by the death of man or child of the +tribe to which the assailant belongs. According to the principle of the +blood-feud, אִישׁ and יֶלֶד (י׳ is not a fighting ‘youth,’――a sense it rarely +bears: 1 Kings 12⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Daniel 1⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ,――but an innocent man-child [Budde, +Holzinger]) are not the actual perpetrators of the outrage, but any +members of the same clan. The parallelism therefore is not to be taken +literally, as if Lamech selected a victim proportionate to the hurt +he had received.――=24.= Cain is mentioned as a tribe noted for the +fierceness of its vendetta (7 times); but the vengeance of Lamech knows +no limit (70 and 7 times). + + The Song has two points of connexion with the genealogy: the + names of the two wives, and the allusion to Cain. The first + would disappear if Holzinger’s division of ²³ᵃ were accepted; + but since the ordinary view seems preferable, the coincidence + in the names goes to show that the song was known to the authors + of the genealogy and utilised in its construction. With regard + to the second, Gunkel rightly observes that glorying over an + _ancestor_ is utterly opposed to the spirit of antiquity; the + Cain referred to must be a rival contemporary tribe, whose + grim vengeance was proverbial. The comparison, therefore, + tells decidedly against the unity of the passage, and perhaps + points (as Stade thinks) to a connection between the song + and the legendary cycle from which the Cain story of ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ + emanated.――The temper of the song is not the primitive ferocity + of “a savage of the stone-age dancing over the corpse of his + victim, brandishing his flint tomahawk,” etc. (Lenormant); + its real character was first divined by Wellhausen, who, after + pointing out the baselessness of the notion that it has to do + with the invention of weapons, describes it as “eine gar keiner + besonderen Veranlassung bedürftige Prahlerei eines Stammes + (Stammvaters) gegen den anderen. Und wie die Araber sich + besonders gern ihren Weibern gegenüber als grosse Eisenfresser + rühmen, so macht es hier auch Lamech” (_Die Composition des + Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² + 305). On this view the question whether it be a song of triumph + or of menace does not arise; as expressing the permanent + temper and habitual practice of a tribe, it refers alike to + the past and the future. The sense of the passage was strangely + misconceived by some early Fathers (perhaps by LXX, Vulgate), + who regarded it as an utterance of remorse for an isolated + murder committed by Lamech. The rendering of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ is + based on the idea (maintained by Kalisch) that Lamech’s purpose + was to represent his homicide as justifiable and himself as + guiltless: ‘I have not slain a man on whose account I bear guilt, + nor wounded a youth for whose sake my seed shall be cut off. + When 7 generations were suspended for Cain, shall there not be + for Lamech his son 70 and 7?’ Hence arose the fantastic Jewish + legend that the persons killed by Lamech were his ancestor Cain + and his own son Tubal-cain (Rashi al.; compare Jerome _Epistula + Hieronymi ad Damasum papam_, 125).¹――The metrical structure of + the poem is investigated by Sievers in _Metrische Studien_, i. + 404 f., and ii. 12 f., 247 f. According to the earlier and more + successful analysis, the song consists of a double tetrameter, + followed by two double trimeters. Sievers’ later view is + vitiated by an attempt to fit the poem into the supposed + metrical scheme of the genealogy, and necessitates the excision + of עדה וצלה as a gloss. + + ¹ See, further, Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. + 186 ff. + + Apart from verse ²³ ᶠᐧ, the most remarkable feature of the + genealogy is the division of classes represented by the three + sons of Lamech. It is difficult to understand the prominence + given to this classification of mankind into herdsmen, musicians, + and smiths, or to imagine a point of view from which it would + appear the natural climax of human development. Several recent + scholars have sought a clue in the social conditions of the + Arabian desert, where the three occupations may be said to + cover the whole area of ordinary life. Jabal, the first-born + son, stands for the full-blooded Bedouin with their flocks + and herds,¹――the _élite_ of all nomadic-living men, and the + ‘flower of human culture’ (Budde 146). The two younger sons + symbolise the two avocations to which the pure nomad will not + condescend, but which are yet indispensable to his existence + or enjoyment――smith-work and music (Stade 232). The obvious + inference is that the genealogy originated among a nomadic + people, presumably the Hebrews before the settlement in + Canaan (Budde); though Holzinger considers that it embodies a + specifically Ḳenite tradition in which the eponymous hero Cain + appears as the ancestor of the race (so Gordon, _The Early + Traditions of Genesis_, 188 ff.).――Plausible as this theory is + at first sight, it is burdened with many improbabilities. If + the early Semitic nomads traced their ancestry to (peasants + and) city-dwellers, they must have had very different ideas from + their successors the Bedouin of the present day.² Moreover, the + circumstances of the Arabian peninsula present a very incomplete + parallel to the classes of verses ²⁰⁻²². Though the smiths form + a distinct caste, there is no evidence that a caste of musicians + ever existed among the Arabs; and the Bedouin contempt for + professional musicians is altogether foreign to the sense of the + verses, which certainly imply no disparaging estimate of Jubal’s + art. And once more, as Stade himself insists, the outlook of the + genealogy is world-wide. Jabal is the prototype of all nomadic + herdsmen everywhere, Jubal of all musicians, and Tubal (the + Tibareni?) of all metallurgists.――It is much more probable that + the genealogy is projected from the standpoint of a settled, + civilised, and mainly agricultural community. If (with Budde) + we include verses ² and ¹⁷ᵇ, and regard it as a record of human + progress, the order of development is natural: husbandmen, + city-dwellers, wanderers [?] (shepherds, musicians, and smiths). + The three sons of Lamech represent not the highest stage of + social evolution, but three picturesque modes of life, which + strike the peasant as interesting and ornamental, but by no + means essential to the framework of society.――This conclusion is + on the whole confirmed by the striking family likeness between + the Cainite genealogy and the legendary Phœnician history + preserved by Eusebius from Philo Byblius, and said to be based + on an ancient native work by Sanchuniathon. Philo’s confused and + often inconsistent account is naturally much richer in mythical + detail than the Hebrew tradition; but the general idea is the + same: in each case we have a genealogical list of the legendary + heroes to whom the discovery of the various arts and occupations + is attributed. Whether the biblical or the Phœnician tradition + is the more original may be doubtful; in any case “it is + difficult,” as Driver says, “not to think that the Hebrew and + Phœnician representations spring from a common Canaanite cycle + of tradition, which in its turn may have derived at least some + of its elements from Babylonia” (_The Book of Genesis with + Introduction and Notes_ page 74).³ + + ¹ But against this view, see page 112 above, and Meyer, _Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 303 ff. + + ² Holzinger evades this objection by deleting verse ¹⁷ᵇ, + and reducing the genealogy to a bare list of names; but + why should the Ḳenites have interposed a whole series of + generations between their eponymous ancestor and the origin + of their own nomadic life? + + ³ Compare Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (edited + by Heinichen, page 39 ff.). The Greek text is printed in + Müller’s _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ iii. 566 f. + French translations are given by Lenormant _Les Origines + de l’histoire_ i. 536 ff., and Lagrange, _Études sur les + Religions Semitiques_¹, 362 ff. (the latter with a copious + commentary and critical introduction).――The passage in + Eusebius is much too long to be quoted in full, but the + following extracts will give some idea of its contents + and its points of similarity with Genesis: Of the two + protoplasts Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος, it is recorded εὑρεῖν δὲ + τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δένδρων τροφήν.――The second pair, + Γένος and Γενεά, dwelt in Phœnicia, and inaugurated the + worship of the sun.――Of the race of Αἰών and Πρωτόγονος were + born three mortal children, Φῶς, Πῦρ, and Φλόξ: οὗτοι ἐκ + παρατριβῆς ξύλων εὗρον πῦρ, καὶ τὴν χρῆσιν ἐδίδαξαν.――Then + followed a race of giants, of whom was born [Σα]μημροῦμος + (= שׁמי מרום) ὁ καὶ Ὑ ψουράνιος, who founded Tyre. Of him we + read: καλύβας τε ἐπινοῆσαι ἀπὸ καλάμων, καὶ θρύων, καὶ + παπύρων· στασιάσαι δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν Οὔσωον, ὃς σκέπην τῷ + σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ... + Δένδρου δὲ λαβόμενον τὸν Οὔσωον καὶ ἀποκλαδεύσαντα, πρῶτον + τολμῆσαι εἰς θάλασσαν ἐμβῆναι· ἀνιερῶσαι δὲ δύο στήλας ... + αἷμά τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε θηρίων.――The further + history of invention names (a) Ἀγρεύς and Ἁλιεύς, τοὺς + ἁλείας καὶ ἄγρας εὑρετάς; (b) ... δύο ἀδελφοὺς σιδήρου + εὑρετὰς, καὶ τῆς τούτου ἐργασίας· ὧν θάτερον τὸν Χρυσὼρ + λόγους ἀσκῆσαι, καὶ ἐπῳδὰς καὶ μαντείας; (c) Τεχνίτης + and Γήϊνος Αὐτόχθων: οὗτοι ἐπενόησαν τῷ πηλῷ τῆς πλίνθου + συμμιγνύειν φορυτὸν, καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ αὐτὰς τερσαίνειν, ἀλλὰ + καὶ στέγας ἐξεῦρον; (d) Ἀγρός and Ἀγρούηρος (or Ἀγρότης): + ἐπενόησαν δὲ οὗτοι αὐλὰς προστιθέναι τοῖς οἴκοις καὶ + περιβόλαια καὶ σπήλαια· ἐκ τούτων ἀγρόται καὶ κυνηγοί; + (e) Ἄμυνος and Μάγος: οἳ κατέδειξαν κῶμας καὶ ποίμνας; + (f) Μισώρ (מישר) and Συδύκ (צדק): οὗτοι τὴν τοῦ ἁλὸς χρῆσιν + εὗρον. (g) Of Μισώρ was born Τάαυτ, ὃς εὗρε τὴν τῶν πρώτων + στοιχείων γραφήν; and (h) of Συδύκ, the Διόσκουροι: οὗτοι, + φησὶ, πρῶτοι πλοῖον εὗρον.――After them came others οἳ καὶ + βοτάνας εὗρον, καὶ τὴν τῶν δακετῶν ἴασιν, καὶ ἐπῳδάς.――It + is impossible to doubt that some traditional elements have + been preserved in this extraordinary medley of euhemerism + and archæology, however unfavourably it may contrast with + the simplicity of the biblical record. + + * * * * * + + =23.= The Introduction of the song is imitated in Isaiah + 28³² 32⁹; compare also Deuteronomy 32¹. The words הֶֽאֱזין and + אִמְרָה are almost exclusively poetical.――On the form שְׁמַעַן, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 46 _f_.――הָרַגְתִּי is perfect of experience + (Davidson § 40 (_c_); Driver _A Treatise on the use of the + Tenses in Hebrew_ § 12), rather than of single completed + action, or of certainty (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, Budde, + al.).――כִּי is not recitative, but gives the reason for the call to + attention.――לְפִצְעִי, לְחַבּוּרָתִי] On this use of לְ see Brown-Driver-Briggs, + _s.v._ 5, f.: LXX εἰς τραῦμα [μώλωπα] ἐμοί; Vulgate _in vulnus + [livorem] meum._――=24.= כִּי] again introducing the reason, which, + however, “lies not in the words immediately after כי, but in the + second part of the sentence” (Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 3, c): + compare Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Jeremiah 30¹¹.――יֻקּם on accusative, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _g_. The Niphal יִקֹּם would yield a better + sense: ‘avenges himself’ (Budde, Dillmann, Holzinger). + + + IV. 25, 26. + _Fragmentary Sethite Genealogy._ + +The verses are the beginning of a Yahwistic genealogy (see above, +page 99), of which another fragment has fortunately been preserved in +5²⁹ (Noah). Since it is thus seen to have contained the three names +(Seth, Enos, Noah) peculiar to the genealogy of Priestly-Code, it +may be assumed that the two lists were in substantial agreement, each +consisting of ten generations. That that of Yahwist was not a dry list +of names and numbers appears, however, from every item of it that has +survived. The preservation of 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ is no doubt due to the important +notice of the introduction of Yahwe-worship (²⁶ᵇ), the redactor having +judged it more expedient in this instance to retain Yahwist’s statement +intact. The circumstance shows on how slight a matter far-reaching +critical speculations may hang. But for this apparently arbitrary +decision of the redactor, the existence of a Sethite genealogy in +Yahwist would hardly have been suspected; and the whole analysis of the +Yahwist document into its component strata might have run a different +course. + +=25.= _And Adam knew, etc._] see on verse ¹. That יָדַע denotes properly +the _initiation_ of the conjugal relation (Budde) is very doubtful: +see 38²⁶, 1 Samuel 1¹⁹.――_And she called_] see again on verse ¹.――_God +has appointed me seed_] (the remainder of the verse is probably an +interpolation). Compare 3¹⁵. Eve’s use of אלהים is not ‘surprising’ +(Dillmann); it only proves that the section is not from the same source +as verse ¹. On the other hand, it harmonises with the fact that in +3¹ ᶠᶠᐧ אלהים is used in dialogue. It is at least a plausible inference +that both passages come from one narrator, who systematically avoided +the name יהוה up to 4²⁶ (see page 100). + + The verse in its present form undoubtedly presupposes a + knowledge of the Cain and Abel narrative of 4¹⁻¹⁶; but it + is doubtful if the allusions to the two older brothers can + be accepted as original (see Budde 154‒159). Some of Budde’s + arguments are strained; but it is important to observe that the + word עוד is wanting in LXX, and that the addition of אחר תחת הבל + destroys the sense of the preceding utterance, the idea of + _substitution_ being quite foreign to the connotation of the + verb שׁית. The following clause כי הרגו קין reads awkwardly in the + mouth of Eve (who would naturally have said אשר ה׳ ק׳), and is + entirely superfluous on the part of the narrator. The excision + of these suspicious elements leaves a sentence complete in + itself, and exactly corresponding in form to the naming of + Cain in verse ¹: שת לי אלהים זרע, ‘God has appointed me seed’ (_i.e._ + posterity). There is an obvious reference to 3¹⁵, where both the + significant words שׁית and זרע occur. But this explanation really + implies that Seth was the first-born son (according to this + writer), and is unintelligible of one who was regarded as a + substitute for another. How completely the mind of the glossator + is preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further + shown by the fact that he does not indicate in what sense + Cain has ceased to be the ‘seed’ of Eve.――As a Hebrew word + (with equivalents in Phœnician, Arabic, Syrian, Jewish-Aramaic: + compare Nöldeke _Mandäische Grammatik_ page 98) שֵׁת would mean + ‘foundation’ (not _Setzling_, still less _Ersatz_); but its + real etymology is, of course, unknown. Hommel’s attempt (_Die + altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, page 26 ff.) + to establish a connexion with the second name in the list of + Berossus (below, page 137) involves too many doubtful equations, + and even if successful would throw no light on the name. In + Numbers 24¹⁷ שֵׁת appears to be a synonym for Moab; but the text + is doubtful (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, + 219). The late Gnostic identification of Seth with the Messiah + may be based on the Messianic interpretation of 3¹⁵, and does + not necessarily imply a Babylonian parallel. + + * * * * * + + =25.= אָדָם] here for the first time unambiguously a proper name. + There is no reason to suspect the text: the transition from the + generic to the individual sense is made by Priestly-Code only in + 5¹⁻³, and is just as likely to have been made by Yahwist.――LXX + reads Εὕαν in place of עוֹד; Peshiṭtå has both words.――Before + ותלד LXX, Peshiṭtå insert וַתַּהַר.――ותקרא] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ ויקרא.――כִּי] LXX λέγουσα; so Vulgate and even + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ. + + * * * * * + +=26.= On the name אֱנוֹשׁ (= _Man_, and therefore in all probability the +_first_ member of an older genealogy), see below.――_Then men began to +call, etc._] Better (with LXX, etc., _v.i._): _He was the first to call +on the name of Yahwe_ (compare 9²⁰ 10⁸), _i.e._ he was the founder of +the worship of Yahwe; compare 12⁸ 13⁴ 21³³ 26²⁵ (all Yahwist). What +historic reminiscence (if any) lies behind this remarkable statement +we cannot conjecture; but its significance is not correctly expressed +when it is limited to the institution of formal public worship on the +part of a religious community (Delitzsch); and the idea that it is +connected with a growing sense of the distinction between the human +and the divine (Ewald, Delitzsch, al.) is a baseless fancy. It means +that ’Enôš was the first to invoke the Deity under this name; and +it is interesting chiefly as a reflexion, emanating from the school +of Yahwist, on the origin of the specifically Israelite name of God. +The conception is more ingenuous than that of Elohist (Exodus 3¹³⁻¹⁵) +or Priestly-Code (6³), who base the name on express revelation, and +connect it with the foundation of the Hebrew nationality. + + The expression קרא בשם י׳ (literally ‘call by [means of] the name + of Yahwe’) denotes the essential act in worship, the invocation + (or rather _evocation_) of the Deity by the solemn utterance + of His name. It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a + real bond exists between the person and his name, such that the + pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on the + former.¹ The best illustration is 1 Kings 18²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the + test proposed by Elijah is _which name_――Baal or Yahwe――will + evoke a manifestation of divine energy.――The cosmopolitan + diffusion of the name יהוה, from the Babylonian or Egyptian + pantheon, though often asserted,² and in itself not incredible, + has not been proved. The association with the name of Enoš might + be explained by the supposition that the old genealogy of which + Enoš was the first link had been preserved in some ancient + centre of Yahwe-worship (Sinai? or Kadesh?). + + ¹ See Giesebrecht, _Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des + Gottesnamens und ihre religiongeschichtliche Grundlage_, + especially page 25 ff., 98 ff. + + ² W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, pages 239, 312; Delitzsch _Babel und Bibel_ + [translated by M‘Cormack] page 61 f.; Bezold, _Die + Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften Und Ihre Bedeutung + Für Das Alte Testament_ etc. page 31 ff.; Oppert, + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii. 291 ff.; Daiches, + _ib._ xxii. (1908), 125 ff.; Algyogyi-Hirsch, _Zeitschrift + für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 355 ff.; + Stade _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ i. 29; + Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², i. (2te Hälfte), 545 f. + Compare, further, Rogers, _Religion of Babylonia and + Assyria_ (1908), page 89 ff. + + * * * * * + + =26.= גם הוּא] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 135 _h_) LXX omitted.――אֱנוֹשׁ] + like אדם, properly a collective: Enôš is a personification of + mankind. The word is rare and mostly poetic in Hebrew (especially + Job, Psalms); but is common in other Semitic dialects (Arabic, + Aramaic, Nabatean, Palmyren, Sabaean, Assyrian). Nestle’s opinion + (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6 f.), that it is in Hebrew + an artificial formation from אֲנָשִׁים, and that the genealogy + is consequently late, has no sort of probability; the only + ‘artificiality’ in Hebrew is the occasional individual use. + There is a presumption, however, that the genealogy originated + among a people to whom אנוש or its equivalent was the ordinary + name for mankind (Aramæan or Arabian).――אז הוחל] so Aquila, + Symmachus; _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אז החל; + LXX οὗτος ἤλπισεν (from √ יחל) implies either זה החל or הוא ה׳; so + Vulgate (_iste coepit_) and _Jubilees_ iv. 12; Peshiṭtå has + (‡ Syriac phrase). The true text is that read by LXX, etc.; + and if the alteration of Massoretic Text was intentional + (which is possible), we may safely restore הוּא הֵחֵל after 10⁸. + The Jewish exegesis takes הוּחַל in the sense ‘was profaned,’ and + finds in the verse a notice of the introduction of idolatry + (Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.),――although the construction + is absolutely ungrammatical (Abraham Ibn Ezra).――After יהוה LXX + adds carelessly τοῦ θεοῦ. + + + + + CHAPTER V. + _The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs_ + (Priestly-Code). + + +In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1¹‒2⁴ᵃ) and +the Flood (6⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its +chronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic +Text) at 1656 years. The _names_ are traditional, as is shown by a +comparison of the first three with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ, and of numbers 4‒9 with +4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite +genealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code, +in order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs. +But that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to +three or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the +continuation of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found +to correspond closely with those of chapter 5.――The _chronology_, +on the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention +of which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later +chronologist (see page 136 below).――What is thoroughly characteristic +of Priestly-Code is the _framework_ in which the details are set. +It consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his +first-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement +that he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.¹ The stiff +precision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set +formulæ, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat +pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school +of writers. + + ¹ Only in the cases of Adam (verse ³), Enoch (²²ᐧ ²⁴) and + Lamech (²⁸ᐧ ²⁹) are slight and easily explicable deviations + from the stereotyped form admitted. The section on Noah is, + of course, incomplete. + + The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא, דְּמוּת, זָכָר + וּנְקֵבָה) is seen most clearly in verse ¹ᵇᐧ ², which, however, may be + partly composed of glosses based on 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ (see on the verses). + Note also תּוֹלְדֹת (¹ᵃ), צֶלֶם, דְּמוּת (³), הוֹלִיד (throughout), הִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים + (²²ᐧ ²⁴,, compare 6⁹); the syntax of the numerals (which, though + not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see + Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 134 _i_; Davidson § 37, _R._ 3); the naming + of the child by the father (³).――The one verse which stands out + in marked contrast to its environment is ²⁹, which is shown by + the occurrence of the name יהוה and the allusion to 3¹⁷ to be an + extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the + genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶. + +“The aim of the writer is by means of these particulars to give a +picture of the increasing population of the earth, as also of the +duration of the first period of its history, as conceived by him, and +of the longevity which was a current element in the Hebrew conception +of primitive times” (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and +Notes_ page 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attributed to the +early patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised that the statements are +meant to be understood literally, and that the author had in his view +actual individuals. The attempts to save the historicity of the record +by supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or +(b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the +word שָׁנָה denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see +Dillmann 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no +such interpretation. It is true that “the study of science precludes +the possibility of such figures being literally correct”; but “the +comparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated +statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a +people” (Ryle, quoted by Driver page 75). + +The author of Priestly-Code knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no +explanation of the ‘violence’ and ‘corruption’ with which the earth is +filled when the narrative is resumed (6¹²). It is doubtful whether he +assumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak +of wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it +unnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds +us how little _dogmatic_ importance was attached to the story of +the Fall in Old Testament times. The Priestly writers may have been +repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos +and profound moral psychology, of Genesis 3; they may also have thought +that the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently +accounted for by the known tendencies of human nature. + + Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 93‒103) has endeavoured + to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory + of degeneration, according to which the first five generations + were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [= + ‘descent’], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His + chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated + by Priestly-Code in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that + the Samaritan chronology (which Budde takes to be the original: + see below, page 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered, + Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.¹ Budde supports + his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are + susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable + that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have + been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true + that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into + the world. + + ¹ The more rapid decrease of life (in _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_) after Mahalalel ought not to be counted + as an additional argument; because it is a necessary + corollary from the date fixed for the Flood. + + + 1, 2. + Introduction. + +Consisting of a superscription (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶), followed by an account of the +creation and naming of Adam (¹ᵇᐧ ²).――=1a.= _This is the book of the +generations of Adam_] See the critical note below; and on the meaning +of תּוֹלְדֹת, see on 2⁴ᵃ.――=1b.= _When God created Man_ (or _Adam_) _he made +him in the likeness of God_] a statement introduced in view of the +transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse ³). On this +and the following clauses see, further, 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _And called +their name Adam_] _v.i._ + + The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In ¹ᵃ אָדָם is + presumably a proper name (as in ³ ᶠᶠᐧ), in ² it is certainly + generic (note the plural suffix), while in ¹ᵇ it is impossible + to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to + an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms + borrowed almost literally from 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where אדם is generic. + Since the only new statement is _and he called their name Adam_, + we may suppose the writer’s aim to have been to explain how אדם, + from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has + no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting + with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he + resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes + the proper name in verse ³. An original author would hardly + have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the + heading זה ספר תולדת אדם reads like the title of a _book_, suggesting + that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical + work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and + the fuller formula, as compared with the usual אלה תולדת, at least + justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of + the heading. Dillmann’s opinion, that it is a combination of + the superscription of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy with that of + Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts + point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using אדם as a + designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first + man. + + * * * * * + + =1.= For אדם LXX has 1º ἀνθρώπων, 2º Ἀδάμ; Vulgate conversely 1º + _Adam_, 2º _hominem_.――=2.= שְׁמָם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ שְׁמוֹ. + + * * * * * + + + 3‒5. + Adam. + +Adam _begat [a son] in his likeness, etc._] (see on 1²⁶): implying, no +doubt, a transmission of the divine image (verse ¹) from Adam to all +his posterity. + + * * * * * + + =3.= וַיּוֹלֶד] inserted בֵּן as object (Olshausen al.). הוֹלִיד confined + to Priestly-Code in Pentateuch; Yahwist, and older writers + generally, using יָלַד both for ‘beget’ and ‘bear.’――בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ] + LXX κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴ νεἰκόνα αὐτοῦ.――avoiding + ὁμοίωσις (see the note on 1²⁶).――=4.= ויהיו ימי אדם] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + inserted ἃς ἔζησε, as in verse ⁵. Peshiṭtå reads וַיְחִי אדם (but + see Ball’s note) as in verses ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ etc. But verses ³⁻⁵ contain + several deviations from the regular formula: note אשר חי in verse + ⁵, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse + order is observed elsewhere in the chapter. + + * * * * * + + + 6‒20. + Seth to Jered. + +The sections on =Seth=, =Enoš=, =Ḳenan=, =Mahalalel,= and =Yered= +rigidly observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed comment, +except as regards the names. + + =6‒8.= _Šēth_: compare 4²⁵. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and + Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant _Les + Origines de l’histoire_² 217‒220, and Charles, _Book of + Jubilees_, 33 ff.――=9‒11.= _’Ĕnôš_: see on 4²⁶.――=12‒14.= + _Ḳênān_ is obviously a fuller form of _Ḳáyin_ in the parallel + genealogy of 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; and possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or + ‘artificer’ (compare Syrian (‡ Syriac word): see on 4¹). Whether + the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no + means of judging. It is important to note that קינן or קנן is the + name of a Sabæan deity, occurring several times in inscriptions: + see Mordtmann, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte + Cölestins_ 127 f., 152.――=15‒17.= _Mahălal’ēl_ (= ‘Praise of + God’) is a compound with the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מַֽהֲלָל (Proverbs 27²¹). + But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have + done here: Μαλελεηλ = מְהַלֶּלְאֵל, _i.e._ ‘Praising God.’ Proper names + compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament + (see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ + 14²; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 201), but are + common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that the genealogy must + be late (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 7 f.) is not certain, + because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed + and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that + it is a corruption of _Amil-Arûru_ in the list of Berossus (see + _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 29). מ׳ + is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11⁴.――=18‒20.= + _Yéred_ (1 Chronicles 4¹⁸) would signify in Hebrew ‘Descent’; + hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to + the earth (_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 6²): + compare _Jubilees_ iv. 15; _Enoch_ vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde’s + interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether עִירָד or + יֶרֶד be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both + to an original Babylonian _‛I-yarad_ = ‘descent of fire.’ + + + 21‒24. + Enoch. + +The account of =Enoch= contains three extraordinary features: (a) The +twice repeated וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים. In the Old Testament such an expression +(used also of Noah, 6⁹) signifies intimate companionship (1 Samuel +25¹⁵), and here denotes a fellowship with God morally and religiously +perfect (compare Micah 6⁸, Malachi 2⁶ [הָלַךְ]), hardly differing from the +commoner ‘walk _before_ God’ (17¹ 24⁴⁰) or ‘_after_ God’ (Deuteronomy +13⁵, 1 Kings 14⁸). We shall see, however, that originally it included +the idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (b) Instead of the +usual וֵיָּמֹת we read וְאֵינֶנּוּ כּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים; _i.e._ he was mysteriously translated +‘so as not to see death’ (Hebrews 11⁵). Though the influence of this +narrative on the idea of immortality in later ages is not to be denied +(compare Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴), it is hardly correct to speak of it as +containing a presentiment of that idea. The immortality of exceptional +men of God like Enoch and Elijah suggested no inference as to the +destiny of ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among +other nations (Gunkel). (c) His life is much the shortest of the +ante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the duration +of his life (365 years) is connected with the number of days in the +solar year; and the conjecture has been remarkably verified by the +Babylonian parallel mentioned below. + + The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later + Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage + alone; everything goes to show that the record has a mythological + basis, which must have continued to be a living tradition + in Jewish circles in the time of the Apocalyptic writers. A + clue to the mystery that invests the figure of Enoch has been + discovered in Babylonian literature. The 7th name in the list + of Berossus is Evedoranchus (see _Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_³, 532),――a corruption (it seems certain) of + Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a ritual tablet from the + library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364: translated in _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 533 f.) as king of + Sippar (city of Šamaš, the sun-god), and founder of a hereditary + guild of priestly diviners. This mythical personage is described + as a ‘favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],’ and is said to have been + received into the fellowship of Šamaš and Ramman, to have been + initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and instructed + in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his + son. The points of contact with the notice in Genesis are (1) + the special relation of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (compare + the 365 of verse ²³); and (2) his peculiar intimacy with the + gods (‘walked with God’): there is, however, no mention of a + translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and earth + is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric + knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sirach 44¹⁶ + he is already spoken of as אות דעת לדור ודור. Compare _Jubilees_ iv. + 17 ff. (with Charles’s note _ad loc._); and see Lenormant _Les + Origines de l’histoire_² 223; Charles, _Book of Enoch_ (1893), + _passim_. + + * * * * * + + =22.= ויתהלך――את־האלהים] LXX εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ (LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ adds καὶ + ἔζησεν Ἐνωχ), Symmachus ἀνεστρέφετο, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הליך בדחלתא דיי: Aquila and Vulgate render literally. + The article before א׳ is unusual in Priestly-Code (see 6⁹ᐧ ¹¹). + The phrase must have been taken from a traditional source, and + may retain an unobserved trace of the original polytheism (‘with + the gods’).――=23.= ויהי] Read ויהיו (MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_, LXX, etc.).――=24.= ואיננו] indicating mysterious + disappearance (37²⁹ ᶠᐧ 42¹³ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁹ [Elohist] 1 Kings 20⁴⁰); see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _m_.――לקח] LXX μετέθηκεν, Vulgate _tulit_, + but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אמית. The verb became, as Duhm (on Psalms 49¹⁶) + thinks, a technical expression for translation to a higher + existence; compare 2 Kings 2¹⁰, Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴. The Rabbinical + exegesis (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi) understood it + of removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch + which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the + Apocalyptic influence. + + * * * * * + + + 25‒32. + Methuselah to Noah. + + =25‒27.= _Methuselah._――מְתוּשֶׁלַח commonly explained as ‘man of the + dart (or weapon),’ hence tropically ‘man of violence,’ which + Budde (99) regards as a deliberate variation of מתושאל (4¹⁸) + intended to suggest the wickedness of the later generations + before the Flood (see above, page 129). Lenormant (247) took + it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign of the Zodiac; + according to Hommel, it means ‘sein Mann ist das Geschoss’ (!), + and is connected with the planet Mars.¹ If the 8th name in + the list of Berossus be rightly rendered ‘man of Sin (the + moon-god),’² a more probable view would be that שֶׁלַח is a divine + proper name. Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a + corruption of _šarraḫu_, said to be an ancient name of the + moon-god³ (compare Cheyne, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625, 4412). + + ¹ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_ + [1902], 29. Here _Amemphsinus_ is resolved into _Amel-Nisin_: + formerly (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical + Archæology_, xv. [1892‒3] 245) Hommel propounded the view + now advocated by Zimmern (see next note). + + ² Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 532. + + ³ _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen + Inhalts_ ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (_l.c._) relies on the fact + that _šarḫu_ (‘all-powerful’) is an epithet of various gods + (Delitzsch _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 690 a). + + * * * * * + + =27.= After מתושלח LXX inserts ἃς ἔζησεν (compare verse ⁵). + + * * * * * + +=29.= An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech +on the birth of Noah.――_This_ (זֶה; compare זֹאת in 2²³) _shall bring us +comfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands_ [proceeding] +_from the ground, etc._] The utterance seems to breathe the same +melancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise +narrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in +character between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of +4²³ ᶠᐧ. + + There is an obvious reference backwards to 3¹⁷ (compare עִצְּבוֹן, + הָאֲדָמָה――אֵֽרֲרָהּ). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which + certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech + spoke), but to Noah’s discovery of vine-culture: 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (Budde + 306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and + the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the + connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence + that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different + strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann’s objection, that + a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under + the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9¹³, Psalms + 104¹⁵.――In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of + the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident + of 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, the verse has considerable critical importance. It + furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic + narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.――The + fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which + suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical + structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each). + + =28‒31.= _Lamech._――The scheme is here interrupted by the + insertion of verse. + + * * * * * + + =29.= יְנַֽחֲמֵנוּ] LXX διαναπαύσει ἡμᾶς: hence Ball, Kittel יְנִיהֵנוּ. + The emendation is attractive on two grounds: (a) it yields an + easier construction with the following מן; and (b) a more correct + etymology of the name נֹח. The harshness of the etymology was felt + by Jewish authorities (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 25; compare Rashi); + and Wellhausen (_De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles + 2. 4 enumerantur_ 38³) boldly suggested that נֹח in this verse + is a contracted writing of נֹחָם = ‘comforter.’――Whether נֹחַ (always + written defectively) be really connected with נוּחַ = ‘rest’ is + very uncertain. If a Hebrew name, it will naturally signify + ‘rest,’ but we cannot assume that a name presumably so ancient + is to be explained from the Hebrew lexicon. The views mentioned + by Dillmann (page 116) are very questionable. Goldziher + (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + xxiv. 207 ff.) shows that in mediæval times it was explained by + Arab writers from Arabic _nāḥa_, ‘to wail’; but that is utterly + improbable.――מַֽעֲשֶׁנוּ] Some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ have מַֽעֲשֵׂינוּ (plural); so LXX, etc. + + * * * * * + +=32.= The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is +explained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed +datum (7⁶ᐧ ¹¹), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah +were saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an +excessive lateness _either_ to the birth of Shem, _or_ to the birth of +Shem’s first-born. + + I. _The Chronology of Chapter 5._――In this chapter we have + the first instance of systematic divergence between the three + chief recensions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the LXX. The + differences are best exhibited in tabular form as follows (after + Holzinger): + + FB = Age at birth of first-born + Ad = Years lived after birth of first-born + Tot = Total age + + Samaritan Year (A.M.) + Massoretic. (Jubilees). LXX. of Death. + ───────────── ───────────── ───────────── ──────────────── + FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot MT. Sam. LXX. + + 1. Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930 + 2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142 + 3. Enos 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340 + 4. Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535 + 5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690 + 6. Jered 162 800 962 62 785 847 162 800 962 1422 1307 1922 + 7. Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487 + 8. Methuselah 187 782 969 67 653 720 167¹ 802¹ 969 1656 1307 2256 + 9. Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2207 + 10. Noah 500 500 500 + Till Flood 100 100 100 + + Year of Flood 1656 1307 2242 + + ¹ So LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ. LXXᴬ and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a + later correction. + + These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to + carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the + business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on + which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which + of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code. + That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that + can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of + investigation along which the solution has been sought. + + 1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the + remarkable relation discovered by Oppert¹ between the figures of + the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the + next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to + the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These + are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of + 365¼ days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew + chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and + to have reduced it by treating each _lustrum_ (5 years) as the + equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than + a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say. + (b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,² + who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology, + the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:³ + _i.e._ 26⅔ generations of 100 years, or ⅔ of a world-cycle of + 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of + calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably + traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn + of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of + Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt + are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from + the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been + propounded by Bousset (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xx. 136‒147). Working on lines marked out by + Kuenen (_Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, + from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9³⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 10⁴⁵ ᶠᐧ, Josephus _Antiquities + of the Jews_ viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and _Assumption of Moses_, + 1² 10¹², that a chronological computation current in Jewish + circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M. + 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071; + and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and + Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years). + Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in + the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis + 11²⁴) it substituted (with LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed + 215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian + sojourn (Exodus 12⁴⁰); and, finally, it dated the dedication of + the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6¹ LXX). + For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above. + + ¹ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften + zu Göttingen._, 1877, 201‒223; also his article in _Jewish + Encyclopædia_ iv. 66 f. + + ² See Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ + 111 ff.; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ + 308. + + ³ Made up as follows:――1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham: + see the Table on page 233) + 100 (birth of Isaac: Genesis + 21⁵) + 60 (birth of Jacob: 25²⁶) + 130 (age of Jacob at + Descent to Egypt: 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸) + 430 (sojourn in Egypt: Exodus + 12⁴⁰) = 2666.――The number of generations from Adam to Aaron + is actually 26, the odd ⅔ stands for Eleazar, who was of + mature age at the time of the Exodus. + + These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as + to the priority of the Massoretic Text. It would obviously be + illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and + the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the + original system of Priestly-Code. The natural inference is that + both were actually in use in the first century A.D., and that + consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A + presumption in favour of Massoretic Text would be established + only if it could be shown that the numbers of _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX are either dependent on + Massoretic Text, or involve no chronological scheme at all. + + 2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to + the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years + of Genesis 11¹⁰, we obtain from the Creation to the birth + of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that + this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of + _Jubilees_ (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we + assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12⁴⁰ to be the original reading + (as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find + that _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ counts from + the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.¹ The odd + 7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we + obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly + be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three + decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the + birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by + 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360. + Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work + of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it + not possible that this was his original chronological period; + and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von + Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended + to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat + important objection to the originality of _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ is, however, the disparity between + chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠ with regard to the ages at the birth of + the first-born. + + ¹ 1307 + 940 (see page 233) + 290 (as before) + 430 + 40 + = 3007· + + 3. A connexion between LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ is suggested by the fact that the first period of + LXX (2242) is practically equivalent to the first two of _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (1300 + 940 = 2240), + though it does not appear on which side the dependence is. + Most critics have been content to say that the LXX figures are + enhancements of those of Massoretic Text in order to bring the + biblical chronology somewhat nearer the stupendous systems of + Egypt or Chaldæa. That is not probable; though it does not seem + possible to discover any distinctive principle of calculation + in LXX. Klostermann (_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, v. 208‒247 + [= _Der Pentateuch_ (1907) 1‒41]), who defends the priority of + LXX, finds in it a reckoning by jubilee periods of 49 years; + but his results, which are sufficiently ingenious, are attained + by rather violent and arbitrary handling of the data. Thus, in + order to adjust the ante-diluvian list to his theory, he has + to reject the 600 years from the birth of Noah to the Flood, + and substitute the 120 years of Genesis 6³! This reduces the + reckoning of LXX to 1762 years, and, adding 2 years for the + Flood, we obtain 1764 = 3 × 12 × 49. + + See, further, on 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (page 234 f.). + + II. _The Ten Ante-diluvian Kings of Berossus._――The number + _ten_ occurs with singular persistency in the traditions of + many peoples¹ as that of the kings or patriarchs who reigned or + lived in the mythical age which preceded the dawn of history. + The Babylonian form of this tradition is as yet known only from + a passage of Berossus extracted by Apollodorus and Abydenus;² + although there are allusions to it in the inscriptions which + encourage the hope that the cuneiform original may yet be + discovered.³ Meanwhile, the general reliability of Berossus + is such, that scholars are naturally disposed to attach + considerable importance to any correspondence that can be made + out between his list and the names in Genesis 5. A detailed + analysis was first published by Hommel in 1893,⁴ another was + given by Sayce in 1899.⁵ The first-named writer has subsequently + abandoned some of his earlier proposals,⁶ substituting others + which are equally tentative; and while some of his combinations + are regarded as highly problematical, others have been widely + approved.⁷ + + ¹ Babylonians, Persians, Indians, Phœnicians, Egyptians, + Chinese, etc. See Lüken, _Die Traditionen des + Menschengeschlechts oder die Uroffenbarung Gottes unter + den Heiden_, 146 ff.; Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_ + i. 224 ff. + + ² Preserved by Eus. _Chronicon_ [edited by Schœne] i. 7 ff., + 31 f. See Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii. + 499 f. + + ³ See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 221 f. + + ⁴ _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xv. + 243‒246. + + ⁵ _The Expositor Times_, 1899, 353. + + ⁶ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_ + [1902], 23 ff. + + ⁷ See Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_⁸, + 531 ff.; Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and + Notes_ 50 f.; Nikel, _Genesis und Keilschriftforschung_ 164 + ff. + + The names of the Kings before the Flood in Berossus are: + 1. Ἄλωρος, 2. Ἀλάπαρος, 3. Ἀμήλων [Ἀμίλλαρος], 4. Ἀμμένων, + 5. Μεγάλαρος [Μεγάλανος], 6. Δάωνος [Δάως], 7. Εὐεδώραχος, + 8. Ἀμέμψινος, 9. Ὠτιάρτης [Read Ὠπάρτης], 10. Ξίσουθρος. Of + the suggested Babylonian equivalents put forward by Hommel, the + following are accepted as fairly well established by Jeremias + and (with the exception of number 1) by Zimmern: 1. _Aruru_ (see + page 102), 2. _Adapa_ (page 126), 3. _Amelu_ (= Man), 4. _Ummanu_ + (= ‘workman’), 7. _Enmeduranki_ (page 132), 8. _Amel-Sin_ (page + 133), 9. _Ubar-Tutu_ (named as father of Ut-Napištim), and + 10. _Ḫasisatra_, or _Atraḫasis_ (= ‘the superlatively Wise,’――a + title applied to Ut-Napištim, the hero of the Deluge). On + comparing this selected list with the Hebrew genealogy, it + is evident that, as Zimmern remarks, the Hebrew _name_ is in + no case borrowed directly from the Babylonian. In two cases, + however, there seems to be a connexion which might be explained + by a _translation_ from the one language into the other: viz. 3. + אֱנוֹשׁ (= Man), and 4. קֵינָן (= ‘workman’); while 8 is in both series + a compound of which the first element means ‘Man.’ The parallel + between 7. חֲנוֹךְ ∥ _Enmeduranki_, has already been noted (page 132); + and the 10th name is in both cases that of the hero of the Flood. + Slight as these coincidences are, it is a mistake to minimise + their significance. When we have two parallel lists of equal + length, each terminating with the hero of the Flood, each having + the name for ‘man’ in the 3rd place and a special favourite of + the gods in the 7th, it is too much to ask us to dismiss the + correspondence as fortuitous. The historical connexion between + the two traditions is still obscure, and is complicated by the + double genealogy of chapter 4; but that a connexion exists it + seems unreasonable to deny. + + III. _Relation of the Sethite and Cainite Genealogies._――The + substantial identity of the names in Genesis 4¹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ with + numbers 3‒9 of chapter 5 seems to have been first pointed out + by Buttmann (_Mythologus_, i. 170 ff.) in 1828, and is now + universally recognised by scholars. A glance at the following + table shows that each name in the Cainite series corresponds to + a name in the other, which is either absolutely the same, or is + the same in meaning, or varies but slightly in form: + + Illustration: (‡ Sethite versus Cainite Genealogy) + + While these resemblances undoubtedly point to some common + original, the variations are not such as can be naturally + accounted for by direct borrowing of the one list from the other. + The facts that each list is composed of a perfect number, and + that with the last member the single stem divides into three + branches, rather imply that both forms were firmly established + in tradition before being incorporated in the biblical documents. + If we had to do merely with the Hebrew tradition, the easiest + supposition would perhaps be that the Cainite genealogy and the + kernel of the Sethite are variants of a single original which + might have reached Israel through different channels;¹ that the + latter had been expanded by the addition of two names at the + beginning and one at the end, so as to bring it into line with + the story of the Flood, and the Babylonian genealogy with which + it was linked. The difficulty of this hypothesis arises from + the curious circumstance that in the Berossian list of kings, + just as in the Sethite list of patriarchs, the name for ‘Man’ + occupies the _third_ place. It is extremely unlikely that such + a coincidence should be accidental; and the question comes + to be whether the Assyriologists or the biblical critics can + produce the most convincing explanation of it. Now Hommel (_Die + altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 26 ff.) + argues that if the word for Man is preceded by two others, these + others must have been names of superhuman beings; and he thinks + that his interpretation of the Babylonian names bears out this + anticipation. The first, _Aruru_, is the creative earth-goddess, + and the second, _Adapa_ (= Marduk) is a sort of Logos or + Demiurge――a being intermediate between gods and men, who bears + elsewhere the title _zir amiluti_ (‘seed of mankind’) but is + not himself a man.² And the same thing must, he considers, hold + good of Adam and Seth: Adam should be read אֱדֹם, a personification + of the earth, and Seth is a mysterious semi-divine personality + who was regarded even in Jewish tradition as an incarnation of + the Messiah. If these somewhat hazardous combinations be sound, + then, of course, the inference must be accepted that the Sethite + genealogy is dependent on the Babylonian original of Berossus, + and the Cainite can be nothing but a mutilated version of it. It + is just conceivable, however, that the Babylonian list is itself + a secondary modification of a more primitive genealogy, which + passed independently into Hebrew tradition.³ + + ¹ Hommel’s view (_Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte + Testament_, 29 f.) is that the primary list was Chaldean, + that the Sethite list most nearly represents this original, + and that the Cainite springs from a modification of it under + Babylonian influence. It would be quite as plausible to + suggest that the Cainite form came through Phœnicia (see the + notes on Jabal, Tubal, and Na‛amah), and the Sethite from + Arabia (Enos, Kenan, Hanokh [?], Methuselah). + + ² But against this interpretation of the phrase, see Jensen + _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 362. + + ³ Thus, it might be conjectured that the original equivalent + of _Aruru_ was not Adam but _Ḥavvah_, as earth and + mother-goddess (see pages 85 f., 102), and that this name + stood at the head of the list. That in the process of + eliminating the mythological element Ḥavvah should in one + version become the wife, in another remain the mother, of + the first man (Adam or Enoš), is perfectly intelligible; + and an amalgamation of these views would account for the + duplication of Adam-Enos in 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ 5. The insertion of + a link (Seth-Adapa) between the divine ancestress and + the first man is a difficulty; but it might be due to a + survival of the old Semitic conception of mother and son + as associated deities (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and + Marriage in Early Arabia_², 298 ff.). It is obvious that + no great importance can be attached to such guesses, which + necessarily carry us back far beyond the range of authentic + tradition. + + + + + VI. 1‒4. + _The Origin of the Nĕphîlîm._ + + +This obscure and obviously fragmentary narrative relates how in the +infancy of the human race marriage alliances were believed to have been +formed by supernatural beings with mortal women (verses ¹ᐧ ²); and how +from these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demi-gods +(verse ⁴), who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is +implied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings, +intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element +of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special +interposition of Yahwe (verse ³). + + The fragment belongs to the class of ætiological myths. The + belief in Nĕphîlîm is proved only by Numbers 13³³ (Elohist?); + but it is there seen to have been associated with a more widely + attested tradition of a race of giants surviving into historic + times, especially among the aboriginal populations of Canaan + (Deuteronomy 1²⁸ 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ 9², Joshua 15¹⁴, Amos 2⁹ etc.). + The question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, + and the passage before us supplied the answer. But while the + ætiological motive may explain the retention of the fragment + in Genesis, it is not to be supposed that the myth originated + solely in this reflexion. Its pagan colouring is too pronounced + to permit of its being dissociated from two notions prevalent + in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin literature: + viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were men + of gigantic stature;¹ and (2) that marriages of the gods with + mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.² + Similar ideas were current among other peoples. The Ḳoran has + frequent references to the peoples of ‛sons of Godal races noted + for their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were + attributed the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation + of rock-dwellings, and who were believed to have been destroyed + by a divine judgment.³ The legend appears also in the Phœnician + traditions of Sanchuniathon, where it is followed by an obscure + allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse which appears to have + some remote connexion with Genesis 6².⁴ + + ¹ Homer _Iliad_ v. 302 f.; Herodotus i. 68; Pausanias i. 35. + 5 f., viii. 29. 3; 32. 4; Lucretius ii. 1151; Virgil + _Aeneid_ xii. 900; Pliny, _Natural History_, vii. 73 ff. etc. + Compare Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² i. 350 ff. + + ² Homer _Iliad_ xii. 23: ἡμιθέων γένος ἀνδρῶν; Plato, + _Cratylus_, 33: πάντες [_sc._ οἱ ἥρωες] δήπου γεγόνασιν + ἐρασθέντος ἢ θεοῦ θνητῆς ἢ θνητοῦ θεᾶς (text uncertain): + see Jowett, i. 341. + + ³ _Surah_ vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, lxxxix: see Sale, + _Preliminary Discourse_ § 1. + + ⁴ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (see page 124 above): + ἀπὸ γένους Αἰῶνος καὶ Πρωτογόνου γεννηθῆναι αὖθις παῖδας + θνητοὺς, οἷς εἶναι ὀνόματα Φὼς καὶ Πῦρ καὶ Φλόξ ... υἱοὺς + δὲ ἐγέννησαν οὗτοι _μεγέθει τε καὶ ὑπεροχῇ κρείσσονας_ ... + ἐκ τούτων, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη Σαμημροῦμος ὁ καὶ Ὑψουράνιος· + ἀπὸ μητέρων δὲ, φησὶν, ἐχρημάτιζον τῶν τότε γυναικῶν ἀνέδην + μισγομένων οἷς ἂν ἐ[ν]τύχοιεν. + + That the _source_ is Yahwist is not disputed.¹ Dillmann, indeed, + following Schrader (_Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ 276), + thinks it an extract from Elohist which had passed through the + hands of Yahwist; but borrowing by the original Yahwist from + the other source is impossible, and the only positive trace of + Elohist would be the word נפילים, which in Numbers 13³³ is by some + critics assigned to Elohist. That argument would at most prove + overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.――The precise + position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions cannot + be determined. The introductory clause “when mankind began to + multiply,” etc., suggests that it was closely preceded by an + account of the creation of man. There is, however, no reason + why it should not have followed a genealogy like that of 4¹⁷⁻²⁴ + or 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ (against Holzinger), though certainly not that of + Priestly-Code in chapter 5. The idea that it is a parallel + to the story of the Fall in chapter 3 (Schrader, Dillmann, + Wellhausen, Schultz) has little plausibility, though it + would be equally rash to affirm that it _presupposes_ such an + account.――The disconnectedness of the narrative is probably + due to drastic abridgment either by the original writer or + later editors, to whom its crudely mythological character was + objectionable, and who were interested in retaining no more than + was needful to account for the origin of the giants. + + ¹ The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except + יהוה, verse ³); but the following expressions, as well as the + structure of the sentences (in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ), are, on the whole, + characteristic of Yahwist: הֵחֵל, עַל־פְּנֵי הָֽאֲדָמָה (¹), בָּאָרָץ, הָיָה גִּבּוֹר (⁴): + see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 6 ff., 39 A. + + There remains the question whether the passage was from the + first an introduction to the story of the Deluge. That it has + been so regarded from a very early time is a natural result of + its present position. But careful examination fails to confirm + that impression. The passage contains nothing to suggest the + Flood as its sequel, except on the supposition (which we shall + see to be improbable) that the 120 years of verse ³ refer to an + impending judgment on the whole human race. Even if that view + were more plausible than it is, it would still be remarkable + that the story of the Flood makes no reference to the expiry of + the allotted term; nor to any such incident as is here recorded. + The critical probability, therefore, is that 6¹⁻⁴ belongs to a + stratum of Yahwist which knows nothing of a flood (page 2 ff.). + The Babylonian Flood-legend also is free from any allusion + to giants, or mingling of gods and men. O. Gruppe, however + (_Philologus_, Neue Folge, i. 93 ff.; _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ix. 134 ff.), claims to + have recovered from Greek sources a Phœnician legend of + intermarriages between deities and mortals, which presents some + striking affinities with Genesis 6¹⁻⁴, and which leads up to an + account of the Flood. Of the soundness of Gruppe’s combinations + I am unable to judge; but he himself admits that the Flood is a + late importation into Greek mythology, and indeed he instances + the passage before us as the earliest literary trace of + the hypothetical Phœnician legend. Even, therefore, if his + speculations be valid, it would have to be considered whether + the later form of the myth may not have been determined partly + by Jewish influence, and whether the connexion between the + divine intermarriages and the Flood does not simply reproduce + the sequence of events given in Genesis. That this is not + inconceivable is shown by the fact that on late Phrygian coins + the biblical name ΝΩ appears as that of the hero of the Deluge + (see page 180 below). + +=1, 2.= The sense of these verses is perfectly clear. The _sons of +God_ (בני האלהים) are everywhere in Old Testament members (but probably +inferior members) of the divine order, or (using the word with some +freedom) _angels_ (_v.i._). + + “The angels are not called ‘sons of God’ as if they had actually + derived their nature from Him as a child from its father; nor + in a less exact way, because though created they have received a + nature similar to God’s, being spirits; nor yet as if on account + of their steadfast holiness they had been adopted into the + family of God. These ideas are not found here. The name _Elohim_ + or _sons_ (_i.e._ members of the race) _of the Elohim_ is a name + given directly to angels in contrast with men ... the name is + given to God and angels in common; He is Elohim pre-eminently, + they are Elohim in an inferior sense” (Davidson, _Job_, + _Cambridge Bible_, page 6). + + * * * * * + + =1.= וַיְהִי כִּי] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch; 26⁸ 27¹ 43²¹ + 44²⁴, Exodus 1²¹ 13¹⁵, Joshua 17¹³. See Budde 6. The apodosis + commences with verse ².――הֵחֵל] see Holzinger _Einleitung in den + Hexateuch_ 97.――על־פני האדמה] see _Oxford Hexateuch_ i. 187.――=2.= + בני [ה]אלהים] Job 1⁶ 2¹ 38⁷, [Daniel 3²⁵]; compare ב׳ אלים, Psalms 29¹ + 89⁷. In all these places the superhuman character of the beings + denoted is evident,――‘belonging to the category of the gods.’ On + this Semitic use of בן, see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and + Marriage in Early Arabia_², 17; _The Prophets of Israel_² 85, + 389 f. (1) The phrase is so understood by LXX (οἱ ἄγγελοι [also + υἱοὶ] τοῦ θεοῦ), Theodotion, _Jubilees_ v. 1, Enoch vi. 2 ff. + (Jude ⁶, 2 Peter 2⁴), Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 73; + Fathers down to Cyprian and Lactantius, and nearly all moderns. + [Peshiṭtå transliterates (‡ Syriac phrase) as in Job 1⁶ 2¹.] + (2) Amongst the Jews this view was early displaced by another, + according to which the ‘sons of the gods’ are members of + aristocratic families in distinction from women of humble rank: + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (בני רברביא), Symmachus (τῶν δυναστευόντων), + _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra [Aquila (υἱοὶ τῶν + θεῶν) is explained by Jeremias as ‘_deos_ intelligens _sanctos_ + sive _angelos_’]. So Spinoza, Herder, al. (3) The prevalent + Christian interpretation (on the rise of which see Charles’s + valuable Note, _Book of Jubilees_ 33 ff.) has been to take the + phrase in an ethical sense as denoting pious men of the line + of Seth: Julius Africanus, most Fathers, Luther, Calvin, al.: + still maintained by Strack. Against both these last explanations + it is decisive that בנות האדם cannot have a narrower reference in + verse ² than in verse ¹; and that consequently בני ה׳ cannot denote + a section of mankind. For other arguments, see Lenormant, _Les + Origines de l’histoire_² 291 ff.; the Commentary of Delitzsch + (146 ff.), Dillmann (119 f.), or Driver (82 f.). On the + eccentric theory of Stuart Poole, that the sons of God were + a wicked pre-Adamite race, see Lenormant 304 ff.――ויקחו ... נשים] + = ‘marry’: 4¹⁹ 11²⁹ 25¹ 36² etc.――מכּל אשר] ‘_consisting of_ all + whom,’――the rare מן _of explication_; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ + 3b (e); compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _w_²: Genesis 7²² 9¹⁰. + + * * * * * + +In an earlier polytheistic recension of the myth, they were perhaps +called אלהים simply. It is only a desire to save the credibility +of the record as literal history, that has prompted the untenable +interpretations mentioned in the note below.――=2.= These superhuman +beings, attracted by the beauty of _the daughters of men_ (_i.e._ +mortal women) _took to themselves as wives_ (strictly implying +permanent marriages, but this must not be pressed) _whomsoever they +chose_. No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these +relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels; and consists +partly, perhaps, in sensuality, partly in high-handed disregard of the +rights of God’s lower creatures.――It is to be noted, in contrast with +analogous heathen myths, that the divine element is exclusively +masculine. + +=3.= A divine sentence on the human race, imposing a limit on the +term of man’s life.――_My spirit shall not_ [... _in_?] _man for ever_; +[...?] _he is flesh, and his days shall be 120 years_. + + A complete exegesis of these words is impossible, owing first to + the obscurity of certain leading expressions (see the footnote), + and second to the want of explicit connexion with what precedes. + The record has evidently undergone serious mutilation. The + original narrative must have contained a statement of the effects + on human life produced by the superhuman alliances,――and that + opens up a wide field of speculation;¹――and possibly also an + account of the judgment on the sons of God, the really guilty + parties in the transaction. In default of this guidance, all + that can be done is to determine as nearly as possible the + general sense of the verse, assuming the text to be fairly + complete, and a real connexion to exist with verses ¹ᐧ ².――(i.) + Everything turns on the meaning of the word רוּחַ, of which four + interpretations have been given: (1) That רוּחִי is the Spirit + of Yahwe as an _ethical_ principle, striving against and + ‘judging’ the prevalent corruption of men (as in Isaiah 63¹⁰); + so Symmachus, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Luther, al. There is nothing + to suggest that view except the particular acceptation of the + verb ידון associated with it, and it is now practically abandoned. + (2) Even less admissible is the conception of Klostermann, who + understands רוּחִי subjectively of the divine feeling (_Gemüt_) + excited by human sin² (similarly Rashi). (3) The commonest view + in modern times (see Dillmann) has been that רוּחַ is the divine + principle of _life_ implanted in man at creation, the tenor of + the decree being that this shall not ‘abide’³ in man eternally + or indefinitely, but only in such measure as to admit a + maximum life of 120 years. There are two difficulties in this + interpretation: (a) It has no connexion with what precedes, for + everything the verse contains would be quite as intelligible + apart from the marriages with the angels as in relation to + them.⁴ (b) The following words הוא בשׂר have no meaning: as a + reason for the withdrawal of the animating spirit they involve + a _hysteron proteron_; and as an independent statement they are + (on the supposition) not true, man as actually constituted being + both flesh and spirit (2⁷). (4) The most probable sense is that + given by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 305 ff.), viz. that + רוח is the divine substance common to Yahwe and the angels, in + contrast to בָּשָׂר, which is the element proper to human nature + (compare Isaiah 31³): so Holzinger, Gunkel. The idea will then + be that the mingling of the divine and human substances brought + about by illicit sexual unions has introduced a disorder into + the creation which Yahwe cannot suffer to ‘abide’ permanently, + but resolves to end by an exercise of His supreme power.――(ii.) + We have next to consider whether the 120 years, taken in its + natural sense of the duration of individual life (_v.i._), be + consistent with the conclusion just reached. Wellhausen himself + thinks that it is not: the fusion of the divine and human + elements would be propagated _in the race_, and could not be + checked by a shortening of the lives of individuals. The context + requires an announcement of the annihilation of the race, and + the last clause of the verse must be a mistaken gloss on the + first. If this argument were sound it would certainly supply a + strong reason _either_ for revising Wellhausen’s acceptation of + ³ᵃ, _or_ for understanding ³ᵇ as an announcement of the Flood. + But a shortening of the term of life, though not a logical + corollary from the sin of the angels, might nevertheless be a + judicial sentence upon it. It would ensure the extinction of the + giants within a measurable time; and indirectly impose a limit + on the new intellectual powers which we may suppose to have + accrued to mankind at large through union with angelic beings.⁵ + In view of the defective character of the narrative, it would be + unwise to press the antagonism of the two clauses so as to put a + strain on the interpretation of either. + + ¹ Compare Cheyne’s imaginary restoration in _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 3391, with the reconstructed Phœnician myth of + Gruppe in _Philologus_, 1889, i. 100 ff. + + ² Reading לֹא יִדֹּם רוּחי, ‘shall not restrain itself’ (literally ‘be + silent’). See _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, 1894, 234 ff. + (= _Der Pentateuch_ [1907] 28 ff.). + + ³ On this traditional rendering of ידון, see the footnote, page + 143. + + ⁴ Budde’s argument that the verse is detachable from its + present context is, therefore, perfectly sound; although his + attempt to find a place for it after 3²¹ is not so successful + (see page 3 above). + + ⁵ Just as in 3²²ᐧ ²⁴ man is allowed to retain the gift of + illicitly obtained knowledge, but is foiled by being denied + the boon of immortality. The same point of view appears in + 11¹⁻⁹: in each case the ruling motive is the divine jealousy + of human greatness; and man’s pride is humbled by a subtle + and indirect exercise of the power of God. + + * * * * * + + =3.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――יָדוֹן] There are two traditional + interpretations: (a) ‘abide’: so LXX (καταμείνῃ), Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; (b) ‘judge’ (Symmachus κρινεῖ: so + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ). The former is perhaps nothing more than a + plausible guess at the meaning, though a variant text has been + suspected (ילון, ידור, יִכּוֹן, etc.). The latter traces the form to + the √ דין; but the etymology is doubtful, since that √ shows no + trace of medial ו in Hebrew (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 533 f.); and to call + it a jussive or intransitive form is an abuse of grammatical + language (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 71 _r_). A Jewish derivation, + mentioned by Abraham Ibn Ezra and Calvin, connects the verb with + נָדָן, ‘sheath’ (1 Chronicles 21²⁷),――the body being compared to + the sheath of the spirit. The Arabic _dāna_ (medial _w_) = ‘be + humbled’ or ‘degraded,’ yields but a tolerable sense (Tuch, + Ewald, al.); the Egyptian Arabic _dāna_, which means ‘to do + a thing continually’ (Socin; see Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._), would + suit the context well, but can hardly be the same word. Vollers + (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 349 ff.) derives it from + √ דנן, Assyrian _danânu_ = ‘be powerful’; the idea being that + the life-giving spirit shall no longer have the same force + as formerly, etc. It would be still better if the verb could + be taken as a denominative from Assyrian _dinânu_, ‘bodily + appearance,’ with the sense “shall not be embodied in man for + ever.”――בָּאָדָם] LXX ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, whence Klostermann + restores באדם הַזֶּה¹ = ‘this humanity,’ as distinguished from + that originally created,――an impossible exegesis, whose + sole advantage is that it gives a meaning to the גַּם in בְּשֶׂגַּם + (_v.i._).――לְעוֹלָם――לֹא (thus separated)] here = ‘not ... for ever,’ + as Jeremiah 3¹², Lamentations 3³¹; elsewhere (Psalms 15⁵ etc.) + the phrase means ‘never.’――בְּשֶׂגָּם] so pointed in the majority of + MSS, is infinitive construct of שָׁגַג, ‘err,’ with suffix. This + sense is adopted by many (Tuch, Ewald, Budde, Holzinger, al.), + but it can hardly be right. If we refer the suffix to הָאָדָם, the + _enallage numeri_ (‘through _their_ erring _he_ is flesh’) would + be harsh, and the idea expressed unsuitable. If we refer it + to the angels, we can avoid an absurdity only by disregarding + the accents and joining the word with what precedes: ‘shall + not (abide?) in man for ever on account of their (the angels’) + erring; he is flesh, and,’ etc. The sentence is doubly bad in + point of style: the first member is overloaded at the end by + the emphatic word; and the second opens awkwardly without a + connecting participle. Moreover, it is questionable if the + idea of שׁגג (inadvertent transgression) is appropriate in the + connexion. Margoliouth (_Expositor_, 1898, ii. 33 ff.) explains + the obscure word by Aethiopian _shegā_ = ‘body’; but the + proposed rendering, ‘inasmuch as their body (or substance) is + flesh,’ is not grammatically admissible. The correct Massoretic + reading is בְּשֶׂגַּם (_i.e._ גַּם + שֶׁ + בְּ) = _inasmuch as he too_. The + objections to this are (a) that the relative שֶׁ is never found + in Pentateuch, and is very rare in the older literature (Judges + 5⁷ 6¹⁷ 7¹² 8²⁶), while compounds like בְּ׳h do not appear before + Ecclesiastes (_e.g._ 2¹⁶); and (b) that the גַּם has no force, + there being nothing which serves as a contrast to הוּא. Wellhausen + observes that בְּ׳ must represent a causal particle and possibly + nothing more. The old translators, LXX (διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς) + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have been of the same + opinion; and it is noticeable that none of them attempt to + reproduce the גַּם. The conjectures of Olshausen (לָבַשׁ גַּם), Cheyne + (בְּמִשְׁכְּנוֹת בָּשָׂר), and others are all beside the mark.――והיו ימיו וגו׳] The + only natural reference is to the (maximum) term of human life + (so Josephus, Tuch, Ewald, and most since), a man’s יָמִים being + a standing expression for his lifetime, reckoning from his + birth (see chapter 5. 35²⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰ etc.). The older view + (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Calvin, + al.: so Delitzsch, Klostermann), that the clause indicates the + interval that was to elapse before the Flood, was naturally + suggested by the present position of the passage, and + was supported by the consideration that greater ages were + subsequently attained by many of the patriarchs. But these + statements belong to Priestly-Code, and decide nothing as to + the meaning of the words in Yahwist. + + ¹ Already proposed by Egli (cited by Budde). + + * * * * * + +=4.= _The Nĕphîlîm were_ (or _arose_) _in the earth in those days_] +Who were the נְפִלִים? The name recurs only in Numbers 13³³, where +we learn that they were conceived as beings of gigantic stature, +whose descendants survived till the days of Moses and Joshua. +The circumstantial form of the sentence here (compare 12⁶ 13⁷) is +misleading, for the writer cannot have meant that the נ׳ existed +in those days apart from the alliances with the angels, and that +the result of the latter were the גִּבּוֹרִים (Lenormant, al.). The idea +undoubtedly is that this race _arose_ at that time in consequence +of the union of the divine ‘spirit’ with human ‘flesh.’――_and also +afterwards whenever_ (LXX ὡς ἂν) _the sons of the gods came in ... and +they_ (the women) _bore unto them_] That is to say, the production of +Nephîlîm was not confined to the remote period indicated by verse ¹ ᶠᐧ, +but was continued in after ages through visits of angels to mortal +wives,――a conception which certainly betrays the hand of a glossator. +It is perhaps enough to remove וְגַם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן as an interpolation, and +connect the אֲשֶׁר with בַּֽיָּמִים הָהֵם; though even then the phrasing is odd +(_v.i._).――_Those are the heroes_ (הַגִּבּוֹּרִים) _that were of old, the men +of fame_] (אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם, compare Numbers 16²). הֵמָּה has for its antecedent +not אֲשֶׁר as objective to יָֽלְדוּ (Wellhausen), but הַנְּפִלִים. There is a touch +of euhemerism in the notice (Wellhausen), the archaic and mythological +נְפִלִים being identified with the more human גִּבּוֹרִים who were renowned in +Hebrew story. + + It is probable that the legend of the Nephîlîm had a wider + circulation in Hebrew tradition than could be gathered from its + curt handling by the editors of the Hexateuch. In Ezekiel 32 we + meet with the weird conception of a mighty antique race who are + the original denizens of Sheol, where they lie in state with + their swords under their heads, and are roused to a transient + interest in the newcomers who disturb their majestic repose. If + Cornill’s correction of verse ²⁷ (גבורים נְפִלִים מעולם) be sound, these + are to be identified with the Nephîlîm of our passage; and the + picture throws light on two points left obscure in Genesis: + viz., the character of the primæval giants, and the punishment + meted out to them. Ezekiel dwells on their haughty violence and + warlike prowess, and plainly intimates that for their crimes + they were consigned to Sheol, where, however, they enjoy a kind + of aristocratic dignity among the Shades. It would almost seem + as if the whole conception had been suggested by the supposed + discoveries of prehistoric skeletons of great stature, buried + with their arms beside them, like those recorded by Pausanias + (i. 35. 5 f., viii. 29. 3, 32. 4) and other ancient writers + (see William Robertson Smith in Driver A critical and exegetical + commentary on Deuteronomy 40 f.). + + * * * * * + + =4.= הַנְּפִלִים] LXX οἱ γίγαντες; Aquila οἱ ἐπιπίπτοντες; Symmachus + οἱ βίαιοι; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא. The + etymology is uncertain (see Dillmann 123). There is no allusion + to a ‘fall’ (√ נָפַל) of angels from heaven (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + Jerome¹, Rashi), or to a ‘fall’ of the world through their + action (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). A connexion with נֵפֶל, + ‘abortive birth’ (from נָפַל, ‘fall dead’), is not improbable + (Schwally, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + xviii. 144 ff.). An attractive emendation of Cornill (נְפִילִים מֵעוֹלָם) + in Ezekiel 32²⁷ not only yields a striking resemblance to this + verse, but supports the idea that the נ׳ (like the רְפָאִים) were + associated with the notion of Sheol.――אחרי כן אשר] cannot mean + ‘after’ (as conjunction), which would require a perfect to + follow, but only ‘afterwards, when.’ On any view, יָבֹאוּ; and וְיָלְדוּ are + frequentative tenses.――בוא אל] (as euphemism) is characteristic of + Jehovist (especially Yahwist) in Hexateuch (Budde 39, _Anm._). + Compare William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early + Arabia_², 198 ff.――חַגִּבּוֹרִים] literally ‘mighty ones’ (Aquila δυνατοί; + Vulgate _potentes_; LXX, Symmachus, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ do + not distinguish from נפילים). The word is thoroughly naturalised + in Hebrew speech, and nearly always in a good sense. But passages + like Ezekiel 32¹² ᶠᶠᐧ show that it had another aspect, akin to + Arabic _ǧabbār_ (proud, audacious, tyrannical). The Arabic and + Syrian equivalents are used as names of the constellation Orion + (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ i. 375 _a_; Robert Payne + Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 646).――אשר מעולם] compare עַם עוֹלָם, Ezekiel + 26²⁰, probably an allusion to a wicked ancient race thrust down + to Sheol.――The whole verse has the appearance of a series of + antiquarian glosses; and all that can be strictly inferred + from it is that there was some traditional association of + the Nephîlîm with the incident recorded in verse ¹ ᶠᐧ. At the + same time we may reasonably hold that the kernel of the verse + reproduces in a hesitating and broken fashion the essential + thought of the original myth. The writer apparently shrinks + from the direct statement that the Nephîlîm were the offspring + of the marriages of verses ¹ᐧ ², and tantalises the curiosity + of his readers with the cautious affirmation that such beings + then existed. A later hand then introduced a reminder that + they existed ‘afterwards’ as well.――Budde, who omits verse ³, + restores the original connexion with verse ¹ ᶠᐧ as follows: [והיה + כאשר] יבאו בני האלהים ... [וכן] היו הנפלים בארץ בימים ההם. Some such excellent + sentence may very well have stood in the original; but it was + precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wished + to avoid. + + ¹ “Et angelis et sanctorum liberis, convenit nomen cadentium.” + + * * * * * + + + + + VI. 5‒IX. 29. + _Noah and the Flood._ + + + _Analysis of the Flood-Narrative._――The section on the Flood + (6⁵‒9¹⁷) is, as has often been observed, the first example in + Genesis of a truly composite narrative; _i.e._, one in which the + compiler “instead of excerpting the entire account from a single + source, has interwoven it out of excerpts taken alternatively + from Yahwist and Priestly-Code, preserving in the process + many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered many striking + differences of representation and phraseology” (Driver 85). + The resolution of the compound narrative into its constituent + elements in this case is justly reckoned amongst the most + brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism, and affords + a particularly instructive lesson in the art of documentary + analysis (compare the interesting exposition by Gunkel² 121 ff.). + Here it must suffice to give the results of the process, along + with a summary of the criteria by which the critical operation + is guided and justified. The division generally accepted by + recent critics is as follows: + + Yahwist Priestly-Code + 6⁵⁻⁸ + ⁹⁻²² + 7¹⁻⁵ + ⁶ + ⁷ᐧ (⁸ᐧ ⁹)ᐧ ¹⁰ + ¹¹ + ¹² + ¹³⁻¹⁶ᵃ + ¹⁶ᵇ + ¹⁷ᵃ + ¹⁷ᵇ + ¹⁸⁻²¹ + ²²ᐧ ²³ + 7²⁴ 8¹ᐧ ²ᵃ + ²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ + ³ᵇ⁻⁵ + ⁶⁻¹² + ¹³ᵃ + ¹³ᵇ + ¹⁴⁻¹⁹ + ²⁰⁻²² + 9¹⁻¹⁷ + + The minutiæ of glosses, transpositions, etc., are left to be + dealt with in the Notes. Neglecting these, the scheme as given + above represents the results of Budde (to whom the finishing + touches are due: _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 248 ff.) Gunkel + and Holzinger. Dillmann agrees absolutely, except that he + assigns 7¹⁷ wholly to Yahwist, and 7²³ᵇ to Priestly-Code; and + Wellhausen, except with regard to 7¹⁷ (Yahwist) 8³ᐧ ¹³, which + are both assigned entirely to Priestly-Code. The divergences + of Kuenen and Cornill are almost equally slight; and indeed + the main outlines of the analysis were fixed by the researches + of Hupfeld, Nöldeke, and Schrader.――This remarkable consensus + of critical opinion has been arrived at by four chief lines + of evidence: (1) _Linguistic._ The key to the whole process + is, of course, the distinction between the divine names + יהוה (6⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ 7¹ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇ 8²⁰ᐧ ²¹) and אלהים (6⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²² + 7¹⁶ᵃ 8¹ᐧ ¹⁵ 9¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Besides this, a number of + characteristic expressions differentiate the two sources. Thus + Yahwist’s איש ואשתו (7²) answers to Priestly-Code’s זכר ונקבה¹ (6¹⁹ + 7⁽⁹⁾ᐧ ¹⁶); מחה (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³) to שִׁחֵת and השחית (6¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵); מות + (7²²) to גָוַע¹ (6¹⁷ 7²¹); כל־היקום (7⁴ᐧ ²³) to כל־בשר¹ (6¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ 7²¹ + and often); קל (8⁸ᐧ ¹¹) and שוּב (7³ᵃ) to חסר (8⁵); חרב (8¹³ᵇ) to יבש + (8¹⁴) [but see on 8¹³ᵇ]; נשמת חיים (8²²) to רוח חיים (6¹⁷); לְחַיּוֹת (7³) + to לְהַֽחֲיוֹת (6¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰); כל־ביתך (7¹) to the specific enumerations of 6¹⁸ + 7⁽⁷⁾ᐧ ¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸. (Compare the list in Holzinger _Genesis erklärt_ + page 68).――(2) _Diversity of representation._ In Yahwist clean + and unclean animals are distinguished, the former entering the + ark by sevens and the latter in pairs (7², compare 8²⁰); in + Priestly-Code one pair of every kind without distinction is + admitted (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). According to Yahwist, the cause of + the Flood is a forty-days’ rain which is to commence seven days + after the command to enter the ark (7⁴ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 8²ᵇᐧ ⁶)――the latter + passage showing that the waters began to subside after the 40 + days. In Priestly-Code we have (7¹¹ 8²ᵃ) a different conception + of the cause of the Flood; and, in 7⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁴ 8³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴, + a chronological scheme according to which the waters increase + for 150 days, and the entire duration of the Flood is one + year (see page 167 ff.).――(3) _Duplicates._ The following + are obviously parallels from the two documents: 6⁵⁻⁸ ∥ 6¹¹⁻¹³ + (occasion of the Flood); 7¹⁻⁵ ∥ 6¹⁷⁻²² (command to enter the + ark, and announcement of the Flood); 7⁷ ∥ 7¹³ (entering of the + ark); 7¹⁰ ∥ 7¹¹ (coming of the Flood); 7¹⁷ᵇ ∥ 7¹⁸ (increase of + the waters: floating of the ark); 7²² ᶠᐧ ∥ 7²¹ (destruction of + terrestrial life); 8²ᵇᐧ ³ᵃ ∥ 8¹ ᶠᐧ (abatement of the Flood); 8¹³ᵇ + ∥ 8¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (drying of the earth); 8²⁰⁻²² ∥ 9⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (promise that + the Flood shall not recur).――(4) The final confirmation of + the theory is that the two series of passages form two all but + continuous narratives, which exhibit the distinctive features + of the two great sources of the primitive history, Yahwist + and Priestly-Code. The Yahwist sections are a graphic popular + tale, appealing to the imagination rather than to the reasoning + faculties. The aim of the writer, one would say, was to + bring the cosmopolitan (Babylonian) Flood-legend within the + comprehension of a native of Palestine. The Deluge is ascribed + to a familiar cause, the rain; only, the rain lasts for an + unusual time, 40 days. The picturesque incident of the dove + (see 8⁹) reveals the touch of descriptive genius which so often + breaks forth from this document. The boldest anthropomorphisms + are freely introduced into the conception of God (6⁶ ᶠᐧ 7¹⁶ᵇ + 8²¹); and the religious institutions of the author’s time + are unhesitatingly assumed for the age of Noah.――Still more + pronounced are the characteristics of Priestly-Code in the + other account. The vivid details which are the life and charm + of the older narrative have all disappeared; and if the sign + of the rainbow (9¹²⁻¹⁷) is retained, its æsthetic beauty has + evaporated. For the rest, everything is formal, precise, and + calculated,――the size of the ark, the number of the persons and + the classification of the animals in it, the exact duration of + the Flood in its various stages, etc.: if these mathematical + determinations are removed, there is little story left. The real + interest of the writer is in the new departure in God’s dealings + with the world, of which the Flood was the occasion,――the + modification of the original constitution of nature, 9¹⁻⁷, and + the establishment of the first of the three great covenants, + 9⁸⁻¹⁷. The connexion of the former passage with Genesis 1 is + unmistakably evident. Very significant are the omission of + Noah’s sacrifice, and the ignoring of the laws of cleanness and + uncleanness amongst animals.² + + ¹ Phrases characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code + generally. + + ² Traces of Priestly-Code’s general vocabulary are very + numerous. Besides some of those (marked by ¹) already + enumerated in contrast to Yahwist, we have תּוֹלְדֹת (6⁹); דֹּרֹת + (6⁹ 9¹²); הוֹלִיד (6¹⁰); הקים ברית (6¹⁸ 9⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁷) and נתן ב׳ (9¹²); + אִתּו in enumerations (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ etc.); מין (6²⁰ 7¹⁴); רֶמֶשׂ, רָמַשׂ + (6²⁰ 7⁽⁸⁾ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9²ᐧ ³); שֶׁרֶץ, שָׁרַץ (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9⁷); לְאָכְלָה + (6²¹ 9³); בעצם היום הזה (7¹³); מאד מאד (7¹⁹); בְּ of specification + (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶); פרה ורבה (8¹⁷ 9¹ᐧ ⁷); למשפחתיהם (8¹⁹); ברית + עולם (9¹⁶).――Of the style of Yahwist the positive indications + are fewer: מצא חן (6⁸); מחה in the sense ‘destroy’ (6⁷ 7⁴ᐧ ²³) + [see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 101]; עצב + (6⁶); על־פני האדמה (7⁴ᐧ ²³ 8⁸ᐧ ⁽{?} ¹³ ᴸˣˣ⁾); בעבור (8²¹). See the + commentaries of Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, etc. + + The success of the critical process is due to the care and + skill with which the Redactor (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ⁺ᴾʳⁱᵉˢᵗˡʸ⁻ᶜᵒᵈᵉ) + has performed his task. His object evidently was to produce a + synthetic history of the Flood without sacrificing a scrap of + information that could with any plausibility be utilised for + his narrative. The sequence of Priestly-Code he appears to have + preserved intact, allowing neither omissions nor transpositions. + Of Yahwist he has preserved quite enough to show that it was + originally a complete and independent narrative; but it was + naturally impracticable to handle it as carefully as the main + document. Yet it is doubtful if there are any actual lacunæ + except (a) the account of the building of the ark (between 6⁸ + and 7¹), and (b) the notice of the exit from it (between 8¹³ᵇ + and ²⁰). The middle part of the document, however, has been + broken up into minute fragments, and these have been placed in + position where they would least disturb the flow of narration. + Some slight transpositions have been made, and a number of + glosses have been introduced; but how far these last are due + to the Redactor himself and how far to subsequent editors, we + cannot tell (for details see the notes). Duplicates are freely + admitted, and small discrepancies are disregarded; the only + serious discrepancy (that of the chronology) is ingeniously + surmounted by making Yahwist’s 40 days count twice, once as a + stage of the increase of the Flood (7¹²) and once as a phase + of its decrease (8⁶).¹ This compound narrative is not destitute + of interest; but for the understanding of the ideas underlying + the literature the primary documents are obviously of first + importance. We shall therefore treat them separately. + + ¹ The supposition of Hupfeld and Lenormant (_Les Origines de + l’histoire_ i. 415), that the double period occurred in the + original Yahwist, has no foundation. + + + _The Flood according to Yahwist._ + +=VI. 5‒8. The occasion of the Flood=:――Yahwe’s experience of the +deep-seated and incurable sinfulness of human nature. It is unnecessary +to suppose that a description of the deterioration of the race has +been omitted, or displaced by 6¹⁻⁴ (Holzinger). The ground of the +pessimistic estimate of human nature so forcibly expressed in verse ⁵ +is rather the whole course of man’s development as hitherto related, +which is the working out of the sinful knowledge acquired by the Fall. +The fratricide of Cain, the song of Lamech, the marriages with the +angels, are incidents which, if not all before the mind of the writer +of the Flood-story, at least reveal the gloomy view of the early +history which characterises the Yahwistic tradition.――=5.= _the whole +bent_ (literally ‘formation’) _of the thoughts of his heart_] It is +difficult to say whether יֵצֶר is more properly the ‘form’ impressed _on_ +the mind (the disposition or character), or ‘that which is formed’ _by_ +the mind (imagination and purpose――_Sinnen und Trachten_): compare 8²¹, +Deuteronomy 31²¹, Isaiah 26³ (Psalms 103¹⁴?), 1 Chronicles 28⁹ 29¹⁸; +_v.i._――=6.= The anthropopathy which attributes to Yahwe regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) +and vexation (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב) because He had created man is unusually strong. +Although in the sense of mere change of purpose, the former is often +ascribed to God (Exodus 32¹⁴, Jeremiah 18⁷ᐧ ⁸ 26³ᐧ ¹³, Joel 2¹³, Jonah +3¹⁰ etc.), the cases are few where divine regret for accomplished +action is expressed (1 Samuel 15¹¹). The whole representation was felt +to be inadequate (Numbers 23¹⁹, 1 Samuel 15¹¹); yet it continued to be +used as inseparable from the religious view of history as the personal +agency of Yahwe.――=7.= God’s resolve to _blot out_ (מָחָה) the race: not +as yet communicated to Noah, but expressed in monologue.――=8.= _But +Noah had found favour, etc._] doubtless on account of his piety; but +see on 7¹. The Yahwistic narrative must have contained some previous +notice of Noah, probably at the end of a genealogy. + + * * * * * + + =5.= יהוה LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (so verse ⁸).――וכל־יצר וגו׳] LXX loosely: + καὶ πᾶς τις διανοεῖται (יֹצֵר?) ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐπὶ + τὰ πονηρά; Vulgate _cuncta cogitatio_. Another Greek rendering + (ὁ Ἑβρ., see Field, _ad loc._) is φυσικὸν τοῦ ἀνθ.; but in 8²¹ + the same translator has τὸ πλάσμα τῆς καρ. ἀνθ. On the later + Jewish theologoumenon of the יצר הרע (the evil impulse in man, also + called יצר simply) which is based on this passage, and by Jewish + commentaries (Rashi on 8²¹) is found here; see Taylor, _Sayings + of Jewish Fathers_², 37, 148 ff.; Frank C. Porter, _Biblical + and Semitic Studies; critical and historical essays by the + members of the Semitic and Biblical faculty of Yale University_ + (1901), 93 ff.――כל־היום] ‘continually’; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, + 400 b.――=6.= יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός (so verse ⁷).――ויתעצב] Genesis 34⁷; + compare Isaiah 63¹⁰ (Piel). Rashi softens the anthropomorphism + by making the impending destruction of the creatures the + immediate object of the divine grief.――=7.= אמחה] compare + 7⁴ᐧ ²³. In the full sense of ‘exterminate’ (as distinct from + ‘obliterate’ [name, memory, etc.]) the verb is peculiar to + Yahwist’s account of the Flood; contrast Numbers 5²³ 34¹¹ + (Priestly-Code).――The verse is strongly interpolated. The + clauses אשר בראתי and מאדם ... השמים are in the style of Priestly-Code + (compare 6²⁰ 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ 9² etc.); and the latter is, besides, + an illogical specification of האדם. They are redactional glosses, + the original text being אמחה את־האדם מעל פני האדמה כי נחמתי כי עשיתים (Budde + 249 ff.; Dillmann 125).――=8.= מצא חן בעיני] characteristic of, though + not absolutely confined to, Yahwist: 19¹⁹ 32⁶ 33⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ 34¹¹ 39⁴ + 47²⁵ etc. (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 97 f.). + + * * * * * + +=VII. 1‒5. Announcement of the Flood.=――The section is an almost exact +parallel to 6¹⁷⁻²² (Priestly-Code). Verse ¹ presupposes in Yahwist a +description of the building of the ark, which the redactor has omitted +in favour of the elaborate account of Priestly-Code. Not till the +work is finished does Yahwe reveal to Noah the purpose it is to serve: +verse ⁴ is obviously the first intimation that has been given of the +approaching deluge. The building of the ark in implicit obedience to +the divine command is thus a great test and proof of Noah’s faith; +compare Hebrews 11⁷.――=1.= _Thou and all thy house_] Yahwist’s +brevity is here far more expressive than the formal enumerations of +Priestly-Code (6¹⁸ 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸). The principle involved is the religious +solidarity of the family; its members are saved for the righteousness +of its head (compare 19¹²).――_thee have I seen (to be) righteous_ +(צַדִּיק, see on 6⁹)] Budde and others take this to be a judgement based on +Noah’s obedience in building the ark; but that is hardly correct. The +verb is not מצא but ראה, which has precisely the same force as the וירא +of 6⁵. Compare also 6⁸.――=2.= _clean_ (טְהוֹר) means, practically, fit +for sacrifice and human food; the technical antithesis is טָמֵא, which, +however, is here avoided, whether purposely (Delitzsch 174) or not it +is impossible to say. The distinction is not, as was once supposed (see +Tuch), a proof of Yahwist’s interest in Levitical matters, but, on the +contrary, of the naïveté of his religious conceptions. He regards it as +rooted in the nature of things, and cannot imagine a time when it was +not observed. His view is nearer the historical truth than the theory +of Priestly-Code, who traces the distinction to the positive enactments +of the Sinaitic legislation (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), and +consequently ignores it here. The same difference of standpoint appears +with regard to sacrifice, altars, etc.: see 4³ ᶠᐧ 8²⁰ 12⁷ etc.――שִׁבְעָה +שִׁבְעָה] _by sevens_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _q_); _i.e._ ‘7 (individuals) +of each kind’ (Delitzsch, Stade, al.), rather than ‘7 pairs’ +(_Bereshith Rabba_, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.),――in +spite of the following איש ואשתו. It is a plausible conjecture (Rashi, +Delitzsch, Strack) that the odd individual was a male destined for +sacrifice (8²⁰).――=3a= presents an impure text (_v.i._), and must +either be removed as a gloss (Kuenen, Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.) +or supplemented with LXX (Ball, Bennett).――=3b.= _to keep seed alive, +etc._] reads better as the continuation of ² than of ³ᵃ.――=4.= With +great rhetorical effect, the reason for all these preparations――the +coming of the Flood――is reserved to the end. Yahwist knows no other +physical cause of the Deluge than the 40 days’ rain (compare verse +¹²).――=5.= Compare 6²² (Priestly-Code). + + * * * * * + + =1.= יהוה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå + אלהים; LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――צדיק] predicate accusative; Davidson § + 76.――=2.= For שנים, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read שנים שנים,――probably correctly.――איש + ואשתו (_bis_)] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ זכר ונקבה, + assimilating Yahwist to Priestly-Code.――=3a.= The distinction to + be expected between clean and unclean birds is made imperfectly + by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and Peshiṭtå, + which insert הטהור after השמים; and fully by LXX, which goes + further and adds the words καὶ ἀπὸ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν τῶν μὴ + καθαρῶν δύο δύο ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ. Ball accepts this, thinking + the omission in Massoretic Text due to homoioteleuton. But + the phrase זכר ונקבה shows that ³ᵃ has been manipulated; and it + is on the whole more likely that it is entirely redactional. + Birds _may_ be included in the הבהמה of verse ²; though Budde’s + parallels (Exodus 8¹³ ᶠᐧ 9⁹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵, Jeremiah 32⁴³ 33¹⁰ᐧ ¹² 36²⁹, + Psalms 36⁷) are not quite convincing.――=3b.= לְחַיּוֹת] Priestly-Code + uses Hiphil (6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ).――זֶרַע] as Jeremiah 31²⁷.――=4.= לימים] On + לְ as denoting the _close_ of a term (compare verse ¹⁰), see + Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ =6b.=――הַיְקוּם] a rare word (only 7²³, + Deuteronomy 11⁶), meaning ‘that which subsists’ (√ קום). LXX + ἀνάστεμα (other examples in Field, ἐξανάστασιν), Vulgate + _substantia_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). On the form see Barth, + _Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_ 181; König ii. + 146; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 85 _d_. + + * * * * * + +=7‒10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22, 23.――Entrance into the ark and description of +the Flood.=――Yahwist’s narrative has here been taken to pieces by the +Redactor, who has fitted the fragments into a new connexion supplied +by the combined accounts of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The operation +has been performed with such care and skill that it is still possible +to restore the original order and recover a succinct and consecutive +narrative, of which little if anything appears to be lost. The sequence +of events is as follows: At the end of the seven days, the Flood comes +(verse ¹⁰); Noah enters the ark (⁷) and Yahwe shuts him in (¹⁶ᵇ). Forty +days’ rain ensues (¹²), and the waters rise and float the ark (¹⁷ᵇ). +All life on the earth’s surface is extinguished; only Noah and those in +the ark survive (²² ᶠᐧ). + + The rearrangement here adopted (¹⁰ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁶ᵇᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᵇᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³) is + due mainly to the acute criticism of Budde (_Die biblische + Urgeschichte_ 258 ff.), who has probably added the last + refinements to a protracted process of literary investigation. + Some points (_e.g._ the transposition of verses ⁷ and ¹⁰) are, + of course, more or less doubtful; others (_e.g._ ¹⁶ᵇ) are seen + to be necessary as soon as the components of Yahwist have been + isolated. The most difficult thing is to clear the text of the + glosses which inevitably accompanied the work of redaction; but + this also has been accomplished with a considerable degree of + certainty and agreement amongst recent commentaries. The most + extensive interpolations are part of verse ⁷, the whole of + verses ⁸ and ⁹, and part of ²³. For details see the footnote. + + * * * * * + + =7.= וּבָנָיו――אִתּוֹ] The enumeration is in the manner of Priestly-Code + (obsolete also אִתּוֹ); the words either replace וכל־ביתו (as verse ¹), + or are a pure insertion;――in either case redactional.――מי המבול] + so 7¹⁰ (Yahwist), 9¹¹ (Priestly-Code) (contrast הַמּ׳ מַיִם, 6¹⁷ + 7⁶).――מַבּוּל] LXX κατακλυσμός; Vulgate _diluvium_; Peshiṭtå and + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ טופנא (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ טובענא). The word has usually + been derived from יבל, ‘streaming’ (see Gesenius _Thesaurus + philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris + Testamenti_, Dillmann); but is more probably a foreign word + without Hebrew etymology (see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 732). Delitzsch (_Wo lag das + Paradies?_ 156) proposed the derivation from Assyrian _nabâlu_, + ‘destroy,’ which is accepted by König (ii. 153), Ball (page 53), + and others. The Babylonian technical equivalent is _abûbu_, + which denotes both a ‘light-flood’ and a ‘water-flood’: the + double sense has been thought to explain Priestly-Code’s addition + of מַיִם to the word (see on 6¹⁷). A transformation of the one name + into the other is, however, difficult to understand (see _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 495¹, 546²). In Psalms + 29¹⁰ מבול appears to be used in a general sense without a historic + reference to the Noachic Deluge (see Duhm, _ad loc._). ――=8, 9= + present a mixed text. The distinction of clean and unclean + points to Yahwist; but all other features (אלהים [though a + reading יהוה seems attested by _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and MSS of LXX]; זכר ונקבה; + the undiscriminated שנים שנים; the categorical enumeration [to + which LXX adds the birds at the beginning of verse ⁸]) to + Priestly-Code. In Priestly-Code the verses are not wanted, + because they are a duplicate of ¹³⁻¹⁶: they must therefore be + assigned to an interpolator (Budde al.). + + * * * * * + +=10.= _At the end of the 7 days_ (compare verse ⁴)] The interval (we +may suppose) was occupied in assembling the animals and provisioning +the ark.――_the waters of the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל, a technical name for the +Deluge, common to both sources (_v.i._).――=7.= Noah enters the ark +_on account of the ... Flood_: hence verse ⁷ presupposes verse ¹⁰. +The same order of events is found in Priestly-Code (¹¹ᐧ ¹³) and in the +Babylonian legend: “when the lords of the darkness send at evening +a (grimy?) rain, enter into the ship and close thy door” (1. 88 +f.).――=16b= (which must in any case follow immediately on verse ⁷) +contains a fine anthropomorphism, which (in spite of the Babylonian +parallel just cited) it is a pity to spoil by deleting יהוה and making +Noah the implicit subject (Klostermann _Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, +i. 717).――=12.= _forty days and forty nights_] This determination, +which in Yahwist expresses the entire duration of the Flood, seems to +have been treated by Redactor as merely a stage in the increase of the +waters (compare 8⁶). It obviously breaks the connexion of Priestly-Code. +The Babylonian deluge lasted only six days and nights (1. 128).――=17b.= +Parallel to ¹⁸ (Priestly-Code).――=22, 23.= A singularly effective +description of the effect of the Flood, which is evidently conceived +as universal. + + * * * * * + + =10.= On the construction of the sentence, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 164 _a_, and on verse ⁶ below.――=12.= גֶּשֶׁם] (√ _ǧasuma_ = ‘be + massive’) commonly used of the heavy winter rain (Ezra 10⁹, + Canticles 2¹¹): see George Adam Smith _Historical Geography + of the Holy Land_, 64.――=16b.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + τὴν + κιβωτόν.――=17b.= Since ¹⁸ belongs to Priestly-Code (ויגברו, מאד), + its duplicate ¹⁷ᵇ must be from Yahwist, where it forms a natural + continuation of ¹². ¹⁷ᵃ, on the other hand (in spite of the 40 + days), must be assigned to Priestly-Code (see page 164).――=22.= + נשמת רוח חיים] is an unexampled combination, arising from confusion + of a phrase of Yahwist (נשמת חיים, 2⁷) with one of Priestly-Code + (רוח חיים, 6¹⁷ 7¹⁵). The verse being from Yahwist (compare חָרָבָה + instead of יַבָּשָׁה; מתו instead of ויגוע, ²¹), רוח is naturally the word + to be deleted.――=23a= as a whole is Yahwist (מחה, יקום, על־פני האדמה); + but the clause מאדם ... השמים seems again (compare 6⁷) to be + redactional, and the three words following must disappear with + it. ²³ᵇ might be assigned with almost equal propriety to Yahwist + or to Priestly-Code.――וַיִּמַֿח] (apocopated imperfect Qal) is a better + attested Massoretic reading than וַיִּמַּח (Niphal). It is easier, + however, to change the pointing (to Niphal) than to supply + יהוה as subject, and the sense is at least as good.――Gunkel’s + rearrangement (²³ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ᵇ) is a distinct improvement: of the + two homologous sentences, that without וְ naturally stands second. + + * * * * * + +=VIII. (1b?), 2b, 3a, (4?), 6‒12, 13b. Subsidence of the waters.=――The +rain from heaven having ceased, the Flood gradually abates. [The ark +settles on some high mountain; and] Noah, ignorant of his whereabouts +and unable to see around, sends out first a raven and then a dove to +ascertain the condition of the earth. + + The continuity of Yahwist’s narrative has again been disturbed + by the redaction. Verse ⁶ᵃ, which in its present position has + no point of attachment in Yahwist, probably stood originally + before ²ᵇ, where it refers to the 40 days’ duration of the Flood + (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen + Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 5). It was removed by Redactor + so as to make up part of the interval between the emergence of + the mountain-tops and the drying of the ground.――There are two + small points in which a modification of the generally accepted + division of sources might be suggested. (1) ¹ᵇ (the wind causing + the abatement of the waters) is, on account of אלהים, assigned + to Priestly-Code. But the order ¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵃ is unnatural, and + transpositions in Priestly-Code do not seem to have been + admitted. The idea is more in accord with Yahwist’s conception + of the Flood than with Priestly-Code’s; and but for the name + אלהים the half-verse might very well be assigned to Yahwist, + and inserted between ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ. (2) Verse ⁴ is also almost + universally regarded as Priestly-Code’s (see Budde 269 f.). + But this leaves a lacuna in Yahwist between ³ᵃ and ⁶ᵇ, where a + notice of the landing of the ark must have stood: on the other + hand, ⁵ᵇ makes it extremely doubtful if Priestly-Code thought + of the ark as stranded on a mountain at all. The only objection + to assigning ⁴ to Yahwist is the chronology: if we may suppose + the chronological scheme to have been added or retouched by a + later hand (see page 168), there is a great deal to be said for + the view of Hupfeld and Reuss that the remainder of the verse + belongs to Yahwist.¹――The opening passage would then read as + follows: + + ¹ It may be noted that in _Jubilees_ v. 28 no date is given + for the landing of the ark. + + * * * * * + + =3a.= הלוך ושוב] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_. LXX has misunderstood + the idiom both here and in verse ⁷. + + * * * * * + +=6a.= _At the end of 40 days_, =2b.= _the rain from heaven was +restrained_; =1b.= _and Yahwe (?) caused a wind to pass over the +earth, and the waters abated._ =3a.= _And the waters went on decreasing +from off the earth_, =4.= _and the ark rested on the mountains of +Ararat_.――On the landing-place of the ark, see page 166 below. + +=6b‒12.= The episode of the sending out of the birds appears in many +forms of the Deluge-tradition; notably in the Babylonian. It is here +related as an illustration of Noah’s wisdom (Gunkel). Tuch quotes from +Pliny, vi. 83 (on the Indians): “siderum in navigando nulla observatio; +septentrio non cernitur; sed volucres secum vehunt, emittentes sæpius, +meatumque earum terram petentium comitantur.”――=7.= _He sent out a +raven_] The purpose of the action is not stated till verse ⁸; partly +for this reason, partly because the threefold experiment with the dove +is complete and more natural, the genuineness of the verse has been +questioned (Wellhausen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). Dahse, _Zeitschrift +für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 5 f., calls attention +to the fact that in LXXᴹ the verse is marked with the obelus. The +Babylonian account has three experiments, but with different birds +(dove, swallow, raven).――=8.= _And he sent out a dove_] perhaps +immediately; see LXX below. But if verse ⁷ be a later insertion, +we must supply _and he waited 7 days_ (see verse ¹⁰).――=9.= The +description of the return and admission of the dove is unsurpassed +even in the Yahwistic document for tenderness and beauty of +imagination.――=10.= _Seven other days_] implying a similar statement +before either verse ⁷ or verse ⁸.――=11.= _a freshly plucked olive +leaf_] The olive does not grow at great altitudes, and was said to +flourish even under water (Tuch). But it is probable that some +forgotten mythological significance attaches to the symbol in the +Flood-legend (see Gunkel page 60). Compare the classical notices of +the olive branch as an emblem of peace: Virgil, _Aeneid_, viii. 116 +(_Paciferaeque manu ramum prætendit olivæ_); Livy, xxiv. 30, xxix. +16.――=12.= The third time the dove returns no more; and then at +last――=13b.= Noah ventures to remove the _covering_ of the ark, and +sees that the earth is dry. + + * * * * * + + =7.= הערב] on the article see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_; but + compare Smith’s note, _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², + 126.――LXX here supplies τοῦ ἰδεῖν εἰ κεκόπακεν τὸ ὕδωρ, as in + verse ⁸.――ויצא יצוא ושוב] LXX καὶ ἐξελθὼν οὐχ ὑ πέστρεψεν; so Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå (accepted by Ball): see on ³ᵃ.――=8.= מֵאִתּוֹ] LXX ὀπίσω + αὐτοῦ (= אַֽחֲרָיו); assuming that both birds were sent forth on + the same day.――=10.= וַיָּחֶל] compare וַיִּיָּחֶל, verse ¹² (_The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ has ויחל both times). Both forms are + incorrect: read in each case וַיְיַחֵל (Budde, Dillmann, al.).――=13b.= + מִכְסֵה] possibly described in Yahwist’s account of the building + of the ark. Elsewhere only of the covering of the Tabernacle + (Priestly-Code); but compare מְכַסֶּה, Ezekiel 27⁷.――חרבו] LXX ins. + τὸ ὕδωρ ἀπό. + + * * * * * + +=20‒22. Noah’s sacrifice.=――Yahwist’s account of the leaving of the +ark has been suppressed. Noah’s first act is to offer a sacrifice, not +of thanksgiving but (as verse ²¹ shows) of propitiation: its effect is +to move the Deity to gracious thoughts towards the new humanity. The +resemblance to the Babylonian parallel is here particularly close and +instructive (see page 177): the incident appears also in the Greek +and Indian legends.――=20.= _an altar_] Literally ‘slaughtering-place.’ +The sacrificial institution is carried back by Yahwist to the remotest +antiquity (see on 4³ ᶠᐧ 7² ᶠᐧ), but this is the first mention of +the altar, and also of sacrifice by fire: see page 105 above.――עֹלֹת] +_holocausts_,――that form of sacrifice which was wholly consumed on the +altar, and which was naturally resorted to on occasions of peculiar +solemnity (_e.g._ 2 Samuel 24²⁵).――=21.= _smelled the soothing odour_] +רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (κνίση, _nidor_)¹ becomes a technical term of the Levitical +ritual, and is never mentioned elsewhere except in Priestly-Code and +Ezekiel. This, Gunkel points out, is the only place where Yahwe is +actually described as _smelling_ the sacrifice; but compare 1 Samuel +26¹⁹. It is probably a refinement of the crude eudæmonism of the +Babylonian story (see page 177 below); and it is doubtful how far +it elucidates primitive Hebrew ideas of the effect of sacrifice. +That “the pleasing odour is not the motive but merely the occasion of +this gracious purpose” (Knobel), may be sound theology, but it hardly +expresses the idea of the passage.――=21b= is a monologue (אֶל־לִבּוֹ).――כִּי יֵצֶר +וגו׳ (see on 6⁵) may be understood either as epexegetical of בַּֽעֲבוּר הָאָדָם (a +reason why Yahwe _might_ be moved to curse the ground, though he will +not [Holzinger]), or as the ground of the promise _not_ to visit the +earth with a flood any more. The latter is by far the more probable. +The emphasis is on מִנְּעֻרָיו, _from his youth_; the innate sinfulness of man +constitutes an appeal to the divine clemency, since it cannot be cured +by an undiscriminating judgement like the Flood, which arrests all +progress toward better things (compare Isaiah 54⁹).――=22.= The pledge +of Yahwe’s patience with humanity is the regularity of the course of +nature, in which good and bad men are treated alike (Matthew 5⁴⁵). A +division of the year into six seasons (Rashi), or even into two halves +(Delitzsch), is not intended; the order of nature is simply indicated +by a series of contrasts, whose alternation is never more to be +interrupted by a catastrophe like the Flood. This assurance closes +Yahwist’s account of the Deluge. It rests on an interior resolve of +Yahwe; whereas in Priestly-Code it assumes the form of a ‘covenant’ +(9¹¹),――a striking instance of the development of religious ideas in +the direction of legalism: compare Jeremiah 31³⁵ ᶠᐧ 33²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᐧ. + + ¹ _Iliad_ i. 317: κνίση δ’ οὐρανὸν ἷκεν ἑλισσομένη περὶ καπνῷ; + compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ xii. 153. + + * * * * * + + =20.= ליהוה] LXX τῷ θεῷ.――=21.= יהוה] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός (_bis_).――ריח + הניחח] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)――conflate?――לְקַלֵּל] a different + verb from that used in 3¹⁷ 4¹¹ 5²⁹ (ארר). Holzinger points out + that Piel of קלל is never used with God as subject (compare + Genesis 12³); and for this and other reasons regards ²¹ᵃ as + an unskilful attempt to link the Noah of the Flood with the + prophecy of 5²⁹. But ²¹ᵃ can only refer to the Flood, while + the curse of 5²⁹ belongs to the past: moreover, an interpolator + would have been careful to use the same verb. The sense given + to קִלֵּל is fully justified by the usage of Pual (Psalms 37²², + Job 24¹⁸, Isaiah 65²⁰).――בעבור] LXX διὰ τὰ ἔργα, as 3¹⁷.――כי יצר וגו׳] + LXX ὅτι ἔγκειται ἡ διάνοια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιμελῶς κτλ. See on + 6⁵.――=22.= עֹד] LXX omitted; Ball, עַד――.ישבתו] ‘come to an end’: + see on 2². + + * * * * * + + + _The Flood according to Priestly-Code._ + +=VI. 9‒12. Noah’s piety; The corruption of the earth.=――=9.= _This is +the genealogy of Noah_] The formula is usually taken as the heading +of the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the Flood; but see on +9²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――Noah is characterised as _righteous_ (צַדִּיק) and _faultless_ +(תָּמִים): on the construction _v.i._ There is perhaps a correspondence +between these two epithets and the description of the state of the +world which follows; צדיק being opposed to the ‘violence,’ and תמים +to the ‘corruption’ of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ. צדיק, a forensic term, denotes one +whose conduct is unimpeachable before a judge; תמים is sacerdotal in +its associations (Exodus 12⁵, Leviticus 1³ etc.), meaning ‘free from +defect,’ _integer_ (compare 17¹).――_in his generations_ (_v.i._)] +_i.e._ alone among his contemporaries (compare 7¹). That Noah’s +righteousness was only relative to the standard of his age is not +implied.¹――_walked with God_] see on 5²². The expression receives a +fuller significance from the Babylonian legend, where Ut-napištim, like +the Biblical Enoch, is translated to the society of the gods (page 177 +below).――=11 f.= וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה] is the intentional antithesis to the וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד +of 1³¹ (Delitzsch).――_All flesh had corrupted its way_] had violated +the divinely-appointed order of creation. The result is _violence_ +(חָמָס, LXX ἀδικία)――ruthless outrage perpetrated by the strong on the +weak. A “nature red in tooth and claw with ravin” is the picture which +rises before the mind of the writer; although, as has been already +remarked (page 129), the narrative of Priestly-Code contains no +explanation of the change which had thus passed over the face of the +world. + + ¹ So Jerome: “ut ostenderet non juxta justitiam consummatam, + sed juxta generationis suæ eum justum fuisse justitiam.” + + The fundamental idea of verse ¹¹ ᶠᐧ is the disappearance of the + Golden Age, or the rupture of the concord of the animal world + established by the decree of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. The lower animals contribute + their share to the general ‘corruption’ by transgressing the + regulation of 1³⁰, and commencing to prey upon each other and + to attack man (see 9⁵): so Rashi. To restrict כל־בשר to mankind + (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, Strack, Driver, Bennett al.) is therefore + unnecessary and unwarranted. The phrase properly denotes ‘all + living beings,’ and is so used in 8 out of the 13 occurrences in + Priestly-Code’s account of the Flood (Driver _ad loc._). In 6¹⁹ + 7¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ 8¹⁷ it means animals apart from man; but that in the same + connexion it should also mean mankind apart from animals is not + to be expected, and could only be allowed on clear evidence.――The + difference of standpoint between Priestly-Code and Yahwist (6⁵) + on this matter is characteristic. + + * * * * * + + =9.= צדיק תמים] (so Job 12⁴). The asyndeton is harsh; but it is + hardly safe to remedy it on the authority of _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ (ותמים) and Vulgate, against LXX. + To remove צדיק as a gloss from Yahwist (7¹) (Ball) is too bold. + Perhaps the sentence should be broken up into two clauses, one + nominal and the other verbal: ‘Noah was a righteous man; perfect + was he,’ etc.――The forensic sense of צדיק given above may not + be the original: see S. A. Cook, _The Journal of Theological + Studies_, ix. 632¹, who adduces some evidence that it meant what + was ‘due’ among a definite social group, and between it and its + gods.――בְּדֹרֹתָיו] LXX ἐν τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ. The feminine plural is + highly characteristic of Priestly-Code (Holzinger _Einleitung + in den Hexateuch_ 341); but apparently always as a _real_ plural + (series of generations): contrast the solitary use of singular + in Priestly-Code, Exodus 1⁶. Here, accordingly, it seems fair + to understand it, not of the individual contemporaries of + Noah (Tuch, Wellhausen, Holzinger, al.), but of the successive + generations covered by his lifetime. The resemblance to צדיק בדור הזה + (7¹) is adduced by Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte + Israels_⁶ 390) as a proof of Priestly-Code’s dependence + on Yahwist.――=11.= הָאלהים] One of the few instances of + Priestly-Code’s use of the article with א׳――=12.= אלהים] LXX + Κύριος ὁ θεός. + + * * * * * + +=13‒16. Directions for building the ark.=――=13.= Announcement in +general terms of some vast impending catastrophe, involving _the end +of all flesh_ (all living beings, as verse ¹²).――=14‒16.= Description +of the Ark.――_An Ark_ (chest) _of gopher wood_] probably some resinous +wood. In Hebrew תֵּבָה is used only of Noah’s ark and the vessel in which +Moses was saved (Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵); the name _ark_ comes to us through +Vulgate (_arca_), where, however, it is also applied to the ark of the +testimony (Exodus 25¹⁰ etc.). The Babylonian Flood-narrative has the +ordinary word for ship (_elippu_).――The vessel is to consist internally +of _cells_ (literally ‘nests’), and is to be coated inside and out with +_bitumen_ (compare Exodus 2³). Somewhat similar details are given of +the ship of Ut-napištim (page 176). Asphalt is still lavishly applied +in the construction of the rude boats used for the transport of naphtha +on the Euphrates (see Cernik, quoted by Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, +27).――=15.= Assuming that the _cubit_ is the ordinary Hebrew cubit +of six handbreadths (about 18 inches: see Kennedy, _A Dictionary of +the Bible_, iv. 909), the dimensions of the ark are such as modern +shipbuilding has only recently exceeded (see Bennett 140); though it +is probably to be assumed that it was rectangular in plan and sections. +That a vessel of these proportions would float, and hold a great +deal (though it would not carry cannon!), it hardly needed the famous +experiment of the Dutchman Peter Janson in 1609‒21 to prove (see +Michaelis, _Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek_ xviii. 27 +f.).――=16.= The details here are very confused and mostly obscure. The +word צֹהַר (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) is generally rendered ‘light’ or ‘opening +for light,’――either a single (square) aperture (Tuch), or “a kind of +casement running round the sides of the ark (except where interrupted +by the beams supporting the roof) a little below the roof” (Driver, so +Delitzsch, Dillmann, al.). Exegetical tradition is in favour of this +view; but the material arguments for it (see Dillmann 141) are weak, +and its etymological basis is doubtful (_v.i._). Others (Ewald, Gunkel, +Gesenius-Buhl al.) take it to mean the _roof_ (literally ‘back’: +Arabic _ẓahr_).¹ The clause _and to a cubit thou shalt finish it above_ +is unintelligible as it stands: some suggestions are given in the +footnote.――The _door_ of the ark is to be _in its_ (longer?) _side_; +and the cells inside are to be arranged in three stories. The ship +of Ut-napištim appears to have had six decks, divided into nine +compartments (lines 61‒63). + + ¹ According to Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. + 1, 487), the Babylonian ark had a dome-shaped roof (_muḫḫu_). + + * * * * * + + =13.= בָּא לְפָנַי] not (as Esther 9¹¹) ‘has come to my knowledge,’ + but ‘has entered into my purpose.’ This is better than (with + Dillmann) to take קֵץ בָּא absolutely (as Amos 8²), and לפני as + ‘according to my purpose.’――מִפְּנֵיהֶם] _through them_; Exodus 8²⁰ 9¹¹, + Judges 6⁶ etc.――[מַשְׁחִיתָם] את־הארץ LXX καὶ τὴν γῆν; Vulgate _cum + terra_; so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. As Olshausen says, + we should expect מֵעַל ה׳ (מֵאֵת [Graetz] is unsuitable). But the error + probably lies deeper. Ball emends מַשְׁחִית אֹתָם וִאֵת־ה׳; Budde מַשְׁחִיחָם כי [הם] + מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה׳; Gunkel וְהִנָּם מַשְׁחִיתִם את־ה. Eerdmans (_Alttestamentliche + Studien_, i. 29) finds a proof of original polytheism. He + reads הִנֶנּוּ מַשְׁחִיתִם וגו׳: “we [the gods] are about to destroy the + earth.”――=14.= תֵּבָה] LXX, Peshiṭtå κιβωτὸς; ♦Targum תיבותא. The word + is the Egyptian _ṭeb(t)_ = ‘chest,’ ‘sarcophagus’ (θίβις, θίβη, + in LXX of Exodus 2³ᐧ ⁵): see Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus + criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_; Erman, + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlvi. + 123. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 272 f.), while + admitting the Egyptian etymology, suggests a connexion with + the Assyrian _ilippu ṭí-bi-tum_ (a kind of ship). I am informed + by Dr. C. H. W. Johns that while the word is written as the + determinative for ‘ship,’ it is not certain that it was + pronounced _elippu_. He thinks it possible that it covers the + word _tabû_, found in the phrase _ta-bi-e Bêl ilâni Marduk_ + (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ 699 a), which he is + inclined to explain of the processional barques of the gods. If + this conjecture be correct, we may have here the Babylonian + original of Hebrew תֵּבָה. See _Cambridge Biblical Essays_ + (1909), page 37 ff.――עֲצֵי־גֹפֶר] The old translators were evidently + at a loss: LXX (ἐκ) ξύλων τετραγώνων; Vulgate _(de) lignis + lævigatis_; Jerome _ligna bituminata_: the word being ἅπαξ + λεγόμενον. Lagarde (_Semitica_ i. 64 f.; _Symmicta_ ii. 93 f.) + considered it a mistaken contraction from גָפְרִית (brimstone), + or rather a foreign word of the same form which meant + originally ‘pine-wood.’ Others (Bochart, al.) suppose it to + contain the root of κυπάρισσος, ‘cypress,’ a wood used by the + Phœnicians in shipbuilding, and by the Egyptians for sarcophagi + (Delitzsch).――קִנִּים] Lagarde’s conjecture, קנים קנים (_Onomastica + Sacra_¹, ii. 95), has been happily confirmed from Philo, + _Quaestiones in Genesis_ ii. 3 (_loculos loculos_: see Budde + 255), and from a Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Nestle, cited by + Holzinger). On the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_.――כֹּפֶר] + also ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, = ‘bitumen’ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ), Arabic _ḳufr_, Aramaic כופרא Assyrian _kupru_ + (used in the Babylonian Flood-story). The native Hebrew word + for ‘bitumen’ is חֵמָר (11³ 14¹⁰, Exodus 2³).――=15.= אֹתָהּ] LXX + אָת־הַתֵּבָה.――=16.= צֹהַר] LXX ἐπισυνάγων (reading צֹבֵר?); all other + versions express the idea of _light_ (Aquila μεσημβρινόν, + Symmachus διαφανές, Vulgate _fenestram_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac + word), ‘windows,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ניהור). They connected it (as + Aquila shows) with צָֽהֳרַיִם, ‘noon day’; but _if_ צהרים means properly + ‘summit’ (see Gesenius-Buhl; Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v. _), + there seems nothing in Hebrew to connect the root with the + idea of light. The meaning ‘back’ is supported by Arabic + _ẓahr_.――ואל־אמה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מלמעלה] The suffix may refer either to the צהר + (whose gender is unknown: compare König _Historisch-comparative + Syntax der hebräischen Sprache_ page 163) or to the תֵּבָה: the + latter is certainly most natural after כִּלָּה. The prevalent + explanation――that the cubit indicates either the breadth of the + light-opening, or its distance below the roof (see Dillmann)――is + mere guess-work. Budde (following Wellhausen) removes the first + three words to the end of the verse, rendering: “and according + to the cubit thou shalt finish it (the ark)”: Dillmann objects + that this would require הָאמה. Ball reads וְאֶל־אָרְכָּהּ תְכַסֶּנָּה מל׳, “and for + its (the ark’s) whole length thou shalt cover it above”; Gunkel: + ואל־א׳ תְּגֻלֶּנָה, “and on a pivot (see Isaiah 6⁴) thou shalt make it (the + roof) revolve,”――a doubtful suggestion. + + ♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed + + * * * * * + +=17‒22. The purpose of the ark.=――Gunkel thinks that verse ¹⁷ +commences a second communication to Noah; and that in the source from +which Priestly-Code drew, the construction of the ark was recorded +before its purpose was revealed (as in the parallel account of Yahwist: +see on 7¹). That, of course, is possible; but that Priestly-Code +slurred over the proof of Noah’s faith because he had no interest in +_personal_ religion can hardly be supposed. There is really nothing +to suggest that ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ are not the continuation of ¹³⁻¹⁶.――=17.= +_Behold I am about to bring the Flood_] הַמַּבּוּל: see above on 7⁷ +(Yahwist), and in the Note below.――=18.= _I will establish my covenant, +etc._] anticipating 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Delitzsch and Gunkel distinguish the two +covenants, taking that here referred to as a special pledge to Noah +of safety in the coming judgement; but that is contrary to the usage +of Priestly-Code, to whom the בְּרִית is always a solemn and permanent +embodiment of the divine will, and never a mere occasional provision +(Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 197 f.). +The entering of the ark is therefore not the condition to be fulfilled +by Noah _under_ the covenant, but the condition which makes the +establishment of the promised covenant possible (Holzinger).――_Thou +and thy sons, etc._] The enumeration is never omitted by Priestly-Code +except in 8¹; compare 7¹³ 8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸: contrast Yahwist in 7¹.――=19 f.= One +pair of each species of animals (fishes naturally excepted) is to be +taken into the ark. The distinction of clean and unclean kinds belongs +on the theory of Priestly-Code to a later dispensation――=20.= The +classification (which is repeated with slight variations in 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹ +9² ᶠᐧ ¹⁰) here omits wild beasts (חַיָּה): _v.i._ on verse ¹⁹.――יָבֹאוּ does not +necessarily imply that the animals came of themselves (Rashi, Abraham +Ibn Ezra, al.), any more than תָּבִיא (verse ¹⁹) necessarily means that +Noah had to catch them.――=21.= _all food which is_ (or _may be_) +_eaten_] according to the prescriptions of 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=22.= _so did +he_] the pleonastic sentence is peculiar to Priestly-Code; compare +especially Exodus 40¹⁶ (also Exodus 7⁶ 12²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ 39³²ᐧ ⁴² ᶠᐧ, Numbers 1⁵⁴, +and often). + + * * * * * + + =17.= ואני הנני] compare Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xi. + 226.――המבול מַיִם (compare 7⁶)] The מים is certainly superfluous + grammatically, but על־הארץ is necessary to the completeness + of the sentence. LXX omits מים in 7⁶, and inserts it in + 9¹¹ᵇ (Priestly-Code). Whether it be an explanatory gloss of + the unfamiliar מבול (so most), or a peculiar case of nominal + apposition (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in + Hebrew_ § 188), it is difficult to decide: on the idea that it + is meant to distinguish the water-flood from the light-flood, + see above, page 154. The pointing מִיָּם (Michaelis al.) is + objectionable on various grounds: for one thing, Priestly-Code + never speaks of the Flood as coming ‘from the sea.’ Yahwist’s + phrase is מי המבול: 7⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; compare 9¹¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code).――לְשֶׂחֵת] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, לשחית; but elision + of ה in Hiphil is unusual: some Samaritan MSS have לחשחית + (Ball).――יִגְוַע] ‘expire,’――peculiar to Priestly-Code in Hexateuch. + (compare 7²¹ 25⁸ᐧ ¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49³³,――12 total in all); elsewhere + only in poetry (Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ + 341).――=19.= הָחַי] (on anomalous pointing of article, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 35 _f_ (1)). _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ reads החיה as in 8¹⁷; and so LXX, which takes + the word in the limited sense of wild animals, reading [καὶ ἀπὸ + πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν] καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων + τῶν θηρίων] (see 7¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ 8¹⁹).――שׁנים] LXX, Peshiṭtå שנים שנים as + in 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁵. So also verse ²⁰.――=20.= מכל־רמש] Inserted וְ with _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ; the וְ is necessary to the sense.――LXX has כל + before each class, but Massoretic Text rightly confines it to + the heterogeneous רמש (Holzinger). For רמש האדמה, _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX have אשר רמש על הא׳.――=21.= לאכלה] + see on 1²⁹.――=22.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός. + + * * * * * + +=VII. 6, 11, 13‒17a. Commencement of the Flood.=――These verses +(omitting ¹⁶ᵇ [Yahwist]) appear to form an uninterrupted section of +the Priestly narrative, following immediately on 6²².――=6.= Date of the +Flood by the year of Noah’s life. The number 600 is a Babylonian _ner_; +it has been thought that the statement rests ultimately on a Babylonian +tradition.――=11.= This remarkably precise date introduces a sort +of diary of the Flood, which is carried through to the end: see +below, page 167 f. Verse ⁶, though consistent with ¹¹, is certainly +rendered superfluous by it; and it is not improbable that we have +here to do with a fusion of authorities within the Priestly tradition +(page 168).――_the fountains of the Great Deep_] (תְּהוֹם רַבָּה: see on 1²). +Outbursts of subterranean water are a frequent accompaniment of seismic +disturbances in the alluvial districts of great rivers (Suess, 31‒33); +and a knowledge of this physical fact must have suggested the feature +here expressed. In accordance with ancient ideas, however, it is +conceived as an eruption of the subterranean ocean on which the earth +was believed to rest (see page 17). At the same time _the windows +of heaven were opened_] allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean +to mingle with the lower. The Flood is thus a partial undoing of +the work of creation; although we cannot be certain that the Hebrew +writer looked on it from that point of view. Contrast this grandiose +cosmological conception with the simple representation of Yahwist, who +sees nothing in the Flood but the result of excessive rain. + + Gunkel was the first to point out the poetic character and + structure of ¹¹ᵇ: note the phrase תהום רבה (Amos 7⁴, Isaiah 51¹⁰, + Psalms 36⁷), and the _parallelismus membrorum_. He considers the + words a fragment of an older version of the legend which (like + the Babylonian) was written in poetry. A similar fragment is + found in 8². + + * * * * * + + =6.= On the syntax of the time-relation, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 164 _a_.――מַיִם] see 6¹⁷.――=11.= בשנת――שנה] ‘in the year of 600 + years’; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 134 _o_.――For ‘17th day’ + LXX has ‘27th’; see page 167 below.――אֲרֻבֹּת השמים] 8², Malachi 3¹⁰, + = א׳ בשמים, 2 Kings 7²ᐧ ¹⁹ = מִמָּרוֹם, Isaiah 24¹⁸. Apart from these + phrases the word א׳ is rare, and denotes a latticed opening, + Hosea 13³, Isaiah 60⁸, Ecclesiastes 12³. Here it can only + mean ‘sluices’; the καταράκται of LXX “unites the senses of + waterfalls, trap-doors, and sluices” (Delitzsch). + + * * * * * + +=13.= _On that very day_] continuing verse ¹¹. The idea that all the +animals entered the ark on one day (Yahwist allows a week) has been +instanced as an example of Priestly-Code’s love of the marvellous +(Holzinger, Gunkel).――=14‒16.= See on 6¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=17a.= _the Flood +came upon the earth_] as a result of the upheaval, verse ¹¹.――The +words _forty days_ are a gloss based on 7⁴ᐧ ¹² (_v.i._); the Redactor +treating Yahwist’s forty days as an episode in the longer chronology: +see on verse ¹² (Yahwist). + + * * * * * + + =13.= בעצם היום הזה] 17²³ᐧ ²⁶, Exodus 12¹⁷ᐧ ⁴¹ᐧ ⁵¹, Leviticus + 23¹⁴ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁸, Joshua 5¹¹ (all + Priestly-Code); Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ + 346.――שְׁלשֶׁת] irregular gender: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 97 _c_.――אִתָּם] + Better as LXX, Peshiṭtå אִתּוֹ (8¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸).――=14.= הַחַיָּה] distinguishing + wild beasts from domestic (compare verse ²¹); see on 6¹⁹.――כל צפור + וגו׳] LXX omitted. Compare Ezekiel 17²³ 39⁴.――=17a.= ארבעים יום] Budde + (264) ingeniously suggests that the last three consonants of the + gloss ([ארבע]מים) represent the genuine מַיִם of Priestly-Code (6¹⁷ + 7⁶). LXX adds וארבעים לילה. The half-verse cannot be assigned to + Yahwist, because it would be a mere repetition of verse ¹². + + * * * * * + +=18‒21, 24. Magnitude and effect of the Flood.=――While Yahwist confines +himself to what is essential――the extinction of life――and leaves +the universality of the Flood to be inferred, Priestly-Code not only +asserts its universality, but so to speak proves it, by giving the +exact height of the waters above the highest mountains.――=18, 19.= +_prevailed_] גָּבַר, literally ‘be strong’ (LXX ἐπεκράτει, Aquila +ἐνεδυναμώθη). The Flood is conceived as a contest between the water +and the dry land.――=20.= _fifteen cubits_] is just half the depth of +the ark. The statement is commonly explained in the light of 8⁴: when +the Flood was at its height the ark (immersed to half its depth, and +therefore drawing fifteen cubits of water) was just over one of the +highest mountains; so that on the very slightest abatement of the water +it grounded! The explanation is plausible enough (on the assumption +that 8⁴ belongs to Priestly-Code); but it is quite as likely that the +choice of the number is purely arbitrary.――=24.= _150 days_] the period +of ‘prevalence’ of the Flood, reckoned from the outbreak (verse ¹¹): +see page 168. + + * * * * * + + =19.= וַיְכֻסּוּ] LXX וַיְכַסּוּ, with מַיִם as subject (better). So verse + ²⁰.――=20.= גָּבְרוּ] LXX גָּבְהוּ (ὑψώθη), is preferable to Massoretic Text + (compare Psalms 103¹¹).――הֶהָרִים] LXX (and Peshiṭtå) add τὰ ὑψηλά as + in ¹⁹.――=21.= וכל האדם] here distinguished from כל־בשר. + + * * * * * + +=VIII. 1, 2a, 3b‒5, 13a, 14. Abatement of the Flood.=――The judgement +being complete, God remembers the survivors in mercy. The Flood has +no sooner reached its maximum than it begins to abate (³ᵇ), and the +successive stages of the subsidence are chronicled with the precision +of a calendar.――=1.= _remembered_] in mercy, as 19²⁹ 30²² etc. The +inclusion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty is a +touch of nature in Priestly-Code which should not be overlooked.――=1b.= +The mention of the wind ought certainly to follow the arrest of the +cause of the Deluge (²ᵃ). It is said in defence of the present order +that the sending of the wind and the stopping of the elemental waters +are regarded as simultaneous (Dillmann); but that does not quite meet +the difficulty. See, further, page 155 above.――=3b.= _at the end of the +150 days_] (7²⁴). See the footnote.――=4.= The resting of the ark.――_on +(one of) the mountains of ’Ărārāṭ_] which are probably named as the +highest known to the Hebrews at the time of writing; just as one form +of the Indian legend names the Himalayas, and the Greek, Parnassus. +Araraṭ (Assyrian _Urarṭu_) is the North-east part of Armenia; compare +2 Kings 19³⁷ = Isaiah 37³⁸, Jeremiah 51²⁷. The name _Mount_ Araraṭ, +traditionally applied to the highest peak (Massis, Agridagh: _c._ 17, +000 feet) of the Armenian mountains, rests on a misunderstanding of +this passage. + + The traditions regarding the landing-place of the ark are fully + discussed by Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² ii. 1 ff.: + compare Tuch 133‒136; Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des + Alte Testament_ 145 ff.――The district called Araraṭ or Urarṭu + is properly that named in Armenian _Ayrarat_, and is probably + identical with the country of the Alarodians of Herodotus iii. + 94, vii. 79. It is the province of Armenia lying North-east of + Lake Van, including the fertile plain watered by the Araxes, on + the right (South-west) side of which river Mt. Massis rises.¹ + Another tradition, represented by Berossus (page 177 below) and + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ Peshiṭtå קַרְדּוּ², locates the mountain in Kurdistan, + viz. at Ǧebel Ǧûdî, which is a striking mountain South-west of + Lake Van, commanding a wide view over the Mesopotamian plain. + This view is adopted in the Koran (Surah xi. 46), and has + become traditional among the Moslems.――The ‘mountain of Niṣir’ + of the cuneiform legend lies still further south, probably + in one of the ranges between the Lower Zab and the next + tributary to the South, the Adhem (Radânu) (Streck, _Zeitschrift + für Assyriologie_, xv. 272). Tiele and Kosters, however + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 289), identify it with Elburz, the + sacred mountain of the Iranians (South of the Caspian Sea); and + find a trace of this name in the μέγα ὄρος κατὰ τὴν Ἀρμενίαν + Βάρις λεγόμενον indicated as the mountain of the ark by Nicolaus + Damascenus (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 95).――What + the original Hebrew tradition was, it is impossible to say. The + writers just named conjecture that it was identical with the + Babylonian, Araraṭ being here a corruption of _Hara haraiti_ + (the ancient Iranian name of Elburz), which was afterwards + confused with the land of Urarṭu. Nöldeke and Holzinger think + it probable that Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ and Peshiṭtå preserve the oldest + name (Ḳardu), and that Araraṭ is a correction made when it was + discovered that the northern mountains are in reality higher + than those of Kurdistan. + + ¹ “Ararat regio in Armenia campestris est, per quam Araxes + fluit, incredibilis ubertatis, ad radices Tauri montis, qui + usque illuc extenditur.” Jerome on Isaiah 37³⁸. + + ² Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has both קרדוניא and ארמניא, as has Berossus. + + * * * * * + + =1.= The addition of LXX καὶ παντῶν τῶν πετεινῶν καὶ παντῶν + τῶν ἑρπετῶν is here very much in place.――וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ] The √ is rare + and late: Numbers 17²⁰ (Priestly-Code), Jeremiah 5²⁶, Esther 2¹ + 7¹⁰.――=3b.= מקצה חמשים] Read מקץ החמשים (Strack, Holzinger, Gunkel). + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ מקץ ח׳.――=4.= For 17th + LXX has 27th (7¹¹). + + * * * * * + +=5.= _the tops of the mountains_] _i.e._ (as usually explained) the +other (lower) mountains. The natural interpretation would be that +the statement is made absolutely, from the viewpoint of an imaginary +spectator; in which case it is irreconcilable with verse ⁴ (compare +Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ +16 f.).――=13a, 14.= On New Year’s day the earth’s surface was +uncovered, though still moist; but not till the 27th of the 2nd month +was it _dry_ (_arefacta_: compare Jeremiah 50³⁸). + + * * * * * + + =5.= היו הלוך וחסור] ‘went on decreasing’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 113 _u_); less idiomatic than ³ᵃ (Yahwist).――_Tenth_] LXX + _eleventh_.――=13a.= After שנה LXX adds לחיי נח (7¹¹). + + * * * * * + +=15‒19. Exit from the ark: blessing on the animals.=――=17b.= A renewal +of the benediction of 1²², which had been forfeited by the excesses +before the Flood. The corresponding blessing on man is reserved +for 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=19.= The animals leave the ark _according to their +families_,――an example of Priestly-Code’s love of order. + + The _Chronology of the Flood_ presents a number of intricate + though unimportant problems.――The Dates, according to Massoretic + Text and LXX,¹ are as follows: + + 1. Commencement of Flood, 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day + (LXX 27th) + + 2. Climax (resting of ark), 600th year, 7th month, 17th day + (LXX 27th) + + 3. Mountain tops visible, 600th year, 10th (LXX 11th) month, + 1st day + + 4. Waters dried up 601st year, 1st month, 1st day + + 5. Earth dry 601st year, 2nd month, 27th day + + ¹ _Jubilees_ v. 23‒32 (compare vi. 25 f.) adds several dates, + but otherwise agrees with Massoretic Text, except that it + makes the Flood commence on the 27th, gives no date for the + resting of the ark, and puts the drying of the earth on the + 17th, and the opening of the ark on the 27th day of the 2nd + month. + + The chief points are these: (a) In LXX the duration of the Flood + is exactly 12 months; and since the 5 months between (1) and + (2) amount to 150 days (7²⁴ 8³), the basis of reckoning is + presumably the Egyptian _solar_ year (12 months of 30 days + 5 + intercalated days). The 2 months’ interval between (3) and (4) + also agrees, to a day, with the 40 + 21 days of 8⁶⁻¹² (Yahwist). + In Massoretic Text the total duration is 12 months + 10 days; + hence the reckoning appears to be by _lunar_ months of _c._ 29½ + days, making up a solar year of 364 days.¹――(b) The Massoretic + scheme, however, produces a discrepancy with the 150 days; for + 5 lunar months fall short of that period by two or three days. + Either the original reckoning was by solar months (as in LXX), + or (what is more probable) the 150 days belong to an older + computation independent of the Calendar.² It has been surmised + that this points to a 10 months’ duration of the Flood (150 + days’ increase + 150 days’ subsidence); and (Ewald, Dillmann) + that a trace of this system remains in the 74 days’ interval + between (2) and (3), which amounts to about one-half of the + period of subsidence.――(c) Of the separate data of the Calendar + no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. The only date + that bears its significance on its face is the disappearance of + the waters on the 1st day of the year; and even this is confused + by the trivial and irrelevant distinction between the drying up + of the waters and the drying of the earth. Why the Flood began + and ended in the 2nd month, and on the 17th or 27th day, remains, + in spite of all conjectures, a mystery.³ (d) The question + whether the months are counted from the old Hebrew New Year + in the autumn, or, according to the post-Exilic (Babylonian) + calendar, from the spring, has been discussed from the earliest + times, and generally decided in favour of the former view + (_Jubilees_, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 80, + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, and most).⁴ The arguments on one side + or the other have little weight. If the second autumn month + (Marchešwan) is a suitable time for the commencement of the + Flood, because it inaugurates the rainy season in Palestine + and Babylonia, it is for the same reason eminently unsuitable + for its close. Priestly-Code elsewhere follows the Babylonian + calendar, and there is no reason to suppose he departs from + his usual procedure here (so Tuch, Gunkel, al.).――(e) The only + issue of real interest is how much of the chronology is to + be attributed to the original Priestly Code. If there be two + discordant systems in the record, the 150 days might be the + reckoning of Priestly-Code, and the Calendar a later adjustment + (Dillmann); or, again, the 150 days might be traditional, and + the Calendar the work of Priestly-Code himself (Gunkel). On + the former (the more probable) assumption the further question + arises whether the additions were made before or after the + amalgamation of Yahwist and Priestly-Code. The evidence is not + decisive; but the divergences of LXX from Massoretic Text seem + to prove that the chronology was still in process of development + after the formation of the Canon.――See Dahse, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxviii. 7 ff., where it is + shewn that a group of Greek MSS agree closely with _Jubilees_, + and argued (but unconvincingly) that the original reckoning + was a solar year, beginning and ending with the 27th of the + 2nd month. + + ¹ So _Jubilees_ vi. 32. Compare Charles’s Notes, pages 54 f. + and 56 f. + + ² That it is a later redactional addition (Holzinger) is much + less likely. + + ³ King (_The Journal of Theological Studies_, v. 204 f.) points + out the probability that in the triennial cycle of Synagogue + readings the Parasha containing the Flood-story fell to be + read _about_ the 17th Iyyar. This might conceivably have + suggested the starting-point of the Calendar (but if so it + would bring down the latter to a somewhat late period), or + a modification of an original 27th (LXX), which, however, + would itself require explanation. + + ⁴ See Delitzsch 175 f., 183, 184; Dillmann 129 f. + + * * * * * + + =15.= אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός.――=17.= _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå read וְכל־החיה; so verse ¹⁹.――הוצא] + Why Qrê substitutes in this solitary instance הַיְצֵא is not clear: + see König i. page 641.――וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ] LXX וּפְרוּ וּרְבוּ (Improved), omitting + the previous ושרצו בארץ. This is perhaps the better text: see on + 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ Vulgate reads the whole as Improved.――=19.= כל־הרמש――רמש] + LXX (better) וכל־הבהמה וכל־העוף וכל הרֶפֶשׂ הרֹמֵשׂ.――למשפחתיהם] (Jeremiah 15³); + the plural of מין (Priestly-Code’s word in chapter 1) is not in + use (Holzinger). + + * * * * * + +=IX. 1‒7. The new world-order.=――The religious significance of the +Flood to the mind of the Priestly writers appears in this and the +following sections. It marks the introduction of a new and less ideal +age of history, which is that under which mankind now lives. The +original harmonious order of nature, in which all forms of slaughter +were prohibited, had been violated by both men and animals before the +Flood (see on 6¹¹ ᶠᐧ). This is now replaced by a new constitution, in +which the slaughter of animals for human food is legalised; and only +two restrictions are imposed on the bloodthirsty instincts of the +degenerate creatures: (1) Man may not eat the ‘life’ of an animal, and +(2) human blood may not be shed with impunity either by man or beast. + + The Rabbinical theologians were true to the spirit of + the passage when they formulated the idea of the ‘Noachic + commandments,’ binding on men generally, and therefore required + of the ‘proselytes of the gate’; though they increased their + number. See Schürer, iii. 128 f. + + Verses ¹⁻⁷, both in substance and expression (compare לכם יהיה לאכלה, + נתתי לכם את־כל, and especially ירק עשב), form a pendant to 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ We + have seen (page 35) that these verses are supplementary to the + cosmogony; and the same is true of the present section in + relation to the story of the Flood. It does not appear to be + an integral part of the Deluge tradition; and has no parallel + (as verses ⁸⁻¹⁶ have) in Yahwist or the Babylonian narrative + (Gunkel). But that neither this nor 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ is a secondary addition + to Priestly-Code is clear from the phraseology here, which is + moulded as obviously on 1²²ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ as on 1²⁹ ᶠᐧ. To treat 9⁴⁻⁶ + as a later insertion (Holzinger) is arbitrary. On the contrary, + the two passages represent the characteristic contribution of + Priestly-Code to the ancient traditions. + +=1.= An almost verbal repetition of 1²⁸. The wives of Noah and his +sons are not mentioned, women having no religious standing in the Old +Testament (so verse ⁸). It is perhaps also significant that here (in +contrast to 1²²) the animals are excluded from the blessing (though +not from the covenant――verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=2.= Man’s ‘dominion’ +over the animals is re-established, but now in the form of _fear_ and +_dread_ (compare Deuteronomy 11²⁵) towards him on their part.――_into +your hand they are given_] conveying the power of life and death +(Leviticus 26²⁵, Deuteronomy 19¹² etc.).――=3.= The central injunction: +removal of the prohibition of animal food.――_moving thing that is +alive_] an unusually vague definition of animal life.――Observe +Priestly-Code’s resolute ignoring of the distinction between clean +and unclean animals.――=4.= The first restriction. Abstention from +eating blood, or flesh from which the blood has not been drained, is +a fundamental principle of the Levitical legislation (Leviticus 7²⁷ +17¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁴); and though to our minds a purely ceremonial precept, is +constantly classed with moral laws (Ezekiel 33²⁵ ᶠᐧ etc.). The theory +on which the prohibition rests is repeatedly stated (Leviticus 17¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴, +Deuteronomy 12²³): the blood is the life, and the life is sacred, and +must be restored to God before the flesh can be eaten. Such mystic +views of the blood are primitive and widespread; and amongst some races +formed a motive not for abstinence, but for drinking it.¹ All the same +it is unnecessary to go deeper in search of a reason for the ancient +Hebrew horror of eating with the blood (1 Samuel 14³² ᶠᶠᐧ²).――=5, 6.= +The second restriction: sanctity of human life. ‘Life’ is expressed +alternately by דָּם and נֶפֶשׁ.――On לנפשתיכם, _v.i._――_I will require_] exact +an account of, or equivalent for (42²², Ezekiel 33⁶, Psalms 9¹³ etc.). +That God is the avenger of blood is to Yahwist (chapter 4) a truth of +nature; to Priestly-Code it rests on a positive enactment.――_from the +hand of every beast_] see Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ.――=6a= is remarkable for its +assonances and the perfect symmetry of the two members: שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם | בָּאָדָם +דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ. It is possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become +proverbial (Gunkel). The ♦Targum (_v.i._) read into the text the +idea of judicial procedure; others (Tuch, al.) suppose the law of +blood-revenge to be contemplated. In reality the manner of execution +is left quite indefinite.――=6b.= The reason for the higher value set on +the life of man. On the _image of God_ see on 1²⁶ ᶠᐧ.――=7.= The section +closes, as it began, with the note of benediction. + + ¹ See _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 234 f.; + Frazer, _The Golden Bough_², i. 133 f., 352 f.; Kennedy, + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1544. + + ² It has been thought that the offence warned against is the + barbarous African custom of eating portions of animals still + alive (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, Delitzsch, al.); but that is a + mistake. + + ♦ duplicate word “Targum” removed + + * * * * * + + =1.= LXX adds at end καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς, as 1²⁸.――=2.= + בכל――ובכל] LXX, Peshiṭtå ובכל (_bis_). The בְּ cannot be that of + specification (7²¹ 8¹⁷ 9¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁶ etc.), since no comprehensive + category precedes; yet it is harsh to take it as continuing + the sense of על (LXX), and not altogether natural to render + ‘along with’ (Dillmann).――נִתָּנוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ LXX נְתַתִּיו:――=3.= נתתי לכם את־כל] seems a slavish repetition + from 1²⁹. We should at least expect the article, which _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (הכל) supplies.――=4.= + דמו is an explanatory apposition (if not a gloss) to בנפשו; but + LXX renders ἐν αἵματι ψυχῆς, and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), + Symmachus (οὗ σὺν ψυχῇ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) as a relative clause.――=5.= + ואך is suspicious after the preceding אך. _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ (ואת־דמכם) omits.――לנפשתיכם] usually taken as + circumscription of genitive, emphasising the suffix: ‘_your_ + blood, your own’――in contrast with the animals. It is better to + render ‘according to your persons,’ _i.e._ individually;――“dem + eloh. Sprachgebrauch entspricht distributive Fassung des ל doch + am besten” (Delitzsch).――מיד איש אחיו] ‘from the hand of one man + that of another.’ The full expression would be מיד איש את־נפש אחיו + (Olshausen); but all languages use breviloquence in the + expression of reciprocity. The construction is hardly more + difficult than in 15¹⁰ 42²⁵ᐧ ³⁵; and an exact parallel occurs + in Zechariah 7¹⁰. See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 _c_; Budde 283 ff. + The ואחיו of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, + Vulgate makes nonsense; LXX omits the previous ומיד האדם. It would + be better to move the Athnach so as to commence a new clause + with מיד איש.――=6.= באדם] Vulgate omitted; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בסהדין ממימר דיניא: + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ is still more explicit.――=7.= ורבו בה] Vulgate _et + implete eam_ (as verse ¹). Read ורדו בה after 1²⁸ (Nestle in Ball). + + * * * * * + +=8‒17. The Covenant and its Sign.=――In Priestly-Code as in Yahwist +(8²⁰⁻²²) the story of the Flood closes with an assurance that the world +shall never again be visited by such a catastrophe; and in both the +promise is absolute, not contingent on the behaviour of the creatures. +In Priestly-Code it takes the form of a covenant between God and all +flesh,――the first of two covenants by which (according to this writer) +the relations of the Almighty to His creatures are regulated. On the +content and scope of this Noachic covenant, see the concluding note, +page 173 f.――=9.= _establish my covenant_] in fulfilment of 6¹⁸. +Priestly-Code’s formula for the inauguration of the covenant is always +הֵקִים בְּרִית or נָתַן בּ׳ (17², Numbers 25¹²) instead of the more ancient and +technical כָּרַת בּ׳.――=11.= The essence of the covenant is that the earth +shall never be devastated by a Flood. Whether its idea be exhausted +by this assurance is a difficult question, on which see page 173 +below.――=12‒17.= The sign of the covenant. “In times when contracts +were not reduced to writing, it was customary, on the occasion of +solemn vows, promises, and other ‘covenant’ transactions, to appoint +a sign, that the parties might at the proper time be reminded of the +covenant, and a breach of its observance be averted. Examples in common +life: Genesis 21³⁰, compare 38¹⁷ ᶠᐧ” (Gunkel).¹ Here the sign is a +natural phenomenon――the rainbow; and the question is naturally asked +whether the rainbow is conceived as not having existed before (so +Abraham Ibn Ezra, Tuch). That is the most obvious assumption, though +not perhaps inevitable. That the laws of the refraction and reflection +of light on which the rainbow depends actually existed before the +time of Noah is a matter of which the writer may very well have been +ignorant.――For the rest, the image hardly appears here in its original +form. The brilliant spectacle of the upturned bow against the dark +background of the retreating storm naturally appeals to man as a token +of peace and good-will from the god who has placed it there; but of +this thought the passage contains no trace: the bow is set in the cloud +by God to remind Himself of the promise He has given. It would seem as +if Priestly-Code, while retaining the anthropomorphism of the primitive +conception, has sacrificed its primary significance to his abstract +theory of the covenant with its accompanying sign. On the mythological +origin of the symbol, see below.――=14‒16.= Explanation of the +sign.――¹⁴ᵇ continues ¹⁴ᵃ: _and (when) the bow appears in the cloud_; +the apodosis commencing with ¹⁵ (against Delitzsch).――The bow seems +conceived as lodged once for all in the cloud (so Abraham Ibn Ezra), +to appear at the right moment for recalling the covenant to the mind +of God.――=16.= _an everlasting covenant_] so 17⁷ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁹, Exodus 31¹⁶, +Leviticus 24⁸, Numbers 18¹⁹ 25¹³ (all Priestly-Code). + + ¹ Hence both of Priestly-Code’s covenants are confirmed by a + sign: the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision, and this by + the rainbow. + + The idealisation of the rainbow occurs in many mythologies. To + the Indians it was the battle-bow of Indra, laid aside after his + contest with the demons; among the Arabs “Kuzah shoots arrows + from his bow, and then hangs it up in the clouds” (Wellhausen + _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 311); by Homer it was + personified as Ἶρις, the radiant messenger of the Olympians + (_Iliad_ ii. 786, iii. 121; compare Ovid _Metamorphoses_ i. 270 + f.), but also regarded as a portent of war and storm (xi. 27 f., + xvii. 547 ff.). In the Icelandic Eddas it is the bridge between + heaven and earth. A further stage of idealisation is perhaps + found in the Babylonian Creation-myth, where Marduk’s bow, + which he had used against Tiamat, is set in the heavens as a + constellation. (See Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 248; Dillmann 155 f.; Gunkel 138 f.; Driver + 99).――These examples go far to prove a mythological origin of + the symbolism of this passage. It springs from the imagery of + the thunderstorm; the lightnings are Yahwe’s arrows; when the + storm is over, His bow (compare Habakkuk 3⁹⁻¹¹, Psalms 7¹³ ᶠᐧ) + is laid aside and appears in the sky as a sign that His anger + is pacified. The connexion with the Flood-legend (of which there + are several examples, though no Babylonian parallel has yet + been discovered) would thus be a later, though still ancient, + adaptation. The rainbow is only once again mentioned in Old + Testament (Ezekiel 1²⁸ הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם: but see Sirach + 43¹¹ ᶠᐧ 50⁷), and it is pointed out (by Wellhausen, al.) that + elsewhere קֶשֶׁת always denotes the bow as a weapon, never an arc + of a circle. + + With regard to the covenant itself, the most important question + theologically is whether it includes the regulations of + verses ¹⁻⁶, or is confined to the unconditional promise that + there shall no more be a flood. For the latter view there is + undoubtedly much to be said (see Valeton, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 3 f.). Verses ¹⁻⁷ + and ⁸⁻¹⁷ are certainly distinct addresses, and possibly of + different origin (page 169); and while the first says nothing + of a covenant, the second makes no reference to the preceding + stipulations. Then, the sign of the covenant is a fact + independent of human action; and it is undoubtedly the meaning + of the author that the promise stands sure whether the precepts + of ¹⁻⁷ be observed or not. On the other hand, it is difficult + to believe that Priestly-Code, to whom the ברית means so much, + should have dignified by that name the negative assurance of + verse ¹¹. In the case of the Abrahamic covenant, the ברית marks + a new ordering of the relations between God and the world, and + is capable of being observed or violated by those with whom + it is established. Analogy, therefore, is so far in favour of + including the ordinances of ¹⁻⁷ in the terms of the covenant + (so Isaiah 24⁵ ᶠᐧ). Kraetzschmar (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten + Testament_ 192 ff.) solves the difficulty by the supposition + that the idea of verses ⁸⁻¹⁷ is borrowed by Priestly-Code from + Yahwist, and represents the notion of the covenant characteristic + of that document. It is much simpler to recognise the existence + of different tendencies within the priestly school; and we + have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding + verses ¹⁻⁷ as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed + by Priestly-Code. If that be the case, it is probable that + these verses were inserted by the priestly author with the + intention of bringing under the Noachic ברית those elementary + religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding + on mankind.――On the conception of the ברית in Yahwist and + Priestly-Code, see chapters 15 and 17. + + * * * * * + + =10.= מכל] ‘as many as’; see on 6².――לכל חית הארץ] LXX omitted.――לְכל] + perhaps = ‘in short’: compare 23¹⁰, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 143 _e_. The sense of ח׳ ה׳ = ‘animals’ in general, immediately + after the same expression in the sense of ‘wild animals,’ makes + the phrase suspicious (Holzinger).――=11.= מבול] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ המבול; LXX adds מַיִם.――לשחת] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ להשחית; so verse ¹⁵.――=12.= + אלהים] LXX Κύριος ὁ θεός + (with Peshiṭtå) אל־נח.――=13.= נתתי] hardly + historic perfect (‘I have set’), but either perfect of instant + action (‘I do set’), or perfect of certainty (‘I will set’); see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_, _m_, _n_.――=14.= בענני ענן] literally + ‘when I cloud with cloud’; see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 52 _d_ and + 117 _r_.――הקשת] LXX, Vulgate קשתי; so LXX in verse ¹⁶.――=15.= + חיה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå החיה + אשר אתכם (compare verse ¹²).――=16.= לִזְכֹּר Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + לְזֵכֶר.――בין אלהים] LXX ביני. + + * * * * * + +=28, 29. The death of Noah.= + + The form of these verses is exactly that of the genealogy, + chapter 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of + the תולדת נח (6⁹). How much was included under that rubric? Does + it cover the whole of Priestly-Code’s narrative of the Flood (so + that תולדת is practically equivalent to ‘biography’), or does it + refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6¹⁰? + The conjecture may be hazarded that 6⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ 7⁶ 9²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ formed a + section of the original book of תולדת, and that into this skeleton + the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the + priestly writers (see the notes on 2⁴ᵃ). The relation of the + assumed genealogy to that of chapter 5 would be precisely that + of the תולדת of Terah (11²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) to the תולדת of Shem (11¹⁰⁻²⁶). In + each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it + opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in + each case the birth of three sons, 5³² 6¹⁰); and, finally, the + second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices. + It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham + belongs to the תולדת of Terah; that is the accepted view, and + the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on page 40 f. + Fortunately the question is of no great importance. + + * * * * * + + =29.= ויהי, Hebrew MSS (London Polyglott) and _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהיו. + + * * * * * + + + _The Deluge Tradition._ + + 1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most + interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The + wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories, + and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the + biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not + unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly + historical character of the latter.¹ On the question of the + universality of the Deluge² they have, of course, no immediate + bearing, though they frequently assert it; for it could never + be supposed that the mere occurrence of a legend in a remote + part of the globe proved that the Flood had been there. The + utmost that could be claimed is that there had been a deluge + coextensive with the primitive seat of mankind; and that the + memory of the cataclysm was carried with them by the various + branches of the race in their dispersion. But even that position, + which is still maintained by some competent writers, is attended + by difficulties which are almost insuperable. The scientific + evidence for the antiquity of man all over the world shows that + such an event (if it ever occurred) must have taken place many + thousands of years before the date assigned to Noah; and that + the tradition should have been preserved for so long a time + among savage peoples without the aid of writing is incredible. + The most reasonable line of explanation (though it cannot here + be followed out in detail) is that the great majority of the + legends preserve the recollection of local catastrophes, such as + inundations, tidal waves, seismic floods accompanied by cyclones, + etc., of which many historical examples are on record; while + in a considerable number of cases these local legends have been + combined with features due either to the diffusion of Babylonian + culture or to the direct influence of the Bible through + Christian missionaries.³ In this note we shall confine our + attention to the group of legends most closely affiliated to + the Babylonian tradition. + + ¹ Andree (_Die Flutsagen ethnographisch betrachtet_, 1891), + who has collected between eighty and ninety such stories + (of which he recognises forty-three as original and genuine, + and twenty-six as influenced by the Babylonian) points out, + _e.g._, that they are absent in Arabia, in northern and + central Asia, in China and Japan, are hardly found anywhere + in Europe (except Greece) or Africa, while the most numerous + and remarkable instances come from the American continent + (page 125 f.). The enumeration, however, must not be + considered as closed: Naville (_Proceedings of the Society + of Biblical Archæology_, 1904, 251‒257, 287‒294) claims to + have found fresh proof of an Egyptian tradition in a text + of the Book of the Dead, containing the following words: + “And further I (the god Tum) am going to deface all I have + done; this earth will become water (or an ocean) through an + inundation, as it was at the beginning” (_l.c._ page 289). + + ² On the overwhelming geological and other difficulties of + such a hypothesis, see Driver 99 f. + + ³ See Andree, _l.c._ 143 ff.; Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, + i. 18‒72 _passim_ Compare the discussion by Woods in _A + Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 17 ff.; and Driver _The Book + of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 101 ff.――Lenormant, + who once maintained the independence of the legends as + witnesses to a primitive tradition, afterwards expressed + himself with more reserve, and conceded the possibility that + the Mexican and Polynesian myths might be distant echoes of + a central legend, emanating ultimately from Babylonia (_Les + Origines de l’histoire_² i. 471 f., 488 ff.). + + 2. Of the Babylonian story the most complete version is + contained in the eleventh Tablet of the Gilgameš Epic.¹ Gilgameš + has arrived at the Isles of the Blessed to inquire of his + ancestor Utnapištim how he had been received into the society + of the gods. The answer is the long and exceedingly graphic + description of the Flood which occupies the bulk of the + Tablet. The hero relates how, while he dwelt at Šurippak on + the Euphrates, it was resolved by the gods in council to send + the Flood (_abûbu_) on the earth. Ea, who had been present at + the council, resolved to save his favourite Utnapištim; and + contrived without overt breach of confidence to convey to him + a warning of the impending danger, commanding him to build a + ship (_elippu_) of definite dimensions for the saving of his + life. The ‘superlatively clever one’ (_Atra-ḥasis_, a name of + Utnapištim) understood the message and promised to obey; and was + furnished with a misleading pretext to offer his fellow-citizens + for his extraordinary proceedings. The account of the + building of the ship (line 48 ff.) is even more obscure than + Genesis 6¹⁴⁻¹⁶: it is enough to say that it was divided into + compartments and was freely smeared with bitumen. The lading + of the vessel, and the embarking of the family and dependants + of Utnapištim (including artizans), with domestic and wild + animals, are then described (line 81 ff.); and last of all, in + the evening, on the appearance of a sign predicted by Šamaš the + sun-god, Utnapištim himself enters the ship, shuts his door, + and hands over the command to the steersman, Puzur-Bel (90 ff.). + On the following morning the storm (magnificently described in + lines 97 ff.) broke; and it raged for six days and nights, till + all mankind were destroyed, and the very gods fled to the heaven + of Anu and “cowered in terror like a dog.” + + ¹ Discovered by G. Smith, in 1872, among the ruins of + Asshurbanipal’s library; published 1873‒4; and often + translated since. See _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_², 55 ff.; Jensen _Die Kosmologie der Babylonier_, + 368 ff.; Zimmern in Gunkel’s _Schöpfung und Chaos in + Urzeit und Endzeit_, 423 ff.; Jensen _Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 116 ff. (the translation followed + below); Ball _Light from the East_, 35 ff.; Jeremias _Das + Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 228 ff.; + and the abridgments in Jastrow _The Religion of Babylonia + and Assyria_¹, 493 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 545 ff.; _Texte und Bilder_, i. 50 ff. + + “When the seventh day came, the hurricane, + the Flood, the battle-storm was stilled, + Which had fought like a (host?) of men. + The sea became calm, the tempest was still, + the Flood ceased. + When I saw the day, no voice was heard, + And the whole of mankind was turned to clay. + When the daylight came, I prayed, + I opened a window and the light fell on my face, + I knelt, I sat, and wept, + On my nostrils my tears ran down. + I looked on the spaces in the realm of the sea; + After twelve double-hours an island stood out. + At Nisir² the ship had arrived. + The mountain of Nisir stayed the ship....” + (line 130‒142). + + ² See page 166. + + This brings us to the incident of the birds (146‒155): + + “When the seventh day³ came + I brought out a dove and let it go. + The dove went forth and came back: + Because it had not whereon to stand it returned. + I brought forth a swallow and let it go. + The swallow went forth and came back: + Because it had not whereon to stand it returned. + I brought forth a raven and let it go. + The raven went forth and saw the decrease of the waters, + It ate, it ... it croaked, but returned not again.” + + ³ From the landing. + + On this Utnapištim released all the animals; and, leaving the + ship, offered a sacrifice: + + “The gods smelt the savour, + The gods smelt the goodly savour + The gods gathered like flies over the sacrificer” + (160 ff.). + + The deities then begin to quarrel, Ištar and Ea reproaching Bel + for his thoughtlessness in destroying mankind indiscriminately, + and Bel accusing Ea of having connived at the escape of + Utnapištim. Finally, Bel is appeased; and entering the ship + blesses the hero and his wife: + + “‘Formerly Utnapištim was a man; + But now shall Utnapištim and his wife be like to us + the gods: + Utnapištim shall dwell far hence at the mouth of the + streams.’ + Then they took me, and far away at the mouth of the + streams they made me dwell” (202 ff.).⁴ + + ⁴ Two fragments of another recension of the Flood-legend, + in which the hero is regularly named Atra-ḥasis, have also + been deciphered. One of them, being dated in the reign of + Ammizaduga (_circa_ 1980 B.C.), is important as proving that + this recension had been reduced to writing at so early a + time; but it is too mutilated to add anything substantial + to our knowledge of the history of the tradition (see + _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, 288‒291). The other is a + mere scrap of twelve lines, containing Ea’s instructions + to Atra-ḥasis regarding the building and entering of the + ark, and the latter’s promise to comply (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, 256‒259). See _Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_³, 551 f.――The extracts from Berossus + preserved by Eusebius present the Babylonian story in a form + substantially agreeing with that of the Gilgameš Tablets, + though with some important variations in detail. See + Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. (edited by Schoene, columns 19‒24, + 32‒34: compare Müller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_ ii. + 501 ff.). + + 3. The dependence of the biblical narrative on this ancient + Babylonian legend hardly requires detailed proof. It is somewhat + more obvious in the Yahwistic recension than in the Priestly; + but there is enough in the common substratum of the two accounts + to show that the Hebrew tradition as a whole was derived from + Babylonia. Thus both Yahwist and Priestly-Code agree with the + Babylonian story in the general conception of the Flood as a + divine visitation, its universality (so far as the human race is + concerned), the warnings conveyed to a favoured individual, and + the final pacification of the deity who had caused the Deluge. + Yahwist agrees with Babylonia in the following particulars: the + entry of the hero into the ark _after_ the premonitory rain; + the shutting of the door; the prominence of the number 7; the + episode of the birds; the sacrifice; and the effect of its + ‘savour’ on the gods. Priestly-Code has also its peculiar + correspondences (though some of these may have been in Yahwist + originally): _e.g._ the precise instructions for building the + ark; the mention of bitumen (a distinctively Babylonian touch); + the grounding of the ark on a mountain; the blessing on the + survivors.¹ By the side of this close and marked parallelism, + the material differences on which Nickel (page 185) lays + stress――viz. as to (a) the chronology, (b) the landing-place + of the ark, (c) the _details_ of the sending out of the birds, + (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Babylonian), and (e) the + name of the hero――sink into insignificance. They are, indeed, + sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between + the Hebrew writers and the Gilgameš Tablets; but they do not + weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known + to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of + the Israelites. And since we have seen (page 177) that the + Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time + usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible + to suppose that the Hebrew oral tradition had preserved an + independent recollection of the historical occurrence which + may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge + tradition.――The _differences_ between the two narratives are + on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis + narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional + traces of a poetic original (8²² in Yahwist, 7¹¹ᵇ 8²ᵃ in + Priestly-Code), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which + appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its + antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the + principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and + pathos of which only a few touches appear in Yahwist, and none + at all in Priestly-Code. The difference here is not wholly due + to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical + writers: it is characteristic of the Hebrew popular tale that it + shuns the ‘fine frenzy’ of the poet, and finds its appropriate + vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In + this we have an additional indication that the story was not + drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from + the lips of the common people; although in Priestly-Code it + has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory + of history peculiar to that document (page lx f.). The most + important divergences are naturally those which spring from + the religion of the Old Testament――its ethical spirit, and its + monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is + but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear + recognition in the hands of the Hebrew writers: the Flood is a + divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved + is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More + pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea. + The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious, + divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer + speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge + in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against + this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one + almighty and righteous God,――a Being capable of anger and pity, + and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings + with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies + the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams + of tradition. Thus in the Babylonian version the fact that + the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of + the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot + explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in Yahwist + it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gunkel page 66). + Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is + true, at all events, that the Babylonian parallel serves as a + “measure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel, + which was powerful enough to purify and transform in such a + manner the most uncongenial and repugnant features” of the pagan + myth (_ib._); and, further, that “the Flood-story of Genesis + retains to this day the power to waken the conscience of the + world, and was written by the biblical narrator with this + pædagogic and ethical purpose” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², page 252). + + ¹ See more fully Driver, page 106. + + 4. Of other ancient legends in which some traces of the Chaldean + influence may be suspected, only a very brief account can + here be given. The _Indian_ story, to which there is a single + allusion in the Vedas, is first fully recorded in the Çatapatha + Brāhmaṇa, i. 8. 1‒10.¹ It relates how Manu, the first man, + found one day in the water with which he performed his morning + ablution a small fish, which begged him to take care of it till + it should attain its full growth, and then put it in the sea. + Manu did so, and in gratitude for its deliverance the fish + warned him of the year in which the Flood would come, promising, + if he would build a ship, to return at the appointed time and + save him. When the Flood came the fish appeared with it; Manu + attached the cable of his ship to the fish’s horn, and was thus + towed to the mountain of the north, where he landed, and whence + he gradually descended as the waters fell. In a year’s time a + woman came to him, announcing herself as his daughter, produced + from the offerings he had cast into the water; and from this + pair the human race sprang. In a later form of the tradition + (Mahābhārata, iii. 187. 2 ff.),² the Babylonian affinities are + somewhat more obvious; but even in the oldest version they are + not altogether negligible, especially when we remember that + the fish (which in the Mahābhārata is an incarnation of Brahma) + was the symbol of the god Ea.³――The _Greeks_ had several + Flood-legends, of which the most widely diffused was that of + Deukalion, best known from the account of Apollodorus (i. 7. 2 + ff.).⁴ Zeus, resolved to destroy the brazen race, sends a heavy + rain, which floods the greater part of Greece, and drowns all + men except a few who escape to the mountain tops. But Deukalion, + on the advice of his father Prometheus, had prepared a chest, + loaded it with provisions, and taken refuge in it with his + wife Pyrrha. After 9 days and nights they land on Parnassus; + Deukalion sacrifices to Zeus and prays for a new race of + men: these are produced from stones which he and his wife, at + the command of the god, throw over their shoulders. The incident + of the ark seems here incongruous, since other human beings were + saved without it. It is perhaps an indication of the amalgamation + of a foreign element with local Deluge traditions.――A _Syrian_ + tradition, with some surprising resemblances to Priestly-Code + in Genesis, has been preserved by the Pseudo-Lucian (_De dea + Syra_, 12, 13). The wickedness of men had become so great that + they had to be destroyed. The fountains of the earth and the + flood-gates of heaven were opened simultaneously; the whole + world was submerged, and all men perished. Only the pious + Deukalion-Sisuthros⁵ was saved with his family in a great chest, + into which as he entered all sorts of animals crowded. When the + water had disappeared, Deukalion opened the ark, erected altars, + and founded the sanctuary of Derketo at Hierapolis. The hole + in the earth which swallowed up the Flood was shown under the + temple, and was seen by the writer, who thought it not quite + big enough for the purpose. In Usener’s opinion we have here + the Chaldean legend localised at a Syrian sanctuary, there being + nothing Greek about it except the name Deukalion.――A _Phrygian_ + localisation of the Semitic tradition is attested by the epithet + κιβωτός applied to the Phrygian Apameia (Kelainai) from the + time of Augustus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, etc.); and still more + remarkably by bronze coins of that city dating from the reign + of Septimius Severus. On these an open chest is represented, + bearing the inscription ΝΩΕ, in which are seen the figures of + the hero and his wife; a dove is perched on the lid of the ark, + and another is flying with a twig in its claws. To the left + the same two human figures are seen standing in the attitude + of prayer.⁶ The late date of these coins makes the hypothesis + of direct Jewish, or even Christian, influence extremely + probable.――The existence of a _Phœnician_ tradition is inferred + by Usener (248 ff.) from the discovery in Etruria and Sardinia + of bronze models of ships with various kinds of animals standing + in them: one of them is said to date from the 7th century B.C. + There is no extant written record of the Phœnician legend: + on Gruppe’s reconstruction from the statements of Greek + mythographers see above, page 141. + + ¹ Translated by Eggeling, _Sacred Books of the East_, + xii. 216 ff. See Usener, _Die Sintfluthsagen_ + (_Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, iii.), 25 ff. + + ² Translated by Protap Chandra Roy (Calcutta, 1884), iii. + 552 ff. See Usener, 29 ff. + + ³ Usener, however (240 ff.), maintains the entire independence + of the Indian and Semitic legends. + + ⁴ The earliest allusion is Pindar, _Olympian_ 9. 41 ff. + Compare Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ i. 244‒415; Pausanias i. 40. + 1, x. 6. 2, etc. The incident of the dove (in a peculiar + modification) appears only in Plutarch _De sollertia + animalium_ 13.――Usener, 31 ff., 244 ff. + + ⁵ Text Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σκύθεα, which Buttmann (_Mythologus_, + i. 192) ingeniously emended to Δευκαλίωνα τὸν Σισυθέα――a + modification of the Σίσιθρος of Abydenus. + + ⁶ See the reproductions in Usener, 45, and Jeremias _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_¹, 131, ²235. + + 5. There remains the question of the origin of this widespread + and evidently very popular conception of a universal Deluge. + That it embodies a common primitive tradition of an historic + event we have already seen to be improbable. If we suppose the + original story to have been elaborated in Babylonia, and to have + spread thence to other peoples, it may still be doubtful whether + we have to do “with a legend based upon facts” or “with a myth + which has assumed the form of a history.” The mythical theory + has been most fully worked out by Usener, who finds the germ + of the story in the favourite mythological image of “the god + in the chest,” representing the voyage of the sun-god across + the heavenly ocean: similar explanations were independently + propounded by Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1063 f.) and + Zimmern (_ib._ 1058 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 555). Of a somewhat different order is the + astrological theory advocated by Jeremias (249 ff.). The + Babylonian astronomers were aware that in the course of ages + the spring equinox must traverse the watery (southern) region + of the Zodiac: this, on their system, signified a submergence + of the whole universe in water; and the Deluge-myth symbolises + the safe passage of the vernal sun-god through that part of the + ecliptic.――Whatever truth there may be in these theories, it is + certain that they do not account for the concrete features of + the Chaldean legend; and if (as can hardly be denied) mythical + motives are present, it seems just as likely that they were + grafted on to a historic tradition as that the history is merely + the garb in which a solar or astral myth arrayed itself. The + most natural explanation of the Babylonian narrative is after + all that it is based on the vague reminiscence of some memorable + and devastating flood in the Euphrates valley, as to the + physical possibility of which, it may suffice to quote the + (perhaps too literal) description of an eminent geologist: “In + the course of a seismic period of some duration the water of + the Persian Gulf was repeatedly driven by earthquake shocks over + the plain at the mouth of the Euphrates. Warned by these floods, + a prudent man, Ḥasîs-adra, _i.e._ the god-fearing philosopher, + builds a ship for the rescue of his family, and caulks it with + pitch, as is still the custom on the Euphrates. The movements + of the earth increase; he flees with his family to the ship; the + subterranean water bursts forth from the fissured plain; a great + diminution in atmospheric pressure, indicated by fearful storm + and rain, probably a true cyclone, approaches from the Persian + Gulf, and accompanies the most violent manifestations of the + seismic force. The sea sweeps in a devastating flood over the + plain, raises the rescuing vessel, washes it far inland, and + leaves it stranded on one of those Miocene foot-hills which + bound the plain of the Tigris on the north and north-east below + the confluence of the Little Zab” (Eduard Suess, _The Face of + the Earth_, i. 72). See, however, the criticism of Sollas, _The + Age of the Earth_, 316. + + + IX. 18‒27. + _Noah as Vine-grower: His Curse and Blessing_ + (Yahwist). + +Noah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as the discoverer +of the culture of the vine; and the first victim to immoderate +indulgence in its fruit. This leads on to an account of the shameless +behaviour of his youngest son, and the modesty and filial feeling of +the two elder; in consequence of which Noah pronounces a curse on +Canaan and blessings on Shem and Japheth.――The Noah of verses ²⁰⁻²⁷ +almost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition from +the righteous and blameless patriarch who is the hero of the Flood. +The incident, indeed, cannot, without violating all probability, be +harmonised with the Flood-narrative at all. In the latter, Noah’s sons +are married men who take their wives into the ark (so expressly in +Priestly-Code, but the same must be presumed for Yahwist); here, on +the contrary, they are represented as minors living in the ‘tent’ with +their father; and the conduct of the youngest is obviously conceived +as an exhibition of juvenile depravity (so Dillmann, Budde, al.). +The presumption, therefore, is that verses ²⁰⁻²⁷ belong to a stratum +of Yahwist which knew nothing of the Flood; and this conclusion is +confirmed by an examination of the structure of the passage. + + First of all, we observe that in verse ²⁴ the offender is the + _youngest_ son of Noah, and in verse ²⁵ is named Canaan; while + Shem and Japheth are referred to as his _brothers_. True, in + verse ²² the misdeed is attributed to ‘Ham the father of Canaan’; + but the words חָם אֲבִי have all the appearance of a gloss intended + to cover the transition from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ to ²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; and the clause וְחָם הוּא + אֲבִי כְנַעַן in ¹⁸ᵇ can have no other purpose. Now ¹⁸ᵃ is the close of + Yahwist’s¹ account of the Flood; and ¹⁹ points forward either + to Yahwist’s list of Nations (chapter 10), or to the dispersion + of the Tower of Babel. Verses ²⁰⁻²⁷ interrupt this connexion, + and must accordingly be assigned to a separate source. That + that source is, however, still Yahwistic, is shown partly by + the language (יַהְוֶה, verse ²⁶ [in spite of אֱלֹהִים in verse ²⁷]; and + וַיָּחֶל, verse ²⁰); and more especially by the connexion with 5²⁹ + (see pages 3, 133 f.). It is clear, therefore, that a redactor + (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) has here combined two Yahwistic documents, and + sought to reduce the contradiction by the glosses in ¹⁸ᵇ and ²². + + ¹ Compare נָֽפְצָה with 10¹⁸ 11⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹; and כָּל־הָאָרֶץ (= the population + of the earth) with 11¹ᐧ ⁹ (Budde); שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹחַ with 10²⁹ 22²³ + 25⁴ (Holzinger). + +=18, 19.= Connecting verses (see above).――Noah’s sons are here for the +first time named in Yahwist, in harmony, however, with the repeated +notices of Priestly-Code (5³² 6¹⁰ 7¹³). On the names see on chapter 10 +(page 195 f.).――=20.= _Noah the husbandman was the first who planted a +vineyard_]――a fresh advance in human civilisation. The allusion to Noah +as _the_ husbandman is perplexing. If the text be right (_v.i._), it +implies a previous account of him as addicted to (perhaps the inventor +of) agriculture, which now in his hands advances to the more refined +stage of vine-growing. See the note on page 185. + + Amongst other peoples this discovery was frequently attributed + to a god (Dionysus among the Greeks, Osiris among the Egyptians), + intoxication being regarded as a divine inspiration. The + orgiastic character of the religion of the Canaanites makes it + probable that the same view prevailed amongst them; and it has + even been suggested that the Noah of this passage was originally + a Canaanitish wine-god (see Niebuhr, _Geschichte des ebräischen + Zeitalters_, 36 ff.). The native religion of Israel (like that + of Mohammed) viewed this form of indulgence with abhorrence; and + under strong religious enthusiasm the use of fermented drinks + was entirely avoided (the Nazirites, Samson, the Rechabites). + This feeling is reflected in the narrative before us, where + Noah is represented as experiencing in his own person the + full degradation to which his discovery had opened the way. It + exhibits the repugnance of a healthy-minded race towards the + excesses of a debased civilisation.――Since the vine is said to + be indigenous to Armenia and Pontus (see Delitzsch, Dillmann), + it has naturally been proposed to connect the story with the + landing of the ark in Ararat. But we have seen that the passage + has nothing to do with the Deluge-tradition; and it is more + probable that it is an independent legend, originating amidst + Palestinian surroundings. + + * * * * * + + =19.= נפצה כל־הארץ] ‘the whole (population of the) earth was + scattered.’ For the construction compare 10⁵.――נָֽפְצָה] hardly + contracted Niphal from √ פצץ [= פוץ] (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 + _dd_); but from √ נפץ, whether this be a secondary formation + from √ פוץ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 465 f.), or an independent word + (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 659). Compare 1 Samuel 13¹¹, Isaiah + 11¹² 33³.――=20.= ויחל וגו׳] compare 4²⁶ 6¹ 10⁸ 11⁶ 44¹² (Yahwist) + 41⁵⁴ (Elohist). The rendering ‘Noah commenced as a husbandman’ + (Davidson § 83, _R._ 2) is impossible on account of the article + (contrast 1 Samuel 3²): to insert להיות (Ball) does not get + rid of the difficulty. The construction with ו construct, + instead of infinitive, is very unusual (Ezra 3⁸); hence Cheyne + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3426²), following Kuenen (_Theologisch + Tijdschrift_, xviii. 147), proposes לַֽחֲרשׁ for אִישׁ: ‘Noah was the + first to plough the ground.’ That reading would be fatal to + any connexion of the section with Genesis 3, unless we suppose + a distinction between עבד (manual tillage) and חרשׁ. Strangely + enough, Rashi (on 5²⁹) repeats the Haggadic tradition that Noah + invented the ploughshare; but this is probably a conjecture + based on a comparison of 3¹⁷ with 5²⁹.¹ + + ¹ So Mr. Abrahams, in a private communication. + + * * * * * + +=21.= _uncovered himself_] the same result of drunkenness in Habakkuk +2¹⁵, Lamentations 4²¹.――=22.= There is no reason to think (with +Holzinger and Gunkel) that Canaan was guilty of any worse sin than the +_Schadenfreude_ implied in the words. Hebrew morality called for the +utmost delicacy in such matters, like that evinced by Shem and Japheth +in verse ²³――=24.= בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן cannot mean ‘his _younger_ son’ (LXX, Vulgate) +(_i.e._ as compared with Shem); still less ‘his contemptible son’ +(Rashi); or Ham’s youngest (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The conclusion is not +to be evaded that the writer follows a peculiar genealogical scheme in +which Canaan is the youngest son of Noah.――=25‒27.= Noah’s curse and +blessings must be presumed to have been legible in the destinies of +his reputed descendants at the time when the legend took shape (compare +27²⁸ ᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ 49) (on the fulfilment see the concluding note, page 186 +f.). The dominant feature is the curse on Canaan, which not only stands +first, but is repeated in the blessings on the two brothers.――=25.= The +descendants of Canaan are doomed to perpetual enslavement to the other +two branches of the human family.――_a servant of servants_] means +‘the meanest slave’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _i_).――_to his brethren_] +not the other members of the Hamitic race, but (as is clear from the +following verses) to Shem and Japheth.――=26.= _Blessed be Yahwe the +God of Shem_] The idea thus expressed is not satisfactory. To ‘bless’ +Yahwe means no more than to praise Him; and an ascription of praise to +Yahwe is only in an oblique sense a blessing on Shem, inasmuch as it +assumes a religious primacy of the Shemites in having Yahwe for their +God. Budde (294 f.) proposed to omit אֱלֹהֵי and read בְּרוּךְ יַהְוֶה שֵׁם: _Blessed +of Yahwe be Shem_ (compare 24³¹ 26²⁹ [both Yahwist]). Dillmann’s +objection, that this does not express wherein the blessing consists, +applies with quite as much force to the received text. Perhaps a +better emendation is that of Graetz בָּרֵךְ י׳ אָֽהֳלֵי שֵׁ (יְבָרֵךְ would be still more +acceptable): _[May] Yahwe bless the tents of Shem_; see the next +verse.――=27.= _May God expand_ (יַפְתְּ) _Yepheth_: a play on the name (יֶפֶת). +The use of the generic אלהים implies that the proper name יהוה was the +peculiar property of the Shemites.――_and may he dwell_] or _that he +may dwell_. The subject can hardly be God (_Jubilees_, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, +_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Nöldeke, al.), which +would convey no blessing to Japheth; the wish refers most naturally +to Japheth, though it is impossible to decide whether the expression +‘dwell in the tents of’ denotes friendly intercourse (so most) or +forcible dispossession (Gunkel). For the latter sense compare Psalms +78⁵⁵, 1 Chronicles 5¹⁰.――A Messianic reference to the ingathering +of the Gentiles into the Jewish or Christian fold (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, +Fathers, Delitzsch, al.) is foreign to the thought of the passage: +see further below. + + The question of the origin and significance of this remarkable + narrative has to be approached from two distinct points of + view.――I. In one aspect it is a culture-myth, of which the + central motive is the discovery of wine. Here, however, it + is necessary to distinguish between the original idea of the + story and its significance in the connexion of the Yahwistic + document. Read in its own light, as an independent fragment + of tradition, the incident signalises the transition from + nomadic to agricultural life. Noah, the first husbandman and + vine-grower, is a tent-dweller (verse ²¹); and this mode of life + is continued by his oldest and favoured son Shem (²⁷). Further, + the identification of husbandry and vine culture points to a + situation in which the simpler forms of agriculture had been + supplemented by the cultivation of the grape. Such a situation + existed in Palestine when it was occupied by the Hebrews. The + sons of the desert who then served themselves heirs by conquest + to the Canaanitish civilisation escaped the protracted evolution + of vine-growing from primitive tillage, and stepped into the + possession of the farm and the vineyard at once. From this point + of view the story of Noah’s drunkenness expresses the healthy + recoil of primitive Semitic morality from the licentious habits + engendered by a civilisation of which a salient feature was + the enjoyment and abuse of wine. Canaan is the prototype of the + population which had succumbed to these enervating influences, + and is doomed by its vices to enslavement at the hands of + hardier and more virtuous races.――In the setting in which it + is placed by the Yahwist the incident acquires a profounder + and more tragic significance. The key to this secondary + interpretation is the prophecy of Lamech in 5²⁹, which brings it + into close connexion with the account of the Fall in chapter 3 + (page 133). Noah’s discovery is there represented as an advance + or refinement on the tillage of the ground to which man was + sentenced in consequence of his first transgression. And the + oracle of Lamech appears to show that the invention of wine is + conceived as a _relief from the curse_. How far it is looked + on as a divinely approved mode of alleviating the monotony of + toil is hard to decide. The moderate use of wine is certainly + not condemned in the Old Testament: on the other hand, it is + impossible to doubt that the light in which Noah is exhibited, + and the subsequent behaviour of his youngest son, are meant to + convey an emphatic warning against the moral dangers attending + this new step in human development, and the degeneration to + which it may lead. + + II. In the narrative, however, the cultural motive is crossed + by an ethnographic problem, which is still more difficult to + unravel. Who are the peoples represented by the names Shem, + Japheth, and Canaan? Three points may be regarded as settled: + that Shem is that family to which the Hebrews reckoned + themselves; that Canaan stands for the pre-Israelitish + inhabitants of Palestine; and that the servitude of Canaan to + Shem at least _includes_ the subjugation of the Canaanites by + Israel in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this everything + is uncertain. The older view, which explains Shem and Japheth + in terms of the Table of Nations (chapter 10),――_i.e._ as + corresponding roughly to what we call the Semitic and Aryan + races,――has always had difficulty in discovering a historic + situation combining Japhetic dominion over the Canaanites with + a dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem.¹ To understand the + latter of an ideal brotherhood or religious bond between the two + races brings us no nearer a solution, unless we take the passage + as a prophecy of the diffusion of Christianity; and even then + it fails to satisfy the expressions of the text (Dillmann, who + explains the figure as expressing the more kindly feeling of the + Hebrew towards these races, as compared with the Canaanites).――A + number of critics, starting from the assumption that the oracles + reflect the circumstances and aspirations of the age when + the Yahwistic document originated, take Shem as simply a name + for Israel, and identify Japheth either with the Philistines + (Wellhausen, Meyer) or the Phœnicians (Budde, Stade, Holzinger). + But that the Hebrews should have wished for an enlargement of + the Philistines at their own expense is incredible; and as for + the Phœnicians, though their colonial expansion might have been + viewed with complacency in Israel, there is no proof that an + occupation of Israelitish territory on their part either took + place, or would have been approved by the national sentiment + under the monarchy. The alienation of a portion of Galilee to + the Tyrians (1 Kings 9¹¹⁻¹³) (Budde) is an event little likely + to have been idealised in Hebrew legend. The difficulties of + this theory are so great that Bertholet has proposed to recast + the narrative with the omission of Japheth, leaving Shem and + Canaan as types of the racial antipathy between the Hebrews and + Canaanites: the figure of Japheth, and the blessing on him, he + supposes to have been introduced after the time of Alexander + the Great, as an expression of the friendly feeling of the Jews + for their Hellenic conquerors.²――Gunkel’s explanation, which + is put forward with all reserve, breaks ground in an opposite + direction. Canaan, he suggests, may here represent the great wave + of Semitic migration which (according to some recent theories) + had swept over the whole of Western Asia (_circa_ 2250 B.C.), + leaving its traces in Babylonia, in Phœnicia, perhaps even in + Asia Minor,³ and of which the later Canaanites of Palestine were + the sediment. Shem is the Hebræo-Aramaic family, which appears + on the stage of history after 1500 B.C., and no doubt took + possession of territory previously occupied by Canaanites. It + is here represented as still in the nomadic condition. Japheth + stands for the Hittites, who in that age were moving down from + the north, and establishing their power partly at the cost of + both Canaanites and Arameans. This theory hardly explains the + peculiar contempt and hatred expressed towards Canaan; and + it is a somewhat serious objection to it that in 10¹⁵ (which + Gunkel assigns to the same source as 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ) Heth is the _son_ + of Canaan. A better defined background would be the struggle + for the mastery of Syria in the 14th century B.C.⁴ If, as many + Assyriologists think probable, the Ḥabiri of the Tel-Amarna + Letters be the עִבְרִים of the Old Testament,――_i.e._ the original + Hebrew stock to which Israel belonged,――it would be natural to + find in Shem the representative of these invaders; for in 10²¹ + (Yahwist) Shem is described as ‘the father of all the sons of + Eber.’ Japheth would then be one or other of the peoples who, + in concert with the Ḥabiri, were then seeking a foothold in the + country, possibly the Suti or the Amurri, less probably (for + the reason mentioned above) the Hittites.――These surmises must + be taken for what they are worth. Further light on that remote + period of history may yet clear up the circumstances in which + the story of Noah and his sons originated; but unless the names + Shem and Japheth should be actually discovered in some historic + connexion, the happiest conjectures can never effect a solution + of the problem. + + ¹ As regards the former, the expulsion of Phœnician colonists + from the Mediterranean coasts and Asia Minor by the Greeks + (Dillmann) could never have been described as enslavement + (see Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. 311 f.); and the + capture of Tyre by Alexander, the Roman conquest of Carthage, + etc. (Delitzsch), are events certainly beyond the horizon of + the writer,――unless, indeed, we adopt Bertholet’s suggestion + (see above), that verse ²⁷ is very late. For the latter, + Dillmann hints at an absorption of Japhetic peoples in the + Semitic world-empires; but that would rather be a dwelling + of Shem in the tents of Japheth. + + ² See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_ 14 f.; Budde + _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 325 ff.; Stade _Geschichte des + Volkes Israel_, i. 109; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, + i. p. 214; Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der + Juden zu den fremden_, 76 f. Meyer’s later theory (_Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 220 f.), that Japheth (= + Egyptian _Kefti_?) stands for the whole body of northern + invaders in the 12th century, to whom the Philistines + belonged, does not diminish the improbability that such a + prophecy should have originated under the monarchy. + + ³ See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. page 212 ff.; + Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 37, + 130, 134; Peiser, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. page + viii. + + ⁴ Already suggested by Bennett (page 158), who, however, is + inclined to identify the Ḥabiri with Japheth. + + * * * * * + + =22.= ויַּגֵּד] LXX prefered καὶ ἐξελθών.――=23.= הַשֵּׁמְלָה] On the article, + see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_. That it was _the_ שׂ׳ which + Canaan had previously taken away, and that this notice was + deliberately omitted by Yahwist (Gunkel), is certainly not to + be inferred. The שׂ׳ is the upper garment, which was also used + for sleeping in (Exodus 22²⁶ etc.).――=24.= וַיִּיקֶץ] on the irregular + seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 70 _n_.――=26.= לָמוֹ may stand + either for לָהֶם (collective) or לוֹ: see Note 3 in Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 103 _f_. The latter is the more natural here. Olshausen + (_Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der + Wissenschaften zu Berlin._, June 1870, 382) proposed to omit + ²⁶ᵇ, substituting ²⁷ᵃ{β} (וישכן――שם), and retain ²⁷ᵇ with reflexive + of plural suffix to אֶחָיו. LXX has αὐτοῦ in ²⁶ᵇ and αὐτῶν in + ²⁷ᵇ.――=27.= יַפְתְּ] LXX πλατύναι, Vulgate _dilatet_, etc. The √ פתה + in the sense ‘be spacious’ is extremely rare in Hebrew (Proverbs + 20¹⁹ [?24²⁸]), and the accepted rendering not beyond challenge. + Nöldeke (_Bibel-Lexicon_, iii. 191) denies the geographical + sense, and explains the word from the frequent Semitic figure + of spaciousness for prosperity. This would almost require us to + take the subject of the following clause to be God (_v.s._). + + * * * * * + + + + + CHAPTER X. + _The Table of Peoples_ + (Priestly-Code and Yahwist). + + +In its present form, the chapter is a redactional composition, in which +are interwoven two (if not three) successive attempts to classify the +known peoples of the world, and to exhibit their origin and mutual +relationships in the form of a genealogical tree. + + _Analysis._――The separation of the two main sources is due + to the lucid and convincing analysis of Wellhausen (_Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des + Alten Testaments_² 6 ff.). The hand of Priestly-Code is easily + recognised in the superscription (¹ᵃ אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת), and the methodical + uniformity of the tripartite scheme, with its recurrent opening + and closing formulæ. The headings of the three sections are: בְּנֵי + יֶפֶת (²), וּבְנֵי חָם (⁶), and בְּנֵי שֵׁם (²²); the respective conclusions are + found in ⁵ᐧ (mutilated) ²⁰ᐧ ³¹, verse ³² being a final summary. + This framework, however, contains several continuous sections + which obviously belong to Yahwist. (a) ⁸⁻¹²; the account of + Nimrod (who is not even mentioned by Priestly-Code among the + sons of Kush) stands out both in character and style in strong + contrast to Priestly-Code: note also יָלַד; instead of הוֹלִיד (⁸), + יהוה (⁹). (b) ¹³ ᶠᐧ: the sons of Mizraim (_verb_ יָלַד). (c) ¹⁵⁻¹⁹: + the Canaanites (יָלַד). (d) ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰: the Shemites (יֻלַּד ²¹ᐧ ²⁵; + יָלַד ²⁶).――Duplication of sources is further proved by the twofold + introduction to Shem (²¹ ∥ ²²), and the discrepancy between ⁷ + and ²⁸ ᶠᐧ regarding חֲוִילָה and שְׁבָא. The documents, therefore, assort + themselves as follows: + + Priestly-Code: ¹ᵃ; ²⁻⁵; ⁶ ᶠᐧ ²⁰; ²² ᶠᐧ ³¹; ³². + Yahwist: ¹ᵇ (?); ⁸⁻¹²; ¹³ ᶠᐧ; ¹⁵⁻¹⁹; ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰. + + Verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ and ²⁴ are regarded by Wellhausen and most + subsequent writers as interpolations: see the notes. The + framework of Priestly-Code is made the basis of the Table; + and so far as appears that document has been preserved in its + original order. In Yahwist the genealogy of Shem (²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻³⁰) + is probably complete; that of Ham (¹³ ᶠᐧ ¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) is certainly + curtailed; while every trace of Japheth has been obliterated + (see, however, page 208). Whether the Yahwistic fragments stand + in their original order, we have no means of determining. + + The analysis has been carried a step further by Gunkel (² 74 f.), + who first raised the question of the unity of the Yahwistic + Table, and its connexion with the two recensions of Yahwist + which appear in chapter 9. He agrees with Wellhausen, Dillmann, + al. that 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ forms the transition from the story of the Flood + to a list of nations which is partly represented in chapter 10; + 10¹ᵇ being the immediate continuation of 9¹⁹ in that recension + of Yahwist (Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ). But he tries to show that + 9²⁰⁻²⁷ was also followed by a Table of Nations, and that + to it most of the Yahwistic fragments in chapter 10 belong + (⁸ᐧ ¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁹ = Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ). This conclusion is + reached by a somewhat subtle examination of verse ²¹ and verses + ¹⁵⁻¹⁹. In verse ²¹ Shem is the ‘elder brother of Japheth,’ which + seems to imply that Japheth was the _second_ son of Noah as in + 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; hence we may surmise that the third son was not Ham but + Canaan. This is confirmed by the apparent contradiction between + ¹⁵ and ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹. In ¹⁹ the northern limit of the Canaanites is + Ẓidon, whereas in ¹⁵ Canaan includes the Ḥittites, and has + therefore the wider geographical sense which Gunkel postulates + for 9²⁰⁻²⁷ (see page 186 above). He also calls attention to + the difference in language between the eponymous כְּנַעַן in ¹⁵ and + the gentilic הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי in ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹, and considers that this was a + characteristic distinction of the two documents. From these + premises the further dissection of the Table follows easily + enough. Verses ⁸⁻¹² may be assigned to Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ because + of the peculiar use of הֵחֵל in ⁸ (compare 9²⁰ 4²⁶). verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ + must in any case be Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ, because it is inconceivable + that Egypt should ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan; + ²⁵⁻²⁹ follow ²¹ (Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ). Verse ³⁰ is assigned to + Jehovistᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ solely on account of its resemblance to ¹⁹. It + cannot be denied that these arguments (which are put forward + with reserve) have considerable cumulative force; and the theory + may be correct. At the same time it must be remembered (1) that + the distinction between a wider and a narrower geographical + conception of Canaan remains a brilliant speculation, which is + not absolutely required either by 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ or 10¹⁵; and (2) that + there is nothing to show that the story of Noah, the vine-grower, + was followed by a Table of Nations at all. A genealogy connecting + Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that document; but a + writer who knows nothing of the Flood, and to whom Noah was not + the head of a new humanity, had no obvious motive for attaching + an ethnographic survey to the name of that patriarch. Further + criticism may be reserved for the notes. + +The names in the Table are throughout eponymous: that is to say, +each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its +name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing +its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor. +From this it was an easy step to translate the supposed affinities +of the various peoples into the family relations of father, son, +brother, etc., between the eponymous ancestors; while the origin +of the existing ethnic groups was held to be accounted for by the +expansion and partition of the family. This vivid and concrete mode of +representation, though it was prevalent in antiquity, was inevitably +suggested by one of the commonest idioms of Semitic speech, according +to which the individual members of a tribe or people were spoken of as +‘sons’ or ‘daughters’ of the collective entity to which they belonged. +It may be added that (as in the case of the Arabian tribal genealogies) +the usage could only have sprung up in an age when the patriarchal +type of the family and the rule of male descent were firmly established +(see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², +3 ff.). + + That this is the principle on which the Tables are constructed + appears from a slight examination of the names, and is + universally admitted. With the exception of Nimrod, all the + names that can be identified are those of peoples and tribes + (Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.) or countries (Miẓraim, Ḥavilah, + etc.――in most cases it is impossible to say whether land or + people is meant) or cities (Zidon); some are _gentilicia_ + (Jebusite, Ḥivvite, etc.); and some are actually retained + in the plural (Rodanim, Ludim, etc.). Where the distinctions + between national and geographical designations, between singular, + plural, and collective names, are thus effaced, the only common + denominator to which the terms can be reduced is that of the + eponymous ancestor. It was the universal custom of antiquity in + such matters to invent a legendary founder of a city or state;¹ + and it is idle to imagine any other explanation of the names + before us.――It is, of course, another question how far the + Hebrew ethnographers believed in the analogy on which their + system rested, and how far they used it simply as a convenient + method of expressing racial or political relations. When a + writer speaks of Lydians, Lybians, Philistines, etc., as ‘sons’ + of Egypt, or ‘the Jebusite,’ ‘the Amorite,’ ‘the Arvadite’ as + ‘sons’ of Canaan, it is difficult to think, _e.g._, that he + believed the Lydians to be descended from a man named ‘Lydians’ + (לוּדִים), or the Amorites from one called ‘the Amorite’ (הָֽאֱמֹרִי); and + we may begin to suspect that the whole system of eponyms is a + conventional symbolism which was as transparent to its authors + as it is to us.² That, however, would be a hasty and probably + mistaken inference. The instances cited are exceptional,――they + occur mostly in two groups, of which one (¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ) is interpolated, + and the other (¹³ ᶠᐧ) may very well be secondary too; and over + against them we have to set not only the names of Noah, Shem, + etc., but also Nimrod, who is certainly an individual hero, + and yet is said to have been ‘begotten’ by the eponymous Kush + (Gunkel). The bulk of the names lend themselves to the one view + as readily as to the other; but on the whole it is safer to + assume that, in the mind of the genealogist, they stand for real + individuals, from whom the different nations were believed to be + descended. + + ¹ “An exactly parallel instance ... is afforded by the ancient + Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes; the + principal subdivisions were the Dorians, the Æolians, the + Ionians, and the Achæans; and accordingly the Greeks traced + their descent from a supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who + had three sons, Dorus and Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of + the Dorians and Æolians, and Xuthus, from whose two sons, + Ion and Achæus, the Ionians and Achæans were respectively + supposed to be descended” (Driver 112). + + ² See Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1 ff. + +The geographical horizon of the Table is very restricted; but is +considerably wider in Priestly-Code than in Yahwist.¹ Yahwist’s survey +extends from the Hittites and Phœnicians in the North to Egypt and +southern Arabia in the South; on the Elohist he knows Babylonia and +Assyria and perhaps the Kašši, and on the West the Libyans and the +south coast of Asia Minor.² Priestly-Code includes in addition Asia +Minor, Armenia, and Media on the North and North-east, Elam on the +East, Nubia in the South, and the whole Mediterranean coast on the +West. The world outside these limits is ignored, for the simple reason +that the writers were not aware of its existence. But even within the +area thus circumscribed there are remarkable omissions, some of which +defy reasonable explanation. + + ¹ Judging, that is, from the extracts of Yahwist that are + preserved. + + ² _Kaphtorim_ (verse ¹⁴): according to others the island of + Crete. + + The nearer neighbours and kinsmen of Israel (Moabites, + Ishmaelites, Edomites, etc.) are naturally reserved for the + times when they broke off from the parent stem. It would appear, + further, that as a rule only contemporary peoples are included + in the lists; extinct races and nationalities like the Rephaim, + Zuzim, etc., and possibly the Amalekites, being deliberately + passed over; while, of course, peoples that had not yet played + any important part in history are ignored. None of these + considerations, however, accounts for the apparent omission + of the Babylonians in Priestly-Code,――a fact which has perhaps + never been thoroughly explained (see page 205). + + From what has just been said it ought to be possible to form + some conclusion as to the age in which the lists were drawn + up. For Priestly-Code the _terminus a quo_ is the 8th century, + when the Cimmerian and Scythian hordes (² ᶠᐧ) first make their + appearance south of the Caucasus: the absence of the Minæans + among the Arabian peoples, if it has any significance, would + point to the same period (see page 203). A lower limit may with + less certainty be found in the circumstance that the names פָּרַם + and עֲרָב, עֲרָבִי (Persians and Arabs, first mentioned in Jeremiah + and Ezekiel) do not occur. It would follow that the Priestly + List is pre-exilic, and represents, not the viewpoint of the + Priestly-Code (5th century), but one perhaps two centuries + earlier (so Gunkel). Hommel’s opinion (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen + arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_ 314 ff.), that the Table + contains the earliest ethnological ideas of the Hebrews fresh + from Arabia, and that its “Grundstock” goes back to Mosaic + times and even the 3rd millennium B.C., is reached by arbitrary + excisions and alterations of the names, and by unwarranted + inferences from those which are left¹ (see Jeremias _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 252).――The lists of + Yahwist, on the other hand, yield no definite indications of + date. The South Arabian tribes (²⁵⁻³⁰) might have been known + as early as the age of Solomon (Brown, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + ii. 1699),――they might even have been known earlier,――but + that does not tell us when they were systematically tabulated. + The (interpolated) list of Canaanites (¹⁶⁻¹⁸) is assigned by + Jeremias (_l.c._ 256) to the age of Tiglath-pileser III.; but + since a considerable percentage of the names occurs in the + Tel-Amarna letters (_v.i._), the grounds of that determination + are not apparent. With regard to the section on Nimrod (⁸⁻¹²), + all that can fairly be said is that it is probably later than + the Kaššite conquest of Babylonia: how much later, we cannot + tell. On the attempt to deduce a date from the description of + the Assyrian cities, see page 212.――There are, besides, two + special sources of error which import an element of uncertainty + into all these investigations. (a) Since only two names (שְׁבָא + and חֲוִילָה) are really duplicated in Priestly-Code and Yahwist,² + we may suppose that the redactor has as a general practice + omitted names from one source which he gives in the other; and + we cannot be quite sure whether the omission has been made in + Priestly-Code or in Yahwist. (b) According to Jewish tradition, + the total number of names is 70; and again the suspicion arises + that names may have been added or deleted so as to bring out + that result.³ + + ¹ It has often been pointed out that there is a remarkable + agreement between the geographical horizon of Priestly-Code + in Genesis 10 and that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Of the + 34 names of nations in Priestly-Code’s Table, 22 occur + in Ezekiel and 14 in the _book_ of Jeremiah; it has to + be remembered, however, that a large part of the book of + Jeremiah is later than that prophet. Ezekiel has perhaps + 6 names which might have been expected in Priestly-Code + if they had been known (עֲרָב, כַּשְׂדִּים, קוֹעַ, שׁוֹעַ, פָּרַס, פְּקוֹד), and + Jeremiah (book) has 5 (עֲרָבִ[י], כַּשְׂדּים, פָּרַס, פְּקוֹד, מִנִּי). The + statistics certainly do not bear out the assertion that + Priestly-Code compiled his list from these two books between + 538 and 526 B.C. (see Dillmann page 166); they rather + suggest that while the general outlook was similar, the + knowledge of the outer world was in some directions more + precise in the time of Ezekiel than in the Table. + + ² אַשּׁוּר, כּוּשׁ, מִצְרַיִם and כְּנַעַן do not count, because they are so + introduced that the two documents supplement one another. + + ³ For the official enumeration see Zunz, _Die + gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_², 207; Steinschneider, + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + iv. 150 f.; Krauss, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, 1899, 6 (1900, 38 ff.); compare Poznański, + _ib._ 1904, 302. + +The threefold division of mankind is a feature common to Priestly-Code +and Yahwist, and to both recensions of Yahwist if there were two +(above, page 188 f.). It is probable, also, though not certain, that +each of the Tables placed the groups in the reverse order of birth: +Japheth――Ham――Shem; or Canaan――Japheth――Shem (see verse ²¹). The basis +of the classification may not have been ethnological in any sense; +it may have been originally suggested by the tradition that Noah had +just three sons, in accordance with a frequently observed tendency to +close a genealogy with three names (4¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 5³² 11²⁶ etc.). Still, the +classification must follow some ethnographic principle, and we have +to consider what that principle is. The more obvious distinctions of +_colour_, _language_, and _race_ are easily seen to be inapplicable. + + The ancient Egyptian division of foreigners into Negroes + (black), Asiatics (light brown), and Libyans (white) is as much + geographical as chromatic (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 32); + but in any case the survey of Genesis 10 excludes the true + negroes, and differences of colour amongst the peoples included + could not have been sufficiently marked to form a basis of + classification. It is certainly noteworthy that the Egyptian + monuments represent the Egyptians, Kōš, Punt, and Phœnicians + (Priestly-Code’s Hamites) as dark brown (Dillmann 167); but the + characteristic was not shared by the offshoots of Kush in Arabia; + and a colour line between Shem and Japheth could never have been + drawn.――The test of _language_ also breaks down. The perception + of linguistic affinities on a wide scale is a modern scientific + attainment, beyond the apprehension of an antique people, to + whom as a rule all foreign tongues were alike ‘barbarous.’ So + we find that the most of Priestly-Code’s Hamites (the Canaanites + and nearly all the Kushites) are Semitic-speaking peoples, + while the language of Elam among the sons of Shem belongs to an + entirely different family; and Greek was certainly not spoken + in the regions assigned to sons of Javan.――Of _race_, except + in so far as it is evidenced by language, modern science knows + very little; and attempts have been made to show that where + the linguistic criterion fails the Table follows authentic + ethnological traditions: _e.g._ that the Canaanites came from + the Red Sea coast and were really related to the Cushites; or + that Babylonia was actually colonised from central Africa, etc. + But none of these speculations can be substantiated; and the + theory that true racial affinity is the main principle of the + Table has to be abandoned. Thus, while most of the Japhetic + peoples are Indo-European, and nearly all the Shemitic are + Semites in the modern sense, the correspondence is no closer + than follows necessarily from the geographic arrangement to be + described presently. The Hamitic group, on the other hand, is + destitute alike of linguistic and ethnological unity.――Similarly, + when Yahwist assigns Phœnicians and Hittites (perhaps also + Egyptians) to one ethnic group, it is plain that he is not + guided by a sound ethnological tradition. His Shemites are, + indeed, all of Semitic speech; what his Japhetic peoples may + have been we cannot conjecture (see page 188). + +So far as Priestly-Code is concerned, the main principle is undoubtedly +_geographical_: Japheth representing the North and West, Ham the South, +and Shem the East. Canaan is the solitary exception, which proves +the rule (see pge 201 f.). The same law appears (so far as can be +ascertained) to govern the distribution of the subordinate groups; +although too many of the names are uncertain to make this absolutely +clear. There is very little ground for the statement that the +geographical idea is disturbed here and there by considerations of +a historical or political order. + + The exact delimitation of the three regions is, of course, + more or less arbitrary: Media _might_ have been reckoned to + the Eastern group, or Elam to the Southern; but the actual + arrangement is just as natural, and there is no need to + postulate the influence of ethnology in the one case or of + political relations in the other. Lûd would be a glaring + exception if the Lydians of Asia Minor were meant, but that is + probably not the case (page 206). The Mediterranean coasts and + islands are appropriately enough assigned to Javan, the most + westerly of the sons of Japheth. It can only be the assumption + that Shem represents a _middle zone_ between North and South + that makes the position of Kittîm appear anomalous to Dillmann. + Even if the island of Cyprus be meant (which, however, is + doubtful; page 199), it must, on the view here taken, be + assigned to Japheth. It is true that in Yahwist traces of + politico-historical grouping do appear (אַשּׁוּר and בָּבֶל in ⁸⁻¹²; + כַּפתֹּרִים, פְּלִשְׁתִּים in ¹³ ᶠᐧ).――As to the order within the principal + groups (of Priestly-Code), it is impossible to lay down any + strict rule. Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 326) + holds that it always proceeds from the remoter to the nearer + nations; but though that may be true in the main, it cannot + be rigorously carried through, nor can it be safely used as an + argument for or against a particular identification. + +The defects of the Table, from the standpoint of modern ethnology, +are now sufficiently apparent. As a scientific account of the origin +of the races of mankind, it is disqualified by its assumption that +nations are formed through the expansion and genealogical division +of families; and still more by the erroneous idea that the historic +peoples of the old world were fixed within three or at most four +generations from the common ancestor of the race. History shows that +nationalities are for the most part political units, formed by the +dissolution and re-combination of older peoples and tribes; and it +is known that the great nations of antiquity were preceded by a long +succession of social aggregates, whose very names have perished. +Whether a single family has ever, under any circumstances, increased +until it became a tribe and then a nation, is an abstract question +which it is idle to discuss: it is enough that the nations here +enumerated did not arise in that way, but through a process analogous +to that by which the English nation was welded together out of the +heterogeneous elements of which it is known to be composed.――As a +historical document, on the other hand, the chapter is of the highest +importance: first, as the most systematic record of the political +geography of the Hebrews at different stages of their history; and +second, as expressing the profound consciousness of the unity of +mankind, and the religious primacy of Israel, by which the Old +Testament writers were animated. Its insertion at this point, where +it forms the transition from primitive tradition to the history of the +chosen people, has a significance, as well as a literary propriety, +which cannot be mistaken (Dillmann 164; Gunkel 77; Driver 114). + + The Table is repeated in 1 Chronicles 1⁴⁻²³ with various + omissions and textual variations. The list is still further + abridged in LXX of 1 Chronicles, which omits ¹³⁻¹⁸ᵃ and all + names after Arpachshad in ²².――On the extensive literature on + the chapter, see especially the commentaries of Tuch (159 f.) + and Dillmann (170 f.). See also the map at the end of _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_. + + + _The Table of Priestly-Code._ + +=1a. Superscription.=――_Shēm_, _Ḥām_, and _Yepheth_] compare 5³² +(Priestly-Code), 9¹⁸ (Yahwist). + + On the original sense of the names only vague conjectures can + be reported. שֵׁם is supposed by some to be the Hebrew word for + ‘name,’ applied by the Israelites to themselves in the first + instance as בְּנֵי שֵׁם = ‘men of name’ or ‘distinction’――the titled + or noble race (compare ὀνομαστός): “perhaps nothing more than + the ruling caste in opposition to the aborigines.” So Wellhausen + (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 14), who compares the name ‘Aryan,’ + and contrasts בני בלי שם (Job 30⁸); compare Budde _Die biblische + Urgeschichte_ 328 f.; al. Gunkel (73) mentions a speculation of + Jensen that שׁם is the Babylonian _šumu_, in the sense of ‘eldest + son,’ who perpetuates the father’s _name_. + + חָם must, at a certain stage of tradition, have supplanted the + earlier כְּנַעַן as the name of Noah’s third son (page 182). The + change is easily explicable from the extension of geographical + knowledge, which made it impossible any longer to regard the + father of the Canaanites as the ancestor of one-third of the + human race; but the origin of the name has still to be accounted + for. As a Hebrew word it might mean ‘hot’ (Joshua 9¹², Job 37¹⁷): + hence it has been taken to denote the hot lands of the south + (Lepsius, al.; compare _Jubilees_ viii. 30: “the land of Ham is + hot”). Again, since in some late Psalms (78⁵¹ 105²³ᐧ ²⁷ 106²²) + חם is a poetic designation of Egypt, it has been plausibly + connected with the native _keme_ or _chemi_ = ‘black,’ with + reference to the black soil of the Nile valley (Bochart, Ebers, + Budde, 323 ff.).¹ A less probable theory is that of Glaser, + cited by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 48), who identifies it with Egyptian _‛amu_, + a collective name for the neighbouring Semitic nomads, derived + by Müller (_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, + 123 ff.) from their distinctive primitive weapon, the boomerang. + + ¹ Compare the rare word חוּם, ‘black,’ 30³² ᶠᶠᐧ + + יֶפֶת is connected in 9²⁷ with √ פתה, and no better etymology + has been proposed. Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 2330) + compares the theophorous personal name _Yapti-‛Addu_ in + Tel-Amarna Tablets, and thinks it a modification of יִפְתַּח־אֵל, + ‘God opens.’ But the form פתה (_pitû_) with the probable + sense of ‘open’ also occurs in the Tablet (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, v. 290 [last line]). The derivation from √ יפה + (beautiful), favoured by Budde (358 ff.), in allusion to + the beauty of the Phœnician cities, is very improbable. + The resemblance to the Greek _Iapetos_ was pointed out by + Buttmann, and is undoubtedly striking. Ἰάπετος was the father of + Prometheus, and therefore (through Deukalion) of post-diluvian + mankind. The identification is approved by Weizsäcker (Roscher’s + _Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ + ii. 55 ff.), who holds that Ἰάπετος, having no Greek etymology, + may be borrowed from the Semites (compare Lenormant ii. 173‒193). + See, further, Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 221. + + A curiously complicated astro-mythical solution is advanced by + Winckler in _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, + vi. 170 ff. + +=2‒5. The Japhetic or Northern Peoples=: fourteen in number, chiefly +concentrated in Asia Minor and Armenia, but extending on either side +to the Caspian and the shores of the Atlantic. It will be seen that +though the enumeration is not ethnological in principle, yet most of +the peoples named do belong to the same great Indo-Germanic family. + + =Japheth.= + + 1. Gomer. + 2. Ashkenaz. + 3. Riphath. + 4. Togarmah. + 5. Magog. + 6. Madai. + 7. Javan. + 8. Elishah. + 9. Tarshish. + 10. Kittim. + 11. Rodanim. + 12. Tubal. + 13. Meshech. + 14. Tiras. + + (1) גֹּמֶר (LXX Γαμερ): named along with Togarmah as a confederate + of Gog in Ezekiel 38⁶, is identified with the Galatians by + Joshua, but is really the _Gamir_ of the Assyrian inscription, + the Cimmerians of the Greeks. The earliest reference to the + Κιμμέριοι (_Odyssey_ xi. 13 ff.) reveals them as a northern + people, dwelling on the shores of the Northern Sea. Their + irruption into Asia Minor, by way of the Caucasus, is + circumstantially narrated by Herodotus (i. 15, 103, iv. 11 f.), + whose account is in its main features confirmed by the Assyrian + monuments. There the _Gimirrai_ first appear towards the end of + the reign of Sargon, attacking the old kingdom of Urarṭu (see + Johns, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xvii. + 223 f., 226). Thence they seem to have moved westwards into Asia + Minor, where (in the reign of Sennacherib) they overthrew the + Phrygian Empire, and later (under Asshur-bani-pal, _circa_ 657) + the Lydian Empire of Gyges (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. + 173‒7). This last effort seems to have exhausted their strength, + and soon afterwards they vanish from history.¹ A trace of their + shortlived ascendancy remained in _Gamir_, the Armenian name + for Cappadocia;² but the probability is that the land was named + after the people, and not _vice versâ_; and it is not safe to + assume that by גֹּמֶר Priestly-Code meant Cappadocia. It is more + likely that the name is primarily ethnic, and denotes the common + stock of which the three following peoples were branches. + + ¹ Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 484‒496; + _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 76 f., + 101 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 253. + + ² Compare Eusebius _Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ (edited + by Aucher) i. page 95² (_Gimmeri_ = Cappadocians), and ii. + page 12 (Γόμερ, ἐξ οὗ Καππάδοκες). + + (2) אַשְׁכְּנַז (Ἀσχαναζ): Jeremiah 51²⁷, after Ararat and Minni.¹ + It has been usual (Bochart, al.) to connect the name with the + Ascania of _Iliad_ ii. 863, xiii. 793; and to suppose this + was a region of Phrygia and Bithynia indicated by a river, + two lakes, and other localities bearing the old name.² Recent + Assyriologists, however, find in it the _Ašguza_³ of the + monuments,――a branch of the Indo-Germanic invaders who settled + in the vicinity of lake Urumia, and are probably identical with + the Scythians of Herodotus i. 103, 106. Since they are first + mentioned by Esarhaddon, they might readily appear to a Hebrew + writer to be a younger people than the Cimmerians. See Winckler + _ll.cc._; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 259 f. + + ¹ Assyrian _Mannai_, between lakes Van and Urumia, mentioned + along with Ašguza in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. + 129, 147. + + ² Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 254) instances Ashken as + an Armenian proper name; and the inscription μὴν Ἄσκηνος on + Græco-Phrygian coins. + + ³ Whether the Hebrew word is a clerical error for אַשְׁכּוּז + (Winckler, Jeremias), or the Assyrian, a modification of + _Ašgunza_, the Assyriologists may decide (see Schmidt, + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4330 f.). + + (3) רִיפַת (Ῥιφαθ, Ἐριφαθ: but 1 Chronicles 1⁶ דִּיפַת): otherwise + unknown. According to Josephus, it denotes the Paphlagonians. + Bochart and Lagarde (_Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255) put it + further west, near the Bosphorus, on the ground of a remote + resemblance in name to the river Ῥήβαζ and the district Ῥηβαντία. + Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4114) favours the transposition + of Halevy (פירת), and compares _Bit Burutaš_, mentioned by Sargon + along with the Muški and Tabali (Schrader _Keilinschriften und + Geschichtsforschung_, 176). + + (4) תֹּגַרְמָה (Θεργαμα, Θοργαμα) = בית תוגרמה, Ezekiel 38⁶ 27¹⁴: in the + latter passage as a region exporting horses and mules. Josephus + identifies with the Phrygians. The name is traditionally + associated with Armenia, Thorgom being regarded as the mythical + ancestor of the Armenians; but that legend is probably derived + from LXX of this passage (Lagarde _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_ 255 + ff.; _Symmicta_ i. 105). The suggested Assyriological equivalent + _Til-Garimmu_ (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246; _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 260; al.), a city on + the frontier of the Tabali mentioned by Sargon and Sennacherib, + is not convincing; even though the _Til-_ should be a fictitious + Assyrian etymology (Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² ii. + 410). + + (5) מָגוֹג (Μαγωγ): Ezekiel 38² 39⁶. The generally accepted + identification with the Scythians dates from Joshua and Jeremiah, + but perhaps reflects only a vague impression that the name is a + comprehensive designation of the barbarous races of the north, + somewhat like the _Umman-manda_ of the Assyrians. In one of + the Tel-Amarna letters (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 5), + a land _Ga-ga_ is alluded to in a similar manner. But how the + author differentiated Magog from the Cimmerians and Medes, etc., + does not appear. The name מגוג is altogether obscure. That it + is derived from גּוֹג = Gyges, king of Lydia (Meyer _Geschichte + des Alterthums_¹, i. page 558), is most improbable; and the + suggestion that it is a corruption of Assyrian _Mât Gôg_ (_Mât + Gagaia_),¹ must also be received with some caution. + + ¹ Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 246 f.; Streck, _Zeitschrift + für Assyriologie_, 321; Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the + Verdict of the Monuments_², 125. + + (6) מָדַי (Μαδαι): the common Hebrew name for Media and the Medes; + 2 Kings 17⁶ 18¹¹, Isaiah 13¹⁷ 21², Jeremiah 25²⁵ 51¹¹ᐧ ²⁸, Esther + 1³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ 10², Daniel 8²⁰ 9¹ [11¹] (Assyrian _Madai_). The + formation of the Median Empire must have taken place about the + middle of the 7th century, but the existence of the people in + their later seats (East of the Zagros mountains and South of + the Caspian Sea) appears to be traceable in the monuments back + to the 9th century. They are thus the earliest branch of the + Aryan family to make their mark in Asiatic history. See Meyer + _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. § 422 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften + und das Alte Testament_³, 100 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 254. + + (7) יָוָן (Ἰωυαν) is the Greek Ἰάϝων-ονες, and denotes primarily + the Greek settlements in Asia Minor, which were mainly Ionian: + Ezekiel 27¹³, Isaiah 66¹⁹. After Alexander the Great it was + extended to the Hellenes generally: Joel 4⁶, Zechariah 9¹³, + Daniel 8²¹ 10²⁰ 11². In Assyrian _Yamanai_ is said to be used + but once (by Sargon, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 43); + but the Persian _Yauna_ occurs, with the same double reference, + from the time of Darius (compare Æschylus _The Persians_ 176, + 562). Whether the word here includes the European Greeks cannot + be positively determined.¹――The ‘sons’ of Javan are (verse ⁴) to + be sought along the Mediterranean, and probably at spots known + to the Hebrew as commercial colonies of the Phœnicians (on which + see Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3736 f.). Very few of them, + however, can be confidently identified. + + ¹ Against the theory of a second יָוָן in Arabia (which in any + case would not affect the interpretation of this passage), + see Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ + 125‒142. Compare, further, _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 255. + + (8) אֱלִישָׁה (Ἐλισα, Ἐλισσα) is mentioned only in Ezekiel 27⁷ + (אִיֵּי א׳) as a place supplying Tyre with purple. The older + verbal identifications with the Αἰολεῖς (Josephus, Jerome; so + Delitzsch), Ἑλλάς (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), Ἠλίς, etc., are valueless; + and modern opinion is greatly divided. Some favour Carthage, + because of _Elissa_, the name of the legendary foundress of the + city (Stade, Winckler, Jeremias, al.); others (Dillmann al.) + southern Italy with Sicily.¹ The most attractive solution is + that first proposed by Conder (Palestine Exploration Fund: + _Quarterly Statements._, 1892, 45; compare 1904, 170), and + widely accepted, that the _Alašia_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets + is meant (see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 80‒92). This + is now generally recognised as the name of Cyprus, of which + the Tyrian purple was a product:² see below on כתּים. Jensen now + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 507) places אלישה beyond + the Pillars of Hercules on the African coast, and connects it + with the Elysium of the Greeks. + + ¹ Compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ on Ezekiel 27⁷ ממדינת איטליא; and Eusebius + _Chronicon_, _Armenian translation_ ii. page 13: Ἐλισσὰ, ἐξ + οὗ Σικελοί + et Athenienses [Armenian]. + + ² See Müller, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 257 ff.; + _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288 ff.; Jensen + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, 379 f.; Jastrow _A + Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 80 b. + + (9) תַּרְשִׁישׁ (Θαρσις) is identified (since Bochart) with Ταρτησσός + (Tartesos), the Phœnician mining and trading station in the + South of Spain;¹ and no other theory is nearly so plausible. + The Old Testament Tarshish was rich in minerals (Jeremiah 10⁹, + Ezekiel 27¹²), was a Tyrian colony (Isaiah 23¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁰), and a + remote coast-land reached by sea (Isaiah 66¹⁹, Jonah 1³ 4², + Psalms 72¹⁰); and to distinguish the Tarshish of these passages + from that of Genesis 10 (Delitzsch, Jastrow, al.), or to + consider the latter a doublet of תירס (Cheyne, Müller), are but + counsels of despair. The chief rival theory is Tarsus in Cilicia + (Josephus, Jerome, al.); but this in Semitic is תרז (_Tarzi_). + Compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 445 f.; + Müller, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 291. + + ¹ Herodotus i. 163, iv. 152; Strabo, iii. 151; Pliny + _Naturalis Historia_, iii. 7, iv. 120, etc. + + (10) כִּתִּים (Κητιοι, Κιτιοι)] compare Jeremiah 2¹⁰, Ezekiel 27⁶, + Isaiah 23¹ᐧ ¹², Daniel 11³⁰, 1 Maccabees 1¹ 8⁵, Numbers 24²⁴. + Against the prevalent view that it denotes primarily the island + of Cyprus, so called from its chief city Κίτιον (Larnaka), + Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 422¹; compare + _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 128) argues that + neither the island nor its capital¹ is so named in any ancient + document, and that the older biblical references demand a site + further West. The application to the Macedonians (1 Maccabees) + he describes as one of those false identifications common in + the Egypt of the Ptolemaic period. His argument is endorsed by + Müller (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 288) and Jeremias + (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 261): they + suggest South Italy, mainly on the authority of Daniel 11³⁰. The + question is obviously bound up with the identity of אלישה――Alašia + (_v.s._). + + ¹ The city, however, is called כתי in Phœnician inscriptions + and coins from the 4th century B.C. downwards; see Cooke, + _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_, pages 56, 66?, + 78, 352. + + (11) דֹּדָנִים or רוֹדָנִים (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + LXX [Ῥοδιοι] and 1 Chronicles 1⁷)] a name omitted by Josephus. + If LXX be right, the Rhodians are doubtless meant (compare + _Iliad_ ii. 654 f.): the singular is perhaps disguised in + the corrupt דדן of Ezekiel 27¹⁵ (compare LXX). The Massoretic + Text has been explained of the Dardanians (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + Delitzsch, al.), “properly a people of Asia Minor, not far from + the Lycians” (Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1123). Winckler + (_l.c._) proposes דרנים, the Dorians; and Müller ד(ו)ננים, Egyptian + _Da-nô-na_ = Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Da-nu-na_ (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, v. 277), on the West coast of Asia Minor. + + (12) תֻּבַל (Θοβελ)] and + + (13) מֶשֶׁךְ (Μοσοχ)] are mentioned together in Ezekiel 27¹³ + (as exporting slaves and copper), 32²⁶ (a warlike people of + antiquity), 38² ᶠᐧ 39¹ (in the army of Gog), Isaiah 66¹⁹ (LXX); + משך alone in Psalms 120⁵. Josephus arbitrarily identifies them + with the Iberians and Cappadocians respectively; but since + Bochart no one has questioned their identity with the Τιβαρηνοί + and Μόσχοι, first mentioned in Herodotus iii. 94 as belonging + to the 19th satrapy of Darius, and again (vii. 78) as furnishing + a contingent to the host of Xerxes (compare Strabo, XI. ii. 14, + 16). Equally obvious is their identity with the _Tabali_ and + _Muški_ of the Assyrian Monuments, where the latter appear as + early as Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), and the former under + Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 838),――both as formidable military + states. In Sargon’s inscriptions they appear together;¹ and + during this whole period their territory evidently extended much + further South and West than in Græco-Roman times. These stubborn + little nationalities, which so tenaciously maintained their + identity, are regarded by Winckler and Jeremias as remnants + of the old Hittite population which were gradually driven + (probably by the Cimmerian invasion) to the mountainous district + South-east of the Black Sea. + + ¹ See _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 18 f., 64 f., 142 f., + ii. 40 f., 56 f.; and Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 250 f. + + (14) תִּירָס (Θειρας)] not mentioned elsewhere, was almost + unanimously taken by the ancients (Jerome, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + Jerome, etc.; and so Bochartus, al.) to be the Thracians + (Θρᾶκ-ες); but the superficial resemblance vanishes when the + nominative ending ς is removed. Tuch was the first to suggest + the Τυρσ-ηνιοί, a race of Pelasgian pirates, who left many + traces of their ancient prowess in the islands and coasts of the + Ægean, and who were doubtless identical with the E-_trus_-cans + of Italy.¹ This brilliant conjecture has since been confirmed by + the discovery of the name _Turuša_ amongst the seafaring peoples + who invaded Egypt in the reign of Merneptah (Meyer _Geschichte + des Alterthums_¹, i. § 260; W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 356 ff.). + + ¹ Thucydides iv. 109; Herodotus i. 57, 94; Strabo, V. ii. 2, + iii. 5: other references in Tuch _ad loc._ + + * * * * * + + =5.= The subscription to the first division of the Table is not + quite in order. We miss the formula אלה בני יפת (compare verses ²⁰ᐧ + ³¹), which is here necessary to the sense, and must be inserted, + not (with Wellhausen) at the beginning of the verse, but + immediately before בארצתם. The clause מאלה――הגוים is then seen to + belong to verse ⁴, and to mean that the Mediterranean coasts + were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied by + sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one + time Phœnician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the + writer confused the Ionians with Phœnicians. He may be thinking + of the native population of regions known to Israel through + the Phœnicians, or of the Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising + enterprise is now believed to be of earlier date than the + Phœnician (Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3736 f.).――נפרדו] + construed like נפצה in 9¹⁹ (Yahwist); contrast 10³².――איי הגוים] + only again Zephaniah 2¹¹. Should we read איי הים (Isaiah 11¹¹ 24¹⁵, + Esther 10¹)? אִי (for אֱוִי, perhaps from √ _’awaʸ_, “betake oneself”) + seems to be a seafarer’s word denoting the place one makes for + (for shelter, etc.); hence both “coast” and “island” (the latter + also in Phœnician). In Hebrew the plural came to be used of + distant lands in general (Isaiah 41¹ᐧ ⁵ 42⁴ 51⁵ etc., Jeremiah + 31¹⁰ etc.) + + * * * * * + +=6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group=: in Africa and South Arabia, +but including the Canaanites of Palestine. + + =Ḥam.= + + 1. Kush. + 5. Ṣeba. + 6. Ḥavilah. + 7. Ṣabtah. + 8. Ra‛mah. + 10. Sheba. + 11. Dedan. + 9. Ṣabtekah. + 2. Miẓraim. + 3. Puṭ. + 4. Canaan. + + (1) כּוּשׁ (LXX Χους, but elsewhere, Αἰθίοπ-ες, -ία)] the land + and people South of Egypt (Nubia),――the Ethiopians of the + Greeks, the _Kôš_ of the Egyptian monuments:¹ compare Isaiah + 18¹, Jeremiah 13²³, Ezekiel 29¹⁰, Zephaniah 3¹⁰ etc. Assyrian + _Kusu_ occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscriptions + of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal; and only four passages of + Esarhaddon are claimed by Winckler for the hypothesis of a south + Arabian _Kusu_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 144). There is no reason to doubt that in this verse the African + Kush is meant. That the ‘sons’ of Kush include Arabian peoples + is quite naturally explained by the assumption that the writer + believed these Arabs to be of African descent. As a matter of + fact, intercourse, involving intermixture of blood, has at all + times been common between the two shores of the Red Sea; and + indeed the opinion that Africa was the original cradle of the + Semites has still a measure of scientific support (see Barton, + _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 6 ff., 24).――See, further, on + verse ⁸ (page 207 f.). + + ¹ See Steindorff, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen + Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 593 f. + + (2) מִצְרַים (Μεσραιν)] the Hebrew form of the common Semitic name + of Egypt (Tel-Amarna Tablets, _Miṣṣari_, _Miṣri_, _Mašri_, + _Mizirri_; Assyrian [from 8th and 7th century] _Muṣur_; + Babylonian _Miṣir_; Syrian (‡ Syriac phrase); Arabic _Miṣr_). + Etymology and meaning are uncertain: Hommel’s suggestion + (_Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_ 530; compare Winckler + _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 25) that it is an Assyrian + appellative = ‘frontier,’ is little probable. The dual form of + Hebrew is usually explained by the constant distinction in the + native inscriptions between Upper and Lower Egypt, though מצרַיִם is + found in connexions (Isaiah 11¹¹, Jeremiah 44¹⁵) which limit it + to Lower Egypt; and many scholars now deny that the termination + is a real dual (Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_, i. § 42, An.; + Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + xlviii. 439).――On the vexed question of a North Arabian _Muṣri_, + it is unnecessary to enter here. There may be passages of Old + Testament where that view is plausible, but this is not one of + them; and the idea of a wholesale confusion between Egypt and + Arabia on the part of Old Testament writers is a nightmare which + it is high time to be quit of. + + (3) פּוּט (Φουδ, but elsewhere Λιβυες)] mentioned 6 times + (including LXX of Isaiah 66¹⁹) in Old Testament, as a warlike + people furnishing auxiliaries to Egypt (Nahum 3⁹, Jeremiah 46⁹, + Ezekiel 30⁵) or Tyre (Ezekiel 27¹⁰) or the host of Gog (38⁵), + and frequently associated with כּוּשׁ and לוּד. The prevalent view + has been that the Lybians, on the North coast of Africa West + of Egypt, are meant (LXX, Josephus al.), although Nahum 3⁹ + and probably Ezekiel 30⁵ (LXX) show that the two peoples were + distinguished. Another identification, first proposed by Ebers, + has recently been strongly advocated: viz. with the _Pwnt_ of + Egyptian monuments, comprising ‘the whole African coast of the + Red Sea’ (W. M. Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 114 ff., and _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 176 + f.; Jeremias 263 f.). The only serious objection to this theory + is the order in which the name occurs, which suggests a place + further north than Egypt (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, + x. 325 ff.). + + (4) כְּנַעַן (Χανααν)] the eponym of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants + of Palestine, is primarily a geographical designation. The + etymology is doubtful; but the sense ‘lowland’ has still the + best claim to acceptance (see, however, Moore, _Proceedings + [Journal] of the American Oriental Society_, 1890, lxvii ff.). + In Egyptian monuments the name, in the form _pa-Ka-n-‛sand-land_ + is the article), is applied to the strip of coast from Phœnicia + to the neighbourhood of Gaza; but the ethnographic derivative + extends to the inhabitants of all Western Syria (Müller, _Asien + und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 205 ff.). Similarly + in Tel-Amarna Tablets _Kinaḫḫi_, _Kinaḫna_, etc., stand for + Palestine proper (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 181), or (according to Jastrow _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 641) + the northern part of the seacoast.――The fact that Canaan, in + spite of its geographical situation and the close affinity of + its language with Hebrew, is reckoned to the Hamites is not to + be explained by the tradition (Herodotus i. 1, vii. 89, etc.) + that the Phœnicians came originally from the Red Sea; for that + probably implies no more than that they were connected with the + Babylonians (Ἐρυθρὴ Θάλασσα = the Persian Gulf). Neither is it + altogether natural to suppose that Canaan is thus placed because + it had for a long time been a political dependency of Egypt: in + that case, as Dillmann observes, we should have expected Canaan + to figure as a son of Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel + belonged to entirely different branches of the human family + is rooted in the circumstances that gave rise to the blessing + and curse of Noah in chapter 9. When, with the extension of + geographical knowledge, it became necessary to assign the + Canaanites to a larger group (page 187 above), it was inevitable + that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as + possible. + + Of the descendants of Kush (verse ⁷) a large proportion――all, + indeed, that can be safely identified――are found in Arabia. + Whether this means that Kushites had crossed the Red Sea, + or that Arabia and Africa were supposed to be a continuous + continent, in which the Red Sea formed an inland lake (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 137, 144), it is + perhaps impossible to decide. + + (5) סְבָא (Σαβα)] Isaiah 43³ 45¹⁴, Psalms 72¹⁰; usually taken + to be Meröe¹ (between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature + attributed to the people in Isaiah 45¹⁴ (but compare 18²ᐧ ⁷) is + in favour of this view; but it has nothing else to recommend it. + Dillmann al. prefer the Saba referred to by Strabo (XVI. iv. 8, + 10; compare Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7 f.) on the African side of the Red + Sea (South of Suakim). Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 265) considers the word as the more correct + variant to שׁבא (see below). + + ¹ Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 249. In i. 134 f. he + seems to confuse סבא and שׁבא. + + (6) חֲוִילָה (Εὑ[ε]ιλα[τ])] often (since Bochart) explained as + ‘sand-land’ (from חוֹל); named in verse ²⁹ (Yahwist) as a + Joḳṭanite people, and in 25¹⁸ (also Yahwist) as the eastern + limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems impossible to harmonise + these indications. The last is probably the most ancient, and + points to a district in North Arabia, not too far to the East. + We may conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract + of loose red sand (_nefūd_) which stretches North of Teima and + South of el-Ǧōf. This is precisely where we should look for the + Χαυλοταῖοι whom Eratosthenes (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2) mentions + (next to the Nabateans) as the second of three tribes on the + route from Egypt to Babylon; and Pliny (vi. 157) gives Domata + (= Dûmāh = el-Ǧōf: see page 353) as a town of the _Avalitæ_. The + name might easily be extended to other sandy regions of Arabia, + (perhaps especially to the great sand desert in the southern + interior): of some more southerly district it must be used + both here and verse ²⁹ (see Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from + the Joktanite ח׳, and to identify the former with the Ἀβαλῖται, + etc., on the African coast near Bab-el-mandeb, is quite + unnecessary. On the other hand, it is impossible to place either + of these so far Nprth as the head of the Persian Gulf (Glaser) + or the East-North-east part of the Syrian desert (Friedrich + Delitzsch). Nothing can be made of Genesis 2¹¹; and in 1 Samuel + 15⁷ (the only other occurrence) the text is probably corrupt. + + (7) סַבְתָּה (Σαβαθα)] not identified. Possibly Σάβατα, Sabota, + the capital of Ḥaḍramaut (see on verse ²⁶) (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2; + Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 155, xii. 63),――though in + Sabæan this is written שבות (see Osiander, _Zeitschrift der + deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xix. 253; Hommel + _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 119); or the Σάφθα of Ptolemy vi. + 7. 30, an inland town lying (according to Glaser, 252) West of + El-Ḳaṭīf. + + (8) רַעְמָה (Ῥεγμα or Ῥεγχμα)] coupled with שׁבא (? and חוילה) in + Ezekiel 27²² as a tribe trading in spices, precious stones, + and gold. It is doubtless the רעֿמה (_Raǧmat_) of a Minæan + inscription,¹ which speaks of an attack by the hosts of Saba + and Ḥaulân on a Minæan caravan _en route_ between Ma‛ân and + Ra‛mat. This again may be connected with the Ῥαμμανῖται of + Strabo (XVI. iv. 24) North of Ḥaḍramaut. The identification with + the Ῥεγ[α]μα πόλις (a seaport on the Persian Gulf) of Ptolemy + vi. 7. 14 (Bochartus al.; so Glaser) is difficult because of its + remoteness from Sheba and Dedan (_v.i._), and also because this + appears on the inscription as _Rǧmt_ (Glaser, 252). + + ¹ Halevy, 535, 2 (given in Hommel _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ + 103) = Glaser, 1155: translated by Müller, _Zeitschrift der + deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxx. 121 f., and + Hommel _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen + Inhalts_, 322, _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 249 f. + + (9) סַבְתְּכָא (Σαβακαθα)] unknown. Σαμυδάκη in Carmania¹ (Ptolemy. vi. + 8. 7 f., 11) is unsuitable both geographically and phonetically. + Jeremias suggests that the word is a duplicate of סַבְתָּה. + + ¹ Bochartus: so Glaser, ii. 252; but see his virtual + withdrawal on page 404. + + (10) שְׁבָא (Σαβα)] (properly, as inscriptions show, סבא: see Number + 5 above) is assigned in verse ²⁹ to the Joḳṭanites, and in 25³ + to the Ḳetureans. It is the Old Testament name of the people + known to the classical geographers as Sabæans, the founders + of a great commercial state in South-west Arabia, with its + metropolis at _Marib_ (Mariaba), some 45 miles due East of San’a, + the present capital of Yemen (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2, 19; Pliny, + _Naturalis Historia_, vi. 154 f., etc.). “They were the centre + of an old South Arabian civilisation, regarding the former + existence of which the Sabæan inscriptions and architectural + monuments supply ample evidence” (Dillmann 182). Their history + is still obscure. The native inscriptions commence about 700 + B.C.; and, a little earlier, Sabæan princes (not kings)¹ appear + on Assyrian monuments as paying tribute to Tiglath-pileser IV. + (B.C. 738) and Sargon (B.C. 715).² It would seem that about that + time (probably with the help of the Assyrians) they overthrew + the older Minæan Empire, and established themselves on its + ruins. Unlike their precursors, however, they do not appear + to have consolidated their power in North Arabia, though their + inscriptions have been found as far North as el-Ǧōf. To the + Hebrews, Sheba was a ‘far country’ (Jeremiah 6²⁰, Joel 4⁸), + famous for gold, frankincense, and precious stones (1 Kings + 10¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Isaiah 60⁶, Jeremiah 6²⁰, Ezekiel 27²², Psalms 72¹⁵): + in all these passages, as well as Psalms 72¹⁰, Job 6¹⁹, the + reference to the southern Sabæans is clear. On the other hand, + the association with Dedan (25³, Ezekiel 38¹³ and here) favours + a more northern locality; in Job 1¹⁵ they appear as Bedouin of + the northern desert; and the Assyrian references appear to imply + a northerly situation. Since it is undesirable to assume the + existence of two separate peoples, it is tempting to suppose + that the passage last quoted preserve the tradition of an + earlier time, before the conquest of the Minæans had led to a + settlement in Yemen. Verse ²⁸ (Yahwist), however, presupposes + the southern settlement.³ + + ¹ It is important that neither in their own nor in the + Assyrian inscriptions are the earliest rulers spoken of as + _kings_. + + ² Compare _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21, 55. + + ³ See Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, i. § 403; Glaser, + ii. 399 ff.; Sprenger, _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xliv. 501 ff.; Margoliouth, + _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 133, iv. 479 ff.; Hommel + _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, 77 ff., and in _Explorations in Bible Lands + during the 19th century_, 728 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und + das Alte Testament_³, 148 ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 265. + + (11) דְּדָן (Δαδαν, Δεδαν; but elsewhere Δαιδαν, etc.)] a merchant + tribe mentioned along with Sheba in 25³ (= 1 Chronicles 1³²) + and Ezekiel 38¹³; with Tema (the modern _Teima_, _c._ 230 miles + North of Medina) in Isaiah 21¹³, Jeremiah 25²³, and LXX of + Genesis 25³; and in Jeremiah 49⁸, Ezekiel 25¹³ as a neighbour + of Edom. All this points to a region in the North of Arabia; and + as the only other reference (Ezekiel 27²⁰)――in 27¹⁵ the text is + corrupt――is consistent with this, there is no need to postulate + another Dedan on the Persian Gulf (Bochartus al.) or anywhere + else. Glaser (397) very suitably locates the Dedanites “in the + neighbourhood of Khaibar, el-Ola, El-Hiǧr, extending perhaps + beyond Teima,”――a region intersected by the trade-routes from + all parts of Arabia (see the map in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + iv. 5160); and where the name is probably perpetuated in the + ruins of Daidan, West of Teima (Dillmann). The name occurs both + in Minæan and Sabæan inscriptions (Glaser, 397 ff.; Müller, + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxx. + 122), but not in the Greek or Roman geographers.――The older + tradition of Yahwist (25³) recognises a closer kinship of the + Israelites with Sheba and Dedan, by making them sons of Joḳshan + and descendants of Abraham through Ḳeturah (_v. ad loc._). (An + intermediate stage seems represented by 10²⁵⁻²⁹, where South + Arabia is assigned to the descendants of ‛Eber). Priestly-Code + follows the steps of 25³ by bracketing the two tribes as sons of + Ra‛mah: whether he knew them as comparatively recent offshoots + of the Kushite stock is not so certain. + +=22, 23, 31. The Shemitic or Eastern Group.=――With the doubtful +exception of לוּד (see below) the nations here mentioned all lie on the +East of Palestine, and are probably arranged in geographical order from +South-east to North-west, till they join hands with the Japhethites. + + =Shem.= + + 1. Elam. + 2. Asshur. + 3. Arpachshad. + 4. Lud. + 5. Aram. + 6. Uẓ. + 7. Ḥul. + 8. Gether. + 9. Mash. + + (1) עֵילָם (Αἰλαμ)] Assyrian _Elamtu_,¹ the name of “the great + plain East of the lower Tigris and North of the Persian Gulf, + together with the mountainous region enclosing it on the North + and East” (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 320), corresponding + to the later Elymäis or Susiana. The district round Susa was + in very early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic + settlers ruled by viceroys of the Babylonian kings; about + 2280 the Anzanite element (of a different race and speaking a + different language) gained the upper hand, and even established + a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that time onwards Elam was + a powerful monarchy, playing an important part in the politics + of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed by + Assurbanipal.² The reason for including this non-Semitic race + among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political. + The other Old Testament references are Genesis 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Isaiah + 11¹² 21² 22⁶, Jeremiah 25²⁵ 49³⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 32²⁴, Daniel 8². + + ¹ Commonly explained as ‘highland’ (Schrader, Delitzsch + _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ etc.), but according to Jensen + (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 170², xi. 351) = + ‘front-land,’ _i.e._ ‘East land.’ + + ² See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, _Textes + elamites-semitiques_ (1900), pages ix‒xv [= volume ii. of + de Morgan, _Delegation en Perse: Memoires_]. Compare Sayce, + _The Expository Times._, xiii. 65. + + (2) אַשּׁוּר] Assyria. See below on verse ¹¹ (page 211). + + (3) אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד (Ἀρφαξαδ)] identified by Bochartus with the + Ἀῤῥαπαχῖτις which Ptolemy (vi. 1. 2) describes as the province + of Assyria next to Armenia,――the mountainous region round + the sources of the Upper Zab, between lakes Van and Urumia, + still called in Kurdish _Albâk_. This name appears in Assyrian + as Arapḫa (Arbaḫa, etc.),¹ and on Egyptian monuments of the + 18th dynasty as _’Ararpaḫa_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 278 f.). Geographically nothing + could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty + is that the last syllable שׁד is left unaccounted for. Josephus + recognised in the last three letters the name of the Chaldeans + (כֶּשֶׂד),² and several attempts have been made to explain the + first element of the word in accordance with this hint. (a) The + best is perhaps that of Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 318),³ + resolving the word into two proper names: ארפך or ארפח (= Assyrian + _Arbaḫa_) and כֶּשֶׂד,――the latter here introducing a second trio + of sons of Shem. On this view the Arpakšad of verse ²⁴ 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ + must be an error (for כשׂד?) caused by the textual corruption + here. (b) An older conjecture, approved by Gesenius (_Thesaurus + philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris + Testamenti_), Knobel, al., compares the ארפ with Arabic _’urfat_ + (= ‘boundary’),⁴ Ethiopian _arfat_ (= ‘wall’); ארף כשד would thus + be the ‘wall (or boundary) of Kesed.’ (c) Hommel _The Ancient + Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 212, 294‒8) + takes the middle syllable _pa_ to be the Egyptian article, + reading _’Ur-pa-Kesed_ = Ur of the Chaldees (11²⁸),――an + improbable suggestion. (d) Delitzsch. (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ + 255 f.) and Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xv. 256) + interpret the word as _arba-kišādu_ = ‘[Land of the] four + quarters (or shores),’ after the analogy of a common designation + of Babylonia in royal titles.――These theories are partly + prompted by the observation that otherwise Chaldea is passed + over in the Table of Priestly-Code,――a surprising omission, + no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The + question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed + in 22²². The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the + Chaldeans in the South of Babylonia is admitted by Driver (page + 223); and if there was another Kesed near Ḥarran, the fact must + be taken account of in speculating about the meaning of Arpakšad. + + ¹ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89; + compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 124 f. + + ² Ἀρφαξάδης δὲ τοὺς νῦν Χαλδαίους καλουμένους Ἀρφαξαδαίους + ὠνόμασεν ἄρξας αὐτῶν: _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 144. + + ³ A different conjecture in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3644; + _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 178. + + ⁴ Note Tuch’s objections, page 205. + + (4) לוּד (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לד, LXX + Λουδ)] usually understood of the Lydians (Josephus, Bochartus, + al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a + people in the extreme West of Asia Minor comes to be numbered + among the Shemites. An African people, such as appears to + be contemplated in verse ¹³, would be equally out of place + here. A suggestion of Jensen’s deserves consideration: that + לוד is the _Lubdu_,――a province lying “between the upper + Tigris and the Euphrates, North of Mt. Masius and its western + extension,”――mentioned in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 4 + (line 9 from below, read _Lu-up-di_), 177 (along with Arrapḫa), + 199. See Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 47; Streck, + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 168; Jeremias 276. In the + remaining references (Isaiah 66¹⁹, Jeremiah 46⁹, Ezekiel 27¹⁰ + 30⁵), the Lydians of Asia Minor might be meant,――in the last + three as mercenaries in the service of Egypt or Tyre. + + (5) אֲרָם (Ἀραμ, Ἀραμων)] a collective designation of the Semitic + peoples speaking ‘Aramaic’ dialects,¹ so far as known to the + Hebrews (Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 276 ff.). The actual + diffusion of that family of Semites was wider than appears from + the Old Testament, which uses the name only of the districts + to the North-east of Palestine (Damascus especially) and + Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however, + were really the chief centres of Aramæan culture and influence. + In Assyrian the _Armaiu_ (_Aramu, Arimu, Arumu_) are first + named by Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100) as dwelling in + the steppes of Mesopotamia (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + i. 33); and Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 857) encountered them in + the same region (_ib._ 165). But if Winckler be right (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f., 36), they + are referred to under the name _Aḫlāmi_ from a much earlier + date (Tel-Amarna Tablets; Ramman-nirari I. [_circa_ 1325]; + Ašur-rîš-îši [_circa_ 1150]: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Winckler regards the second half of + the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramæan + nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and + Syria. + + ¹ οὓς Ἕλληνες Σύρους προσαγορεύουσιν――as Josephus correctly + explains. + + In 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ the words ובני ארם (verse ²³) are omitted, the + four following names being treated as sons of Shem: + + (6) עוּץ (Ὠς, Οὐζ)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22²¹ (Ὠξ, + Ὠζ) is classed as the firstborn of Naḥor: therefore presumably + somewhere North-east of Palestine in the direction of Ḥarran. + The conjectural identifications are hardly worth repeating. + The other Biblical occurrences of the name are difficult to + harmonise. The Uz of Job 1¹ (Αὐσιτις), and the Ḥorite tribe + mentioned in Genesis 36²⁰, point to a South-east situation, + bordering on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit + Lamentations 4²¹, Jeremiah 25²⁰ (הָעוּץ!), though in both these + passages the reading is doubtful. It is suggested by William + Robertson Smith (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 61) + and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 146) that the name + is identical with that of the Arabian god _‛Auḍ_; and by the + former scholar that the Old Testament עוּץ denotes a number + of scattered tribes worshipping that deity (similarly Budde + _Das Buch Hiob_ ix.‒xi.; but, on the other side, see Nöldeke + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. + 183 f.). + + (7) חוּל (Οὑλ)] Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259) identifies + with a district in the neighbourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by + Asshur-nasir-pal. The word (_ḥu-li-ia_), however, is there read + by Peiser as an appellative = ‘desert’ (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, i. 86 f., 110 f.); and no other conjecture is even + plausible. + + (8) גֶּתֶר is quite unknown. + + (9) מַשׁ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ משא, LXX + Μοσοχ, in accord with 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ Massoretic Text מֵשֶׁךְ)] + perhaps connected with Mons Masius,――τὸ Μάσιον ὄρος of Ptolemy + (v. 18. 2) and Strabo (XI. xiv. 2),――a mountain range North + of Nisibis now called Ṭûr-‛Abdîn or Ḳeraǧa Dagh (Bochartus, + Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259, Dillmann, al.). The + uncertainty of the text and the fact that the Assyrian monuments + use a different name render the identification precarious. + Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 567) suggests + the mountain _Māšu_ of Gilgameš IX. ii. 1 f., which he + supposes to be Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. The _Mât Maš_ of + _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 221, which has been adduced + as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read _mad-bar_ (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 191²; compare Jensen + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 364). + +=31, 32.= Priestly-Code’s closing formula for the Shemites (³¹); and +his subscription to the whole Table (³²). + + + _The Table of Yahwist._ + +=IX. 18a, X. 1b. Introduction.= See pages 182, 188. + + A slight discontinuity in verse ¹ makes it probable that ¹ᵇ + is inserted from Yahwist. If so, it would stand most naturally + after 9¹⁸ᵃ (Dillmann), not after ¹⁹. It seems to me that ¹⁹ + is rather the Yahwistic parallel to 10³² (Priestly-Code), and + formed originally the conclusion of Yahwist’s Table (compare the + _closing_ formulæ, 10²⁹ 22²³ 25⁴). + +=8‒12. Nimrod and his empire.=――The section deals with the foundation +of the Babylonio-Assyrian Empire, whose legendary hero, Nimrod, is +described as a son of Kush (see below). Unlike the other names in the +chapter, Nimrod is not a people, but an individual,――a _Gibbôr_ or +despot, famous as the originator of the idea of the military state, +based on arbitrary force.――=8.= The statement that _he was the first +to become a Gibbôr on the earth_ implies a different conception from +6⁴. There, the Gibbôrîm are identified with the semi-divine Nephîlîm: +here, the Gibbôr is a man, whose personal prowess and energy raise +him above the common level of humanity. The word expresses the idea of +violent, tyrannical power, like Arabic _ǧabbār_. + + If the כּוּשׁ of verse ⁶ ᶠᐧ be Ethiopia (see page 200 f.), it + follows that in the view of the redactor the earliest dynasty + in the Euphrates valley was founded by immigrants from Africa. + That interpretation was accepted even by Tuch; but it is opposed + to all we know of the early history of Babylonia, and it is + extremely improbable that it represents a Hebrew tradition. The + assumption of a South Arabian Kûsh would relieve the difficulty; + for it is generally agreed that the _Semitic_ population of + Babylonia――which goes back as far as monumental evidence carries + us――actually came from Arabia; but it is entirely opposed + to the ethnography of Yahwist, who peoples South Arabia with + descendants of Shem (²¹ᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ). It is therefore not unlikely + that, as many Assyriologists think,¹ Yahwist’s כּוּשׁ is quite + independent of the Hamitic Kûsh of Priestly-Code, and denotes + the _Kaš_ or _Kaššu_, a people who conquered Babylonia in the + 18th century, and set up a dynasty (the 3rd) which reigned there + for 600 years² (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 21). It is conceivable that in consequence of so prolonged a + supremacy, Kaš might have become a name for Babylonia, and that + Yahwist’s knowledge of its history did not extend farther back + than the Kaššite dynasty. Since there is no reason to suppose + that Yahwist regarded Kaš as Hamitic, it is quite possible that + the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples. + + ¹ See Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 51‒55; Schrader _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 87 f.; Winckler + _Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_, 146 ff.; Jensen + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 340‒2; Sayce, _The + Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 148 + ff., etc. + + ² Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by + Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 87). They + are thought to be identical with the Κοσσαῖοι of the Greeks + (Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17 f.; Arrian, _Anabasis_ vii. + 15; Diodorus, xvii. 111, xix. 19, etc.); and probably also + with the Κίσσιοι of Herodotus vii. 62, 86, etc. (compare v. + 49, 52, vi. 119). Compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ + 31, 124, 127 ff.; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, § 129; + Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, 78 ff.; + Schrader _Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung_, 176 f.; + Oppert, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 421 ff.; Jensen + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + l. 244 f., etc. + + * * * * * + + =8.= נִמְרֹד (Νεβρωδ)] The Hebrew naturally connects the name with + the √ מרד = ‘rebel’ (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.): see below, page + 209.――הוּא הֵחֵל לִ׳] ‘he was the first to become’; see on 4²⁶ 9²⁰. + + * * * * * + +=9.= Nimrod was not only a great tyrant and ruler of men, but _a +hero of the chase_ (גִּבּוֹר צַיִד). The verse breaks the connexion between ⁸ +and ¹⁰, and is probably an interpolation (Dillmann al.); although, as +Delitzsch remarks, the union of a passion for the chase with warlike +prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype of the Assyrian monarchs,――an +observation amply illustrated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on +the monuments.――_Therefore it is said_] introducing a current proverb; +compare 1 Samuel 19²⁴ with 10¹²; Genesis 22¹⁴ etc. “When the Hebrews +wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they spoke of him +as ‘like Nimrod’” (Driver).――The expression לִפְנֵי יהוה doubtless belongs +to the proverb: the precise meaning is obscure (_v.i._). + + A perfectly convincing Assyriological prototype of the figure + of Nimrod has not as yet been discovered. The derivation of the + name from Marduk, the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon, + first propounded by Sayce, and adopted with modifications + by Wellhausen,¹ still commends itself to some Assyriologists + (Pinches, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 552 f.; compare _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 581); but the material + points of contact between the two personages seem too vague + to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with + Nazi-Maruttaš, a late (_circa_ 1350) and apparently not very + successful king of the Kaššite dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht, + Sayce, al.), is also unsatisfying: the supposition that that + particular king was so well known in Palestine as to eclipse + all his predecessors, and take rank as the founder of Babylonian + civilisation, is improbable. The nearest analogy is that of + Gilgameš,² the legendary tyrant of Erech (see verse ¹⁰), whose + adventures are recorded in the famous series of Tablets of which + the Deluge story occupies the eleventh (see page 175 above, + and _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 566 ff.). + Gilgameš is a true Gibbôr――“two parts deity and one part + humanity”――he builds the walls of Erech with forced labour, and + his subjects groan under his tyranny, until they cry to Aruru + to create a rival who might draw off some of his superabundant + energy (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 117, 119). Among + his exploits, and those of his companion Ea-bani, contests with + beasts and monsters figure prominently; and he is supposed to + be the hero so often represented on seals and palace-reliefs in + victorious combat with a lion (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 266 f.). It is true that the parallel + is incomplete; and (what is more important) that the name + Nimrod remains unexplained. The expectation that the phonetic + reading of the ideographic _GIŠ. ṬU. BAR_ might prove to be the + Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Nimrod, would seem to have + been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct + pronunciation as Gilgameš (but see Jeremias _l.c._). Still, + enough general resemblance remains to warrant the belief that + the original of the biblical Nimrod belongs to the sphere of + Babylonian mythology. A striking parallel to the visit of + Gilgameš to his father Ut-napištim occurs in a late Nimrod + legend, preserved in the Syrian _Schatzhöhle_ (see Gunkel + _Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 146²; Lidzbarski + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 15). On the theory which + connects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tuch _ad loc._; + Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 395 f.; _Die Keilinschriften + und das Alte Testament_³, 581²; and on the late Jewish and + Mohammedan legends generally, Seligsohn, _Jewish Encyclopædia_, + ix. 309 ff. + + ¹ Sayce (_Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, + ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equivalent of + Marduk, _Amar-ud_, from which he thought _Nimrudu_ would + be a regular (Assyrian) Niphal form. Wellhausen (_Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 309 f.) explains the נ as an Aramaic + imperfect preformative to the √ מרד, a corruption from + Mard-uk which took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia, + through whom the myth reached the Hebrews. + + ² So Smith-Sayce, _Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 176 ff.; + Jeremias _Isdubar-Nimrod._ + + * * * * * + + =9.= While Dillmann regards the verse as an interpolation from + oral tradition, Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 390 ff.) + assigns it to his Yahwist¹, and finds a place for it between 6⁴ + and 11¹,――a precarious suggestion.――יהוה¹] LXX + τοῦ θεοῦ.――לִפְנֵי י׳] + ‘before Yahwe.’ The phrase is variously explained: (1) ‘unique,’ + like לאלהים in Jonah 3³ (Dillmann al.); (2) ‘in the estimation + of Yahwe’ (compare 2 Kings 5¹ etc.); (3) ‘in despite of Yahwe’ + (Budde); (4) ‘with the assistance of Yahwe’――the name of some + god of the chase having stood in the original myth (Gunkel); + (5) ‘in the constant presence of Yahwe’――an allusion to the + constellation Orion (Holzinger). The last view is possible in ⁹ᵇ, + but hardly in ᵃ, because of the היה. A sober exegesis will prefer + (1) or (2). + + * * * * * + +=10.= _The nucleus of his empire was Babylon ... in the land of +Shin‛ar_] It is not said that Nimrod founded these four cities +(contrast verse ¹¹). The rise of the great cities of Babylonia was not +only much older than the Kaššite dynasty, but probably preceded the +establishment of any central government; and the peculiar form of the +expression here may be due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four +cities, two can be absolutely identified; the third is known by name, +but cannot be located; and the last is altogether uncertain. + + בָּבֶל (Βαβυλών)] the Hebrew form of the native _Bāb-ili_ = ‘gate of + God’ or ‘the gods’ (though this may be only a popular etymology). + The political supremacy of the city, whose origin is unknown, + dates from the expulsion of the Elamites by Ḥammurabi, the + sixth king of its first dynasty (_circa_ 2100 B.C.); and for + 2000 years it remained the chief centre of ancient Oriental + civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the Euphrates, + about fifty miles due South of Baghdad. + + אֶרֶךְ (Ὀρεχ)] the Babylonian _Uruk_ or _Arku_, now _Warka_, also on + the Euphrates, about 100 miles South-east of Babylon. It was the + city of Gilgameš (_v.s._). + + אַכַּד (Ἀρχαδ: compare דַּמֶּשֶׂק and דַּרְמֶשֶׂק)] The name (_Akkad_) frequently + occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase ‘Šumer and + Akkad,’ = South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also + mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + iii. 170 ff.), though its site is uncertain. Its identity with + the Agadé of Sargon I. (_circa_ 3800 B.C.), which was formerly + suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment. + Delitzsch and Zimmern suppose that it was close to Sippar + on the Euphrates, in the latitude of Baghdad (see _Wo lag + das Paradies?_ 209 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 422², 423⁸; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 270). + + כַּלְנֵה (Χαλαννη)] Not to be confused with the כלנה of Amos 6² (= כַּלְנוֹ, + Isaiah 10⁹), which was in North Syria. The Babylonian Kalne has + not yet been discovered. Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225) + takes it to be the ideogram _Kul-unu_ (pronounced _Zirlahu_), + of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jensen (_Theologische + Litteraturzeitung_ 1895, 510) asserts that the real + pronunciation was _Kullab(a)_, and proposes to read so here + (כֻּלָּבָה). + + שִׁנְעָר (Σεν[ν]ααρ)] apparently the old Hebrew name for Babylonia + proper (11² 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Joshua 7²¹, Isaiah 11¹¹, Zechariah 5¹¹, + Daniel 1²), afterwards ארץ כשדים or simply [א׳] בבל. That it is the + same as Šumer (_south_ Babylonia: _v.s._) is improbable. More + plausible is the identification with the _Šanḫar_ of Tel-Amarna + Tablets (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 83) = Egyptian + _Sangara_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 279); though Winckler (_Altorientalische + Forschungen_, i. 240, 399; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 31) puts it North of the Taurus. _Ǧebel Sinǧar_ (ὁ + Σιγγαρος ὄρος: Ptolemy v. 18. 2), West of Nineveh, is much too + far north for the biblical Shin‛ar, unless the name had wandered. + +=11, 12.= The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.――_From that land +he_ (Nimrod, _v.i._) _went out to Assyria_]――where he built four new +cities. That the great Assyrian cities were not really built by one +king or at one period is certain; nevertheless the statement has a +certain historic value, inasmuch as the whole religion, culture, and +political organisation of Assyria were derived from the southern state. +It is also noteworthy that the rise of the Assyrian power dates from +the decline of Babylonia under the Kaššite kings (_Die Keilinschriften +und das Alte Testament_³, 21). In Micah 5⁵ Assyria is described as the +‘land of Nimrod.’ + + That אַשּׁוּר is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, North + of the Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now _Ḳal‛at + Šerkāt_, about halfway between the mouths of the two Zabs), is + plain from the context, and the contrast to שנער in verse ¹⁰. + + נִינְוֵה] (Assyrian _Ninua_, _Ninâ_, LXX Νινευη [-ι]) the foremost + city of Assyria, was a royal residence from at the latest the + time of Aššur-bel-kalu, son of Tiglath-pileser I. (11th century); + but did not apparently become the political capital till the + reign of Sennacherib (Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und + Assyriens_, 146). Its site is now marked by the ruined mounds of + _Nebī Yūnus_ (with a village named _Nunia_) and _Kuyunjiḳ_, both + on the East side of the Tigris opposite Mosul (see Hilprecht + _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 11, + 88‒138). + + רְחֹבֹת עִיר (Ῥοωβὼς πόλιν)] has in Hebrew appellative significance + = ‘broad places of a city’ (Vulgate _plateas civitatis_). + A similar phrase on Assyrian monuments, _rêbit Ninâ_, is + understood to mean ‘suburb of Nineveh’; and it has been supposed + that ר׳ ע׳ is a translation of this designation into Hebrew. As + to the position of this ‘suburb’ authorities differ. Delitzsch + (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on + the North or North-east side of Nineveh, towards Dûr-Sargon (the + modern Khorsabad); and Johns (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4029) + even identifies it with the latter (compare _Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on the other hand, places it + at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as a sort of _tête + du pont_ (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 273). No _proper_ name at all resembling this is known in the + neighbourhood of Nineveh. + + כֶּלַח (Χαλαχ, Καλαχ) is the Assyrian _Kalḫu_ or _Kalaḫ_, which + excavations have proved to be the modern _Nimrûd_, at the mouth + of the Upper Zab, 20 miles South of Nineveh (Hilprecht _l.c._ + 111 f.). Built by Shalmaneser I. (_circa_ 1300), it replaced + Aššur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay, and + was restored by Aššur-nasir-pal (883‒59) (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, i. 117). From that time till Sargon, it seems to + have continued the royal residence. + + רֶסֶן (Δασεμ, Δαση, etc.)] Perhaps = _Riš-îni_ (‘fountain-head’), + an extremely common place-name in Semitic countries; but its + site is unknown. A Syrian tradition placed it at the ruins of + Khorsabad, ‘a parasang above Nineveh,’ where a _Rās ’ul-‛Ain_ is + said still to be found (G. Hoffmann in Nestle, _Zeitschrift der + deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lviii. 158 ff.). This + is doubtless the Riš-ini of Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, ii. 117); but its identity with רסן is phonetically + questionable, and topographically impossible, on account of the + definition ‘between Nineveh and Kelaḥ.’ + + The clause הוא העיר הגדלה is almost universally, but very improbably, + taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to + be regarded as a single city. Schrader (_Die Keilinschriften und + das Alte Testament_², 99 f.) is responsible for the statement + that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was extended + to include the whole complex of cities between the Zab and the + Tigris; but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments + contain no trace of such an idea (_Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_³, 75⁴; Gunkel² 78; compare Johns, _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii. + 3; compare Jonah 3³ ᶠᐧ) must proceed on some such notion; and + it is possible that that might have induced a late interpolator + to insert the sentence here. But if the words be a gloss, it + is more probable that it springs from the העיר הגדולה of Jonah 1², + which was put in the margin opposite נִינְוֵה, and crept into the + text in the wrong place (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 273).¹ + + ¹ With the above hypothesis, Schrader’s argument that, since + Nineveh is here used in the restricted sense, the passage + must be of earlier date than Sennacherib, falls to the + ground. From the writer’s silence regarding Aššur, the + ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he lived + after 1300; and from the omission of Sargon’s new residence + Dûr-Sargon, it is _probable_ that he wrote before 722. But + the latter argument is not decisive, since Kelaḥ and Nineveh + (the only names that can be positively identified) were both + flourishing cities down to the fall of the Empire. + + * * * * * + + =11.= יָצָא אַשּׁוּר] ‘he went out to Asshur’ (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Calvin, + and all moderns). The rendering ‘Asshur went out’ (LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, al.) is grammatically correct, + and gives a good sense (compare Isaiah 23¹³). But (1) ראשית + (verse ¹⁰) requires an antithesis (see on 1¹); and (2) in Micah + 5⁵ Nimrod is the hero of Assyria. + + * * * * * + +=13, 14.――The sons of Mizraim.=――These doubtless all represent parts +or (supposed) dependencies of Egypt; although of the eight names not +more than two can be certainly identified.――On מִצְרַיִם = Egypt, see verse +⁶.――Since Mizraim could hardly have been reckoned a son of Canaan, the +section (if documentary) must be an extract from that Yahwistic source +to which 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ belong (see page 188 f.). + + (1) לוּדים (Λουδιειμ: 1 Chronicles 1¹¹ לודיים)] Not the Lydians of + Asia Minor (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion; but (if + the text be correct) some unknown people of North-east Africa + (see on verse ²², page 206). The prevalent view of recent + scholars is that the word is a mistake for לוּבִים, the Lybians. + See Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 141; + Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 115 + f.; _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, v. 475; al. + + (2) עֲנָמִים (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עינמים; LXX + Αἰν-[Ἐν-]εμετιειμ[ν])] Müller reads כנמים or (after LXX) כנמתים; + _i.e._ the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of _Knmt_ in the + Libyan desert (_Wāḥāt el-Khāriǧah_).¹ For older conjectures see + Dillmann. + + ¹ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ v. 471 ff.――It should be + explained that this dissertation, frequently cited above, + proceeds on the bold assumption that almost the best known + name in the section (פַּתְרֻסִים, ¹⁴) is an interpolation. When + this ‘cuckoo’s egg’ is ejected, the author finds that the + ‘sons’ of Egypt are all dependencies or foreign possessions, + and are to be sought _outside_ the Nile valley. The theory + does not seem to have found much favour from Egyptologists + or others. + + (3) לְהָבִים (Λαβιειμ)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the + ((לוּב) לוּבִים) of Nahum 3⁹, Daniel 11⁴³, 2 Chronicles 12³ 16⁸, + [Ezekiel 30⁵?]. Müller thinks it a variant of לוּדִים (1). + + (4) נַפְתֻּחִים (Νεφθαλιειμ)] Müller proposes פתנחים = _P-to-n-‛ḥe_, + ‘cowland,’――the name of the Oasis of _Farāfra_. But there is + a strong presumption that, as the next name stands for Upper + Egypt, this will be a designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman + (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, x. + 118 f.), who reads פתמחים = _p-t-maḥī_, ‘the north-land,’――at + all periods the native name of Lower Egypt. More recently + Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ ix. 276 ff.) + recognises in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without + textual change _Na-patûh_ = ‘the people of the Delta.’ + + (5) פַּתְרֻסִים (Πατροσωνιειμ)] the inhabitants of פַּתְרוֹס (Isaiah 11¹¹, + Jeremiah 44¹ᐧ ¹⁵, Ezekiel 30¹⁴), _i.e._ Upper Egypt: _P-to-reši_ + = ‘south-land’ (Assyrian _paturisi_): see Erman, _l.c._ + + (6) כַּסְלֻחִים (Χασμωνιείμ)] Doubtful conjectures in Dillmann. Müller + restores with help of LXX נסמנים, which he identifies with the + Νασαμῶνες of Herodotus ii. 32, iv. 172, 182, 190,――a powerful + tribe of nomad Lybians, near the Oasis of Amon. Sayce has + read the name _Kasluhat_ on the inscription of Ombos (see on + _Kaphtorim_, below); _Man_, 1903, No. 77. + + (7) פְּלִשְׁתִּים (Φυλιστιειμ)] The Philistines are here spoken of as + an offshoot of the Kaslûḥîm,――a statement scarcely intelligible + in the light of other passages (Jeremiah 47⁴, Amos 9⁷; compare + Deuteronomy 2²³), according to which the Philistines came from + _Kaphtōr_. The clause אֲשׁר יָֽצְאוּ מִשָּׁם פּ׳ is therefore in all probability + a marginal gloss meant to come after כפתרים.――The Philistines are + mentioned in the Egyptian monuments, under the name _Purašati_, + as the leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign + of Ramses III. (_circa_ 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by + land and sea from the coasts of Asia Minor and the islands of + the Ægean; and the Philistines established themselves on the + South coast of Palestine so firmly that, though nearly all + traces of their language and civilisation have disappeared, + their name has clung to the country ever since. See Müller, + _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 387‒90, and + _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, v. 2 ff.; + Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3713 ff. + + (8) כַּפְתֹּרִים (Χαφθοριειμ)] _Kaphtōr_ (Deuteronomy 2²³, Amos 9⁷, + Jeremiah 47⁴) has usually been taken for the island of Crete + (see Dillmann), mainly because of the repeated association of + כְּרֵתִים (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the Philistine territory + (1 Samuel 30¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 25¹⁶, Zephaniah 2⁵). There are + convincing reasons for connecting it with _Keftiu_ (properly + ‘the country _behind_’), an old Egyptian name for the ‘lands of + the Great Ring’ (the Eastern Mediterranean), or the ‘isles of + the Great Green,’ _i.e._ South-west Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete, + and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the North-west of Egypt (see + Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 337, + 344‒53, 387 ff.; and more fully H. R. Hall in _Annual of the + British School at Athens_, 1901‒2, pages 162‒6). The precise + phonetic equivalent _Kptār_ has been found on a late mural + decoration at Ombos (Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the + Verdict of the Monuments_⁶, 173; _The Early History of the + Hebrews_, 291; Müller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen + Gesellschaft_, 1900, 5 ff.). “_Keftiu_ is the old Egyptian name + of Caphtor (Crete), _Keptar_ a Ptolemaic doublet of it, taken + over when the original meaning of _Keftiu_ had been forgotten, + and the name had been erroneously applied to Phœnicia” (Hall, + _Man_, November, 1903, No. 92, page 162 ff.). In _Orientalische + Litteraturzeitung_, M. questions the originality of the name in + this passage: so also Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 275.¹ + + ¹ Verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ present so many peculiar features――the regular + use of the plural, the great preponderance of quadriliteral + names, all vocalised alike――that we can hardly help + suspecting that they are a secondary addition to the Table, + written from specially intimate acquaintance with the + (later?) Egyptian geography. + +=15‒19. The Canaanites.=――The peoples assigned to the Canaanitish group +are (1) the Phœnicians (צִידֹן), (2) the Ḥittites (חֵת), and (3) a number of +petty communities perhaps summed up in the phrase מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי in ¹⁸ᵇ. It +is surprising to find the great northern nation of the Ḥittites classed +as a subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed to have +in view offshoots of that empire, which survived as small enclaves in +Palestine proper; but that explanation does not account for the marked +prominence given to Ḥeth over the little Canaanite kingships. On the +other hand, one hesitates to adopt Gunkel’s theory that כנען is here +used in a wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the +Ḥittite empire (page 187). There is evidence, however, of a strong +settlement of Ḥittites near Ḥermon (see below), and it is conceivable +that these were classed as Canaanites and so inserted here. + + Critically, the verses are difficult. Wellhausen (_Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 15) and others remove ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ as a gloss: because + (a) the boundaries laid down in ¹⁹ are exceeded in ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ, and + (b) the mention of a _subsequent_ dispersion of Canaanites (¹⁸ᵇ) + has no meaning after ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ. That is perhaps the most reasonable + view to take; but even so ¹⁸ᵇ does not read quite naturally + after ¹⁵; and what could have induced a glossator to insert four + of the most northerly Phœnician cities, passing by those best + known to the Hebrews? Is it possible that the last five names + were originally given as sons of Heth, and the previous four as + sons of Zidon? ¹⁸ᵇ might mean that the Canaanite clans emanated + from Phœnicia, and were _afterwards_ ‘dispersed’ over the region + defined by ¹⁹.――The change from כנען in ¹⁵ to הכנעני in ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ is + hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gunkel). + + צִידֹן] The oldest of the Phœnician cities; now Ṣaidā, nearly 30 + miles South of the promontory of Beirūt. Here, however, the name + is the eponym of the Ẓidonians (צִידֹנִים), as the Phœnicians were + frequently called, not only in the Old Testament (Judges 18⁷ 3³, + 1 Kings 5²⁰ 16³¹ etc.) and Homer (_Iliad_ vi. 290 f., etc.), but + on the Assyrian monuments, and even by the Phœnicians themselves + (Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4504). + + חֵת (τὸν Χετταῖον)] elsewhere only in the phrases בְּנֵי ח׳, בְּנוֹת ח׳ + (chapter 23 _passim_ 25¹⁰ 27⁴⁶ᵇ 49³² [all Priestly-Code]); + other writers speak of חִתִּי[ם]. The Ḥittites (Egyptian _Ḫeta_, + Assyrian _Ḫatti_) were a northern non-Semitic people, who under + unknown circumstances established themselves in Cappadocia. + They appear to have invaded Babylonia at the close of the First + dynasty (_circa_ 1930 B.C.) (King, _Chronicles concerning early + Babylonian kings_, page 72 f.). Not long after the time of + Thothmes III. (1501‒1447), they are found in North Syria. With + the weakening of the Egyptian supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period, + they pressed further South, occupying the Orontes valley, and + threatening the Phœnician coast-cities. The indecisive campaigns + of Ramses II. seem to have checked their southward movement. + In Assyrian records they do not appear till the reign of + Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), when they seem to have held + the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with + Carchemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries + of intermittent warfare, they were finally incorporated in + the Assyrian Empire by Sargon II. (_circa_ 717). See Paton, + _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 104 ff.――The Old + Testament allusions to the Ḥittites are extremely confusing, + and cannot be fully discussed here: see on 15¹⁹⁻²¹ 23³. Besides + the Palestinian Ḥittites (whose connexion with the people just + spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an extensive + Ḥittite country to the North of Palestine (2 Samuel 24⁶ + [LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ], 1 Kings 10²⁹, 2 Kings 7⁶ al.). The most important + fact for the present purpose is the definite location of + Ḥittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of Hermon (Joshua + 11³ [LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ] and Judges 3³ [as amended by Meyer al.]), compare + Judges 1²⁶?). It does not appear what grounds Moore (_Judges_ + 82) has for the statement that these Ḥittites were Semitic. + There is certainly no justification for treating (with Jastrow + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2094) חֵת in this verse as a gloss. + + The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which + constantly recur in enumerations of the aborigines of Palestine, + and seldom elsewhere. + + (1) הַיְבוּסִי] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Joshua 15⁸ + 18²⁸, Judges 19¹⁰, 2 Samuel 5⁶⁻⁹ etc. + + (2) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] An important politico-geographical name in the + Egyptian and cuneiform documents (Egyptian _Amor_, etc., + Assyrian _Amurru_). In the Tel-Amarna Tablets the ‘land + of Amurru’ denotes the Lebanon region behind the Phœnician + coast-territory. Its princes Abd-Aširta and Aziru were then + the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the + north, conducting successful operations against several of + the Phœnician cities. It has been supposed that subsequently + to these events the Amorites pressed southwards, and founded + kingdoms in Palestine both East and West of the Jordan (Numbers + 21¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Joshua 24⁸ etc.); though Müller has pointed out some + difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (_Asien und Europa + nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 230 f.).――In the Old Testament + there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name + to ‘highlanders’ (Numbers 13²⁹, Deuteronomy 1⁷), but this is + more than neutralised by other passages (Judges 1³⁴). The most + significant fact is that Elohist (followed by D) employs the + term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine + generally (compare Amos 2⁹ ᶠᐧ), whom Yahwist describes as + Canaanites. Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite + domination, it is difficult to suggest an explanation of + Elohist’s usage, unless we can take it as a survival of the old + Babylonian name Amurru (or at least its ideographic equivalent + _MAR. TU_) for Palestine, Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria.――See, + further, Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels + in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 51‒54, _Die Keilinschriften und + das Alte Testament_³, 178 ff.; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 122 ff.; Wellhausen _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des + Alten Testaments_² 341; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 344 + ff.; Driver _Deuteronomy_ 11 f., _Genesis_ 125 f.; Sayce, _A + Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 84 f.; Paton, _The Early History of + Syria and Palestine_ 25‒46, 115 ff., 147 f.; Meyer _Geschichte + des Alterthums_², 1. ii. § 396. + + (3) ה ַגִּרְגָּשִׁי] only mentioned in enumerations (15²¹, Deuteronomy 7¹, + Joshua 3¹⁰ 24¹¹, Nehemiah 9⁸) without indication of locality. + גרגש, גרגשים, גדגשי occur as proper names on Punic inscriptions. + (Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 405₄, + 622₄_{f.}, 673₃; _Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik_ i. 36, + 308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with New Testament Γέργεσα. + + (4) הַחִוִּי (τὸν Εὑαῖον)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the + neighbourhood of Shechem (34²) and Gibeon (Joshua 9⁷); in Judges + 3³, where they are spoken of in the North, הַחִתִּי should be read, + and in Joshua 11³ Hittites and Hivvites should be transposed in + accordance with LXXᴮ. The name has been explained by Gesenius + (_Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ + Veteris Testamenti_) and others as meaning ‘dwellers in חַוֹּת’ + (Bedouin encampments: compare Numbers 32⁴¹); but that is + improbable in the case of a people long settled in Palestine + (Moore). Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154) + more plausibly connects it with חַוָּה = ‘serpent’ (see on 3²⁰), + surmising that the Hivvites were a snake-clan. Compare Lagarde, + _Onomastica Sacra_, 187, 174, line 97 (Εὑαῖοι σκολιοὶ ὡς ἐπὶ + ὄφεις). + + The 5 remaining names are formed from names of _cities_, 4 in + the extreme North of Phœnicia, and the last in Cœle-Syria. + + (5) הָעַרְקִי (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הערוקי, LXX + τὸν Ἀρουκαῖον)] is from the city Ἄρκη ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ (Josephus + _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 138), the ruins of which, still + bearing the name _Tell ‛Arḳa_, are found on the coast about + 12 miles North-east of Tripolis. It is mentioned by Thothmes + III. (in the form _‛r-ka-n-tu_: see _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 247 f.), and in Tel-Amarna letters + (_Irkata_: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 171, etc.); also + by Shalmaneser II. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 173; + along with Arvad and Sianu, _below_), and Tiglath-pileser IV. + (_ib._ ii. 29; along with Ṣimirra and Sianu). + + (6) הַסִּינִי (τὸν Ἁσενναῖον)] inhabitants of סִיָּן, Assyrian _Sianu_ + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, _ll.cc._). Jerome (_Quæstiones + sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) says it was not far from + ‛Arḳa, but adds that only the name remained in his day. The site + is unknown: see Cooke, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4644 f. + + (7) הָאַרְוָדִי (τὸν Ἀράδιον)] ’Arwad (Ezekiel 27⁸ᐧ ¹¹) was the most + northerly of the Phœnician cities, built on a small island + (Strabo, XVI. ii. 13; _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 109) + about 35 miles North of Tripolis (now _Ruād_). It is named + frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in + ancient times, in Egyptian inscriptions (_Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 186 f.), on Tel-Amarna Tablets, + and by Assyrian kings from Tiglath-pileser I. to Asshurbanipal + (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 104 f.; + Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281); see also Herodotus + vii. 98. + + (8) הַצְּמָרִי (τὸν Σαμαραῖον)] Six miles South of Ruād, the modern + village of _Ṣumra_ preserves the name of this city: Egyptian + _Ṣamar_; Tel-Amarna Tablets _Ṣumur_; Assyrian _Ṣimirra_; + Greek Σιμυρα. See Strabo, XVI. ii. 12; _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 187; _Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_², 105; Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281 f. + + (9) הַחֲמָתִי (τὸν Ἁμαθί)] from the well-known Ḥamath on the Orontes; + now _Ḥamā_. + + The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in verse ¹⁹ is very + obscure. It describes two sides of a triangle, from Ẓidon on + the North to Gaza or Gerar in the South-west; and from thence + to a point near the South end of the Dead Sea. The terminus לֶשֶׂע + (LXX Δασα) is, however, unknown. The traditional identification + (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome) with Καλλιῤῥόη, near the North end + of the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, _Biblia + Hebraica_ (very improbably), suggests בֶּלַע (14²). Wellhausen + (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des + Alten Testaments_² 15) reads לֵשָׁה or לֵשָׁם (Joshua 19⁴⁷ לֶשֶׁם) = ‘to + Dan’ (לַיִשׁ), the conventional _northern_ limit of Canaan,――thus + completing the East side of the triangle.――Gerar were certainly + further South than Gaza (see on 20¹); hence we cannot read + ‘_as far as_ (_v.i._) Gerar, up to Gaza,’ while the rendering + ‘_in the direction of_ Gerar, as far as Gaza,’ would only be + intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza. + Most probably עַד־עַזָּה is a gloss (Gunkel al.).――On the situation + of Sodom, etc., see on chapter 19.――On any construction of + the verse the northern cities of ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ are excluded.――_The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has an entirely different + text: מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת ועד הים האחרון,――an amalgam of 15¹⁸ and + Deuteronomy 11²⁴. + + * * * * * + + =15.= בְּכֹרוֹ] compare 22²¹ (Yahwist).――=18.= אַחַר] adverb of time, as + 18⁵ 24⁵⁵ 30²¹ etc. = אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 29 f.――נָפֹצוּ] + Niphal from √ פוץ; see on 9¹⁹: compare 11⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹.――מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי] can + hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phœnician + colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + ii. 1698 f.).――=19.= בֹּֽאֲכָה] ‘as one comes’ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 144 _h_) might be taken as ‘in the direction of’ (so Dillmann, + Driver, al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in + which the expression differs from עַד־בּֽוֹאֲךָ = ‘as far as’ (compare + 10³⁰ 13¹⁰ 25¹⁸ [all Yahwist], 1 Samuel 15⁷ with Judges 6⁴ 11³³, + 1 Samuel 17⁵², 2 Samuel 5²⁵, 1 Kings 18⁴⁶).――עַד־עַזָּה] LXX καὶ Γάζαν. + + * * * * * + +=21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites.=――The genealogy of Shem in Yahwist +resolves itself entirely into a classification of the peoples whose +origin was traced to ‛Eber. These fall into two main branches: +the descendants of Peleg (who are not here enumerated), and the +Yoḳṭanites or South Arabian tribes. Shem is thus nothing more than +the representative of the unity of the widely scattered Hebraic +stock: Shemite and ‘Hebrew’ are convertible terms. This recognition +of the ethnological affinity of the northern and southern Semites is a +remarkable contrast to Priestly-Code, who assigns the South Arabians to +Ḥam,――the family with which Israel had least desire to be associated. + + עֵבֶר is the eponym of עִבְרִים (Hebrews), the name by which the + Israelites are often designated in distinction from other + peoples, down to the time of Saul¹ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 2 b: + the passages are cited in Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._). It is + strange at first sight that while the בני עבר of verse ²¹ include + all Shemites known to Yahwist, the gentilic word is historically + restricted to Israelites. The difficulty is perhaps removed + by the still disputed, but now widely accepted, theory that + _Ḫabiri_ in the Tel-Amarna letters is the cuneiform equivalent + of the Old Testament עִבְרִים. The equation presents no philological + difficulty: Assyrian _ḫ_ often represents a foreign ע; and + Eerdmans’ statement (_Alttestamentliche Studien_, ii. 64), that + the sign _ḫa_ never stands for עִ (if true) is worthless, for + _Ḫa-za-ḳi-ya-u_ = חִזקיהו shows that Assyrian _a_ may become in the + Old Testament _i_, and this is all that it is necessary to prove. + The historical objections vanish if the Ḫabiri be identified, + not with the Israelitish invaders after the Exodus, but with + an earlier immigration of Semitic nomads into Palestine, + amongst whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The chief + uncertainty arises from the fact that the phonetic writing + _Ḫa-bi-ri_ occurs only in a limited group of letters,――those of + ‛Abd-ḫiba of Jerusalem (179, 180 [182], 183, 185). The ideogram + _SA. GAS_ (‘robbers’) in other letters is conjectured to + have the same value, but this is not absolutely demonstrated. + Assuming that Winckler and others are right in equating the two, + the Ḫabiri are in evidence over the whole country, occasionally + as auxiliaries of the Egyptian government, but chiefly as its + foes. The inference is very plausible that they were the roving + Bedouin element of the population, as opposed to the settled + inhabitants,――presumably a branch of the great Aramæan invasion + which was then overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above, + page 206; compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. + 90 ff., _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 196 ff.; + Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 111 ff.). + There is thus a strong probability that עברים was originally + the name of a group of tribes which invaded Palestine in + the 15th century B.C., and that it was afterwards applied + to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the + immigrants.――Etymologically, the word has usually been + interpreted as meaning ‘those from beyond’ the river (compare + עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר, Joshua 24² ᶠᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and on that assumption, the river + is certainly not the Tigris (Delitzsch), and almost certainly + not the Jordan (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade), but (in accordance + with prevailing tradition) _the_ נהר of the Old Testament, the + Euphrates, ‘beyond’ which lay Ḥarran, the city whence Abraham + set out. Hommel’s view (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as + illustrated by the Monuments_, 252 ff.) has no probability + (compare Driver 139²). The verb עבר, however, does not + necessarily mean to ‘cross’ (a stream); it sometimes means + simply to ‘traverse’ a region (Jeremiah 2⁶); and in this + sense Spiegelberg has recently (1907) revived an attractive + conjecture of Goldziher (_Mythos_, page 66), that עברים signifies + ‘wanderers’――nomads (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ x. + 618 ff.).² + + ¹ After 1 Samuel it occurs only Deuteronomy 15¹², Jeremiah + 34⁹ᐧ ¹⁴, Jonah 1⁹. But see the cogent criticisms of + Weinheimer in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, 1909, 275 ff., who propounds the view + that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the + population. + + ² In Egyptian texts from Thothmes III. to Ramses IV., the + word _‛Apuriu_ (_‛Apriu_) occurs as the name of a foreign + population in Egypt; and had been identified by Chabas with + the Hebrews of the Old Testament. The identification has + been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed cogent; + but has recently been revived by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew + Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 259), and (with + arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (_Bibel und + Ägypten: Abraham und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_, 1904, 146 + ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to _Ḫabiri_, and + the new facts brought to light by the Tel-Amarna Tablets, + the hypothesis certainly deserves to be reconsidered + (compare Eerdmans, _l.c._ 52 ff., or _The Expositor_, 1909, + ii. 197 ff.). + +=21.= _The father of all the sons of ‛Ēber_] The writer has apparently +borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants of Eber which he +was at a loss to connect with the name of Shem. Hence he avoids the +direct assertion that Shem begat Eber, and bridges over the gap by +the vague hint that Shem and Eber stand for the same ethnological +abstraction.――_the elder brother of Yepheth_] The Hebrew can mean +nothing else (_v.i._). The difficulty is to account for the selection +of Japheth for comparison with Shem, the oldest member of the family. +Unless the clause be a gloss, the most obvious inference is that the +genealogy of Japheth had immediately preceded; whether because in the +Table of Yahwist the sequence of age was broken (Budde 305 f.), or +because Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Dillmann). +The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gunkel, who +finds in the remark an indication that this Table followed the order: +Canaan――Japheth――Shem (see page 188).――=24= is an interpolation (based +on 11¹²⁻¹⁴) intended to harmonise Yahwist with Priestly-Code. It +cannot be the continuation of ²¹ as it stands (since we have not been +informed who Arpakšad was), and still less in the form suggested below. +It is also obviously inconsistent with the plan of Priestly-Code’s +Table, which deals with nations and not with individual genealogies +(note also יָלַד instead of הוֹלִיד). + + * * * * * + + =21.= It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is + extremely likely that the introduction to the section on Shem + in. Yahwist would require modification to prevent contradiction + with verse ²² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code). Then, the omission of the + logical subject to יֻלַּד is suspicious. The Pual of this verb never + dispenses with the subject nor does the Hophal; the Niphal does + so once (Genesis 17¹⁷ [Priestly-Code]); but there the ellipsis + is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact of birth. + Further, a הוּא is required as subject of the clause אבי וגו׳. The + impression is produced that originally עֵבֶר was expressly named + as the son of Shem, and that the words הוא אבי וגו׳ referred to him + (perhaps ולשם יֻלַּד את־ע֑בר הוא אבי וגו׳). Considering the importance of the + name, the tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly + possible to retain the clause אחי וגו׳; and to delete it as a gloss + (although it has been proposed by others: see _Oxford Hexateuch_) + I admit to be difficult, just because of the obscurity of the + expression.――גם הוא] compare 4²⁶.――אחי יפת הגדול] Vulgate correctly + _fratre Yahwist majore_. The Massoretic accentuation perhaps + favours the grammatically impossible rendering of LXX (ἀδελφῷ + Ἰαφεθ τοῦ μείζονος), Symmachus, al.; which implies that Japheth + was the oldest of Noah’s sons,――a notion extorted from the + chronology of 11¹⁰ coupled with 5³² 7¹¹ (see Rashi, Abraham + Ibn Ezra). It is equally inadmissible (with Abraham Ibn Ezra) + to take הגדול absolutely (= Japheth the great). See Budde 304 + ff.――=24.= את־שלח] LXX prefers את־קינן וקינן ילד. + + * * * * * + +=25.= The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and Southern +Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to Aramæans and Arabs: we +may compare with Jastrow (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 82 a) the +customary division of Arabia into _Šām_ (Syria) and _Yemen_. The older +branch, to which the Israelites belonged, is not traced in detail: we +may assume that a Yahwistic genealogy (∥ to 11¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ [Priestly-Code]) +existed, showing the descent of Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered +notices (19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 25¹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.) we can form an idea of the +way in which the northern and central districts were peopled by that +family of ‘Hebrews.’――On פֶּלֶג, see below.――_For in his days the earth +was divided_ (נִפְלְגָה)] a popular etymology naturally suggested by the +root, which in Hebrew (as in Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) expresses the +idea of ‘division’ (compare the verb in Psalms 55¹⁰, Job 38²⁵). +There is no very strong reason to suppose that the dispersion (פלוגתא, +Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ etc.) of the Tower of Babel is referred to; it is +possible that some other tradition regarding the distribution of +nations is followed (_e.g._ _Jubilees_ viii. 8 ff.), or that the +allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoḳṭanites from their +northern kinsmen. + + פֶּלֶג (Φαλεκ, Φαλεγ, Φαλεχ)] as a common noun means ‘watercourse’ + or artificial canal (Assyrian _palgu_): Isaiah 30²⁵, Psalms + 1³ 65¹⁰, Job 29⁶ etc. Hence it has been thought that the + name originally denoted some region intersected by irrigating + channels or canals, such as Babylonia itself. Of geographical + identifications there are several which are sufficiently + plausible: _Phalga_ in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the + Chaboras and the Euphrates (Knobel); _’el-Falǧ_, a district + in North-east Arabia near the head of the Persian Gulf + (Lagarde _Orientalia_ ii. 50); _’el-Aflāǧ_ South of Ǧebel + Tuwaiḳ in central Arabia (Hommel _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen + arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222²). + + יָקְטָן (Ἰεκταν)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer + (Goldziher _Der Mythos bei den Hebräern_, page 67) from √ + _ḳaṭana_ = ‘be settled.’ The Arab genealogists identified him + with _Ḳaḥtān_, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who was + (or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs + (Margoliouth, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 743). On the + modern stock of ’el-Ḳaḥṭan, and its sinister reputation in the + more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see Doughty, _Travels in + Arabia Deserta_ i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437. + + * * * * * + + =25.= יֻלַּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדו; + but שְׁנֵי בָנִים is possibly accusative after passive, as 4¹⁸ etc. + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 _a_, _b_)――האחד――אחיו] similarly 22²¹ + (Yahwist). + + * * * * * + +=26‒30.= The sons of Yoḳṭan number 13, but in LXX (see on עובל below) +only 12, which may be the original number. The few names that can be +satisfactorily identified (_Sheleph, Ḥaẓarmaweth, Sheba, Ḥavilah_) +point to South Arabia as the home of these tribes. + + (1) אַלְמוֹדָד (Ἐλμωδαδ)] unknown. The אל is variously explained + as the Arabic article (but this is not Sabæan), as _’Ēl_ = + ‘God, ’ and as _’āl_ = ‘family’; and מודד as a derivative of the + verb for ‘love’ (_wadda_), equivalent to Hebrew יָדִיד (Winckler + _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, vi. 169); + compare Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_, + ii. 425; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 67. + + (2) שֶׁלֶף (Σαλεφ)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabæan + inscriptions, and also by Arabic geographers: see Hommel + _Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 70; Osiander in _Zeitschrift + der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xi. 153 ff., + perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers. Cognate + place-names are said to be still common in South Arabia (Glaser). + + (3) חֲצַרְמָוֶת (Ἁσαρμωθ)] The modern province of _Ḥaḍramaut_, on + the South coast, East of Yemen. The name appears in Sabæan + inscriptions of 5th and 6th centuries A.D., and is slightly + disguised in the Χατραμωτῖται of Strabo (XVI. iv. 2), the + _Chatramotitæ_ of Pliny, vi. 154 (_Atramitæ_, vi. 155, xii. 52?). + + (4) יֶרַח (Ἰαραδ)] uncertain. The attempts at identification + proceed on the appellative sense of the word (= ‘moon’), but are + devoid of plausibility (see Dillmann). + + (5) הֲדוֹרָם (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדורם, LXX + Ὁδορρα)] likewise unknown. A place called _Dauram_ close to + Ṣan‛a has been suggested: the name is found in Sabæan (Glaser, + 426, 435). + + (6) אוּזָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ איזל, LXX + Αἰζηλ)] mentioned by Ezekiel (27¹⁹: read מֵאוּזָל) as a place whence + iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to be the + same as _’Azāl_, which Arabic tradition declares to be the + old name of Ṣan’a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427, + 434, etc.) disputes the tradition, and locates ’Ûzāl in the + neighbourhood of Medina.¹ + + ¹ In view of the uncertainty of the last three names, it is + worthy of attention that the account of Asshurbanipal’s + expedition against the Nabatæans (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, ii. 221) mentions, in close conjunction, three + places, _Ḥurarina_, _Yarki_, and _Azalla_, which could not, + of course, be as far South as Yemen, but might be as far as + the region of Medina. In spite of the phonetic differences, + the resemblance to Hadoram, Yeraḥ, and ’Ûzāl is noteworthy. + See, however, Glaser, 273 ff., 309 ff. + + (7) דִּקְלָה (Δεκλα)] Probably the Arabic and Aramaic word (_daḳal_, + דקלא, (‡ Syriac word)) for ‘date-palm,’ and therefore the name of + some noted palm-bearing oasis ofArabia. Glaser (_Mittheilungen + der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1897, 438) and Hommel + (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen ar abistisch-semitologischen + Inhalts_, 282 f.) identify it with the Φοινικων of Procopius, + and the modern _Ǧōf es-Sirhān_, 30° North latitude (as far North + as the head of the Red Sea). + + (8) עוֹבָל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and + 1 Chronicles 1²² עֵיבָל, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ Γαιβαλ)] supposed to be the + word _‛Abil_, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser, + 427). The name is omitted by many MSS of LXX, also by LXXᴮ in + 1 Chronicles 1²² (see Nestle, _Marginalien und Materialien_, + 10), where some Hebrew MSS and Peshiṭtå have עובל. + + (9) אֲבִימָאֵל (Ἀβιμεηλ)] apparently a tribal name (= ‘father is God’), + of genuine Sabæan formation (compare אבמעתֿתר, _Zeitschrift der + deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 18), not + hitherto identified. + + (10) שְׁבָא] see on verse ⁷ (page 203). The general connexion + suggests that the Sabæans are already established in Yemen; + although, if ’Ûzāl be as far North as Medina, the inference + is perhaps not quite certain. + + (11) אוֹפִר (Οὐφειρ)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing + country (Isaiah 13¹², Psalms 45¹⁰, Job 22²⁴ 28¹⁶, 1 Chronicles + 29⁴ [Sirach 7¹⁸]), visited by the ships of Solomon and Hiram, + which brought home not only gold and silver and precious stones, + but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks (1 Kings 9²⁸ + 10¹¹ᐧ ²²; compare 22⁴⁹). Whether this familiarity with the name + implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be + questioned; but it can hardly be doubted that the author of + the Yahwistic Table believed it to be in Arabia; and although + no name at all resembling Ophir has as yet been discovered in + Arabia, that remains the most probable view (see Glaser, + _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_, ii. 357‒83). + Of other identifications the most important are: _Abhira_ in + India, East of the mouths of the Indus (Lassen); (2) the Sofala + coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which remains of extensive + gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe in 1871: the + ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native African + origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th century A.D. (see + D. Randall-Maciver, _Mediæval Rhodesia_ [1906]); (3) _Apir_ + (originally _Hapir_), an old name for the ruling race in Elam, + and for the coast of the Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Hommel + _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, + 236⁴; Hüsing, _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 367 ff.; + Jensen _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + l. 246). If we could suppose the name transferred to the + opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would + satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree + in particular with Glaser’s localisation. For a discussion of + the various theories, see the excellent summary by Cheyne in + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3513 ff.; Price, _A Dictionary of + the Bible_, iii. 626 ff.; and Driver _The Book of Genesis with + Introduction and Notes_² XXVI. f., 131. + + (12) חֲוִילָה] see page 202. + + (13) יוֹבָב (Ἰωβαβ)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare + the Sabæan name _Yuhaibab_. + + The limits (probably from North to South) of the Yoḳṭanite + territory are specified in verse ³⁰; but a satisfactory + explanation is impossible owing to the uncertainty of the + three names mentioned in it (Dillmann).――מֵשָׁא (Μασσηε) has been + supposed to be _Mesene_ ((‡ Syriac word), _Maisān_), within the + Delta of the Euphrates-Tigris (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus + criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 823; + Tuch); but the antiquity of this name is not established. + Dillmann, following LXX, reads מַשָּׂא (see on 25¹⁴) in North Arabia. + This as northern limit would just include Diḳlah, if Glaser’s + identification, given above, be correct.――סְפָרָה (Σωφηρα) is + generally acknowledged to be _Ẓafār_ in the South of Arabia. + There were two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen, + North of Aden; the other (now pronounced _’Iṣfār_ or _’Isfār_) + on the coast of Mahra, near Mirbāt. The latter was the capital + of the Himyarite kings (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus + criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 968; + _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 437; _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is a matter of little + consequence.――הַר הַקֶּדֶם] It is difficult to say whether this is + an apposition to מוֹשָׁבָם (Tuch al.), or a definition of ספר, or is + a continuation of the line beyond ספר. On the first view the + ‘mountain’ might be the highlands of central Arabia (_Neǧd_); + the second is recommended by the fact that the _eastern_ Ẓafār + lies at the foot of a high mountain, well adapted to serve as + a landmark. The third view is not assisted by rendering בֹּאֲכָה ‘in + the direction of’ (see on verse ¹⁹); for in any case Ẓafār must + have been the terminus in a southern direction. The commonly + received opinion is that הר הקדם is the name of the Frankincense + Mountain between Ḥaḍramaut and Mahra (see Dillmann). + + * * * * * + + =26.= Some MSS have חצר־מות, as if = ‘court of death.’ + + * * * * * + + + + + XI. 1‒9. + _The Tower of Babel_ + (Yahwist). + + +A mythical or legendary account of the breaking up of the primitive +unity of mankind into separate communities, distinguished and isolated +by differences of language. The story reflects at the same time +the impression made on Semitic nomads by the imposing monuments of +Babylonian civilisation. To such stupendous undertakings only an +undivided humanity could have addressed itself; and the existing +disunitedness of the race is a divine judgement on the presumptuous +impiety which inspired these early manifestations of human genius and +enterprise. + + Gunkel has apparently succeeded in disentangling two distinct + but kindred legends, which are both Yahwistic (compare יהוה, + ♦verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹), and have been blended with remarkable skill. + One has crystallised round the name ‘Babel,’ and its leading + motive is the “confusion” of tongues; the other around the + memory of some ruined tower, which tradition connected with + the “dispersion” of the race. Gunkel’s division will be best + exhibited by the following continuous translations: + + ♦ removed duplicate “9” + + A. The Babel-Recension: (¹) _And B. The Tower-Recension: ... (²) + it was, when all the earth had _And when they broke up from + one speech and one vocabulary,_ the East, they found a plain in + (³ᵃ) _that they said to one the land of Shin‛ar, and settled + another, Come! Let us make there._ [And they said, Let us + bricks and burn them thoroughly._ build] (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _a tower, with + (⁴ᵃ{α, γ}) _And they said, Come! its top reaching to heaven, lest + Let us build us a city, and make we disperse over the face of + ourselves a name._ (⁶ᵃ{α}) _And the whole earth._ (³ᵇ) _And they + Yahwe said, Behold it is one had brick for stone and asphalt + people, and all of one language._ for mortar._ (⁵) _And Yahwe came + (⁷) _Come! Let us go down and down to see the tower which the + confound there their language, sons of men had built._ [And + so that they may not understand He said ...] (⁶ᵃ{β}ᵇ) _and this + one another’s speech,_ (⁸ᵇ) _and is but the beginning of their + that they may cease to build the enterprise; and now nothing + city._ (⁹ᵃ) _Therefore is its will be impracticable to them + name called ‘Babel’ (Confusion), which they purpose to do._ (8a) + for there Yahwe confused the _So Yahwe scattered them over + speech of the whole earth._ the face of the whole earth._ + [?Therefore the name of the tower + was called ‘Pîẓ’ (Dispersion), + for] (⁹ᵇ) _from thence Yahwe + dispersed them over the face of + the whole earth._ + + It is extremely difficult to arrive at a final verdict on the + soundness of this acute analysis; but on the whole it justifies + itself by the readiness with which the various motives assort + themselves in two parallel series. Its weak point is no doubt + the awkward duplicate (⁸ᵃ ∥ ⁹ᵇ) with which B closes. Gunkel’s + bold conjecture that between the two there was an etymological + play on the name of the tower (פִּיץ or פּוּץ) certainly removes + the objection; but the omission of so important an item of the + tradition is itself a thing not easily accounted for.¹ Against + this, however, we have to set the following considerations: the + absence of demonstrable lacunæ in A, and their infrequency even + in B; the facts that only a single phrase (אָת־הָעִיר וְ in verse ⁵) + requires to be deleted as redactional, and there is only one + transposition (³ᵇ); and the facility with which nearly all the + numerous doublets (³ᵃ ∥ ³ᵇ; ⁴ᵃ{γ} ∥ ⁴ᵇ; וַיֵּרֶד (⁵) ∥ נֵֽרְדָה (⁷); ⁶ᵃ{α}, + {β} ∥ ⁶ᵃ{γ}ᵇ; ⁹ᵃ ∥ ⁸ᵃ ⁺ ⁹ᵇ) can be definitely assigned to the + one recension or the other. In particular, it resolves the + difficulty presented by the twofold descent of Yahwe in ⁵ and ⁷, + from which far-reaching critical consequences had already been + deduced (see the notes). There are perhaps some points of style, + and some general differences of conception between the two + strata, which go to confirm the hypothesis; but these also may + be reserved for the notes. + + ¹ In _Jubilees_ x. 26, the name of the tower, as distinct from + the city, is “Overthrow” (καταστροφή). + + The section, whether simple or composite, is independent of the + Ethnographic Table of chapter 10, and is indeed fundamentally + irreconcilable with it. There the origin of peoples is conceived + as the result of the natural increase and partition of the + family, and variety of speech as its inevitable concomitant + (compare ללשנתם, etc., in Priestly-Code, 10⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³¹). Here, on + the contrary, the division is caused by a sudden interposition + of Yahwe; and it is almost impossible to think that either + a confusion of tongues or a violent dispersion should follow + genealogical lines of cleavage. It is plausible, therefore, to + assign the passage to that section of Yahwist (if there be one) + which has neither a Flood-tradition nor a Table of Nations (so + Wellhausen, Budde, Stade, al.); although it must be said that + the idea here is little less at variance with the classification + by professions of 4²⁰⁻²² than with chapter 10. The truth is that + the inconsistency is not of such a kind as would necessarily + hinder a collector of traditions from putting the two in + historical sequence. + + + 1‒4. + The Building of the City and the Tower. + +(Compare the translation given above.) =1, 2.= The expression +suggests that in A mankind is already spread far and wide over the +earth, though forming one great nation (עַם, verse ⁶), united by +a common language. In B, on the other hand, it is still a body of +nomads, moving all together in search of a habitation (verse ²; +compare בְּנֵי הָאָדָה, verse ⁵).――_broke up from the East_] _v.i._――_a plain_] +the Euphrates-Tigris valley; where Babylon κέεται ἐν πεδίῳ μεγάλῳ +(Herodotus i. 178).――_the land of Shin‛ar_] see on 10¹⁰.――=3a.= With +great naïveté, the (city-) legend describes first the invention of +bricks, and then (verse ⁴) as an afterthought the project of building +with them. The bilingual Babylonian account of creation (see page +47 above) speaks of a time when “no brick was laid, no brick-mould +(_nalbantu_) formed”: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 38 +f., 360.――=3b= shows that the legend has taken shape amongst a people +familiar with stone-masonry. Compare the construction of the walls +of Babylon as described by Herodotus (i. 179).¹ The accuracy of the +notice is confirmed by the excavated remains of Babylonian houses and +temples (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 279)――=4.= +_With its top reaching to heaven_] The expression is not hyperbolical +(as Deuteronomy 1²⁸), but represents the serious purpose of the +builders to raise their work to the height of the dwelling-place of +the gods (_Jubilees_ x. 19, etc.). + + ¹ Compare Josephus _Against Apion_ i. 139, 149; Diodorus. + ii. 9; Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, xxxv. 51. + + The most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary was its + _zikkurat_,――a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces, + from the centre of the temple-area, and crowned with a shrine + at the top (Herodotus i. 181 f.: see Jastrow _The Religion of + Babylonia and Assyria_, 615‒22). These structures appear to + have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the + 7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators + between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a + meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded + as the entrance to heaven (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 616 f.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 52 f., 281 f.). Hence it is probably something more + than mere hyperbole when it is said of these _zikkurats_ that + the top was made to reach heaven (see page 228 f. below); and, + on the other hand, the resemblance between the language of the + inscriptions and that of Genesis is too striking to be dismissed + as accidental. That the tower of Genesis 11 is a Babylonian + _zikkurat_ is obvious on every ground; and we may readily + suppose that a faint echo of the religious ideas just spoken of + is preserved in the legend; although to the purer faith of the + Hebrews it savoured only of human pride and presumption.――The + idea of storming heaven and making war on the gods, which + is suggested by some late forms of the legend (compare Homer + _Odyssey_ xi. 313 ff.), is no doubt foreign to the passage. + + * * * * * + + 1. וַיְהִי is not verbal predicate to כל־הארץ, but merely introduces + the circumstantial sentence, as in 15¹⁷ 42³⁵ etc. (Davidson § + 141 and _R._¹). Such a sentence is usually followed by וְהִנֵּה, but + see 1 Kings 13²⁰. It may certainly be doubted if it could be + followed by another ויהי with infinitive clause (verse ²); and + this may be reckoned a point in favour of Gunkel’s analysis.――If + there be any distinction between שָׂפָה and דְּבָרִים, the former may + refer to the pronunciation and the latter to the vocabulary + (Dillmann), or (Gunkel) ש׳ to language as a whole, and ד׳ to its + individual elements.――דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים] ‘a single set of vocables’; LXX + φωνὴ μία (+ πᾶσιν = לְכֻלָּם, as verse ⁶). Elsewhere (27⁴⁴ 29²⁰ [with + יָמִים]) אחדים means ‘single’ in the sense of ‘few’; in Ezekiel 37¹⁷ + the text is uncertain (see Cornill).――On the juxtaposition of + subject and predicate in the nominal sentence, see Davidson + § 29 (_e_).――=2.= בְּנָסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם] rendered as above by LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Nearly all moderns prefer ‘as they + wandered in the east’ or ‘eastward’; justifying the translation + by 13¹¹, which is the only place where מקדם means ‘eastward’ + with a verb of motion. That מק׳ _never_ means ‘from the east’ + is at least a hazardous assertion in view of Isaiah 2⁶ 9¹¹. נסע + (compare Assyrian _nisû_, ‘remove,’ ‘depart,’ etc.) is a nomadic + term, meaning ‘pluck up [tent-pegs]’ (Isaiah 33²⁰); hence ‘break + up the camp’ or ‘start on a journey’ (Genesis 33¹² 35⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ + 37¹⁷ etc.); and, with the _possible_ exception of Jeremiah 31²³ + (but _not_ Genesis 12⁹), there is no case where this primary + idea is lost sight of. Being essentially a verb of departure, + it is more naturally followed by a determination of the + starting-point than of the direction or the goal (but see 33¹⁷); + and there is no difficulty whatever in the assumption that the + cradle of the race was further East than Babylonia (see 2⁸; and + compare Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ + 246, and _n._ 43).――בִּקְעָה] (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic + _baḳ‛at_) in usage, a wide, open valley, or plain (Deuteronomy + 34³, Zechariah 12¹¹, Isaiah 40⁴, etc.). The derivation from √ + בקע, ‘split,’ is questioned by Barth (_Etymologische Studien + zum semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 2), but + is probable nevertheless.――=3.= הָבָה] imperative of √ יהב, used + interjectionally (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _o_), as in verses + ⁴ᐧ ⁷ 38¹⁶, Exodus 1¹⁰ (all Yahwist), is given by Gunkel as a + stylistic mark of the recension A (Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ?). Contrast + the verbal use 29²¹ 30¹ (both Elohist), 47¹⁵, and plural (הָבוּ) + 47¹⁶, Deuteronomy 1¹³ 32³, Joshua 18⁴. On the whole, the two + uses are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist respectively; see + Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 98 f.――נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים] Exodus + 5⁷ᐧ ¹⁴. So in Assyrian _labânu libittu_ (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, ii. 48, etc.), although _libittu_ is used only + of the _un_burned, sun-dried brick. See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift + der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvi. 181; + Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + ii. 70.――לִשְׂרֵפָה] dative of product (Dillmann); שׂ׳ = ‘burnt + mass’ (compare Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 51²⁵).――חֵמָר (14¹⁰, + Exodus 2³)] the native Hebrew name for bitumen (see on + 6¹⁴).――חֹמֶר] (note the play on words) is strictly ‘clay,’ used + in Palestine as mortar.――=4.= וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם] בְּ of contact, as in נָגַע בְּ + (Delitzsch).――וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה――שֵׁם] ‘acquire lasting renown’; compare 2 + Samuel 8¹³, Jeremiah 32²⁰, Nehemiah 9¹⁰. The suggestion that שֵׁם + here has the sense of ‘monument,’ though defended by Delitzsch, + Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 375²), al. (compare + Siegfried-Stade _s.v._), has no sufficient justification in + usage. In Isaiah 55¹³ 56⁵ (compare 2 Samuel 18¹⁸), as well + as the amended text of 2 Samuel 8¹³ (see Driver _Notes on the + Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 217 f.), the ordinary sense + suffices.――נָפוּץ] the word, accusative to Gunkel, is distinctive + of the recension B: compare verses ⁸ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇ. + + * * * * * + +=4b.= _Lest we disperse_] The tower was to be at once a symbol of the +unity of the race, and a centre and rallying-point, visible all over +the earth (Abraham Ibn Ezra). The idea is missed by LXX, Vulgate and +Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which render ‘_ere_ we be dispersed.’ + + + 5‒9. + Yahwe’s Interposition. + +The turning-point in the development of the story occurs at verses ⁵ᐧ ⁶, +where the descent of Yahwe is _twice_ mentioned, in a way which shows +some discontinuity of narration.――On heaven as the dwelling-place of +Yahwe, compare 28¹² ᶠᐧ, Exodus 19¹¹ᐧ ²⁰ 34⁵ 24¹⁰, 1 Kings 22¹⁹, 2 Kings +2¹¹; and with verse ⁵ compare 18²¹, Exodus 3⁸. + + On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of + Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 274 ff.) + seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension + has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most + characteristic incidents. In verse ⁵ the name Yahwe has been + substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to + inspect the latest human enterprise; verse ⁶ is his report + to the heavenly council on his return; and verse ⁷ the plan + of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main + objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost + necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such + as no Hebrew writer is likely to have bestowed on a document + so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Babylonian + original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the + elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the + course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of + the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.――On Gunkel’s + theory the difficulty disappears. + +=6.= _This is but the beginning, etc._] The reference is not merely to +the completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be +undertaken in the future.――=9.= _Babel_] LXX rightly Σύγχυσις; _v.i._ + + * * * * * + + =6.=――הֵן עַם אֶחָד וגו׳] incomplete interjectional sentence + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 147 _b_).――זֶה הַֽחִלָּם לַֽעֲשׂוֹת] literally + ‘this is their beginning to act.’ On the pointing הַֽח׳, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _w_.――לֹא יִבָּצֵר――יָֽזְמוּ] imitated in Job + 42².――בצר] literally ‘be inaccessible’ (compare Isaiah 22¹⁰, + Jeremiah 51⁵³); hence ‘impracticable.’――יָֽזְמוּ] contrast for יָזֹמּוּ + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _dd_).――=7.= נרדה וגו׳] LXX retains the + plural in spite of the alleged reading in _Mechilta_ ארדה אבלה + (see page 14 above).――נָֽבְלָה] (see last note): from √ בלל = + ‘mix’ (not ‘divide,’ as Peshiṭtå [(‡ Syriac word)]).――אֲשֶׁר לֹא] + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 165 _b_.――שׁמע] = ‘understand’: 42²³, + Deuteronomy 28⁴⁹, Isaiah 33¹⁹, Jeremiah 5¹⁵ etc.――=8.= It is + perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to + point וְיֶחְדְּלוּ (jussive of purpose: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _f_), + continuing the direct address of ⁷ᵇ.――העיר] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ prefers את, and (with LXX) adds + ואת־המגדל.――=9.= קָרָא] ‘_one_ called’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 + _d_).――בָּבֶל] ‘mxture’ or ‘confusion.’ The name is obviously + treated as a contraction from בַּֽלְבֵּל, a form not found in Hebrew, + but occurring in Aramaic (compare Peshiṭtå verse ⁹, and + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ verse ⁷) and Arabic. On the Babylonian etymology + of the name, see 10¹⁰.――=9b.=――יהוה] LXX + ὁ θεός. + + * * * * * + + + _Origin and Diffusion of the Legends._ + + 1. The double legend is a product of naïve reflexion on such + facts of experience as the disunity of mankind, its want of + a common language, and its consequent inability to bend its + united energies to the accomplishment of some enduring memorial + of human greatness. The contrast between this condition of + things and the ideal unity of the race at its origin haunted + the mind with a sense of fate and discomfiture, and prompted + the questions, When, and where, and for what reason, was this + doom imposed on men? The answer naturally assumed the legendary + form, the concrete features of the representation being supplied + by two vivid impressions produced by the achievements of + civilisation in its most ancient centre in Babylonia. On one + hand the city of Babylon itself, with its mixture of languages, + its cosmopolitan population, and its proud boast of antiquity, + suggested the idea that here was the very fountainhead of the + confusion of tongues; and this idea, wrapped up in a popular + etymology of the name of the city, formed the nucleus of the + first of the two legends contained in the passage. On the other + hand, the spectacle of some ruined or unfinished Temple-tower + (_zikkurat_), built by a vast expenditure of human toil, + and reported to symbolise the ascent to heaven (page 226), + appealed to the imagination of the nomads as a god-defying work, + obviously intended to serve as a landmark and rallying-point + for the whole human race. In each case mankind had measured + its strength against the decree of the gods above; and the gods + had taken their revenge by reducing mankind to the condition of + impotent disunion in which it now is. + + It is evident that ideas of this order did not emanate from the + official religion of Babylonia. They originated rather in the + unsophisticated reasoning of nomadic Semites who had penetrated + into the country, and formed their own notions about the wonders + they beheld there: the etymology of the name Babel (= _Balbēl_) + suggests an Aramæan origin (Cheyne, Gunkel). The stories + travelled from land to land, till they reached Israel, where, + divested of their cruder polytheistic elements, they became the + vehicle of an impressive lesson on the folly of human pride, and + the supremacy of Yahwe in the affairs of men. + + It is of quite secondary interest to determine which of the + numerous Babylonian _zikkurats_ gave rise to the legend of + the Dispersion. The most famous of these edifices were those + of E-sagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon,¹ and of E-zida, + the temple of Nebo at Borsippa on the opposite bank of the + river (see Tiele, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, ii. 179‒190). + The former bore the (Sumerian) name _E-temen-an-ki_ (= ‘house + of the foundations of heaven and earth’). It was restored + by Nabo-polassar, who says that before him it had become + “dilapidated and ruined,” and that he was commanded by Marduk to + “lay its foundations firm in the breast of the underworld, and + _make its top equal to heaven_” (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + iii. 2. 5). The latter expression recurs in an inscription + of Nebuchadnezzar (_Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen + Sprachwissenschaft_, iii. 548) with reference to the same + _zikkurat_, and is thought by Gunkel (² 86) to have been + characteristic of E-temen-an-ki; but that is doubtful, since + similar language is used by Tiglath-pileser I. of the towers + of the temple of Anu and Ramman, which had been allowed to + fall gradually into disrepair for 641 years before his time + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 43). The _zikkurat_ of + E-zida was called _E-ur-imin-an-ki_ (‘house of the seven stages + (?) of heaven and earth’); its restorer Nebuchadnezzar tells us, + in an inscription found at its four corners, that it had been + built by a former king, and raised to a height of 42 cubits; + its top, however, had not been set up, and it had fallen into + disrepair (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 53, 55). The + temple of Borsippa is entombed in _Birs Nimrûd_――a huge ruined + mound still rising 153 feet above the plain (see Hilprecht + _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 13, 30 + f.)――which local (and Jewish) tradition identifies with the + tower of Genesis 11. This view has been accepted by many modern + scholars (see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 412), by others it is + rejected in favour of E-temen-an-ki, chiefly because E-zida was + not _in_ but only near Babylon. But if the two narratives are + separated, there is nothing to connect the tower specially with + the _city_ of Babylon; and it would seem to be mainly a question + which of the two was the more imposing ruin at the time when the + legend originated. It is possible that neither was meant. At Uru + (Ur of the Chaldees) there was a smaller _zikkurat_ (about 70 + feet high) of the moon-god Sin, dating from the time of Ur-bau + (_circa_ 2700 B.C.) and his son Dungi, which Nabuna’id tells + us he rebuilt on the old foundation “with asphalt and bricks” + (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 95; _Explorations in + Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 173 ff.). The notice is + interesting, because, according to one tradition, which is no + doubt ancient, though it cannot be proved to be Yahwistic, this + city was the starting-point of the Hebrew migration (see below, + page 239). If it was believed that the ancestors of the Hebrews + came from Ur, it may very well have been the _zikkurat_ of that + place which figured in their tradition as the Tower of the + Dispersion. + + ¹ On its recently discovered site, see Langdon, _The + Expositor_, 1909, ii. page 91 ff. + + 2. In regard to its _religious content_, the narrative occupies + the same standpoint as 3²⁰ᐧ ²² and 6¹⁻³. Its central idea is + the effort of the restless, scheming, soaring human mind to + transcend its divinely appointed limitations: it “emphasises + Yahwe’s supremacy over the world; it teaches how the + self-exaltation of man is checked by God; and it shows how the + distribution of mankind into nations, and diversity of language, + are elements in His providential plan for the development and + progress of humanity” (Driver). The pagan notion of the envy of + the gods,――their fear lest human greatness should subvert the + order of the world,――no doubt emerges in a more pronounced form + than in any other passage. Yet the essential conception is not + mere paganism, but finds an obvious point of contact in one + aspect of the prophetic theology: see Isaiah 2¹²⁻¹⁷. To say that + the narrative is totally devoid of religious significance for + us is therefore to depreciate the value for modern life of the + Old Testament thought of God, as well as to evince a lack of + sympathy with one of the profoundest instincts of early religion. + Crude in form as the legend is, it embodies a truth of permanent + validity――the futility and emptiness of human effort divorced + from the acknowledgment and service of God: hæc perpetua mundi + dementia est, neglecto cœlo immortalitatem quærere in terra, ubi + nihil est non caducum et evanidum (Calvin). + + 3. _Parallels._――No Babylonian version of the story has been + discovered; and for the reason given above (page 226) it is + extremely unlikely that anything resembling the biblical form + of it will ever be found there.¹ In Greek mythology there are + dim traces of a legend ascribing the diversities of language + to an act of the gods, whether as a punishment on the creatures + for demanding the gift of immortality (Philo, _De Confusione + Linguarum_), or without ethical motive, as in the 143rd fable + of Hyginus.² But while these myths are no doubt independent of + Jewish influence, their resemblance to the Genesis narrative + is too slight to suggest a common origin. It is only in the + literature of the Hellenistic period that we find real parallels + to the story of the Tower of Babel; and these agree so closely + with the biblical account that it is extremely doubtful if they + embody any separate tradition.³ The difference to which most + importance is attached is naturally the polytheistic phraseology + (‘the gods’) employed by some of the writers named (Polyhistor, + Abydenus); but the polytheism is only in the language, and is + probably nothing more than conscious or unconscious Hellenising + of the scriptural narrative. Other differences――such as the + identification of the tower-builders with the race of giants + (the Nephîlîm of 6⁴?), and the destruction of the tower by a + storm――are easily explicable as accretions to the legend of + Genesis.⁴ The remarkable Mexican legend of the pyramid of + Cholula, cited by Jeremias from von Humboldt,⁵ has a special + interest on account of the unmistakable resemblance between the + Mexican pyramids and the Babylonian _zikkurats_. If this fact + could be accepted as proof of direct Babylonian influence, then + no doubt the question of a Babylonian origin of the legend and + its transmission through non-biblical channels would assume + a new complexion. But the inference, however tempting, is not + quite certain. + + ¹ The fragment (K 3657) translated in Smith-Sayce, _The + Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 163 ff. (compare _The Higher + Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 153 f.), and + supposed to contain obscure allusions to the building of a + tower in Babylon, its overthrow by a god during the night, + and a confusion of speech, has since been shown to contain + nothing of the sort: see King, _Creation Tablets_, i. 219 f.; + Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 286. + + ² “Sed postquam Mercurius sermones hominum interpretatus est + ... id est nationes distribuit, tum discordia inter mortales + esse cœpit, _quod Jovi placitum non est_.” + + ³ Compare Sibylline Oracles iii. 98 ff. (Kautzsch, _Apokryphen + und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments_, 187); Alexander + Polyhistor (Eusebius _Chronicon_ i. 23 [edited by Schoene]); + Abydenus (_ib._ i. 33); Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ + i. 118; Eupolemos (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17); + and _Book of Jubilees_ x. 18‒27. The lines of the Sibyl (iii. + 99 f.) may be quoted as a typical example of this class of + legends: + + ὁμόφωνοι δ’ ἦσαν ἅπαντες + καὶ βούλοντ’ ἀναβῆναι εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα. + αὐτίκα δ’ ἀθάνατος μεγάλην ἐπέθηκεν ἀνάγκην + πνεύμασιν· αὐτὰρ ἔπειτ’ ἄνεμοι μέγαν ὕψοθι πύργον + ῥίψαν, καὶ θνητοῖσιν ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοις ἔριν ὦρσαν· + τοὔνεκά τοι Βαβυλῶνα βροτοὶ πόλει οὔνομ’ ἔθεντο. + + ⁴ So Gunkel² 88 f. On the other side, compare Gruppe, + _Griechische Culte und Mythen_, i. 677 ff.; Stade + _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 277 f.; + Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², + 383 ff. + + ⁵ _Vues des Cordilleres_ (Paris, 1810), 24, 32 ff. + + + + + XI. 10‒26. + _The Genealogy of Shem_ + (Priestly-Code). + + +Another section of the _Tôlĕdôth_, spanning the interval between the +Flood and the birth of Abraham. It is the most carefully planned of +Priestly-Code’s genealogies next to chapter 5; with which it agrees +in form, except that in Massoretic Text the framework is lightened by +omitting the total duration of each patriarch’s life. In _The Samaritan +Recension of the Pentateuch_ this is consistently supplied; while LXX +merely adds to Massoretic Text the statement καὶ ἀπέθανεν. The number +of generations in Massoretic Text is 9, but in LXX 10, corresponding +with chapter 5. Few of the names can be plausibly identified; these +few are mostly geographical, and point on the whole to North-west +Mesopotamia as the original home of the Hebrew race. + + In LXX the number 10 is made up by the addition of Ḳênān + between Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (so 10²⁴). That this is a secondary + alteration is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in + 1 Chronicles 1¹⁸ᐧ ²⁴ LXX; (b) Ḳênān already occurs in the former + genealogy (5⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); and (c) the figures simply duplicate those + of Shelaḥ. It has been proposed to count Noah as the first name + (Budde 412 f.), or Abraham as the 10th (Tuch, Delitzsch); but + neither expedient brings about the desired formal correspondence + between the lists of chapter 5 and 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ An indication of + the artificial character of these genealogies is found in the + repetition of the name Nāḥôr, once as the father, and again + as the son, of Teraḥ (see Bosse, _Die chronologischen Systeme + im Alten Testament und bei Josephus_, 7 ff.). It is not + improbable that here, as in chapter 5 (corresponding with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ), + Priestly-Code has worked up an earlier Yahwistic genealogy, + of which a fragment may have been preserved in verses ²⁸⁻³⁰. + Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen + Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 9, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte + Israels_⁶ 313) has conjectured that it consisted of the 7 names + left of Priestly-Code’s list when Arpakšad and Shelaḥ (see on + 10²¹ᐧ ²⁴) and the first Nāḥôr are omitted (Abraham counting as + the 7th). But there is no proof that the Yahwistic genealogy + lying behind chapter 5 was 7-membered; and Yahwist’s parallel to + 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ could not in any case be the continuation of 4¹⁶⁻²². + + =10.= אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד] see on 10²². He is here obviously the oldest son + of Shem; which does not _necessarily_ involve a contradiction + with chapter 10, the arrangement there being dictated by + geographical considerations. Hommel (_Aufsätze und Abhandlungen + arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222¹), maintaining his + theory that Arpakšad = Ur-Kasdîm, comes to the absurd conclusion + that in the original list it was not the name of Shem’s son, + but of his birthplace: ‘Shem _from_ Arpakshad’!――שְׁנָתַיִם אַהַר הַמַּבּוּל] The + discrepancy between this statement and the chronology of 5³² 7¹¹ + 9²⁸ ᶠᐧ is not to be got rid of either by wire-drawn arithmetical + calculations (Rashi al.), or by the assumption that in the other + passages round numbers are used (Tuch, Delitzsch). The clause + is evidently a gloss, introduced apparently for the purpose + of making the birth of Arpakšad, rather than the Flood, the + commencement of a new era. It fits in admirably with the scheme + of the Book of Jubilees, which gives an integral number of + year-weeks from the Creation to the birth of Arpakšad, and + from the latter event to the birth of Abraham (see page 234 + below).――=12.= שֶׁלַח (Σαλα)] probably the same word which forms a + component of מְתוּשֶׁלַח (5²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), and therefore originally a divine + name. This need not exclude a tribal or geographical sense, the + name of a deity being frequently transferred to his worshippers + or their territory. A place _Ṣalaḥ_ or _Salaḥ_ in Mesopotamia + is instanced by Knobel (Dillmann). Others regard it as a + descriptive name = ‘offshoot’ or ‘dismissal’; but very + improbably.――=14.= עֵבֶר] see on 10²¹.――=16.= פֶּלֶג] 10²⁵. Hommel + (_l.c._) combines the two names and takes the compound as a + notice of Shelaḥ’s birthplace: ‘Shelaḥ _from_ Eber-peleg’ = + Eber-hannāhār, the region West of the lower Euphrates (see + pages 218, 220 above).――=18.= רְעוּ (Ῥαγαυ)] unknown; certainly + not (‡ Syriac word) (Edessa). It is possibly abbreviated from + רְעוּאֵל (36⁴, Exodus 2¹⁸ etc.: so Hommel); and Mez considers it a + divine name. An Aramæan tribe _Ru’ua_ is frequently mentioned in + Assyrian inscriptions as dwellers on the banks of the Euphrates + and Tigris, in or near Babylonia (Delitzsch _Wo lag das + Paradies?_ 238 ff.).――=20.= שְׂרוּג (Σερουχ)] a well-known city and + district about half-way between Carchemish and Ḥarran, mentioned + by Syrian and Arabic writers under the name _Saruǧ_. The name + (_Saruǧi_) also occurs several times in the census of the + district round Ḥarran (7th century B.C.), published by Johns + under the title of _An Assyrian Domesday Book_: see pages 29, + 30, 43, 48, 68.――=22.= נָחוֹר (Ναχωρ)] is in Yahwist the brother of + Abraham (22²⁰; compare Joshua 24²); in Priestly-Code he is both + the grandfather and the brother (11²⁶). The name must have been + that of an important Aramæan tribe settled in or around Ḥarran + (27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴). Johns compares the place-name _Til-Naḥiri_ in + the neighbourhood of Saruǧi; also the personal names _Naḥirî_ + and _Naḥarâu_ found in Assyrian Deeds (_l.c._ 71; _Assyrian + Deeds_, iii. 127; compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 477 f.). As a divine name Ναχαρ is mentioned along + with other Aramæan deities on a Greek inscription from Carthage + (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 477); and Jensen + (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 300) has called attention + to the theophorous name (‡ Syriac phrase) in the ‘Doctrine of + Addai,’ as possibly a corruption of (‡ Syriac phrase).――=24.= + תֶּרַח (Θαῤῥα)] is instanced by William Robertson Smith¹ as a totem + clan-name; (‡ Syriac word) (?) being the Syrian and _turâḥû_ the + Assyrian word for ‘wild goat.’ Similarly Delitzsch (_Prolegomena + eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum Alten + Testament_ 80), who also refers tentatively to _Til-ša-turâḥi_, + the name of a Mesopotamian town in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran. + Knobel compares a place _Tharrana_, South of Edessa (Dillmann); + Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 70; _Hittiter und + Armenier_, 150 ff. [especially 154]) is inclined to identify + Teraḥ with the Hittite and North Syrian god (or goddess) + _Tarḫu_, Ταρκο, etc. (compare _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 484).――=26.= Peshiṭtå reads 75 instead of 70. + + ¹ _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_¹, 220 (afterwards + abandoned). Compare Nöldeke, _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 167 f.: “sicher + unmöglich.” + + _The Chronology._――The following Table shows the variations + of the three chief recensions (Massoretic Text, _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, and LXX), together with the + chronology of the Book of Jubilees, which for this period parts + company with the Samaritan, and follows a system peculiar to + itself (see page 134 ff. above): + + MT. │ Sam. │ LXX. │ Jub. + 1st │ 1st │ 1st │ 1st + Son After │ Son After Total │ Son After │ Son + ─── ───── │ ─── ───── ───── │ ─── ───── │ ─── + 1. Shem 100 500 │ 100 500 600 │ 100 500 │ 102? + 2. Arpakšad 35 403 │ 135 303 438 │ 135 430 │ 66? + Καιναν │ 130 │ 330 57 │ + 3. Shelaḥ 30 403 │ 130 303 433 │ 130 330 │ 71 + 4. Eber 34 430 │ 134 270 404 │ 134 370 │ 64 + 5. Peleg 30 209 │ 130 109 239 │ 130 │ + │ [L.│ 134] 209 │ 61 + 6. Reu 32 207 │ 132 107 239 │ 132 207 │ 59 + 7. Serug 30 200 │ 130 100 230 │ 130 200 │ 57 + 8. Nāḥôr 29 119 │ 79 69 148 │ 79 129 │ + │ │ [L. 125] │ 62 + 9. Teraḥ 70 135 │ 70 75 145 │ 70 135 │ 70 + ─── ───── │──── ───── ───── │──── ───── │ ─── + 390 │1040 │1170 │ 669 + From Flood │ [L. 1174] │ + (or birth │ │ │ + of Arp.) │ │ │ + to b. of │ │ │ + Abr. 290 │ 940 │1070 │ 567 + + The three versions plainly rest on a common basis, and it is + not easy to decide in favour of the priority of any one of them. + On the application to this period of the general chronological + theories described on page 135 f. it is unnecessary to add much. + Klostermann maintains his scheme of Jubilee-periods on the basis + of LXX, (a) by allowing a year for the Flood; (b) by adopting + the reading of Peshiṭtå, 75 instead of 70, in the case of Teraḥ; + and (c) by following certain MSS which give 179 for 79 as the + age of Naḥor at the birth of Teraḥ. This makes from the Flood + to the birth of Abraham 1176 years = 2 × 12 × 49. By an equally + arbitrary combination of data of Massoretic Text and LXX a + similar period of 1176 years is then made out from the birth + of Abraham to the Dedication of the Temple.――The seemingly + eccentric scheme of _Jubilees_ shows clear indications of a + reckoning by year-weeks. Since the birth of Arpakšad is said + (vii. 18) to have occurred two years after the Flood, we may + conclude that it was assigned to A.M. 1309, the 102nd year of + Shem. This gives a period of 187 year-weeks from the Creation + to the birth of Arpakšad, followed by another of 81 (567 ÷ 7) to + the birth of Abraham. We observe further that the earlier period + embraces 11 generations with an average of exactly 17 year-weeks, + and the later 9 generations with an average of exactly 9: _i.e._, + as nearly as possible one-half: the author accordingly must + have proceeded on the theory that after the Flood the age of + paternity suddenly dropped to one-half of what it had formerly + been. + + [It is possible that the key to the various systems has been + discovered by A. Bosse, whose paper¹ became known to me only + while these sheets were passing through the press. His main + results are as follows: (1) In Massoretic Text he finds two + distinct chronological systems, (a) One reckons by generations + of 40 years, its _termini_ being the birth of Shem and the end + of the Exile. In the Shemite table, Teraḥ is excluded entirely, + and the two years between the Flood and the birth of Arpakšad + are ignored. This gives: from the birth of Shem to that of + Abraham 320 (8 × 40) years; thence to birth of Jacob 160 + (4 × 40); to Exodus 560 (14 × 40); to _founding_ of Temple + 480 (12 × 40); to end of Exile 480: in all 2000 (50 × 40). + This system is, of course, later than the Exile; but Bochartus + concedes the probability that its middle section, with 1200 + (30 × 40) years from the birth of Abraham to the founding of the + Temple, may be of earlier origin.――(b) The other scheme, with + which we are more immediately concerned, operates with a Great + Month of 260 years (260 = the number of weeks in a five-years’ + _lustrum_). Its period is a Great Year from the Creation to the + _dedication_ of the Temple, and its reckoning includes Teraḥ in + the Shemite table, but excludes the 2 years of Arpakšad. This + gives 1556 years to birth of Shem + 390 (birth of Abraham) + 75 + (migration of Abraham) + 215 (descent to Egypt) + 430 (Exodus) + + 480 (founding of Temple) + 20 (_dedication_ of temple) = 3166. + Now 3166 = 12 × 260 + 46. The odd 46 years are thus accounted + for: the chronologist was accustomed to the Egyptian reckoning + by months of 30 days, and a solar year of 365¼ days, requiring + the interposition of 5¼ days each year; and the 46 years are + the equivalent of these 5¼ days in the system here followed. + (For, if 30 days = 260 years, then 5¼ days = (5¼ × 260) / 30 = + (21 × 26) / (4 × 3) = (7 × 13) / 2 = 45½ [say 46] _years_.) The + first third of this Great Year ends with the birth of Noah 1056 + = 4 × 260 + 16 (⅓ of 46). The second third _nearly_ coincides + with the birth of Jacob; but here there is a discrepancy of + 5 years, which Bochartus accounts for by the assumption that + the figure of the older reckoning by generations has in the + case of Jacob been allowed to remain in the text.――(2) LXX + reckons with a Great Month of 355 years (the number of days + in the _lunar_ year), and a Great Year of 12 × 355 = 4260 + years from the Creation to the _founding_ of the Temple, made + up as follows: 2142 + 1173² + 75 + 215 + 215 + 440³ = 4260. + Significant subdivisions cannot be traced.――(3) _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ returns to the earlier Hebrew + reckoning by generations, its _terminus ad quem_ being the + measuring out of Gerizim, which, according to the _Samaritan + Chronicle_ published by Neubauer, took place 13 years after + the Conquest of Canaan. Thus we obtain 1207 + 1040 + 75 + 215 + + 215 + 42 (desert wandering)⁴ + 13 (measurement of Gerizim) + = 2807 = 70 × 40 + 7.⁵――(4) The Book of _Jubilees_ counts by + Jubilee-periods of 49 years from the Creation to the Conquest + of Palestine: 1309 + 567 + 75 + 459 (Exodus) + 40 (entrance to + Canaan) = 2450 = 50 × 49.] + + ¹ _Die chronologischen Systeme im Alten Testament und + bei Josephus_ (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen + Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2). + + ² Allowing a year for the Flood, and two years between it and + the birth of Arpakšad. + + ³ See 1 Kings.6¹ (LXX). + + ⁴ After Joshua 5⁶ (LXX). + + ⁵ The odd 7 years still remain perplexing (see page 136). One + cannot help surmising that the final 13 was _originally_ + intended to get rid of it, though the textual data do not + enable us now to bring out a round number. + + + + + XI. 27‒32. + _The Genealogy of Teraḥ_ + (Priestly-Code and Yahwist). + + +The verses are of mixed authorship; and form, both in Priestly-Code and +Yahwist, an introduction to the Patriarchal History. In Priestly-Code +(²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²), genealogical framework encloses a notice of the migration +of the Teraḥites from Ur-Kasdîm to Ḥarran, to which 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ may be the +immediate sequel. The insertion from Yahwist (²⁸⁻³⁰) finds an equally +suitable continuation in 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, and is very probably the conclusion +of Yahwist’s lost Shemite genealogy. The suppression of the preceding +context of Yahwist is peculiarly tantalising because of the uncertainty +of the tradition which makes Ur-Kasdîm the home of the ancestors of the +Hebrews (see concluding note, page 239). + + On the _analysis_, compare especially Budde _Die biblische + Urgeschichte_ 414 ff.――Verses ²⁷ and ³² belong quite obviously + to Priestly-Code; and ³¹, from its diffuse style and close + resemblance to Priestly-Code’s regular manner in recording + the patriarchal migrations (12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶: see Hupfeld _Die + Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ 19 f.), + may be confidently assigned to the same source. ²⁸ᵃ presents + nothing distinctive of either document; but in ²⁸ᵇ ארץ מולדת is + peculiar to Jehovist (see the footnote on the verse). ²⁹ is + Yahwist because presupposed in 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; and its continuation + (³⁰) brings as an additional criterion the word עֲקָרָה (compare + 25²¹ 29³¹), which is never used by Priestly-Code.――The extract + from Yahwist is supplementary to Priestly-Code, and it might + be argued that at least ²⁸ᵃ was necessary in the latter source + to explain why Loṭ and not Haran went with Teraḥ. Budde points + out in answer (page 420) that with still greater urgency we + desiderate an explanation of the fact that Nāḥôr was left behind: + if the one fact is left unexplained, so _a fortiori_ might the + other. + + The formula וְאֵלָּה תֹּלְדוֹת does not occur again till 25¹²; and it is + very widely held that in verse ²⁷ it stands as the heading of + the section of Priestly-Code dealing with the life of Abraham. + That is wholly improbable. It is likely enough that a heading + (א׳ ת׳ אברהם) has been somewhere omitted (so Wellhausen, Budde, + Holzinger, al.); but the truth is that from this point onwards + no consistent principle can be discovered in the use of the + formula. The hypothesis that an originally independent book of + Tôledôth has been broken up and dislocated by the redaction, + is as plausible a solution as any that can be thought of. See, + further, on 25¹⁹. + +=27.= On the name _Abram_, see on 17⁵; on _Nāḥôr_, verse ²² +above.――_Haran begat Loṭ_] A statement to the same effect must have +been found in Yahwist (see 12⁴ᵃ). Haran has no significance in the +tradition except as expressing the relationship of Lôṭ, Milkah, and +Yiṣkah within the Hebraic group. + + That הרן is formed from חָרָן (_v.i._) by a softening of the initial + guttural (Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 313) + is an improbable conjecture (see Budde 443²). The name occurs + elsewhere only in בֵּית־ה׳ (Numbers 32³⁶: compare בֵּית־הָרָם, Joshua + 13²⁷)¹ in the tribe of Gad: this has suggested the view that הָרָן + was the name of a deity worshipped among the peoples represented + by Lot (Mez: compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, + ii. 499).――The name לוֹט is also etymologically obscure (? Arabic + _lāṭ_ = ‘cleave to’). A connexion with the Ḥorite clan לוֹטָן in + Genesis 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹ is probable. + + ¹ Though Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 499) + contends that both names are corruptions of חורנים. + +=28.= The premature death of Haran (which became the nucleus of some +fantastic Jewish legends) took place _in the land of his nativity_; +_i.e._, according to the present text, _Ur of the Chaldees_, where +his grave was shown down to the time of Josephus (_Antiquities of the +Jews_ i. 151; Eusebius. _Onomasticon_, 285, 50 ff.). + + אוּר כַּשְׂדּים (verse ³¹ 15⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷: LXX χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων) is now + almost universally identified with the ancient South Babylonian + city of _Uru_, whose remains have been discovered in the mounds + of _’el-Muḳayyar_, on the right bank of the Euphrates, about 25 + miles South-east from Erech and 125 from Babylon (see Hilprecht + _Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 172 ff.). + The evidence for this view is very strong. Uru is the only city + of the name known from Assyriology (although the addition of the + genitive כשדים suggests that others were known to the Israelites: + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 125 _h_): it was situated in the properly + Chaldæan territory, was a city of great importance and vast + antiquity, and (like Ḥarran, with which it is here connected) + was a chief centre of the worship of the moon-god Sin (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 129 ff.). The + only circumstance that creates serious misgiving is that the + prevalent tradition of Genesis points to the North-east as the + direction whence the patriarchs migrated to Canaan (see below); + and this has led to attempts to find a northern Ur connected + probably with the Mesopotamian Chaldæans of 22²² (see Kittel, + _Geschichte Der Hebräer_ i. 163 ff.). Syrian tradition + identifies it with Edessa (_Urhåi_, _Urfa_). It is generally + recognised, however, that these considerations are insufficient + to invalidate the arguments in favour of Uru.――כַּשְׂדִּים] = Babylonian + _Kašdu_, Assyrian _Kaldu_ (Χαλδ-αίοι), is the name of a group + of Semitic tribes, distinguished from the Arabs and Aramæans, + who are found settled to the South-east of Babylonia, round the + shore of the Persian Gulf. In the 11th century or earlier they + are believed to have penetrated Babylonia, at first as roving, + pastoral nomads (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 22 ff.), but ultimately giving their name to the country, and + founding the dynasty of Nabopolassar.――By the ancients כשדים + was rightly understood of Babylonia (Nicolaus of Damascus in + Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 152; Eupolemos in Eusebius + _Præparatio Evangelica_ ix. 17; Jerome, al.); but amongst the + Jews אוּר came to be regarded as an appellative = ‘fire’ (_in igne + Chaldæorum_, which Jerome accepts, though he rejects the legends + that were spun out of the etymology). This is the germ of the + later Haggadic fables about the ‘fire’ in which Haran met an + untimely fate, and the furnace into which Abraham was cast by + order of Nimrod (_Jubilees_ xii. 12‒14; Jerome _Quæstiones sive + Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, _ad loc._; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + _Bereshith Rabba_ § 38, Rashi). + + * * * * * + + =28.= עַל־פְּנֵי] is _coram_ (LXX ἐνώπιον), rather than _ante_ + (Vulgate: so Tuch), or ‘in the lifetime of’ (Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word)); compare Numbers 3⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs + and Gesenius-Buhl _s.v._ אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ――.פָּנִים so 24⁷ (Yahwist), 31¹³ + (Elohist); compare Jeremiah 22¹⁰ 46¹⁶, Ezekiel 23¹⁵, Ruth 2¹¹. A + commoner phrase in Pentateuch is אר׳ ומו׳, 12¹ 24⁴ 31³ 32¹⁰, Numbers + 10³⁰ (all Yahwist). From the way in which the two expressions + alternate, it is probable that they are equivalent; and since מ׳ + alone certainly means ‘kindred’ (43⁷ [Yahwist], compare Esther + 2¹⁰ᐧ ²⁰ 8⁶), it is better to render ‘land of one’s parentage’ + than ‘land in which one was born’ [Peshiṭtå here and 12¹] + (compare Budde 419²). Priestly-Code has the word, but only in + the sense of ‘progeny’ (48⁶, Leviticus 18⁹ [H]). + + * * * * * + +=29.= While we are told that Nāḥôr’s wife was his brother’s daughter, +it is surprising that nothing is said of the parentage of Sarai. +According to Elohist (20¹²), she was Abraham’s half-sister; but this +does not entitle us to suppose that words expressing this relationship +have been omitted from the text of Yahwist (Ewald). It would seem, +however, that tradition represented marriage between near relations +as the rule among the Teraḥites (20¹² 24³ ᶠᶠᐧ 29¹⁹). + + With regard to the names, שָׂרַי seems to be an archaic form of + שָׂרָה = ‘princess’ (see on 17¹⁵), while מִלְכָּה means ‘queen.’ In + Babylonian the relations are reversed, _šarratu_ being the queen + and _malkatu_ the princess. It cannot be a mere coincidence + that these two names correspond to two personages belonging + to the pantheon of Ḥarran, where Šarratu was a title of the + moon-goddess, the consort of Sin, and Malkatu a title of Ištar, + also worshipped there (Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. + 299 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 364 f.). + It is needless to say that these associations, if they existed, + are forgotten in the Hebrew legend.――If, as is not improbable, + the tradition contains ethnographic reminiscences, verse ²⁸ ᶠᐧ + express (1) the dissolution of an older tribal group, Haran; + (2) the survival of one of its subdivisions (Loṭ) through + the protection of a stronger tribe; and (3) the absorption + of another (Milkah) in a kindred stock.――Of יִסְכָּה nothing is + known. The Rabbinical fiction that she is Sarah under another + name (implied in Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 151; + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, al.) is + worthless. Ewald’s conjecture that she was the wife of Loṭ is + plausible, but baseless. + + * * * * * + + =29.= וַיִּקַּח] singular, according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 146 + _f_.――=30.= עקרה] as 25²¹ 29³¹ (Yahwist); not in Priestly-Code + (see 16¹ᵃ).――וָלָד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילד. + Only again as Kethîb of Or. MSS in 2 Samuel 6²³. It is possibly + here a scribal error, which eventually influenced the other + passages. + + * * * * * + +=31, 32.= The migration from Ur-Kasdîm to Canaan is accomplished in +two stages. Teraḥ, as patriarchal head of the family, conducts the +expedition as far as Ḥarran, where he dies. The obvious implication is +that after his death the journey is resumed by Abram (12⁵); although +_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ alone gives a chronology +consistent with this view (_v. supra_). Nāḥôr, we are left to infer, +remained behind in Ur-Kasdîm; and in the subsequent narratives +Priestly-Code (in opposition to Yahwist) seems carefully to avoid +any suggestion of a connexion between Nāḥôr and the city of Ḥarran. + + חָרָן (with virtually doubled ר: compare LXX Χαρραν; Greek Κάῤῥαι; + Latin _Carræ_, _Charra_; Assyrian _Ḫarrânu_; Syrian and Arabic + _Ḥarrān_) was an important centre of the caravan trade in + North-west Mesopotamia, 60 miles East of Carchemish, situated + near the Baliḫ, 70 miles due North from its confluence with + the Euphrates. Though seldom mentioned in Old Testament (12⁴ ᶠᐧ + [Priestly-Code], 27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴ [Yahwist], 2 Kings 19¹², Ezekiel + 27²³†), and now ruined, it was a city of great antiquity, and + retained its commercial importance in classical and mediæval + times. The name in Assyrian appears to be susceptible of + several interpretations――‘way,’ ‘caravan’ (Tel-Amarna Tablets), + ‘joint-stock enterprise’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ + _s.v._, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 29²)――any + one of which might denote its commercially advantageous position + at the parting of the route to Damascus from the main highway + between Nineveh and Carchemish. Ḥarran was also (along with + Ur) a chief seat of the worship of Sin, who had there a temple, + _E-ḫul-ḫul_, described by Nabuna’id as “from remote days” a + “dwelling of the joy of his (Sin’s) heart” (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, iii. 2. 97), and who was known in North-west + Asia as the “Lord of Ḥarran” (Zinjirli inscription: compare + Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 444, + _An._). See, further, Mez, _Geschichte der Stadt Ḥarrân in + Mesopotamien_; Tomkins, _Times of Abraham_, 55 ff. etc. This + double connexion of Abraham with centres of lunar religion + is the most plausible argument advanced by those who hold the + mythical view of his figure as an impersonation of the moon-god. + + It will be observed that while both Priestly-Code and Yahwist + (in the present text) make Ur-Kasdîm the starting-point of the + Abrahamic migration, Yahwist has no allusion to a journey from + Ur to Ḥarran. His language is perfectly consistent either (a) + with a march directly from Ur to Canaan, or (b) with the view + that the real starting-point was Ḥarran, and that באור כשדים is + here a gloss intended to harmonise Yahwist and Priestly-Code. + Now, there is a group of passages in Yahwist which, taken + together, unmistakably imply that Abraham was a native of Ḥarran, + and therefore started from thence to seek the promised land. + In 24⁴ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰, the place of Abraham’s nativity is Aram-Naharaim, + and specially the ‘city of Nāḥôr’; while a comparison with 27⁴³ + 28¹⁰ 29⁴ leaves no doubt that the ‘city of Nāḥôr’ was Ḥarran. + Priestly-Code, on the other hand, nowhere deviates from his + theory of a double migration with a halt at Ḥarran; and the + persistency with which he dissociates Laban and Rebecca from + Nāḥôr (25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) is a proof that the omission of Nāḥôr + from the party that left Ur was intentional (Budde 421 ff.). + It is evident, then, that we have to do with a divergence in + the patriarchal tradition; and the only uncertainty is with + regard to the precise point where it comes in. The theory of + Priestly-Code, though consistently maintained, is not natural; + for (1) all the antecedents (11¹⁰⁻²⁶) point to Mesopotamia as + the home of the patriarchs; and (2) the twofold migration, first + from Ur and then from Ḥarran, has itself the appearance of a + compromise between two conflicting traditions. The simplest + solution would be to suppose that both the references to + Ur-Kasdîm in Yahwist (11²⁸ 15⁷) are interpolations, and that + Priestly-Code had another tradition which he harmonised with + that of Yahwist by the expedient just mentioned (so Wellhausen, + Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver, al.). Budde holds that both traditions + were represented in different strata of Yahwist (Yahwist¹ Ḥarran, + Yahwist² Ur), and tries to show that the latter is a probable + concomitant of the Yahwistic account of the Flood. In that he + can hardly be said to be successful; and he is influenced by the + consideration that apart from such a discrepancy in his sources + Priestly-Code could never have thought of the circuitous route + from Ur to Canaan by way of Ḥarran. That argument has little + weight with those who are prepared to believe that Priestly-Code + had other traditions at his disposal than those we happen to + know from Yahwist and Elohist.¹ In itself, the hypothesis of + a dual tradition within the school of Yahwist is perfectly + reasonable; but in this case, in spite of Budde’s close + reasoning, it appears insufficiently supported by other + indications. The view of Wellhausen is on the whole the more + acceptable. + + ¹ The suggestion has, of course, been made (Winckler + _Altorientalische Forschungen_ i. 98 ff.; Paton, _The Early + History of Syria and Palestine_ 42) that Elohist is the + source of the Ur-Kasdîm tradition; but in view of Joshua + 24² that is not probable. + + * * * * * + + =31.= כלתו] כַּלָּה (Syrian (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _kannat_) means + both ‘spouse’ and ‘daughter-in-law’: in Syrian and Arabic also + ‘sister-in-law,’――a fact adduced by William Robertson Smith as a + relic of Baal polyandry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², + 161, 209¹).――ויצאו אתם] gives no sense. Read with _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτούς) Vulgate, + וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתָם, or Peshiṭtå, וַיֵּצֵא אִתָּם.――=32.= יְמֵי־תֶרַח] LXX + Χαῤῥάν. + + * * * * * + + + + + THE PATRIARCHAL HISTORY. + + + + + ABRAHAM. + + + CHAPTERS XII‒XXV. 18. + + _Critical Note._――In this section of Genesis the broad lines + of demarcation between Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code are + so clear that there is seldom a serious diversity of opinion + among critics. The real difficulties of the analysis concern the + composition of the Yahwistic narrative, and the relation of its + component parts to Elohist and Priestly-Code respectively. These + questions have been brought to the front by the commentary of + Gunkel, who has made it probable that the Yahwistic document + contains two main strata, one (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) fixing Abraham’s + residence at Hebron, and the other (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) regarding + him as a denizen of the Negeb. + + 1. The kernel of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ is a cycle of legends in which + the fortunes of Abraham and Lot are interlinked: viz. 12¹⁻⁸; + 13²ᐧ ⁵⁻¹⁸; 18; 19¹⁻²⁸; 19³⁰⁻³⁸. If these passages are read + continuously, they form an orderly narrative, tracing the march + of Abraham and Lot from Ḥarran through Shechem to Bethel, where + they separate; thence Abraham proceeds to Hebron, but is again + brought into ideal contact with Lot by visits of angels to each + in turn; this leads up to the salvation of Lot from the fate of + Sodom, his flight to the mountains, and the origin of the two + peoples supposed to be descended from him. In this sequence + 12⁹‒13¹ is (as will be more fully shown later) an interruption. + Earlier critics had attempted to get rid of the discontinuity + either by seeking a suitable connexion for 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ at a + subsequent stage of Yahwist’s narrative, or by treating it as + a redactional expansion. But neither expedient is satisfactory, + and the suggestion that it comes from a separate source is + preferable on several grounds. Now 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ is distinguished + from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, not only by the absence of Lot, but by the + implication that Abraham’s home was in the Negeb, and perhaps + by a less idealised conception of the patriarch’s character. + These characteristics reappear in chapter 16, which, as breaking + the connexion of chapter 18 with 13, is plausibly assigned + to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. (To this source Gunkel also assigns the + Yahwistic component of chapter 15; but that chapter shows so + many signs of later elaboration that it can hardly have belonged + to either of the primary sources.)――After chapter 19, the hand + of Yahwist appears in the accounts of Isaac’s birth (21¹⁻⁷*) + and Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech (21²²⁻³⁴*): the latter is + probably Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (on account of the Negeb), while the + former shows slight discrepancies with the prediction of chapter + 18, which lead us (though with less confidence) to assign + it also to Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. With regard to chapter 24, it + is impossible to say whether it belongs to Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or + Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: we assign it provisionally to the latter.¹ The + bulk of the Yahwistic material may therefore be disposed in two + parallel series as follows: + + Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ: 12¹⁻⁸*; 13²⁻¹⁸*; 18¹⁻¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ; 19¹⁻²⁸; + 19³⁰⁻³⁸; + + Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ: 12⁹‒13¹; 16; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 24*.² + + The Yahwistic sections not yet dealt with are chapter 15* + (see above); and the two genealogies, 22²⁰⁻²⁴ and 25¹⁻⁶, both + inserted by a Yahwistic editor from unknown sources. Other + passages (13¹⁴⁻¹⁷ 18¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ 22¹⁵⁻¹⁸) which appear to + have been added during the redaction (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ or + Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ) will be examined in special notes _ad locc._ + + ¹ Gunkel analyses 24 into two narratives, assigning one to + each source. The question is discussed in the Note, pages + 340 f., where the opinion is hazarded that the subordinate + source may be Elohist, in which case the other would + naturally be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ. + + ² It is interesting to compare this result with the analysis + of the Yahwistic portions of chapters 1‒11 (pages 2‒4). In + each case Yahwist appears as a complex document, formed by + the amalgamation of prior collections of traditions; and + the question naturally arises whether any of the component + narratives can be traced from the one period into the + other. It is impossible to prove that this is the case; + but certain affinities of thought and expression suggest + that Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ in the biography of Abraham may be the + continuation of Jehovistᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ in the primitive history. + Both use the phrase ‘call by the name of Yahwe’ (4²⁶ 12⁸ + [13⁴], [but compare 21³³ (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ))]); and the + optimistic religious outlook expressed in the blessing of + Noah (9²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ) is shared in a marked degree by the writer of + Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ. Have we here fragments of a work whose theme + was the history of the Yahwe-religion, from its commencement + with Enosh to its establishment in the leading sanctuaries + of Palestine by Abraham and Isaac? See 12⁷ (Shechem), 12⁸ + (Bethel), 13¹⁸ (Hebron), 26²⁵ (Beersheba). + + 2. The hand of Elohist is recognised in the following sections: + 15*; 20; 21¹⁻⁷*; 21⁸⁻²¹; 21²²⁻³⁴*; 22¹⁻¹⁹ (24*?). Gunkel has + pointed out that where Yahwist and Elohist run parallel to one + another, Elohist’s ♦affinities are always with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ + and never with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (compare the variants 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ ∥ 20; + 16 ∥ 21⁸⁻²¹; and the compositions in 21¹⁻⁷ and 21²²⁻³⁴). This, + of course, might be merely a consequence of the fact that + Elohist, like Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, makes the Negeb (Beersheba) the + scene of Abraham’s history. But it is remarkable that in chapter + 26 we find unquestionable Yahwistic parallels to Elohist and + Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ, with Isaac as hero instead of Abraham. These + are probably to be attributed to the writer whom we have called + Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who thus succeeded in preserving the Negeb + traditions, while at the same time maintaining the theory that + Abraham was the patron of Hebron, and Isaac of Beersheba. + + ♦ “affinites” replaced with “affinities” + + Putting all the indications together, we are led to a tentative + hypothesis regarding the formation of the Abrahamic legend, + which has some value for the clearing of our ideas, though it + must be held with great reserve. The tradition crystallised + mainly at two great religious centres, Beersheba and Hebron. The + Beersheba narratives took shape in two recensions, a Yahwistic + and an Elohistic, of which (it may be added) the second is + ethically and religiously on a higher level than the first. + These were partly amalgamated, probably before the union of + Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (see on chaapter 26). The + Hebron tradition was naturally indifferent to the narratives + which connected Abraham with the Negeb, or with its sanctuary + Beersheba; hence the writer of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who attaches + himself to this tradition, excludes the Beersheba stories from + his biography of Abraham, but finds a place for some of them in + the history of Isaac. + + 3. The account of Priestly-Code (12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α}; + 16¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵; 17; 19²⁹; 21¹ᵇᐧ ²ᵇ⁻⁵; 23; 25⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ; 25¹²⁻¹⁷) consists + mostly of a skeleton biography based on the older documents, + and presupposing a knowledge of them. The sole _raison d’être_ + of such an outline is the chronological scheme into which the + various incidents are fitted: that it fills some gaps in the + history (birth of Ishmael, death of Abraham) is merely an + accident of the redaction. Priestly-Code’s affinities are + chiefly with Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, with whom he shares the idea that + Hebron was the permanent residence of Abraham. Of the sections + peculiar to Priestly-Code, chapter 17 is parallel to 15, and + 25¹²⁻¹⁷ has probably replaced a lost Yahwistic genealogy of + Ishmael. Chapter 23 stands alone as presumably an instance where + Priestly-Code has preserved an altogether independent tradition. + + Chapter 14 cannot with any show of reason be assigned to any of + the recognised sources of the Pentateuch, and has accordingly + been omitted from the above survey. The question of its origin + is discussed on pages 271 ff. below. + + + CHAPTERS XII. XIII. + _The migrations of Abram_ + (Yahwist and Priestly-Code). + +Leaving his home at the command of Yahwe, Abram enters Canaan and +erects altars at Shechem and Bethel (12¹⁻⁸). From Bethel he migrates +to the Negeb, and thence, under stress of famine, to Egypt; where by +a false representation he enriches himself, but imperils his wife’s +honour (12⁹‒13¹). Laden with wealth, he returns to Bethel, where an +amicable separation from his nephew Lot leaves him in sole possession +of the promise of the land (13²⁻¹⁷). Abram journeys southward and +settles in Hebron (¹⁸). + + _Analysis._――The slender thread of Priestly-Code’s narrative is + represented by 12⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ 13⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵃᵇ{α}: note the date in 12⁴ᵇ; + the form of 12⁵; רָכַשׁ, רְכוּשׁ, 12⁵ 13⁶; נֶפֶשׁ, ‘person,’ 12⁵; אָרָץ כְּנַעַן, + 12⁵ 13¹²; נָשָׂא, 13⁶; עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר, 13¹²; and see on the verses below. + These fragments form a continuous epitome of the events between + the exodus from Ḥarran and the parting of Abram and Lot. With + a slight and inherently plausible transposition (12⁵ᐧ ⁴ᵇ; Budde + page 432) they might pass for the immediate continuation of 11³², + if we can suppose that the call of Abram was entirely omitted + by Priestly-Code (see Gunkel 231).――The rest of the passage + is Yahwistic throughout: observe the consistent use of יהוה; + the reference to Paradise, 13¹⁰; the anticipation of chapter + 19 in 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹³; and the following expressions: מוֹלֶדֶת, 12¹; + נִבְרַךְ בְּ, 12³; כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָֽאֲדָמָה, 12³; הִנֵּה נָא, נָא, 12¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 13⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁴; בַּֽעֲבוּר, + 12¹³ᐧ ¹⁶; מַה־זֹּאת ע׳, 12¹⁸; כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן, 13¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹. It falls naturally + into three sections: (a) 12¹⁻⁴ᵃᐧ ⁶⁻⁸; (b) 12¹⁰‒13¹; (c) + 13²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ ¹²ᵇ{β}⁻¹⁸; 12⁹ and 13³ᐧ ⁴ being redactional links + (Redactorᴶᵃʰʷⁱˢᵗ) uniting b to a on the one side and c on the + other. The purely mechanical connexion of b with a and c was + first shown by Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und + der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 24 f.).¹ The + removal of b restores the direct and natural sequence of c upon + a, and gets rid of the redactor’s artificial theory of a double + visit to Bethel with a series of aimless wanderings between. In + the main narrative Abram’s journey is continuously southward, + from Shechem to Bethel (where the separation from Lot takes + place), and thence to his permanent abode in Hebron. In the + inserted episode (b), Abram simply moves down to Egypt from his + home in the Negeb and back again.――As to the _origin_ of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰, + see page 251 below. + + ¹ So Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel. + +=XII. 1‒8. The journey to Canaan and the promise of the Land.=――=1.= +The opening verse strikes a note peculiarly characteristic of the +story of Abram――the trial of faith. There is intentional pathos in +the lingering description of the things he is to leave: _thy land, thy +kindred, and thy father’s house_; and a corresponding significance in +the vagueness with which the goal is indicated: _to a land which I will +show thee_. Obedience under such conditions marks Abram as the hero +of faith, and the ideal of Hebrew piety (Hebrews 11⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=2, 3.= The +blessings here promised express the aspirations of the age in which +the narrative originated, and reveal the people’s consciousness of +its exceptional destiny among the nations of the world. They breathe +the spirit of optimism which is on the whole characteristic of the +Yahwistic treatment of the _national_ legends, as contrasted with the +primitive and cosmopolitan mythology of chapters 2‒11, whose sombre +tone is only once (9²⁶ ᶠᐧ) relieved by a similar gleam of hope.――_and +will make thy name great_] It has been noticed that the order in which +the names of the patriarchs emerge in the prophetic literature is the +reverse of that in Genesis, and that Abraham is first mentioned in +Ezekiel 33²⁴. The inference has been drawn that the figure of Abraham +represents a late development of the patriarchal legends (compare +Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 317 f.). But from this +promise we may fairly conclude that even in the pre-prophetic period +the name of Abraham was famous in Israel, and that in this particular +the religious ideas of the people are not fully reflected in prophecy +(1 Kings 18³⁶ has also to be considered).――The antiquity of the name +is now placed beyond doubt by an archæological discovery made by Erman +in 1888, but first published by Breasted in 1904. In the Karnak list +of places conquered by Sheshonk I., the contemporary of Rehoboam, there +is mentioned _pa-ḫu-q-ru-’a ’a- ba-ra-m_ = חקל אברם, ‘Field of Abram.’ +It has not been identified; but from its place in the list it must +have been in the South of Palestine (see Breasted, _American Journal +of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, xxi. 35 f.; and compare Meyer, +_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 266).¹――_and be thou a +blessing_ (compare Zechariah 8¹³)] Rather: _and it_ (the name) _shall +be a blessing_ (point וְהָיָה, _v.i._) _i.e._ ‘a name to bless by,’ in the +sense explained by ³ᵇ.――=3b= has generally been rendered _through thee +shall all the families of the earth be blessed_] _i.e._ the blessings +of true religion shall be mediated to the world through Abram and his +descendants (so all Versions; compare Sirach 44²¹, Acts 3²⁵, Galatians +3⁸). The better translation, however, is that of Rashi, adopted by +most modern commentaries: _by thee shall all ... bless themselves_] +the idea being that in invoking blessings on themselves or others they +will use such words as ‘God make thee like Abram,’ etc. (see 48²⁰, +Isaiah 65¹⁶, Psalms 72¹⁷; and the opposite, Jeremiah 29²²). “So the +ancient mind expressed its admiration of a man’s prosperity” (Gunkel). +The clause is thus an expansion of ²ᵇ: the name of Abram will pass +into a formula of benediction, because he himself and his seed will be +as it were blessedness incarnate. The exegetical question is discussed +below.――=4a.= The mention of Lot (see on 11²⁷) establishes a literary +connexion with the Lot narratives of chapters 13. 19.――=5.= is +Priestly-Code’s parallel to ⁴ᵃ (_v.i._); the last sentence supplying +an obvious gap in Yahwist’s narrative.――_and they came, etc._]. This +time (contrast 11³¹) the goal is actually reached. On the probable +route from Ḥarran to Canaan, see Driver 146, 300 ff.――=6, 7.= Arrived +at Shechem, Abram receives, through a theophany, the first intimation +that he has reached the goal of his pilgrimage, and proceeds to take +possession of the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for +His worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in Yahwist there +is no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars: see +page l. + + ¹ See, further, pages 292 f. below. + + The original motive of this and similar legends is to explain + the sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite + manifestations of God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of + worship on their part. The rule is that the legitimacy of a + sanctuary for Israel is established by a theophany (Exodus 20²⁴ + [Elohist]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries were far + older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity + from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in verse ⁶ + in the use of the word מָקוֹם, which has there the technical + sense of ‘sacred place,’ as in 22⁴ 28¹¹ 35¹ (LXX), Exodus 3⁵, + 1 Samuel 7¹⁶ (LXX ἡγιασμένοις), Jeremiah 7¹² (compare Arabic + _maḳām_).――Shechem is the first and most northerly of four + sanctuaries――the others being Bethel, Hebron (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ), + and Beersheba (Elohist, Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ)――connected with the + name of Abraham. The name (_Skmm_, with plural termination)¹ + occurs in an Egyptian inscription as early as the 12th dynasty. + It was an important place in the Tel-Amarna period (see + Steuernagel, _Einwanderung_, 120 f.; Knudtzon, _Beiträge zur + Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, iv. 127), + and figures prominently in Old Testament legend and history. + On its situation (the modern _Nābulūs_) between Mts. Ebal and + Gerizim, see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4437 f.――The אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה + (= ‘oracle-giving terebinth’) was evidently an ancient + sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore + a survival of primitive tree-worship.² Besides Deuteronomy + 11³⁰ (a difficult passage, see Driver _ad loc._, and von + Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 107 ff.), it seems to be + mentioned as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names: + הָאֵלָה, הָאַלָּה, (a mere difference of pointing, _v.i._), Genesis 35⁴, + Joshua 24²⁶; אֵלוֹן מְעוֹנְנִים (‘terebinth of soothsayers’), Judges 9³⁷; + and א׳ מֻצָּב (‘terebinth of the pillar’ [הַמַּצֵּבָה]) Judges 9⁶. The tree + is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of + Beersheba, 21³³),――an additional indication that Abram was not + originally the patron or _welī_ of the shrine. The sacred stone + under the tree (the מֻצָּב of Judges 9⁶?) was believed to have + been set up by Joshua (Joshua 24²⁶). The sanctuary of Shechem + was also associated with Jacob (33¹⁸ 35⁴), and especially with + Joseph, who was buried there (Joshua 24³²), and whose grave is + still shown near the village of Balâṭa (_ballûṭ_ = ‘oak’): see + von Gall, 117. + + ¹ It is possible that this (שׁכמם) is the oldest form in Hebrew + also; since LXX often has the plural Σίκιμα (33¹⁸ 35⁴ᐧ ⁵ + etc.). + + ² “Where a tree is connected with a _welī_ it was probably + the original object of honour” (Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic + Religion to-day_¹ 91). On the obtaining of oracles from + trees, see William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion + of the Semites_², 195. Compare Judges 4⁵, 2 Samuel 5²⁴; and + the oak of Zeus at Dodona.――Duhm’s brilliant generalisation + (_Isaiah_¹, 13 f.), that Abraham was traditionally + associated with sacred trees, Isaac and Ishmael with sacred + wells, and Jacob with sacred stones, though not literally + accurate, has sufficient truth to be suggestive; and may + possibly correspond to some vague impression of the popular + mind in Israel. + + * * * * * + + =1.= לֶךְ־לְךָ (22² [Elohist]; compare Canticles 2¹⁰ᐧ ¹³)] see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _s_.――On מוֹלֶדֶת (LXX συγγενεία) + see 11²⁸.――=2.= וֶֽהְיֵה בְּרָכָה] imperative expressing consequence + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _i_) is here questionable, because + the preceding verbs are simple futures. The pointing as + consecutive perfect (וְהָיָה) was suggested by Giesebrecht + (_Die Alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre + religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage_, 15); see Gunkel _ad v._――=3.= + מְקַלֶּלְךָ] singular; but the plural of some MSS, _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå (־ֶיךָ), + is more probable; compare 27²⁹, Numbers 24⁹.――וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ] LXX καὶ + εὐλογηθήσονται ἐν σοί, and so all versions. The rendering + depends on the grammatical question whether the Niphal has + passive or reflexive sense. This form of the verb does not + occur except in the parallels 18¹⁸ (with בּוֹ) and 28¹⁴ (בְּךָ――וּבְזַרְעֲךָ). + In 22¹⁸ 26⁴ it is replaced by Hithpael, which is, of course, + reflexive, and must be translated ‘bless themselves’; the + renderings ‘feel themselves blessed’ (Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin, + Strack), or ‘wish themselves blessed’ (Delitzsch) are doubtful + compromises. These passages, however, belong to secondary + strata of Yahwist (as does also 18¹⁸, and perhaps 28¹⁴), and + are not necessarily decisive of the sense of 12³. But it is + significant that the Pual, which is the proper passive of בֵּרַךְ, + is consistently avoided; and the presumption appears to be + distinctly in favour of the sense given in the text above. The + idea is well expressed by Rashi: וזהו פשוטו אדם אומר לבנו תהא כאברהם וכן כל ונברכו בך + שבמקרא וזה מוכיח בך יברך ישראל לאמר ישימך אלהים כאפרים וכמנשה (Genesis 48²⁰).――=4.= + וַיֵּלֶךְ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (= וַיַּעַשׂ), adopted by Ball.――=5.= + The parallel to ⁴ᵃ in the distinctive form (see on 11³¹) + and phraseology of Priestly-Code. The verb רָכַשׁ is peculiar + to Priestly-Code (31¹⁸ 36⁶ 46⁶); רְכוּשׁ is a word of the later + language, found in Priestly-Code (7 times), in Genesis 14 + (5 times) and as a gloss in 15¹⁴; in Chronicles, Ezra, Daniel + (15 times): see Holzinger _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 347. + It is supposed to denote primarily ‘riding beasts,’ like Hebrew + רֶכֶשׁ, Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), רִכְשָׁא Assyrian _rukušu_ (Haupt, + _Hebraica_, iii. 110); then property in general.――נֶפֶשׁ] in the + sense of ‘person’ is also practically confined to Priestly-Code + in Hexateuch (Holzinger 345).――עָשׂוּ] = ‘acquired,’ as 31¹, + Deuteronomy 8¹⁷, Jeremiah 17¹¹ etc. The idea of ‘proselytising’ + (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is rightly characterised by Rashi + as Haggada.――אָרָץ כְּנַעַן] “ein fast sicheres Kennzeichen für + Priestly-Code” (Holzinger 340). In Jehovist כנען appears never + to be used in its geographical sense except in the story of + Joseph (42. 44‒47. 50⁵) and Joshua 24³.――וַיָּבֹאוּ――כְּנַעַן] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + omitted, probably from homoioteleuton.――=6.= בָּאָרֶץ¹] so + LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ, but LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, read לְאָרְכָּהּ (13¹⁷).――For מוֹרֶה, Symmachus + and Peshiṭtå read מַמְרֵא. The _convallem illustrem_ of Vulgate + is an amalgamation of LXX (τὴν δρῦν τὴν ὑψηλήν [מָרוֹם?]) + and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מישרי מודה = ‘plains of Moreh’); the latter + is probably accounted for by aversion to the idolatrous + associations of the sacred tree. Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has מישר דהוו מיירי; + on which see Levy, _Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim + und Midraschim_ 33. The absence of the article (contrast גִּבְעַת הַמּוֹרָה, + Judges 7¹) seems to show that the word is used as a proper + noun――אֵלוֹן] unlike its Aramaic equivalents (‡ Syriac word), אִילָן), + which mean tree in general, is never used generically, but + always of particular (probably sacred) trees. In the versions + ‘oak’ and ‘terebinth’ are used somewhat indiscriminately (see + von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 24 ff.) for four Hebrew + words: אֵלוֹן, אַלּוֹן, אֵלָה, אַלָּה, (only Joshua 24²⁶). The theory has been + advanced that the forms with _ê_ are alone correct; that they + are derivatives from אֵל, ‘god,’ and denote originally the ‘sacred + tree’ without distinction of species.¹ The אַלּוֹן of Genesis 35⁸ + is called a palm in Judges 4⁵, and אֵילִם (plural of אֵלָה?) (Exodus + 15²⁷ etc.) derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the + Massoretic tradition may not be uniformly reliable, אֵלָה and אַלּוֹן + appear to be distinguished in Hosea 4¹³, Isaiah 6¹³ (Dillmann); + and the existence of a form אַלּוֹן is confirmed by _allânu_, which + is said to be an Assyrian tree-name (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ 36 b). + It is probable from Zechariah 11², Ezekiel 27⁶ etc., that + אַלּוֹן is the oak. With regard to the other names no convincing + theory can be formed, but a connexion with אֵל (_ĭlu_) is at best + precarious.――=6b.= is probably a gloss: compare 13⁷ᵇ.――=7.= וַיֹּאמֶר] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå add לוֹ.――הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו] so 35¹ (Elohist). + + ¹ Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 234; Stade + _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 455; von Gall, _l.c._; + compare Schwally, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1899, + 356. + + * * * * * + +=8.= Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and _spread his tent_ (26²⁵ 33¹⁹ +35²¹) near _Bethel_, about 20 miles from Shechem; there he built a +second altar, and _called by the name of Yahwe_; see on 4²⁶. Luther’s +rendering: ‘predigte den Namen des Herrn,’ is absolutely without +exegetical warrant; and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda, +of which Abram was the Mahdi (Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte +des alten Orients_², 328), is a modern invention unsupported by a +particle of historical evidence. It is noticeable that no theophany is +recorded here, perhaps because the definite consecration of Bethel was +ascribed to Jacob (chapater 28).――Here the parting from Lot took place +(chapter 13). + + On Bethel (_Beitīn_), see on 28¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 35⁷; compare Joshua 7². + Dillmann distinguishes the site of Abram’s altar (East of Bethel + and West of ‛Ai) from that of Jacob’s pillar, which he takes + to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural view is that + the local sanctuary lay East of the city (so Gunkel), perhaps + at _Burǧ Beitīn_, the traditional scene of Abram’s encampment + (George Adam Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 552).――On the + somewhat uncertain situation of הָעַי (always with article = עַיָּה, + Nehemiah 11³¹, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸; and עַיַּת, Isaiah 10²⁸), see Buhl, + _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 177. + + * * * * * + + =8.= וַיַּעְתֵּק] introductory Hiphil as 26²² (Yahwist). + + * * * * * + +=XII. 9‒XIII. 1.――Abram in Egypt.=――The first of three variants of +what must have been a very popular story in ancient Israel (compare 20. +26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). Whether the original hero was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell; +but a comparison of the three parallels shows that certain primitive +features of the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage +before us: note the entire absence of the extenuating circumstances +introduced into the other accounts,――the whole subject being treated +with a frank realism which seems to take us down to the bed-rock of +Hebrew folklore.――=9.= _to the Negeb_] The ‘dry’ region between the +Judæan highland and the wilderness of _et-Tīh_, extending from 10 or +12 miles North of Beersheba to the neighbourhood of Ḳadesh (_v.i._). +It is still a suitable pasture ground for camel-breeding Bedouin, and +the remains of buildings and irrigation works prove that it was once +much more extensively cultivated than at present.――=10.= _the famine +was severe_ (literally ‘heavy’)] emphasising the fact that the visit +to Egypt was compulsory. The Nile valley, on account of its great +fertility and its independence of the annual rainfall, was the natural +resort of Asiatics in times of scarcity; and this under primitive +conditions involved an actual sojourn in the country. The admission of +Semites to the rich pastures of Egypt is both described and depicted +in the monuments (see Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 16).¹ +The purchase of corn for home consumption (42¹ ᶠᶠᐧ) was possible +as a temporary expedient at a somewhat more advanced stage of +culture.――=11‒13.= The speech of Abram to his wife is an instructive +revelation of social and moral sentiment in early Israel. The Hebrew +women are fairer than all others, and are sure to be coveted by +foreigners; but the marriage bond is so sacred that even a foreigner, +in order to possess the wife, will kill the husband first. Hence the +dilemma with which Abram is confronted: if Sarai is known as his wife, +her life will be safe, but he will probably be slain; if she passes +as his sister, her honour will be endangered, but his advantage will +be served. In such a case the true Hebrew wife will not hesitate to +sacrifice herself for her husband: at the same time she is a free moral +agent: Abram’s proposal is not a command but a deferential request. +Lastly, it is assumed that in the circumstances lying is excusable. +There is no suggestion that either the untruthfulness or the selfish +cowardice of the request was severely reprobated by the ethical code +to which the narrative appealed.――=14, 15.= The stratagem succeeds +beyond expectation. Sarai attracts the notice of the courtiers, and +is brought into Pharaoh’s harem. The incident is characteristic of +Oriental despotisms generally: Ebers (_Ägypten und die Bücher Moses_, +262 f.) cites from the d’Orbiney papyrus an example of the zeal +of Egyptian officials in matters of this kind.――=16.= _he treated +Abram well, etc._] compare verse ¹³. This feature of the _reward_ +is a standing element of the tradition; but in chapter 20 it is +only bestowed after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, and in +26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ its connexion with the incident is loosened. + + ¹ Compare _Authority and Archæology_, page 59; _A Dictionary + of the Bible_, ii. 531ᵇ (note ‡), 774ᵇ. + + The gifts enumerated constituted the riches of the patriarchs: + 20¹⁴ 24³⁵ 30⁴³ 32¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (compare Job 1³ 42¹²), and were perhaps + regarded by this narrator as the foundation of Abram’s + subsequent wealth. The animals mentioned were all known in + ancient Egypt (Ebers, 265 ff.), except the camel, which is + neither represented nor named in the monuments before the Greek + period.¹ This, Müller supposes, was due to a religious scruple; + but, of course, the difficulty remains of thinking that a + religiously unclean animal should have been bred in Egypt, or + have been gifted by Pharaoh to Abram. The order also――slaves + between he-asses and she-asses――is strange; the explanation + (Holzinger, Gunkel) that the slaves were intermediate in value + between these animals is jejune, and is, besides, contradicted + by 24³⁵ 30⁴³. It is possible that אֲתֹנֹת וּגְמַלִּים has been added at + the end by a glossator; but see 24³⁵ 30⁴³, and compare _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ below. + + ¹ Compare Exodus 9³ (Yahwist); and see Sayce, _The Early + History of the Hebrews_, 169 (the notice unhistorical); + Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 493. Ebers’ statement as + to the name is corrected by Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 142, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + i. 634. + + * * * * * + + =9.= הָלוֹךְ וְנָסוֹעַ] Davidson § 86, _R._ 4; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _u_. + The idea of continuous journeying lies not in נסוע (see on 11²), + but in הלוך (compare Judges 14⁹).――הַנֶּגְבָּה] LXX ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ: Aquila + νότονδε: Symmachus εἰς νότον. The word, from a √ meaning ‘dry,’ + occurs as a proper name of South Palestine (_Ngb_) in a document + of the reign of Thothmes III. (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 148; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vi. 1). Its use to denote the + South direction is rare in Jehovist, and apparently confined + to later additions (13¹⁴ 28¹⁴, Joshua 18⁵). The geographical + limits of the region can, of course, only be roughly determined, + chiefly from the list of its cities in Joshua 15²¹⁻³²: on this, + and its physical characteristics, see Cheyne _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 3374 ff.; Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, ii. 351 f. + (1871).――=10.= לָגוּר שָׁם (Jeremiah 42¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ)] properly ‘dwell as a + client or protected guest’ (גֵּר = Arabic _ǧār_: compare _The Old + Testament in the Jewish Church_², 342¹). The words, however, + are often used in the wider sense of temporary sojourn (15¹³, + Jeremiah 14⁸), and this may be the case here.――=11.= הִנֵּה־נָא] 16² + 18²⁷ᐧ ³¹ 19²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ 27² (all Yahwist). The free use of נָא (_c._ 40 + times in Genesis) is very characteristic of Yahwist (Holzinger + _Einleitung in den Hexateuch_ 110).――=13.= אֲחֹתִי אַתְּ] _oratio + obliqua_ without כִּי, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _a_. LXX, on + the contrary, ὅτι ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ εἰμί.――בִּגְלַל] In Hexateuch only + 30²⁷ 39⁵ (Yahwist) and 3 times in Deuteronomy: elsewhere 4 + times.――=15.= פַּרְעֹה] The title of all Egyptian kings mentioned in + Old Testament except Shishak (1 Kings 14²⁵) and Sevé (2 Kings + 17⁴). It corresponds exactly to Egyptian _Per‛o_ (‘Great House’), + denoting originally the palace or court, and is not applied to + the person of the king earlier than the 18th dynasty (Erman, + _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 58; Griffith, _A Dictionary of the + Bible_, iii. 819; Müller _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3687). + It is needless to go further in search of an etymology, though + Renouf, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, + xv. 421, may be consulted. A confusion of the name here with the + “Pir‛u king of Muṣuri” mentioned by Sargon (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, ii. 55, etc.), is too readily suspected by Cheyne + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3164, and _Traditions and Beliefs + of Ancient Israel_, 223; compare Winckler _Mittheilungen der + vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii. 2 ff.). Even supposing it + proved that this is the proper name of a North Arabian prince, + the narrative here must be much older than the time of Sargon; + and it is inconceivable that the Hebrew designation for the + kings of Egypt should have been determined by an isolated and + accidental resemblance to a native word.――=16.= After וּבָקָר _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts מקנה כבד מאד, and + puts וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחֹת before וַֽחֲמֹרִים. + + * * * * * + +=17.= The story reaches its climax. Yahwe interposes at the extreme +moment to save Sarai and avert calamity from the patriarchal house. It +is noteworthy that Yahwe’s intervention is here purely providential: +in 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ it takes the form of a personal communication, while in +the attenuated version of 26⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ it has become superfluous and is +omitted.――_smote with great plagues_] severe bodily maladies; compare +20¹⁷, Exodus 11¹, Psalms 39¹¹ etc. How Pharaoh discovered the cause of +his sickness we are left to conjecture; Josephus (_Antiquities of the +Jews_ i. 164 f.) pretty nearly exhausts the possibilities of the case +when he mentions sacrifice, inquiry at the priests, and interrogation +of Sarai. Gunkel is probably right in suggesting that something +has been omitted between ¹⁷ and ¹⁸.――=18, 19.= To the vigorous +expostulation of the Pharaoh, Abram is unable to reply. The narrator +evidently feels that morally the heathen king is in the right; and +the zest with which the story was related was not quite so unalloyed +by ethical reflexions as Gunkel (151) would have us believe. The idea +of God, however, is imperfectly moralised; Yahwe’s providence puts +in the wrong the man who is justified at the bar of human conscience; +He is not here the absolutely righteous Being proclaimed by the +prophets (Amos 3²).――=20.= _Pharaoh gave men charge concerning Abram_] +_i.e._ provided him with an escort (שִׁלַּח as 18¹⁶ 31²⁷). The thought of +ignominious expulsion is far from the writer’s mind; the purpose of +the escort is to see that no further injury is done to the patriarch +or his wife (Abraham Ibn Ezra), bringing fresh judgements on the +realm.――=XIII. 1.= The narrative closes with the return of Abram to +his home in the Negeb (compare 12⁹). + + _Source of 12¹⁰⁻²⁰._――It has already been pointed out (page 242 + f.) that, though the section breaks the connexion of the main + narrative, it is Yahwistic in style; and the question of its + origin relates only to its place within the general cycle of + Yahwistic tradition. Three views are possible: that it is (1) + a secondary expansion of Yahwist by a later hand (Wellhausen); + (2) a misplaced chapter of Yahwist’s main narrative belonging + properly to a subsequent stage of the history; or (3) + an excerpt from a separate Yahwistic collection (Gunkel, + [Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ]). To (1) and (2) there are distinct + objections: (a) the style and moral tone of the narrative, which + are those of racy popular legend, and produce the impression of + great antiquity; (b) the absence from the character of Abram of + those ideal features which are prominent in the main narrative, + and which later ages tended to exaggerate (_e.g._ chapter 14); + especially (c) the fact that the home of Abram is not at Hebron + but in the Negeb. Gunkel’s theory, which is not open to these + objections, seems, therefore, to mark an advance in the analysis + of Yahwist. + + * * * * * + + =17.= וַיְנַגַּע] The Piel only of smiting with disease: 2 Kings + 15⁵, 2 Chronicles 26²⁰ (Pual Psalms 73⁵).――גְּדֹלִים] LXX + καὶ + πονηροῖς.――וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ] possibly a gloss from 20¹⁷ ᶠᐧ (Kautzsch-Socin + al.); see on 2⁹.――=19.= וָאֶקַּח] ‘so that I took’; Driver _A + Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 74 α, § 116, + _Obsolete_ 2.――אִשְׁתְּךָ] LXX + לְפָנֶיךָ.――=20.= _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX add at the end וְלוֹט עִמּוֹ, as in Massoretic + Text of 13¹: the phrase is interpolated in both places. + + * * * * * + +=2‒18. Separation of Abram and Lot.=――=2, 5, 7.= The great wealth +of the two patriarchs leads to bickering among their retainers. The +situation reflects the relations of tribes rather than of private +families, quarrels about pastures and watering-places being a common +feature of nomadic life and a frequent cause of separation: compare +21²⁵ 26²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _Silver and gold_] 24³⁵ 20¹⁶ 23¹⁶.――=5.= Lot’s +substance, on the other hand, is purely nomadic: _flocks, herds, +and tents_. The last word appears to have the sense of ‘people,’ +‘families’; compare Arabic _’ahl_, Sabæan אהל (Müller, _Zeitschrift +der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxvii. 341; Hommel +_Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 121).――=3, 4.= A redactional addition +(page 243), bringing the narrative back to Bethel, the traditional +scene of the separation.――=6.= Priestly-Code’s account of the parting: +compare 36⁷. It has often been noticed that he makes no mention of a +quarrel; just as Yahwist says nothing of the straitness of the land +(_v.i._)――=8, 9.= The thought of strife between relatives (אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים) +is intolerable to Abram, who, though the older man, renounces his +rights for the sake of an amicable settlement. The narrator has finely +conceived the magnanimity which springs from fellowship with God. The +peaceable disposition ascribed to the patriarchs is characteristic +of the old narratives. Jacob substitutes guile for force, but Abraham +and Isaac conquer by sheer reasonableness and conciliation.――=10, 11a, +12bβ=. Lot’s choice.――_lifted up his eyes and saw, etc._] The _Burǧ +Beitīn_ (page 247), a few minutes South-east from the village, is +described as “one of the great view-points of Palestine” (George Adam +Smith _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 552), from which the Jordan valley and +the North end of the Dead Sea are clearly visible.――_the whole Oval of +the Jordan_] compare Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on +Deuteronomy_ 421 f. + + כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן (only here and 1 Kings 7⁴⁶ = 2 Chronicles 4¹⁷), or חַכִּכָּר + simply (verse ¹² 19¹⁷ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 34³, 2 Samuel 18²³), + is not (as Dillmann 230) the whole of the ‛Arābāh from the Lake + of Galilee to the Dead Sea, but the expansion of the Jordan + valley towards its South end, defined in Deuteronomy 34³ as + ‘the plain of Jericho’ (see _Historical Geography of the Holy + Land_, 505 ff.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 112). + The northern limit is indeterminate; the southern depends on the + site of Zoar (verse ¹⁰), whether North or South of the Dead Sea. + It is thus not quite certain whether the term includes the Dead + Sea basin; and on this hangs the much more important question + whether the writer conceives the Sea as non-existent at the time + to which the narrative refers. That is certainly the impression + produced by the language of verse ¹⁰. Apart from the assumption + of a radical transformation of the physical features of the + region, the words _before Yahwe destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah_ + have no significance. As a mere note of time they would merely + show the connexion of the story with chapter 19, and might very + well be a gloss (Olshausen, Dillmann). See below, pages 273 + f.――_Ẓô‛ar_ is the South limit of the _Kikkār_, and, if situated + at the South end of the Lake (as is most probable), would not be + seen from Bethel. + + * * * * * + + =3.= לְמַסָּעָיו] simply ‘by stages’; not by the _same_ stages by which + he had come (LXX, Vulgate, Rashi): compare Exodus 17¹ 40³⁶ᐧ ³⁸ + etc.――=5.= אֹהָלִים (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 93 _r_, 23 _h_)] LXXᴬ + κτήνη, probably Greek corruption of σκηναί (so many MSS).――=6.= + נָשָׂא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ נשאה――better. + Compare 36⁷ (Priestly-Code).――=6bβ= is by some (Kautzsch-Socin, + Holzinger) assigned to Yahwist, but on insufficient grounds + (compare Hupfeld _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer + Zusammensetzung_ 21 f.)――=7b.= ישֵּׁב] _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ ישבים.――הַפְּרִזִּי] The name is coupled with הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי in 34³⁰, + Judges 1⁴ᐧ ⁵ (Yahwist), and often appears in enumerations of the + pre-Israelite inhabitants (15²⁰ etc.). If, as is probable, it + be connected with פְּרָזִי (Deuteronomy 3⁵, 1 Samuel 6¹⁸, Esther 9¹⁹), + פְּרָזוֹת (Ezekiel 38¹¹, Zechariah 2⁸, Esther 9¹⁹), it would mean + ‘hamlet-dwellers’ as distinguished from Canaanites, occupying + fortified cities (see on הַחִוִּי, 10¹⁷). That the Priestly-Code + were remnants of a _pre_-Canaanite population is hardly to be + inferred from the omission of the name in 10¹⁶ ᶠᐧ, or from its + association with the Rephaim in Joshua 17¹⁵: this last notice + is wanting in LXXᴬᴮ and is perhaps a gloss (Moore, _Judges_ + 17).――=9.= הֲלֹא] LXX, Peshiṭtå וְהִנֵּה.――הַיָּמִין――הַשְּׂמֹאל] Ball suggests + the pointing הַשְׂמְאֵל, הֵימֵין (infinitives absolute). _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads אם השמאלה והימינה ואם הימינה + השמאלה.――=10.= כֻּלָּהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + כלו; LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ omitted.――מַשְׁקֶה] in the sense of ‘watered region’ + only again Ezekiel 45¹⁵ (where the text is corrupt) and Sirach + 39²³. Should we read מָשְׁקָה?――בֹּּֽאֲכָה] see 10¹⁹.――צֹעַר] Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) = Tanis (צֹעַן) in Egypt (Numbers 13²², Isaiah + 19¹¹ᐧ ¹³ etc.), which is preferred by Ball, but is rather an + error caused by the preceding מִצְרַיִם.――=11.= מִקֶּדֶם (compare 11²)] + LXX ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, Vulgate _ab oriente_. But the only possible + sense here is ‘eastward’; hence Stade (_Ausgewählte akademische + Reden und Abhandlungen_, 292) and Gunkel emend to קֵדְמָה.――=11b=, + in spite of its resemblance to ⁹ᵃ{β}, must be assigned to + Priestly-Code, being necessary to the completeness of that + account, and because it disturbs the connexion of ¹¹ᵃ with + ¹²ᵇ{β}. + + * * * * * + +♦_like the land of Egypt_] coming after _like the garden of Yahwe_ +(2¹⁰⁻¹⁴; compare Isaiah 51³) it is an anti-climax, which might be +excused (as Dillmann thinks) because the first comparison was pitched +too high. But the last half of the verse seems greatly overloaded, and +it is not improbable that both לִפְנֵי――עֲמֹרָה and כא׳ מ׳ are to be removed as +glosses.――On the luxuriant fertility and abundant water-supply of the +district, see _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 483 f.; Buhl, +39; Seetzen, _Reisen_, i. 417.――=11a.= _Lot departed eastward_] see +on 11² and the footnote _infra_.――=12bβ=. The immediate continuation +(in Yahwist) of ¹¹ᵃ: _and moved his tent up to Sodom_] the intervening +words being from Priestly-Code (compare עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר instead of כּ׳ הַיַּרְדֵּן).――=13.= +This notice of the sinfulness of Sodom is another anticipation of +chapter 19; but it is introduced here with great effect as showing +how Lot had over-reached himself by his selfish conduct.――=14‒17.= The +promise of the land is now confirmed to Abram.――=14.= _Lift up thine +eyes, etc._] the contrast to Lot’s self-interested glance (verse ¹⁰), +while Abram, by his magnanimous surrender of his claims, had +unconsciously chosen the good part.――=15.= It is very doubtful if the +עַד עוֹלָם can be considered (with Dillmann) a new element of the promise as +compared with 12⁷.――=16.= _the dust of the earth_] 28¹⁴. + + ♦ Probable missing text in book. + + This solemn assurance of the possession of the land (¹⁴⁻¹⁷) is + somewhat of a contrast to the simple promises of 12²ᐧ ⁷; and has + affinities with a series of passages which appear to represent a + later phase of religious reflexion (see on chapter 15, page 284). + Other reasons are adduced for thinking that ¹⁴⁻¹⁷ are the work + of a younger hand than the original Yahwist. (a) It is not the + habit of Yahwist to cite divine oracles without a specification + of the circumstances under which the theophany takes place + (but see 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). (b) The conception of Abram as wandering over + the land is not that of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ, who fixes his permanent + dwelling-place at Hebron. (c) While Bethel commands a view of + the Jordan valley, it affords no wide prospect of the land as + a whole. Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 25 f.) admits that + these ‘general impressions’ are not such as to procure universal + assent. In point of fact they are rather overstated; and + Dillmann’s answers may satisfy those who refuse to carry + critical operations further than is absolutely necessary. + Nevertheless, Wellhausen’s impression is probably correct, and + has commended itself to Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.¹ + The verses may be omitted not only without injury to the context, + but with the obvious advantage of bringing out the reference + of ¹⁸ to ¹² ᶠᐧ. The redactor has rightly seized the point of the + story, which is that by his selfish choice Lot left Abram the + sole heir of Canaan. + + ¹ The only point on which it is impossible to follow + Wellhausen is his assumption that Hebron is the fixed + residence of Abram in _all_ strata of Yahwist, and that the + notion of his migratory life arose from the amalgamation + of Elohist (which puts Beersheba in the place of Hebron) + with Yahwist. There was probably a whole cycle of Yahwistic + legends, in which he is represented as living in the Negeb + (see already on 12⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ). So far as mere literary criticism + goes, there is no reason why the addition should not be + prior to Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ. + + * * * * * + + =16.= אֲשֶׁר] = ‘so that’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 166 _b_).――=17.= LXX + adds at end καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,――approved by Ball. + + * * * * * + +=18.= Abram moves his tent to the _terebinth(s) of Mamre_, in Hebron, +and inaugurates the local sanctuary there. In the main narrative of +Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ the statement was immediately followed by chapter 18; +and it is possible that the theophany recorded at the beginning of +that chapter is that which marked the place as holy (see on 12⁷). + + The site of the tree (or trees, _v.i._) is not known. There was + a Terebinth of Abraham about 15 stadia from Hebron, which was + the scene of mixed heathen and Christian worship, suppressed + by order of Constantine (Sozomen, _Ecclesiastical History_, + ii. 4). Josephus (_War of the Jews_, iv. 533) mentions a very + large terebinth said to have existed ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως μέχρι + νῦν, 6 stadia from the city. In spite of the discrepancy as to + distance, it is probable that these are to be identified; and + that the site was the _Ḥarām Rāmet el-Ḫalīl_, 2 miles North of + Hebron. The difficulty in accepting this, the oldest accessible, + tradition is that the distance is inconsistent with the + statement that the sanctuary was _in_ Hebron. And if we suppose + the ancient Hebron to have been at _er-Rāme_ in the vicinity of + the _Ḥarām_, this conflicts with the tradition as to the cave of + Machpelah, which has as good claims to be considered authentic. + The present ‘Oak of Abraham,’ about 2 miles North-west, is as + old as the 16th century. See Robinson, _Biblical Researches in + Palestine_, i. 216; Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 160, + 162; Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³ + 138, 142; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 224 f.; von + Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 52. + + * * * * * + + =18.= אֵלֹנַי מַמְרֵא (14¹³ 18¹)] see on 12⁶. LXX τὴν δρῦν τὴν Μαμβρήν. + Peshiṭtå also reads the singular, which may be right, though + 18⁴ cannot be cited in support of it. In Yahwist, Mamre is said + to be _in_ Hebron, in Priestly-Code (where the tree is never + mentioned) it is a name of Hebron, and in 14¹³ᐧ ²⁴ it becomes the + name of an Amorite chief, the owner of the trees. So Peshiṭtå + here, as shown by the addition of (‡ Syriac word). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XIV. + _Abram’s Victory over Four Kings._ + +While Abram was at Hebron, a revolt of five petty kings in the Jordan +valley against their over-lord Chedorlaomer of Elam brought from the +East a great punitive expedition, in which no fewer than four powerful +monarchs took part. A successful campaign――the course of which is +traced in detail――ended in the complete defeat of the rebels in a +pitched battle in what is now the Dead Sea basin, followed by the +sack of Sodom, and the capture of Lot (¹⁻¹²). Abram, with a handful +of slaves, pursues the victorious allies to Dan, routs them in a +night attack, and rescues the captives, including Lot (¹³⁻¹⁶). On his +homeward journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blesses +him in the name of God Most High, and to whom he pays tithes (¹⁸⁻²⁰); +and by the king of Sodom, whose offer of the spoil Abram rejects +with proud and almost disdainful magnanimity (¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴).――Such is +in brief the content of this strange and perplexing chapter, in its +present form and setting. It is obvious that the first half is merely +introductory, and that the purpose of the whole is to illustrate +the singular dignity of Abram’s position among the potentates of the +earth. Essentially peaceful, yet ready on the call of duty to take +the field against overwhelming odds, disinterested and considerate +of others in the hour of victory, reverential towards the name and +representative of the true God, he moves as a ‘great prince’ amongst +his contemporaries, combining the highest earthly success with a +certain detachment and unworldliness of character.――Whether the picture +be historically true or not――a question reserved for a concluding +note――it is unfair to deny to it nobility of conception; and it is +perhaps an exaggeration to assert that it stands in absolute and +unrelieved opposition to all we elsewhere read of Abram. The story +does not give the impression that Abram forfeits the character of +‘Muslim and prophet’ (Wellhausen) even when he assumes the rôle of +a warrior. + + _Literary character._――Many features of the chapter show that + it has had a peculiar literary history. (a) The _vocabulary_, + though exhibiting sporadic affinities with Priestly-Code (רְכוּשׁ, + ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹; יְלִיד בַּֽיִת, ¹⁴; נֶפֶשׁ [= ‘person’], ²¹) or Elohist (האמרי, + ⁷ᐧ ¹³; בִּלְעָדַי, ²⁴), contains several expressions which are either + unique or rare (see the footnotes): חָנִיךְ, ¹⁴; (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον); + הֵרִיק, ¹⁴; הַפָּלִיט, ¹³; קֹנֶה, אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, ¹⁸⁻²⁰ᐧ ²²; מִגֵּן, ²⁰; מָרַד, ⁴.¹――(b) The + numerous antiquarian _glosses_ and _archaic_ names, suggesting + the use of an ancient document, have no parallel except in + Deuteronomy 2¹⁰⁻¹²ᐧ ²⁰⁻²³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴; and even these are not + quite of the same character. (c) The _annalistic_ official style, + specially noticeable in the introduction, may be genuine or + simulated; in either case it marks the passage sharply off from + the narratives by which it is surrounded.――That the chapter + as it stands cannot be assigned to any of the three sources of + Genesis is now universally acknowledged, and need not be further + argued here. Some writers postulate the existence of a literary + kernel which may either (1) have originated in one of the + schools Yahwist or Elohist,² or (2) have passed through their + hands.³ In neither form can the theory be made at all plausible. + The treatment of documentary material supposed by (1) is + unexampled in Genesis; and those who suggest it have to produce + some sufficient reason why a narrative of (say) Elohist required + to be so heavily glossed. As for (2), we have, to be sure, no + experience of how Elohist or Yahwist would have edited an old + cuneiform document if it had fallen into their hands,――they + were collectors of oral tradition, not manipulators of official + records,――but we may presume that if the story would not bear + telling in the vivid style that went to the hearts of the + people, these writers would have left it alone. The objections + to Priestly-Code’s authorship are equally strong, the style + and subject being alike foreign to the well-marked character of + the Priestly narration. Chapter xiv. is therefore an isolated + boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch, a fact which + certainly invites examination of its origin, but is not in + itself an evidence of high antiquity. + + ¹ The singularity of the passage appears to be reflected even + in the translation of LXX, which has some unusual renderings: + ἵππος for רְכוּשׁ, ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹ (nowhere else in Old Testament); + φάραγξ for עֵמֶק, ³ (not again in Pentateuch: twice in Joshua + and 4 times in Book of Isaiah); περάτης (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) for + עִבְרִי, ¹³,――though this might be explained by the unexpected + occurrence of the gentilic in this connexion (Aquila + περαΐτης). + + ² So Dillmann, Kittel (_Geschichte der Hebräer_, i. 124, + 158 ff.), and (with reserve) Holzinger, all of whom think + of Elohist as the most likely source. + + ³ So Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, + ii. 26‒48, who holds that the original was a cuneiform + document of legendary and mythical character, which was + worked over first by Elohist and then by Yahwist (see below, + page 272). + +=1‒4. The revolt of the five kings.=――=1.= The four names (see below) +do double duty,――as genitve after בִּימֵי and as subject to עָשׂוּ מ׳――a faulty +syntax which a good writer would have avoided (_v.i._). The suggestion +that the first two names are genitive and the last two subject,¹ has +the advantage of putting _Kĕdorlā‘omer_, the head of the expedition +(⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), in the place of honour; but it is without warrant in +the Hebrew text; and besides, by excluding the first two kings from +participation in the campaign (against ⁵ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷), it necessitates a +series of changes too radical to be safely undertaken.――=2.= The group +of five cities (_Pentapolis_, Wisdom 10⁶) is thought to be the result +of an amalgamation of originally independent traditions. + + ¹ Winckler _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, + ii. 27, 30; Peiser, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen + Gesellschaft_, 1897, 308 ff.; approved by Gunkel. + + In chapter 19, only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned as + destroyed (19²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ [18²⁰]; so 13¹⁰, Isaiah 1⁹ ᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 23¹⁴ + etc.) and Zoar (19¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ) as spared. Admah and Ẓeboim are named + alone in Hosea 11⁸, in a manner hardly consistent with the idea + that they were involved in the same catastrophe as Sodom and + Gomorrah. The only passages besides this where the four are + associated are 10¹⁹ and Deuteronomy 29²², although ‘neighbour + cities’ of Sodom and Gomorrah are referred to in Jeremiah + 49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Ezekiel 16⁴⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ. If, as seems probable, there were + two distinct legends, we cannot assume that in the original + tradition Admah and Ẓeboim were connected with the Dead Sea (see + Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 66 f.).――The old name of Zoar, בֶּלַע + (Destruction?), appears nowhere else. + + The four names in verse ¹ are undoubtedly historical, although + the monumental evidence is less conclusive than is often + represented. (1) אַמְרָפֶל (Ἀμαρφαλ) is thought to be a faulty + transcription of _Ḫammurabi_ (_Ammurab[p]i_), the name of + the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty, who put an end + to the Elamite domination and united the whole country under + his own sway (_circa_ 2100 B.C.).¹ The final ל presents a + difficulty which has never been satisfactorily explained; but + the equivalence is widely recognised by Assyriologists.² It + is, however, questioned by Jensen³, absolutely rejected by + Bezold,⁴ and pronounced ‘problematical’ by Meyer _Geschichte + des Alterthums_², I. ii. 551.――(On שִׁנְעָר, see 10¹⁰.)――(2) אַרְיוֹךְ + (compare Daniel 2¹⁴, Judith 1⁶), it seems, is now satisfactorily + identified with _Eri-agu_, the Sumerian equivalent of _Arad-Sin_, + a king of Larsa, who was succeeded by his more famous brother, + Rîm-Sin, the ruler who was conquered by Ḫammurabi in the 31st + year of the latter’s reign (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 16, 19). The two brothers, sons of the Elamite + Kudurmabug, were first distinguished by Thureau-Dangin in 1907 + (_Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften_ 210 f.; + compare King, _Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings_, + volume i. 68²; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², I. ii. page + 550 f.). Formerly the two names and persons were confused; and + Schrader’s attempt to identify Rîm-Sin with Arioch,⁵ though + accepted by many, was reasonably contested by the more cautious + Assyriologists, _e.g._ Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1896, 247 ff.), Bezold (_op. + cit._ 27, 56), and Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 367). The objections do not hold against the + equation _Arioch_ = _Eriagu_ = _Arad-Sin_, provided Arad-Sin be + kept distinct from Rîm-Sin. The discovery by Pinches⁶ in 1892 + of the name _Eri-[E]aku_ or _Eri-Ekua_ stands on a somewhat + different footing. The tablets on which these names occur are + admittedly late (not earlier than the 4th century B.C.); the + identity of the names with Eri-Aku is called in question by + King; ⁷ who further points out that this Eri-Ekua is not styled + a king, that there is nothing to connect him with Larsa, and + that consequently we have no reason to suppose him the same as + either of the well-known contemporaries of Ḫammurabi. The real + significance of the discovery lies in the coincidence that on + these same late fragments (and nowhere else) the two remaining + names of the verse are _supposed_ to occur.――(3) כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר + (Χοδολλογομορ) unquestionably stands for _Kudur-lagamar_, a + genuine Elamite proper name, containing the name of a known + Elamite divinity _Lagamar_ (_Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_³, 485), preceded by a word which appears + as a component of theophorous Elamite names (_Kudur-mabug_, + _Kudur-Nanḫundi_, etc.). It is extremely doubtful, however, if + the actual name has yet been found outside of this chapter. The + “sensational” announcement of Scheil (1896), that he had read it + (_Ku-dur-nu-uḫ-ga-mar_) in a letter of Ḫammurabi to Sinidinnam, + king of Larsa, has been disposed of by the brilliant refutation + of King (_op. cit._ xxv‒xxxix. Compare also Delitzsch + _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_, + iv. 90). There remains the prior discovery of the Pinches + fragments, on which there is mentioned thrice a king of Elam + whose name, it was thought, might be read _Kudur-laḫ-mal_ or + _Kudur-laḫ-gu-mal_.⁸ The first element (Kudur) is no doubt right, + but the second is very widely questioned by Assyriologists.⁹ + There is, moreover, nothing to show that the king in question, + whatever his name, belonged to the age of Ḫammurabi.¹⁰ (4) + תִּדְעָל (LXXᴱᴸ Θαργαλ, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)) was identified + by Pinches with a “_Tu-ud-ḫul-a_, son of _Gaz_ ...,” who is + named once on the tablets already spoken of (see Schrader + _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der + Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1895, xli. 961 ff.). The resemblance + to Tid‛al is very close, and is naturally convincing to those + who find ’Ariok and Kedorla‛omer in the same document; there is, + however, no indication that _Tudḫula_ was a king, or that he was + contemporary with Ḫammurabi and Rîm-Sin (King, _op. cit._).――גּוֹיִם + can hardly be the usual word for ‘nations’ (LXX, Vulgate, + Targum), either as an indefinite expression (Tuch) or as a + “verschämtes _et cetera_” (Holzinger). We seem to require a + proper name (Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word)); and many accept + the suggestion of Rawlinson, that _Guti_ (a people North of the + Upper Zab) should be read. Peiser (309) thinks that מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם is an + attempt to render the common Babylonian title _šar kiššati_. + + ¹ See Introduction pages xiv f. + + ² See Schrader _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen + Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1887, xxxi. 600 ff. + + ³ _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, + 1896, 252. + + ⁴ _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Keilinschriften_, etc., 1904, + pages 26, 54. + + ⁵ _Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der + Wissenschaften zu Berlin_, 1894, xv. 279 ff. + + ⁶ See his _Old Testament in the light_, etc., 223 ff.; compare + Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, 181 ff.; and Sayce’s amended translation in + _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1906, + 193 ff., 241 ff.; 1907, 7 ff. + + ⁷ _Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi_, i. page liii. + Jensen, Peiser, and Bezold also pronounce against the + identification. + + ⁸ This reading is questioned by King; see liv‒lvi, or the + extract in Driver _Genesis_, _Addenda_ on page 157 _n_. + Sayce now (_l.c._ page 194 ff.) proposes to read + _Kudur-lakhkha-mal_; but the reading appears to be purely + conjectural; and, unless it should be corroborated, nothing + can be built upon it. + + ⁹ _e.g._ by King, Zimmern (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 486¹), Peiser (who reads it _Kudur-tur-bit_, + _l.c._ 310), Jensen, Bezold, al. + + ¹⁰ There is no doubt some difficulty in finding room for a + king Kudur-lagamar alongside of Kudur-mabug (who, if not + actually king of Elam, was certainly the over-lord of + Arad-Sin and Rîm-Sin) in the time of Ḫammurabi; but in + our ignorance of the situation that difficulty must not + be pressed. It has, however, induced Langdon (Driver, + _Genesis_⁷, _Addenda_ xxxii.) to revive a conjecture of + G. Smith, that Kudur-mabug and the Kudur-lagamar of this + chapter are one and the same person. It does not appear that + any fresh _facts_ have come to light to make the guess more + convincing than it was when first propounded. + + The royal names in verse ² are of a different character from + those of verse ¹. Several circumstances suggest that they are + fictitious. Jewish exegesis gives a sinister interpretation to + all four (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_ § 42, Rashi); and + even modern scholars like Tuch and Nöldeke recognise in the + first two a play on the words רַע (evil) and רֶשֶׂע (wickedness). + And can it be accidental that they fall into two alliterative + pairs, or that each king’s name contains exactly as many letters + as that of his city? On the other side, it may be urged (a) + that the textual tradition is too uncertain to justify any + conclusions based on the Hebrew (see the footnote); (b) the + namelessness of the fifth king shows that the writer must have + had traditional authority for the other four; and (c) _Sanibu_ + occurs as the name of an Ammonite king in an inscription of + Tiglath-pileser IV. (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 294, + _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21). These considerations + do not remove the impression of artificiality which the list + produces. Since the names are not repeated in verse ⁸, it is + quite possible they are late insertions in the text, and, of + course (on that view), unhistorical.――בֶּלַע is elsewhere a royal + name (36³²). + + * * * * * + + =1.= בִּימֵי] LXX ἐν βασιλείᾳ; Vulgate _in illo tempore_, reading all + the names in the nominative. LXX has the first in genitive and + the rest nominative; LXXᴬ further inserts καί between the second + and third. The reading of the Sixtine edition (first _two_ names + in genitive coupled by καί), which is appealed to in support + of Winckler’s construction, has very little MS authority. + “I have little doubt that both in H. and P. 19 (which is a + rather carelessly written MS) and in 135 the reading is due + to a scribe’s mistake, probably arising from misreading of a + contracted termination and induced by the immediately preceding + βασιλέως. How it came into the Roman edition, I do not feel + sure.”¹――=2.= בֶּלַע] LXX Βαλλα, etc.――שִׁנְאָב] LXX Σεννααρ.――שֶׁמְאֵבֶר] LXX + Συμοβορ, Συμορ _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמאבר + (‘name has perished’), Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word).――הִיא] the first + of the 11 instances of this _Kethîb_ in Pentateuch (see on 2¹²). + + ¹ Private communication from Mr. M‘Lean. + + * * * * * + +=3.= _all these_] not the kings from the East (Dillmann, Driver), but +(see verse ⁴) those of the Pentapolis. That there should be any doubt +on the point is an indication of the weak style of the chapter. What +exactly the verse means to say is not clear. The most probable sense +is that the five cities _formed a league_] of the Vale of Siddim, and +therefore acted in concert. This is more natural than to suppose the +statement a premature mention of the preparations for battle in verse +⁸.――_the Vale of Siddîm_] The name is peculiar to this narrative, +and its meaning is unknown (_v.i._). The writer manifestly shares the +belief (13¹⁰) that what is now the Dead Sea was once dry land (see +page 273 f. below).――_The Sea of Salt_] one of the Old Testament names +for the Dead Sea (Numbers 34³, Deuteronomy 3¹⁷, Joshua 3¹⁶ 15⁵ etc.): +see Palestine Exploration Fund: _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 64. +Winckler’s attempt to identify it with Lake Ḥuleh is something of a +_tour de force_ (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 36 +f.; compare 108 f.).――=4.= _they rebelled_] by refusal of tribute +(2 Kings 18⁷ 24¹ᐧ ²⁰ etc.). An Elamite dominion over Palestine in the +earlier part of Ḫammurabi’s reign is perfectly credible in the light +of the monumental evidence (page 272). But the importance attributed +in this connexion to the petty kings of the Pentapolis is one of the +features which excite suspicion of the historicity of the narrative. +To say that this is due to the writer’s interest in Lot and Sodom is +to concede that his conception of the situation is determined by other +influences than authentic historical information. + + * * * * * + + =3.= חברוּ אל־] apparently a pregnant construct (Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 119 _ee_) = ‘came as confederates to’; but this is rather harsh. + אֶל after חבר naturally refers to that to which one is joined + (Exodus 26³; of a person, Sirach 12¹⁴): that being impossible + here, חבר must be understood absolutely as Judges 20¹¹ (_vide_ + Moore or Budde _ad loc._) and the אל may have some vague local + reference: ‘all these had formed a confederacy at (?) the Vale + of Siddim.’――עֵמֶק הַשֵּׁדִּים] LXX τὴν φάραγγα τὴν ἁλυκήν, apparently + a conjecture from the context, Vulgate _vallem silvestrem_. + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ has חקליא (from שָׂדֶה), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרדיסיא; Peshiṭtå + ‘valley of the Sodomites’: on the renderings of Aquila and + Theodotion see Field’s Note, page 30 f. It is evident the + Versions did not understand the word. Nöldeke (_Untersuchungen + zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 160³), Renan (_History_ i. 116), + Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁵ 105), Jeremias + (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 351), al. + think the true form is שֵׁדִים: ‘valley of demons.’――=4.= וּשְׁלשׁ] + Accusative of time (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 _i_); but _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ובשלש is better.――מרד] + rare in Hexateuch (Numbers 14⁹, Joshua 22¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁹ + [Priestly-Code]); and mostly late. + + * * * * * + +=5‒7. The preliminary campaign.=――One of the surprising things in the +narrative is the circuitous route by which the Eastern kings march +against the rebels. We may assume that they had followed the usual +track by Carchemish and Damascus: thence they advanced southwards on +the East of the Jordan; but then, instead of attacking the Pentapolis, +they pass it on their right, proceeding southward to the head of the +Gulf of Aḳaba. Then they turn North-west to Ḳadesh, thence North-east +to the Dead Sea depression; and only at the end of this long and +difficult journey do they join issue with their enemies in the vale +of Siddim. + + In explanation, it has been suggested that the real object of + the expedition was to secure command of the caravan routes in + West Arabia, especially that leading through the Arabah from + Syria to the Red Sea (see Tuch 257 ff.). It must be remembered, + however, that this is the account, not of the first assertion + of Elamite supremacy over these regions, but of the suppression + of a revolt of not more than a few months’ standing: hence it + would be necessary to assume that all the peoples named were + implicated in the rebellion. This is to go behind the plain + meaning of the Hebrew narrator; and the verisimilitude of + the description is certainly not enhanced by Hommel’s wholly + improbable speculation that the Pentapolis was the centre of + an empire embracing the whole region East of the Jordan and the + land of Edom (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by + the Monuments_, 149). If there were any truth in theories of + this kind, we should still have to conclude that the writer, for + the sake of literary effect, had given a fictitious importance + to the part played by the cities of the Jordan valley, and had + so arranged the incidents as to make their defeat seem the + climax of the campaign. (See Nöldeke, 163 f.) + + The general course of the campaign can be traced with sufficient + certainty from the geographical names of ⁵⁻⁷; although it + does not appear quite clearly whether these are conceived as + the centres of the various nationalities or the battlefields + in which they were defeated.――עַשְׁתְּרוֹת קַרְנַיִם (‘Astarte of the two + horns’:¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; or ‘Astarte + of the two-peaked mountain’²) occurs as a compound name + only here. A city _‛Astārôth_ of Bashan, the capital of + Og’s kingdom, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1⁴, Joshua 9¹⁰ 12⁴ + 13¹²ᐧ ³¹, 1 Chronicles 6⁵⁶ [= בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷]. _Ḳarnaim_ is + named (according to a probable emendation) in Amos 6¹³, and in + 1 Maccabees 5²⁶ᐧ ⁴³ ᶠᐧ, 2 Maccabees 12²¹. It is uncertain whether + these are two names for one place, or two adjacent places of + which one was named after the other (‛Astārôth of [_i.e._ near] + Ḳarnaim); and the confusing statements of the _Onomastica Sacra_ + (84⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 86³² 108¹⁷ 209⁶¹ 268⁹⁸) throw little light on the + question. The various sites that have been suggested――Sheikh + Sa’d, Tell ‛Aštarah, Tell el-‛Aš‛ari, and El-Muzêrîb――lie + near the great road from Damascus to Mecca, about 20 miles + East of the Lake of Tiberias (see Buhl, _Geographie des alten + Palaestina_, 248 ff.; Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. + 166 f.; George Adam Smith in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 335 f.). + Wetzstein’s identification with Boẓrah (regarded as a corruption + of _Bostra_, and this of בְּעֶשְׁתְּרָה, Joshua 21²⁷), the capital of the + Ḫaurân, has been shown by Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxix. 431¹) to be philologically + untenable.――Of a place הָם nothing is known. It is a natural + conjecture (Tuch al.) that it is the archaic name of _Rabbath_, + the capital of _‛Ammon_; and Sayce (_The Higher Criticism and + the Verdict of the Monuments_, 160 f.) thinks it must be + explained as a retranscription from a cuneiform source of the + word עַמּוֹן. On the text _v.i._――שָׁוֵה קִרְיָתַיִם is doubtless the Moabite + or Reubenite city קִר׳, mentioned in Jeremiah 48²³, Ezekiel 25⁹, + Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁹ (_Onomastica Sacra_, Καριαθαειμ, + Καριαθα), the modern _Ḳuraiyāt_, East of the Dead Sea, a little + South of the Wādī Zerka Ma‛īn. שָׁוֵה (only here and verse ¹⁷) is + supposed to mean ‘plain’ (Syriac (‡ Syriac word)); but that is + somewhat problematical.――On the phrase הַרְרָם שֶׁעִיר, see the footnote. + While שֶׁעִיר alone may include the plateau to the West of the + Arabah, the commoner הַר שֶׁעִיר appears to be restricted to the + mountainous region East of that gorge, now called _eš-Šera‛_ + (see Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_, 28 ff.).――אֵיל פָּארָן (_v.i._) + is usually identified with אֵילַת (Deuteronomy 2⁸, 2 Kings 14²² + 16⁶) or אֵילוֹת (1 Kings 9²⁶, 2 Kings 16⁶), at the head of the East + arm of the Red Sea, which is supposed to derive its name from + the groves of date-palms for which it was and is famous (see + especially Tuch 264 f.). The grounds of the identification + seem slender; and the evidence does not carry us further than + Tuch’s earlier view (251), that some oasis in the North of the + desert is meant (see Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3584).³ The + ‘wilderness’ is the often mentioned ‘Wilderness of Paran’ (21²¹, + Numbers 10¹² etc.), _i.e._ the desolate plateau of _et-Tīh_, + stretching from the Arabah to the isthmus of Suez. There is + obviously nothing in that definition to support the theory that + _’Êl-Pârān_ is the original name of the later _Elath_.――קָדֵשׁ + (16¹⁴ 20¹ etc.), or ק׳ בַּֽרְנֵעַ (Numbers 34⁴, Deuteronomy 1²ᐧ ¹⁹ 2¹⁴). + The controversy as to the situation of this important place + has been practically settled since the appearance of Trumbull’s + _Kadesh-Barnea_ in 1884 (see Guthe, _Zeitschrift des deutschen + Palästina-Vereins_, viii. 183 ff.). It is the spring now known + as _‛Ain Ḳadîs_, at the head of the Wādī of the same name, + “northward of the desert proper,” and about 50 miles South of + Beersheba (see the description by Trumbull, _op. cit._ 272‒275). + The distance in a straight line from Elath would be about 80 + miles, with a difficult ascent of 1500 feet. The alternative + name עֵין מִשְׁפָּט (‘Well of Judgement’) is found only here. Since קָדֵשׁ + means ‘holy’ and מִשְׁפָּט ‘judicial decision,’ it is a plausible + conjecture of William Robertson Smith that the name refers to an + ordeal involving the use of ‘holy water’ (Numbers 5¹⁷) from the + sacred well (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 181). + The sanctuary at Kadesh seems to have occupied a prominent + place in the earliest Exodus tradition (Wellhausen _Prolegomena + zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 341 ff.); but there is no reason + why the institution just alluded to should not be of much + greater antiquity than the Mosaic age.――חַצְצֹן תָּמָר is, according to + 2 Chronicles 20², _‛Ēn-gĕdî_ (_‛Ain Ǧidī_), about the middle of + the West shore of the Dead Sea. A more unsuitable approach for + an army to any part of the Dead Sea basin than the precipitous + descent of nearly 2000 feet at this point, could hardly be + imagined: see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, + i. 503. It is not actually said that the army made the descent + there: it might again have made a detour and reached its goal + by a more practicable route. But certainly the conditions of + this narrative would be better satisfied by _Kurnub_, on the + road from Hebron to Elath, about 20 miles West-south-west of the + South end of the Dead Sea. The identification, however, requires + three steps, all of which involve uncertainties: (1) that ח׳ תָּמָר = + the תָּמָר of Ezekiel 47¹⁹ 48²⁸; (2) that this is the _Thamara_ of + _Onomastica Sacra_ (85³, 210⁸⁶), the Θαμαρω of Ptolemy xvi. 8; + and (3) that the ruins of this are found at _Kurnub_. Compare + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4890; Buhl, _Geographie des alten + Palaestina_, 184. + + ¹ See Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 313; Macalister, Palestine Exploration Fund: + _Quarterly Statements._, 1904, 15. + + ² Moore, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. + 156 f. + + ³ Trumbull places it at the oasis of _Ḳala‛at Naḫl_, in the + middle of _et-Tīh_, on the Ḫaǧǧ route halfway between ‛Aḳaba + and Suez (_Kadesh-Barnea_, page 37). + + The six peoples named in verses ⁵⁻⁷ are the primitive races + which, according to Hebrew tradition, formerly occupied the + regions traversed by Chedorlaomer. (1) The רְפָאִים are spoken + of as a giant race dwelling partly on the West (15²⁰, Joshua + 17¹⁵, 2 Samuel 21¹⁶, Isaiah 17⁵), partly on the East, of the + Jordan, especially in Bashan, where Og reigned as the last of + the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3¹¹, Joshua 12⁴ etc.).――(2) The זוּזִים, + only mentioned here, are probably the same as the Zamzummîm + of Deuteronomy 2²⁰, the aborigines of the Ammonite country. + The equivalence of the two forms is considered by Sayce + (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iv. 393) and others to be + explicable only by the Babylonian confusion of _m_ and _w_, + and thus a proof that the narrative came ultimately from a + cuneiform source.――(3) הָאֵימִים] a kind of Rephaim, aborigines of + Moab (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰ ᶠᐧ).――(4) הַחֹרִי] the race extirpated by the + Edomites (36²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 2¹²ᐧ ²²). The name has usually + been understood to mean ‘troglodytes’ (see Driver _A critical + and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 38); but this is + questioned by Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 332 f., + 346 f.) and Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 264²), who identify the word with _Ḫaru_, + the Egyptian name for South-west Palestine.¹――(5) הָעֲמָלֵקִי] the + Amalekite territory (שָׂדֶה), was in the Negeb, extending towards + Egypt (Numbers 13²⁹ 14⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵, 1 Samuel 27⁸). In ancient tradition, + Amalek was ‘the firstling of peoples’ (Numbers 24²⁰), although, + according to Genesis 36¹² its ancestor was a grandson of + Esau.――(6) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] see on 10¹⁶; and compare Deuteronomy 1⁴⁴, + Judges 1³⁶.――While there can be no question of the absolute + historicity of the last three names, the first three undoubtedly + provoke speculation. Rephāîm is the name for _shades_ or + _ghosts_; ’Emîm probably means ‘_terrible ones_’; and Zamzummîm + (if this be the same word as Zûzîm), ‘murmurers.’ Schwally (_Das + Leben nach dem Tode_, 64 f., and more fully _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xviii. 127 ff.) has given + reasons to show that all three names originally denoted spirits + of the dead, and afterwards came to be applied to an imaginary + race of _extinct giants_, the supposed original inhabitants + of the country (see also William Robertson Smith in Driver + _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ 40). The + tradition with regard to the Rephaim is too persistent to make + this ingenious hypothesis altogether easy of acceptance. It + is unfortunate that on a matter bearing so closely on the + historicity of Genesis 14 the evidence is not more decisive. + + ¹ Compare Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 136 f., 148 ff. + + * * * * * + + =5.= אֶת־רְפָאִים] The article should be supplied, with _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_. LXX τοὺς γίγαντας; so Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹח ק׳ The reading of the Sixtine and + Aldine editions of LXX, Ἀσταρωθ καὶ Καρναιν, which even Dillmann + adduces in favour of a distinction between the two cities, has, + amongst the MSS used by the Cambridge editors, the support of + only one late cursive, which Nestle maintains was copied from + the Aldine edition. It is doubtless a conflation of Καρναιν and + the και Ναιν (? Καιναιν) of LXXᴱᐧ ᵃˡᐧ (Nestle, _Zeitschrift des + deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xv. 256; compare Moore, _Journal + of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xvi. 155 f.).――הַזּוּזִים] + LXX ἔθνη ἰσχυρά = עִזּוּזִים: so Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. + Symmachus has Ζοιζομμειν = זַמְזֻמִּים.――בְּהָם] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå + read בָּהֶם (ἅμα αὐτοῖς, etc.). Some MSS of _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ have בחם, which Jerome expressly says is + the real reading of the Hebrew text.――=6.= בְּהַרְרָם] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בְּהַרֲרֵי. + Duplication of ר is rare and doubtful (Psalms 30⁸, Jeremiah 17³) + in singular of this word, but common in construct plural. Buhl + strikes out שֶׁעִיר as an explanatory gloss, retaining בְּהַרֲרָם.――אֵיל פָּארָן] + LXX, Peshiṭtå render ‘terebinth of Paran,’ and so virtually + Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, which have ‘plain’ (see on 12⁶). + If the ordinary theory, as given above, be correct, אֵיל is used + collectively in the sense of ‘great tree’ (here ‘palms’).――=7.= + For קָדֵשׁ, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (also Saadya) have רקם, + apparently identifying it with Petra: see Tuch’s Note, page 271 + f.――שְׂדֵה] LXX, Peshiṭtå שָׂרֵי, ‘princes.’ + + * * * * * + +=8‒12. The final battle, and capture of Lot.=――=9.= _four kings +against the five_] That the four Eastern kings should have been all +present in person (which is the obvious meaning of the narrator) +is improbable enough; that they should count heads with the petty +kinglets of the Pentapolis is an unreal and misleading estimate of +the opposing forces, due to a desire to magnify Abram’s subsequent +achievement.――=10.= The vale of Siddim was at that time _wells upon +wells of bitumen_] The notice is a proof of intelligent popular +reasoning rather than of authentic information regarding actual facts. +The Dead Sea was noted in antiquity for the production of bitumen, +masses of which were found floating on the surface (Strabo, XVI. ii. +42; Diodorus ii. 48, xix. 98; Pliny, vii. 65), as, indeed, they still +are after earthquakes, but “only in the southern part of the sea” +(Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 518, ii. 189, 191). +It was a natural inference that the bottom of the sea was covered with +asphalt wells, like those of Hit in Babylonia. Seetzen (i. 417) says +that the bitumen oozes from rocks round the sea, “and that (_und zwar_) +under the surface of the water, as swimmers have felt and seen”; and +Strabo says it rose in bubbles like boiling water from the middle of +the deepest part.――=11, 12.= Sodom and Gomorrah are sacked, and Lot is +taken captive. The account leaves much to be supplied by the +imagination. The repetition of וַיִּקְחוּ and וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ in two consecutive sentences +is a mark of inferior style; but the phrase בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם, which anticipates +the introduction of Abram in verse ¹³, is probably a gloss (_v.i._). + + * * * * * + + =10.= בֶּֽאֱרֹת בֶּֽאֱרֹת] On the nominal appositives and duplication, see + Davidson § 29, _R._ 8; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 123 _e_ (compare + § 130 _e_). LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ has the word but once.――וַֽעֲמֹרָה] better as + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX וּמֶלֶךְ ע׳.――הֶרָה] On + the peculiar ֶ, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 27 _q_, 90 _i_.――=11.= + רְכֻשׁ] LXX ἵππον (_i.e._ רֶכֶשׁ); the confusion appears in ¹⁶ᐧ ²¹, but + nowhere else in the Old Testament.――=12.= בֶּן־אֲחִי אַבְרָם] LXX inserts + the words immediately after לוֹט,――an indication that they have + been introduced from the margin. It is to be noted also that Lot + is elsewhere called simply the ‘brother’ of Abram (¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶).――The + last clause is awkwardly placed; but considering the style + of the chapter, we are not justified in treating it as an + interpolation. + + * * * * * + +=13‒16. Abram’s pursuit and victory.=――The homeward march of the +victorious army must have taken it very near Hebron,――Engedi itself is +only about 17 miles off,――but Abram had ‘let the legions thunder past,’ +until the intelligence reached him of his nephew’s danger.――=13.= +_Abram the Hebrew_] is obviously meant as the first introduction +of Abram in this narrative. The epithet is not _necessarily_ an +anachronism, if we accept the view that the Ḫabiri of the Tel Amarna +period were the nomadic ancestors of the Israelites (see on 10²¹); +though it is difficult to believe that there were Ḫabiri in Palestine +more than 600 years earlier, in the time of Ḫammurabi (against Sellin, +_Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 936; compare Paton, _The Early +History of Syria and Palestine_ 39 ff.). That, however, is the only +sense in which Abram could be naturally described as a Hebrew in a +contemporary document; and the probability is that the term is used by +an anachronistic extension of the later distinction between Israelites +and foreigners.――_Mamrē’ the Amorite_] see on 13¹⁸. In Yahwist (whose +phraseology is here followed) מַמְרֵא is the name of the sacred tree or +grove; in Priestly-Code it is a synonym of Hebron; here it is the +personal name of the owner of the grove. In like manner _’Eškōl_ is +a personal name derived from the valley of Eshcol (‘grape-cluster,’ +Numbers 13²³ ᶠᐧ); and _‛Anēr_ may have a similar origin. The first +two, at all events, are “_heroes eponymi_ of the most unequivocal +character” (Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ +166),――a misconception of which no contemporary would have been +capable.¹――_the confederates of Abram_ (LXX συνωμόται)] The expression +בַּֽעֲלֵי בְרִית does not recur; compare בַּֽעֲלֵי שְׁבוּעָה, Nehemiah 6¹⁸. Kraetzschmar’s +view (_Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 23 f.), that it +denotes the relation of patrons to client, is inherently improbable. +That these men joined Abram in his pursuit is not stated, but is +presupposed in verse ²⁴,――another example of the writer’s laxity in +narration.――=14.= As soon as Abram learns the fate of his _brother_ +(_i.e._ ‘relative’), he _called up his trained men_ (?: on וַיָּרֶק and חֲנִיכָיו, +_v.i._) and gave chase.――_three hundred and eighteen_] The number +cannot be an arbitrary invention, and is not likely to be historical. +It is commonly explained as a piece of Jewish _Gematria_, 318 being +the numerical value of the letters of אליעזר (15²) (_Bereshith Rabba_ +§ 43: see Nestle, _The Expository Times._, xvii. 44 f. [compare 139 +f.]). A _modern_ Gematria finds in it the number of the days of the +moon’s visibility during the lunar year (Winckler _Geschichte Israels +in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27).――_to Dan_] Now Tell el-Ḳāḍi, at +the foot of Hermon. This name originated in the period of the Judges +(Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18²⁹); and it is singular that such a prolepsis +should occur in a document elsewhere so careful of the appearance of +antiquity.――=15.= _He divided himself_] _i.e._ (as usually understood) +into three bands,――the favourite tactical manœuvre in Hebrew warfare +(Judges 7¹⁶, 1 Samuel 11¹¹ 13¹⁷, Job 1¹⁷, 1 Maccabees 5³³): but see +the footnote.――_smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah_] Hobah +(compare Judith 15⁵) has been identified by Wetzstein with _Hoba_, _c._ +20 hours’ journey North of Damascus. Sellin (934) takes it to be the +_Ubi_ of the Tel-Amarna Tablets, the district in which Damascus was +situated (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 139, 63; 146, 12). The +pursuit must in any case have been a long one, since Damascus itself is +about 15 hours from Dan. It is idle to pretend that Abram’s victory was +merely a surprise attack on the rearguard, and the recovery of part of +the booty. A pursuit carried so far implies the rout of the main body +of the enemy. + + ¹ Dillmann’s remark (page 235), that “it makes no difference + whether Mamre or the (lord) of Mamre helped Abram,” is hard + to understand. If Mamre and Eshcol were really names of + places, and the writer took them for names of individual + men, the fact has the most important bearing on the question + of the historicity of the record. The alternative theory, + that the names were originally those of persons, and were + afterwards transferred to the places owned or inhabited + by them, will hardly bear examination. ‘Grape-cluster’ is + a suitable name for a valley, but not for a man. And does + any one suppose that Yahwist would have recorded Abram’s + settlement at Hebron in the terms of 13¹⁸, if he had been + aware that Mamre was an individual living at the time? + Yet the Yahwist’s historical knowledge is far less open to + suspicion than that of the writer of chapter 14. + + * * * * * + + =13.= הַפָּלִיט] Ezekiel 24²⁶ 33²¹ (compare הַמַּגִּיד, 2 Samuel 15¹³). For + the idiom, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _r_.――הָעִבְרִי] LXX τῷ περάτῃ + (only here), Aquila τῷ περαΐτῃ.――עָנֵר] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ ענרם, LXX Αὐναν.――=14.= וַיָּרֶק] Literally ‘emptied + out,’ used of the unsheathing of a sword (Exodus 15⁹, Leviticus + 26³³, Ezekiel 5²ᐧ ¹² etc.), but never with personal objective + as here. Tuch cites the Arabic _ǧarrada_, which means both + ‘unsheath a sword’ and ‘detach a company from an army’ (see + Lane); but this is no real analogy, _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ has בַיָּדֶק = ‘scrutinize’ (Aramaic). LXX ἠρίθμησεν + (so Vulgate) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זריז (‘equip’: so Peshiṭtå and + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) settle nothing, as they may be conjectural. + Winckler (_Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 102²) derives + from Assyrian _diḳu_ = ‘call up troops’; so Sellin, 937. Ball + changes to וַיִּפְקֹד.――חֲנִיכָיו] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, LXX τοὺς ἰδίους, Vulgate + _expeditos_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘young men.’ The √ חנך + suggests the meaning ‘initiated’ (see on 4¹⁷), hence ‘trained,’ + ‘experienced,’ etc. Sellin (937) compares the word _ḫanakuka_ + = ‘thy men,’ found in one of the Ta‛annek tablets. If it comes + direct from the ceremony of rubbing the palate of a new-born + child (see page 116), it may have nothing to do with war, + but denote simply those belonging to the household, the + precise equivalent of יְלִדֵי בַיִת. The latter phrase is found only + in Priestly-Code (17¹² ᶠᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷, Leviticus 22¹¹) and Jeremiah + 2¹⁴.――=15.= וַיֵּחָלֵק] (compare 1 Kings 16²¹). The sense given + above is not altogether natural. Ball emends וַיַּדְבֵּק. Winckler + (_Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 27²) + suggests a precarious Assyrian etymology, pointing as Piel, and + rendering ‘and he fell upon them by night’: so Sellin.――מִשְּׂמֹאל] + Literally ‘on the left.’ The sense ‘north’ is rare: Joshua 19²⁷ + (Priestly-Code), Ezekiel 16⁴⁶, Job 23⁹. + + * * * * * + +=17, 18‒20. Abram and Melkiẓedeḳ.=――“The scene between Abram and +Melkiẓedeḳ is not without poetic charm: the two ideals (_Grösse_) +which were afterwards to be so intimately united, the holy people and +the holy city, are here brought together for the first time: here for +the first time Israel receives the gift of its sanctuary” (Gunkel 253). +=17.= The scene of the meeting is עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה, interpreted as _the king’s +vale_. A place of this name is mentioned in 2 Samuel 18¹⁸ as the site +of Absalom’s pillar, which, according to Josephus (_Antiquities of +the Jews_ vii. 243), was two stadia from Jerusalem. The situation +harmonises with the common view that Šalem is Jerusalem (see below); +and other information does not exist.――=18.= _Melkîẓedeḳ, king of +Šālēm_, _etc._] The primitive combination of the kingly and priestly +offices has been abundantly illustrated by Frazer from many quarters.¹ +The existence of such priest-kings in Canaan in very early times +is perfectly credible, though not historically attested (compare +the _patesis_ of Babylonia). _Šālēm_ is usually understood to be an +archaic name for Jerusalem (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 180; +Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome [_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ +in Genesim_], Abraham Ibn Ezra al.), as in Psalms 76³, the only other +place where it occurs. The chief argument in favour of this view is +the typical significance attached to Melkiẓedeḳ in Psalms 110⁴, which +is hardly intelligible except on the supposition that he was in a +sense the ideal ancestor of the dynasty or hierarchy of Jerusalem. + + ¹ _Studies in the Kingship_, 29 ff. “The classical evidence + points to the conclusion that in prehistoric ages, before the + rise of the republican form of government, the various tribes + or cities were ruled by kings, who discharged priestly duties + and probably enjoyed a sacred character as descendants of + deities” (page 31). + + Whether the name was actually in use in ancient times, we do not + know. The Tel Amarna Tablets have certainly proved that the name + _Uru-Salim_ is of much greater antiquity than might have been + gathered from the biblical statements (Judges 19¹⁰, 1 Chronicles + 11⁴); but the shortened form _Salem_ is as yet unattested. It + has been suggested that the cuneiform _uru_ was misread as the + determinative for ‘city’ (see Sellin, 941).――The identifications + with other places of the name which have been discovered――_e.g._ + the Salim 8 Roman miles from Scythopolis (where, according + to Jerome [_Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_], the ruins + of Melkiẓedeḳ’s palace were to be seen)――have no claim to + acceptance. + + * * * * * + + =17.= שָׁוֵה (without article) must apparently be a different word + from that in verse ⁵. Hommel and Winckler emend שָׁרֵי (_šarrē_, the + Assyrian word for ‘king’).――=18.= מַלְכִּי־צֶדָק] usually explained as + ‘King of Righteousness’ (Hebrews 7²), with _î_ as old genitive + ending retained by the annexion; but more probably = ‘My king + is Ẓidḳ,’ Ẓidḳ being the name of a South Arabian and Phœnician + deity (Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_ + i. 15; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 128). That + Ẓedeḳ was an ancient name for Jerusalem (see Isaiah 1 ²¹ᐧ ²⁶, + Jeremiah 31²³ 50⁷, Psalms 118¹⁹) there is no reason to believe. + + * * * * * + +On the name אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (_God Most High_), see below, page 270 f.――_bread +and wine_] compare ‘food and drink’ (_akalî šikarî_) provided for an +army, etc., in the Tel-Amarna Tablets: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, +50²² 207¹⁶ 209¹² ᶠᐧ 242¹⁶ (Sellin, 938).――=19, 20.= The blessing of +Melkiẓedeḳ is poetic in form and partly in language; but in meaning it +is a liturgical formula rather than a ‘blessing’ in the proper sense. +It lacks entirely the prophetic interpretation of concrete experiences +which is the note of the antique blessing and curse (compare 3¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ +4¹¹ ᶠᐧ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ).――_Creator of heaven and earth_] so LXX, +Vulgate. There is no reason to tone down the idea to that of mere +_possession_ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, al.); _v. infra_――By payment of the tithe, +Abram acknowledges the legitimacy of Melkiẓedeḳ’s priesthood (Hebrews +7⁴), and the religious bond of a common monotheism uniting them; at +the same time the action was probably regarded as a precedent for the +payment of tithes to the Jerusalem sanctuary for all time coming (so +already in _Jubilees_ xiii. 25‒27: compare Genesis 28²²). + + The excision of the Melkiẓedeḳ episode (see Winckler _Geschichte + Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 29), which seems to + break the connexion of verse ²¹ with verse ¹⁷, is a temptingly + facile operation; but it is doubtful if it be justified. The + designation of Yahwe as ‘God Most High’ in the mouth of Abram + (verse ²²) is unintelligible apart from ¹⁸ ᶠᐧ. It may rather have + been the writer’s object to bring the three actors on one stage + together in order to illustrate Abram’s contrasted attitude + to the sacred (Melkiẓedeḳ) and the secular (king of Sodom) + authority.――Hommel’s ingenious and confident solution (_The + Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, + 158 ff.), which gets rid of the king of Sodom altogether and + resolves ¹⁷⁻²⁴ wholly into an interview between Abram and + Melkiẓedeḳ, is an extremely arbitrary piece of criticism. + Sellin’s view (page 939 f.), that verses ¹⁸⁻²⁰ are original + and ¹⁷ᐧ ²¹⁻²⁴ are ‘Israelitische Wucherung,’ is simpler and + more plausible; but it has no more justification than any of + the numerous other expedients which are necessary to save the + essential historicity of the narrative. + + The mystery which invests the figure of Melkiẓedeḳ has given + rise to a great deal of speculation both in ancient and + modern times. The Jewish idea that he was the patriarch Shem + (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Talmud, al.) is thought to be a reaction + against mystical interpretations prevalent in the school + of Alexandria (where Philo identified him with the Logos), + which, through Hebrews 7¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, exercised a certain influence on + Christian theology (see Jerome, _Epistola ad Evagrius Ponticus_; + compare _Jewish Encyclopædia_, viii. 450). From a critical point + of view the question of interest is whether Melkiẓedeḳ belongs + to the sphere of ancient tradition or is a fictitious personage, + created to represent the claims of the post-Exilic priesthood + in Jerusalem (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 312). In opposition + to the latter view, Gunkel rightly points out that Judaism + is not likely to have invented as the prototype of the High + Priesthood a Canaanitish priest-king, and that all possible + pretensions of the Jerusalem hierarchy were covered by the + figure of Aaron (253). It is more probable that Melkiẓedeḳ is, + if not a historical figure, at least a traditional figure of + great antiquity, on whom the monarchy and hierarchy of Jerusalem + based their dynastic and priestly rights.¹ To the writer of + Psalms 110, Melkiẓedeḳ was “a type, consecrated by antiquity, + to which the ideal king of Israel, ruling on the same spot, must + conform” (Driver 167); and even if that Psalm be not pre-Exilic + (as Gunkel supposes), but as late as the Maccabæan period, it + is difficult to conceive that the type could have originated + without some traditional basis.――Some writers have sought a + proof of the historical character of Melkiẓedeḳ in a supposed + parallel between the ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, of Hebrews + 7³ and a formula several times repeated in letters (Tel Amarna) + of Abdḫiba of Jerusalem to Amenophis IV.: “Neither my father + nor my mother set me in this place; the mighty arm of the king + established me in my father’s house.”² Abdḫiba might have been a + successor of Melkiẓedeḳ; and it is just conceivable that Hommel + is right in his conjecture that a religious formula, associated + with the head of the Jerusalem sanctuary, receives from Abdḫiba + a political turn, and is made use of to express his absolute + dependence on the Egyptian king. But it must be observed that + Abdḫiba’s language is perfectly intelligible in its diplomatic + sense; its agreement with the words of the New Testament is only + partial, and may be accidental; and it is free from the air of + mystery which excites interest in the latter. This, however, is + not to deny the probability that the writer to the Hebrews drew + his conception partly from other sources than the verses in + Genesis. + + ¹ Gunkel instances as a historical parallel the legal fiction + by which the imperial prestige of the Cæsars was transferred + to Charlemagne and his successors.――Josephus had the same + view when he spoke of Melkiẓedeḳ as Χαναναίων δυνάστης, and + the first founder of Jerusalem (_War of the Jews_, vi. 438). + + ² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, 155 ff.; Sayce, _Monuments_ 175; _The Early + History of the Hebrews_, 28 f.; _Expository Times_, vii. 340 + ff., 478 ff., 565 f., viii. 43 f., 94 ff., 142 ff. (arts and + letters by Sayce, Driver, and Hommel). + + _’Ēl ‘Elyôn._――’El, the oldest Semitic appellative for God, was + frequently differentiated according to particular aspects of the + divine nature, or particular local or other relations entered + into by the deity: hence arose compound names like אֵל שֶׂדַּי (17¹), + אֵל עוֹלָם (21³³), אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (33²⁰), אֵל בֵּיתאֵל (35⁷), and אֵל עֶלְיוֹן (here + and Psalms 78³⁵).¹ עֶלְיוֹן (= ‘upper,’ ‘highest’) is not uncommonly + used of God in the Old Testament, either alone (Numbers 24¹⁶, + Deuteronomy 32⁸, Psalms 18¹⁴ etc.) or in combinations with יהוה + or אלהים (Psalms 7¹⁸ (?), 47³ 57³ etc.). That it was in actual use + among the Canaanites is by no means incredible: the Phœnicians + had a god Ἐλιοῦν καλούμενος Ὕψιστος (Eusebius _Præparatio + Evangelica_ i. 10, 11, 12); and there is nothing to forbid + the supposition that the deity of the sanctuary of Jerusalem + was worshipped under that name. On the other hand, there is + nothing to prove it; and it is perhaps a more significant fact + that the Maccabees were called ἀρχιερεῖς θεοῦ ὑψίστου (Josephus + _Antiquities of the Jews_ xvi. 163; _Assumption of Moses_, + 6¹]).² This title, the frequent recurrence of עֶליוֹן as a divine + name in late Psalms, the name Salem in one such Psalm, and + Melkiẓedeḳ in (probably) another, make a group of coincidences + which go to show that the Melkiẓedeḳ legend was much in vogue + about the time of the Maccabees. + + ¹ See Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 291 + f.――Compare, in classical religion, _Zeus Meilichios_, + _-Xenios_, _Jupiter Terminus_, _-Latiaris_, etc. + + ² Siegfried, _Theologische Litteraturzeitung_, 1895, 304. On + the late prevalence of the title, see also _A Dictionary + of the Bible_, iii. 450, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 70 + (in and near Byblus), and Schürer, _Sitzungsberichte der + Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu + Berlin_, 1897, page 200 ff. + + * * * * * + + =19.= קָנָה has two senses in the Old Testament (if, indeed, there + be not two distinct roots: see Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴ _s.v._): (a) + ‘create’ or ‘produce’ (Psalms 139¹³, Proverbs 8²², Deuteronomy + 32⁶ [? Genesis 4¹]); (b) ‘purchase’ or ‘acquire by purchase’ + (frequent). The idea of bare possession apart from purchase + is hardly represented (? Isaiah 1³); and since the suggestion + of purchase is here inadmissible, the sense ‘create’ must be + accepted. That this meaning can be established only by late + examples is certainly no objection so far as the present + passage is concerned: see on 4¹.――=20.= After וּבָרוּךְ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + inserts יהוה.――מִגֵּן] only Hosea 11⁸, Isaiah 64⁶ (LXX, etc.), + Proverbs 4⁹. The etymology is uncertain, but the view that it + is a denominative from מָגֵן, ‘shield’ (√ גנן, Brown-Driver-Briggs) + is hardly correct (see Barth, _Etymologische Studien zum + semitischen insbesondere zum hebraischen Lexicon_, 4). + + * * * * * + +=17, 21‒24. Abram and the king of Sodom.=――The request of the king of +Sodom presupposes as the usual custom of war that Abram was entitled +to the whole of the booty. Abram’s lofty reply is the climax to which +the whole narrative leads up.――=22.= _I lift up my hand_] the gesture +accompanying an oath (Exodus 6⁸, Numbers 14³⁰, Deuteronomy 32⁴⁰, +Ezekiel 20²³, Daniel 12⁷ etc.).――_to Yahwe, ’El ‛Elyôn_] A recognition +of religious affinity with Melkiẓedeḳ, as a fellow-worshipper of +the one true God. The יהוה, however, is probably an addition to the +text, wanting in LXX and Peshiṭtå while _The Samaritan Recension of +the Pentateuch_ has האלהים.――=23.= _lest thou shouldst say, etc._] An +earlier writer (compare 12¹⁶) would perhaps not have understood this +scruple: he would have attributed the enrichment of Abram to God, even +if the medium was a heathen king.――=24.= The condescending allowance +for the weakness of inferior natures is mentioned to enhance the +impression of Abram’s generosity (Gunkel). + + _The Historic Value of Chapter 14._――There are obvious reasons + why this chapter should have come to be regarded in some + quarters as a ‘shibboleth’ between two opposite schools of Old + Testament criticism (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as + illustrated by the Monuments_, 165). The narrative is unique + in this respect, that it sets the figure of Abraham in the + framework of world-history. It is the case that certain features + of this framework have been confirmed, or rendered credible, + by recent Assyriological discoveries; and by those who look to + archæological research to correct the aberrations of literary + criticism, this fact is represented as not only demonstrating + the historicity of the narrative as a whole, but as proving + that the criticism which resolved it into a late Jewish romance + must be vitiated by some radical fault of method. How far that + sweeping conclusion is justified we have now to consider. The + question raised is one of extreme difficulty, and is perhaps not + yet ripe for final settlement. The attempt must be made, however, + to review once more the chief points of the evidence, and to + ascertain as fairly as possible the results to which it leads. + + The case for the historic trustworthiness of the story (or the + antiquity of the source on which it is founded) rests on the + following facts: (1) The occurrence of prehistoric names of + places and peoples, some of which had become unintelligible + to later readers, and required identification by explanatory + glosses. Now the mere use of ancient and obsolete names is not + in itself inconsistent with the fictitious character of the + narrative. A writer who was projecting himself into a remote + past would naturally introduce as many archaic names as he could + find; and the substitution of such terms as Rephaim, Emim, Horim, + etc., for the younger populations which occupied these regions, + is no more than might be expected. Moreover, the force of the + argument is weakened by the undoubted anachronism involved + in the use of the name Dan (see on verse ¹⁴). The presence of + archæological glosses, however, cannot be disposed of in this + way. To suppose that a writer deliberately introduced obsolete + or fictitious names and glossed them, merely for the purpose of + casting an air of antiquity over his narrative, is certainly a + somewhat extreme hypothesis. It is fair to admit the presumption + that he had really before him some traditional (perhaps + documentary) material, though of what nature that material was + it is impossible to determine.¹――(2) The general verisimilitude + of the background of the story. It is proved beyond question + that an Elamite supremacy over the West and Palestine existed + before the year 2000 B.C.; consequently an expedition such as + is here described is (broadly speaking) within the bounds of + historic probability. Further, the state of things in Palestine + presupposed by the record――a number of petty kingships striving + to maintain their independence, and entering into temporary + alliances for that purpose――harmonises with all we know of + the political condition of the country before the Israelitish + occupation, though it might be difficult to show that the + writer’s knowledge of the situation exceeds what would be + acquired by the most cursory perusal of the story of the + Conquest in the Book of Joshua.――(3) The consideration most + relied upon by apologetic writers is the proof obtained from + Assyriology that the names in verse ¹ are historical. The + evidence on this question has been given on page 257 ff., and + need not be here recapitulated. We have seen that every one + of the identifications is disputed by more than one competent + Assyriologist (see, further, Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_², + I. ii. page 551 f.); and since only an expert is fully qualified + to judge of the probabilities of the case, it is perhaps + premature to regard the confirmation as assured. At the same + time, it is quite clear that the names are not invented; and + it is highly probable that they are those of contemporary kings + who actually reigned over the countries assigned to them in + this chapter. Their exact relations to one another are still + undetermined, and in some respects difficult to imagine; but + there is nothing in the situation which we may not expect to + be cleared up by further discoveries. It would seem to follow + that the author’s information is derived ultimately either + from a Babylonian source, or from records preserved amongst the + Canaanites in Palestine. The presence of an element of authentic + history in verse ¹ being thus admitted, we have to inquire how + far this enters into the substance of the narrative. + + ¹ It is to be observed that in no single case is the + correctness of the gloss attested by independent evidence + (see verses ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁷). Those who maintain the existence + of a cuneiform original have still to reckon with the theory + of Winckler, who holds that the basis of the narrative is + a Babylonian legend, which was brought into connexion with + the story of Abraham by arbitrary identification of names + whose primary significance was perhaps mythological. See + _Geschichte Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 28 ff. The + question cannot be further discussed here. + + Before answering that question, we must look at the arguments + advanced in favour of the late origin and fictitious character + of the chapter. These are of two kinds: (1) The inherent + improbability or incredibility of many of the incidents recorded. + This line of criticism was most fully elaborated by Nöldeke in + 1869 (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_, 156‒172): + the following points may be selected as illustrations of the + difficulties which the narrative presents. (a) The route said + to have been traversed is, if not absolutely impracticable for + a regular army, at least quite irreconcilable with the alleged + object of the campaign,――the chastisement of the Pentapolis. + That the four kings should have passed the Dead Sea valley, + leaving their principal enemies in their rear, and postponing a + decisive engagement till the end of a circuitous and exhausting + march, is a proceeding which would be impossible in real warfare, + and could only have been imagined by a writer out of touch with + the actualities of the situation (see the Notes on page 261). + (b) It is difficult to resist the impression that some of + the personal names――especially _Bĕra‛_ and _Birsha‛_ (see on + verse ²), and _Mamre_ and _Eshcol_ (verse ¹³)――are artificial + formations, which reveal either the animus of the writer, + or else (in the last two instances) a misapprehension of + traditional data into which only a very late and ill-informed + writer could have been betrayed. (c) The rout of Chedorlaomer’s + army by 318 untrained men is generally admitted to be incredible. + It is no sufficient explanation to say that only a rearguard + action may have taken place; the writer does not _mean_ that; + and if his meaning misrepresents what actually took place, + his account is at any rate not historical (see page 267). + (d) It appears to be assumed in verse ³ that the Dead Sea was + formed subsequently to the events narrated. This idea seems + to have been traditional in Israel (compare 13¹⁰), but it is + nevertheless quite erroneous. Geological evidence proves that + that amazing depression in the earth’s surface had existed for + ages before the advent of man on the earth, and formed, from the + first, part of a great inland lake whose waters stood originally + several hundred feet higher than the present level of the Dead + Sea. It may, indeed, be urged that the vale of Siddim was not + coextensive with the Dead Sea basin, but only with its shallow + southern ‘Lagoon’ (South of _el-Lisān_), which by a partial + subsidence of the ground might have been formed within historic + times.¹ But even if that were the true explanation, the manner + of the statement is not that which would be used by a writer + conversant with the facts.――The improbabilities of the passage + are not confined to the four points just mentioned, but are + spread over the entire surface of the narrative; and while their + force may be differently estimated by different minds, it + is at least safe to say that they more than neutralise the + impression of trustworthiness which the precise dates, numbers, + and localities may at first produce.――(2) The second class of + considerations is derived from the spirit and tendency which + characterise the representation, and reveal the standpoint + of the writer. It would be easy to show that many of the + improbabilities observed spring from a desire to enhance + the greatness of Abraham’s achievement; and indeed the whole + tendency of the chapter is to set the figure of the patriarch in + an ideal light, corresponding not to the realities of history, + but to the imagination of some later age. Now the idealisation + of the patriarchs is, of course, common to all stages of + tradition; the question is to what period this ideal picture + of Abraham may be most plausibly referred. The answer given by + a number of critics is that it belongs to the later Judaism, + and has its affinities “with Priestly-Code and the midrashic + elements in Chronicles rather than with the older Israelite + historians” (Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 677). Criticism + of this kind is necessarily subjective and speculative. At + first sight it might appear that the conception of Abraham + as a warlike hero is the mark of a warlike age, and therefore + older than the more idyllic types delineated in the patriarchal + legends. That judgement, however, fails to take account of the + specific character of the narrative before us. It is a grandiose + and lifeless description of military operations which are quite + beyond the writer’s range of conception; it contains no trace + of the martial ardour of ancient times, and betrays considerable + ignorance of the conditions of actual warfare; it is essentially + the account of a Bedouin razzia magnified into a systematic + campaign for the consolidation of empire. It has been fitly + characterised as the product of a time which “admires military + glory all the more because it can conduct no wars itself; and, + having no warlike exploits to boast of in the present, revels + in the mighty deeds of its ancestors. Such narratives tend in + imagination towards the grotesque; the lack of the political + experience which is to be acquired only in the life of the + independent state produces a condition of mind which can no + longer distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Thus + the passage belongs to an age in which, in spite of a certain + historical erudition, the historic sense of Judaism had sunk + almost to zero” (Gunkel 255). + + ¹ Compare Driver’s elaborate Note, page 168 ff.; also Robinson, + _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 187 f.; Gautier, + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1043 f., 1046; Hull, _A Dictionary + of the Bible_, i. 576ᵇ. + + It remains to consider the extent and origin of the historic + element whose existence in the chapter we have been led to admit. + Does it proceed from an ancient Canaanite record, which passed + into the Hebrew tradition, to be gradually moulded into the + form in which we now find it? Or did it come directly from + an external source into the hands of a late author, who used + it as the basis of a sort of historical romance? The former + alternative is difficult to maintain if (as seems to be the case) + the narrative stands outside the recognised literary sources + of the Pentateuch.¹ The most acceptable form of this theory + is perhaps that presented by Sellin in the article to which + reference has frequently been made in the preceding pages (_Neue + kirchliche Zeitschrift_, xvi. 929‒951). The expedition, he + thinks, may have taken place at any time between 2250 and 1750 + B.C.; and he allows a long period of oral transmission to have + elapsed before the preparation of a cuneiform record about 1500. + This document he supposes to have been deposited in the Temple + archives of Jerusalem, and to have come into the possession of + the Israelites through David’s conquest of that city. He thus + leaves room for a certain distortion of events in the primary + document, and even for traces of mythological influence. The + theory would gain immensely in plausibility if the alleged + Canaanite parallels to the obscure expressions of verses ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ + (חלק, דיק, חניך) should prove to be relevant. At present, however, + they are not known to be specifically Canaanite; and whatever be + their value it does not appear that they tell more in favour of + a Palestinian origin than of a cuneiform basis in general. The + assumption that the document was deposited in the Temple is, of + course, a pure hypothesis, on which nothing as to the antiquity + or credibility of the narrative can be based. + + ¹ Page 256 above. + + On the other hand, the second alternative has definite support + in a fact not sufficiently regarded by those who defend + the authenticity of the chapter. It is significant that the + cuneiform document in which three of the four royal names + in verse ¹ are supposed to have been discovered is as late + as the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Assuming the correctness of + the identifications, we have here a positive proof that the + period with which our story deals was a theme of poetic and + legendary treatment in the age to which criticism is disposed + approximately to assign the composition of Genesis 14. It shows + that a cuneiform document is not necessarily a contemporary + document, and need not contain an accurate transcript of fact. + If we suppose such a document to have come into the possession + of a Jew of the post-Exilic age, it would furnish just such + a basis of quasi-historical material as would account for the + blending of fact and fiction which the literary criticism of + the chapter suggests. In any case the extent of the historical + material remains undetermined. The names in verse ¹ are + historical; some such expedition to the West as is here spoken + of is possibly so; but everything else belongs to the region of + conjecture. The particulars in which we are most interested――the + figures of Abram and Lot and Melkiẓedeḳ, the importance, the + revolt, and even the existence, of the Cities of the _Kikkār_ + and, in short, all the details of the story――are as yet + unattested by any allusion in secular history. + + In conclusion, it should be noticed that there is no real + antagonism between archæology and literary criticism in this + matter. They deal with quite distinct aspects of the problem; + and the fallacy lies in treating the chapter as a homogeneous + and indivisible unity: it is like discussing whether the climate + of Asia is hot or cold on conflicting evidence drawn from + opposite extremes of the continent. Criticism claims to have + shown that the narrative is full of improbabilities in detail + which make it impossible to accept it as a reliable contemporary + record of fact. All that the archæologist can pretend to have + proved is that the general setting of the story is consistent + with the political situation in the East as disclosed by the + monuments; and that it contains data which cannot possibly be + the fabrications of an unhistorical age. So much as this critics + are perfectly prepared to admit. Nöldeke, who has stated the + case against the authenticity of the chapter as strongly as any + man, expressly declined to build an argument on the fact that + nothing was then known of an Elamite dominion in the West, and + allowed that the names of the four kings might be traditional + (_op. cit._ 159 f.).¹ Assyriology has hardly done more as yet + than make good the possibilities thus conceded in advance. It + is absurd to suppose that a theory can be overthrown by facts + for which due allowance was made before they took rank as actual + discoveries. + + ¹ The same admission was made by Wellhausen as long ago as + 1889 (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen + Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 310). In view of the + persistent misrepresentations of critical opinion, it is not + unnecessary to repeat once more that the historicity of the + names in verse ¹ has not been denied by any leading critic + (_e.g._ Ewald, Nöldeke, Dillmann, Wellhausen), even before + the discoveries of later years.――For an exposure of Sayce’s + extraordinary travesty of Nöldeke’s arguments, the reader + should consult Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction + and Notes_⁷, _Addenda_ to page 173. + + * * * * * + + =22.= הֲרִמֹתִי] On the perfect, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _i_.――=23.= + On the אִם of negative asseveration, § 149 _a_, _c_. The second + וְאִם, which adds force to the negation, is not rendered by LXX + or Vulgate.――=24.= בִּלְעָדַי literally ‘not unto me!’ (in Hexateuch + only 41¹⁶ᐧ ⁴⁴ [Elohist], Joshua 22¹⁹ [late]). LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ seem to have read בִּלְעֲדֵי רַק as a compound + prepositional phrase (= ‘except’). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XV. + _God’s Covenant with Abram_ + (Jehovist). + +In a prolonged interview with Yahwe, Abram’s misgivings regarding the +fulfilment of the divine promises are removed by solemn and explicit +assurances, and by a symbolic act in which the Almighty binds Himself +by the inviolable ceremonial of the _berîth_.¹ In the present form of +the chapter there is a clear division between the promise of a son and +heir (¹⁻⁶) and the promise of the land (⁷⁻²¹), the latter alone being +strictly embraced in the scope of the covenant. + + ¹ “Die Berîth ist diejenige kultische Handlung, durch die in + feierlicher Weise Verpflichtungen oder Abmachungen irgend + welcher Art absolut bindend und unverbrüchlich gemacht + wurden” (Kraetzschmar, _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten + Testament_, 40 f.). + + _Analysis._――See, besides the commentary, Wellhausen _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 23 f.; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 416¹; + Bacon, _Hebraica_, vii. 75 ff.; Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 58 + ff.――The chapter shows unmistakable signs of composition, but + the analysis is beset with peculiar, and perhaps insurmountable, + difficulties. We may begin by examining the solution proposed by + Gunkel. He assigns ¹ᵃᐧ* ᵇ{γ}ᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ³ᵇᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{α}ᐧ ᵇᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ + ᵇ{α} to Yahwist; ¹ᵇ{αβ}ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁽²ᵇ{?}⁾ ⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ (to + יצאו)ᐧ ¹⁶ to Elohist; and ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁹⁻²¹ to + a redactor. On this analysis the Yahwist fragments form a + consecutive and nearly complete narrative, the break at verse ⁷ + being caused by Redactor’s insertion of ⁷ ᶠᐧ But (1) it is not + so easy to get rid of ⁷ ᶠᐧ Verse ⁸ is, and ⁶ is not, a suitable + point of contact for ⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ; and the omission of ⁷ ᶠᐧ would make + the covenant a confirmation of the promise of an heir, whereas + ¹⁸ expressly restricts it to the possession of the land. And + (2) the parts assigned to Yahwist contain no marks of the + Yahwistic style except the name יהוה; they present features not + elsewhere observed in that document, and are coloured by ideas + characteristic of the Deuteronomic age. The following points + may be here noted: (a) the _prophetic_ character of the divine + communication to Abram (¹ᐧ ⁴); (b) the address אדני יהוה (²ᵃ [compare + ⁸]); (c) the theological reflexion on the nature of Abram’s + righteousness (⁶: compare Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³); (d) the idea + of the Abrahamic covenant (found only in redactional expansions + of Jehovist, and common in Deuteronomy); to which may be added + (e) the ideal boundaries of the land and the enumeration of + its inhabitants (¹⁸ᵇ⁻²¹), both of which are Deuteronomistic + (see on the verses below). The ceremonial of ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹⁷ is no + proof of antiquity (compare Jeremiah 34¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ), and the symbolic + representation of Yahwe’s presence in ¹⁷ is certainly not + decisive against the late authorship of the piece (against + Gunkel). It is difficult to escape the impression that the whole + of this Yahwist narrative (including ⁷ ᶠᐧ) is the composition of + an editor who used the name יהוה, but whose affinities otherwise + are with the school of Deuteronomy rather than with the early + Yahwistic writers.――This result, however, still leaves unsolved + problems. (1) It fails to account for the obvious doublets in + ²ᐧ ³. ²ᵇ and ³ᵃ are generally recognised as the first traces in + the Hexateuch of the document Elohist, and ⁵ (a _night_ scene + in contrast to ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷) is naturally assigned to the same source. + (2) With regard to ⁽¹²{?}⁾ ¹³⁻¹⁶, which most critics consider to + be a redactional expansion of Yahwist, I incline to the opinion + of Gunkel, that ¹¹ᐧ ¹³⁻¹⁶ form part of the sequel to the Elohist + narrative recognised in ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇᐧ ⁵ (note האמרי, verse ¹⁶). (3) The + renewed introduction of Yahwe in verse ⁷ forms a hiatus barely + consistent with unity of authorship. The difficulty would be + partly met by Bacon’s suggestion that the proper position of + the Yahwist material in ¹⁻⁶ is intermediate between 15¹⁸ and + 16¹. But though this ingenious theory removes one difficulty + it creates others, and it leaves untouched what seems to me the + chief element of the problem, the marks of lateness both in ¹⁻⁶ + and ⁷⁻²¹.――The phenomena might be most fully explained by the + assumption of an Elohistic basis, recast by a Jehovistic or + Deuteronomic editor (probably Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), and afterwards + combined with extracts from its own original; but so complex a + hypothesis cannot be put forward with any confidence. + +=1‒6. The promise of an heir= (Yahwist), =and a numerous posterity= +(Elohist).――=1.= The verse presupposes a situation of anxiety on the +part of Abram, following on some meritorious action performed by him. +It is not certain that any definite set of circumstances was present +to the mind of the writer, though the conditions are fairly well +satisfied by Abram’s defenceless position amongst the Canaanites +immediately after his heroic obedience to the divine call (Gunkel). +The attempts to establish a connexion with the events of chapter +14 (Jewish Commentary and a few moderns) are far-fetched and +misleading.――_the word of Yahwe came_] On the formula _v.i._ The +conception of Abram as a prophet has no parallel in Yahwist; and even +Elohist, though he speaks vaguely of Abram as a נָבִיא (20⁷, _q.v._), +does not describe his intercourse with God in technical prophetic +phraseology. The representation is not likely to have arisen before +the age of written prophecy.――_in a vision_] probably a night-vision +(see verse ⁵), in which case the expression must be attributed to +Elohist. The mediate character of revelation, as contrasted with +the directness of the older theophanies (_e.g._ chapter 18), is at +all events characteristic of Elohist.――_thy shield_] a figure for +protection common in later writings: Deuteronomy 33²⁹, Psalms 3⁴ 7¹¹ +often, Proverbs 2⁷ 30⁵.――_thy reward_ [will be] _very great_] a new +sentence (LXX, Peshiṭtå), not (as Vulgate, English Version) a second +predicate to אָנֹכִי――=2.= _seeing I go hence childless_] So all versions, +taking הָלַךְ in the sense of ‘die’ (Psalms 39¹⁴: compare Arabic _halaka_), +though the other sense (‘walk’ = ‘live’) would be quite admissible. +To die childless and leave no name on earth (Numbers 27⁴) is a fate +so melancholy that even the assurance of present fellowship with God +brings no hope or joy.――=2b= is absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._). +The versions agree in reading the names _Eliezer_ and _Damascus_, and +also (with the partial exception of LXX) in the general understanding +that the clause is a statement as to Abram’s heir. This is probably +correct; but the text is so corrupt that even the proper names are +doubtful, and there is only a presumption that the sense agrees with +³ᵇ.――=3.= In the absence of children or near relatives, the slave, as +a member of the family, might inherit (Stade _Geschichte des Volkes +Israel_, i. 391; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 113). בֶּן־בַּֽיִת is a +member of the household, but not necessarily a home-born slave (יְלִיד בַּֽיִת, +14¹⁴).――=5.= The promise of a numerous ‘_seed_’ (compare ³ᵃᐧ ¹³) is +Elohist’s parallel to the announcement of the birth of a bodily heir +in Yahwist (verse ⁴).――_the stars_] a favourite image of the later +editors and Deuteronomy (22¹⁷ 26⁴, Exodus 32¹³, Deuteronomy 1¹⁰ 10²² +28⁶²).――=6.= _counted it_ (his implicit trust in the character of +Yahwe) _as righteousness_] 1 Maccabees 2⁵². צְדָקָה is here neither +inherent moral character, nor piety in the subjective sense, but a +right relation to God conferred by a divine sentence of approval (see +Wellhausen _Psalms_, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, 174). + + This remarkable anticipation of the Pauline doctrine of + justification by faith (Romans 4³ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²², Galatians 3⁶; compare + James 2²³) must, of course, be understood in the light of Old + Testament conceptions. The idea of righteousness as dependent on + a divine judgment (חָשֶׂב) could only have arisen on the basis of + legalism, while at the same time it points beyond it. It stands + later in theological development than Deuteronomy 6²⁵ 24¹³, and + has its nearest analogies in Psalms 106³¹ 24⁵. The reflexion is + suggested by the question how Abram, who had no law to fulfil, + was nevertheless ‘righteous’; and, finding the ground of his + acceptance in an inward attitude towards God, it marks a real + approximation to the Apostle’s standpoint. Gunkel (161) well + remarks that an early writer would have given, instead of this + abstract proposition, a concrete illustration in which Abram’s + faith came to light. + + * * * * * + + =1.= אחר[י] הדברים האלה] frequent in Elohist (22¹ 40¹ 48¹, Joshua + 24²⁹), but also used by Yahwist (22²⁰ 39⁷).――הָיָה דְבַר־יהוה (compare + verse ⁴)] not elsewhere in the Hexateuch; found occasionally in + the older writings (1 Samuel 15¹⁰, 2 Samuel 24¹¹), but chiefly + in later prophets and superscriptions: specially common in + Jeremiah and Ezekiel――מַֽחֲזֶה] Only Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 13⁷. + The _word_ is thus not at all characteristic of Elohist, though + the _idea_ of revelation through dreams and visions (מַרְאָה, + Numbers 12⁶; מַרְאֹת הַלַּיְלָה, Genesis 46²) undoubtedly is. Considering + the many traces of late editing in the chapter, it is highly + precarious to divide the phrases of verse ¹ between Yahwist + and Elohist.――הַרְבֵּה (infinitive absolute) as predicate is unusual + and late (Psalms 130⁷, Ecclesiastes 11⁸). _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ ארבה, ‘I will multiply,’ is perhaps + preferable.――=2.= אדני יהוה] (compare ⁸) is common in the elevated + style of prophecy (especially Ezekiel), but rare in the Psalms. + In the historical books it occurs only as a vocative (except + 1 Kings 2²⁶): Joshua 7⁷, Judges 6²² 16²⁸,――Deuteronomy 3²⁴ + 9²⁶, 2 Samuel 7¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹, 1 Kings 8⁵³. Of these the first + three are possibly Yahwist; the rest are Deuteronomic.――ובן――אליעזר] + LXX has ὁ δὲ υἱὸς Μάσεκ τῆς οἰκογενοῦς μου, οὗτος Δαμασκὸς + Ἐλιέζερ,――a meaningless sentence in the connexion, unless + supplemented by κληρονομήσει με, as in some MSS of Philo + (before οὗτος). Peshiṭtå paraphrases: (‡ Syriac phrase) is a + ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, which appears not to have been understood by + any of the Versions. LXX treats it as the name of Eliezer’s + mother, Aquila (ποτίζοντος) as = מַשְׁקֶה; Theodotion, Vulgate, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ give it the sense of ‘steward,’ which + may be a mere conjecture like the συγγενὴς of Symmachus. Modern + commentaries generally regard the word as a modification of + מֶשֶׁךְ (Job 28¹⁸?) with the sense of ‘possession’――בֶּן־מֶשֶׁךְ = ‘son of + possession’ = ‘possessor’ or ‘inheritor’ (so Gesenius, Tuch, + Kautzsch-Socin, Strack. al.); but this has neither philological + justification nor traditional support. A √ משׁק (in spite of + מִמְשָׁק, Zephaniah 2⁹) is extremely dubious. The last clause + cannot be rendered either ‘This is Eliezer of Damascus,’ + or ‘This is Damascus, namely Eliezer’ (Delitzsch). Peshiṭtå + and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ adopt the summary expedient of turning + the substantive into an adjective, and reading ‘Eliezer the + Damascene’ (similarly Ὁ Ἑβραῖος in Field). It is difficult + to imagine what Damascus can have to do here at all; and if a + satisfactory sense for the previous words could be obtained, + it would be plausible enough (with Hitzig, Tuch, Kautzsch-Socin, + al.) to strike out [הוּא] דַּמֶּשֶׂק as a stupid gloss on מֶשֶׁק. Ball’s + emendation, וּמשֵׁק בֵּיתִי הֻא בֶּן־דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר, ‘and he who will possess my house + is a Damascene――Eliezer,’ is plausible, but the singular בֶּן־ with + the name of a city is contrary to Hebrew idiom. Bewer (_Journal + of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1908, part 2, 160 ff.) has + proposed the reading――ingenious but not convincing――וּבָנִים בִּקּשְׁתִּי אֵין לִי + זָרֲע. ²ᵃ and ³ᵃ are parallels (note the double ויאמר א׳), of which + the former obviously belongs to Yahwist, the latter consequently + to Elohist. Since ³ᵇ is Yahwist rather than Elohist (compare יוֹרֵשׁ + with verse ⁴), it follows that ³ᵃᐧ ²ᵇ must be transposed if the + latter be Elohist’s parallel to ³ᵇ.――=3.= ירש] in the sense of + ‘be heir to’: compare 21¹⁰ (Elohist), 2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah + 49¹, Proverbs 30²³.――=4.= ממעיךָ (LXX מִמְּךָ?)] of the father, 2 + Samuel 7¹² 16¹¹, Isaiah 48¹⁹; of the mother, 25²³ (Yahwist), + Isaiah 49¹, Ruth 1¹¹, Psalms 71⁶.――=5.= החוצה] in Yahwist, 19¹⁷ + 24²⁹ 39¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ (Joshua 2¹⁹?); but also Deuteronomy 24¹¹ 25⁵ + etc.――=6.= והאמין] (on the tense, see Driver _A Treatise on the use + of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 133; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _ss_): + LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå add אַבְרָם. The construction with בְּ is + usual when the object of faith is God (Exodus 14³¹, Numbers 14¹¹ + 20¹², Deuteronomy 1³², 2 Kings 17¹⁴, 2 Chronicles 20²⁰, Psalms + 78³², Jonah 3⁵): לְ only Deuteronomy 9²³, Isaiah 43¹⁰.――צְדָקָה] + second objective accusative. The change to לִצְ׳ (Psalms 106³¹) is + unnecessary. + + * * * * * + +=7‒21. The covenant.=――=7, 8.= The promise of the _land_, Abram’s +request for a pledge (contrast verse ⁶), and the self-introduction +of Yahwe (which would be natural only at the commencement of an +interview), are marks of discontinuity difficult to reconcile with +the assumption of the unity of the narrative. Most critics accordingly +recommend the excision of the verses as an interpolation. + + So Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Kraetzschmar, Gunkel, al. Their + genuineness is maintained by Budde, Delitzsch, Bacon, Holzinger; + Wellhausen thinks they have been at least worked over. The + language certainly is hardly Yahwistic. The אני (⁷) is not a + sufficient ground for rejection (see Budde 439); and although אור + כשדים in a Yahwist-context may be suspicious, we have no right to + assume that it did not occur in a stratum of Yahwistic tradition + (see page 239 above). But לתת――לרשתה is a decidedly Deuteronomic + phrase (see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 205): on אדני יהוה, see on + verse ². On the theory of a late recension of the whole passage + these linguistic difficulties would vanish; but the impression + of a change of scene remains,――an impression, however, which + the interpolation theory does not altogether remove, since the + transition from ⁶ to ⁹ is very abrupt. Bacon’s transposition of + the two sections of Yahwist is also unsatisfactory. + +=9, 10.= The preparations for the covenant ceremony; on which see +below, page 283. Although not strictly sacrificial,¹ the operation +conforms to later Levitical usage in so far as the animals are all +such as were allowed in sacrifice, and the birds are not divided +(Leviticus 1¹⁷).――_of three years old_] This is obviously the meaning +of מְשֻׁלָּשׁ here (compare 1 Samuel 1²⁴ [LXX]: elsewhere = ‘threefold,’ +Ezekiel 42⁶, Ecclesiastes 4¹²). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, which renders ‘three’ +(calves, etc.), is curiously enough the only version that misses the +sense; and it is followed by _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, al. On the +number _three_ in the Old Testament, see Stade, _Zeitschrift für +die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxvi. 124 ff. [especially 127 +f.].――=11.= The descent of the unclean birds of prey (עַיִט), and Abram’s +driving them away, is a sacrificial omen of the kind familiar to +antiquity.² The interpretation seems to follow in ¹³⁻¹⁶ (Dillmann, +Gunkel).――=12.= תַּרְדֵּמָה (LXX ἔκστασις) is the condition most favourable +for the reception of visions (see on 2²¹).――_a great horror_] caused +by the approach of the deity (omit חֲשֵׁכָה as a gloss). The text is mixed +(see below), and the two representations belong, the one to Yahwist, +and the other to Elohist (Gunkel). The scene is a vivid transcript of +primitive religious experience. The bloody ceremony just described was +no perfunctory piece of symbolism; it touched the mind below the level +of consciousness; and that impression (heightened in this case by the +growing darkness) induced a susceptibility to psychical influences +readily culminating in ecstasy or vision.――=13‒16.= An oracle in which +is unfolded the destiny of Abram’s descendants to the 4th generation. +It is to be noted that the prediction relates to the fortunes of +Abram’s ‘seed,’ the mention of the land (¹⁶) being indirect and +incidental. The passage may therefore be the continuation of the +Elohist-sections of ¹⁻⁶, on the understanding that in Elohist the +covenant had to do with the promise of a seed, and not with the +possession of the land.――=13.= _a sojourner_] (collective): see on +12¹⁰.――_400 years_] agreeing approximately with the 430 years of +Exodus 12⁴⁰ (Priestly-Code).――=15= is a parenthesis, if not an +interpolation, reassuring Abram as to his own personal lot (see on +25⁸).――=16.= _the fourth generation_] _e.g._ Levi, Kohath, Amram, +Aaron (or Moses) (Exodus 6¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ). To the reckoning of a generation +as 100 years (compare verse ¹³) doubtful classical parallels are cited +by Knobel (Varro, _De Lingua Latina_ 6, 11; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ +xii. 188, etc.).³――_the guilt of the Amorites_] (the inhabitants of +Palestine) is frequently dwelt upon in later writings (Deuteronomy +9⁵, 1 Kings 14²⁴, Leviticus 18²⁴ ᶠᐧ etc. etc.); but the parallels from +Jehovist cited by Knobel (Genesis 18²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹¹) are of quite a +different character. + + ¹ So in the covenant between Ašur-nirâri and Mati’ilu + (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, + iii. 228 ff.), the victim is expressly said _not_ to be + a sacrifice. + + ² Compare Virgil _Aeneid_ iii. 225 ff. + + ³ Compare Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ + 308 (English translation, page 308), who cites these verses + as positive proof that the generation was reckoned as 100 + years (see page 135 above),――a view which, of course, cannot + be held unless verse ¹³⁻¹⁶ are a unity. + + Verses ¹³⁻¹⁶ are obviously out of place in Yahwist, because they + _presuppose_ ¹⁸ (the promise of the land). They are generally + assigned to a redactor, although it is difficult to conceive + a motive for their insertion. Dillmann’s suggestion, that + they were written to supply the interpretation of the omen of + verse ¹¹, goes a certain distance; but fails to explain why the + interpretation ever came to be omitted. Since ¹¹ is intimately + connected with ¹³⁻¹⁶, and at the same time has no influence on + the account of Yahwist, the natural conclusion is that both + ¹¹ and ¹³⁻¹⁶ are documentary, but that the document is not + Yahwist but Elohist (so Gunkel). It will be necessary, however, + to delete the phrases בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל in ¹⁴ and תִּקָּבֵר בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה in ¹⁵ as + characteristic of the style of Priestly-Code; perhaps also אַרְבַּֽע + מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה in ¹³. The whole of ¹⁵ may be removed with advantage + to the sense.――The text of ¹² is not homogeneous, so that as a + whole it cannot be linked either with ¹¹ or with ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ. וְתַרְדֵּמָה וגו׳ + and וְהִנֵּה אֵימָה וגו׳ are doublets (note the repetition of נפל על); and + the poetic חֲשֵׁכָה (only here in Pentateuch) is doubtless a gloss + to אימה. The opening clause וַיְהִי הַשּׁ׳ לָבוֹא is presumably Yahwist (in + Elohist it is already night in verse ⁵). Elohist’s partiality + for the visionary mode of revelation may be sufficient + justification for assigning the תרדמה to him and the אימה to + Yahwist; but the choice is immaterial. + + * * * * * + + =9.= גוזל Deuteronomy 32¹¹† = young of the vulture; but here = + ‘young dove’; Arabic _ǧauzal_; Syriac (‡ Syriac word).――=10.= + וַיְבַתֵּר] a technical term; the verb only here; compare בֶּתֶר, Jeremiah + 34¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹――בתוך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בתור + (infinitive absolute).――אִישׁ בִּתְרוֹ וגו׳] compare 9⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 139 _c_.――=11.= הַפְּגָרִים] LXXᴬ τὰ σώματα τὰ διχοτομήματα; a + conflation of הפגרים and ה ַגְּזָרִים (verse ¹⁷).――וַיַּשֵּׁב] Hiphil of נשׁב + only here in the sense of ‘scare away’: so Aquila (ἀπεσόβησεν) + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read וַיָּשֶׁב, which is less + expressive; and LXX וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתָּם is quite inadmissible.――=12.= ויהי――לבוא] + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _i_; compare Joshua 2⁵ (Yahwist).――=13.= + ועבדום] LXX phrase καὶ κακώσουσιν αὐτοὺς; and apparently + read וְעָבְדוּ בָם, avoiding the awkward interchange of subject and + object.――=16.= ודור רביעי] accusative of condition, ‘as a fourth + generation’ (compare Jeremiah 31⁸); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 118 _q_. + + * * * * * + +=17.= _a smoking oven and a blazing torch_] the two together making +an emblem of the theophany, akin to the pillar of cloud and fire of +the Exodus and Sinai narratives (compare Exodus 3² 19⁹ 13²¹ etc.). +The _oven_ is therefore not a symbol of Gehenna reserved for the +nations (Rashi).――On the appearance of the תַּנּוּר, see the descriptions +and illustrations in Riehm, _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ +178; Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 65.――_passed between these +pieces_] compare Jeremiah 34¹⁸ ᶠᐧ (the only other allusion). + + On this rite see Kraetzschmar, _op. cit._ 44 ff. Although + attested by only one other Old Testament reference, its + prevalence in antiquity is proved by many analogies in classical + and other writers. Its original significance is hardly exhausted + by the well-known passage in Livy (i. 24), where a fate similar + to that of the victim is invoked on the violators of the + covenant.¹ This leaves unexplained the most characteristic + feature,――the passing between the pieces. William Robertson + Smith surmises that the divided victim was eaten by the + contracting parties, and that afterwards “the parties stood + between the pieces, as a symbol that they were taken within the + mystical life of the victim” (_Lectures on the Religion of the + Semites_², 480 f.). + + ¹ “... tum illo die, Juppiter, populum Romanum sic ferito, + ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam, tantoque magis + ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.” Compare _Iliad_ + iii. 298 ff. Precisely the same idea is expressed with + great circumstantiality in an Assyrian covenant between + Ašur-nirâri and the Syrian prince Mati’ilu: see Peiser, + _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, iii. + 228 ff. + + * * * * * + + =17.= ויהי――באה] perfect with sense of pluperfect + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _g_).――עֲלָטָה] only here and Ezekiel + 12⁶ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹². LXX φλὸξ is certainly wrong (לֶהָבָה? לַהַט?).――עָשָׁן] + LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå read the particle, hence Ball emends + עָשֵׁן.――הַגְּזָרִים] the noun recurs only Psalms 136¹³; but compare the + analogous use of the verb 1 Kings 3²⁵ᐧ ²⁶. + + * * * * * + +=18.= This ceremony constitutes a _Berîth_, of which the one provision +is the possession of ‘the land.’ A _Berîth_ necessarily implies +two or more parties; but it may happen that from the nature of the +case its stipulations are binding only on one. So here: Yahwe alone +passes (symbolically) between the pieces, because He alone contracts +obligation.――The _land_ is described according to its ideal limits; +it is generally thought, however, that the closing words, along with +¹⁹⁻²¹, were added by a Deuteronomic editor, and that in the original +Yahwist the promise was restricted to Canaan proper. + + The נְהַר מִצְרַיִם (not, as elsewhere נַחַל מ׳ = Wādī el-Arīsh) must be the + Nile (compare Joshua 13³, 1 Chronicles 13⁵). On an old belief + that the Wādī el-Arīsh was an arm of the Nile, see Tuch.――הַנָּהָר הַגָּדוֹל + וגו׳] compare Deuteronomy 1⁷ 11²⁴, Joshua 1⁴. The boundary was + never actually reached in the history of Israel (the notice in + 1 Kings 5¹ᐧ ⁴ is late and unhistorical).――=19‒21.= Such lists + of pre-Israelite inhabitants are characteristic of Deuteronomy + and Deuteronomic expansions of Jehovist. They usually contain 5 + or 6 or at most 7 names: here there are 10 (see Budde 344 ff., + and Driver’s analysis, _A critical and exegetical commentary on + Deuteronomy_ 97). The first three names appear in none of the + other lists; and the same is true of the _Rĕphāîm_ in ²⁰. The + _Ḳenites_ (see page 113) and _Ḳenizzites_ (36¹¹) are tribes of + the Negeb, both partly incorporated in Judah: the _Ḳadmonites_ + (only here) are possibly identical with the בְּנֵי קֶדֶם (29¹), + the inhabitants of the eastern desert.――The _Ḥivvites_, who + regularly appear, are supplied here by _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ (after _Girgashites_) and LXX (after + _Canaanites_).――On the _Ḥittites_, see page 215; and, further, + on chapter 23 below. + + The idea of a covenant (or oath) of Yahwe to the patriarchs does + not appear in the literature till the time of Jeremiah (11⁵) and + Deuteronomy (4³¹ 7¹² 8¹⁸, 2 Kings 13²³ etc.): see Kraetzschmar, + 61 ff. Of 31 passages in Jehovist where Kraetzschmar finds the + conception (the list might be reduced), all but three (15¹⁸ 12⁷ + 24⁷) are assigned to the Deuteronomic (Jehovistic) redaction + (see Staerk, _Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des + alten Testaments_, i. 37 ff.); and of these three 12⁷ is a mere + promise without an oath, while in 24⁷ the words וַֽאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּֽע לִי have + all the appearance of a gloss. It is, of course, quite possible + that 15¹⁷ ᶠᐧ may be very ancient, and have formed the nucleus + of the theological development of the covenant-idea in the age + of Deuteronomy. But it is certainly not unreasonable to suppose + that it emanates from the period when Israel’s tenure of Canaan + began to be precarious, and the popular religion sought to + reassure itself by the inviolability of Yahwe’s oath to the + fathers. And that is hardly earlier than the 7th century + (Staerk, 47). + + + CHAPTER XVI. + _The Flight of Hagar and Birth of Ishmael_ + (Yahwist and Priestly-Code). + +Sarai, having no hope of herself becoming a mother, persuades Abram +to take her Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine. Hagar, when she finds +herself pregnant, becomes insolent towards her mistress, from whose +harsh treatment she ultimately flees to the desert. There the Angel of +Yahwe meets her, and comforts her with a disclosure of the destiny of +the son she is to bear, at the same time commanding her to go back and +submit to her mistress. In due course Ishmael is born. + + In the carefully constructed biographical plan of the editors + the episode finds an appropriate place between the promise of a + bodily heir in 15 and the promise of a son through Sarai in 18 + (Yahwist) or 17 (Priestly-Code). The narrative itself contains + no hint of a trial of Abram’s faith, or an attempt on his + part to forestall the fulfilment of the promise. Its real + interest lies in another direction: partly in the explanation + of the sacredness of a certain famous well, and partly in the + characterisation of the Ishmaelite nomads and the explication + of their relation to Israel. The point of the story is obscured + by a redactional excrescence (⁹), obviously inserted in view of + the _expulsion_ of Hagar at a later stage. In reality chapter 16 + (Yahwist) and 22⁸⁻²¹ (Elohist) are variants of one tradition; in + the Yahwistic version Hagar never returned, but remained in the + desert and bore her son by the well Lahai Roi (Wellhausen _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 22).――The chapter belongs to the oldest stratum + of the Abrahamic legends (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), and is plausibly + assigned by Gunkel to the same source as 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. From the + main narrative of Yahwist (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it is marked off + by its somewhat unfavourable portraiture of Abram, and by the + topography which suggests that Abram’s home was in the Negeb + rather than in Hebron. The primitive character of the legend is + best seen from a close comparison with the Elohistic parallel + (see page 324). + + _Analysis._――Verses ¹ᵃᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ belong to Priestly-Code: note + the chronological data in ³ᐧ ¹⁶; the naming of the child by the + father ¹⁵ (contrast ¹¹); אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, ³; and the stiff and formal + precision of the style.――The rest is Yahwist: compare יהוה, + ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³; שִׁפְחָה, ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁸ (also ³ [Priestly-Code]); + נא, הִנֵּה־נָא, ².――The redactional addition in ⁹ ᶠᐧ (_v.s._) betrays + its origin by the threefold repetition of וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יהוה, a fault + of style which is in striking contrast to the exquisite artistic + form of the original narrative, though otherwise the language + shows no decided departure from Yahwistic usage (Dillmann, but + see on verse ¹⁰). + +=1‒6. The flight of Hagar.=――=1.= Hagar is not an ordinary household +slave, but the peculiar property of Sarai, and therefore not at the +free disposal of her master (compare 24⁵⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁹: see Benzinger, +_Hebräische Archäologie_² 104 f., 126 f.).¹――_an Egyptian_] so verse +³ (Priestly-Code), 21⁹ (Elohist); compare 21²¹. This consistent +tradition points to an admixture of Egyptian blood among the +Ishmaelites, the reputed descendants of Hagar.²――=2.= _peradventure +I may be built up_――or _obtain children_ (_v.i._)――_from her_] by +adopting Hagar’s son as her own; compare 30³.――=3= is Priestly-Code’s +parallel to ²ᵇᐧ ⁴ᵃ.――=4.= _and went in, etc._ (see on 6⁴)] the +immediate continuation of ²ᵇ in Yahwist.――_was despised_] a natural +feeling, enhanced in antiquity by the universal conviction that the +mysteries of conception and birth are peculiarly a sphere of divine +action.――=5.= _My wrong be upon thee_] _i.e._ ‘May my grievance +be avenged on thee!’――her injured self-respect finding vent in a +passionate and most unjust imprecation.――=6.= _Thy maid is in thy +hand_] Is this a statement of fact, or does it mean that Abram _now_ +hands Hagar back to her mistress’s authority? The latter is Gunkel’s +view, who thinks that as a concubine Hagar was no longer under the +complete control of Sarai.――_treated her harshly_] The word (עִנָּה) +suggests excessive severity; Hagar’s flight is justified by the +indignities to which she was subjected (verse ¹¹). + + ¹ “Some wives have female slaves who are their own property, + generally purchased for them, or presented to them, before + their marriage. These cannot be the husband’s concubines + without their mistress’s permission, which is sometimes + granted (as it was in the case of Hagar); but very seldom” + (Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern + Egyptians_ i. 233 [from Driver]).――On the resemblance to + Code of Ḫammurabi § 146, see Introduction, page xvii. + + ² The instance is one of the most favourable in Genesis to + Winckler’s theory that under מִצְרַיִם we are frequently to + understand the North Arabian land of Muṣri (Gunkel; compare + Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3164; _Die Keilinschriften + und das Alte Testament_³, 146 f.). Yet even here the case + is far from clear. An Egyptian strain among the Bedouin + of Sinai would be easily accounted for by the very early + Egyptian occupation of the Peninsula; and Burton was struck + by the Egyptian physiognomy of some of the Arabs of that + region at the present day. (Driver _A Dictionary of the + Bible_, ii. 504ᵃ). + + * * * * * + + =1a= is assigned to Priestly-Code partly because of אשת אברם + (compare verse ³), and partly because the statement as to + Sarai’s barrenness supplies a gap in that document, whereas in + Yahwist it is anticipated by 11³⁰.――=1b.= שִׁפְחָה] (from the same √ + as מִשְׁפָּחָה) is originally the slave-concubine; and it is a question + whether the purpose of presenting a newly-married woman with a + שִׁפְחָה may not have been to provide for the event of the marriage + proving childless. In usage it is largely coextensive with אָמָה, + and is characteristic of Yahwist against Elohist, though not + against Priestly-Code.――הגר] The motive of Hagar’s ‘flight’ may + have been suggested by a supposed connexion with Arabic _haǧara_, + ‘flee.’ For another etymology, see Nöldeke _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 1933².――=2.= אִבָּנֶה] (so only 30³) may be either a + denominative from בֵּן (so apparently LXX, Vulgate, Symmachus), + or a metaphor from the family as a house (Exodus 1²¹, 1 Samuel + 2³⁵, Ruth 4¹¹ etc.).――=5.= חמסי] genitive of objective, + Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 128 _h_ (compare Obadiah ¹⁰). LXX ἀδικοῦμαι + ἐκ σοῦ.――וביניֹך] The point over י indicates a clerical error: read + (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) וּבֵינֶך. + + * * * * * + +=7‒14. The theophany at the well.=――=7.= _the Angel of Yahwe_] (see +below) is here introduced for the first time as the medium of the +theophany. The scene is a _fountain of water_ (as yet nameless: +verse ¹⁴) _in the desert ... on the way to Shûr_. Shûr is an unknown +locality on the North-east frontier of Egypt (see Driver _A Dictionary +of the Bible_, iv. 510ᵇ), which gave its name to the adjacent desert: +20¹ 25¹⁸, Exodus 15²², 1 Samuel 15⁷ 27⁸ (_v.i._). + + The מַלְאַךְ יהוה (or מ׳ אֱלֹהִים) is “Yahwe Himself in self-manifestation,” + or, in other words, a personification of the theophany. This + somewhat subtle definition is founded on the fact that in very + many instances the Angel is at once identified with God and + differentiated from Him; compare _e.g._ verses ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ with ¹¹. + The ultimate explanation of the ambiguity is no doubt to be + sought in the advance of religious thought to a more spiritual + apprehension of the divine nature. The oldest conception of the + theophany is a visible personal appearance of the deity (chapter + 2 f., Exodus 24¹⁰, Numbers 12 etc.). A later, though still early, + age took exception to this bold anthropomorphism, and reconciled + the original narratives with the belief in the invisibility of + God by substituting an ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of Yahwe as the + agent of the theophany, without, however, effacing all traces + of the primitive representation (Gunkel 164 f.). That the idea + underwent a remarkable development within the Old Testament + religion must, of course, be recognised (see especially Exodus + 23²¹); but the subject cannot be further investigated here. See + Oehler, _Theologie des Alten Testaments_³ 203‒211; Schultz, _Old + Testament Theology_ ii. 218‒223 [Engish translation]; Davidson, + _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 94; Delitzsch _Neuer Commentar + über die Genesis_ 282 ff. + + * * * * * + + =7b= seems to be a duplicate of ¹⁴ᵇ, and one or other may be a + gloss. The words במדבר――שור are omitted by LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ entirely, and + partly in several cursives: Peshiṭtå omits על־העין].――שׁוּר (‘wall’)? + has been supposed (doubtfully) to be a line of fortifications + guarding the North-east frontier of Egypt. The חגרא of + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (if an Arabism) may express שׁוּר in the + sense of ‘wall’: Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word) (= גְּרָר, 20¹). + + * * * * * + +=8.= The Angel’s question reveals a mysterious knowledge of Hagar’s +circumstances, who on her part is as yet ignorant of the nature of her +visitant (compare 18² ᶠᶠᐧ).――=9, 10= are interpolated (_v.i._).――=11, +12.= The prophecy regarding Ishmael (not ¹² alone: Gunkel) is in +metrical form: two triplets with lines of 4 or 3 measures.――_Behold, +etc._] The form of announcement seems consecrated by usage; compare +Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷, Isaiah 7¹⁴.――_Yishmā‛ēl_] properly, ‘May God hear,’ +is rendered ‘God hears,’ in token of Yahwe’s regard for the mother’s +distress (עָנְיֵךְ; compare וַתְּעַנֶּהָ, ⁶).――=12.= _a wild ass of a man_] or +perhaps _the wild ass of humanity_ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham +Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, al.)――Ishmael being among the families of mankind +what the wild ass is amongst animals (Job 39⁵⁻⁸, Jeremiah 2²⁴). It is +a fine image of the free intractable Bedouin character which is to be +manifested in Ishmael’s descendants.――_dwell in the face of all his +brethren_ (compare 25¹⁸)] hardly ‘to the east of,’ which is too weak a +sense. עַל־פְּנֵי seems to express the idea of defiance (as Job 1¹¹), though +it is not easy to connect this with the verb. Possibly the meaning +is that Ishmael will be an inconvenient neighbour (שָׁכֵן) to his settled +brethren.――=13, 14.= From this experience of Hagar the local deity +and the well derive their names. =13.= _Thou art a God of vision_] +_i.e._ (if the following text can be trusted) both in an objective +and a subjective sense,――a God who may be seen as well as one who +sees.――_Have I even here_ (? _v.i._) _seen after him who sees me?_] +This is the only sense that can be extracted from the Massoretic Text, +which, however, is strongly suspected of being corrupt.――=14.= _Bĕ’ēr +Lahay Rōî_] apparently means either ‘Well of the Living One who sees +me,’ or ‘Well of “He that sees me lives”’. The name occurs again +24⁶² 25¹¹.――_between Ḳadesh and Bered_] On Ḳadesh, see on 14⁷. Bered +is unknown. In Arab tradition the well of Hagar is plausibly enough +identified with _‛Ain-Muweiliḥ_, a caravan station about 12 miles to +the West of Ḳadesh (Palmer, _The Desert of the Exodus_ ii. 354 ff.). +The well must have been a chief sanctuary of the Ishmaelites; hence +the later Jews, to whom Ishmael was a name for all Arabs, identified +it with the sacred well Zemzem at Mecca.――=15, 16.= The birth of +Ishmael, recorded by Priestly-Code. + + The general scope of ¹³ ᶠᐧ is clear, though the details are very + obscure. By a process of syncretism the original numen of the + well had come to be regarded as a particular local manifestation + of Yahwe; and the attempt is made to interpret the old names + from the standpoint of the higher religion. אֵל רֳאִי and לַחַי ראי are + traditional names of which the real meaning had been entirely + forgotten, and the etymologies here given are as fanciful as + in all similar cases. (1) In לַחַי ראי the Massoretic punctuation + recognises the roots חי, ‘live,’ and ראה, ‘see,’ taking ל + as circumscribed genitive; but that can hardly be correct. + Wellhausen (_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 323 f.), + following Michaelis and Gesenius (_Thesaurus philologicus + criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 175), + conjectures that in the first element we have the word לְחִי, + ‘jaw-bone’ (Judges 15¹⁷), and in the second an obsolete animal + name: hence ‘Well of the antelope’s (?) jaw-bone.’ Von Gall + (_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 40 ff.) goes a step further + and distinguishes two wells, עֵין (בְּאֵר) רֳאִי and בְּאֵר לֶֽחִי, the former + peculiar to Yahwist and the latter to Elohist (compare LXX of + 24⁶² 25¹¹).――(2) אֵל רֳאִי, whatever its primary significance, is of + a type common in the patriarchal narratives (see page 291). Of + the suggested restorations of ¹³ᵇ, by far the most attractive + is that of Wellhausen (_l.c._), who changes הלם to אלהים, reads + ראי as רָאְיִי, inserts ואחי between ראיתי and אחרי, and renders, “Have I + actually seen God and lived after my vision?”――an allusion to + the prevalent belief that the sight of God is followed by death + (Exodus 33²⁰, Judges 6²³ 13²³ etc.). The emendation has at least + the advantage of giving a meaning to _both_ elements in the + name of the well. Gunkel’s objection that the emphatic ‘here’ + is indispensable, is of doubtful validity, for unfortunately הֲלֹם + does not mean ‘here’ but ‘hither.’ + + * * * * * + + =9, 10= are a double interpolation. The command to return + to Sarai was a necessary consequence of the amalgamation of + Yahwist and Elohist (22⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ); and ¹⁰ was added to soften the + return to slavery (Gunkel). ¹⁰ is impossible before ¹¹, and + is besides made up of phrases characteristic of redactional + additions to Jehovist (compare 22¹⁷ 32¹³).――הרבָּה] Infinitive + absolute; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 ff.――=11.= וְיֹלַדְתְּ for וילֶדֶת] so + Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 80 _d_).――=12.= פרא אדם] see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 128 _k_, _l_. Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac phrase), + and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ מרמי לערוד בבני נשא.――=13.= אתה אל ראי] LXX Σὺ ὁ θεὸς + ὁ ἐφιδών με, Vulgate _Tu Deus qui vidisti me_: both reading רֹאִֽי + (participle with suffix).――For אַתָּה, Ball would substitute אִתָּהּ, + deleting אליה.――The רֹאִֽי of ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃ is not the pausal form of + the preceding רֳאִי (which would be רֹֽאִי: 1 Samuel 16¹², Nahum 3⁶, + Job 33²¹), but Qal participle with suffix. The authority of + the accentuation may, of course, be questioned.――=14.= קָרָא] + indefinite subjective, for which _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ substitutes קראה.――בֶּרֶד] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הגרא (see on verse ⁷). Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ has חלוצא + (Elusa), probably _el-Ḥalaṣa_, about 12 miles South-west of + Beersheba. It has been supposed that בֶּרֶד may be identical with + a place Βηρδάν in the Gerar district, mentioned by Eusebius + (_Onomasticon_, 145² [Lagarde 299⁷⁶]), who explains the name + as Φρέαρ κρίσεως (= בְּאֵר דָּן): see von Gall, _Altisraelitische + Kultstätten_ 43. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XVII. + _The Covenant of Circumcision_ + (Priestly-Code). + +To Abram, who is henceforth to be called Abraham (⁵), God reveals +Himself under a new name (¹), entering into a covenant with him (²⁻⁸), +of which the sign is the rite of circumcision (⁹⁻¹⁴). The heir of this +covenant is to be a son born to Sarai (whose name is changed to Sarah) +in the following year (¹⁵⁻²²). Abraham immediately circumcises all +the males of his household (²³⁻²⁷).――To the writer of the Priestly +Code the incident is important (1) as an explanation of the origin of +circumcision, which in his day had become a fundamental institution +of Judaism; and (2) as marking a new stage in the revelation of the +true God to the world. The Abrahamic covenant inaugurates the third of +the four epochs (commencing respectively with Adam, Noah, Abraham and +Moses) into which the Priestly theory divides the history of mankind. +On the ethnic parallels to this scheme, Gunkel’s note (page 233 ff.) +may be consulted. + + _Source._――The marks of Priestly-Code’s authorship appear in + every line of the chapter. Besides the general qualities of + style, which need not again be particularised, we may note the + following expressions: אלהים (throughout, except verse ¹, where + יהוה is either a redactional change or a scribal error); אל שדי, ¹; + הקים ברית, נתן ב׳, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹; במאד מאד, ²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁰; אתה וזרעך אחריך, ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ + ¹⁹; לדרתם, ⁷ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; מגרים, ⁸; ארץ כנען, ⁸; אחזה, ⁸; כל־זכר, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²³; + מקנה, ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷; בן־נכר, ¹²ᐧ ²⁷; ונכרתה הנפש וגו׳, ¹⁴; פרה ורבה, ²⁰; נשיאם, + ²⁰; הוליד, ²⁰; בעצם היום הזה, ²³ᐧ ²⁶; see Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel. + References to the passage in other parts of Priestly-Code are 21 + ²ᐧ ⁴ 28⁴ 35¹², Exodus 2²⁴ 6³ ᶠᐧ (Leviticus 12³ ?). + + The close parallelism with chapter 15 makes it probable that + that chapter, in its present composite form, is the literary + basis of Priestly-Code’s account of the covenant. Common to the + two narratives are (a) the self-introduction of the Deity (17¹ + ∥ 15⁷); (b) the covenant (17 _passim_ ∥ 15⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); (c) the promise + of a numerous seed (17⁴ _passim_ ∥ 15⁵); (d) of the land (17⁸ ∥ + 15¹⁸), (e) of a son (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ ∥ 15⁴); (f) Abraham’s incredulity + (17¹⁷ ∥ 15³ᐧ ⁸). The features peculiar to Priestly-Code, such as + the sign of circumcision, the etymology of יִצְחָק in verse ¹⁷, the + changes of names, etc., are obviously not of a kind to suggest + the existence of a separate tradition independent of Yahwist and + Elohist. + +=1‒8. The Covenant-promises.=――These are three in number: (a) Abraham +will be the father of a numerous posterity (²ᵇᐧ ⁴⁻⁶); (b) God will +be a God to him and to his seed (⁷ᵇᐧ ⁸ᵇ); (c) his seed shall inherit +the land of Canaan (⁸ᵃ). We recognise here a trace of the ancient +religious conception according to which god, land, and people formed +an indissoluble triad, the land being an indispensable pledge of +fellowship between the god and his worshippers (see _Lectures on the +Religion of the Semites_², 92 f.).――=1.= _appeared to Abram_] _i.e._, +in a theophany, as is clear from verse ²². It is the only direct +communication of God to Abram recorded in Priestly-Code. Priestly-Code +is indeed very sparing in his use of the theophany, though Exodus 6³ +seems to imply that his narrative contained one to each of the three +patriarchs. If that be so, the revelation to Isaac has been lost, while +that to Jacob is twice referred to (35⁹ 48³).――_I am ’El Shaddai_] The +origin, etymology, and significance of this title are alike obscure: +see the footnote. In Priestly-Code it is the signature of the +patriarchal age (Exodus 6³); or rather it designates the true God +as the patron of the Abrahamic covenant, whose terms are explicitly +referred to in every passage where the name occurs in Priestly-Code +(28³ 35¹¹ 48³). That it marks an advance in the revelation of the +divine character can hardly be shown, though the words immediately +following may suggest that the moral condition on which the covenant +is granted is not mere obedience to a positive precept, but a life +ruled by the ever-present sense of God as the ideal of ethical +perfection.――_Walk before me_ (compare 24⁴⁰ 48¹⁵)] _i.e._, ‘Live +consciously in My presence,’ 1 Samuel 12², Isaiah 38³; compare 1 +John 1⁷.――_perfect_] or ‘blameless’; see on 6⁹.――=2.= On the idea +and scope of the covenant (בְּרִית), see page 297 f. below.――=4.= _father +of a multitude_ (literally _tumult_) _of nations_] In substance the +promise is repeated in 28³ 48⁴ (קְהַל עַמִּים) and 35¹¹ (ק׳ גּוֹיִם); the peculiar +expression here anticipates the etymology of verse ⁵. While Yahwist +(12² 18¹⁸ 46³) restricts the promise to Israel (גּוֹי גָּדוֹל), Priestly-Code +speaks of ‘nations’ in the plural, including the Ishmaelites and +Edomites amongst the descendants of Abraham. See, however, on +28³.――=5.= Abram’s name is changed to _Abraham_, interpreted as ‘Father +of multitude.’ Compare Nehemiah 9⁷. + + The equation אַבְרָהָם = אַב הֲמוֹן [גוים] is so forced that Dillmann al. + doubt if a serious etymology was intended. The line between + word-play and etymology is difficult to draw; and all that can + safely be said is that the strained interpretation here given + proves that אַבְרָהָם is no artificial formation, but a genuine + element of tradition. (1) The form אַבְרָם is an abbreviation of + אֲבִירָם (Numbers 16¹ etc.: compare אַבְנֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵¹ etc., with + אֲבִינֵר, 1 Samuel 14⁵⁰; אַבְשָׁלוֹם, 2 Chronicles 11²⁰ᐧ ²¹, with אֲבִישָׁלוֹם, + 1 Kings 15²ᐧ ¹⁰), which occurs as a personal name not only in + Hebrew but also as that of an Assyrian official (_Abî-râmu_) + under Esarhaddon, B.C. 677 (see _Die Keilinschriften und + das Alte Testament_³, 482)¹. (2) Of אברהם, on the other hand, + no scientific etymology can be given. The nearest approach + to Priestly-Code’s explanation would be found in the Arabic + _ruhām_ = ‘copious number’ (from a √ descriptive of a fine + drizzling rain: Lane, _s.v._).² Delitzsch thinks this the best + explanation; but the etymology is far-fetched, and apart from + the probably accidental correspondence with Priestly-Code’s + interpretation the sense has no claim to be correct.――With + regard to the relation of the two forms, various theories are + propounded. Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 275 ff.; _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen + Gesellschaft_, ii. 271) regards the difference as merely + _orthographic_, the ה being inserted, after the analogy + of Minæan, to mark the long _ā_ (אַבְרָהם), while a later + misunderstanding is responsible for the pronunciation ־רָחָם. + Strack and Stade (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, i. 349) suppose a _dialectic_ distinction: + according to the latter, אברהם is the original (Edomite) form, + of which אברם is the Hebraïzed equivalent.³ Winckler (_Geschichte + Israels in Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 26) finds in them two + distinct epithets of the moon-god Sin, one describing him as + father of the gods (_Sin abu ilâni_), and the other (‘father of + the strife of peoples’) as god of war (_Sin ḳarib ilâni_). The + possibility must also be considered that the difference is due + to the fusion in tradition of two originally distinct figures + (see Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 41). It + is quite a plausible supposition, though the thoroughness of + the redaction has effaced the proof of it, that אברם was peculiar + to Yahwist and אברהם to Elohist.――Outside of Genesis (with the + exception of the citations 1 Chronicles 1²⁷, Nehemiah 9⁷) the + form Abraham alone is found in Old Testament. + + ¹ Hommel’s reading of _Abî-râmu_ on a contract tablet of + Abil-Sin, the grandfather of Ḫammurabi (see _The Ancient + Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 96), + has proved to be incorrect, the true reading being + _Abî-Eraḫ_ (see Ranke, _Die Personennamen in den Urkunden + der Hammurabi-dynastie_, 1902, page 48). The name has, + however, recently been discovered in several documents + of the time of Ammizaduga, the 10th king of the same + dynasty. See _Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen + Sprachwissenschaft_, vi. (1909), Heft 5, page 60, where + Ungnad shows that the name is not West Semitic, but + Babylonian, that the pronunciation was _Abaram_, and that + the first element is an accusative. He suggests that it + may mean “he loves the father” (_râma_ = רחם), the unnamed + subject being probably a god. Compare _The Expository + Times._, xxi. (1909), 88 ff. + + ² The Arabic _kunyā_, _’Abū-ruhm_ is only an accidental + coincidence: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlii. 484². + + ³ Similarly von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 53), who + compares Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), Arabic _bht_, appearing in + Hebrew as בּוֹשׁ. + + * * * * * + + =1.= אֵל שֶׂדַּי] For a summary of the views held regarding this divine + name, the reader may be referred to Baethgen, _Beiträge zur + Geschichte Cölestins_ 293 ff., or Kautzsch in _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, iii. 3326 f. (compare Cheyne _ib._ iv. 4419 f.); on + the renderings of the ancient versions, see the synopses of + Dillmann (259), Driver (404 f.), and Valeton (_Zeitschrift + für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 11¹).――It is + unfortunately impossible to ascertain whether שֶׂדַּי was originally + an independent noun, or an attribute of אֵל: Nöldeke and Baethgen + decide for the latter view. The traditional Jewish etymology + resolves the word into שׁ = אֲשֶׁר and דַּי,――‘the all-sufficient’ + or ‘self-sufficient’ (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 46: compare Rashi + אני הוא שיש די באלהותי לכל בדיה). Though this theory can be traced as far + back as the rendering of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion + (ἱκανός), it is an utterly groundless conjecture that + Priestly-Code used the name in this sense (Valeton). On the + other hand, it seems rash to conclude (with Nöldeke al.) that + the Massoretic punctuation has no better authority than this + untenable interpretation, so that we are at liberty to vocalise + as we please in accordance with any plausible etymological + theory. The old derivation from √ שׁרד = ‘destroy,’ is still the + best: it is grammatically unobjectionable, has at least some + support in Isaiah 13⁶, Joel 1¹⁵, and is free from difficulty if + we accept it as an ancient title appropriated by Priestly-Code + without regard to its real significance. The assumption of a + by-form שׁרה (Ewald, Tuch, al.) is gratuitous, and would yield + a form שֶׂדָּי, not שֶׂדַּי. Other proposed etymologies are: from שֵׁד + originally = ‘lord’ (Arabic _sayyid_), afterwards = ‘demon’ + (pointing שֵׁדִי or שֵׁדַי [plural majority]: Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der + deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 735 f., xlii. + 480 f.); from √ שׁדה (Arabic _ṯadā_) = ‘be wet’ (‘the raingiver’: + _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_², 424); from Syrian + (‡ Syriac word), ‘hurl’ (Schwally, _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lii. 136: “a dialectic + equivalent of יהוה in the sense of lightning-thrower” [שֶׂדָּי]). + Vollers (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xvii. 310) argues for + an original שֵׁד (√ שׁוד), afterwards, through popular etymology + and change of religious meaning, fathered on √ שׁדד. Several + Assyriologists connect the word with _šadû rabû_, ‘great + mountain,’ a title of Bêl and other Babylonian deities (Hommel + _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, + 109 f.; Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 358): a view which would be more plausible if, as Friedrich + Delitzsch (_Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen + Wörterbuchs zum Alten Testament_ 95 f.) has maintained, + the Assyrian √ meant ‘lofty’; but this is denied by other + authorities (Halevy, _Zeitschrift für Keilschriftsforschung_, + ii. 405 ff.; Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, i. 251). As + to the origin of the name, there is a probability that אֵל שֶׂדַּי was + an old (compare Genesis 49²⁵) Canaanite deity, of the same class + as _’El ‛Elyôn_ (see on 14¹⁸), whom the Israelites identified + with Yahwe (so Gunkel 235).――=4.= אֲנִי] is _casus pendens_ (Driver + _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 197 (4)), not + emphatic anticipation of following suffix (as Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 135 _f_).――=5.= את־שמך] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 _a_, _b_; but + את is omitted in some MSS and in _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_. + + * * * * * + +=6.= The promise of _kings_ among Abraham’s descendants is again +peculiar to Priestly-Code (35¹¹). The reference is to the Hebrew +monarchy: the rulers of Ishmael are only ‘princes’ (נְשֵׁיאִם, verse ²⁰), +and those of Edom (36⁴⁰) are styled אַלּוּף――=7.= _to be to thee a God_] +The essence of the covenant relation is expressed by this frequently +recurring formula.¹ It is important for Priestly-Code’s notion of the +covenant that the correlative ‘they (ye) shall be to me a people,’ +which is always added in other writings (except Ezekiel 34²⁴), is +usually omitted by Priestly-Code (except Exodus 6⁷, Leviticus 26¹²). +The _bĕrîth_ is conceived as a self-determination of God to be to +one particular race all that the word God implies, a reciprocal +act of choice on man’s part being no essential feature of the +relation.――=8.= _land of thy sojourning_] 28⁴ 36⁷ 37¹ 47⁹, Exodus 6⁴ +(all Priestly-Code). + + ¹ The list of passages as given by Driver (page 186) is as + follows: In Priestly-Code, Exodus 6⁷ 29⁴⁵, Leviticus 11⁴⁵; + in Priestly-Codeʰ, Leviticus 22³³ 25³⁸ 26¹²ᐧ ⁴⁵, Numbers 15⁴¹; + elsewhere, Deuteronomy 29¹³ (compare 26¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), Jeremiah 7²³ + 11⁴ 24⁷ 30²² 31¹ᐧ ³³, Ezekiel 11²⁰ 14¹¹ 34²⁴ 36²⁸ 37²³ᐧ ²⁷, + 2 Samuel 2²⁴ (= 1 Chronicles 17²²), Zechariah 8⁸. + + * * * * * + + =6.= ממך] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) = מִמֵּעֶיךָ; see on 15⁴.――=8.= + אֲחֻזָּה] a common word in Priestly-Code; elsewhere only Psalms 2⁸, + Ezekiel 44²⁸, 1 Chronicles 7²⁸. + + * * * * * + +=9‒14. The sign of the Covenant.=――To the promises of verses ²⁻⁸ there +is attached a single command, with regard to which it is difficult +to say whether it belongs to the content of the covenant (verse ¹⁰), +or is merely an adjunct,――an external mark of the invisible bond +which united every Jew to Yahwe (¹¹): see page 297. The theme at all +events is the institution of circumcision. The legal style of the +section is so pronounced that it reads like a stray leaf from the +book of Leviticus (note the address in 2nd person plural from ¹⁰ +onwards).――=9.= _And God said_] marks a new section (compare ¹⁵), וְאַתָּה +being the antithesis to אֲנִי in ⁴.――_keep my covenant_] שָׁמַר is opposed +to הֵפַֽר, ‘break,’ in ¹⁴; hence it cannot mean ‘watch over’ (Valeton), +but must be used in the extremely common sense of ‘observe’ or ‘act +according to.’ The question would never have been raised but for a +disinclination to admit anything of the nature of a stipulation into +Priestly-Code’s idea of the covenant.――=10.= _This is my covenant_] +Circumcision is both the covenant and the sign of the covenant: the +writer’s ideas are sufficiently vague and elastic to include both +representations. It is therefore unnecessary (with Olshausen and +Ball) to read זאת אֹת בריתי (see verse ¹³).――=11.= _for a covenant-sign_] +_i.e._, after the analogy of 9¹² ᶠᐧ, a token by which God is reminded +of the existence of the covenant. The conception rises out of the +extraordinary importance of the rite when the visible fabric of Hebrew +nationality was dissolved, and nothing remained but this corporal badge +as a mark of the religious standing of the Jew before Yahwe.――=12a.= +_at the age of eight days_] connected with the period of the mother’s +uncleanness: Leviticus 12¹ᐧ ³; compare Genesis 21⁴, Luke 1⁵⁹ 2²¹, +Philippians 3⁵; Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214.――=12b, 13= +go together (Delitzsch), extending the obligation to _slaves_, who +as members of the household follow the religion of their master.――The +penalty of disobedience is death or excommunication, according as one +or the other is meant by the obscure formula: _be cut off from its +kindred_ (_v.i._). + + * * * * * + + =10.= ובין זרעך אחריך] LXX + εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν. The whole is + possibly a gloss (Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel), due to + confusion between the legislative standpoint of ¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ with + its plural address, and the special communication to Abraham; + see, however, verses ¹² ᶠᐧ――המול] infinitive absolute used as + jussive; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _cc_, _gg_: compare Exodus + 12⁴⁸, Leviticus 6⁷, Numbers 6⁵.――=11.= וּנְמַלְתֶּם] treated by + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ as active, from √ נמל, but really + abbreviated Niphal of √ מלל (compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 + _dd_), a rare by-form (Joshua 5²) of מוּל.――והיה] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ והיתה, adopted by Ball.――=12.= יליד בית] + see 14¹⁴.――מקנת כסף] only verses ¹³ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁷ and Exodus 12⁴⁴.――מזרעך + is the individualising use of 2nd person singular, frequently + alternating with 2nd plural in legal enactments. So verse + ¹³.――=14.= ערלתו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX + ביום השמיני (Ball).――ונכרתה――מעמיה] So Exodus 30³³ᐧ ³⁸ 31¹⁴, + Leviticus 7²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ 17⁹ 19⁸ 23²⁹, Numbers 9¹³,――all in + Priestly-Code, who employs a number of similar phrases――‘his + people,’ ‘Israel,’ ‘the congregation of Israel,’ ‘the assembly,’ + etc.――to express the same idea (see Driver 187²). עַמִּים is here + used in the sense of ‘kin,’ as occasionally in Old Testament + (see 19³⁸ 25⁸). It is the Arabic _‛amm_, which combines the two + senses of ‘people,’ and ‘relative on the father’s side’: see + Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der + Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 480, and compare Driver + on Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰ (page 384); Krenkel, _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, viii. 280 ff.; Nestle, _ib._ + xvi. 322 f.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, + 480 f. With regard to the sense of the formula there are + two questions: (a) whether it embraces the death-penalty, or + merely exclusion from the _sacra_ of the clan and from burial + in the family grave; and (b) whether the punishment is to be + inflicted by the community, or by God in His providence. The + interpretation seems to have varied in different ages. Exodus + 31¹³ ᶠᐧ clearly contemplates the death penalty at the hands of + the community; while Leviticus 17⁹ ᶠᐧ 20³ᐧ ⁶ point as clearly to + a divine interposition. The probability is that it is an archaic + juridical formula for the punishment of death, which came to + be used vaguely “as a strong affirmation of divine disapproval, + rather than as prescribing a penalty to be actually enforced” + (Driver). See Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. + 421 f.; Holzinger page 127 f.――הֵפַֽר] pausal form for הֵפֵר + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _q_). + + * * * * * + +=15‒22. The heir of the Covenant.=――The promise of the birth of Isaac +is brought into connexion with the main idea of the chapter by the +assurance (¹⁹ᐧ ²¹) that the covenant is to be established with him +and not with Ishmael.――=15.= Sarai’s name is changed to _Sarah_. The +absence of an etymological motive is remarkable (_v.i._).――=16b.= In +LXX, _Jubilees_, Vulgate and Peshiṭtå, the blessing on Sarah is by +slight changes of text turned into a blessing on the son whose birth +has just been foretold (_v.i._). The Massoretic Text, however, is +more likely to be correct.――=17.= Abraham’s demeanour is a strange +mixture of reverence and incredulity: “partim gaudio exultans, partim +admiratione extra se raptus, in risum prorumpit” is Calvin’s comment. +It is Priestly-Code’s somewhat unnatural clothing of the traditional +etymology of Isaac (יִצְחָק, verse ¹⁹); compare 18¹² (Yahwist), 21⁶ +(Elohist).――=18.= The prayer, _O that Ishmael might live before +thee!_――under Thy protection and with Thy blessing (Hosea 6²)――is a +fine touch of nature; but the writer’s interest lies rather in the +‘determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,’ which overrides human +feeling and irrevocably decrees the election of Israel (¹⁹).――=19a.= +Compare the language with 16¹¹, and observe that the naming of the +child is assigned to the father.――=20.= שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ] a remote allusion to +the popular explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ‘May God hear’ (compare 16¹¹ 21¹⁷). +Ishmael is to be endowed for Abraham’s sake with every kind of +blessing, except the religious privileges of the covenant.――_twelve +princes_] (compare 25¹⁶) as contrasted with the ‘kings’ of +⁶ᐧ ¹⁶.――=22.= The close of the theophany.—וַיַּעַל—מֵעַל as 35¹³. + + * * * * * + + =15.= שָׂרַי (LXX Σάρα) and שָׂרָה (LXX Σάῤῥα)] According to Nöldeke + (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. + 183, xlii. 484), ־ַי is ♦an old feminine terminator surviving in + Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian. On this view שָׂרַי may be either the + same word as שָׂרָה, ‘princess’ (√ שרר), or (as the differentiation + of LXX suggests) from √ שרה, ‘strive,’ with which the name Israel + was connected (Genesis 32²⁹, Hosea 12⁴: see William Robertson + Smith _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 34 f. [Nöldeke + dissents]). On Lagarde’s (_Mittheilungen_ ii. 185) attempt to + connect the name with Arabic _šaraʸ_ = ‘wild fertile spot,’ and + so to identify Abraham (as ‘husband of Sarai’) with the Nabatean + god Dusares (_ḏū-ššaraʸ_), see Meyer _Die Israeliten und + ihre Nachbarstämme_, 269 f., who thinks the conjecture raised + beyond doubt by the discovery of the name _Šarayat_ as consort + of Dusares on an inscription at Boṣra in the Ḥaurân. The + identification remains highly problematical.――=16.= וברכתיה] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ וברכתיו. So LXX, _Jubilees_, + Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, which consistently maintain the masculine + to the end of the verse.――=17.= ואם――הֲ׳] a combination of the + disjunctive question with _casus pendens_; see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 150 _g_. + + ♦ duplicate word “an” removed + + =19.= אבל] ‘_Nay, but_,’――a rare asseverative (42²¹, 2 Samuel 14⁵, + 2 Kings 4¹⁴, 1 Kings 1⁴³) and adversative (Daniel 10⁷ᐧ ²¹, Ezra + 10¹³, 2 Chronicles 1⁴ 19³ 33¹⁷) particle. See the interesting + note in Burney, _Notes on Kings_, page 11; and compare König, ii. + 265.――לזרעו אחריו] LXX καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ’ αὐτὸν appears to + imply a preceding clause εἶναι αὐτῷ θεός, which is found in many + cursives. This is probably the correct reading.――=20.= נשיאם] LXX + ἔθνη. + + * * * * * + +=23‒27. Circumcision of Abraham’s household.=――=23.= _on that +very day_ (compare 7¹³)] repeated in verse ²⁶. Throughout the +section, Priestly-Code excels himself in pedantic and redundant +circumstantiality of narration. The circumcision of Ishmael, however, +is inconsistent with the theory that the rite is a sign of the +covenant, from which Ishmael is excluded (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=25.= +_thirteen years old_] This was the age of circumcision among the +ancient Arabs, according to Josephus. _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 214. +Origen (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ vi. 11:¹ compare Wellhausen +_Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 175³); and Ambrose (_de Abraham_ ii. +348) give a similar age (14 years) for the Egyptians. It is possible +that the notice here is based on a knowledge of this custom. Among +the modern Arabs there is no fixed rule, the age varying from three to +fifteen years: see Dillmann 264; Driver in _A Dictionary of the Bible_, +ii. 504ᵇ. + + ¹ Edited by Heinichen, page 310 f. + + _Circumcision_ is a widely diffused rite of primitive religion, + of whose introduction among the Hebrews there is no authentic + tradition. One account (Exodus 4²⁴ ᶠᐧ) suggests a Midianite + origin, another (Joshua 5² ᶠᶠᐧ) an Egyptian: the mention of + flint knives in both these passages is a proof of the extreme + antiquity of the custom (the Stone Age).¹ The anthropological + evidence shows that it was originally performed at puberty, as + a preliminary to marriage, or, more generally, as a ceremony of + initiation into the full religious and civil status of manhood. + This primary idea was dissipated when it came to be performed in + infancy; and its perpetuation in this form can only be explained + by the inherited belief that it was an indispensable condition + of participation in the common cultus of the clan or nation. + ♦Passages like Deuteronomy 10¹⁶ 30⁶, Ezekiel 44⁷ᐧ ⁹, show that in + Israel it came to be regarded as a token of allegiance to Yahwe; + and in this fact we have the germ of the remarkable development + which the rite underwent in post-Exilic Judaism. The new + importance it then acquired was due to the experience of the + Exile (partly continued in the Dispersion), when the suspension + of public worship gave fresh emphasis to those rites which + (like the Sabbath and circumcision) could be observed by the + individual, and served to distinguish him from his heathen + neighbours. In this way we can understand how, while the earlier + legal codes have no law of circumcision, in Priestly-Code it + becomes a prescription of the first magnitude, being placed + above the Mosaic ritual, and second in dignity only to the + Sabbath. The explicit formulating of the idea that circumcision + is the sign of the national covenant with Yahwe was the work of + the Priestly school of jurists; and very few legislative acts + have exercised so tremendous an influence on the genius of a + religion, or the character of a race, as this apparently trivial + adjustment of a detail of ritual observance. For information on + various aspects of the subject, see Ploss, _Das Kind in Brauch + und Sitte der Völker_² (1894), i. 342‒372; Wellhausen _Reste + arabischen Heidentums_² 174 f., _Prolegomena zur Geschichte + Israels_⁶ 338 ff.; Stade _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, vi. 132‒143; the articles in _A Dictionary of the + Bible_ (Macalister) and _Encyclopædia Biblica_ (Benzinger); and + the notes in Dillmann 258; Holzinger 129; Gunkel 237; Driver 189 + ff.; Strack², 67; Matthes, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xxix. 70 ff. + + ¹ In a tomb of the Old Empire at Sakkara there are + wall-pictures of the operation, where the surgeon uses + a flint knife: see G. Elliot Smith in _British Medical + Journal_, 1908, 732 (quoted by Matthes); and the + illustration in _Texte und Bilder_, ii. page 126. + + ♦ “Passsages” replaced with “Passages” + + _The Covenant-idea in Priestly-Code_ (see also page 290 f. + above). In Priestly-Code’s scheme of four world-ages, the + word בְּרִית is used only of the revelations associated with Noah + and Abraham. In the Creation-narrative the term is avoided + because the constitution of nature then appointed was afterwards + annulled, whereas the _Bĕrîth_ is a permanent and irreversible + determination of the divine will. The conception of the Mosaic + revelation as a covenant is Jehovistic (Exodus 24³⁻⁸ 34¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ + etc.) and Deuteronomic (Deuteronomy 4¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 5² ᶠᶠᐧ 9⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ + etc.); and there are traces of it in secondary strata of + Priestly-Code (Leviticus 26⁴⁵ [Priestly-Codeʰ], Exodus 31¹⁶ ᶠᐧ¹ + [Priestly-Codeˢ]); but it is not found in the historical work + which is the kernel of the Code (Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ). Hence in + trying to understand the religious significance of the _Bĕrîth_ + in Priestly-Codeᴷᵉʳⁿᵉˡ, we have but two examples to guide + us. And with regard to both, the question is keenly discussed + whether it denotes a self-imposed obligation on the part of God, + irrespective of any condition on the part of man (so Valeton, + _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. + 1 ff.), or a bilateral engagement involving _reciprocal_ + obligations between God and men (so in the main Kraetzschmar, + _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 183 ff.). The answer + depends on the view taken of circumcision in this chapter. + According to Valeton, it is merely a sign and nothing more; + _i.e._, a means whereby God is reminded of the covenant. + According to Kraetzschmar, it is both a sign and a constituent + of the covenant, forming the condition on which the covenant + is entered into. The truth seems to lie somewhere between two + extremes. The _Bĕrîth_ is neither a simple divine promise to + which no obligation on man’s part is attached (as in 15¹⁸), nor + is it a mutual contract in the sense that the failure of one + party dissolves the relation. It is an immutable determination + of God’s purpose, which no unfaithfulness of man can invalidate; + but it carries conditions, the neglect of which will exclude the + individual from its benefits. It is perhaps an over-refinement + when Kraetzschmar (_l.c._ 201) infers from the expressions + הֵקִים and נָתַן that for Priestly-Code there is only _one_ eternal + divine _Bĕrîth_, immutably established by God and progressively + revealed to man. + + ¹ Could this, however, be taken to mean that the Sabbath was a + ‘sign’ of the _Adamic_ dispensation conceived as a covenant? + + * * * * * + + =24.= שנה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + שנים.――בהמלו] The Niphal is here either reflexive or passive; + in ²⁵ it is passive.――=26.= נמול] irregular perfect Niphal; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 _ee_. Peshiṭtå takes it as active. + (√ נמל?) with Ishmael as object; and so LXX in verse ²⁷ + (περιέτεμεν αὐτούς). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XVIII. + _The Theophany at Hebron: + Abraham’s Intercession for Sodom_ + (Yahwist). + +Under the terebinths of Mamre, Abraham hospitably entertains three +mysterious visitors (¹⁻⁸), and is rewarded by the promise of a son to +be born to Sarah in her old age (⁹⁻¹⁵). The three ‘men,’ whose true +nature had been disclosed by their supernatural knowledge of Sarah’s +thoughts, then turn towards Sodom, accompanied by Abraham (¹⁶), who, +on learning Yahwe’s purpose to destroy that city (¹⁷⁻²¹), intercedes +eloquently on its behalf (²²⁻³³). + + The first half of the chapter (¹⁻¹⁶) shows at its best the + picturesque, lucid, and flexible narrative style of Yahwist, and + contains many expressions characteristic of that document: יהוה, + ¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴; רוּץ לִקְרַאת, ² (only in Yahwist 24¹⁷ 29¹³ 33⁴); מָצָא חַן, ³; + נָא, ³ᐧ ⁴; עַבְדְּךָ (for 1st person), ³ᐧ ⁵; כִּי־עַל־כֵּן, ⁵; לָמָּה זֶּה, ¹³; השקיף, + ¹⁶. The latter part (¹⁷⁻³³) is also Yahwistic (יהוה, ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ + ³³; [הִנֵּה]־נָא, ²⁷ᐧ ³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ; חָלִלָה, ²⁵; הַפַּעַם, ³²), but contains two + expansions of later date than the primary narrative. Wellhausen + (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 27 f.) appears to have proved that the + original connexion between 18¹⁵ and 19¹ consists of ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰⁻²²ᵃᐧ + ³³ᵇ; and that ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ are editorial insertions reflecting + theological ideas proper to a more advanced stage of thought + (see below). A more comprehensive analysis is attempted + by Kraetzschmar in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xvii. 81 ff., prompted by the perplexing + alternation of the singular ([יהוה] ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷⁻²¹ᐧ + ²²ᵇ⁻³³) and plural (²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²²ᵃ)¹ in the dialogue + between Abraham and his guests. The theory will repay a closer + examination than can be given to it here; but I agree with + Gunkel in thinking that the texture of ¹⁻¹⁶ is too homogeneous + to admit of decomposition, and that some other explanation of + the phenomenon in question must be sought than the assumption + of an interweaving of a singular and a plural recension of the + legend (see on verse ¹ and page 303 below).² With Gunkel also, + we may regard the chapter as the immediate sequel to 13¹⁸ in the + legendary cycle which fixes the residence of Abraham at Hebron + (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ). The conception of Abraham’s character is + closely akin to what we meet throughout that section of Yahwist, + and differs appreciably from the representation of him in + 12¹⁰⁻²⁰ and 16. + + ¹ It is important, however, to observe that in _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ (if we except the introductory + ¹ᵃ) the singular does not appear till ¹⁰, but after that + regularly up to ¹⁵. + + ² The same solution had occurred to Ball (_The Sacred Books of + the Old Testament_, 1896), but was rightly set aside by him + as unproved. + +=1‒8. The entertainment of the three wayfarers.=――The description +“presents a perfect picture of the manner in which a modern Bedawee +sheikh receives travellers arriving at his encampment. He immediately +orders his wife or women to make bread, slaughters a sheep or other +animal, and dresses it in haste; and, bringing milk and any other +provisions that he may have at hand, with the bread and the meat that +he has dressed, sets them before his guests: if they are persons of +high rank he also stands by them while they eat” (Lane, _An Account +of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ i. 364: from +Driver).――=1.= _Yahwe appeared, etc._] This introductory clause +simply means that the incident about to be related has the value of a +theophany. In what way the narrator conceived that Yahwe was present +in the three men――whether He was one of the three, or whether all +three were Yahwe in self-manifestation (Delitzsch)――we can hardly tell. +The common view that the visitors were Yahwe accompanied by two of His +angels does not meet the difficulties of the exegesis; and it is more +probable that to the original Yahwist the ‘men’ were emissaries and +representatives of Yahwe, who was not visibly present (see page 304 +f.).――כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם] at the hottest (and drowsiest) time of the day (2 Samuel +4⁵).――=2.= _and behold_] The mysteriously sudden advent of the +strangers marks them as superhuman beings (Joshua 5¹³), though this +makes no impression on Abraham at the time. The interest of the +story turns largely on his ignorance of the real character of his +guests.――=3.= The Massoretic pointing אֲדֹנָי implies that Abraham +recognised Yahwe as one of the three (Tuch, Delitzsch, al.); but +this we have just seen to be a mistake. The correct form is either +אֲדֹנִי (as 23⁶ᐧ ¹¹, etc.: so Dillmann, Driver), or (better, as 19²) אֲדֹנַי: +_Sirs!_――restoring (with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) +the plural throughout the verse.――The whole of Abraham’s speech +is a fine example of the profuse, deferential, self-depreciatory +courtesy characteristic of Eastern manners.――=4.= _wash your feet_] +Compare 19² 24³² 43²⁴, Judges 19²¹, 2 Samuel 11⁸, Luke 7⁴⁴, 1 Timothy +5¹⁰.――_recline yourselves_] not at meat (Gunkel), but during the +preparation of the meal. Even in the time of Amos (6⁴) reclining at +table seems to have been a new-fangled and luxurious habit introduced +from abroad: contrast the ancient custom 27¹⁹, Judges 19⁶, 1 Samuel +20⁵ᐧ ²⁴, 1 Kings 13²⁰.――=5.= _support your heart_] with the food, +Judges 19⁵ᐧ ⁸, 1 Kings 13⁷, Psalms 104¹⁵; compare bread the ‘staff’ of +life, Leviticus 26²⁶, Isaiah 3¹.――_seeing that, etc._] Hospitality is, +so to speak, the logical corollary of passing Abraham’s tent.――=6‒8.= +The preparation of a genuine Bedouin repast, consisting of hastily +baked _cakes_ of bread, _flesh_, and _milk_ in two forms. On the items, +_v.i._――=8.= _and they ate_] So 19³――the only cases in Old Testament +where the Deity is represented as eating (contrast Judges 6²⁰ ᶠᐧ 13¹⁶). +The anthropomorphism is evaded by Josephus (_Antiquities of the Jews_ +i. 197: οἱ δὲ δόξαν αὐτῷ παρέσχον ἐσθιόντων; compare Tobit 12¹⁹), +Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al. + + * * * * * + + =1.= יהוה] LXX ὁ θεός.――In אליו the suffix may refer back directly + to 13¹⁸ (see on the verse).――באלני ממרא] LXX πρὸς τῇ δρυῒ τῇ Μαμβρῇ; + see on 13¹⁸.――=3.= Read with _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ בעיניכם, תעברו, עבדכם.――=5.= אחר תעברו (_The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is + the better reading, to which LXX adds εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῶν (compare + 19²).――כי־על־כן is not to be resolved into כִּי and עַל־כֵּן, _denn eben + desshalb_ (Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 308 a; Delitzsch, al.); but is + a compound conjunction = _quandoquidem_, ‘inasmuch as’ (Tuch, + Dillmann, Driver), as usage clearly shows; compare 19⁸ 33¹⁰ + 38²⁶ Numbers 10³¹ 14⁴³ (all Yahwist), Judges 6²², 2 Samuel + 18²⁰, Jeremiah 29²⁸ 38⁴†; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 158 _b_³; + Brown-Driver-Briggs, 475 b.――עברתם על LXX ἐξεκλίνατε πρός = סַרְתֶּם אֶל + (19² ᶠᐧ), which is too rashly accepted by Ball.――וַיֹּאמְרוּ] LXX has + the singular wrongly.――=6.= _Three seahs_ would be (according + to Kennedy’s computation, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. + 912) approximately equal to 4½ pecks.――קמח סלת] LXX σεμιδάλεως, + [Vulgate _similæ_] which might stand either for קמח (1 Samuel + 1²⁴) or סלת (as in every other instance). The latter (the finer + variety) is here probably a gloss on קמח.――עגות] (LXX ἐγκρυφίας, + Vulgate _subcinericios panes_) are thin round cakes baked on hot + stones or in the ashes (Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² + 64).――=8.= חמאה is the Arabic _laban_, milk slightly soured by + fermentation, which is greatly esteemed by the nomads of Syria + and Arabia as a refreshing and nourishing beverage (see + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3089 f.). + + * * * * * + +=9‒15. The promise of a son to Sarah.=――The subject is introduced +with consummate skill. In the course of the conversation which +naturally follows the meal, an apparently casual question leads to +an announcement which shows superhuman knowledge of the great blank +in Abraham’s life, and conveys a first intimation of the real nature +of the visitors. See Gunkel’s fine exposition, 172 f.; and contrast +the far less delicate handling of an identical situation in 2 Kings +4¹³⁻¹⁶.――=9.= The question shows that Sarah had not been introduced +to the strangers, in accordance probably with Hebrew custom +(Gunkel).――=10.= _I will return_] The definite transition to the +singular takes place here (see on verse ³). In the original legend +the plural was no doubt kept up to the end; but the monotheistic +habit of thought was too strong for Hebrew writers, when they came +to words which could be properly ascribed only to Yahwe.――On כָּעֵת חַיָּה, +_v.i._――_Sarah was listening_] with true feminine curiosity; compare +27⁵. The last two words should probably be rendered: _she being +behind it_ (the tent or the door); compare the footnote.――=11.= +A circumstantial sentence explaining Sarah’s incredulity (verse +¹²).――_after the manner of women_ (compare 31³⁵)] “quo genere +loquendi verecunde menses notat qui mulieribus fluunt” (Calvin); +LXX τὰ γυναίκια; Vulgate _muliebria_.――=12.= _Sarah laughed_ (וַתִּצְחַק) +_within herself_] obviously a proleptic explanation of the name יִצְחָק +(see on 17¹⁷), although the sequel in this document has not been +preserved.――_waxed old_] literally ‘worn away,’ a strong word used, +_e.g._, of worn out garments (Deuteronomy 8⁴ 29⁴ etc.).――עֶדְנָה (only +here), ‘sensuous enjoyment’ (_Liebeswonne_).――=13.= This leads to a +still more remarkable proof of divine insight: the speaker knows that +Sarah has laughed, though he has neither seen nor heard her (בְּקִרְבָּהּ, +verse ¹²). The insertion of Yahwe here was probably caused by the +occurrence of the name in the next verse.――=14.= _Is anything too +strange for Yahwe?_] As the narrative stands, the sentence does not +imply identity between the speaker and Yahwe, but rather a distinction +analogous to that frequently drawn between Yahwe and the angel +of Yahwe (see on 16⁷).――=15.= _Sarah denied it_] startled by the +unexpected exposure of her secret thoughts into fear of the mysterious +guests. + + From the religious-historical point of view, the passage just + considered, with its sequel in chapter 19, is one of the most + obscure in Genesis. According to Gunkel (174 ff.), whose genial + exposition has thrown a flood of light on the deeper aspects + of the problem, the narrative is based on a widely diffused + Oriental myth, which had been localised in Hebron in the + pre-Yahwistic period, and was afterwards incorporated in the + Abrahamic tradition. On this view, the three strangers were + originally three deities, disguised as men, engaged in the + function described in the lines of Homer (_Odyssey_ xvii. + 485 ff.): + + Καί τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες ἀλλοδαποῖσιν, + παντοῖοι τελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφῶσι πόληας, + ἀνθρώπων ὕβριν τε καὶ εὐνομίην ἐφορῶντες.¹ + + Dr. Rendel Harris goes a step further, and identifies the gods + with the Dioscuri or Kabiri, finding in the prominence given to + hospitality, and the renewal of sexual functions, characteristic + features of a Dioscuric visitation (_Cult of the Heavenly Twins_, + 37 ff.). Of the numerous parallels that are adduced, by far + the most striking is the account of the birth of Orion in Ovid, + _Fasti_, v. 495 ff.: Hyrieus, an aged peasant of Tanagra, is + visited by Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes, and shows hospitality + to them; after the repast the gods invite him to name a wish; + and he, being widowed and childless, asks for a son. ‘Pudor + est ulteriora loqui’; but at the end of ten months Orion is + miraculously born. The resemblance to Genesis 18 is manifest; + and since direct borrowing of the Bœotian legend from Jewish + sources is improbable, there is a presumption that we have to + do with variations of the same tale. The theory is rendered + all the more plausible by the fact that a precisely similar + origin is suggested by the leading motives of chapter 19 (see + below).――Assuming that some such pagan original is the basis + of the narrative before us, we find a clue to that confusion + between the singular and plural which has been already referred + to as a perplexing feature of the chapter. It is most natural + to suppose that the threefold manifestation is a remnant of the + original polytheism, the heathen deities being reduced to the + rank of Yahwe’s envoys. The introduction of Yahwe Himself as one + of them would thus be a later modification, due to progressive + Hebraïzing of the conception, but never consistently carried + through. An opposite view is taken by Fripp (_Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xii. 23 ff.), who restores + the singular throughout, and by Kraetzschmar, who, as we have + seen, distinguishes between a singular and a plural recension, + but regards the former as the older. The substitution of angels + for Yahwe might seem a later refinement on the anthropomorphic + representation of a bodily appearance of Yahwe; but the + resolution of the _one_ Yahwe into _three_ angels would be + unaccountable, especially in Yahwist, who appears never to speak + of angels in the plural (see on 19¹). See Gunkel 171, and Cheyne + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4667 f. + + ¹ The belief appears to be very ancient. Dr. Frazer cites + several primitive rites in which strangers are treated as + deities――not always to their advantage (_Golden Bough_, ii. + 225, 232, 234 f., and especially 237; _Adonis Attis Osiris_, + 21 ff.). + + * * * * * + + =9.= ויאמרו] LXX ויאמר (wrongly).――אֹליֹוֹ] The superlinear points + (compare 16⁵) are thought to indicate a reading לו.――=10.= כָּעֵת חַיָּה] + This peculiar phrase (recurring only verse ¹⁴, 2 Kings 4¹⁶ ᶠᐧ) + is now almost invariably rendered ‘at the (this) time, when it + revives,’ _i.e._, next year, or spring (so Rashi, Abraham Ibn + Ezra; compare Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ + Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_ 470; Gesenius-Buhl¹⁴, 202 + a; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 312 a; Ewald _Ausführliches Lehrbuch der + hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes_ § 337 a; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 118 _u_; König _Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen + Sprache_ § 387 e); but the sense is extremely forced. It + is surprising that no one seems to suspect a reference to + the period of pregnancy. In New Hebrew חַיָּה means a woman in + child-birth (so perhaps חָיָה in Exodus 1¹⁹ [Holzinger _ad v._]); + and here we might point כְּעֵת חַיָּה or כּ׳ חָיָה, rendering ‘according to + the time of a pregnant woman,’ or 9 months hence. לַמּועֵד in verse + ¹⁴ is no obstacle, for מוֹעֵד is simply the time determined by the + previous promise, and there is no need to add הַזֶּה (LXX after + 17²¹). 2 Kings 4¹⁶ (לַמּ׳ הַזֶּה) does present a difficulty; but that + late passage is modelled on this, and the original phrase may + have been already misunderstood, as it is by all versions: + _e.g._ LXX κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον εἰς ὥρας; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘at + a time when you are living’; Peshiṭtå ‘at this time, she being + alive’; Vulgate _tempore isto, vita comite_. Ball also points + as construct, but thinks חַיָּה an old name for spring.――והנה] LXX, + Peshiṭtå read וְהָיָה.――והוא אחריו] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ והיא א׳; so LXX οὖσα ὄπισθεν αὐτοῦ. Massoretic Text + is perhaps a neglect of the _Qĕrê perpet_ (וְהִוא).――=11.= באים בימים] + compare 24¹, Joshua 13¹ 23¹ᐧ ², 1 Kings 1¹.――ארח כנשים] Ball, + Kittel more smoothly, כְּאֹרַח נָשִׁים.――=12.= אַֽחֲרֵי――עֶדְנָה] LXX Οὔπω μέν μοι + γέγονεν ἕως τοῦ νῦν presupposes an impossible text בִּלְתִּי הָֽיְתָה לִי עֲדָנָה. + The change is perhaps alluded to in _Mechilta_ on Exodus 12⁴⁰ + (see page 14 above; Geiger, _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der + Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des + Judenthums_ 439, 442).――אַֽחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי] Aquila μετὰ τὸ κατατριβῆναί + με; Symmachus (less accurately) μετὰ τὸ παλαιωθῆναί με.――=14.= + היפלא מן] Jeremiah 32¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷, Deuteronomy 17⁸ 30¹¹. + + * * * * * + +=16‒22a. The judgement of Sodom revealed.= + + The soliloquy of Yahwe in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ breaks the connexion between + ¹⁶ and ²⁰, and is to all appearance a later addition (see + page 298). (a) The insertion assumes that Yahwe is one of the + three strangers; but this is hardly the intention of the main + narrative, which continues to speak of ‘the men’ in the plural + (²²ᵃ). (b) In ¹⁷ Yahwe has resolved on the destruction of Sodom, + whereas in ²⁰ ᶠᐧ He proposes to abide by the result of a personal + investigation. (c) Both thought and language in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ show signs + of Deuteronomic influence (see Holzinger and Gunkel). Dillmann’s + assertion (265), that ²⁰ ᶠᐧ have no motive apart from ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ and + ²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, is incomprehensible; the difficulty rather is to assign + a reason for the addition of ¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. The idea seems to be that + Abraham (as a prophet: compare Amos 3⁷) must be initiated into + the divine purpose, that he may instruct his descendants in the + ways of Yahwe. + +=16.= _and looked out in view of Sodom_ (compare 19²⁸)] The Dead Sea +not being visible from Hebron, we must understand that a part of the +journey has been accomplished. Tradition fixed the spot at a village +over 3 miles East of Hebron, called by Jerome _Caphar Barucha_, now +known as _Beni Na‛im_, but formerly _Kefr Barîk_, from which the +Sea is seen through gaps in the mountains (see Robinson, _Biblical +Researches in Palestine_, i. 490 f.; Buhl, _Geographie des alten +Palaestina_, 158 f.).――=17.= _But Yahwe had said_] _sc._ ‘to Himself’; +the construction marking the introduction of a circumstance.――=18.= +_Seeing Abraham, etc._] Yahwe reflects, as it were, on the religious +importance of the individual beside Him.――_and all nations, etc._] See +the notes on 12³. בּוֹ possibly refers not to Abraham but to גּוֹי; compare +22¹⁸ (Wellhausen).――=19.= Compare Deuteronomy 6¹⁻³.――_For I have +known_ (_i.e._ ‘entered into personal relations with’: as Amos 3², +Hosea 13⁵) _him in order that, etc._] There is a certain incongruity +between the two parts of the verse: here the establishment of the true +religion is the purpose of Abraham’s election; in ¹⁹ᵇ the end of the +religion is the fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham.――=20.= +Resuming verse ¹⁶. An earlier form of the story no doubt read וַיֹּאמְרוּ +instead of וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה].――On the peculiar construction, _v.i._――=21.= +Restoring the plural as before, the verse reads as a disjunctive +question: _We will go down that we may see whether ... or not: we +would know._ + + * * * * * + + =16.= סְדֹם] LXX + καὶ Γομόρρας.――=17.= After אַבְרָהָם LXX, Peshiṭtå + read עַבְדִּי.――=19.= ידעתיו] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate omit the suffix, while LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå treat what follows as an object clause (_quod_, etc.), + through a misunderstanding of the sense of ידע.――=20.= זעקת] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ צעקת as verse ²¹.――כִּי + (_bis_)] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארי. The particle is ignored by LXX, + Vulgate; also by Peshiṭtå, which supplies (‡ Syriac phrase) + and omits כִּי רַבָּה. If the text be retained the כִּי is either + _corroborative_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 148 _d_, 159 _ee_), or + _causal_ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 473 b); but neither construction + is natural. Moreover, the parallelism of clauses is itself + objectionable; for whether the ‘sin’ actually corresponds to + the ‘cry’ is the very point to be investigated (verse ²¹). + This material difficulty is not removed by the addition of + שָׁמַעְתִּי (Olshausen) or בָּאָה אֵלַי (Kittel). Its removal is the sole + recommendation of Wellhausen’s proposal to omit וְ before + חַטָּאתָם and render, ‘There is a rumour about Sodom and Gomorrah + that their sin is great, that it is very grievous.’――=21.= + Read with LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָם.――On הַבָּֽאָה for הַבָּאָֽה, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 138 _k_.――כָּלָה is difficult: compare Exodus + 11¹, another doubtful passive. Wellhausen here suggests כֻּלָּהּ, + Olshausen כֻּלָּם. + + * * * * * + +=22b‒33. Abraham’s intercession.= + + The secondary character of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ (see page 298) appears from + the following considerations: (a) In ²²ᵃ ‘the men’ (_i.e._ all + three) have moved away to Sodom; in ²²ᵇ Yahwe remains behind + with Abraham. That Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the + view of the later editors (see on 19¹); but if that had been the + original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this + point. (b) In ²⁰ ᶠᐧ we have seen that the fate of Sodom still + hangs in the balance, while in ²³ ᶠᶠᐧ its destruction is assumed + as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it + as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the + ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early + Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and + substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine + government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of + the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would + have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in + the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does + not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been + suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the + section was composed. The precise point of view here represented + appears most clearly in such passages as Jeremiah 15¹, Ezekiel + 14¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and in general it was not till near the Exile that + the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious + righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience + in Israel. + + * * * * * + + =22b= contains one of the 18 תִּקֻּנֵי סֹפְרִים (corrections of the + scribes). The original reading ויהוה עדנו עמד לפני אב׳ is said to + have been changed out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, + _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew + Bible_ 352 f.). The worth of the tradition is disputed, the + present text being supported by all versions as well as by + 19²⁷; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested + restoration (Tuch, Dillmann, against Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, + Gunkel, al.). + + * * * * * + +=23.= _Wilt thou even sweep away, etc._] The question strikes +the keynote of the section,――a protest against the thought of an +indiscriminate judgement (compare Job 9²²).――=24.= _Suppose there +should be fifty, etc._] A small number in a city, but yet sufficient +to produce misgiving if they should perish unjustly.――_and not forgive +the place_] In Old Testament, righteousness and clemency are closely +allied: there is more injustice in the death of a few innocent persons +than in the sparing of a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what +limits is the application of this principle subject?――=25.= _Shall +not the Judge, etc._] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the +world would make piety impossible: compare Romans 3⁶.――=27.= _I have +ventured_] compare Jeremiah 12¹. הוֹאִיל expresses the overcoming of +a certain inward reluctance (Joshua 7⁷).――_dust and ashes_] an +alliterative combination (Job 30¹⁹ 42⁶, Sirach 40³). As a description +of human nature, the phrase recurs only Sirach 10⁹ 17³².――=28.= בַּחֲמִשָּׁה] +literally ‘on account of the 5’; a somewhat paradoxical form of +expression.――=30‒32=. Emboldened by success, Abraham now ventures on +a reduction by 10 instead of 5 (Delitzsch); this is continued till the +limit of human charity is reached, and Abraham ceases to plead.――=33.= +_went_] not to Sodom, but simply ‘departed.’――=33b= would be equally +appropriate after ³³ᵃ or ²²ᵃ. + + * * * * * + + =23, 24.= האף] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הבירגז, mistaking for אַף = ‘anger’: so + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ.――=23= end] LXX + καὶ ἔσται ὁ δίκαιος + ὡς ὁ ἀσεβής (²⁵ᵃ).――=24.= תשא] _sc._ עָוֹן = ‘forgive’: Numbers + 14¹⁹, Isaiah 2⁹, Hosea 1⁶ etc.――=25.= חָלִלָה] literally ‘_profanum_ + (_sit_),’ construed with מִן, as 44⁷ᐧ ¹⁷, often. The full + formula is ח׳ ל׳ מיהוה (1 Samuel 24⁷ 26¹¹ etc.).――לא יעשה משפט] Vulgate + (_nequaquam facies judicium hoc_) and Peshiṭtå (which takes השׁפט + as vocative) mistake the sense.――=28.= יחסרון] The regular use of + the ending וּן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _m_) from this point onwards + is remarkable (Dillmann). The form, though _etymologically_ + archaic, is by no means a mark of antiquity in Old Testament, + and is peculiarly frequent in Deuteronomic style (Driver on + Deuteronomy 1¹⁷).――=32.= הפעם] see on 2²³. + + * * * * * + + + XIX. 1‒29. + _The Destruction of Sodom and Deliverance of Lot_ + (Yahwist and Priestly-Code). + +The three men (see on verse ¹) who have just left Abraham reach +Sodom in the evening, are received as guests by Lot (¹⁻³), but are +threatened with outrage by the Sodomites (⁴⁻¹¹). Thus convinced of +the depravity of the inhabitants, they secure the safety of Lot’s +household (¹²⁻²²), after which the city is destroyed by fire and +brimstone (²³⁻²⁸). + + Thus far Yahwist: compare יהוה, ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁷; נא, ²ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ + ²⁰; טרם, ⁴; כי־על־כן, ⁸; לקראת, ¹; פצר, ³ᐧ ⁹; השקיף, ²⁸.――The summary + in ²⁹ is from Priestly-Code: compare אלהים, שחת, ערי הככר, (compare + 6¹⁷ 9¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵).――The passage continues 18²²ᵃᐧ ³³ᵇ (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ), + and forms an effective contrast to the scene in Abraham’s + tent (18¹⁻¹⁵). The alternation of singular and plural is less + confusing than in 18; and Kraetzschmar’s theory (see page 298 + f.) does less violence to the structure of the passage. Indeed, + Gunkel himself admits that the singular section ¹⁷⁻²² (with ²⁶) + is an ‘intermezzo’ from another Yahwistic author (Gunkel 181). + +=1‒3. Lot’s hospitality.=――Compare Judges 19¹⁵⁻²¹.――=1a.= _the +two angels_] Read ‘the men,’ as 18¹⁶ [19⁵ᐧ ⁸] ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁶; see the +footnote.――_in the gate_] the place of rendezvous in Eastern +cities for business or social intercourse; Ruth 4¹ ᶠᶠᐧ ¹¹, Job 29⁷ +etc.――Compare 18².――אֲדֹנַי] _Sirs!_ See on 18³. Delitzsch’s inference that +Lot’s spiritual vision was less clear than Abraham’s may be edifying, +but is hardly sound.――=2b.= The refusal of the invitation may be +merely a piece of Oriental politeness, or it may contain a hint of the +purpose of the visit (18²¹). In an ordinary city it would be no great +hardship to spend the night in the street: Lot knows only too well +what it would mean in Sodom. + + * * * * * + + =1.= שני המלאכים] This word has not been used before, and recurs + only in verse ¹⁵ (in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + also verse ¹², and in LXX verse ¹⁶). The phrase is, no doubt, + a correction for הָֽאֲנָשִׁים, caused by the introduction of ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ, + and the consequent identification of Yahwe with one of the + original three, and the other two with His angels (Wellhausen + _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des + Alten Testaments_² 27 f.).――=2=. הִנֶּה נָּא] so pointed only here: + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 20 __d_, 100 _o_.――=3.= פצר] Only again 19⁹ + 33¹¹ (Yahwist), Judges 19⁷, 2 Kings 2¹⁷ 5¹⁶. + + * * * * * + +=4‒11. The assault of the Sodomites.=――=4.= _They had not yet retired +to rest when, etc._] That _all_ the men of the city were involved in +the attack is affirmed with emphasis (מִקָּצֶה: _v.i._): an instance of the +‘shamelessness’ of Sodom (Isaiah 3⁹).――=5.= The unnatural vice which +derives its name from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest +depth of moral corruption: compare Leviticus 18²² ᶠᶠᐧ 20¹³ᐧ ²³, Ezekiel +16⁵⁰, Judges 19²².――=6‒8.= Lot’s readiness to sacrifice the honour +of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (compare Judges +19²⁵ᐧ ³⁰), shows him as a courageous champion of the obligations of +hospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment, and is recorded +to his credit. Compare 12¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ――=8.= _inasmuch as they have come +under the shadow_ (_i.e._ ‘protection’) _of my roof-tree_] קֹרָה, ‘beam’ +(like μέλαθρα), for ‘house.’――=9=. Lot is reminded of his solitary +(הָֽאֶחָד, _der Eine da_) and defenceless position as a _gêr_ (see on +12¹⁰).――=11.= The divine beings smite the rabble with demonic +blindness (סַנְוֵרִים: _v.i._). + + * * * * * + + =4.= אנשי סדם] probably a gloss (Olshausen).――מקצה] (LXX ἅμα) + an abbreviation of מן־הקצה ועד־הקצה (Genesis 47²¹, Exodus 26²⁸, + Deuteronomy 13⁸ etc.) = ‘exhaustively’: so Isaiah 56¹¹, Jeremiah + 51³¹, Ezekiel 25⁹.――=6.= הפתחה] omitted by LXX, Vulgate.――=8.= + האל] = הָאֵלֶּה (only again 19²⁵ 26³ ᶠ, Leviticus 18²⁷, Deuteronomy + 4⁴² 7²² 19¹¹, 1 Chronicles 20⁸) is an orthographic variant + (not in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_), meant + originally to be pronounced הָאֵלָּ. See Driver on Deuteronomy + 4⁴².――כי־על־כן] as 18⁵.――=9.= הלאה [_The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ גשה]גֶּשׁ־] LXX ἀπόστα ἐκεῖ: ‘stand back there’; compare + גְּשָׁה־לִּי, Isaiah 49²⁰.――וישפט שפוט] Consecutive imperfect expressing + ‘paradoxical consequence’ (Delitzsch); compare 32³¹ 40²³, + Job 2³: see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _l_, _m_. The infinitive + absolute _after_ its verb properly denotes continuance of the + action; here its position seems due to the consecutive ו, and + its force as if it had stood first (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 + _r_, _p_)――=11.= סַנְוֵרִים] (2 Kings 6¹⁸†) is related to ordinary + blindness (עִוָּרוֹן, Deuteronomy 28²⁸, Zechariah 12⁴†), somewhat + as תַּרְדֵּמָה (2²¹) is to ordinary sleep. If from √ נור (‘shine’), + it is either a common oriental euphemism (König ii. page 404), + or dazzling from excess of light (Acts 9³): compare Hoffmann, + _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, ii. 68¹. + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבריריא means both ‘brightness’ and ‘blindness’; + and in the Talmud _Shabriri_ is a demon of blindness + (_Jewish Encyclopædia_, iv. 517 a). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), + ‘hallucinations.’ + + * * * * * + +=12‒16. The deliverance of Lot.=――=12=. On the construction, +_v.i._――=13.= _Yahwe has sent us_] _i.e._ the ‘three’ are agents of +Yahwe, who is therefore _not_ present in person.――=14.= Lot warns +his (prospective) _sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters_: so +Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 202, Vulgate, Tuch, Dillmann, +Driver, al. Others (LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Delitzsch, +al.) take לֹקְחֵי as referring to the past, which is possible (compare +27⁴⁶).――_as one that jested_] see on 21⁹.――=15.= _as the dawn +appeared_] The judgement must be accomplished by sunrise (²³ ᶠᐧ); +hence the urgency of the summons.――_the angels_] ‘the men,’ as verse +¹.――הנִּמְצָאֹת] _who are at hand_ (1 Samuel 21⁴).――=16.= _he hesitated_] +reluctant, and only half-convinced.――_through Yahwe’s compassion on +him_].――_left him without the city_] rather suggests, as Gunkel (186) +holds, that there he is in safety. + + * * * * * + + =12.= עד מי־לך וגו׳] The stiff construction has led to various + operations on the text. LXX, Vulgate seem to have read חֲתָנִים וּבָנִים + וּבָנֹת; Peshiṭtå has חֲתָנֶיךָ. Dillmann suggests that the letters ובנ + have been accidentally thrust into the word חתנ־יך; Holzinger + and Gunkel omit ו in ובניך (so _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_) and commence a new sentence there; Ball, Kittel + delete חתן ו. The text may be retained if we take the first + clause as indirect question: ‘Whomsoever thou hast here as a + son-in-law, and thy sons ... bring forth,’ etc.――At end add הַזָּה + with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX.――=15.= + כמו] “rare and poetic” (Dillmann). Here used as conjunction + (= כאשר).――הנמצאת] LXX ἃς ἔχεις καὶ ἔξελθε; Vulgate _quas + habes_.――=16.= חמלת] future infinitive construct.――=16b= is + omitted by LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ, but is found in many cursives. + + * * * * * + +=17‒22. The sparing of Zoar.=――=17.= _the mountain_] the elevated +Moabite plateau, which rises steeply to heights of 2500‒3000 +feet. from the East side of the Sea.――_look not behind thee_] Such +prohibitions are frequent in legends and incantations; compare the +story of Orpheus and Eurydice (Ovid, _Metamorphoses_ x. 51; Virgil +_Georgics_ iv. 491); compare also Virgil _Eclogues_ viii. 102; Ovid +_Fasti_, v. 439.――=20.= _is near enough to flee to_].――מִצְעָר] _a trifle_: +repeated with a view to the etymology of ²²ᵇ. + + The city of Ẓō‛ar (LXX Σηγωρ) was well known, not only in + Old Testament times (13¹⁰ 14²ᐧ ⁸, Deuteronomy 34³, Isaiah 15⁵, + Jeremiah 48³⁴), but also in the time of the Crusades, and + to the Arabic geographers, who call the Dead Sea the Sea of + _Zuġar_. That this mediæval Zoar was at the South end of the + lake is undisputed; and there is no good reason to question its + identity with the biblical city (see Josephus _War of the Jews_, + iv. 482; _Onomastica Sacra_¹, 261³⁷). Since Wetzstein, it is + usually located at _Ghōr eṣ-Ṣāfiyeh_, about 5 miles South-east + from the present shore of the Sea (compare Dillmann 273; Buhl, + _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 271; Smith, _Historical + Geography of the Holy Land_, 505 ff.; and especially Driver + _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 985b ff.). The situation of + the city naturally gave birth to the secondary legend that it + had been saved from the fate of the adjacent cities on account + of the intercession of Lot; while the name in Hebrew readily + suggested the etymology of ²²ᵇ. + + * * * * * + + =17.= ויאמר] LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå have plural, which is + supported by the previous הוציאם and the following אלהם, though + the singular is maintained in the rest of the section.――תביט] + for תַּבַּֽט; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _p_.――המלט] five times repeated + in the six verses is thought by Ball to be a play on the name + לוֹט.――=20.= ותחי נפשי] LXX + ἕνεκεν σοῦ, a slavish imitation of + 12¹³.――=21.= נשאתי פניך] ‘have accepted thee’ (literally ‘lifted + up thy face’: opposite השיב פנים)――here in a good sense (as 32²¹, + 2 Kings 3¹⁴, Malachi 1⁸ ᶠᐧ), more frequent in the bad sense of + partiality in judgement (Leviticus 19¹⁵, Deuteronomy 10¹⁷, + Malachi 2⁹, Job 13¹⁰ etc.). + + * * * * * + +=23‒28. The catastrophe.=――Brevity in the description of physical +phenomena is in accord with the spirit of the Hebrew legend, whose +main interest is the dramatic presentation of human character and +action.――=23, 24.= The clause _when Lot entered Zoar_, presupposes +¹⁷⁻²², and, if the latter be from a separate source, must be +deleted as an interpolation (Gunkel). The connexion is improved +by the excision: just as the sun rose the catastrophe took place +(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 164 _b_).――_sulphur and fire_ (Ezekiel 38²², +Psalms 11⁶)] a feature suggested by permanent physical phenomena of +the region (see below).――_Yahwe rained ... from Yahwe_] A distinction +between Yahwe as present in the angels and Yahwe as seated in heaven +(Dillmann) is improbable. We must either suppose that the original +subject was ‘the men’ (so Gunkel: compare verse ¹³), or that מֵאֵת יהוה +is a doublet to מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם: the latter phrase, however, is generally +considered to be a gloss (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel, +Kittel).――=25.= וַֽיַּהֲפֹךְ] see on ²⁹.――=26.= Lot’s wife transgresses the +prohibition of ¹⁷, and is turned into a _pillar of salt_. + + The literal interpretation of this notice, though still + maintained by Strack, is clearly inadmissible. The pillar is + mentioned as still existing in Wisdom of Solomon 10⁷, Josephus + _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 203; the reference obviously being + to some curious resemblance to a female figure, round which the + popular imagination had woven a legend connecting it with the + story of Lot. Whether it be identical with the huge cylindrical + column, 40 feet high, on the East side of _Ǧebel Usdum_, + described by Lynch, is, of course, doubtful.¹ The fact that + Ǧebel Usdum is on the South-west side of the lake, while Zoar + was on the South-east, would not preclude the identification: + it would simply mean that the whole region was haunted by the + legend of Lot. But the disintegration of the rock-salt of which + that remarkable ridge is mainly composed, proceeds so rapidly, + and produces so many fantastic projections and pinnacles, + that the tradition may be supposed to have attached itself to + different objects at different periods. See Driver _A Dictionary + of the Bible_, iii. 152. + + ¹ I cannot find the proof of Gunkel’s assertion that _this_ + pillar is now called ‘the daughter of Lot.’ + + * * * * * + + =23.= יצא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ יצאה; + compare 15¹⁷.――=25.= האל (verse ⁸)] LXX + אֲשֶׁר יָשֶׂב בָּהֵן לוֹט, as verse + ²⁹.――=26.= The verse stands out of its proper position (note + the ו consecutive, and the suffixes), and belongs to ¹⁷⁻²² rather + than to the main narrative (Gunkel). + + * * * * * + +=27, 28.= Abraham’s morning visit to the spot where he had parted from +his heavenly guests forms an impressive close to the narrative.――_and +he looked, etc._] an effective contrast to 18¹⁶.――_the smoke of the +land_ was afterwards believed to ascend permanently from the site of +the guilty cities (Wisdom 10⁷).――The idea may have been suggested by +the cloud of vapour which generally hangs over the surface of the Dead +Sea (see Dillmann). + + * * * * * + + =27=. וישכם――אל־] pregnant construct.――=27b.= must have been + interpolated after the expansion of chapter 18 by verses + ²²ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ.――=28.= ארץ הככר does not occur elsewhere. The variations + of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå + warrant the emendation כָּל־הַכִּכָּר (Kittel)――כקיטר הככשן] the same simile + in Exodus 19¹⁸ (also Yahwist).――קִיטֹר] Psalms 119⁸³ 148⁸†. + + * * * * * + +=29.= (From Priestly-Code: see page 306.) Gunkel conjectures that the +verse formed the introduction to a lost genealogy of Lot; and that its +original position in Priestly-Code was after 13¹²ᵃ. The dependence of +Priestly-Code on Yahwist is very manifest.――_the cities in [one of] +which Lot dwelt_] as 8⁴, Judges 12⁷. + + _The destruction of the Cities of the Plain._――The narrative + of chapter 19 appears at first sight to be based on vague + recollection of an actual occurrence,――the destruction of a + group of cities situated in what is now the Dead Sea, under + circumstances which suggested a direct interposition of divine + power. It seems unreasonable to suppose that a legend so + firmly rooted in Hebrew tradition, so full of local colour, and + preserving so tenaciously the names of the ruined cities, should + be destitute of historic foundation; and to doubt whether any + such cities as Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed in the Dead Sea + basin appears an unduly sceptical exercise of critical judgement. + It has been shown, moreover, that a catastrophe corresponding + in its main features to the biblical description is an extremely + probable result of volcanic and other forces, acting under the + peculiar geological conditions which obtain in the Dead Sea + depression. According to Sir J. W. Dawson, it might have been + caused by an explosion of bitumen or petroleum, like those + which so frequently prove destructive in Canada and the United + States (see _The Expositor_ 1886, i. page 74; _Modern Science in + Bible Lands_, 486 ff.). A similar theory has been worked out in + elaborate and picturesque detail by Blanckenhorn in _Zeitschrift + des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, xix. 1‒64, xxi. 65‒83 (see + Driver page 202 f.).¹ These theories are very plausible, and + must be allowed their full weight in determining the question of + historicity. At the same time it requires to be pointed out that + they do not prove the incident to be historical; and several + considerations show that a complete explanation of the legend + cannot be reached on the lines of physical science. (a) It is + impossible to dissociate the legend altogether from the current + Old Testament representation (13¹⁰ 14³ᐧ ¹⁰) that prior to this + event the Dead Sea did not exist,――an idea which geology proves + to be absolutely erroneous. It is true that the narrative does + not state that the cities were submerged by the waters of the + Dead Sea; and it is possible to suppose that they were situated + either south of the present margin of the lake, or in its + shallow southern bay (which might possibly have been formed + within historic times). The fact, however, remains, that the + Israelites had a mistaken notion of the origin of the Dead Sea; + and this fact throws some suspicion on the whole legend of the + ‘cities of the Plain.’ (b) It is remarkable that the legend + contains no mention of the Dead Sea, either as the cause of + the catastrophe, or as originating contemporaneously with it + (Gunkel). So important an omission suggests the possibility + that the Sodom-legend may have arisen in a locality answering + still more closely to the volcanic features of the description + (such as the ‘dismal _Ḥarras_ of Arabia’ [Meyer]), and been + transferred to the region of the Dead Sea valley. (c) The + stereotyped term מַהְפֵּכָה (see on verse ²⁹), which seems to have + been imported with the legend, points clearly to an earthquake + as the main cause of the overthrow; and there is no mention of + an earthquake in any Hebrew version of the story (see Cheyne + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4668 f.)――another indication that it + has been transplanted from its native environment. (d) The most + important consideration is that the narrative seems to belong + to a widely diffused class of popular tales, many interesting + examples of which have been published by Cheyne in _The New + World_, 1892, 239 ff. It is indeed obvious that no physical + explanation of the cataclysm furnishes any clue to the + significance of the angels’ visit to Lot; but a study of + the folklore parallels shows that the connexion between that + incident and the destruction of Sodom is not accidental, but + rests on some mythological motive whose origin is not as yet + explained. Thus in the story of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid, + _Metamorphoses_ viii. 625 ff.), an aged Phrygian couple give + shelter in their humble dwelling to Zeus and Hermes in human + guise, when every other door is closed against them. As a + reward for their hospitality they are directed to flee to the + mountain, and there, looking back, they see the whole district + inundated by a flood, except their own wretched hut, which has + been transformed into a temple, etc. The resemblance here is so + great that Cheyne (_l.c._ 240) pronounces the tale a secondary + version of Genesis 19; but other parallels, hardly less striking, + present the same combination of kindness to divine beings + rewarded by escape from a destructive visitation in which + a whole neighbourhood perishes for its impious neglect of + the duties of hospitality.――On these grounds some writers + consider the narrative before us to be a Hebrew adaptation of a + widespread legend, its special features being suggested by the + weird scenery of the Dead Sea region,――its barren desolation, + the cloud of vapour hanging over it, its salt rocks with their + grotesque formations, its beds of sulphur and asphalt, with + perhaps occasional conflagrations bursting out amongst them (see + Gunkel 188 f.). Dr. Rendel Harris (_Heavenly Twins_, 39 ff.) + takes it to be a form of the Dioscuric myth, and thus a natural + sequel to 18¹⁻¹⁵ (see page 302 above). Assyriologists have found + in it a peculiar modification of the Deluge-legend (Jastrow + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii. 291, 297; _The Religion + of Babylonia and Assyria_¹, 507), or of the World-conflagration + which is the astronomical counterpart of that conception (_Das + Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 360 ff.): both + forms of the theory are mentioned by Zimmern with reserve (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 559 f.).――Whatever + truth there may be in these speculations, the religious value + of the biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story, + it retains the power to touch the conscience of the world as + a terrible example of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness + and unnatural lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another + testimony to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient + Israel. + + ¹ Physical explanations of the catastrophe were also current + in ancient times. Strabo (XVI. ii. 44) says that it took + place ὑπὸ σεισμῶν καὶ ἀναφυσημάτων πυρὸς καὶ θερμῶν ὑδάτων + ἀσφαλτωδῶν τε καὶ θειωδῶν, in consequence of which the lake + burst its bounds, the rocks took fire, and so on. Compare + Josephus _War of the Jews_, iv. 484 f., _Antiquities of the + Jews_ i. 203; Tacitus, _Histories_ v. 7. + + * * * * * + + =29.= ההפכה ‘the overthrow,’ ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The usual verbal + noun is מהפכה (Deuteronomy 29²², Isaiah 1⁷ [read סְדֹם for זָרִים], + 13¹⁹, Jeremiah 49¹⁸ 50⁴⁰, Amos 4¹¹†), which is never used except + in connexion with this particular judgement. The unhebraic form + of infinitive, with the fact that where subject is expressed it + is always (even in Amos) אלהים and not יהוה, justify the conclusion + that the phraseology was stereotyped in a heathen version of + the story (Kraetzschmar, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xvii. 87 f.). Compare the use of the verb + 19²¹ᐧ ²⁵ᐧ ²⁹, Deuteronomy 29²², Jeremiah 20¹⁶, Lamentations + 4⁶.――בהפך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בהפכו is + easier. LXX בה׳ יהוה. + + * * * * * + + =XIX. 30‒38.――_Lot and his Daughters_ (Yahwist).= + +This account of the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites is a pendant +to the destruction of Sodom, just as the story of Noah’s drunkenness +(9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ) is an appendix to the Deluge narrative. Although it has +points of contact with ¹⁻²⁸, it is really an independent myth, as to +the origin and motives of which see the concluding Note (page 314). + + _Source._――Though the criteria of authorship are slight, there + is no reason to doubt that the section belongs to Yahwist: note + the two daughters, and the mention of Zoar in ³⁰; and compare + חִיָּה זֶרַע, ³²ᐧ ³⁴; with 7³; and צְעִירָה, בְּכִירָה, ³¹ᐧ ³³⁻³⁵ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ³⁸, with 29²⁶. + +=30a= is a transition clause, connecting what follows with ¹⁻²⁸, +especially with ¹⁷⁻²².――_in the mountain_] of Moab; compare verse +¹⁷.――_he was afraid to dwell in Zoar_] lest it should be consumed, +though the motive involves a slight discrepancy with ²¹.――=30b.= +_in the cave_] probably a particular cave which was named after Lot +(compare 1 Kings 19⁹). It is pointed out that לוֹטָן, a possible variant +of לוֹט, is named as a _Ḥōrite_ (Troglodyte?) in 36²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁹. The habit +is said to have persisted till modern times in that region (Dillmann, +Driver, after Buckingham, _Travels in Syria_ [1825]).――=31.= _there +is no man in the earth_] ‘We are the survivors of a universal +catastrophe.’ So Gunkel, following Pietschmann, _Geschichte der +Phönizier_, 115; Jastrow, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiii. +298 (see below). The usual explanations: ‘no man in the vicinity’ +(Dillmann al.), or ‘all men will shrink from us’ (Driver), hardly do +justice to the language.――כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ] So in the Jewish marriage formula +ואנא אעל לותך כאורח כל ארעא (Delitzsch).――=32.= The intoxication of Lot shows +that the revolting nature of the proposal was felt by the Hebrew +conscience. “When the existence of the race is at stake, the woman +is more eager and unscrupulous than the man” (Gunkel 192).――מֵאָבִינוּ] +repeated in ³⁴ᐧ ³⁶, anticipating the etymology of ³⁷.――=33, 35.= +_he knew not, etc._] still minimising Lot’s culpability (compare +38¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=37.= מוֹאָב] as if = מֵאָב, ‘_from a_ (my?) _father_’ +(_v.i._).――=38.= בֶּן־עַמִּי] not ‘son of my people,’ which would be nothing +distinctive of any child, but ‘son of my (paternal) kinsman’ (see +17¹⁴). Note the formal correspondence with בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, which (and not עַמּוֹן +simply) is the invariable designation of the people in Old Testament +(except Psalms 83⁸, and Massoretic Text of 1 Samuel 11¹¹ [LXX בְּנֵי ע׳]). +Both etymologies are obviously pointless except as expressing the +thought of the mothers, who, as is usual in Yahwist, name the children. + + _Original idea of the legend._――It is very natural to regard + this account of the origin of Moab and Ammon as an expression of + intense national hatred and contempt towards these two peoples. + It has further been surmised (though with little proof)¹ that + incestuous marriages, such as are here spoken of, were customary + in these lands, and gave an edge to this Hebrew taunt (so + Dillmann). That the story was so understood by later readers is + indeed probable; but how precarious it is to extend this feeling + to ancient times appears from chapter 38, where the ancestry of + the noble tribe of Judah (held in special honour by Yahwist) is + represented as subject to a similar taint. The truth seems to + be that while incest was held in abhorrence by Israel (as by the + ancient Arabs; see Wellhausen _Nachrichten von der Königlichen + Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_, 1893, 441), it + was at one time regarded as justified by extreme necessity, so + that deeds like those here related could be told without shame. + Starting from this view of the spirit of the narrative, Gunkel + (190 f.) gives a suggestive interpretation of the legend. It + is, he thinks, originally a Moabite legend tracing the common + ancestry of Moab and Ammon to Lot, who was probably worshipped + at the ‘cave’ referred to in verse ³⁰. Verse ³¹, however, + presupposes a universal catastrophe, in which the whole human + race had perished, except Lot and his two daughters. In the + ordinary course the daughters would have been doomed to + barrenness, and mankind would have become extinct; and it is + to avert this calamity that the women resolve on the desperate + expedient here described. That such an origin should have been a + subject of national pride is conceivable, though one may fail to + find that feeling reflected in the forced etymologies of ³⁷ ᶠᐧ. + If Gunkel’s theory is anywhere near the truth, we are here on + the track of a Moabite parallel to the story of the Flood, which + is probably of greater antiquity than the legend of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Lot + is the counterpart of the Hebrew Noah; and just as the Noah of + 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ steps into the place of the Babylonian Deluge-hero, so + the Lot of 19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ was identified with the entertainer of deity + in the heathen myth which probably lies at the basis of 19¹ ᶠᶠᐧ² + + ¹ Compare the similar conjecture with regard to Reuben (page + 515 below). It is difficult to know what to make of Palmer’s + curious observation that in that region a wife is commonly + spoken of as _bint_ (daughter): _Desert of the Exodus_, ii. + 478; see Driver 205. + + ² The connexion with the Deluge-legend was anticipated by + Jastrow in the article already cited, _Zeitschrift für + Assyriologie_, xiii. 197 f.――It is a flood of water which + destroys the inhospitable people in the parallel from Ovid + cited above (page 312). + + * * * * * + + =30.= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Vulgate + עִמּוֹ.――=31.= בוא על׳] in this sense only Deuteronomy + 25⁵.――=32.= לכה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + לכי.――=33.= ותשקין] (so ³⁵ᐧ ³⁶); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 47 _l_.――בלילה הוא] + (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ההוא). On omission + of article with demonstrative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 + _y_; compare 30¹⁶ 32²³ 38²¹, 1 Samuel 19¹⁰.――את־אביה] LXX + τὴν + νύκτα ἐκείνην.――וּבְקוּׄמָהּ] ‘Appungunt desuper, quasi incredibile’! + (Jeremias). In reality the point probably marks a superfluous + letter (compare verse ³⁵).――=34.= אבי] LXX אָבִינוּ.――=37=. מוֹאָב] LXX + + λέγουσα, Ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου (מֵאָבִ[י]). For the equivalence of מוֹ and + מֵ, compare Numbers 11²⁶ ᶠᐧ (מֵידָד = _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ מודד, LXX Μωδαδ), Jeremiah 48²¹ (מֵיפַעַת, Qrê perpetuum = + מופעת, Kittel), etc.: see _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xvi. 322 f. The real etymology is, of course, + uncertain. Hommel ingeniously and plausibly explains the name + as a contraction of אִמּוֹאָב, ‘his mother is the father,’ after + the analogy of a few Assyrian proper names (_Verhand. d. XIII. + Orient.-Kong._ 261). The view of Knobel and Delitzsch that מוֹ is + Aramaic מוי (= מֵי), ‘water,’ and that the word meant ‘water (_i.e._ + _semen_) of a father,’ hardly deserves consideration.――=38.= + בן־עמי] LXX Ἀμμάν, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ γένους μου, missing the significance + of the בֵּן (_v.s._). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XX. + _Abraham and Sarah at the Court of Gerar_ + (Elohist). + +The chapter deals with an incident closely similar to that recorded +in 12¹⁰⁻²⁰. It is indeed impossible to doubt that the two are variants +of the same tradition; a view which is confirmed rather than shaken by +Strack’s enumeration of petty differences. A close comparison (see page +364 f. below) appears to show that the passage before us is written +from a more advanced ethical standpoint than that represented by +chapter 12: note the tendency to soften the harsher features of the +incident (⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁶), and to minimise the extent of Abraham’s departure +from strict veracity. + + _Source._――The narrative is the first continuous excerpt from + Elohist; and contains several stylistic and other peculiarities + of that document: especially [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, ³ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁷ (¹⁸ יהוה + is a gloss); אָמָה (Yahwist שִׁפְחָה), ¹⁷; לֵבָב (Yahwist לב), ⁵; see + also the notes on נִקָּיוֹן, ⁵; אָמַר אָל־, ²ᐧ ¹³; נָתַן לְ, ⁶; אָמְנָה, ¹² (compare + Dillmann 279; Holzinger 159; Gunkel 193).――The appearing of God + in a dream is characteristic of Elohist; and the conception of + Abraham as a prophet (⁷) is at least foreign to the original + Yahwist (but see on 15¹). Another circumstance proving the use + of a source distinct from Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ or Priestly-Code is that + Sarah is here conceived as a young woman capable of inspiring + passion in the king (contrast 18¹² 17¹⁷). Lastly, it is to be + observed that chapter 20 is the beginning of a section (20‒22) + mainly Elohistic, representing a cycle of tradition belonging to + the Negeb and, in particular, to Beersheba. + +=1, 2. Introductory notice.=――The method of the narrator, Gunkel +points out, is to let the story unfold itself in the colloquies +which follow, verses ¹ ᶠᐧ containing just enough to make these +intelligible.――=1.= _the land of the Negeb_] see on 12⁹.――_between +Ḳādēsh_ (14⁷) _and Shûr_ (16⁷) would be in the extreme South of +the Negeb, if not beyond its natural limits. The words וַיָּגָר בִּגְרָר (note +the paronomasia) are not a nearer specification of the previous +clause, but introduce a new fact,――a further stage of the patriarch’s +wanderings. There is therefore no reason to suppose that _Gĕrār_ lay +as far South as Ḳadesh (_v.i._).――=2.= The bareness of the narration +is remarkable, and was felt by the Greek translators to be wanting +in lucidity (_v.i._).――_Abimelech, king of Gĕrār_] אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘_Milk_ is +[my] father,’ is a genuine Canaanite name, compounded with the name +of the god _Milk_ (see Baethgen _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ +37 ff.). It occurs as the name of the governor of Tyre (_Abi-milki_) +in the Tel-Amarna Tablets (149‒156). There is no trace here of the +anachronism which makes him a Philistine prince (chapter 26); Gerar +is an independent Canaanite kingdom.――_took Sarah_] _sc._ as wife; the +same ellipsis as 19¹⁴. + + * * * * * + + =1.= וַיִּסַּע ] see 11².――אַרְצָה הַנֶּגֶב] אֶרֶץ הַנּ׳ only 24⁶², Joshua 15¹⁹, Judges + 1¹⁵ (Yahwist), Numbers 13²⁹ (Elohist?).――גְּרָר] (10¹⁹ 26¹ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷ + [נַחַל גְּרָר], ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶, 2 Chronicles 14¹² ᶠᐧ†) LXX Γεραρα, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word); commonly identified, on the authority + of _Onomastica Sacra_, 240²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (ἀπέχουσα Ἐλευθεροπόλεως + σημείοις κε πρὸς νότον), with the modern _Umm Ǧerār_ (‘place + of water-pots’), 6 miles South-south-east of Gaza (so Rowlands, + _Holy City_, i. 464; Robinson [who did not find the name], + _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 43 f. [compare i. 189], + Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). This suits 26¹ (according to which it + was in Philistine territory), 10¹⁹ and 2 Chronicles 14¹³; but + hardly 26¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ, and it is certainly inconsistent with the notice + בֵּין קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין שׁוּר. There happens to be a _Wādī Ǧerūr_, approximately + 13 miles South-west of Ḳadesh, which exactly agrees with this + description; and so Trumbull (_Kadesh-Barnea_ 62 f., 255) and + others have decided that this must be the biblical Gerar, while + others think there may have been two places of the name (Cheyne + _Encyclopædia Biblica_, ii. 1705 f.). The question really turns + on 26¹⁷ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᐧ: so far as the present reference is concerned, we + have seen that the argument rests on a misconception; and it is + not even necessary to assume (with Kautzsch-Socin) that ¹ᵃ is + a redactional clause, or (with Holzinger, Gunkel) that part of + Elohist’s narrative has been suppressed between ¹ᵃ and ¹ᵇ. It is + true that מִשָּׁם has no antecedent in Elohist, and it is, of course, + conceivable that it was written by Redactorᴱˡᵒʰⁱˢᵗ to connect + the following with a previous section of Elohist (Gunkel), or by + Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ to mark the transition from Hebron (18¹) to the + Negeb. A redactor, however, would not have been likely to insert + the notice ‘between Ḳadesh and Shur’ unless he had meant it as a + definition of the site of Gerar.――=2.= אָמַר אֶל־] = ‘said regarding’ + is rare: 2 Kings 19³², Jeremiah 22¹⁸ 27¹⁹; compare א׳ לְ, verse ¹³, + Judges 9⁵⁴, Psalms 3³ 71¹⁰.――After Athnach, LXX inserts ἐφοβήθη + γὰρ εἰπεῖν ὅτι Γυνή μού ἐστιν, μή ποτε ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτὸν οἱ + ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως δι’ αὐτήν (from 26⁷ᵇ). + + * * * * * + +=3‒7. Abimelech’s dream.=――This mode of revelation is peculiar +to Elohist (21¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ 22¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹² 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴ 37⁵ 46², Numbers 12⁶ +22⁹ᐧ ²⁰), and probably indicates a more spiritual idea of God than the +theophanies of Yahwist. It must be remembered, however, that according +to primitive ideas the ‘coming’ of God (so 31²⁴, Numbers 22²⁰) would +be as real an event in a dream as in waking experience.――=4a.= +_had not drawn near her_] Not an explanation of Abimelech’s good +conscience (which depended solely on the purity of his motives), but +of Yahwe’s words in ⁶ᵇ. _Why_ he had not come near her, we gather +fully from ¹⁷.――=4b, 5.= Abimelech protests his innocence.――_innocent +folk_]――‘such as I am’ (_v.i._).――=5.= בְּתָם־לְבָבִי] ‘unsuspectingly’; +compare 2 Samuel 15¹¹, 1 Kings 22³⁴; in the wider sense of moral +integrity the phrase occurs 1 Kings 9⁴, Psalms 78⁷² 101².――=6.= +_have kept thee back from sinning_ (_i.e._ inexpiably) _against +me_] The sin is not mere infringement of the rights of a privileged +person (Dillmann), but the moral offence of violating the marriage +bond.――_suffered thee not_] by sickness (verse ¹⁷).――=7.= The +situation is altered by this disclosure of the facts to Abimelech: +if he _now_ retains Sarah, he will be on every ground deserving +of punishment.――_he is a prophet_] in a secondary sense, as a ‘man +of God,’ whose person and property are inviolable: compare Psalms +105¹⁵.――On _intercession_ as a function of the prophet, Deuteronomy +9²⁰, 1 Samuel 7⁵ 12¹⁹ᐧ ²³, Jeremiah 7¹⁶ etc.; but compare Job +42⁸.――_that thou mayest live_] or ‘recover.’ + + The section (³⁻⁷) exhibits a vacillation which is characteristic + of the conception of sin in antique religion. Sin is not wholly + an affair of the conscience and inward motive, but an external + fact――a violation of the objective moral order, which works out + its consequences with the indifference of a law of nature to the + mental condition of the transgressor (compare the matricide of + Orestes, etc.; and see Smend, _Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen + Religionsgeschichte_², 108 f.). At the same time God Himself + recognises the relative validity of Abimelech’s plea of + ignorance (⁶). It is the first faint protest of the moral sense + against the hereditary mechanical notion of guilt. But it is a + long way from Abimelech’s faltering protestation of innocence + to Job’s unflinching assertion of the right of the individual + conscience against the decree of an unjust fate. + + * * * * * + + =3.= על] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ על אנדת: + compare 21¹¹, Exodus 18⁸, Numbers 12¹ 13²⁴ (Elohist), Genesis + 21²⁵ 26³² (Yahwist), Joshua 14⁶ (Redactor), Judges 6⁷.――בעלת בעל] + a married woman, Deuteronomy 22²².――=4.= To גּוֹי in the indefinite + sense of ‘people’ (_Leute_) we may compare Psalms 43¹, Daniel + 11²³; but the sense is doubtful, and the idea may be that the + whole nation is involved in the punishment of the king (Strack). + Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_, 41) offers the + incredible suggestion that גוי here has its late Jewish sense of + an individual ‘heathen.’ Geiger, Graetz, al. regard the word + as a gloss or a corrupt dittography. LXX has ἔθνος ἀγνοοῦν καὶ + δίκαιον.――=5.= נִקָּיוֹן] only here in Hexateuch; Elohist is addicted + to rare expressions. For נ׳ כַּפַּי, compare Psalms 26⁶ 73¹³.――=6.= + מֵחֲטוֹּ] for מֵחֲטֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _qq_.――נָתַן לְ׳] = ‘permit,’ + 31⁷, Numbers 20²¹ 21²³ 22¹³ (Elohist), Exodus 12²³ (Yahwist), + 3¹⁹ (Redactor), Deuteronomy 18¹⁴, Joshua 10¹⁹ (Deuteronomic): + see _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. 192. + + * * * * * + +=8‒13. Abimelech and Abraham.=――=9.= _a great sin_] _i.e._, a state +of things which, though unwittingly brought about, involves heavy +judgement from God (see on ³⁻⁷ above).――_deeds that are not done_] +are not sanctioned by the conventional code of morals: compare 34⁷, +2 Samuel 13¹² etc.――To this rebuke Abraham (as in 12¹⁸ ᶠᐧ) has no reply, +and Abimelech proceeds in――=10= to inquire into his motive for so +acting.――מָה רָאִיתָ ‘_What possessed thee?_’ (_v.i._).――=11‒13.= Abraham’s +self-exculpation, which is at the same time the writer’s apology for +his conduct, consists of three excuses: (1) he was actuated by fear +for his life; (2) he had not been guilty of direct falsehood, but only +of mental reservation; (3) the deceit was not practised for the first +time on Abimelech, but was a preconcerted scheme which (it is perhaps +implied) had worked well enough in other places. Whether 2 and 3 had +any foundation in the Elohistic tradition, or were invented by the +narrator _ad hoc_ (Gunkel), we cannot now determine.――=11.= _There is +no piety_ (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים) _in this place_] Religion was the only sanction +of international morality, the _gêr_ having no civil rights; compare +42¹⁸: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den +fremden_, 15. Compare 12¹².――=12.= _Besides, she really is my sister_] +Marriage with a half-sister on the father’s side was frequent among +the Semites (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 191 f.), +and was allowed in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 13¹³), though prohibited +by later legislation (Deuteronomy 27²², Leviticus 18⁹ᐧ ¹¹ 20¹⁷).――=13.= +_When God caused me to stray_] The expression is peculiar, as if God +had driven him forth an aimless wanderer (Dillmann). It proves that in +Elohist, as in Yahwist and Priestly-Code, Abraham was an immigrant in +Canaan. + + * * * * * + + =8.= האנשים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Vulgate prefix כל.――=9.= מה עשית לנו] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) + = מה עשתי לך, rashly adopted by Ball, Holzinger, Kittel――חטאתי] + LXX ἡμάρτομεν.――=10.= מָה רָאִיתָ LXX τί ἐνιδών; so Vulgate, Ball + conjecture יָרֵאתָ; Gunkel רָעִיתָ. The translation given above is + taken from Bacher, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xix. 345 ff., who cites many examples + from New Hebrew of the idiom (literally ‘What hast thou + experienced?’).――=11.= כִּי] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ כי יראתי כי.――רַק] = ‘[I should act otherwise] _only_,’ + etc.: a purely asseverative force (Brown-Driver-Briggs) + seems to me insufficiently established by Deuteronomy 4⁶, + 1 Kings 21²⁵, 2 Chronicles 28¹⁰, Psalms 32⁶.――=12.= אָמְנָה] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ [?ה]אמנם, as 18¹³, Numbers + 22³⁷; but compare Joshua 7²⁰. These are all the occurrences + in Hexateuch.――=13.= הִתְעוּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ התעה. The construct of אֱלֹהִים (_plural eminent_) with + plural predicate is exceptional, though not uncommon (31⁵³ 35⁷, + Joshua 24¹⁹), and does not appear to be regulated in our present + text by any principle. A tendency to substitute singular for + plural is shown by 1 Chronicles 17²¹ compared with 2 Samuel + 7²³; and it is probable that the change has taken place in many + cases where we have no means of tracing it: see Strack² 77; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _i_. A kindred and equally inexplicable + anomaly is the sporadic use of the article with this word (so + verses ⁶ᐧ ¹⁷). Both phenomena are probably survivals from a + polytheistic form of the legend.――אבי] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ + ומארץ מילדתי (as 12¹).――כל־המקום] determined by + following relative clause; so Exodus 20²⁴, Deuteronomy 11²⁴. + + * * * * * + +=14‒18. Abimelech makes reparation to Abraham.=――=14.= The present to +Abraham in 12¹⁶ was of the nature of _mōhar_ or purchase-price of a +wife; here it is a compensation for injury unwittingly inflicted. The +restoration of Sarah is, of course, common to both accounts.――=15.= +The invitation to dwell in the land is a contrast to the honourable +but peremptory dismissal of 12¹⁹ ᶠᐧ.――=16.= _see, I give ... to thy +brother_] For injury done to a woman compensation was due to her +relatives if unmarried, to her husband if married or betrothed (Exodus +22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ): Abimelech, with a touch of sarcasm, puts +Sarah in the former category.――_1000_ (shekels) _of silver_] not the +money value of the gifts in verse ¹⁴ (Strack), but a special present +as a solatium on behalf of Sarah.――_a covering of the eyes_] seemingly +a forensic expression for the prestation by which an offence ceases +to be seen, _i.e._, is condoned. The figure is applied in various ways +in Old Testament; compare Job 9²⁴, Genesis 32²¹, Exodus 23⁸, 1 Samuel +12³.――The clause וְאֶת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת is obscure, and the text hardly correct +(_v.i._). The general sense is that Sarah’s honour is completely +rehabilitated.――=17.= _God healed Abimelech_] The first explicit +intimation (see ⁴ᐧ ⁶) that Abimelech had been smitten with a bodily +malady, whose nature is indicated by the last word וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ.――=18.= A +superfluous and inadequate explanation of ¹⁷, universally recognised +as a gloss; note also יהוה.――עָצַר] see on 16². + + * * * * * + + =14.= צֹאן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + prefix אלף כסף (from ¹⁶) wrongly.――ועבדים ושפחת] probably a gloss + from 12¹⁶, this being the only instance of שִׁפְחָה in an Elohist + context.――=16.= הִנֵּה הוּא――אִתָּךְ] LXX ταῦτα ἔσται σοι εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ + προσώπου σου καὶ πάσαις ταῖς μετὰ σοῦ; Vulgate _hoc erit tibi + in velamen oculorum ad omnes qui tecum sunt [et quocunque + perrexeris]_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The difficulties + of the verse commence here. The suggestion that הוּא refers to + Abraham (Abraham Ibn Ezra) may be dismissed, and also the + fantastic idea that Sarah is recommended to spend the money in + the purchase of a veil, so that she may not again be mistaken + for an unmarried woman (24⁶⁵)! The first question is, Whose eyes + are to be covered?――Sarah’s own (לָךְ), or those of the people + about her (לְכֹל וגו׳), or both (וּלְכֹל [with _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_, LXX])? Dillmann adopts the second view, taking + לָךְ as _dative complement_. To this Delitzsch forcibly replies + that _dative complement_ before dative of reference is unnatural: + hence he takes the first view (לָךְ, dative of reference, and לְכֹל = + _bezugs aller_); _i.e._, “Her credit with her household, which + had been injured by her forcible abduction, would be restored, + and the malicious taunts or gossip of men and maids would be + checked, when they saw how dearly the unintentional insult had + been atoned for” (Ball). A better sense would be obtained if + לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר could be taken as neuter: ‘all that has befallen thee’ + (Tuch, Holzinger, al.). That is perhaps impossible with the + present text; hence Gunkel’s emendation אָתָךְ (perfect √ אָתָה + with accusative: Job 3²⁵) is not unattractive.――וְאָת־כֹּל וְנֹכָֽחַת] + Untranslatable. LXX καὶ πάντα ἀλήθευσον; Vulgate _quocunque + perrexeris: mementoque te deprehensam_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac + phrase) (‘about all wherewith thou hast reproached me’); + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ועל כל מא דאמרת איתוכחת. The change to וְנֹכַחַתּ (2nd singular + perfect) is of no avail, the difficulty being mostly in וְאֶת־כֹּל, + which cannot be continuation of אִתָּךְ (Tuch al.), or of לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, + but must with Massoretic Text accents be taken with ונ׳. The + rendering ‘and before all men thou shalt be righted’ (Dillmann, + Delitzsch, Driver) is the best that can be made of the text. + The easiest emendation is that of Gunkel: וְאַתְּ כֻּלּוֹ נֹכָֽחַת = ‘and thou + in all this (affair) art justified,’ though the sense given to + כלוh has no clear example in the Old Testament. The more drastic + remedies of Ball do not commend themselves.――=18.= יהוה] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אלהים. + + * * * * * + + + XXI. 1‒21. + _Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael_ + (Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly-Code). + +The birth, circumcision, and naming of Isaac are briefly recorded in +a section pieced together from the three sources (¹⁻⁷). Then follows a +notice of the weaning festival (⁸), to which, by a finely descriptive +touch (⁹), is linked the Elohistic version of the origin of the +Ishmaelites (¹⁰⁻²¹). A comparison with the Yahwistic parallel (chapte +16) will be found below (page 324). + + _Analysis._――²ᵇ⁻⁵ are from Priestly-Code (who by the way ignores + altogether the expulsion of Ishmael [see on 25⁹]): observe the + naming by the father and the exact correspondence with 16¹⁶ + in ³, circumcision (⁴), the chronology (⁵); and the words אֱלֹהִים, + ²ᵇᐧ ⁴; מוֹעֵד, ²ᵇ (compare 17²¹); מְאַת שָׁנָה, ⁵. ²ᵃ is to be assigned to + Yahwist (בֵּן ל ִזְקֻנָיו, _v.i._); and also, for the same reason, ⁷. There + remain the doublets ¹ᵃ ∥ ¹ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ. Since the continuity + of Priestly-Code is seldom sacrificed, ¹ᵇ is usually assigned + to that source (יהוה, a scribal error), leaving ¹ᵃ to Yahwist + (יהוה, פָּקַד). ⁶ᵇ goes with ⁷ (therefore Yahwist: _v.i._); and + there remains for Elohist the solitary half-verse ⁶ᵃ (אלהים), + which cannot belong to Priestly-Code because of the different + etymology implied for יצחק. So Holzinger, Gunkel; Dillmann, + Strack differ only in assigning the whole of ⁶ to Elohist.――The + Yahwist fragments ¹ᵃᐧ ²ᵃᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁶ᵇ form a completely consecutive + account of the birth of Isaac; which, however, is not the + sequel to chapter 18 (see on ⁶ᵃ), and therefore belongs to + Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ rather than Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ (Gunkel).――⁸⁻²¹ is + wholly Elohistic: אלהים, ¹²ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰; אמה, ¹⁰ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹³; שים לגוי, + ¹³ᐧ ¹⁸ (Yahwist עשה ל׳, 12²; Priestly-Code נתן ל׳, 17²⁰); and rare + expressions like חמת, ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹; מטחוי קשת, ¹⁶; רבה קשת, ²⁰. Further + characteristics are the revelation of God by night (¹² ᶠᐧ), and + in a voice from heaven (¹⁷). + + * * * * * + +=1‒7. The birth of Isaac.=――=2.= _a son to his old age_] so +verse ⁷ 24³⁶ 37³ 44²⁰ (all Yahwist). All the sources emphasise the +fact that Isaac was a late-born child; but this section contains +nothing implying a miracle (contrast chapters 17, 18).――=3‒5.= +The naming and circumcision of Isaac, in accordance with 17¹⁹ᐧ ¹² +(Priestly-Code).――=6a.= _God has made laughter for me_] Both here and +in ⁶ᵇ laughter is an expression of joy, whereas in 18¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 17¹⁷ it +expresses incredulity.――=6b, 7= is the Yahwistic parallel. It has been +pointed out by Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 224: so Kittel, +Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the transposition of ⁶ᵇ to the end of +⁷ greatly improves the sense, and brings out the metrical form of the +original (in Hebrew 4 trimeters): + + Who would have said to Abraham, + “Sarah gives children suck”? + For I have borne him a son in his old age! + Every one that hears will laugh at me! + + * * * * * + + =1a.= פקד] never used by Priestly-Code _sensu bono_ + (Strack).――=2.= אלהים] LXX יהוה――=3.= הנולד־] pointed as perfect with + article (18²¹).――=6a.= צחק] The √ צחק never occurs outside of + Pentateuch, except Judges 16²⁵ (where יִשְׂחַק should probably be + read) and Ezekiel 23³² (but see Cornill and Toy), the Qal being + used only in connexion with Isaac (17¹⁷ 18¹²ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 21⁶), while + Piel has a stronger sense (19¹⁴ 21⁹ 26⁸ 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷, Exodus 32⁶). + The other form שׂחק (not in Pentateuch) is mostly later than + Jeremiah (except Judges 16²⁷, 1 Samuel 18⁷, 2 Samuel 2¹⁴ 6⁵ᐧ ²¹): + in four cases (Amos 7⁹ᐧ ¹⁶, Jeremiah 33²⁶, Psalms 105⁹) even + the name יִצְחָק appears as יִשְׂחָק. It will be seen that in Genesis + we have no fewer than 4 (17¹⁷ 18¹² 21⁶ᵃᐧ ⁶ᵇ) or 5 (21⁹?) + different suggestions of a connexion of יִצְחָק with √ צחק. Analogy + would lead us to suppose that in reality it is a contraction + of יִצְהָקֵאל, in all probability the name of an extinct tribe + (compare יְרַחְמְאֵל , יִשְׁמָעֵאל, etc.).――=6b.= יִצֲחַק] see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 10 _g_.――=7.= מִלֵּל] Aramaic; in Hebrew rare and poetic.――On + the _modal_ use of perfect (‘would have said’), compare + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _p_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of + the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 19.――בנים] plural of species; compare + Exodus 21²², 1 Samuel 17⁴³, Canticles 2⁹ (Dillmann). LXX has + singular.――לזקניו LXX ἐν τῷ γήρει μου. + + * * * * * + +=8‒10. Sarah demands the ejection of Ishmael.=――=8.= The occasion +was the customary family feast of the weaning of Isaac (Benzinger +_Hebräische Archäologie_² 131). The age of weaning in modern Palestine +is said to be 2 or 3 years (_ib._ 116); in ancient Israel also it must +often have been late (1 Samuel 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ,, 2 Maccabees 7²⁷ ᶠᐧ).――=9.= +_playing with Isaac her son_] The last words are essential to the +sense, and must be restored with LXX, Vulgate (see _Jubilees_ xvii. 4, +with Charles’s Note). It is the spectacle of the two young children +playing together, innocent of social distinctions, that excites +Sarah’s maternal jealousy and prompts her cruel demand. The chronology +of Priestly-Code, according to which Ishmael was some 17 years old, +has for uncritical readers spoiled the effect; and given rise to the +notion of Ishmael as a rude lad scoffing at the family joy, or to the +still more fanciful explanations current in Jewish circles.¹――=10.= +_with my son_] If this presupposes an equal right of inheritance as +between the sons of the wife and the concubine (Gunkel), it also shows +a certain opposition to that custom: compare the case of Jephthah, +Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ (see Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 296).――_this +slave girl_ (אָמָה)] In Elohist, Hagar is not Sarah’s maid, but simply a +household slave, who has become her master’s concubine. + + ¹ St. Paul’s allusion to Ishmael as persecuting Isaac + (Galatians 4²⁹, ἐδίωκεν) is based on this מְצַחֶק. For other + Haggadic interpretations, see _Bereshith Rabba_ § liii; + Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 503b, and _The Book + of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 210. Unchastity + (compare 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷), idolatry (Exodus 32⁶, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + Rashi), attempted murder (2 Samuel 2¹⁴, Proverbs 26¹⁹), etc., + are among the crimes inferred from this unfortunate word. + + * * * * * + + =9.= מְצַחֶק LXX παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἑαυτῆς; so Vulgate + (compare Zechariah 8⁵). The sense ‘mock’ (‘play with’ in a bad + sense) would require a following בְּ, but it is doubtful if it + actually occurs. 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ may be explained after 26⁸; in 19¹⁴ + it means simply ‘play’ as opposed to serious behaviour (compare + Proverbs 26¹⁹). See above on verse ⁶.――On the pausal ־ֶ , see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 52 _n_. + + * * * * * + +=11‒13. Abraham’s misgivings removed.=――=11.= _on account of his son_] +whom he loves as his own flesh and blood; for the mother, as a slave, +he has no particular affection.――=12.= It is revealed to him (by +night: compare ¹⁴) that Sarah’s maternal instincts are in accord +with the divine purpose.――_shall a seed be called to thee_] _i.e._, +‘in the line of Isaac shall thy name be perpetuated’ (Isaiah 41⁸, +compare Romans 9⁷, Hebrews 11¹⁸). The same idea otherwise expressed +in Priestly-Code (17¹⁹ᐧ ²¹).――=13.= Hagar’s child (still unnamed) is +also Abraham’s seed, though his descendants are not to be known as +such.――_a great nation_ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, +LXX, Peshiṭtå)] compare 17²⁰. + + * * * * * + + =11= end] LXX + Ἰσμαηλ (wrongly).――=12.= יֵרַע] LXX + τὸ + ῥῆμα.――=13.= _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + read האמה הזאת לגוי גדול: גָּדוֹל also in Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.――לְגוֹי [ג׳]――שֵׁים] + so verse ¹⁸ 46³ (Elohist). + + * * * * * + +=14‒16. Mother and child in the desert.=――The sufferings and +despair of the helpless outcasts are depicted with fine feeling and +insight.――=14.= _a skin of water_] חֵמֶת (_v.i._), the usual Eastern +water-bag, answering to the of the _ǧirby_ of the modern Bedouin +(Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. 227, ii. 585).――_and the boy +he placed on her shoulder_ (_v.i._)] compare ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶.――_the wilderness +of Beersheba_ (see on ³¹)] implying that Abraham dwelt _near_, +but not necessarily _at_, Beersheba.――=15.= _she cast the boy_ +(whom, therefore, she must have been carrying) _under one of the +bushes_] for protection from the sun (1 Kings 19⁴ ᶠᐧ). To save +Priestly-Code’s chronology, Delitzsch and Strack make _cast_ = +‘eilends niederlegen’――with what advantage does not quite +appear.――=16.= _a bowshot off_] out of sight of her child, but within +hearing of his cry.――The last clause should be read with LXX; _and the +boy lifted up his voice and wept_ (verse ¹⁷): the change of subject +being due to the false impression that Ishmael was now a grown lad. +Hagar’s dry-eyed despair is a more effective picture than that given +by Massoretic Text. + + * * * * * + + =14.= חמת] Only here (¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁹) = Arabic _ḥamīt_ (√ _ḥamita_, + ‘rancid’?). On the forms חֵמַת, חֵ֑מֶת, or חֶ֑מֶת, חֵמֶת, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _l_.――שם על־ וגו׳] The transposition + וְאֶת־הַיִּלֶד שָׂם עַל־שִׁכְמָהּ was suggested by Olshausen, and is by far the + best remedy for an awkward construct. In Massoretic Text it + would be necessary to take וְאֶת־ה׳ as second object to וַיִּתֵּן, and + שם על־שכמה as a parenthetic circumstantial clause (so Dillmann, + Delitzsch, Strack). It is an effort to evade the absurdity of + a youth of 17 being carried on his mother’s back.――=15.= השיחם] + ‘desert shrubs’; see on 2⁵.――=16.= הרחק] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 + _h_.――כמטחוי קשת] literally ‘as (far as) bowmen do’; LXX ὡσεὶ τόξου + βολήν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), hardly imply a different + text. On מְטַֽחֲוֵי (participle Palestinian √ טחה,――only here), see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _kk_.――ותשא וגו׳] LXX וַיִּשָּׂא [הַיֶּלֶר] אֶת־קֹלֹה וַיֵּבְךְּ. + + * * * * * + +=17‒19. The Divine succour= comes in two forms: a voice from heaven +(¹⁷ ᶠᐧ), and an opening of Hagar’s eyes (¹⁹).――=17.= _God heard_] +(twice) preparing for an explanation of יִשְׁמָעֵאל.――While God Himself +hears, the medium of His revelation is _the Angel of God_ (as 28¹² +31¹¹ 32², Exodus 14¹⁹), who by a refinement peculiar to Elohist (22¹¹) +speaks _from heaven_. This goes beyond the primary conception of the +Angel: see on 16⁷.――=18.= Hagar is encouraged by a disclosure of the +future greatness of her son.――=19.= _opened her eyes_] compare 3⁵ᐧ ⁷. +The tact of the narrator leaves us in doubt whether the well was now +miraculously opened, or had been there all along though unseen. In any +case it is henceforth a sacred well. + + * * * * * + + =17b.= אל־קול] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + את־קִ׳.――=19.= באר מים] LXX + חַיִּים,――attractive! (compare 26¹⁹). + + * * * * * + +=20, 21. Ishmael’s career.=――Here we expect the naming of the child, +based on verse ¹⁷: this has been omitted by Redactor in favour of +Yahwist (16¹¹).――=20.= The boy _grew up_, amidst the perils and +hardships of the desert,――a proof that _God was with him_.――_he became +a bowman_] (pointing רֹבֶה קַשָּֽׁת: _v.i._), the bow being the weapon of his +descendants (Isaiah 21¹⁷).――=21.= The _wilderness of Pārān_ is et-Tīh, +bounding the Negeb on the South.――His mother took him a wife _from the +land of Egypt_] her own country (verse ⁹): see page 285 above. + + _Comparison of chapter 16 with 21¹⁻²¹._――That these two + narratives are variations of a common legendary theme is obvious + from the identity of the leading motives they embody: viz. the + significance of the name Ishmael (16¹¹ 21¹⁷); the mode of life + characteristic of his descendants (16¹² 21²⁰); their relation to + Israel; and the sacredness of a certain well, consecrated by a + theophany (16⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ 21¹⁹).¹ Each tale is an exhaustive expression + of these motives, and does not tolerate a supplementary anecdote + alongside of it. Chapter 21, however, represents a conception + of the incident further removed from primitive conditions than + 16: contrast the sympathetic picture of nomadic life in 16¹² + with the colourless notice of 21²⁰; in 16, moreover, Hagar is + a high-spirited Bedawi woman who will not brook insult, and is + at home in the desert; while in 21 she is a household slave who + speedily succumbs to the hardships of the wilderness. In Elohist + the appeal is to universal human sympathies rather than to the + peculiar susceptibilities of the nomad nature; his narrative + has a touch of pathos which is absent from Yahwist; it is + marked by a greater refinement of moral feeling, and by a less + anthropomorphic idea of God.――See the admirable characterisation + of Gunkel, page 203 f. + + ¹ The well is not identified in Elohist. Gunkel’s view, that + it was Beersheba, has little to commend it. + + * * * * * + + =20.= ויהי רבה קשת] ‘and he became, growing up, an archer’; Vulgate + _juvenis sagittarius_ (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). But קַשָּׁת is ἅπαξ + εἰρημένον, the syntax is peculiar, and, besides, the growing + up has been already mentioned. The true text is doubtless that + given above and implied by LXX ἐγένετο δὲ τοξότης. Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac phrase) also implies קֶשֶׁת; but there are further + divergences in that Version. רבה = ‘shoot’ (not so elsewhere), + might be a by-form of רבב (see on 49²³; and compare רַב = + ‘shooter,’ in Jeremiah 50²⁹, Job 16¹³); but it may be a question + whether in these three cases we should not substitute רבה for + רבב, or whether in this passage we should not read רֹמֵה קֶשֶׁת with + Ball (see especially Jeremiah 4²⁹, Psalms 78⁹). The rendering + ‘a shooter, an archer’ (Delitzsch), is clumsy; and the idea + that קַשָּׁת is an explanatory gloss on רֹבֶה (Kautzsch-Socin) is not + probable. + + * * * * * + + + XXI. 22‒34. + _Abraham’s Covenant with Abimelech_ + (Elohist and Yahwist). + +Two distinct narratives, each leading up to a covenant at Beersheba, +are here combined. (A) In the first, Abraham, acceding to a request +of Abimelech, enters into a covenant of permanent friendship with +him, from which the place derives its name ‘Well of the Oath’ +(²²⁻²⁴ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹).――(B) In the other, the covenant closes a long-standing +dispute about springs, and secures the claim of Abraham’s people to +the wells of Beersheba, where Abraham subsequently plants a sacred +tree (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³³). + + _Sources._――The passage, except some redactional touches in + ³²⁻³⁴, has usually been assigned to Elohist (Wellhausen, Kuenen, + Dillmann, Holzinger, Strack). Its disjointed character has, + however, been felt, and tentative solutions have been proposed + by several critics (compare Kautzsch-Socin _Anm._ 92, 93; + Kraetzschmar _Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament_ 14, + 31; von Gall, _Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 46 f.; _Oxford + Hexateuch_ ii. 30 f.). The most successful is that of Gunkel, + who assigns ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁸⁻³⁰ᐧ ³²⁻³⁴ to Yahwist, the rest to Elohist: + the reasons will appear in the notes. The analysis rests on the + duplicates (²⁷ᵃ ∥ ³⁰ᵃ, ²⁷ᵇ ∥ ³²ᵃ) and material discrepancies of + the section; the linguistic criteria being indecisive as between + Yahwist and Elohist, though quite decisive against Priestly-Code + (חֶסֶד, הֵנָּה, ²³; כָּרַת בְּרִית, ²⁷; בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰). But the connexion with + chapter 20, and אֱלֹהִים in ²²ᐧ ²³, prove that the main account is + from Elohist; while יהוה, ³³, and בַּֽעֲבוּר, ³⁰, show the other to be + Yahwist. Since the scene is Beersheba, the Yahwistic component + must be Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ.――³²⁻³⁴ have been considerably modified + by Redactors. Procksch (10 ff.) holds that in the original + Elohist verses ²² ᶠᶠᐧ preceded ¹⁻²⁰; his detailed analysis being + almost identical with Gunkel’s. + +=22‒24.= Abimelech proposes an oath of perpetual amity between his +people and Abraham’s, and the latter consents (Elohist).――=22.= +_Pîkōl_ (_v.i._), _his commander-in-chief_, seems here merely a symbol +of the military importance of Gerar: otherwise 26²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where Pîkōl +is a party to the covenant.――=23.= _Swear to me here_] in the place +afterwards known as Beersheba (³¹). Abraham’s departure from Gerar, +and Abimelech’s visit to him in Beersheba, must have stood in Elohist +between 20¹⁷ and 21²² (compare 26¹³ᐧ ²⁶).――=24.= This unreserved +consent is inconsistent with the expostulation of――=25, 26= (Yahwist), +which presupposes strained relations between the parties, and repeated +disputes about the ownership of wells. Note (1) the frequentative +וְהוֹכִחַ, (2) the plural ‘wells’ (retained by LXX), (3) the fuller parallel +of 26¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, which shows that the right to several wells had been +contested.――_And as often as Abraham took Abimelech to task about the +wells ... Abimelech would answer_]――that he knew nothing of the matter +(so Gunkel).――=27.= Continuing ²⁴ (Elohist). Giving (or exchange?) of +presents seems to have been customary when a covenant was made (1 Kings +15¹⁹, Isaiah 30⁶, Hosea 12²). The action would be no suitable answer +to verse ²⁶.――=28‒30= (Yahwist). _the seven ewe lambs_ are set apart +for the purpose explained in ³⁰; but the article shows that they must +have been mentioned in the previous context. It is clear from ³⁰ that +the lacuna is in Yahwist, not in Elohist; while Abimelech’s question +²⁹ proves that the lambs were not an understood part of the ceremony +(Dillmann).――=30.= _that it_ (the acceptance of the present) _may +be a witness, etc._] so that in future there may be no quarrel about +Beersheba.――=31.= belongs to Elohist: נִשְׁבְּעוּ, compare ²³ ᶠᐧ; שְׁנֵיהֶם, compare +²⁷.――בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע = ‘seven wells,’ is here explained as ‘Well of the Oath,’ +the oath being the central feature of the _berîth_. The etymology is +not altogether at fault, since נִשְׁבַּֽע may mean literally to ‘put oneself +under the influence of seven,’ the sacred number (Herodotus iii. 8; +Homer _Iliad_ xix. 243 ff.; Pausanias iii. 20. 9).――=32a.= Yahwist’s +parallel to ²⁷ᵇ.¹――=33.= The inauguration of the cult of Beersheba +(Yahwist: compare 26²⁵). Among the _sacra_ of that famous shrine +there must have been a sacred tamarisk believed to have been planted +by Abraham (see on 12⁶). The planting of a sacred tree is no more a +_contradictio in adjecto_ (Stade in von Gall, 47) than the erecting +of a sacred stone, or the digging of a sacred well. The opinion +(Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger) that the subject is Isaac, and that the +verse should stand after 26²⁵, rests on the incorrect assumption that +no stratum of Yahwist puts Abraham in connexion with Beersheba.――_’El +‛Ôlâm_] presumably the pre-Israelite name of the local _numen_, here +identified with Yahwe (Gunkel: see 16¹³). Canaanite analogies are +Ἦλος ὁ καὶ Κρόνος (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 13 ff.), +and Χρόνος ἀγήρατος (Damascius _Difficulties and Solutions of +First Principles_ 123).――=34.= The assumption that Beersheba was in +Philistine territory being incompatible with ³²ᵇ, the verse must be +an interpolation.――On the historical background of these legends, see +after 26³³. + + ¹ ³²ᵇ would be a natural conclusion to Elohist’s narrative + (compare ²²), but for the fact that that source never speaks + of a Philistine occupation of Gerar. The last three verses, + however, seem to have been altered by a compiler.――It is + probable that Yahwist gave an explanation of the name of the + well, connecting it with the seven lambs; so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + (בירא דשבע חורפן). + + Beersheba is the modern _Bi’r-es-Seba‛_, in the heart of the + Negeb, some 28 miles South-west from Hebron, and 25 South-east + from _Umm el-Ǧerār_. Its importance as a religious centre in + the Old Testament appears not only from its frequent mention + in the patriarchal history (22¹⁹ 26²³ ᶠᶠᐧ ³¹ ᶠᶠ 28¹⁰ 46¹ ᶠᶠᐧ), + but still more from the fact that in the 8th century its + oracle (compare 25²²) was resorted to by pilgrims from the + northern kingdom (Amos 5⁵ 8¹⁴). Von Gall (44 ff.) questions + the opinion that it was originally a group of 7 wells, holding + that there was but one, whose name meant ‘Well of the Oath.’ + But that “among the Semites a special sanctity was attached + to groups of seven wells” is shown by Smith (_Lectures on the + Religion of the Semites_², 181 f.: compare Nöldeke _Archiv für + Religionswissenschaft._, vii. 340 ff.); and the existence of a + plurality of wells at Bi’r es-Seba‛ has never been disputed. See + Robinson _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 204 ff.; Smith, + _Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 284 f.; Robinson, + _Biblical World_, xvii. (1901), 247 ff.; Gautier, _ib._ xviii. + 49 ff.; Driver _The Expository Times_, vii. (1896), 567 f.; + _Joel and Amos_² (1901), page 239 f.; Trumbull, _The Expository + Times_, viii. 89. + + * * * * * + + =22.= ופיכל] LXX prefix καὶ Ὀχοζὰθ ὁ νυμφαγωγὸς αὐτοῦ (from + 26²⁶). Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, ix. 109) + considers this one of the few Egyptian names in Old Testament = + _p{<}Ḫ-r(j)_, “the Syrian.”――=23.= אם] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 149 + _c_.――נין ונכד] (_proles et soboles_) an alliterative phrase found + in Isaiah 14²², Job 18¹⁹, Sirach 41⁵ 47²²†.――=25.= והוכח] “must be + corrected to וַיּוֹכַח” (Ball, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 112 _tt_): + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויוכיח. But Massoretic + Text is probably right, with frequent sense of perfect given + above. For the following ויאמר (instead of ואמר), see Driver + _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 114 β.――באר] + LXX φρεάτων, _ut sup._――=28.= הצאן] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ (which also omits את־) צאן. Delitzsch thinks + this one of the few cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 _e_) + where article determines only its own word, and not the whole + expression.――=29.= Read הכבשת with _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ (³⁰).――לבדָּֽנָה (_The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ לבדהן)]. On suffix compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_. + The form is chiefly pausal; and though the only other example in + Pentateuch (Genesis 42³⁶) is Elohist, 30⁴¹ (־ֶנָּה) is Yahwist, and + the form cannot be considered distinctive of Elohist.――=31.= + באר שבע] LXX Φρέαρ ὁρκισμοῦ, but in ³² Φρέατι τοῦ ὅρκου. The + construction (number in genitive after singular noun) has + been supposed by Stade to be Canaanite idiom (compare קִרְיַת אַרְבַּֽע, + 23²).――=33.= אֵשֶׁל] Arabic _’aṯl_, Aramaic אתלא, Assyrian _ašlu_; + 1 Samuel 22⁶ 31¹³ [in 1 Chronicles 10¹² אֵלָה]†, in both cases + probably denoting a _sacred_ tree. The word seems to have been + strange to versions: LXX ἄρουραν, Aquila δενδρῶνα, Symmachus + φυτείαν, Vulgate _nemus_, etc. The substitution of אֲשֵׁרָה proposed + by Stade (_v.s._) is uncalled for, though see _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 4892 f.――עולם] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ העולם.――=34= is wanting in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (edited + by Ginsburger). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XXII. + _The Sacrifice of Isaac_ + (Elohist and Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ). + +The only incident in Abraham’s life expressly characterised as a +‘trial’ of his faith is the one here narrated, where the patriarch +proves his readiness to offer up his only son as a sacrifice at +the command of God. The story, which is the literary masterpiece of +the Elohistic collection, is told with exquisite simplicity; every +sentence vibrates with restrained emotion, which shows how fully the +author realises the tragic horror of the situation. + + _Source._――The original narrative consists of verses ¹⁻¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹. In + spite of יהוה in ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴, this belongs to Elohist: compare [הָ]אֱלֹהִים, + ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹²; עַד־כֹּה ⁵]; the revelation by night, ¹ ᶠᶠᐧ; the Angel + calling from heaven, ¹¹.――On ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ see below. Compare Dillmann, + Holzinger, Gunkel. + +=1‒8. Abraham’s willing preparation for the sacrifice.=――=1.= +_God tempted Abraham_] _i.e._, tested him, to “know what was in his +heart” (Deuteronomy 8²),――an anthropomorphic representation: compare +Exodus 16⁴ 20²⁰, Deuteronomy 8¹⁶ 13⁴ 33⁸ etc. This sentence governs +the narrative and prepares the reader for a good ending.――=2.= +_thy son――thine only one――whom thou lovest――Isaac_] emphasising the +greatness of the sacrifice, as if to say that God knows right well how +much He asks.――_the land of Mōriyyāh_ (הַמֹּרִיָּה)] All attempts to explain +the name and identify the place have been futile.♦――_which I will name +to thee_] _When_ this more precise direction was imparted, does not +appear.――=3.= While the outward preparations are graphically described, +no word is spared for the conflict in Abraham’s breast,――a striking +illustration of the reticence of the legends with regard to mental +states.――=4.= _saw the place afar off_] The spot, therefore, has +already been indicated (verse ²). We are left to imagine the pang +that shot through the father’s heart when he caught sight of it.――=5.= +Another touch, revealing the tense feeling with which the story is +told: the servants are put off with a pretext whose hollowness the +reader knows.――=6.= “The boy carries the heavier load, the father the +more dangerous: knife and fire” (Gunkel). It is curious that the Old +Testament has no allusion to the method of producing fire.――=7, 8.= +The pathos of this dialogue is inimitable: the artless curiosity of +the child, the irrepressible affection of the father, and the stern +ambiguity of his reply, can hardly be read without tears. Note the +effect of the repetition: _and they went both of them together_ +(⁶ᐧ ⁸).――_God will provide_] יִרְאֶה, literally ‘look out’; as 41³³ +[Deuteronomy 12¹³ 33²¹], 1 Samuel 16¹ᐧ ¹⁷. The word points forward to +verse ¹⁴. + + ♦ reconnected with previous paragraph split in error + + The prevalent Jewish and Christian tradition puts the scene + on the Temple mount at Jerusalem (הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה, 2 Chronicles 3¹; + τὸ Μώριον ὄρος, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 224, + compare 226). But (a) the attestation of the name is so late and + unreliable that it is a question whether the Chronicler’s use + of it rests on a traditional interpretation of this passage, or + whether it was introduced here on the strength of his notice. + (b) Even if [הַ]מֹּרִיָּה were a genuine ancient name for the Temple + hill, it is not credible that it was extended to the _land_ + in which it was, and still less that the hill itself should be + described as ‘one of the mountains’ in the region named after it. + There is reason to suspect that the name of a land may have been + modified (either in accordance with a fanciful etymology [verse + ¹⁴], or on the authority of 2 Chronicles 3¹) in order that the + chief sanctuary of later times might not be altogether ignored + in the patriarchal history. The Samaritan tradition identified + Moriah with Shechem.¹ This view has been revived in two forms: + (1) that the name is a corruption or variant of מוֹרֶה in 12⁶ etc. + (Bleek, _Theologische Studien und Kritiken_, 1831, 520 ff.; + Tuch, von Gall [see LXX _infinitive_]); and (2) that it is a + corruption of חֲמֹרִים (‘land of the Ḥamorites’ [33¹⁹]) (Wellhausen). + But both these names are too local and restricted to suit the + context; and the distance is perhaps too great. Of the attempts + to recover the original name, the simplest is א׳ הָֽאֱמֹרִי, which would + be a natural designation of Palestine in Elohist:² see on 10¹⁶. + If the legend be very ancient, there is no certainty that the + place was in the Holy Land at all. Any extensive mountainous + region, well known at the time, and with a lingering tradition + of human sacrifice, would satisfy the conditions. Hence, + Cheyne’s suggestion that the land of ‘Muṣri’ is to be read + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3200; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in + Einzeldarstellungen_, ii. 44), is not devoid of plausibility. + On Gunkel’s solution, see below. + + ¹ See _Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins_, vi. 198, + vii. 133.――Von Gall (_Altisraelitische Kultstätten_ 112) + seems in error when he says this was a _Jewish_ tradition. + + ² But it is doubtful if the restoration can claim the + authority of Peshiṭtå, for that version reads (‡ Syriac + phrase) in 2 Chronicles 3¹ also. + + * * * * * + + =1.= אחר הד׳ הא׳ 15¹.――והאלהים נסה] The reluctance of grammarians to + admit that this can be the main sentence, and apodosis after + time determination, is intelligible (Delitzsch, Dillmann, + Gunkel), the order being that of the circumstantial clause; but + it is difficult, without sophistical distinctions, to take it + any other way. As circumstantial clause it could only mean ‘when + God _had_ tempted Abraham,’ which is nonsense; and to speak of + it as a _Verumständung_ of the following ויאמר (Delitzsch) is to + deceive oneself with a word. The right explanation in Driver _A + Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――אברהם] + repeated in LXX, Vulgate; compare ¹¹.――=2.= המריה] The word was no + doubt popularly connected with √ רָאָה as used in ¹⁴ (compare _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ המוראה, Aquila τὴν καταφανῆ, + Symmachus τῆς ὀπτασίας, Vulgate _visionis_), though a real + derivation from that √ is impossible. LXX τὴν ὑψηλήν (compare + 12⁶). Peshiṭtå has (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פולחנא + (‘worship’).――=3.= את־שני נ׳] So Numbers 22²². The determination + is peculiar. That it means _the_ two slaves with whom a person + of importance usually travelled (Gunkel) is little probable. + It is possible that in this legend Abraham was conceived as a + man of moderate wealth, and that these were all the servants + he had.――=5.= עד־כה] On כֹּה as demonstrative of _place_, see + Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ (‘rare, chiefly in Elohist’); + compare 31³⁷.――=7.= הנני בני] ‘Yes, my son’; the ‘Here am I’ of + English Version is much too pompous. LXX, Vulgate excellently: + τί ἐστιν, τέκνον; _Quid vis, fili?_――=8.= השה] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX omit article (Ball). + + * * * * * + +=9‒14. The sacrifice averted.=――=9, 10.= The verses describe with +great minuteness the preliminary ritual of the עוֹלָה in highly technical +language (עָרַךְ, עָקַד, שָׁחַט); _v.i._――=11, 12.= At the extreme moment +Abraham’s hand is stayed by a voice from heaven.――=11= is certainly +from Elohist; יהוה must therefore be a redactional accommodation to +verse ¹⁵ (compare Peshiṭtå _infinitive_).――The repetition of _Abraham_ +expresses urgency; as 46², Exodus 3⁴ (Elohist), 1 Samuel 3¹⁰.――=12.= +The Angel speaks in the name of God, as 16¹⁰, 21¹⁸.――_now I know, +etc._] Thus early was the truth taught that the essence of sacrifice +is the moral disposition (Psalms 51¹⁸ ᶠᐧ).――=13.= The substitution +of the ram for the human victim takes place without express command, +Abraham recognising by its mysterious presence that it was ‘provided’ +by God for this purpose.――=14a.= The naming of the place is an +essential feature of the legend, and must therefore be assigned to +Elohist.――יהוה יִרְאֶה alludes to verse ⁸; but that any sanctuary actually +bore this name is scarcely probable. In truth, it seems to be given +as the explanation, not of a name, but of a current proverbial saying +(Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 450), which can hardly be +the original intention (see below).――=14b.= The words בְּהַ֥ר יהו֖ה יֵֽרָאֶֽה yield +no sense appropriate to the context. + + Massoretic Text might be rendered: (a) ‘In the mount of Yahwe + he (it) is seen’ (Strack), or (b) ‘In the mount of Yahwe men + appear’ [for worship] (Driver 220, compare Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + _infinitive_), or (disregarding accusative) (c) ‘In the mount + where Yahwe is seen’: in this case the saying would be יהוה יִרְאֶה + (¹⁴ᵃ), and ¹⁴ᵇ would merely mean that it was used in the Temple + mount. All these are obviously unsatisfactory. With a slight + change (בָּהָר for בְּ׳) the clause would read ‘In the mount Yahwe + appears’ (so LXX), or (with יִרְאֶה for יֵֽרָאֶה) ‘In ... Yahwe sees’ + (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå).――The text has probably been altered under + the same tendency which gave rise to מֹרִיָּה in verse ²; and the + recovery of the original is impossible. Gunkel, with brilliant + ingenuity, conjectures that the name of the sanctuary was יְרוּאֵל + (2 Chronicles 20¹⁶); this he inserts after הַהוּא; and restores the + remainder of the verse as follows: אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הַיּוֹם בָּהָר יִרְאֶה אֱלֹהִים = ‘for he + said, “To-day, in this mountain, God provideth.”’ + + * * * * * + + =9.= ערך] of the arranging of the wood on the altar, 1 Kings 18³³, + Numbers 23⁴, Isaiah 30³³.――עקד] (ἅπαξ λεγόμενον) in New Hebrew + means to ‘bind the bent fore- and hind-legs of an animal for + sacrifice’ (Driver): LXX συμποδίσας――=10.= שׁחט is technically + to cut the throat of a sacrificial victim (Jacob, _Zeitschrift + für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 51).――=11.= יהוה] + Peshiṭtå אֱלֹהִים; so verse ¹⁵.――=13.= אַיִל אַחַר] ‘a ram behind’; so + Tuch, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Strack, (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Symmachus in + temporal sense). _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Jubilees_ and Hebrew MSS have + א׳ אֶחָד, ‘a [certain] ram’; which may be _nichtssagend_, but is + preferable to Massoretic Text (Holzinger, Gunkel).――Read also + (with LXX, Peshiṭtå) נֶֽאֱחָז (participle) for perfect.――בסבך] LXX + ἐν φυτῷ σαβέκ, Symmachus ἐν δικτύῳ (בִּשְׂבָכָה), Aquila ἐν συχνεῶνι, + Vulgate _inter vepres_.――=14.= The paraphrase of Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + is interesting: ‘And Abraham worshipped and prayed there שָׁם + for שֵׁם), in that place, saying before the Lord, Here shall + generations worship. So it is said at this day, In this mountain + Abraham worshipped before the Lord.’――בְּהַר יהוה יֵֽרָאֶה] LXX ἐν τῷ + ὄρει Κύριος ὤφθη, Vulgate _in monte Dominus videbit_, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac phrase). + + * * * * * + +=15‒19. Renewal of the promises: Conclusion.=――=15.= The occasion +seemed to a Jehovistic redaction to demand an ampler reward than +the sparing of Isaac; hence a supplementary revelation (שֵׁנִית) is +appended.――=16.= _By myself I swear_] compare Exodus 32¹³ (also +Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ), elsewhere Isaiah 45²³, Jeremiah 22⁵ 49¹³†.――נְאֻם יהוה] +literally ‘murmur of Yahwe,’ an expression for the prophetic +inspiration, whose significance must have been forgotten before it +could be put in the mouth of the Angel. Even Priestly-Code (Numbers +14²⁸) is more discriminating in his use of the phrase.――=17.= _occupy +the gate of their enemies_] _i.e._, take possession of their cities +(LXX πόλεις); compare 24⁶⁰.――=18.= _by thy seed ... bless themselves_ +(Hithpael)] So 26⁴; compare Deuteronomy 29¹⁸, Isaiah 65¹⁶, Jeremiah 4², +Psalms 72¹⁷†. See on 12³.――=19.= The return to Beersheba is the close +of Elohist’s narrative, continuing verse ¹⁴. + + The secondary character of ¹⁵⁻¹⁸ is clear not only from its + loose connexion with the primary narrative, but also from its + combination of Elohistic conceptions with Yahwistic phraseology, + the absence of originality, the improper use of נְאֻם יהוה, etc. + Compare Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 20; Dillmann 291; + Holzinger 165.――The view of Delitzsch (324 f.) and Strack (82), + that ¹⁴⁻¹⁸ are from a Yahwist parallel to 22¹⁻¹⁴, is untenable. + + The difficult question of the _meaning_ of this incident is + approached from two sides. (1) Those who regard it as a literal + occurrence in the life of a man of eminent piety, holding views + of truth in advance of his age, are undoubtedly able to give + it an interpretation charged with deep religious significance. + Familiar with the rite of child-sacrifice amongst the + surrounding heathen, the patriarch is conceived as arrested by + the thought that even this terrible sacrifice might rightly be + demanded by the Being to whom he owed all that he was; and as + brooding over it till he seemed to hear the voice of God calling + on him to offer up his own son as proof of devotion to Him. + He is led on step by step to the very verge of accomplishing + the act, when an inward monition stays his hand, and reveals + to him that what God really requires is the surrender of the + will――that being the _truth_ in his previous impression; but + that the sacrifice of a human life is not in accordance with + the character of the true God whom Abraham worshipped. But it + must be felt that this line of exposition is not altogether + satisfying. The story contains no word in repudiation of human + sacrifice, nor anything to enforce what must be supposed to + be the main lesson, viz., that such sacrifices were to find + no place in the religion of Abraham’s descendants. (2) Having + regard to the origin of many other Genesis narratives, we + must admit the possibility that the one before us is a legend, + explaining the substitution of animal for human sacrifices + in some type of ancient worship. This view is worked out + with remarkable skill by Gunkel (211‒214), who thinks he + has recovered the lost name of the sanctuary from certain + significant expressions which seem to prepare the mind for + an etymological interpretation: viz. אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה, ⁸ (compare ¹⁴); + יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים, ¹²; and וַיַּרְא [והנה] אַיִל, ¹³. From these indications he + concludes that the original name in ¹⁴ was יְרוּאֵל; and he is + disposed to identify the spot with a place of that name + somewhere near Tekoa, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 20¹⁶ (יְרִיאֵל in + 1 Chronicles 7² is excluded by geographical considerations). + Here he conjectures that there was a sanctuary where the custom + of child-sacrifice had been modified by the substitution of a + ram for a human being. The basis of Genesis 22 would then be the + local cultus-legend of this place. Apart from the philological + speculations, which are certainly pushed to an extreme, it is + not improbable that Gunkel’s theory correctly expresses the + character of the story; and that it originally belonged to the + class of ætiological legends which everywhere weave themselves + round peculiarities of ritual whose real origin has been + forgotten or obscured.――An older cultus-myth of the same + kind is found in the Phœnician story in which Kronos actually + sacrifices his only son Ἰεούδ (יחוד = יָחִיד?) or Ἰεδούδ (יָדִיד?) to his + father Uranus (Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10, 29). The + sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the later modification in which a + hind is substituted for the maiden, readily suggests itself as + a parallel (Euripides, _Iphigenia in Aulis_ 1540 ff.). + + * * * * * + + =16.= end] Add מִמֶּנִּי as verse ¹²: so LXX, Vulgate.――=18.= עקב אשר] + elsewhere only 26⁵, 2 Samuel 12⁶. + + * * * * * + + + XXII. 20‒24. + _The Sons of Nāḥôr_ + (Yahwist, Redactors). + +In the singular form of a report brought to Abraham, there is here +introduced a list of 12 tribes tracing their descent to Nāḥôr. Very +few of the names can be identified; but so far as the indications +go, they point to the region East and North-east of Palestine as the +area peopled by the Naḥorite family. The division into legitimate +(²⁰⁻²³) and illegitimate (²⁴) sons expresses a distinction between the +pure-blooded stock and hybrid, or perhaps alien and subjugated, clans +(Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 5). + + The verses bear the unmistakable signature of a Yahwistic + genealogy: compare גַּם הִיא ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴, with 4²²ᐧ ²⁶ 10²¹ 19³⁸; ²¹ᵃ + with 10¹⁵; ²³ᵇ with 9¹⁹ (10²⁹ 25⁴); יָלַד ²³ (see page 98). Of + Priestly-Code’s style and manner there is no trace; and with + regard to _‛Aramæan,’Ărām_, there is a material discrepancy + between the two documents (verse ²¹ compared with 10²² ᶠᐧ). The + introductory formula אחרי הד׳ הא׳ is not exclusively Elohistic (see + on 15¹), and in any case would be an insufficient reason for + ascribing (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29 f.) the whole + section to Elohist. See Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ + 220 ff.――The genealogy appears to have been inserted with + reference to chapter 24, from which it was afterwards separated + by the amalgamation of Priestly-Code (chapter 23) with the + older documents. Its adaptation to this context is, however, + very imperfect. Here Abraham is informed of the birth of + Nāḥôr’s _children_, whereas in the present text of 24 the + _grand_children (Laban and Rebekah) are grown up. Moreover, with + the excision of the gloss ²³ᵃ (_v.i._), the only point of direct + contact with chapter 24 disappears; and even the gloss does + not agree with the view of Rebekah’s parentage originally given + by Yahwist (see on 24¹⁵). Hence we must suppose that the basis + of the passage is an ancient genealogy, which has been recast, + annotated, and inserted by a Yahwistic writer at a stage _later_ + than the composition of chapter 24, but _earlier_ than the final + redaction of the Pentateuch. + + =20.= מִלְכָּה] see on 11²⁹.――לנחור אחיך] 11²².――=21.= עוּץ] in 10²³ a + subdivision of Aram, is here the principal (בְּכוֹר) Naḥorite + tribe (compare 36²⁸).――בּוּז (Βαύξ, Βαύζ, etc.)] mentioned in + Jeremiah 25²³ after Dĕdān and Têmā, is probably the _Bâzu_ + of Esarhaddon’s inscription (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + ii. 130 f.), an unidentified district of North Arabia (so Job + 32²).――קְמוּאֵל] unknown; see Praetorius, _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, 1903, 780.――אֲבִי אֲרָם (πατέρα Σύρων) + is possibly a gloss (Gunkel), but the classification of the + powerful Aramæans (see on 10²²) as a minor branch of the + Naḥorites is none the less surprising: see page 334 below.――=22.= + כֶּשֶׂד] The eponym of the כַּשְׂדִּים. But whether by these the well-known + Chaldæans of South Babylonia are meant is a difficult question. + Probability seems in favour of the theory that here, as in 2 + Kings 24², Job 1¹⁷, an Arabian (or rather Aramæan) nomadic tribe + is to be understood, from which the Babylonian כַּשְׂדִּים may have + sprung (Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 250 ff.; + Gunkel). The result has a bearing on the meaning of Arpakšad + in 10²² (see also on 11²⁸).――חֲזוֹ (Ἀζαῦ)] probably the _Ḫazû_ + mentioned after _Bâzu_ in Esarhaddon’s inscription (above).――פִּלְדָּשׁ + and יִדְלָף (Ἰελδάφ, Ἰεδλάφ) are not known. With the former have + been compared Palmer פלדשו (Levy, _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. 440) and Sin. פנדשו + (Cook, _A Glossary of the Aramaic Inscriptions_ 98; Lidzbarski + _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 352), both personal + names.――בְּתוּאֵל] as personal name 24¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ (Yahwist), 25²⁰ 28²ᐧ ⁵ + (Priestly-Code).――=23a.= is a gloss (Dillmann, Gunkel) excluded + by the general scheme of the genealogy and by the number 8 in + ²³ᵇ. The last consideration is decisive against Dillmann’s view + that the original text was וְאֶת־לָבָן וְאֶת־רִבְקָה.――=24.= וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ] _casus + pendens_: Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 111 _h_, 147 _e_. פִּילֶגֶשׁ = παλλακίς + (see Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 380): a Ḥittite + origin is suggested by Jensen (_Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlviii. 468 ff., developing a + hint of Ewald).―רְאוּמָה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + רומה, LXX Ῥεύμα, Ῥεηρά, etc.――טֶבַח] rightly read by LXX, Peshiṭtå + in 2 Samuel 8⁸ (Massoretic Text בֶּטַח ∥ טִבְחַת 1 Chronicles 18⁸), + a city of ’Ăram-Ẓôbāh, probably identical with the _Tubiḫi_ + of Tel-Amarna Tablets Number 127, and Papyrus Anastasi, near + Ḳadesh on the Orontes (but see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 173, 396).――גַּחַם (Τααμ, Γααμ, etc.)] + unknown.――תַּחַשׁ (Τοχος, Θαας, etc.)] probably Egyptian _Teḫisi_, + on the Orontes, North of Ḳadesh (_Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 258; Winckler _Mittheilungen + der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, i. 207).――מַֽעֲכָה (Μααχα, + Μωχα,)] Deuteronomy 3¹⁴, Joshua 12⁵ 13¹¹ᐧ ¹³ 2 Samuel 10⁶ᐧ ⁸, + 1 Chronicles 19⁶ ᶠᐧ; an Aramæan tribe and state occupying the + modern Ǧōlān, South of Hermon, and East of the Upper Jordan. + + To the discrepancies already noted (page 333) between the + genealogy and chapter 24, Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 239 ff.) adds the important observation that the + territorial distribution of the sons of Nāḥôr fits in badly with + the theory of Yahwist, which connects Nāḥôr and Laban with the + city of Ḥarran. He points out that the full-blooded Naḥorites, + so far as identified, are tribes of the Syro-Arabian desert, + while those described as hybrids belong to the settled regions + of Syria, where nomadic immigrants would naturally amalgamate + with the native population. Now the Syro-Arabian desert is in + other parts of the Old Testament the home of the _Bnê Ḳedem_; + and according to Elohist (see on 29¹) it was among the _Bnê + Ḳedem_ that Jacob found his uncle Laban. Meyer holds that this + was the original tradition, and finds a confirmation of it in + the geographical background of the list before us. In other + words, the Israelites were historically related, not to the + civilised Aramæans about Ḥarran, but to nomadic Aramæan tribes + who had not crossed the Euphrates, but still roamed the deserts + where Aramæans first appear in history (see page 206). Yahwist’s + representation is partly due to a misunderstanding of the name + ‘Aramæan,’ which led him to transfer the kinsfolk of Abraham + to the region round Ḥarran, which was known as the chief seat + of Aramæan culture. The genealogy is therefore an authentic + document of great antiquity, which has fortunately been + preserved by a Yahwistic editor in spite of its inconsistency + with the main narrative. It may be added that the Palestinian + view-point will explain the subordinate position assigned to the + name _Aram_. It can hardly be denied that Meyer’s reasoning is + sufficiently cogent to outweigh the traces of the names Nāḥôr + and Milkah in the neighbourhood of Ḥarran (pages 232, 237 f.). + Meyer’s explanation of Nāḥôr as a modification of _Nāhār_ (the + Euphrates) is, however, not likely to commend itself. + + + CHAPTER XXIII. + _Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah_ + (Priestly-Code). + +On the death of Sarah at the age of 127 years (¹ᐧ ²), Abraham becomes, +through formal purchase from the Ḥittites, the owner of the field and +cave of Machpelah (³⁻¹⁸), and there buries his dead (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰).――This +is the second occasion (compare chapter 17) on which the Priestly +epitome of Abraham’s life expands into circumstantial and even graphic +narration. The transaction must therefore have had a special interest +for the writer of the Code; though it is not easy to determine of what +nature that interest was (see the closing note). + + _Source._――That the chapter belongs to Priestly-Code is proved + (a) by allusions in later parts of the Code (25⁹ ᶠᐧ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ + 50¹³); (b) by the juristic formalism and redundancy of the style; + (c) by the names בני חת, מכפלה, קרית ארבע, ארץ כנען; and the expressions + תושב, ⁴; אחזה, ⁴ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ²⁰; נשיא, ⁶; קוּם, ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁰; מקנה, ¹⁸ (see the notes; + and compare Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel). Against this we have + to set the אנכי of verse ⁴, which is never elsewhere used by + Priestly-Code.――At the same time it is difficult to acquiesce + in the opinion that we have to do with a ‘free composition’ + of the writers of Priestly-Code. The passage has far more the + appearance of a transcript from real life than any other section + in the whole of Priestly-Code; and its markedly secular tone + (the name of God is never once mentioned) is in strong contrast + to the free introduction of the divine activity in human affairs + which is characteristic of that document. It seems probable that + the narrative is based on some local tradition by which the form + of representation has been partly determined. A similar view + is taken by Eerdmans (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 88), who, + however, assigns the chapter to the oldest stratum of Genesis, + dating at latest from 700 B.C. Steuernagel (_Theologische + Studien und Kritiken_, 1908, 628) agrees that chapter 23 is not + in Priestly-Code’s manner; but thinks it a midrashic expansion + of a brief notice in that document.¹ + + ¹ Sayce’s contention (_The Early History of the Hebrews_, + 57 ff.), that the incident ‘belongs essentially to the early + Babylonian and not to the Assyrian period,’ is not borne + out by the cuneiform documents to which he refers; the + correspondences adduced being quite as close with contracts + of the later Assyrian kings as with those of the age of + Ḫammurabi. Thus, the expression ‘full silver’ (verse ⁹) is + frequent under Sargon and subsequently (_Keilinschriftliche + Bibliothek_, iv. 108 ff.); under the first Babylonian + dynasty the phrase is ‘silver to the full price’ (_ib._ + 7 ff.). The formula for ‘before’ (a witness) is, in the + earlier tablets, _maḫar_; in the later, _pân_,――neither the + precise equivalent of those here used (בְּאָזְנֵי and לְעֵינֵי). There + remains only the expression ‘_weigh_ silver,’ which does + appear to be characteristic of the older contracts; but + since this phrase survived in Hebrew till the latest times + (Zechariah 11¹², Esther 3⁹), it is plain that nothing can + be inferred from it. Sayce has not strengthened his case by + the arguments in _The Expository Times_, 1907, 418 ff.; see + Driver 230, and _Addenda_⁷, XXXVII f. + +=1, 2. The death of Sarah.=――=2.= _Ḳiryath-’Arba‛_] an old name of +Hebron, _v.i._――וַיָּבֹא] not ‘came,’ but _went in_――to where the body +lay.――_to wail ... weep_] with the customary loud demonstrations of +grief (Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 20; _A Dictionary of the +Bible_, iii. 453 ff.). + + * * * * * + + =1.= After ויהיו it is advisable to insert שְׁנֵי (Ball, Kittel: + compare 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸). The omission may have caused the addition of + the gloss שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה at the end (wanting in LXX).――=2.= קרית ארבע + (LXX ἐν πόλει Ἀρβόκ)] The old name of Hebron (Joshua 14¹⁵, + Judges 1¹⁰), though seemingly in use after the Exile (unless + Nehemiah 11²⁵ be an artificial archaism [Meyer _Die Entstehung + des Judenthums_ 106]). The name means ‘Four cities’ (see on בְּאֵר + שֶׁבַע, page 326). The personification of אַרְבַּֽע as _heros eponymus_ + (Joshua 14¹⁵ 15¹³ 21¹¹) has no better authority (as LXX shows) + than the mistake of a copyist (see Moore, _Judges_ 25). Jewish + Midrash gave several explanations of the numeral: amongst others + from the 4 patriarchs buried there――Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and + _Adam_ (_Bereshith Rabba_; _P. R. Eliezer_, 20, 36; Rashi)――the + last being inferred from הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל in Joshua 14¹⁵ (Jerome, + _Onomastica Sacra_, 84¹²). The addition of _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ אל עמק (LXX ἥ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ κοιλώματι) + seems a corruption of אבי ענק (Ball) or (with LXX) אֵם ע׳ in Joshua + 15¹³ 21¹¹.――לספד] In Hebrew usage, as in that of all the cognate + languages, ספד means ‘to wail’; see Micah 1⁸. + + * * * * * + +=3‒7. The request for a burying-place.=――The negotiations fall into +three well-defined stages; and while they illustrate the leisurely +courtesy of the East in such matters, they cover a real reluctance +of the Ḥittites to give Abraham a legal title to land by purchase +(Gunkel). To his first request they respond with alacrity: the best of +their sepulchres is at his disposal.――=3.= _arose_] from the sitting +posture of the mourner (2 Samuel 12¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰).――_the sons of Ḥēth_] see on +10¹⁵. + + Priestly-Code is the only document in which Ḥittites are + definitely located in the South of Canaan (compare 26³⁴ 36²); + and the historic accuracy of the statement is widely questioned. + It is conceivable that the Cappadocian Ḥittites (page 215) had + extended their empire over the whole country prior to the Hebrew + invasion. But taking into account that Priestly-Code appears to + use ‘Ḥēth’ interchangeably with ‘Canaan’ (compare 26³⁴ 27⁴⁶ 36²ᵇ + with 28¹ᐧ ⁸ 36²ᵃ), it may be more reasonable to hold that with + him ‘Ḥittite’ is a general designation of the pre-Israelite + inhabitants, as ‘Canaanite’ with Yahwist and ‘Amorite’ with + Elohist (compare Joshua 1⁴, Ezekiel 16³). It may, of course, + be urged that such an idea could not have arisen unless the + Ḥittites had once been in actual occupation of the land, and + that this assumption would best explain the all but constant + occurrence of the name in the lists of conquered peoples (see + page 284). At present, however, we have no proof that this was + the case; and a historic connexion between the northern Ḥittites + and the natives of Hebron remains problematical. Another + solution is propounded by Jastrow (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, + 2094 ff.), viz., that Priestly-Code’s Ḥittites are an entirely + distinct stock, having nothing but the name in common with + either the ‘conventional’ Ḥittites of the enumerations or the + great empire of North Syria. See Driver 228 ff. + +=4.= _a sojourner and dweller_] so Leviticus 25³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁷, Numbers 35¹⁵, +and (in a religious sense) Psalms 39¹³ (compare 1 Peter 2¹¹). The +technical distinction between גֵּר and תּוֹשָׁב is obscure (_v.i._).――=6.= +_O if thou wouldst hear us_ (read לוּ שְׁמָעֵנוּ, _v.i._)]. The formula always +introduces a suggestion preferable to that just advanced: compare +¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ¹⁵.――נְשֵׁיא אֱלֹהִים is more than ‘a mighty prince’ (as Psalms 36⁷ 68¹⁶ +104¹⁶ etc.); it means one deriving his patent of nobility straight +from Almighty God.――_Not a man of us will withhold, etc._] therefore +there is no need to buy. Behind their generosity there lurks an +aversion to the idea of purchase.――=7.= The verse has almost the force +of a refrain (compare 12). The first stage of the negotiations is +concluded. + + * * * * * + + =4.= תּוֹשָׁב] Abraham Ibn Ezra הוא הגר היושב בארץ. According to + Bertholet (_Die stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu + den fremden_ 156‒166), the תּ׳ is simply a _gêr_ (see on 12¹⁰) + who resides fixedly in one place, without civil rights, and + perhaps incapable of holding land; see _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + 4818.――=5.= לֵאמֹר לוֹ (so verse ¹⁴) is an abnormal combination, + doubtfully supported by Leviticus 11¹. The last word must be + joined to verse ⁶, and read either לֹא (as verse ¹¹: so _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX), or לוּ (as ¹³). The + last is the only form suitable in all four cases (⁵ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁵). + On לוּ with imperative, compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _e_.――=6.= + יִכְלֶה] = יִכְלָא, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _qq_. + + * * * * * + +=8‒12. The appeal to ‛Ephrôn.=――In his second speech Abraham shows +his tact first by ignoring tacitly the suggestion of a free gift, and +then by bringing the favourable public opinion just expressed to bear +on the individual he wishes to reach.――=9.= _On the cave of Makpēlāh_, +see at the close.――_in the end of his field_] Abraham apparently +does not contemplate the purchase of the whole field: that was thrust +on him by ‛Ephrôn’s offer.――_for full money_] see page 335 above +(footnote). The same expression occurs in 1 Chronicles 21²²ᐧ ²⁴.――=10.= +_entering the gate, etc._] _i.e._, his fellow-citizens, with the right +of sitting in public assembly at the gate (compare יֹצְאֵי שׁ׳ ע׳, 34²⁴). + + * * * * * + + =8.= את־נפשכם] ‘in accordance with your [inner] mind.’ Compare + 2 Kings 9¹⁵, 1 Samuel 20⁴: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 661 + a.――=9.= הַמַּכְפֵּלָה] Elsewhere only 25⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³; always with + article, showing that it retained an appellative sense. LXX (τὸ + σπήλαιον τὸ διπλοῦν), Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + are probably right in deriving it from √ כפל, ‘double’ + (see page 339).――=10.= לכל] לְ = ‘namely’ (see on 9¹⁰: + compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, 514 b); in ¹⁸ it is replaced + by בְּ = ‘among.’――=11.= For לֹא point לֻא: see on ⁵.――נתתי לך] LXX + omitted.――נְתַתִּיהָ is perfect of instant action: ‘I give it’; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 106 _m_. + + * * * * * + +=13‒16. The purchase of the field.=――With the same tactful +persistency, Abraham seizes on ‛Ephrôn’s expression of goodwill, +while waving aside the idea of a gift.――=13.= _If only thou――pray +hear me!_] The anakolouthon expresses the polite embarrassment of the +speaker.――=14, 15.= ‛Ephrôn’s resistance being now broken down, he +names his price with the affectation of generosity still observed in +the East.¹――_land_ [worth] _400 shekels ... what is that...?_] The +word for ‘land’ is better omitted with LXX; it is not the land but the +money that ‛Ephrôn pretends to disparage.――=16.= Abraham immediately +pays the sum asked, and clenches the bargain.――_current with the +merchant_] The precious metals circulated in ingots, whose weight +was approximately known, without, however, superseding the necessity +for ‘weighing’ in important transactions (Benzinger, _Hebräische +Archäologie_² 197; Kennedy, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 420; +_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 391 f.).² + + ¹ “The peasants will often say, when a person asks the price + of any thing which they have for sale, ‘Receive it as a + present’: this answer having become a common form of speech, + they know that advantage will not be taken of it; and + when desired again to name the price, they will do so, but + generally name a sum that is exhorbitant.” Lane, _An Account + of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. + 13 f. + + ² Cuneiform records recently discovered in Cappadocia seem to + prove that shekels “stamped with a seal” were in use in the + time of Ḫammurabi. See Sayce, _The Contemporary Review_, + August, 1907, page 259. + + * * * * * + + =13.= For לוּ, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (? Peshiṭtå) read לִי, + mistaking the idiom.――=14.= לוּ: לֵאמֹר] as ⁵.――=15.= LXX (Οὐχί, + κύριε, ἀκήκοα γάρ) does not render אֶרֶץ, but the γάρ is odd.――ואת־] + better וְאַתָּ (LXX).――=16.= עבר לסחר] The only other instance of this + use of עבר (2 Kings 12⁵) is corrupt (read עֶרֶךְ, LXX). + + * * * * * + +=17‒20. Summary and conclusion.=――=17, 18= are in the form of a +legal contract. Specifications of the dimensions and boundaries of +a piece of land, and of the buildings, trees, etc., upon it, are +common in ancient contracts of sale at all periods; compare _e.g._ +_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, iv. 7, 17, 33 (1st Babylonian +dynasty), 101, and 161 (8th century B.C.), 223‒5 (6th century); the +_Assouan Papyri_ (5th century); and especially the Petra Inscription +cited in _Authority and Archæology_, page 135. + + The traditional site of the Cave of Makpēlāh is on the East + side of the narrow valley in which Hebron lies, and just within + the modern city (_el-Ḫalīl_). The place is marked by a sacred + enclosure (the _Ḥarām_), within which Christians have seldom + been admitted. The South-east half is occupied by a mosque, + and six cenotaphs are shown: those of Abraham and Sarah in + the middle, of Isaac and Rebekah in the South-east (within the + mosque), and of Jacob and Leah in the North-west: that of Joseph + is just outside the Ḥarām on the North-west. The cave below + has never been examined in modern times, but is stated by its + guardians to be double. There is no reason to doubt that the + tradition as to the site has descended from biblical times; + and it is quite probable that the name Makpēlāh is derived + from the feature just referred to. That the name included the + field attached to the cave (verse ¹⁹ 49³⁰ 50¹³) is natural; + and even its extension to the adjacent district (see on ¹⁷) + is perhaps not a decisive objection.――For further particulars, + see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, ii. 75 ff.; + Baedeker, _Palestine and Syria: handbook for travellers_³ + 141 f.; _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statements_, + 1882, 197‒214; Warren, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 197 ff.; + Driver, _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 228. + + Whatever assumption we make as to the origin of this narrative, + Priestly-Code’s peculiar interest in the transaction is a + fact that has to be explained. The motive usually assigned is + that the purchase was a pledge of the possession of the land + by Abraham’s descendants; that view is, indeed, supported by + nothing in the passage (see Gunkel 241), but it is difficult + to imagine any other explanation. It is just conceivable that + the elaboration of the narrative was due to a dispute as to the + possession of the sacred place between Jews and Edomites in the + age of Priestly-Code. It has been held probable on independent + grounds that the Edomites had advanced as far north as Hebron + during the Exile (see Meyer _Die Entstehung des Judenthums_ + 106, 114), and from Nehemiah 11²⁵ we learn that a colony of Jews + settled there after the return. We can at least imagine that a + contest for the ownership of the holy place (like those which + have so largely determined the later history of Palestine) would + arise; and that such a situation would account for the emphasis + with which the Priestly jurists asserted the legal claim + of the Jewish community to the traditional burying-place of + its ancestors. So Gunkel¹ 251; _Students’ Old Testament_, 99: + otherwise Gunkel² 241 f. + + * * * * * + +=17.= קוּם] = ‘pass into permanent possession,’ as Leviticus 25³⁰ +27¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁹ (Priestly-Code).――אשר במכפלה] LXX ὃς ἦν ἐν τῷ διπλῷ +σπηλαίῳ is nonsense; but Vulgate _in quo erat spelunca duplex_ +suggests a reading אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַמּ׳ which (if it were better attested) +would remove the difficulty of supposing that the name ‘double +cave’ was applied to the district around.――לפני] _The Samaritan +Recension of the Pentateuch_ על פני as in ¹⁹ = ‘in front of,’ +perhaps ‘to the East of.’ + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XXIV. + _Procuring a Wife for Isaac_ + (Yahwist, [Elohist?]). + +Abraham on his death-bed (see below) solemnly charges his +house-steward with the duty of procuring a wife for Isaac amongst his +Mesopotamian relatives (¹⁻⁹). The servant is providentially guided +to the house of Nāḥôr, in whose daughter (see on verse ¹⁵) Rebekah he +is led to recognise the divinely appointed bride for Isaac (¹⁰⁻⁴⁹). +Having obtained the consent of the relatives, and of the maiden +herself (⁵⁰⁻⁶¹), he brings her to Canaan, where Isaac marries her +(⁶²⁻⁶⁷). + + The chapter is one of the most perfect specimens of descriptive + writing that the Book of Genesis contains. It is marked by + idyllic grace and simplicity, picturesque elaboration of scenes + and incidents, and a certain ‘epic’ amplitude of treatment, + seen in the repetition of the story in the form of a speech (see + Driver 230). These artistic elements so predominate that the + primary ethnographic motive is completely submerged. It may be + conjectured that the basis of the narrative was a reinforcement + of the Aramæan element in the Hebrew stock, as in the kindred + story of Jacob and his wives (see Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung + der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 39 f.). But if such a + historical kernel existed, it is quite lost sight of in the + graphic delineation of human character, and of ancient Eastern + life, which is to us the main interest of the passage. We + must also note the profoundly religious conception of Yahwe’s + providence as an unseen power, overruling events in answer to + prayer. All these features seem to indicate a somewhat advanced + phase in the development of the patriarchal tradition. The + chapter belongs to the literary type most fully represented in + the Joseph-narrative (compare Gunkel 220). + + _Source and Unity of the Narrative._――From the general character + of the style, and the consistent use of the name יהוה, critical + opinion has been practically unanimous in assigning the whole + chapter to Yahwist. It is admitted, however, that certain + ‘unevennesses of representation’ occur; and the question arises + whether these are to be explained by accidental dislocations + of the text, or by the interweaving of two parallel recensions. + Thus, the servant’s objection that the maiden may not be willing + to follow him (⁵ᐧ ³⁹), is met by Abraham in two ways: on the one + hand by the confident assurance that this will not happen (⁷ᐧ ⁴⁰), + and on the other by absolving him from his oath if his mission + should miscarry (⁸ᐧ ⁴¹). In ²⁹ ᶠᐧ Laban _twice_ goes out to the + man at the well (²⁹ᵇ ∥ ³⁰ᵇ); ²⁸ speaks of the _mother’s_ house, + ²³ᵇ of the _father’s_: in ⁵⁰ the servant negotiates with _Laban + and Bethuel_, in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with the _brother and mother_ of the + bride; in ⁵¹ the request is at once agreed to by the _relatives_ + without regard to Rebekah’s wish, whereas in ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ the decision + is left to _herself_; in ⁵⁹ Rebekah is sent away with her + _nurse_, in ⁶¹ᵃ she takes her own _maidens_ with her; her + departure is _twice_ recorded (⁶¹ᵃ ∥ ⁶¹ᵇ). These doublets and + variants are too numerous to be readily accounted for either + by transpositions of the text (Dillmann al.) or by divergences + in the _oral_ tradition (_Students’ Old Testament_, 96); and + although no complete analysis is here attempted, the presence + of two narratives must be recognised. That one of these is + Yahwist is quite certain; but it is to be observed that the + characteristically Yahwistic expressions are somewhat sparsely + distributed, and leave an ample margin of neutral ground + for critical ingenuity to sift out the variants between two + recensions.¹ The problem has been attacked with great acuteness + and skill by Gunkel (215‒221) and Procksch (14 f.), though with + very discordant results. I agree with Procksch that the second + component is in all probability Elohist, mainly on the ground + that a fusion of Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ and Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ (Gunkel) + is without parallel, whereas Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ and Elohist are + combined in chapter 21. The stylistic criteria are, indeed, too + indecisive to permit of a definite conclusion; but the parallels + instanced above can easily be arranged in two series, one + of which is free from positive marks of Yahwist; while, in + the other, everything is consistent with the supposition that + Abraham’s residence is Beersheba (see page 241 above). + + ¹ יהוה, ¹ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁶ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵²ᐧ ⁵⁶; + ארם נהרים, ¹⁰ (against Priestly-Code’s פדן ארם); ארצי ומולדתי, ⁴ (12¹); + בא בימים ¹ (see on 18¹¹); טבת מראה, ¹⁶ (26⁷, compare 12¹¹); ידע, ¹⁶ + (see on 4¹); יש with suffix and participle ⁴²ᐧ ⁴⁹; טרם, ¹⁵ᐧ ⁴⁵; + הצליח, ²¹ᐧ ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁵⁶ (39²ᐧ ³ᐧ ²³); הקרה, ¹² (27²⁰); רוץ לקראת, ¹⁷ + (see 18²); נא, ²ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²³ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ ⁴³ᐧ ⁴⁵. + + _The Death of Abraham._――It is impossible to escape the + impression that in verses ¹⁻⁹ Abraham is very near his end, + and that in ⁶²⁻⁶⁷ his death is presupposed. It follows that + the account of the event in Jehovist must have occurred in this + chapter, and been suppressed by the Redactor in favour of that + of Priestly-Code (25 ⁷⁻¹¹), according to which Abraham survived + the marriage of Isaac by some 35 years (compare 25²⁰). The only + question is whether it happened before or after the departure + of the servant. Except in ¹⁴ᵇ{α}, the servant invariably speaks + as if his master were still alive (compare ¹²ᐧ ¹⁴ᵇ{β}ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ³⁷ᐧ ⁴²ᐧ + ⁴⁴ᵇᐧ ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵¹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᐧ ⁵⁶). In ⁶⁵, on other hand, he seems to be aware, + before meeting Isaac, that Abraham is no more. There is here + a slight diversity of representation, which may be due to the + composition of sources. Gunkel supposes that in the document to + which ¹⁴ᵇ{α}ᐧ ³⁶ᵇ and ⁶⁵ belong (Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ), the death was + recorded after ⁹ (and related by the servant after ⁴¹); while in + the other (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ) it was first noticed in connexion with + the servant’s meeting with Isaac (before ⁶⁶). Procksch thinks + Elohist’s notice followed verse ⁹, but doubts whether Abraham’s + death was presupposed by Yahwist’s account of the servant’s + return.――Verse ³⁶ᵇ is thought to point _back_ to 25⁵; and + hence some critics (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Dillmann, al.) suppose + that 25¹⁻⁶ ⁽¹¹ᵇ⁾ originally preceded chapter 24; while others + (Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel) find a more suitable place + for 25⁵ (with or without ¹¹ᵇ) between 24¹ and 24². See, further, + on 25 ¹⁻⁶ below. + +=1‒9. The servant’s commission.=――=1.= _had blessed, etc._] His +life as recorded is, indeed, one of unclouded prosperity.――=2.= _the +oldest_ (_i.e._ senior in rank) _servant, etc._] who, in default of +an heir, would have succeeded to the property (15² ᶠᐧ), and still acts +as the trusted guardian of the family interests; compare the position +of Ziba in 2 Samuel 9¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――_put thy hand, etc._] Only again +47²⁹)――another death-bed scene! It is, in fact, only the imminence of +death that can account for the action here: had Abraham expected to +live, a simple command would have sufficed (Gunkel). + + The reference is to an oath by the genital organs, as emblems + of the life-giving power of deity,――a survival of primitive + religion whose significance had probably been forgotten in the + time of the narrator. Traces have been found in various parts + of the world: see Ewald _Antiquities of Israel_ 19⁶ [English + translation]; Dillmann 301; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 395; and especially the striking Australian + parallel cited by Spurreil (²218) from Sir G. Grey.¹ By + Jewish writers it was considered an appeal to the covenant + of circumcision (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome _Quæstiones sive + Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, Rashi; so Tuch, Delitzsch). + Abraham Ibn Ezra explains it as a symbol of subjection, (adding + that it was still a custom in India); Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, + al. as invoking posterity (יֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ, 46²⁶, Exodus 1⁵, Judges 8³⁰) + to maintain the sanctity of the oath. + + ¹ “One native remains seated on the ground with his heels + tucked under him...; the one who is about to narrate a + death to him approaches ... and seats himself cross-legged + upon the thighs of the other; ... and the one who is seated + uppermost _places his hands under the thighs of his friend_; + ... an inviolable pledge to avenge the death has by this + ceremony passed between the two.” + +=3.= _God of heaven and of earth_] an expression for the divine +omnipresence in keeping with the spiritual idea of God’s providence +which pervades the narrative. The full phrase is not again found +(see verse ⁷).――_thou shalt not take, etc._] The motive is a natural +concern for the purity of the stock: see Bertholet, _Die stellung der +Israeliten und der Juden zu den fremden_ 67.――=5‒8.= The servant’s +fear is not that he may fail to find a bride for Isaac, but that +the woman may refuse to be separated so far from her kindred: would +the oath bind him in that event to take Isaac back to Ḥarran? The +suggestion elicits from the dying patriarch a last utterance of his +unclouded faith in God.――=7.= _God of heaven_] _v.i._――_send his +Angel_] compare Exodus 23²⁰ᐧ ²³ 33², Numbers 20¹⁶. The Angel is here +an invisible presence, almost a personification of God’s providence; +contrast the older conception in 16⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. + + * * * * * + + =3.= לבני] LXX + Ἰσαάκ (as verse ⁴); so verse ⁷.――=4.= כי] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ כי אם.――At the end LXX, + Vulgate add מִשָּׁם as verse ⁷.――=5.= אָבָה] always with negative, + except Isaiah 1¹⁹, Job 39⁹ (Sirach 6³³).――=7.= אלהי השמים] appears + only in late books (Jonah 1⁹, 2 Chronicles 36²³ = Ezra 1², + Nehemiah 1⁴ ᶠᐧ 2⁴ᐧ ²⁰: אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא is frequent in Aramaic parts of + Ezra and Daniel). The words are wanting in one Hebrew MS (see + Kittel), and may be deleted as a gloss. Otherwise we must add + with LXX ואלהי הארץ (compare ³).――ואשר נשבע לי] probably interpolated + by a later hand (Dillmann); see page 284 above.――=8.= אחריך] LXX + + εἰς τὴν γῆν ταύτην.――לא תשב (but _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ תשיב)] jussive with לֹא; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 109 _d_. + + * * * * * + +=10‒14. The servant at the well.=――On the fidelity of the picture to +Eastern life, see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 261.――=10.= +_ten camels_] to bring home the bride and her attendants (⁶¹). But +“such an expedition would not now be undertaken ... with any other +animals, nor with a less number.”――_goodly things_] for presents to +the bride and her relations (²²ᐧ ⁵³).――On _’Aram Naharaim_, see the +footnote.――_the city of Nāḥôr_ in Yahwist would be Ḥarran (compare +27⁴³ 28¹⁰ 29⁴): but the phrase is probably an Elohistic variant to +_’Aram Naharaim_, in which case a much less distant locality may be +referred to (see on 29¹).――=12‒14.= The servant’s prayer. The request +for a sign is illustrated by Judges 6³⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 14⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ: note +הִנֵּה אָֽנֹכִי [אֲנַחְנוּ] in all three cases. A spontaneous offer to draw for the +camels would (if Thomson’s experience be typical) be unusual,――in +any case the mark of a kind and obliging disposition.――=13.= _the +daughters ... to draw water_] compare 1 Samuel 9¹¹. + + * * * * * + + =10.= Unless we admit a duality of sources, it will be necessary + to omit the first וַיֵּלֶךְ (with LXX).――וכל־] better וּמִכָּל־ (LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå).――ארם נהרים] Deuteronomy 23⁵, Judges 3⁸, Psalms 60², + 1 Chronicles 19⁶†. Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ארם דעל פרת. The identity of + the second element with Egyptian _Naharin_, Tel-Amarna Tablets + _Naḫrima_ (79¹⁴ [rev.], 181³⁴, 119³²) is beyond dispute; but + it is perhaps too readily assumed that geographically the + expressions correspond. The Egyptian Naharin extended from East + of the Euphrates to the valley of the Orontes (_Asien und Europa + nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 249 ff.); all that can be + certainly affirmed about the biblical term is that it embraced + _both_ sides of the Euphrates (Ḥarran on the East; Pethor on + the West [Deuteronomy 23⁵]). Since there is no trace of a dual + in the Egyptian and Canaanite forms, it is doubtful if the + Hebrew ending be anything but a Massoretic caprice (read נהרִים?), + or a locative termination, to be read _-ām_ (Wellhausen _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 45¹; Meyer, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, iii. 307 f.: compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 + _c_, and Strack page 135 f. with reff.). There would in + this last case be no need to find a _second_ river (Tigris, + Chaboras, Baliḫ, Orontes, etc.) to go with Euphrates. The old + identification with the Greek Mesopotamia must apparently be + abandoned. See, further, Dillmann 302; Moore, _Judges_ 87, 89; + _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f.――=12.= + הקרה] ‘make it occur,’ 27²⁰ (Yahwist).――=14.= הַֽנַּעֲרָ֯] Ḳrê. הנערה; + so verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸ᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁷ 34³ᐧ ¹², Deuteronomy 22¹⁵ ᶠᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²³⁻²⁹. + הנערה is found as Ke. in Pentateuch only Deuteronomy 22¹⁹, but + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads so throughout. + It is hazardous to postulate an archaic epicene use of נַעַר + on such restricted evidence: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 655 a; + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 17 _c_.――אשקה] LXX + ἕως ἂν παύσωνται + πίνουσαι.――הֹכַחְתָּ] _decide_, _adjudicate_, here = ‘allot’; so + only verse ⁴⁴. Contrast 20¹⁶ 21²⁵ 31³⁷ᐧ ⁴²† (Elohist), Leviticus + 19¹⁷† (Priestly- Code).――ובה] ‘and thereby’; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 135 _p_. + + * * * * * + +=15‒27. The servant and Rebekah.=――=15.= _who was born to Bethuel, +etc._] compare ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷. + + The somewhat awkward phrasing has led Dillmann al. to surmise + that all these verses have been glossed, and that here the + original text ran אֲשֶׁר יָֽלְדָה מִלְכָּה וגו׳, Rebekah being the daughter of + Milkah and Nāḥôr. Compare 29⁵, where Laban is described as + the son of Nāḥôr. The redactional insertion of Bethû’ēl would + be explained by the divergent tradition of Priestly-Code (25²⁰ + 28²ᐧ ⁵), in which Bethû’ēl is simply an ‘Aramæan,’ and not + connected with Nāḥôr at all (see Budde 421 ff.). The question + can hardly be decided (Holzinger 168); but there is a + considerable probability that the original Yahwist made Laban + and Rebekah the children of Nāḥôr. In that case, however, it + will be necessary to assume that the tradition represented by + Priestly-Code was known to the Yahwistic school before the final + redaction, and caused a remodelling of the genealogy of 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ + (see page 333). Compare, however, Bosse, _Mittheilungen der + vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1908, 2, page 8 f. + + * * * * * + + =15.= After טרם read יְכַלֶּה (compare ⁴⁵); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 + _c_.――_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate + inserts אֶל־לִבּוֹ after לְדַבֵּר (⁴⁵). + + * * * * * + +=16.= Taking no notice of the stranger, the maiden _went down to +the fountain_ (עַיִן) ... _and came up_] In Eastern wells the water +is frequently reached by steps: contrast Exodus 2¹⁶ (וַתִּדְלֶנָה), John +4¹¹.――=19, 20.= The writer lingers over the scene, with evident +delight in the alert and gracious actions of the damsel.――=21.= The +servant meanwhile has stood _gazing at her in silence_, watching the +ample fulfilment of the sign.――=22.= The _nose-ring_ and _bracelets_ +are not the bridal gift (Gunkel), but a reward for the service +rendered, intended to excite interest in the stranger, and secure +the goodwill of the maiden. See Lane, _An Account of the Manners and +Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵ ii. 320, 323; compare _Lectures on +the Religion of the Semites_², 453².――=23‒25.= In the twofold question +and answer, there is perhaps a trace of the composition of narratives; +_v.i._――=24.= See on ¹⁵. Read _the daughter of Milkah whom she bore +to Nāḥôr_ (as 34¹).――=26, 27.= The servant’s act of worship marks the +close of the scene. + + * * * * * + + =18= end] LXX + ἕως ἐπαύσατο πίνων, omitting the first two + words of verse ¹⁹.――=20.= השקת] _the_ stone trough for watering + animals, found at every well (30³⁸, compare 30⁴¹, Exodus + 2¹⁶).――=21.= משתאה] not ‘wondering’ (√ שׁאה; so Delitzsch), but + ‘gazing’ (by-form of √ שעה) as Isaiah 41¹⁰. Construct state + before preposition: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 _a_.――=22.= משקלו] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + וישם על אפה, a + necessary addition (compare ⁴⁷). נֶזֶם accordingly is here a + ‘nose-jewel’ (Isaiah 3²¹, Proverbs 11²²), in 35⁴, Exodus 32²ᐧ ³ + (Elohist) an earring.――בקע] = ½ shekel (Exodus 38²⁶).――=23‒25.= + The theory of two recensions derives some little support from + the repeated ותאמר אליו of ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵. A mere rearrangement such as Ball + proposes (²³ᵃᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇᐧ ²⁵) only cures one anomaly by creating + another; and is, besides, impossible if the amendment given + above for verse ²⁴ be accepted.――=25.= ללון] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ ללין, as verse ²³; but infinitive + elsewhere is always לוּן.――=27.= אנכי emphasises the following + accusative suffix (Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 143 _b_, 135 _d_, _e_). + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) implies perhaps כִּי אִם (Ball) or כִּי + (Kittel); if not a mistake for (‡ Syriac word).――אחי] Point אֲחִי + (singular) with versions. + + * * * * * + +=28‒32. Laban’s hospitality= is inspired by the selfish greed for +which that worthy was noted in tradition.――=28.= _her mother’s house_ +cannot mean merely the female side of the family (Dillmann), for Laban +belongs to it, and ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ imply that the father (whether Bethuel or +Nāḥôr) is not the head of the house. Some find in the notice a relic +of matriarchy (Holzinger, Gunkel); but the only necessary inference +is that the father was dead.――=31.= _seeing I have cleared the house_] +turning part of it into a stable.――=32.= _he_ (Laban) _brought +the man in (v.i.) ... and ungirt the camels_] without removing the +pack-saddles.¹――_to wash his feet, etc._] compare 18⁴. + + ¹ “The camel is very delicate, and could easily catch a chill + if the saddle were taken away imprudently; and on no account + can the camel stay out of doors in bad weather. It is then + taken into the house, part of which is turned into a stable” + (Baldensperger, _Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly + Statements_, 1904, 130). + + * * * * * + + =28.= אִמָּהּ] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) (wrongly).――=30.= כראותו + (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) is better than + Massoretic Text כראת.――והנה עמד] see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _s_; + Davidson § 100 (_a_).――=31.= פִּנִּיתִי] ‘cleared away,’ as Leviticus + 14³⁶, Isaiah 40³ etc.; compare Arabic √ _fanaʸ_ IV. = _effecit + ut dispareret_.――=32.= וַיָּבֵא] (Vulgate) avoids an awkward change + of subject, and is to be preferred (Olshausen, Kautzsch-Socin, + Gunkel). The objection (Dillmann al.) that this would require + to be followed by אֶת־ is answered by the very next clause. + Irregularity in the use of אָת־ is a puzzling phenomenon in the + chapter, which unfortunately fits in with no workable scheme of + documentary analysis. + + * * * * * + +=33‒49. The servant’s narrative.=――A recapitulation of the story up +to this point, with intentional variations of language, and with some +abridgment. LXX frequently accommodates the text to what has gone +before, but its readings need not be considered.――=35.= Compare 12¹⁶ +13².――=36b.= _has given him all that he had_] This is the only +material addition to the narrative. But the notice is identical with +25⁵, and probably points back to it in some earlier context (see page +341 above).――=40.= _before whom I have walked_] Compare 17¹. Gunkel’s +suggested alteration: ‘who has gone before me,’ is an unauthorised +and unnecessary addition to the _Tikkûnê Sōpherîm_ (see 18²²).――=41.= +אָלָה (_bis_) for שְׁבוּעָה, verse ⁸. On the connexion of _oath_ and _curse_, +see Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_² 192 f.――=45‒47.= +Greatly abbreviated from ¹⁵⁻²⁵.――_the daughter of [Bethû’ēl the son of +Nāḥôr; etc._] see on ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴.――=48.= _daughter of my master’s brother_] +‘Brother,’ may, of course, stand for ‘relative’ or ‘nephew’ (29¹²ᐧ ¹⁵); +but if Bethuel be interpolated in ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ⁴⁷, Rebekah was actually first +cousin to Isaac, and such marriages were considered the most eligible +by the Naḥorites (29¹⁹).――=49.= _that I may turn, etc._] not to seek a +bride elsewhere (Dillmann), but generally ‘that I may know how to act.’ + + * * * * * + + =33.= וַיּיּשַׂם֯] Ḳrê and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + ויושם (Hophal √ שׂום), LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיָּשֶׂם. But Kethîb recurs in + Massoretic Text of 50²⁶ (וַיִּישֶׂם), again with passive significance. + The anomalous form may be passive of Qal (Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 73 _f_), or metaplastic Niphal from ישׂם or ושׂם (Nöldeke, + _Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 39 f.).――ויאמר²] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיֹּאמְרוּ, + which is perhaps better.――=36.= זקנתה] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX זִקְנָתוֹ.――=38.= אִם לֹא never has the sense + of Aramaic אֶלָּא (_sondern_), and must be taken as the common + form of adjuration (Delitzsch), _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ (_London Polyglott_) has כי אם.――=41.= מאלתי] + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 95 _n_.――The verse contains a slight + redundancy (ᵃ{α} ∥ ᵇ{β}), but nothing is gained by interposing + a clause between ᵃ{β} and ᵇ{α} (Kautzsch-Socin).――=46.= מעליה] + LXX ἐπὶ τὸν βραχίονα αὐτῆς ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς (conflate?); Vulgate _de + humero_ (compare ¹⁸). + + * * * * * + +=50‒61. Departure of Rebekah, with the consent and blessing of her +relatives.=――=50.= The relatives, recognising the hand of Providence +in the servant’s experiences, decline to answer _bad or good_: i.e., +anything whatever, as 31²⁴ᐧ ²⁹, Numbers 24¹³ etc. + + The verse as a whole yields a perfectly good sense: ‘_we_ cannot + speak, because _Yahwe_ has decided’; and ⁵¹ is a natural sequel. + It is a serious flaw in Gunkel’s analysis of ⁵⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, that he + has to break up ⁵⁰, connecting מִיהוה יָצָא הַדָּבָר with ⁵¹, and the rest + of the verse with ⁵⁷ ᶠᐧ (‘_we_ cannot speak: let the _maiden_ + decide’).――On the other hand, לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל in ⁵⁰ is barely consistent + with אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵. Since the mention of the father after the + brother would in any case be surprising, Dillmann al. suppose + that here again ובתואל is an interpolation; Kittel reads וּבֵתוֹ, and + Holzinger substitutes וּמִלְכָּה. Gunkel (219) considers that in this + recension Bethuel is a younger brother of Laban. + +=51.= Here, at all events, the matter is settled in accordance with +custom, without consulting the bride.――=53.= The presents are given +partly to the bride and partly to her relatives. In the latter we +may have a _survival_ of the מֹהַר (34¹², Exodus 22¹⁶, 1 Samuel 18²⁵†) +or purchase-price of a wife; but Gunkel rightly observes that the +narrative springs from a more refined idea of marriage, from which the +notion of actual purchase has all but disappeared. So in Islam _mahr_ +and _ṣadaḳ_ (the gift to the wife) have come to be synonymous terms +for dowry (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 93, 96): compare +Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 106.――=55.= The reluctance to +part with Rebekah is another indication of refined feeling (Gunkel). +On יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר, _v.i._――=56.= The servant’s eagerness to be gone arises +from the hope of finding his old master still alive.――=57, 58.= The +question here put to Rebekah is not whether she will go now or wait +a few days, but whether she will go at all. The reference to the +wishes of the bride may be exceptional (owing to the distance, etc.); +but a discrepancy with ⁵¹ cannot easily be got rid of.――=59.= +_their sister_] compare ‘your daughter,’ 34⁸, the relation to the +family being determined by that to the head of the house. But it +is better to read אַחֶיהָ (plural) in ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁵ with Vulgate, Peshiṭtå +and MSS of LXX.――_her nurse_] see on 35⁸.――=60.= The blessing on +the marriage (compare Ruth 4¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ)), rhythmic in form, is perhaps +an ancient fragment of tribal poetry associated with the name of +Rebekah.――_possess the gate_] as 22¹⁷.――=61a= and =61b= seem to be +variants. For another solution (Kautzsch-Socin), see on ⁶².――_her +maidens_] parallel to ‘her nurse’ in ⁵⁹. + + * * * * * + + =53.= מגדנת (Ezra 1⁶, 2 Chronicles 21³ 32²³†)] ‘costly gifts,’ + from √ מגד, Arabic _maǧada_ = ‘be noble.’――=55.= וְאָחִיהָ] LXX, + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate read וְאַחֶיהָ; and so Peshiṭtå, Vulgate and many + Greek cursives in ⁵³.――ימים או עשור] ‘a few days, say ten,’ is a + fairly satisfying rendering (LXX ἡμέρας ὡσεὶ δέκα); ‘a year + or ten months’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Rashi) is hardly admissible. + But the text seems uncertain: _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ ימים או חדש; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (compare 29¹⁴). + In deference to _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + Peshiṭtå we may insert חֹדֶשׁ before יָמִים: ‘a month or at least + ten days’ (Olshausen, Ball).――תֵּלֵךְ] probably 3rd feminine (so + all Versions).――=59.= מנקתה] LXX τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῆς = מִקְנָתָהּ, a + word of Priestly-Code.――=60.= אַתְּ is appositional vocative, not + subject to אֲחֹתֵנוּ (_soror nostra es_, Vulgate).――הֲיִי] with abnormal + ־ֲ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 63 _q_).――שנאיו] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ איביו, as 22¹⁷. + + * * * * * + +=62‒67. The home-bringing of Rebekah.=――=62.= _Now Isaac had come ..._] +What follows is hardly intelligible. The most probable sense is that +during the servant’s absence Isaac had removed to Beer-laḥai-roi, and +that near that well the meeting took place. + + The difficulty lies partly in the corrupt מִבּוֹא (_v.i._), partly + in the circumstantial form of the sentence, and partly in the + unexplained disappearance of Abraham. Keeping these points + in mind, the most conservative exegesis is that of Delitzsch: + Isaac (supposed to be living with his father at Beersheba) ‘was + coming _from a walk in the direction of_ Beersheba’, when he met + the camels; this, however, makes וַיֵּצֵא (⁶³) pluperfect, which is + hardly right. More recent writers proceed on the assumption that + the death of Abraham had been explicitly recorded. Holzinger + suggests that Isaac had removed to Laḥairoi during his father’s + life (transposing 25¹¹ᵇ before 24²), and that now he comes + _from_ that place (reads מִמִּדְבַּֽר) on hearing of Abraham’s death. + Dillmann reads ⁶²ᵃ ויבא[יצחק] אל מדבר ב׳, and finds in these words + the notice of Isaac’s migration _to_ Beersheba.――Kautzsch-Socin, + reading as Dillmann, but making the servant implicit subject + of ויבא, puts the chief hiatus between ⁶¹ᵃ and ⁶¹ᵇ: the servant + on his return learned that Abraham was dead; then (⁶¹ᵇ) took + Rebekah and went further; and (⁶²ᵃ) came to Laḥairoi.――Gunkel + (operating with two sources) considers ⁶² the immediate sequel + to ⁶¹ᵃ in the document where Abraham’s death preceded the + servant’s departure, so that nothing remained to be chronicled + but Isaac’s removal to Laḥairoi (reads מְבוֹא, ‘to the entrance + of’). This solution is attractive, and could perhaps be carried + through independently of his division of sources. For even if + the death followed the departure, it might very well have been + recorded in the early part of the chapter (after ¹⁰). + + * * * * * + + =62.= מִבּוֹא] cannot be infinitive construct with מִן; the French + _il vint d’arriver_ (Hupfeld 29) has no analogy in Hebrew idiom. + Nor can it readily be supposed equivalent to מִלְּבוֹא (1 Kings 8⁶⁵; + Delitzsch _v.s._); for the _direction_ in which Isaac took + his walk is an utterly irrelevant circumstance, _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX (διὰ τῆς ἐρήμου) read + במדבר, from which a fairly suitable text (מִדְבַּֽר or מִמּ׳) could be + obtained (compare Dillmann and Holzinger _s._). Gunkel’s מְבוֹא + (as accusative of direction) has no parallel except the very + remote one of מבואת ים, Ezekiel 27³ (of the situation of Tyre). + Other suggestions are to delete the word as an uncorrected + lapse of the pen; to read מִבְּאֵר with omission of the following + בְּאֵר (Lagarde, Procksch); to substitute מבא[רשׁבע] (‘from Beersheba + to’: Ball).――באר לחי ראי] LXX (here and 25¹¹) τὸ φρέαρ τῆς ὁράσεως, + omitting לחי; refer to page 289 above. + + * * * * * + +=63.= לָשׂוּחַ] a word of uncertain meaning, possibly _to roam_ +(_v.i._).――_toward the approach of evening_] (Deuteronomy 23¹²), when +the Oriental walks abroad (compare 3⁸).――_camels were coming_] In the +distance he cannot discern them as his own.――=64.= At the sight of +a stranger Rebekah dismounts (נָפַל as 2 Kings 5²¹), a mark of respect +still observed in the East (_The Land and the Book_, i. 762; Seetzen, +_Reisen_, iii. 190); compare Joshua 15¹⁸, 1 Samuel 25²³.――=65.= _It +is my master_] Apparently the servant is aware, before meeting Isaac, +that Abraham is dead.――The putting on of the _veil_ (compare _nubere +viro_), the survival of a primitive marriage taboo, is part of the +wedding ceremony (see Lane, _An Account of the Manners and Customs +of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, i. 217 f.).――=67.= _brought her into the +tent_] The next phrase (שָׂרָה אִמּוֹ) violates a fundamental rule of syntax, +and must be deleted as a gloss. Isaac’s own tent is referred to. This +is the essential feature of the marriage ceremony in the East (see +Benzinger _Hebräische Archäologie_² 108 f.).――_comforted himself +after_ [the death of] _his mother_] It is conjectured (Wellhausen +al.) that the real reading was ‘his father,’ whose death had recently +taken place. The change would naturally suggest itself after Yahwist’s +account of the death of Abraham had been suppressed in accordance with +Priestly-Code’s chronology. The death of Sarah is likewise unrecorded +by Yahwist or Elohist. + + * * * * * + + =63.= לָשׂוּחַ] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον commonly identified with שֵׁיחַ = + ‘muse,’ ‘complain,’ ‘talk,’ etc.; so LXX (ἀδολεσχῆσαι), Aquila + (ὁμιλῆσαι), Symmachus (λαλῆσαι), Vulgate (_ad meditandum_: so + Tuch, Delitzsch), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (לצלאה: Rashi); Dillmann, + Kautzsch-Socin, al. think the sense of ‘mourning’ (for his + father) most probable; but? Abraham Ibn Ezra (‘to walk among + the shrubs’) and Böttcher (‘to gather brushwood’) derive from שֵׁיחַ + (21¹⁵). Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) is thought to rest on a reading + לָשׁוּט (adopted by Gesenius al.), but is rather a conjecture. + Nöldeke (_Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft_ 43 f.) + suggests a connexion with Arabic _sāḥa_ = ‘stroll’ (point + לָשׁוּחַ).――הגמלים of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is + wrong (_v.s._).――=65.= הַלָּזֶה] 37¹⁹†; _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ הלז.――הצעיף] 38¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹† (Yahwist). On the article + compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _s_. After Lagarde’s brilliant + note (_Semitica_ 23 ff.), it can scarcely be doubted that the + word denotes a large double square wrapper or shawl, of any + material.――=67.= ויבאה] LXX εἰσῆλθεν δέ.――האהלה שרה] article with + construct is violently ungrammatical; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 + _f_.――For אִמּוֹ² read מוֹת אָבִיו (Kittel) _v.s._ + + * * * * * + + + XXV. 1‒6. + _The Sons of Ḳeṭurah_ + (Yahwist? Redactor?). + +The Arabian tribes with whom the Israelites acknowledged a looser +kinship than with the Ishmaelites or Edomites are here represented as +the offspring of Abraham by a second marriage (compare 1 Chronicles +1³² ᶠᐧ). + + The names Midian, Sheba, Dedan (see below) show that these + Ḳeṭurean peoples must be sought in North Arabia, and in the + tract of country partly assigned to the Ishmaelites in verse + ¹⁸. The fact that in Judges 8²⁴ Midianites are classed as + Ishmaelites (compare Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) points to some confusion + between the two groups, which in the absence of a Yahwistic + genealogy of Ishmael it is impossible altogether to clear up. + Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen + Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 29¹) has dropped a hint that + Ḳeṭurah may be but a traditional variant of Hagar;¹ Holzinger + conjectures that the names in ²⁻⁴ are taken from Yahwist’s + lost Ishmaelite genealogy; and Kent (_Students’ Old Testament_, + i. 101) thinks it not improbable that Ḳeṭurah was originally + the wife of Ishmael. Glaser (ii. 450) considers the Ḳeṭureans + remains of the ancient Minæan people, and not essentially + different from the Ishmaelites and Edomites. See, further, on + verse ¹⁸ below. + + ¹ So Jewish interpreters: Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, _Bereshith Rabba_, + Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_, + Rashi (but not Abraham Ibn Ezra). + + _Source._――(a) The genealogy (¹⁻⁴) contains slight traces of + Yahwist in יָלַר, ³; כָּל־אֵלָּה בְּנֵי ⁴ (compare 10²⁹ 9¹⁹); Priestly-Code + is excluded by ילד, and the discrepancy with 10⁷ as to Sheba + and Dedan; while Elohist appears not to have contained any + genealogies at all. The verses must therefore be assigned to + some Yahwistic source, in spite of the different origin given + for Sheba in 10²⁸.――(b) The section as a whole cannot, however, + belong to the primary Yahwistic document; because there the + death of Abraham had already been recorded in chapter 24, and + 24³⁶ refers _back_ to 25⁵.¹ We must conclude that 25¹⁻⁶ is the + work of a compiler, who has incorporated the genealogy, and + taken verse ⁵ from its original position (see on 24³⁶) to bring + it into connexion with Abraham’s death. These changes may have + been made in a revised edition of Yahwist (so Gunkel); but in + this case we must suppose that the account of Abraham’s death + was also transferred from chapter 24, to be afterwards replaced + by the notice of Priestly-Code. It seems to me easier (in view + of ¹¹ᵇ and ¹⁸) to hold that the adjustments were effected during + the final redaction of the Pentateuch, in accordance with the + chronological scheme of Priestly-Code. + + ¹ The mere transposition of 25¹⁻⁶ before chapter 24 (Hupfeld, + Wellhausen, al.) does not fully meet the difficulty, there + being, in fact, no suitable place for a second marriage of + Abraham anywhere in the original Yahwist (Holzinger). + +=1.= _Ḳĕṭûrāh_, called a ‘concubine’ in 1 Chronicles 1³² (compare +verse ⁶ below), is here a _wife_, the death of Sarah being presupposed. +The name occurs nowhere else, and is probably fictitious, though +Arabian genealogists speak of a tribe _Ḳaṭūra_ in the vicinity of +Mecca (Knobel-Dillmann). There is no ‘absurdity’ (Delitzsch) in the +suggestion that it may contain an allusion to the traffic in incense +(קְטוֹרָה) which passed through these regions (see Meyer _Die Israeliten +und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 313).――=2‒4.= The Ḳeṭurean stock is divided +into 6 (LXX 7) main branches, of which only one, Midian, attained +historic importance. The minor groups number 10 (LXX 12), including +the well-known names Sheba and Dedan. + + =2.= זִמְרָן (Ζεβράν, Ζομβράν, etc.) has been connected with the + Ζαβράμ [Ζαδραμ?] of Ptolemy vi. 7. 5, West of Mecca (Knobel); + and with the _Zamareni_ of Pliny, _Naturalis Historia_, vi. + 158, in the interior; but these are probably too far South. + The name is probably derived from זֶמֶר = ‘wild goat,’ the ending + _ān_ (which is common in the Ḳeṭurean and Ḥorite lists and + rare elsewhere) being apparently gentilic: compare זִמְרִי, Numbers + 25¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 2⁶ 8³⁶ 9⁴². A connexion with זִמְרִי (Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word)), Jeremiah 25²⁵ is very doubtful. On יָקְשָׁן (Ἰεξάν, + Ἱεκτάν, etc.) see on verse ³――מְדָן (Μαδαίμ)] unknown. Wetzstein + instances a Wādī Medān near the ruins of Daidan.――מִדְיָן (Μαδιάμ)] + The name appears as Μοδίανα = Μαδιαμα in Ptolemy vi. 7. 2, 27 + (compare Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 257; Eusebius + _Onomasticon_, page 276), the _Madyan_ of Arab geography, a town + on the East side of the Gulf of Aḳaba, opposite the South end + of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, + 3081). The chief seat of this great tribe or nation must + therefore have been in the northern Ḥiǧāz, whence roving bands + ravaged the territory of Moab, Edom (Genesis 36³⁵), and Israel + (Judges 6‒8). The mention of Midianites in the neighbourhood of + Horeb may be due to a confusion between Yahwist and Elohist (see + Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 3 f.); and after + the time of the Judges they practically disappear from history. + “As to their occupations, we sometimes find them described as + peaceful shepherds, sometimes as merchants [Genesis 37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶, + Isaiah 60⁶], sometimes as roving warriors, delighting to + raid the more settled districts” (Nöldeke).――יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ have + been identified by Friedrich Delitzsch (_Zeitschrift für + Keilschriftsforschung_, ii. 91 f., _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297 f.) + and Glaser (ii. 445 f.), with _Yasbuḳ_ and _Sûḫu_ of Assyrian + monuments (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 159, 33, 99, + 101), both regions of northern Syria. Delitzsch has since + abandoned the latter identification (_Hiob_, 139) for phonetic + reasons.――=3.= שְׁבָא and דְּדָן] see on 10⁷. As they are there + bracketed under רַֽעֲמָה, so here under יָקְשָׁן, a name otherwise unknown. + The equation with יָקְטָן (10²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), proposed by Tuch and accepted + by Meyer (318), is phonologically difficult. Since the Sabæans + are here still in the North, it would seem that this genealogy + goes farther back than that of the Yokṭanite Arabs in chapter + 10. Between Sheba and Dedan, LXX inserts Θαιμάν (= תֵימָא, verse + ¹⁵).――=3b.= The sons of Dedan are wanting in 1 Chronicles, + and are probably interpolated here (note the plural). LXX + has in addition Ραγουὴλ (compare 36¹⁰) καὶ Ναβδεήλ (compare + verse ¹³).――אַשּׁוּרִם] certainly not the Assyrians (אַשּׁוּר), but some + obscure North Arabian tribe,――_possibly_ the אאשר mentioned + on two Minæan inscriptions along with מצר (Egypt), עבר נהרן, and + Gaza (Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated + by the Monuments_, 248 f., 252 f., _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen + arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 297 ff.; Glaser, ii. 455 + ff.; Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, i. 28 f.; König, + _Fünf Landschaften_, 9: compare, on the other side, Meyer + _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xi. 327 ff., _Die Israeliten + und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 320 ff.).――לְטוּשִׁם] The personal name לטשו + (as also אשורו) has been found in Nabatean inscriptions; see Levy, + _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xiv. + 403 f., 447, 477 f., where attention is called to the prevalence + of craftsmen’s names in these inscriptions, and a connexion of + ל׳ with לֹטֵשׁ in 4²² is suggested.――=4.= Five sons of Midian.――עֵיפָה + is named along with Midian in Isaiah 60⁶ as a trading tribe. + It has been identified with the _Ḫayapa_ (= עֲיָפָה?) mentioned + by Tiglath-pileser IV. and Sargon, along with some 6 other + rebellious Arab tribes (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, + ii. 21, 43): see Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 304, _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 58.――With עֵפֶר, + Wetzstein compares the modern _‛Ofr_ (Dillmann); Glaser + (449), Assyrian _Apparu_ (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. + 223).――חֲנֹךְ] Perhaps _Hanākiya_ near _‛Ofr_ (Knobel-Dillmann).――It + is noteworthy that these three names――עיפה, 1 Chronicles 2⁴⁶ ᶠᐧ; + עפר, 1 Chronicles 4¹⁷ 5²⁴; חנך, Genesis 46⁹, Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers + 26⁵, 1 Chronicles 5³――are found in the Hebrew tribes most + exposed to contact with Midian (Judah, Manasseh, Reuben). + Does this show an incorporation of Midianite clans in Israel? + (Nöldeke).――אֲבִידָע (_‛Abî-yada‛a_) and אֶלְדָּעָה (_’Il- yeda‛_ and + _Yeda-’il_) are personal names in Sabæan, the former being borne + by several kings (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, xxvii. 648, xxxvii. 399; Glasser ii. 449). + +=5.= See on 24³⁶.――=6.= The exodus of the _Bnê Ḳedem_ (composed by +a redactor).――_the concubines_] apparently Hagar and Ḳeṭurah, though +neither bears that opprobrious epithet in Genesis: in 16³ Hagar +is even called אִשָּׁה. Moreover, Ishmael and his mother, according to +Yahwist and Elohist, had long been separated from Abraham.――_sent +them away from off Isaac_] so as not to be a burden upon him. Compare +Judges 11².――_eastward to the land of Ḳedem_] the Syro-Arabian desert. + + So we must render, unless (with Gunkel) we are to take the two + phrases קֵדְמָה and אֶל־אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם as variants. But קֶדֶם in Old Testament + is often a definite geographical expression, denoting the region + East and South-east of the Dead Sea (compare 29¹, Numbers 23⁷, + Judges 6³ᐧ ³³ 7¹² 8¹⁰, Isaiah 11¹⁴, Jeremiah 49²⁸, Ezekiel 25⁴ᐧ ¹⁰, + Job 1³); and although its appellative significance could, of + course, not be forgotten, it has almost the force of a proper + name. It is so used in the Egyptian romance of Sinuhe (_circa_ + 1900 B.C.): see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 46 f.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels in + Einzeldarstellungen_, 52 ff.; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 243 f. + + * * * * * + + =5= end] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Peshiṭtå + בְּנוֹ.――=6.= פִּילֶגֶשׁ (see on 22²⁴) is used of שִׁפְחָה in + 35²².――אשר לאברהם] LXX αὐτοῦ. + + * * * * * + + + XXV. 7‒11. + _The Death and Burial of Abraham_ + (Priestly-Code). + + ⁷⁻¹¹ᵃ are the continuation of 23²⁰ in Priestly-Code. Note the + characteristic phrases: יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי, ⁷; גָּוַע, בְּשֶׁיבָה טוֹבָה, נֶֽאֱסַף אֶל־עַמָּיו ⁸; אֱלֹהִים, + ¹¹ᵃ; the chronology ⁷, the reminiscences of chapter 23, and the + backward reference in 49³¹.――¹¹ᵇ belongs to Yahwist. + +=8.= _gathered to his kindred_ (see on 17¹⁴)] Originally, this and +similar phrases (15¹⁵ 47³⁰, Deuteronomy 31¹⁶ etc.) denoted burial +in the family sepulchre; but the popular conception of Sheôl as a +vast aggregate of graves in the under world enabled the language +to be applied to men who (like Abraham) were buried far from +their ancestors.――_Isaac and Ishmael_] The expulsion of Ishmael is +consistently ignored by Priestly-Code.――=11a.= Transition to the +history of Isaac (25¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ). + + ¹¹ᵇ (like verse ⁵) has been torn from its context in Yahwist, + where it may have stood after 24¹ 25⁵, or (more probably) + after the notice of Abraham’s death (compare 24⁶²). Meyer + (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 253, 323) makes the + improbable conjecture that the statement referred originally + to Ishmael, and formed, along with verse ¹⁸, the conclusion of + chapter 16. + + * * * * * + + =8.= ויגוע וימת] verse ¹⁷ 35²⁹; see on 6¹⁷.――ושבע] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX better ושבע ימים, as + 35²⁹.――ויאסף וגו׳] so 25¹⁷ 35²⁹ 49²⁹ᐧ ³³, Numbers 20²⁴ᐧ ²⁶ 27¹³ 31², + Deuteronomy 32⁵⁰† (all Priestly-Code).――=10.= השדה] LXX + καὶ + τὸ σπήλαιον.――=11.= לחי ראי] see on 24⁶². + + * * * * * + + + XXV. 12‒18. + _The Genealogy and Death of Ishmael_ + (Priestly-Code). + +With the exception of verse ¹⁸, which is another isolated fragment of +Yahwist, the passage is an excerpt from the _Tôledôth_ of the Priestly +Code.――The names of the genealogy (¹³⁻¹⁶) represent at once ‘princes’ +(נְשֵׁיאִם: compare the promise of 17²⁰) and ‘peoples’ (אֻמֹּת, ¹⁶); that is +to say, they are the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes which +are here treated as forming a political confederacy under the name of +Ishmael. + + In the geography of Priestly-Code the Ishmaelites occupy a + territory intermediate between the Arabian Cushites on the + South (10⁷), the Edomites, Moabites, etc., on the West, and + the Aramæans on the North (10²² ᶠᐧ); _i.e._, roughly speaking, + the Syro-Arabian desert north of Ǧebel Shammar. In Yahwist they + extend West to the border of Egypt (verse ¹⁸).――The Ishmaelites + have left very little mark in history. From the fact that + they are not mentioned in Egyptian or Assyrian records, Meyer + infers that their flourishing period was from the 12th to the + 9th centuries B.C. (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, + 324). In Old Testament the latest possible traces of Ishmael + as a people are in the time of David (compare 2 Samuel 17²⁵, + 1 Chronicles 2¹⁷ 27³⁰), though the name occurs sporadically + as that of an individual or clan in much later times (Jeremiah + 40⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, 2 Kings 25²³, 1 Chronicles 8³⁸ 9⁴⁴, 2 Chronicles 19¹¹ + 23¹, Ezra 10²²). In Genesis 37²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 8²⁴, it is possible + that ‘Ishmaelites’ is synonymous with Bedouin in general (see + Meyer, 326). + + =13.= נְבָיֹת וְקֵדָר] are the _Nabayati_ and _Ḳidri_ of Assyrian + monuments (Asshurbanipal: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. + 215 ff.; compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 297, 299; _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 151), and possibly the + _Nabatæi_ and _Cedrei_ of Pliny, v. 65 (compare vi. 157, etc.). + The references do not enable us to locate them with precision, + but they must be put somewhere in the desert East of Palestine + or Edom. The Nabatæans of a later age (see Schürer, _Geschichte + des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_³ᐧ ⁴, i. 728 ff.) + were naturally identified with נְבָיֹת by Josephus (_Antiquities + of the Jews_ i. 220 f.), Jerome (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones + hebraicæ in Genesim_), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [נבט], as they still are + by Schrader, Schürer, and some others. But since the native name + of the Nabatæans was נבטו, the identification is doubtful, and is + now mostly abandoned. The two tribes are mentioned together in + Isaiah 60⁷: נְבָיֹת alone only Genesis 28⁹ 36³; but קֵדָר is alluded to + from the time of Jeremiah downwards as a typical nomadic tribe + of the Eastern desert. In late Hebrew the name was extended to + the Arabs as a whole (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ערב).――אַדְבְּאֵל (Ναβδεήλ: + see on verse ³)] Perhaps an Arab tribe _Idibi’il_ which + Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 21) + appointed to watch the Egyptian frontier (not necessarily the + border of Egypt proper).――מִבְשָׂם] a Simeonite clan (1 Chronicles + 4²⁵), otherwise not known.――=14.= מִשְׁמָע follows מבשם in + 1 Chronicles 4²⁵. Dillmann compares a _Ǧebel Misma’_ South-east + of Kāf, and another near Ḥāyil East of Teima.――דּוּמָה] Several + places bearing this name are known (Dillmann); but the one that + best suits this passage is the Dūmah which Arabic writers place + 4 days’ journey North of Teima: viz. _Dūmat el-Ǧendel_, now + called _el-Ǧōf_, a great oasis in the South of the Syrian desert + and on the border of the _Nefūd_ (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia + Deserta_ ii. 607; compare Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria and + the Holy Land._ 602). It is probably the Δούμαιθα of Ptolemy + v. 18 (19). 7, the _Domata_ of Pliny vi. 157.――מַשָּׂא] See on + 10³⁰, and compare Proverbs 31¹. A tribe _Mas’a_ is named by + Tiglath-pileser IV. along with Teima (verse ¹⁵), Saba’, Hayapa + (⁴), Idibi’il (¹³), and may be identical with the Μασανοι + of Ptolemy v. 18 (19). 2, North-east of Δούμαιθα.――=15.= חֲדַד] + unknown.――תֵּימָא (Isaiah 21¹⁴, Jeremiah 25²³, Job 6¹⁹) is the + modern _Teima_, on the West border of the Neǧd, _circa_ 250 + miles South-east of Aḳāba, still an important caravan station on + the route from Yemen to Syria, and (as local inscriptions show) + in ancient times the seat of a highly developed civilisation: + see the descriptions in Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_ i. + 285 ff., 549 ff.――יְטוּר and נָפִישׁ are named together in 1 Chronicles + 5¹⁹ among the East-Jordanic tribes defeated by the Reubenites in + the time of Saul. יטור is no doubt the same people which emerges + about 100 B.C. under the name Ἰτουραῖοι, as a body of fierce and + predatory mountaineers settled in the Anti-Lebanon (see Schürer, + _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_, + i. 707 ff.).――Of קֵדְמָה nothing is known. Should we read נוֹדָב + as 1 Chronicles 5¹⁹ (Ball, Kittel)?――=16.= בְּחַצְרֵיהֶם] ‘in their + settlements’ or ‘villages’; compare Isaiah 42¹¹ ‘the villages + that Kedar doth inhabit.’――וּבְטִירֹתָם] טִרָה (Numbers 31¹⁰, Ezekiel + 25⁴, Psalms 69²⁶, 1 Chronicles 6³⁹) is apparently a technical + term for the circular encampment of a nomadic tribe. According + to Doughty (i. 261), the Arabic _dīrah_ denotes the Bedouin + circuit, but also, in some cases, their town settlements.――לְאֻמֹּתָם] + ‘according to their peoples.’ אֻמֶּה is the Arabic _’ummat_, rare in + Hebrew (Numbers 25¹⁵, Psalms 117¹†).――=17.= Compare verses ⁷ᐧ ⁸. + + Verse ¹⁸ is a stray verse of Yahwist, whose original setting + it is impossible to determine. There is much plausibility in + Holzinger’s conjecture that it was the conclusion of Yahwist’s + lost genealogy of Ishmael (compare 10¹⁹ᐧ ³⁰). Gunkel thinks it + was taken from the end of chapter 16: similarly Meyer, who makes + ¹¹ᵇ (page 352 above) a connecting link. Dillmann suggests that + the first half may have followed 25⁶, the reference being not + to the Ishmaelites but to the Ḳeṭureans; and that the second + half is a gloss from 16¹². But even ¹⁸ᵃ is not consistent with + ¹¹ᵇ, for we have seen that the Ḳeṭureans are found East and + South-east of Palestine, and Shûr is certainly not ‘eastward’ + from where Abraham dwelt.――If Ḥavîlah has been rightly located + on page 202 above, Yahwist fixes the eastern limit of the + Ishmaelites in the neighbourhood of the Ǧōf es-Sirhān, while the + western limit is the frontier of Egypt (on _Shûr_, see on 16⁷). + This description is, of course, inapplicable to Priestly-Code’s + Ishmaelites; but it agrees sufficiently with the statement of + Elohist (21²¹) that their home was the wilderness of Paran; + and it includes Lahai-roi, which was presumably an Ishmaelite + sanctuary. Since a reference to Assyria is here out of place, + the words בֹּאֲכָה אַשּׁוּרָה must be either deleted as a gloss (Wellhausen, + Dillmann, Meyer, al.), or else read בּ׳ אָשׁוּרָה; אָשׁוּר being the + hypothetical North Arabian tribe supposed to be mentioned in + 25³ (so Gunkel; compare Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition + as illustrated by the Monuments_, 240 f.; König _Fünf Neue + Arabische Landschaftsnamen im Alten Testament_ 11 ff.), a + view for which there is very little justification.――¹⁸ᵇ is + an adaptation of 16¹²ᵇ, but throws no light on that difficult + sentence. Perhaps the best commentary is Judges 7¹², where again + the verb נָפַל has the sense of ‘settle’ (= שָׁכֵן in 16¹²). Hommel’s + restoration עַל־פְּנֵי כֶלַח, ‘in front of Kelaḥ’ (a secondary gloss on + אַשּׁוּר), is a brilliant example of misplaced ingenuity. + + + + + THE HISTORY OF JACOB. + CHAPTERS XXV. 19‒XXXVI. + + + Setting aside chapter 26 (a misplaced appendix to the history + of Abraham: see page 363), and chapter 36 (Edomite genealogies), + the third division of the Book of Genesis is devoted exclusively + to the biography of Jacob. The legends which cluster round the + name of this patriarch fall into four main groups (see Gunkel + 257 ff.). + + A. _Jacob and Esau_: + + 1. The birth and youth of Esau and Jacob (25¹⁹⁻²⁸). 2. The + transference of the birthright (25²⁹⁻³⁴). 3. Jacob procures his + father’s blessing by a fraud (27). + + B. _Jacob and Laban_: + + 1. Jacob’s meeting with Rachel (29¹⁻¹⁴). 2. His marriage to + Leah and Rachel (29¹⁵⁻³⁰). 3. The births of Jacob’s children + (29³¹‒30²⁴). 4. Jacob’s bargain with Laban (30²⁵⁻⁴³). 5. The + flight from Laban and the Treaty of Gilead (31¹‒32¹). + + C. _Jacob’s return to Canaan_ (loose and fragmentary): + + 1. Jacob’s measures for appeasing Esau (32⁴⁻²²).¹ 2. The meeting + of the brothers (33¹⁻¹⁷).¹ 3. The sack of Shechem (34). 4. The + visit to Bethel, etc. (35¹⁻¹⁵). 5. The birth of Benjamin and + death of Rachel (35¹⁶⁻²⁰). 6. Reuben’s incest (35²¹ ᶠᐧ). + + D. Interspersed amongst these are several _cult-legends_, + connected with sanctuaries of which Jacob was the reputed + founder. + + 1. The dream at Bethel (28¹⁰⁻²²)――a transition from A to B. + 2. The encounter with angels at Mahanaim――a fragment (32² ᶠᐧ). + 3. The wrestling at Peniel (32²³⁻³³). 4. The purchase of a lot + at Shechem (33¹⁸⁻²⁰). 5. The second visit to Bethel――partly + biographical (see below) (35¹⁻¹⁵). + + ¹ Gunkel recognises a second series of Jacob-Esau stories in + C. 1, 2; but these are entirely different in character from + the group A. To all appearance they are conscious literary + creations, composed in a biographical interest, and without + historical or ethnographic significance. + + The section on Jacob exhibits a much more intimate fusion + of sources than that on Abraham. The _disjecta membra_ of + Priestly-Code’s epitome can, indeed, be distinguished without + much difficulty, viz. 25¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁶ᵇ 26³⁴ ᶠᐧ 28¹⁻⁹ 29²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵇᐧ ²⁹ + 30⁴ᵃᐧ ⁹ᵇᐧ ²²ᵃ 31¹⁸ᵃ{βγδ}ᵇ 33¹⁸ᵃ{β} 35⁶ᵃᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ ¹¹⁻¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²²ᵇ⁻²⁶ᐧ + ²⁷⁻²⁹ 36¹. Even here, however, the redactor has allowed + himself a freedom which he hardly uses in the earlier portions + of Genesis. Not only are there omissions in Priestly-Code’s + narrative to be supplied from the other sources, but + transposition seems to have been resorted to in order to + preserve the sequence of events in Jehovist.――The rest of + the material is taken from the composite Jehovist, with the + exception of chapter 34, which seems to belong to an older stage + of tradition (see page 418). But the component documents are no + longer represented by homogeneous sections (like chapters 16. + 18 f. [Yahwist], 20. 22 [Elohist]); they are so closely and + continuously blended that their separation is always difficult + and occasionally impossible, while no lengthy context can be + wholly assigned to the one or to the other.――These phenomena + are not due to a deliberate change of method on the part of + the redactors, but rather to the material with which they had + to deal. The Yahwist and Elohist recensions of the life of + Jacob were so much alike, and so complete, that they ran easily + into a single compound narrative whose strands are naturally + often hard to unravel; and of so closely knit a texture that + Priestly-Code’s skeleton narrative had to be broken up here and + there in order to fit into the connexion. + + To trace the growth of so complex a legend as that of Jacob is + a tempting but perhaps hopeless undertaking. It may be surmised + that the Jacob-Esau (A) and Jacob-Laban (B) stories arose + independently and existed separately, the first in the south + of Judah, and the second east of the Jordan. The amalgamation + of the two cycles gave the idea of Jacob’s flight to Aram and + return to Canaan; and into this framework were fitted various + cult-legends which had presumably been preserved at the + sanctuaries to which they refer. As the story passed from mouth + to mouth, it was enriched by romantic incidents like the meeting + of Jacob and Rachel at the well, or the reconciliation of Jacob + and Esau; and before it came to be written down by Yahwist and + Elohist, the history of Jacob as a whole must have assumed a + fixed form in Israelite tradition. Its most remarkable feature + is the strongly marked biographic motive which lends unity + to the narrative, and of which the writers must have been + conscious,――the development of Jacob’s character from the + unscrupulous roguery of chapters 25, 27 to the moral dignity + of 32 ff. Whether tradition saw in him a type of the national + character of Israel is more doubtful. + + As regards the historicity of the narratives, it has to be + observed in the first place that the _ethnographic_ idea is much + more prominent in the story of Jacob than in that of any other + patriarch. It is obvious that the Jacob-Esau stories of chapters + 25, 27 reflect the relations between the nations of Israel and + Edom; and similarly at the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban + appear as representatives of Israelites and Aramæans. It has + been supposed that the ethnographic motive, which comes to + the surface in these passages, runs through the entire series + of narratives (though disguised by the biographic form), and + that by means of it we may extract from the legends a kernel of + ancient tribal history. Thus, according to Steuernagel, Jacob + (or Ya‛ăḳōb-ēl) was a Hebrew tribe which, being overpowered by + the Edomites, sought refuge among the Aramæans, and afterwards, + reinforced by the absorption of an Aramæan clan (Rachel), + returned and settled in Canaan: the events being placed between + the Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Palestine (_Die + Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 38 ff., + 56 ff.: compare Bennett 286). There are indeed few parts of the + patriarchal history where this kind of interpretation yields + more plausible results; and it is quite possible that the above + construction contains elements of truth. At the same time, + the method is one that requires to be applied with very great + caution. In the first place, it is not certain that Jacob, Esau, + and Laban were _originally_ personifications of Israel, Edom, + and Aram respectively: they may be real historic individuals; or + they may be mythical heroes round whose names a rich growth of + legend had gathered before they were identified with particular + peoples. In the second place, even if they were personified + tribes, the narrative must necessarily contain many features + which belong to the personifications, and have no ethnological + significance whatever. If, _e.g._, one set of legends describes + Israel’s relations with Edom in the south and another its + relations with the Aramæans in the east, it was necessary + that the ideal ancestor of Israel should be represented as + journeying from the one place to the other; but we have no right + to conclude that a similar migration was actually performed by + the nation of Israel. And there are many incidents even in this + group of narratives which cannot naturally be understood of + dealings between one tribe and another. As a general rule, the + ethnographic interpretation must be confined to those incidents + where it is either indicated by the terms of the narrative, or + else confirmed by external evidence. + + + XXV. 19‒34. + _The Birth of Esau and Jacob, + and the Transference of the Birthright_ + (Priestly-Code, Jehovist). + +In answer to Isaac’s prayer, Rebekah conceives and bears twin children, +Esau and Jacob. In the circumstances of their birth (²¹⁻²⁶), and in +their contrasted modes of life (²⁷ᐧ ²⁸), Hebrew legend saw prefigured +the national characteristics, the close affinity, and the mutual +rivalry of the two peoples, Edom and Israel; while the story of Esau +selling his birthright (²⁹⁻³⁴) explains how Israel, the younger nation, +obtained the ascendancy over the older, Edom. + + _Analysis._――verses ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ are taken from Priestly-Code; note + וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת, הוֹלִיד, הָאֲרַמִּי (_bis_), פַּדַּן אֲרָם. To Priestly-Code must also + be referred the chronological notice ²⁶ᵇ, which shows that + an account of the birth of the twins in that source has been + suppressed in favour of Yahwist. There is less reason to + suspect a similar omission of the marriage of Isaac before + verse ²⁰.――The rest of the passage belongs to the composite + work Jehovist. The stylistic criteria (יהוה 21 ²¹ ᵇⁱˢᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³; + עָתַר, ²¹ ᵇⁱˢ; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ²²; צָעִיר, ²³) and the resemblance of ²⁴⁻²⁶ to + 38²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ point to Yahwist as the leading source of ²¹⁻²⁸; though + Elohistic variants may possibly be detected in ²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ (Dillmann, + Gunkel, Procksch, al.). Less certainty obtains with regard + to ²⁹⁻³⁴, which most critics are content to assign to Yahwist + (so Dillmann, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Cornill, Kautzsch-Socin, + Holzinger, Driver, al.), while others (_Oxford Hexateuch_, + Gunkel, _Students’ Old Testament_. Procksch) assign it to + Elohist because of the allusion in 27³⁶. That reason is not + decisive, and the linguistic indications are rather in favour + of Yahwist (נָא, ³⁰; לָֽמָּה־זֶּה, ³² [Wellhausen _Die Composition des + Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² + 36]; על־כן קרא שמו, ³⁰). + +=19, 20. Isaac’s marriage.=――Priestly-Code follows Elohist (31²⁰ᐧ ²⁴) +in describing Rebekah’s Mesopotamian relatives as _Aramæans_ (compare +28⁵), though perhaps in a different sense. Here it naturally means +descendants of ’Ărām, the fifth son of Shem (10²³). That this is a +conscious divergence from the tradition of Yahwist is confirmed by +28²: see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 420 ff.――On _Bĕthû’ēl_, +see page 247 above.――_Paddan ’Ărām_] (28²ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ⁷ 31¹⁸ 33¹⁸ 35⁹ᐧ ²⁶ 46¹⁵ +[פַּדָּן alone 48⁷]: LXX Μεσοποταμίας) is Priestly-Code’s equivalent for +’Ăram Nahăraim in Yahwist (24¹⁰); and in all probability denotes the +region round Ḥarran (_v.i._). + + * * * * * + + =19.= ואלה ת׳ יצחק] commonly regarded as the heading of the section + (of Genesis or) of Priestly-Code ending with the death of Isaac + (35²⁹); but see the notes on pages 40 f., 235 f. The use of the + formula is anomalous, inasmuch as the birth of Isaac, already + recorded in Priestly-Code, is included in his own genealogy. It + looks as if the editor had handled his document somewhat freely, + inserting the words יִצְחָק בֶּן־ in the original heading תּוֹלְדֹת אַבְרָהָם] + (compare verse ¹²).――=20.= פדן] Syriac (‡ Syriac word), Arabic + _faddān_ = ‘yoke of oxen’; hence (in Arabic) a definite measure + of land (_jugerum_: compare Lane, 2353 b). A similar sense has + been claimed for Assyrian _padanu_ on the authority of II R. 62, + 33 a, b (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 135). On this view + פ׳ ארם would be equivalent to שְׂדֵה אֲרָם = ‘field of Aram’ in Hosea + 12¹³. Ordinarily, _padanu_ means ‘way’ (Delitzsch _Assyrisches + Handwörterbuch_, 515 f.); hence it has been thought that + the word is another designation of Ḥarran (see 11³¹), in the + neighbourhood of which a place _Paddānā_ (_vicus prope Ḥarran_: + Robert Payne Smith _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3039) has been known + from early Christian times: Nöldeke, however, thinks this + may be due to a Christian localisation of the biblical story + (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, i. 278). Others less plausibly connect + the name with the kingdom of _Patin_, with its centre North of + the Lake of Antioch (Winckler _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 38). + + * * * * * + +=21‒23. The pre-natal oracle.=――=21.= With the prolonged barrenness of +Rebekah, compare the cases of Sarah, and Rachel (29³¹), the mothers of +Samson (Judges 13²), Samuel (1 Samuel 1²), and John the Baptist (Luke +1⁷).――_Isaac prayed to Yahwe_] Compare 1 Samuel 1¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. No miraculous +intervention is suggested; and our only regret is that this glimpse +of everyday family piety is so tantalisingly meagre.――=22.= During +pregnancy the children _crushed one another_] ( _v.i._) in a struggle +for priority of birth. + + Compare the story of Akrisios and Proitus (Apollodorus + _Bibliotheca_ ii. 2. 1 ff.), sons of Abas, king of Argos, who + κατὰ γαστρὸς μὲν ἔτι ὄντες ἐστασίαζον πρὸς ἀλλήλους. The sequel + presents a certain parallelism to the history of Esau and Jacob, + which has a bearing on the question whether there is an element + of mythology behind the ethnological interpretation of the + biblical narrative (see pages 455 f.). Another parallel is + the Polynesian myth of the twins Tangaroa and Rongo (Cheyne + _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 356). + + * * * * * + + =21.= עתר] peculiar to Yahwist in Hexateuch: Exodus 8⁴ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ + ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶ 9²⁸ 10¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸. In Arabic _‛atr_ and _‛atīrat_ mean animals + slain in sacrifice; hence Hebrew הַעְתִּיר (Hiphil may everywhere + be read instead of Qal) probably referred originally to + sacrifice accompanied by prayer, though no trace of the + former idea survives in Hebrew: “Das Gebet ist der Zweck oder + die Interpretation des Opfers, die Begriffe liegen nahe bei + einander” (Wellhausen 142). + + * * * * * + +Rebekah, regarding this as a portent, expresses her dismay in words +not quite intelligible in the text: _If it_ [is to] _be so, why then +am I...?_] _v.i._――_to inquire of Yahwe_] to seek an oracle at the +sanctuary.――=23.= The oracle is communicated through an inspired +personality, like the Arabic _kāhin_ (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen +Heidentums_², 134 ff.), and is rhythmic in form (_ib._ 135).――_two +nations_] whose future rivalries are prefigured in the struggle of the +infants.――The point of the prophecy is in the last line: _The elder +shall serve the younger_ (see on 27²⁹ᐧ ⁴⁰). + + * * * * * + + =22.= ויתרצצו] LXX ἐσκίρτων (the same word as Luke 1⁴¹ᐧ ⁴⁴), + perhaps confusing רוץ, ‘run,’ with רצץ, ‘break.’ More correctly, + Aquila συνεθλάσθησαν; Symmachus διεπάλαιον.――אם כן למה זה אנכי] LXX εἰ + οὕτως μοι μέλλει γένεσθαι, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; But the זָה merely + emphasises the interrogative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 _c_), + and the latter part of the sentence seems incomplete: Vulgate + _quid necesse fuit concipere?_ Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). + Graetz supplies הָרָה; Dillmann, Ball, Kittel חַיָּה (compare 27⁴⁶); + Frankenberg (_Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1901, 697) + changes אנכי to אחיה, while Gunkel makes it אֻנָּה לִי (Psalms 91¹⁰), + with זה as subject.――=23.= לְאֹם] a poetic word; in Hexateuch only + 27²⁹ (Yahwist).――צעיר] ‘the small[er],’ in the sense of ‘younger,’ + is characteristic of Yahwist (19³¹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ³⁵ᐧ ³⁸ 29²⁶ 43³³, Joshua + 6²⁶ [1 Kings 16³⁴]†). + + * * * * * + +=24‒26. Birth and naming of the twins.=――=24.= Compare 38²⁷⁻³⁰, the +only other description of a twin-birth in the Old Testament.――=25.= +אַדְמוֹנִי――either _tawny_ or _red-haired_――is a play on the name Edom (see +on verse ³⁰); similarly, _all over like a mantle of hair_ (שֶׁעָר) is +a play on Sē‛îr, the country of the Edomites (36⁸). It is singular +that the name _‛Ēsāw_ itself (on which _v.i._) finds no express +etymology.――=26a.= _with his hand holding Esau’s heel_] (Hosea 12⁴) +a last effort (verse ²²) to secure the advantage of being born first. +There are no solid grounds for thinking (with Gunkel, Luther [_Die +Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 128], Nowack, al.) that Hosea 12⁴ᵃ +(בבטן עָקַב את־אחיו) presupposes a different version of the legend, in which +Jacob actually wrested the priority from his brother (compare 38²⁸ ᶠᐧ). +The clause is meant as an explanation of the name ‘Jacob.’ + + * * * * * + + =24.= תּוֹמִים] properly תְּאֹמִים (so _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_), as 38²⁷.――=25.= אַדְמוֹנִי used again only of David, + 1 Samuel 16¹² 17⁴². It is usually explained of the ‘reddish + brown’ hue of the skin; but there is much to be said for the + view that it means ‘red-haired’ (LXX πυρράκης, Vulgate _rufus_: + so Gesenius, Tuch, al.). The incongruity of the word with + the name עֵשָׂו creates a suspicion that it may be either a gloss + or a variant from a parallel source (Dillmann): for various + conjectures see Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 217²; + Cheyne _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 1333; Winckler _Altorientalische + Forschungen_, i. 344 f.――עֵשָׂו has no Hebrew etymology. The nearest + comparison is Arabic _’a‛taʸ_ (so most) = ‘hirsute’ (also + ‘stupid’), though that would require as strict Hebrew equivalent + עֵשָׁו (Driver). A connexion with the Phœnician Οὐσωος, brother of + _Šamêmrûm_, and a hero of the chase, is probable, though not + certain. There is also a goddess _‛Asît_, figured on Egyptian + monuments, who has been thought to be a female form of Esau + (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, + 316 f.).――ויקראו] LXX, Peshiṭtå ליקרא, as verse ²⁶; but _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has plural both times. In + any case the subject is indefinite.――=26.= יַֽעֲקֹב is a contraction + of יעקבאל (compare יִפְתָּח, Joshua 15⁴³), Judges 11¹ ᶠᶠᐧ with יִפְתַּח־אֵל, + Joshua 19¹⁴ᐧ ²⁷; יַבְנֶה, 2 Chronicles 26⁶ with יַבְנְאֵל, Joshua 15¹¹) + which occurs (a) as a _place_ name in central Palestine on + the list of Thothmes III. (No 102: _Y‛ḳb’r_);¹ and (b) as a + _personal_ name (_Ya‛ḳub-ilu_)² in a Babylonian contract tablet + of the age of Ḫammurabi. The most obvious interpretation of + names of this type is to take them as verbal sentences, with + ’Ēl as subject: ‘God overreaches,’ or ‘follows,’ or ‘rewards,’ + according to the sense given to the √ עקב (see Gray, _Studies + in Hebrew Proper Names_, 218).³ They may, however, be nominal + sentences: ‘Ya‛ḳōb is God’ (see Meyer 282); in which case the + meaning of the name יַֽעֲקֹב is pushed a step farther back. The + question whether Jacob was originally a tribe, a deity, or an + individual man, thus remains unsettled by etymology.――At end of + verse, LXX adds Ῥεβέκκα,――an improvement in style. + + ¹ Meyer _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + vi. 8; _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 251 f., + 281 f.; Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen + Denkmälern_, 162 f.; Luther, _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 60 ff.――The name + has since been read by Müller in a list of Ramses II., + and (defectively written) in one of Ramses III.: see + _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, 1907, + i. 27.――Questioned by Langdon, _The Expository Times_, + xxi. (1909), page 90. + + ² Hommel _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the + Monuments_, 96, 112. According to Hommel, the contracted + form _Yaḳubu_ also occurs in the Tablets (_ib._ 203¹). + + ³ In Hebrew the verb (a denominative from עָקֵב, ‘heel’) is only + used with allusion to the story or character of Jacob (27³⁶, + Hosea 12⁴, Jeremiah 9³†: in Job 37⁴ the text is doubtful), + and expresses the idea of insidiousness or treachery. So + עָקֵב (Psalms 49⁶†), עָקֹב (Jeremiah 17⁹), עָקְבָּה (2 Kings 10¹⁹†). + The meanings ‘follow’ and ‘reward’ are found in Arabic + (Brown-Driver-Briggs, 784 a). + + * * * * * + +=27, 28. Their manner of life.=――=27.= Esau becomes _a man skilled +in hunting, a man of the field_] It is hardly necessary to suppose +that the phrases are variants from different documents. Though this +conception of Esau’s occupation is not consistently maintained (see +33⁹), it has doubtless some ethnographic significance; and game +is said to be plentiful in the Edomite country (Buhl, _Edomiter_, +43).――Jacob, on the other hand, chooses the half-nomadic pastoral +life which was the patriarchal ideal. אִישׁ תָּם, elsewhere ‘an ethically +blameless man’ (Job 1⁸ etc.), here describes the _orderly_, +well-disposed _man_ (_Scoticè_, ‘douce’), as contrasted with the +undisciplined and irregular huntsman.――=28.= A preparation for chapter +27, which perhaps followed immediately on these two verses. Verse ²⁷, +however, is also presupposed by♦ + + ♦ Text missing in original book. + + * * * * * + + =28.= כִּי צַיִד בְּפִיו] A curious phrase, meaning ‘venison was to his + taste.’ It would be easier to read (with Ball al.) לְפִיו; or an + adjective (טוֹב?) may have fallen out. LXX, Peshiṭtå appear to + have read צֵידוֹ. + + * * * * * + +=29‒34. Esau parts with the birthright.=――The superiority of Israel +to Edom is popularly explained by a typical incident, familiar to the +pastoral tribes bordering on the desert, where the wild huntsman would +come famishing to the shepherd’s tent to beg for a morsel of food. At +such times the ‘man of the field’ is at the mercy of the tent-dweller; +and the ordinary Israelite would see nothing immoral in a transaction +like this, where the advantage is pressed to the uttermost.――The +legend takes no account of the fact that Edom, as a settled state +older than Israel, must have been something more than a mere nation +of hunters. The contrasted types of civilisation――Jacob the shepherd +and Esau the hunter――were firmly fixed in the popular mind; and the +supremacy of the former was an obvious corollary.――=29.= Jacob _stewed +something_: an intentionally indefinite description, the nature of +the dish being reserved as a surprise for verse ³⁴.――=30.= _Let me +gulp some of the red――that red there!_] With a slight vocalic change +(_v.i._), we may render: _some of that red seasoning_ (strictly +‘obsonium’).――_’Ĕdōm_] a play on the word for ‘red’ (אָדֹם). The name is +“a memento of the never-to-be-forgotten greed and stupidity of the +ancestor” (Gunkel).――=31.= Jacob seizes the opportunity to secure the +long-coveted ‘birthright,’ _i.e._ the superior status which properly +belonged to the first-born son. + + The rare term בְּכֹרָה denotes the advantages and rights usually + enjoyed by the eldest son, including such things as (a) natural + vigour of body and character (Genesis 49³, Deuteronomy 21¹⁷: + ∥ רֵאשִׁית אוֹן), creating a presumption of success in life, (b) a + position of honour as head of the family (Genesis 27²⁹ 49⁸), + and (c) a double share of the inheritance (Deuteronomy 21¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ). + By a legal fiction this status was conceived as transferable + from the actual first-born to another son who had proved himself + more worthy of the dignity (1 Chronicles 5¹ ᶠᐧ). When applied + to tribes or nations, it expresses superiority in political + might or material prosperity; and this is the whole content of + the notion in the narrative before us. The idea of _spiritual_ + privilege, or a mystic connexion (such as is suggested in + Hebrews 12¹⁶ ᶠᐧ) between the birthright and the blessing of + chapter 27, is foreign to the spirit of the ancient legends, + which owe their origin to ætiological reflexion on the historic + relations of Israel and Edom. The passage furnishes no support + to the ingenious theory of Jacob’s (_Biblical Archaeology_ + 46 ff.), that an older custom of “junior right” is presupposed + by the patriarchal tradition. + + * * * * * + + =29.= ויזד――נזיד] זוּד only here in the literal sense; elsewhere = + ‘act presumptuously.’ The derivative נזיד (2 Kings 4³⁸, Haggai 2¹²) + with rare prefix _na_ (common in Assyrian).――=30.= הַלְעִיטֵנִי (ἅπαξ + λεγόμενον)] a coarse expression suggesting bestial voracity; + used in New Hebrew of the feeding of cattle.――האדם האדם] The + repetition of the same word is awkward, even in an expression + of impatient greed. The emendation referred to above consists + in reading the first הָֽאֱדֹם after Arabic _’idām_ = ‘seasoning or + condiment for bread’ (compare verse ³⁴): so Boysen (cited in + Schleusner², i. 969), T. D. Anderson (_ap._ Dillmann). This is + better than (Driver al.) to make the change in both places, LXX + (τοῦ ἑψέματος τοῦ πυρροῦ τούτου) and Vulgate (_de coctione hac + rufa_) seem to differentiate the words.――=31.= כַּיּוֹם] = ‘first of + all,’ as ³³, 1 Samuel 2¹⁶, 1 Kings 1⁵¹ 22⁵ (Brown-Driver-Briggs, + 400 b). + + * * * * * + +=32.= Esau’s answer reveals the sensual nature of the man: the remoter +good is sacrificed to the passing necessity of the moment, which +his ravenous appetite leads him to exaggerate.――הֹלֵךְ לָמוּת does not mean +‘exposed to death sooner or later’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra, Dillmann, al.), +but ‘_at the point of death_ now.’――=34.= The climax of the story +is Esau’s unconcern even when he discovers that he has bartered the +birthright for such a trifle as a dish of lentil soup.――עֲדָשִׁים (2 Samuel +17²⁸, 23¹¹, Ezekiel 4⁹), still a common article of diet in Egypt and +Syria, under the name _‛adas_: the colour is said to be ‘a darkish +brown’ (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 95a).――The last clause +implies a certain moral justification of the transaction: if Esau +was defrauded, he was defrauded of that which he was incapable of +appreciating. + + + CHAPTER 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.” + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER 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. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER 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. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER 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. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XXXVI. + _Edomite Genealogies, etc._ + (partly Priestly-Code). + +The chapter consists of seven (or eight) sections: I. Esau’s wives and +children, ¹⁻⁵; II. His migration to Mount Seir, ⁶⁻⁸; III. A list of +Esau’s descendants, ⁹⁻¹⁴; IV. An enumeration of clans or clan-chiefs +of Esau, ¹⁵⁻¹⁹; V. Two Ḥorite lists: a genealogy, ²⁰⁻²⁸, and a list +of clans, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; VI. The kings of Edom, ³¹⁻³⁹; VII. A second list of +clans of Esau, ⁴⁰⁻⁴³.――The lists are repeated with variations in 1 +Chronicles 1³⁵⁻⁵⁴. + + The chapter evidently embodies authentic information regarding + the history and ethnology of Edom. Whether the statistics were + compiled by Israelite writers from oral tradition, or are the + scanty remains of a native Edomite literature, it is naturally + impossible to determine; the early development of political + institutions in Edom makes the latter hypothesis at least + credible (see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, + 329, 383 f.). + + _Analysis._――A section headed ואלה תלדות would, if homogeneous, + be unhesitatingly ascribed to Priestly-Code; but the repetition + of the formula (verse ⁹) throws doubt on its unity, and betrays + the hand of a redactor. The phraseology of Priestly-Code is + most apparent in II. and VII., but can be detected occasionally + elsewhere (²ᵃᐧ ⁵ᵇᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹²ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ³⁰ᵇ: _i.e._ in I., III., and V.). + The crucial difficulty is the contradiction as to Esau’s + wives between I. and 26³⁴ 28⁹ (see on verses ¹⁻⁵). On this + point I., III., and IV. hang together; and if these sections + are excluded, there remains nothing that can be plausibly + assigned to Priestly-Code except II. and VII. (so Wellhausen, + Kuenen, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). The argument for reducing + Priestly-Code’s share in the chapter to this minimum rests, + however, on the assumption that the Code is the compilation + of a single writer, who cannot be supposed to lapse into + self-contradiction. The facts seem to point to a redactional + process and a divergence of tradition within the Priestly school; + and I am inclined to think that in I. (?), III., and IV. we have + excerpts from the book of Tôledôth incorporated in Priestly-Code, + whose main narrative will have included 26³⁴ 28⁹, and in which + 35²⁹ 36⁶⁻⁸ 37¹ may have read continuously. VII. must then + be rejected as a late compilation in which the style of the + Tôledôth is successfully imitated (so Meyer).――As regards V. and + VI. little can be said. The former might well have been part of + the Tôledôth; the latter is unique in Genesis, and there are no + positive reasons for assigning it to Yahwist (so most) or any + other source. + +=1‒5. Esau’s wives and sons.=――The scheme here projected supplies +the common framework of the two Edomite genealogies, ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹, +except that in the following sections the second and third wives +exchange places. These marriages and births are said to have taken +place _in the land of Canaan_, before the migration to Sē‛îr; but the +fact that ’Oholibamah is a Ḥorite (see below), indicates an absorption +of Ḥorite clans in Edom which would naturally have followed the +settlement in Se‛ir.――Here we come on a difference of tradition +regarding the names and parentage of Esau’s wives. + + According to 26³⁴ 28⁹ (Priestly-Code), the three wives are (a) + _Yĕhûdîth_ bath-Bĕ’ērî, the Hittite; (b) _Bāsĕmath_ bath-’Ēlôn, + the Ḥittite (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴬ, + Peshiṭtå Ḥivvite); (c) _Maḥălath_ bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of + Nĕbayôth. Here they are (a) _‛Ādā_ bath-’Elôn, the Ḥittite; + (b) _’Ohŏlîbāmāh_ bath-‛Ănāh, the Ḥorite; (c) _Bāsĕmath_ + bath-Yišmā‛ēl, sister of Nĕbāyôth. The confusion is too great + to be accounted for naturally by textual corruption, though + that may have played a part. We can only conjecture vaguely that + verses ⁹⁻¹⁴ represent a different tradition from 26³⁴ 28⁹; and + that in ²⁻⁵ᵃ a clumsy and half-hearted attempt has been made + to establish some points of contact between them. If we accept + the החוי of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, etc., in + 26³⁴, the two traditions agree in the main ethnological point, + that the Edomite people was composed of Ḥittite (? Canaanite), + Ḥivvite (? Ḥorite), and Ishmaelite elements. + + _On the Names._――(a) עדה is the name of one of Lamech’s wives: + see on 4¹⁹.――(b) אהליבמה (Ὀλιβεμά, Ἐλιβεμά, etc.). Somewhat + similar compounds with אהל are found in Phœnician (אהלבעל, אהלמלך) + and Sabbatian (אהלעֹתתר, אהלאל) as well as in Hebrew (אהליאב, Exodus + 31⁶; אהליבה, Ezekiel 23⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper + Names_, 246¹). The first component is presumably Arabic and + Sabbatian _’ahl_, ‘family’; the second ought by analogy to be + a divine name, though none such is known. It is philologically + probable that names of this type were originally clan-names; + and אה׳ is taken from the old list of Ḥorite clans (verse ²⁵, + compare ⁴¹).――(c) בשמת (for which _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ always reads מחלת, 28⁹), if from √ בשם, ‘smell + sweetly,’ is likely to have been a favourite woman’s name, but + recurs only 1 Kings 4¹⁵ of a daughter of Solomon. On ענה and צבעון, + see on verse ²⁰: the obvious connexion with that verse makes it + practically certain that חִוִּי in verse ² is a mistake for חֹרִי.――On + the sons, see below.――It is pointed out by Holzinger (187) that + both in ⁹⁻¹⁴ and ¹⁵⁻¹⁹ the ’Oholibamah branch holds a somewhat + exceptional position. This may mean that it represents hybrid + clans, whereas the other two are of pure Edomite stock: that it + is a later insertion in the lists ♦is less likely. + + ♦ Printing error fixed. + + * * * * * + + =1.= הוא אדום] probably a gloss (compare verse ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); but the + persistency with which the equivalence is asserted is itself + instructive. Esau and Edom are really distinct names (see page + 359 f.), and Priestly-Code has no legendary identification + of them, such as 25³⁰. Hence the connexion is established in + two ways: Esau = Edom (¹ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁹); and Esau the father of Edom + (⁹ᐧ ⁴³).――=2.= עשו לקח] ‘had taken,’ as already recorded (26³⁴ + 28⁹).――בת צבעון] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Peshiṭtå בן־צ׳; deleted by Holzinger and Gunkel as a gloss. But in + clan names gender is not always carefully distinguished; and the + writer probably took ענה as feminine. In verse ²⁵ ’Oholibamah is + herself one of the _sons_ of ‛Anah.――החוי] Read הַחֹרִי, _v.s._――=5.= + יעישׁ] Kethîb as verse ¹⁴, 1 Chronicles 7¹⁰; Qrê יְעוּשׁ, as verse ¹⁸, + 1 Chronicles 1³⁵ 8³⁹ 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹†. + + * * * * * + +=6‒8. Esau’s migration to Se‛ir.=――=6.= Compare 12⁵ (34²³).――_and his +daughters_] None are mentioned in ²⁻⁵.――_to the land of Sĕ‛îr_] So +we must read with Peshiṭtå.――=7.= The motive for the separation is +the same as that which led to the parting of Abraham and Lot (13⁶ᵃ), +implying that Esau had lived at Hebron after Jacob’s return; contrast +Yahwist, 32⁴ 33 ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=8.= _the mountain of Sē‛îr_] the mountainous +country East of the Arabah, the southern part of which is now called +_eš-Šera‛_ and the northern _Ǧebāl_ (Buhl, _Geschichte der Edomiter_ +28 ff.). The _land_ Se‛ir includes the whole Edomite territory as +far West as Ḳadesh (Numbers 20¹⁶). See on 14⁶ 27³⁹ ᶠᐧ, and below on +verse ²⁰. + + * * * * * + + =6.= אל־ארץ gives no sense, and to insert אַחֶרֶת + (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Vulgate) is inadmissible without a + change of text. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX מארץ כנען is possible; but it is simplest to follow Peshiṭtå + אל־ארץ שעי͏ר.――מפני] ‘on account of,’ as 6¹³ 27⁴ etc. + + * * * * * + +=9‒14. The genealogy of Esau.=――=9, 10.= For the double heading וא׳ תלדות +followed by וא׳ שמות, compare 25¹² ᶠᐧ.――_Esau the father of Edom_] see +footnote on verse ¹. It is strange that except in these glosses _Edom_ +is never the eponymus of the nation, although it appears to have been +the name of a god (עבד אדם, 2 Samuel 6¹⁰).――=11 ff.= The total number +of the tribes, excluding the bastard _‛Amālēḳ_, is 12, as in the cases +of Israel and Ishmael (25¹²⁻¹⁶). The sons of ’Oholibamah are, however, +put on a level with the grandsons of the other two wives (so verse ¹⁸). +The list may be tabulated thus: + + (a) Adah. + Ĕlîphaz. + 1. Têmân. + 2.’Ômār. + 3. Ẓĕphô. + 4. Ga‛tām. + 5. Ḳĕnaz. + [‛Amālēḳ] by [Timna‛]. + + (b) Basemath. + Rĕ‘û’ēl. + 6. Naḥath. + 7. Zeraḥ. + 8. Šammāh. + 9. Mizzāh. + + (c) ‛Oholibamah. + 10. Yĕ’ûš. + 11. Ya’lām. + 12. Ḳōraḥ. + + _The Names._――(a) אליפז] Known otherwise only as the name of the + oldest and wisest of Job’s friends (Job 2¹¹ etc.), probably + borrowed from this list.――(1) תימן (Θαιμάν)] Frequently mentioned + as a district of Edom (Jeremiah 49⁷ᐧ ²⁰, Ezekiel 25¹³, Amos 1¹², + Obadiah ⁹, Habakkuk 3³), famous for its wisdom, the home of + Eliphaz (Job 2¹¹) and of the third king of Edom (verse ³⁴). + A village bearing the Greek name, 15 Roman miles from Petra, + is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 260; but the site is now + lost.――(2) אומר (Ὠμάρ, Ὠμάν), (3) צפו (Σωφαρ, 1 Chronicles צפי), + (4) געתם (Γοθομ, etc.) are quite unknown, unless Σωφαρ be the + original of Job’s third friend.――(5) קנז] the eponym of the + Ḳenizzites, the group to which Kaleb (the ‘dog’-tribe, settled + in Ḥebron) and Othniel belonged (Numbers 32¹², Joshua 14⁶ᐧ ¹⁴ + 15¹⁷, Judges 1¹³ 3⁹ᐧ ¹¹). The incorporation of these families + in Judah is a typical example of the unstable political + relations of the southern tribes between Israel and Edom, a + fact abundantly illustrated from the lists before us.――The + once powerful people of עמלק (see on 14⁷) is here described + as descended from תמנע, a Ḥorite clan absorbed in Edom (verses + ²²ᐧ ⁴⁰), of which nothing else is known. The reference may be to + an offshoot of the old Amalekites who had found protection from + the Edomites.――(b) רעואל (Ῥαγουήλ)] ‘Friend of God’ (?) is one + of the names of Moses’ father-in-law (a Midianite) (Exodus 2¹⁸, + Numbers 10²⁹), also that of a Gadite (Numbers 1¹⁴ 2¹⁴) and of + a Benjamite (1 Chronicles 9⁸).――(6) נחת (Ναχοθ, Ναχομ)] compare + 2 Chronicles 31¹³.――(7) זרח (Ζαρε)] (compare verse ³³). Also + a clan of Judah (38³⁰); compare Numbers 26¹³ (Simeonite), + 1 Chronicles 6⁶ᐧ ²⁶ (Levite).――(8) שמה (Σομε)] compare 1 Samuel + 16⁹ (David’s brother), 2 Samuel 23¹¹ (one of his heroes); also + שֶׂמַּי in Yeraḥmeel (1 Chronicles 2²⁸ᐧ ³²) and Kaleb (2⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ).――(9) + מזה (Μοζε, Ὁμοζε, etc.)] only here. It is pointed out that the + four names form a doggerel sentence: ‘descent and rising, there + and here’ (Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 178); but three of them are + sufficiently authenticated; and the fact does not prove them + to be inventions of an idle fancy.――(10) יעישׁ (Ἰε[ο]υς, Ἰεουλ, + etc.)] _v.i._ on verse ⁵. As an Israelite name, 1 Chronicles + 7¹⁰ 8³⁹ (Benjamite), 23¹⁰ ᶠᐧ (Levite), 2 Chronicles 11¹⁹ (son of + Rehoboam). The name is thought by some to be identical with that + of an Arabian lion-god _Yaġūṯ_ (though LXX must have pronounced + ﻋ not ﻏ), meaning ‘helper,’ whose antiquity is vouched for by + inscriptions of Thamud (William Robertson Smith _Kinship and + Marriage in Early Arabia_², 254; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen + Heidentums_² 19, 146; Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Fischer, _ib._ + lviii. 869; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, + 351 f.; on the other side, Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xlv. 595; Dillmann 384; Buhl, + _Geschichte der Edomiter_ 48 f.).――(11) יעלם (Ἰεγλομ, etc.)] + possibly an animal name from יָעֵל = ‘ibex’; but see Gray, _Studies + in Hebrew Proper Names_, 90⁵; compare יָעֵל, Judges 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ 5²⁴, and + יַעְלָה, Ezra 2⁵⁶.――(12) קרח (Κορε)] a son of Ḥebron, and therefore + a Kalebite clan in 1 Chronicles 2⁴³. Meyer (352⁵) traces to this + Edomite-Kalebite family the origin of the Ḳoraḥite singers and + subordinate officials of the second Temple, who were afterwards + admitted to the ranks of the Levites, and received an artificial + genealogy (Exodus 6²¹ᐧ ²⁴, Numbers 26⁵⁸, 1 Chronicles 6 ⁷ᐧ ²² + etc.). + +=15‒19. The clan-chiefs of Edom.=――=15.= On the word אַלּוּף, _v.i._――Since +the list is all but identical with verses ⁹⁻¹⁴, we have here a clear +proof of the artificial character of the family trees used in Old +Testament to set forth ethnological relations. It is not improbable +that this is the original census of Edomite ‘thousands’ from which the +genealogy of ⁹⁻¹⁴ was constructed.――=16.= _‛Amālēk_ is here placed on +a level with the other branches (contrast verse ¹²). + + * * * * * + + =15.= אלוף] LXX ἡγεμὼν, Vulgate _dux_, whence English Version + ‘duke.’ The word means properly ‘chiliarch,’ the chief of an + אֶלֶף (= ‘thousand’ or ‘clan’): so Exodus 15¹⁵, Zechariah 12⁵ᐧ ⁶ + 9⁷. Elsewhere it signifies ‘friend’; and since the sense + ‘clan’ would be suitable in all the passages cited, it has been + proposed to read in each case, as well as in this chapter, אָלֶף + as the original text (William Robertson Smith _The Journal of + Philology_ ix. 90; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, + 330). Practically it makes no difference; for in any case the + ‘chiefs’ are but personifications of their clans.――=16.= אלוף קרח] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits, probably a + gloss from verse ¹⁸.――=18.= בת――עשו] LXX omits.――=19.= הוא אדום] LXX + οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἡγεμόνες αὐτῶν, υἱοὶ Ἐδωμ. + + * * * * * + +=20‒30. Ḥorite genealogies.=――=20.= _the inhabitants of the land_] +(Exodus 23³¹, Numbers 32¹⁷, Judges 1³³); compare 14⁶, Deuteronomy 2¹². +These autochthones are described geographically and ethnologically as +sons of _Sē‛îr the Ḥorite_, i.e., a section of the Ḥorite population +settled in Mount Se‛ir, Se‛ir being personified as the fictitious +ancestor of the natives of the country. + + The name חֹרִי is now generally regarded as a geographical + designation, identical with the _Ḫaru_ of the Egyptian monuments + (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, + 137, 149 ff., 240; Jensen _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. + 332 f., 346 f.; Schwally _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, xviii. 126; Meyer _Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 330 f.), The older theory that the name is + derived from חור and means ‘cave-dwellers,’ is not necessarily + discredited by this identification. Even if the Ḥorites were + a stratum of population that once covered the region from the + Egyptian frontier to the neighbourhood of Damascus, there still + seems no reason why they should not have been largely an old + troglodyte race, from whom the country derived its name. + + _The Classification._――According to ²⁰ ᶠᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ there were seven + main branches of the Ḥorites in Se‛ir, represented by Lôṭān, + Šôbāl, Ẓib‛ôn, ‛Ănāh, Dîšôn, ’Ēẓer, and Rîšān (see below). + Of these, however, ‛Anah and Dišon reappear as subdivisions + of Ẓib‛on and ‛Anah respectively. The duplication has + been explained by supposing that parts of these tribes had + amalgamated with kindred branches, and thus came to figure both + as sons and grandsons of the original ancestor (Dillmann, Gunkel, + al.). It is more likely that ‛Anah and Dišon were at first + subordinate septs of Ẓib‛on (so Meyer 341); that they came + into the list of _’allûphîm_ (²⁹ ᶠᐧ) as heads of clan groups; + and, finally, obtained a primary position amongst the ‘sons’ of + Se‛ir. The relationship as thus reconstructed may be exhibited + as follows: + + (a) Lôṭān. + (Timna‛). + Ḥōrî. + Hēmām. + + (b) Šôbāl. + ‛Alwān. + Mānaḥat. + ‛Ȇbāl. + Šĕphô. + ’Ônām. + + (c) Ẓib‛ôn. + ’Ayyāh. + ‛Ănāh. + Dîšôn (Ohŏlîbāmāh). + Ḥemdān. + ’Ešbān. + Yithrān. + Kĕrān. + + (d) ’Ēẓer. + Bilhān. + Za‛ăvān [Zû‛ān]. + [Ya]‛ăkān. + + (e) Rîšān. + ‛Ûẓ. + ’Ărān. + + _The Names._――(a) לוטן is plausibly connected with לוֹט (also a + cave-dweller, 19³⁰), who may have been originally an ancestral + deity worshipped in these regions.――Philologically it is + interesting to observe the frequency of the endings _-ān_, + _-ōn_ in this list, pointing to a primitive _nunation_, as + ♦contrasted with sporadic cases of _mimation_ in the Edomite + names.――חרי (verse ²²)] The occurrence of the national name + (verse ²⁰) as a subdivision of itself is surprising. Meyer + (339) suspects confusion with another genealogy in which Lôṭan + figured as ancestor of the whole Ḥorite race.――הימם (1 Chronicles + הוֹמָם, LXX Αἱμάν)] compare הֵימָן, 1 Kings 5¹¹, 1 Chronicles 2⁶, + Psalms 89¹.――תמנע, strangely introduced as the ‘sister’ of + Lôṭan, is the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (verse ¹²): + probably interpolated in both places.――(b) שׁובל (Σωβάλ)] also a + Kalebite tribe settled in Ḳiryath-Ye‛arim, incorporated in Judah + (1 Chronicles 2⁵⁰ᐧ ⁵² 4¹ ᶠᐧ). The name was connected by William + Robertson Smith with Arabic _šibl_, ‘young lion.’ Arabic ش + ought to be שׂ in Hebrew; but the objection is perhaps not final + in a borrowed name (but see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen + morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl. 168; Gray, _Studies in + Hebrew Proper Names_, 109).――עלון (1 Chronicles עלין, LXX Γωλών, + Γωλάμ, etc.)] compare עלוה, verse ⁴⁰; otherwise unknown.――מנחת] + It cannot be accidental that in 1 Chronicles 2⁵² the ‘half of + Manaḥat’ is again represented as descended from Šôbāl. These + Manaḥathites are further connected with צָרְעָה (verse ⁵³ ᶠᐧ), a + notice which Wellhausen (Bleek⁴, 197) has ingeniously combined + with Judges 13², where מָנוֹחַ, the father of Samson, is a native + of Ẓor‛ah. It seems to follow, not only that מנוח is originally + the eponymus of מנחת, but that this Ḥorite clan lived in early + times in Ẓor‛ah and was included in the mixed tribe of Dan + (Meyer 340).――עיבל (Γαιβηλ)] Meyer identifies with the well-known + mountain East of Shechem, originally a Ḥorite settlement + (?).――שׁפו (1 Chronicles שׁפי, LXX Σωφάρ, Σωφάν, Σωφ, etc.)] + unknown.――אונם (Ὠμαν, Ὠναν)] A Yeraḥmeelite name, 1 Chronicles + 2²⁶ᐧ ²⁸. The name of Judah’s son אונן (Genesis 38⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) may also be + compared.――(c) צבעון (Σεβεγών)] Possibly a hyæna-tribe (_ḍabu‛_, + (‡ Syriac word), New Hebrew, צבוע) (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage + in Early Arabia_², 254; Gray, 95).――איה] ‘falcon’ (Leviticus + 11¹⁴, Deuteronomy 14¹³, Job 28⁷); compare the personal name, + 2 Samuel 3⁷ 21⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ.――ענה] unknown.――דישון, דישן (Δησων, Δαισων)] = + ‘mountain-goat’ (Deuteronomy 14⁵).――חמדן (Chronicles חַמְרָן) and + אשבן are not known.――יתרן] Derived from a widely diffused personal + name (Hebrew, Babylonian, Sabbatian, Nabatean), best known in + Old Testament as that of Moses’s father-in-law (Exodus 3¹ etc.); + also a son of Gideon (Judges 8²⁰), and the Ishmaelite father + of Amasa (2 Samuel 17²⁵ etc.).――כרן (Χαρράν)] only here.――(d) + אצר] unknown.――בלהן] can scarcely be dissociated from Rachel’s + handmaid בלהה, whose Ḥorite origin would be somewhat more + intelligible if Ḥorite clans were amalgamated in one of her + subdivisions (Dan; see on _Manaḥat_ above).――זעון (_The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ זוען, LXX Ζουκάμ,Ζαυάν = זוּעָן)] + unknown.――עקן (better יעקן, as 1 Chronicles 1⁴²)] The tribe is + doubtless to be identified with the בְּנֵי יַֽעֲקָן mentioned in Numbers + 33³¹ ᶠᐧ, Deuteronomy 10⁶ as the owners of some wells South + of Ḳadesh.――(e) דישן (LXX Ρ[ε]ισων)] Read רִישֹׁן or רִישָׁן, to avoid + concurrence with the דישן of verse ²⁵ ᶠᐧ.――עוץ (Ὤς)] see on + 10²³ 22²¹.――ארן] Perhaps connected with the Yeraḥmeelite אֹרֶן, + 1 Chronicles 2²⁵. The reading ארם (Hebew MSS, LXX, Vulgate, + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ) is probably a mistake caused by the proximity + of עוץ. + + ♦ “constrasted” replaced with “contrasted” + + * * * * * + + =20.= ישבי] LXX singular.――=24b.= הַיֵּמִם] The word is utterly + obscure. LXX, Theodotion τὸν Ἰαμείν; Aquila τοὺς ἠμίν [ἰμειμ] + (see Field); _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + האימים (Deuteronomy 2¹⁰: so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ גבריא); Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + ‘wild-asses’ and ‘mules’; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase) (הַמַּיִם ?); + Vulgate _aquæ callidæ_. If Vulgate be right (and it is certainly + the most plausible conjecture for sense), ²⁴ᵇ is a fragment of + an old well-legend, claiming the proprietorship of these hot + springs for the tribe of ‛Anah (compare Judges 1¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ). See, + further, Haupt, in Ball, _The Sacred Books of the Old Testament_, + 118.――=30b= is in the style of Priestly-Code.――שעיר] LXX Ἐδώμ. + + * * * * * + +=31‒39. The kings of Edom.=――=31.= _before there reigned a king of the +Israelites_ (_v.i._)] This may mean either before the institution of +the monarchy in Israel, or before any Israelitish sovereign ruled over +Edom. The natural _terminus ad quem_ is, of course, the overthrow of +Edomite independence by David (page 437 below).――The document bears +every mark of authenticity, and may be presumed to give a complete +list of Edomite kings. Unfortunately the chronology is wanting. An +average reign of 20 years for the eight kings (Meyer) is perhaps a +reasonable allowance in early unsettled times; and the foundation of +the Edomite monarchy may be dated approximately from 150 to 200 years +before the time of David.――The monarchy was obviously not hereditary, +none of the kings being the son of his predecessor; that it was +elective (Tuch, Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, Driver, al.) is more than +we have a right to assume. Frazer (_Adonis Attis Osiris: Studies in +the history of Oriental Religion_, 11³) finds here an illustration +of his theory of female succession, the crown passing to men of +other families who married the hereditary princesses; but verse ³⁹ +is fatal to this view. The fact that the kings reigned in different +cities supports an opinion (Winckler, _Geschichte Israels in +Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 192; Cheyne 429) that they were analogous to +the Hebrew Judges, _i.e._ local chiefs who held supreme power during +their life, but were unable to establish a dynasty. A beginning of the +recognition of the hereditary principle may be traced in the story +of Hadad ‘of the seed royal’ (1 Kings 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), who is regarded as +heir-presumptive to the throne (Meyer). + + =32.= בלע בן־בעור (LXX Βάλακ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεώρ)] The name of the first + king bears a striking resemblance to בלעם בן־בעור, the soothsayer + whom the king of Moab hired to curse Israel (Numbers 22 ff.), + and who afterwards died fighting for Midian (Numbers 31⁸ + [Priestly-Code]). The identity of the two personages is + recognised by (amongst others) Knobel-Dillmann, Nöldeke + (_Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 87), Hommel + (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, + 153, 222¹), Sayce (_The Early History of the Hebrews_, 224, + 229), Cheyne, al., though the legend which places his home at + Pethor on the Euphrates (Elohist) is hardly consistent with + this notice.――דנהבה (Δενναβα), his city, is not known; according + to Jerome, _Onomastica Sacra_, page 115¹, it is _Dannaia_, + between Ar Moab and the Arnon, or _Dannaba_ near Heshbon + (compare Eusebius _Onomastica Sacra_, 114³¹, [page 249]); + Hommel and Sayce suggest Dunip, somewhere in North Syria.――=33.= + יובב (Ἰω[α]βάβ, Ἰώβ, etc.)] identified by LXX (Job 42¹⁸) with + the patriarch Job.――בצרה] A chief city of Edom (Isaiah 34⁶ + 63¹, Jeremiah 48²⁴ 49¹³ᐧ ²², Amos 1¹²), now _el-Buṣaireh_, 20 + miles South-east of the Dead Sea.――=34.= חשׁם (Ἁσόμ, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) = חָשׁוּם)].――_the land of the Temanite_] see on + verse ¹¹.――=35.= הדד bears the well-known name of an Aramæan + deity, whose worship must have prevailed widely in Edom (see + verse ³⁹, 1 Kings 11 ¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ).――_who smote Midian, etc._] The + solitary historical notice in the list. It is a tempting + suggestion of Ewald (_History of Israel_, ii. 336), that the + battle was an incident of the great Midianite raid under which + Israel suffered so severely, so that this king was contemporary + with Gideon (compare Meyer, 381 f.).――עוית] LXX Γεθθαίμ = עִתַּיִם, + on which reading Marquart (_Fundamente israelitischer und + jüdischer Geschichte_, 11) bases an ingenious explanation of + the mysterious name כושן רשעתים in Judges 3⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ (חוּשָׁם רֹאשׁ עִתַּיִם,――a + confusion of the third and fourth kings in our list).――=36.= + שמלה] LXX שלמה, perhaps the same name as Solomon.――משרקה] A place + of this name (Μασρικά) is mentioned in _Onomastica Sacra_, 137¹⁰ + (page 277), in Gebalene, the northern part of Mount Seir.――=37.= + שאול] The name of the first king of Israel.――רחבות הנהר] so called + to distinguish it from other places of the same name (compare + 26²²), is probably the Ῥοωβώθ of _Onomastica Sacra_, 145¹⁵ (page + 286), a military post in Gebalene. The river is, therefore, not + the Euphrates (although a place _Rahaba_ has been discovered on + its West side), but some perennial stream in the North of Edom, + defined by the city on its banks (compare 2 Kings 5¹²).――=38.= + בעל חנן] ‘Baal is gracious.’ The name of the seventh king is the + only existing trace of Baal-worship in Edom.――עכבור] ‘jerboa’ + (Arabic _‛akbar_): see William Robertson Smith _Kinship and + Marriage in Early Arabia_², 235¹. Here it is probably a + clan-name, but appears as personal in Old Testament (2 Kings + 22¹⁴, Jeremiah 26²² 36¹²).――=39.= הדר] To be read ה͏͏דד (Hebrew + MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, + LXX partly, and 1 Chronicles 1⁵⁰).――For פעו (1 Chronicles פעי), + LXX has Φόγωρ, _i.e._ פְּעוֹר, the mountain in Moab (Numbers 23²⁸ + etc.).――Why the wife of Hadad II. is named we cannot tell. + מהיטבאל (‘God does good’) is a man’s name in Nehemiah 6¹⁰.――For + בת מי זהב it would be better to read בן מ׳ (LXX, Peshiṭtå). But מי זהב + (gold-water) is more likely to be the name of a place than of + a person; hence Marquart’s emendation מן מ׳ (_l.c._ 10) is very + plausible, as is his identification of מי זהב with the miswritten + די זהב of Deuteronomy 1¹. + + * * * * * + + =31.= לבני ישראל] Expression of genitive by ל to prevent + determination of the governing noun by the following determinate + genitive (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 129 _c_), ‘a king belonging to + the Israelites.’ The second interpretation given above is the + only natural one. LXXᴬ ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ, LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ ἐν Ἰσραήλ,――the + latter too readily approved by Ball. + + * * * * * + +=40‒43. The chiefs of Esau.=――This second list of _’Allûphîm_ presents +more features of Priestly-Code’s style than any other section of the +chapter, but is of doubtful antiquarian value. Of the eleven names, +more than one half are found in the preceding lists (¹⁰⁻³⁹); the +new names, so far as they can be explained, are geographical. It +is possible that the document preserves a statistical survey of +administrative districts of Edom subsequent to the overthrow of its +independence (Ewald, Dillmann, Driver, al.); but there is no evidence +that this is the case. + + =40.= עלוה = עלון, verse ²³.――יתת (Ἱεθέρ, etc.)] probably יֶתֶר = יתרן, + verse ²⁶.――=41.= אלה is supposed to be the seaport אילת; see on + 14⁶.――פינן (Φινες, Φ[ε]ινων) = פּוּנֹן, Numbers 33⁴² ᶠᐧ, the Φαινών + (_Fenon_) of _Onomastica Sacra_, 123⁹ (page 299; compare page + 123), a village between Petra and Zoar, where were copper mines + worked by convicts. The name (see Seetzen, iii. 17), and the + ruins of the mines have been discovered at _Fenān_, 6 or 7 + miles North-north-west of Šobek (Meyer, 353 f.).――=42.= מבצר] + According to _Onomastica Sacra_, 137¹¹ (page 277), Μαβσαρά + was a very large village in Gebalene, subject to Petra.――=43.= + מגדיאל and עירם are unknown. For the latter, LXX has Ζαφωεί[ν] = + צפו, verse ¹¹. It is probable that in the original text both + names were contained, as in an anonymous chronicle edited by + Lagarde (_Septuagint Studies_ ii.; see Nestle, _Marginalien und + Materialien_ 12), making the number up to twelve. + + It remains to state briefly the more important historical + results yielded by study of these Edomite lists. (1) At the + earliest period of which we have any knowledge, the country of + Se‛ir was peopled by a supposed aboriginal race called Ḥorites. + Though remnants of this population survived only in Se‛ir, there + are a few traces of its former existence in Palestine; and it + is possible that it had once been coextensive with the wide + region known to the Egyptians as _Ḥaru_ (page 433).――(2) Within + historic times the country was occupied by a body of nomads + closely akin to the southern tribes of Judah, who amalgamated + with the Ḥorites and formed the nation of Edom.――(3) The date + of this invasion cannot be determined. Se‛irites and Edomites + appear almost contemporaneously in Egyptian documents, the + former under Ramses III. as a nomadic people whom the king + attacked and plundered; and the latter about 50 years earlier + under Merneptah, as a band of Bedouin who were granted admission + to the pastures of Wādī Ṭumīlāt within the Egyptian frontier + (_Papyrus Harris_ and _Anastasi_: see Müller, _Asien und Europa + nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 135 f.; compare Meyer _Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 337 f.). Since both are + described as Bedouin, it would seem that the Edomites were still + an unsettled people at the beginning of the 12th century. The + land of _Šêri_, however, is mentioned in the Tel-Amarna Tablets + (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 201) more than + two centuries earlier.――(4) The list of kings shows that Edom + attained a political organisation much sooner than Israel: hence + in the legends Esau is the elder brother of Jacob. The interval + between Ramses III. and David is sufficient for a line of eight + kings; but the institution of the monarchy must have followed + within a few decades the expedition of Ramses referred to above. + It is probable (though not certain) that the last king Hadad II. + was the one subdued by David, and that the Hadad who fled + to Egypt and afterwards returned to trouble Solomon (1 Kings + 11¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) was of his family.――(5) The genealogies furnish + evidence of the consanguinity of Edomite and Judæan tribes. + In several instances we have found the same name amongst the + descendants of Esau or Se‛ir and amongst those of Judah (see + the notes _passim_). This might be explained by assuming that a + clan had been split up, one part adhering to Edom, and another + attaching itself to Judah; but a consideration of the actual + circumstances suggests a more comprehensive theory. The + consolidation of the tribe of Judah was a process of political + segregation: the desert tribes that had pushed their way + northwards towards the Judæan highlands, were welded together + by the strong hand of the Davidic monarchy, and were reckoned + as constituents of the dominant southern tribe. Thus it would + happen that a Ḥorite or Edomite clan which had belonged to the + empire of Edom was drawn into Judah, and had to find a place in + the artificial genealogies which expressed the political unity + resulting from the incorporation of diverse ethnological groups + in the tribal system. If Meyer be right in holding that the + genealogies of the Chronicler reflect the conditions of the + late post-Exilic age, when a wholesale conversion of Kalebite + and Yeraḥmeelite families to Judaism had taken place (_Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 300 f.; _Die Entstehung + des Judenthums_ 114 ff., 130 ff.), a comparison with Genesis 36 + yields a striking testimony to the persistency of the minor + clan-groups of the early Ḥorites through all vicissitudes of + political and religious condition. + + * * * * * + + =40.= למקמתם] Peshiṭtå לתלדותם.――בשמתם] LXX בארצתם ובגויהם + (10²⁰ᐧ ³¹).――=43.= למשבתם] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ למשפחותם (verse ⁴⁰).――הוא עשו] see on verse ¹. + + * * * * * + + + + + JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN. + + CHAPTERS XXXVII‒L. + + + The last division of the Book of Genesis is occupied almost + entirely with the history of Joseph,――at once the most artistic + and the most fascinating of Old Testament biographies. Its + connexion is twice interrupted: (a) by the story of Judah + and Tamar (chapter 38); and (b) by the so-called Blessing of + Jacob (49¹⁻²⁸): see the introductory notes on these chapters. + Everywhere else the narrative follows the thread of Joseph’s + fortunes; the plan and contents being as follows: + + I. Chapters 37. 39‒41. Joseph’s solitary career in Egypt:――1. + Joseph betrayed by his brethren and carried down to Egypt (37). + 2. How he maintained his virtue against the solicitation of his + master’s wife, and was thrown into prison (39). 3. His skill in + interpreting dreams discovered (40). 4. His interpretation of + Pharaoh’s dreams, and his consequent elevation to the highest + dignity in Egypt (41). + + II. Chapters 42‒45. The reunion of Joseph and his brethren:――5. + The first meeting of the brethren with Joseph in Egypt (42). 6. + The second meeting (43. 44). 7. Joseph reveals himself to his + brethren (45). + + III. Chapters 46‒50. The settlement of the united family in + Egypt:――8. Jacob’s journey to Egypt and settlement in Goshen + (46. 47¹⁻¹²). 9. Joseph’s agrarian policy (47¹³⁻²⁸). 10. Joseph + at his father’s death-bed (47²⁹⁻³¹ 48). 11. Death and burial of + Jacob, and death of Joseph (49⁹⁻³³ 50). + + The composition of documents is of the same general character + as in the previous section of Genesis, though some peculiar + features present themselves. The Priestly epitome (37² 41⁴⁶ᵃ + 42⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ 46⁶ᐧ ⁽⁸⁻²⁷⁾ 47⁵*ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ᐧ ²⁷ᵇᐧ ²⁸ 48³⁻⁶ 49¹ᵃᐧ ²⁸ᵇ⁻³³ᵃ{α}ᵇ + 50¹²ᐧ ¹³) is hardly less broken and fragmentary than in + the history of Jacob, and produces at first sight the same + impression as there, of being merely supplementary to the older + narratives,――an impression, however, which a closer inspection + easily dispels. Certain late words and constructions have led + some critics to the conclusion that the Jehovist passages have + been worked over by an editor of the school of Priestly-Code + (Giesebrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, i. 237, 266²; Holzinger 234). The cases in point + have been examined by Kuenen (_Historisch-critisch Onderzoek + naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden + Verbonds_ i. page 317 f.), who rightly concludes that they are + too few in number to bear out the theory of systematic Priestly + redaction.――With regard to the composition of Yahwist and + Elohist, the most important fact is that the clue to authorship + supplied by the divine names almost entirely fails us, and is + replaced by the distinction between Israel and Jacob which as + names of the patriarch are characteristic of Yahwist and Elohist + respectively (exceptions are 46² 48⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ [50²⁵{?}] 46⁵ᵇ). + יהוה occurs only in chapter 39 (7 times); elsewhere אלהים is + invariably used, sometimes in contexts which would otherwise + be naturally assigned to Yahwist, though no reason appears why + Yahwist should depart from his ordinary usage (_e.g._ 42²⁸). It + may not always be safe to rely on this characteristic when it + is not supported by other indications. Eerdmans, who rejects in + principle the theory of a Yahwistic and an Elohistic document, + is obliged to admit the existence of an _Israel_-recension and + a _Jacob_-recension, and makes this distinction the basis of + an independent analysis. A comparison of his results with those + commonly accepted by recent critics is instructive in more ways + than one.* On the whole, it increases one’s confidence in the + ordinary critical method. + + * The Israel-recension (I-R) consists, according to Eerdmans, + of 37³⁻²⁴ (Yahwist + Elohist), ²⁸ᵃ (Elohist), ²⁹ (Elohist), + ³⁰⁻³³ (Elohist + Yahwist), ³⁶ (Elohist); 43 (Yahwist); + 44 (Yahwist); 45²⁸ (Yahwist), 46¹ᐧ ²ᵃ (Jehovist), ²⁸⁻³⁴ + (Yahwist); 47¹⁻⁵ (Yahwist [verse ⁵, Priestly-Code*]), + ¹³⁻²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist), ²⁷ᵇ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³¹ (Yahwist); + 48¹ (Elohist), ²ᵇ (Yahwist), ⁸⁻²² (Yahwist + Elohist); + 50¹⁻¹¹ (Yahwist), ¹⁴⁻²⁶ (Elohist*). To the Jacob-recension + (J-R) he assigns 37² (Priestly-Code), ²⁵⁻²⁷ (Yahwist), + ²⁸ᵇ (Yahwist), ³⁴ (Jehovist), ³⁵ (Yahwist); 40; 41; 42 + (all Elohist); 45¹⁻²⁷ (Elohist*), 46²ᵇ⁻⁵ (Elohist*), ⁶ᐧ ⁷ + (Priestly-Code); 47⁶⁻¹¹ (Priestly-Code*), ¹² (Elohist), ²⁸ + (Priestly-Code); 49¹ᵃ (Priestly-Code), ²⁹⁻³³ (Priestly-Code); + 50¹²ᐧ ¹³ (Priestly-Code) (_Die Komposition der Genesis_ + 65‒71): the usual analysis is roughly indicated by the + symbols within brackets. How does this compare with the + generally accepted critical results? (1) No distinction + is recognised between Priestly-Code and the other sources; + the fragments are mostly assigned to the J-R, but 48³⁻⁶ is + rejected as an interpolation (page 27). (2) Eerdmans regards + chapter 39 (the incident of Potiphar’s wife) as the addition + of an unintelligent redactor; mainly on the ground that + it contains the name יהוה (the use of the divine names is + thus after all a reliable criterion of authorship when + it suits Eerdmans’ purpose!). A more arbitrary piece of + criticism could hardly be found. (3) Apart from these two + eccentricities, and the finer shades of analysis which + Eerdmans refuses to acknowledge, it will be seen that except + in chapter 37 his division agrees _a potiori_ with that of + the majority of critics; _i.e._, the I-R corresponds in the + main with Yahwist and the J-R with Elohist. (4) In chapter + 37, on the contrary, the relation is reversed: I-R = Elohist, + and J-R = Yahwist. But this divergence turns on a wholly + arbitrary and indefensible selection of data. Since the J-R + in 45⁵ speaks of a _sale_ of Joseph (to the Ishmaelites), + it is inferred that 37²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵇ belonged to it. It is + conveniently overlooked that 40¹⁵ (also J-R) refers back + to 37²⁸ᵃᐧ ²⁹ ᶠᐧ (the _stealing_ of Joseph), that 42²² + (J-R) presupposes 37²² (I-R); to say nothing of the broad + distinction that Judah’s leadership is as characteristic + of one source as Reuben’s is of the other. If Eerdmans had + duly considered the whole of the evidence, he would have + seen first that it is absolutely necessary to carry the + analysis further than he chooses to do, and next that the + two recensions in chapter 37 must exchange places in order + to find their proper connexions in the following chapters. + With that readjustment, it is not unfair to claim him as + an unwilling witness to the essential soundness of the + prevalent theory. With the best will in the world, he has + not been able to deviate very far from the beaten track; + and where he does strike out a path of his own, he becomes + entangled in difficulties which may yet cause him to retrace + his steps. + + The story of Joseph is the finest example in Genesis, or even + in the Old Testament, of what is sometimes called ‘novelistic’ + narrative. From the other patriarchal biographies it is + distinguished first of all by the dramatic unity of a clearly + conceived ‘plot,’ the unfolding of which exhibits the conflict + between character and circumstances, and the triumph of moral + and personal forces amidst the chances and vicissitudes of human + affairs. The ruling idea is expressed in the words of Elohist, + “Ye intended evil against me, but God intended it for good” + (50²⁰; compare 45⁵ᐧ ⁷): it is the sense of an overruling, yet + immanent, divine Providence, realising its purpose through the + complex interaction of human motives, working out a result which + no single actor contemplated. To this higher unity everything is + subordinated; the separate scenes and incidents merge naturally + into the main stream of the narrative, each representing a step + in the development of the theme. The style is ample and diffuse, + but never tedious; the vivid human interest of the story, + enhanced by a vein of pathos and sentiment rarely found in the + patriarchal narratives, secures the attention and sympathy of + the reader from the beginning to the close. We note, further, + a certain freedom in the handling of traditional material, + and subordination of the legendary to the ideal element in the + composition. The comparatively faint traces of local colour, the + absence of theophanies and cult-legends generally, the almost + complete elimination of tribal relations, are to be explained + in this way; and also perhaps some minute deviations from the + dominant tradition, such as the conception of Jacob’s character, + the disparity of age between Joseph and his older brothers, + the extreme youth of Benjamin (suggesting that he had been born + since Joseph left home), the allusions to the mother as if still + alive, etc. Lastly, the hero himself is idealised as no other + patriarchal personality is. Joseph is not (like Jacob) the + embodiment of one particular virtue, but is conceived as an + ideal character in all the relations in which he is placed: + he is the ideal son, the ideal brother, the ideal servant, the + ideal administrator. + + The close parallelism of Yahwist and Elohist, together with the + fact that the literary features enumerated above are shared by + both, show that it had taken shape before it came into the hands + of these writers, and strongly suggest that it must have existed + in written form. The hypothesis of BBernhard Luther (_Die + Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 141 ff.), that the original + author was Yahwist, and that he composed it as a connecting + link between the patriarchal legends and those of the Exodus, + is destitute of probability. The motive suggested is inadequate + to account for the conception of a narrative so rich in concrete + detail as that before us. Moreover, there is no reason to think + that Elohist is dependent on Yahwist; and it is certain that in + some points (the leadership of Reuben, _e.g._) Elohist follows + the older tradition. Nor is there much foundation for Luther’s + general impression that such a narrative must be the creation + of a single mind. In any case the mastery of technique which + is here displayed implies a long cultivation of this type of + literature (_ib._ 143); and the matter of the Joseph-narratives + must have passed through many successive hands before it reached + its present perfection of form. + + It is impossible to resolve such a composition completely + into its traditional or legendary elements; but we may perhaps + distinguish broadly the three kinds of material which have + been laid under contribution. (1) The element of tribal history + or relationships, though slight and secondary, is clearly + recognisable, and supplies a key which may be used with caution + to explain some outstanding features of the narrative. That + there was an ancient tribe named Joseph, afterwards subdivided + into Ephraim and Manasseh, is an item of Hebrew tradition whose + authenticity there seems no good reason to question (see page + 533); and the prestige and prowess of this tribe are doubtless + reflected in the distinguished position held by Joseph as + the hero of the story. Again, actual tribal relations are + represented by the close kinship and strong affection between + Joseph and Benjamin; and by the preference of Ephraim before + Manasseh, and the elevation of both to the status of adopted + sons of Jacob. The birthright and leadership of Reuben in + Elohist implies a hegemony of that tribe in very early times, + just as the similar position accorded to Judah in Yahwist + reflects the circumstances of a later age. These are perhaps + all the features that can safely be interpreted of real tribal + relations. Whether there was a migration of the tribe of Joseph + to Egypt, whether this was followed by a temporary settlement + of all the other tribes on the border of the Delta, etc., are + questions which this history does not enable us to answer; + and attempts to find a historical significance in the details + of the narrative (such as the sleeved tunic of Joseph, the + enmity of his brethren, his wandering from Hebron to Shechem + and thence to Dothan, the deliverance of Joseph by Reuben or + Judah, and so on) are an abuse of the ethnographic principle of + interpretation.――For (2) alongside of this there is an element + of individual biography, which may very well preserve a + reminiscence of actual events. There must have been current in + ancient Israel a tradition of some powerful Hebrew minister in + Egypt, who was the means of saving the country from the horrors + of famine, and who used his power to remodel the land-system + of Egypt to the advantage of the crown. That such a tradition + should be true in essentials is by no means improbable. There + were ‘Hebrews’ in Palestine as early as the 14th century B.C. + (page 218), and that one of these should have been kidnapped and + sold as a boy into slavery in Egypt, and afterwards have risen + to the office of viceroy, is in accordance with many parallels + referred to in the monuments (page 469); while his promoting + the immigration of his kinsfolk under stress of famine is an + incident as likely to be real as invented. The figure of Yanḫamu, + the Semitic minister of Amenhotep IV. (pages 501 f.), presents a + partial counterpart to that of Joseph, though the identification + of the two personages rests on too slender data to be plausible. + The insoluble difficulty is to discover the point where + this personal history passes into the stream of Israelite + national tradition,――or where Joseph ceases to be an individual + and becomes a tribe. The common view that he was the actual + progenitor of the tribe afterwards known by his name is on many + grounds incredible; and the theory that he was the leader of + a body of Hebrew immigrants into Egypt does violence to the + most distinctive features of the representation. Steuernagel’s + suggestion (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme + in Kanaan_ 67), that the story is based on feuds between + the _tribe_ Joseph and the other tribes, in the course of + which _individual_ Josephides were sold as slaves to Egypt, + illustrates the futility of trying to explain the narrative + from two points of view at once. The tribal and the personal + conceptions must be kept distinct, each may contain a kernel of + history of its own kind; but the union of the two was effected + not on the plane of history in either sense, but during the + process of artistic elaboration of the theme. (3) There is, + lastly, an element of Egyptian folklore, which has been drawn + on to some extent for the literary embellishment of the story. + The incident of Joseph’s temptation (chapter 39) appears to + be founded on an Egyptian popular tale (page 459). The obscure + allusions to Joseph as a potent magician are very probably + surviving traces of a motive which was more boldly developed + in an Egyptian source. The prominence of dreams and their + interpretation perhaps hardly falls under this head; it may + rather be part of that accurate acquaintance with Egyptian life + which is one of the most striking features of the narrative. + That in this legendary element there is an admixture of mythical + material is very possible; but a direct influence of mythology + on the story of Joseph is extremely speculative.――It has been + argued with some force that the presence of this Egyptian + colouring itself goes far to show that we have to do with + genuine history, not with a legend ‘woven by popular fancy + upon the hills of Ephraim’ (Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, + ii. 771 _b_). At the same time it has to be considered that + the material may have been largely woven in Egypt itself, and + afterwards borrowed as drapery for the Israelite hero Joseph. + Egyptian folklore might easily have been naturalised in Canaan + during the long Egyptian domination, or have been imported later + as a result of Egyptian influence at the court of Jeroboam I. + It is not difficult to suppose that it was appropriated by the + Hebrew rhapsodists, and incorporated in the native Joseph-legend, + and gradually moulded into the exquisite story which we now + proceed to examine. + + + CHAPTER XXXVII. + _How Joseph was lost to his Father through + his Brethren’s Hatred and Treachery_ + (Priestly-Code, Jehovist). + +As the favoured child of the family, and because of dreams portending +a brilliant future, Joseph becomes an object of hatred and envy to his +brothers (²⁻¹¹). A favourable opportunity presenting itself, they are +scarcely restrained from murdering him by prudential and sentimental +considerations urged by one or other of their number (Judah, Reuben); +but eventually consent to dispose of him without actual bloodshed +(¹²⁻³⁰). With heartless cruelty they pretend that Joseph must have +been devoured by a wild beast, and witness their father’s distress +without being moved to confession (³¹⁻³⁵).――The chapter is not only +full of thrilling human interest, but lays the ‘plot’ for the highly +dramatic story which is to follow. The sudden disappearance of the +most interesting member of the family, the inconsolable grief of the +father, the guilty secret shared by the brothers, and, above all, the +uncertainty which hangs over the fate of Joseph, appeal irresistibly +to the romantic instinct of the reader, who feels that all this is +the prelude to some signal manifestation of divine providence in the +working out of Joseph’s destiny. + + _Sources._――Verses ¹ᐧ ² belong to Priestly-Code (_v.i._).――The + analysis of the rest of the chapter may start from ²⁵⁻³⁰, where + evidences of a double recension are clearest. In one account, + Joseph is _sold_ to _Ishmaelites_ on the advice of _Judah_; in + the other, he is _kidnapped_ by passing _Midianites_, unknown + to the brethren, and to the dismay of _Reuben_, who had hoped + to save him (see the notes). The former is Yahwist (compare + 45⁴ ᶠᐧ), the latter Elohist (40¹⁵). Another safe clue is found + in the double motive assigned for the envy of the brethren: ³ᐧ ⁴ + (the sleeved tunic) ∥ ⁵⁻¹¹ (the dreams): the dream-motive is + characteristic of Elohist throughout the narrative, and ³ ᶠᐧ are + from Yahwist because of ישראל (compare ¹³, and contrast יעקב in ³⁴). + Smaller doublets can be detected in ¹²⁻¹⁴; in ¹⁸⁻²⁰, in ²¹ ᶠᐧ, + and in ³⁴ ᶠᐧ. The analysis has been worked out with substantial + agreement amongst critics; and, with some finishing touches + from the hand of Gunkel (353 ff.), the result is as follows: + Yahwist = ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹³ᵃᐧ ¹⁴ᵇᐧ ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{γ} (וימכרו to כ֑סף), + ³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃ{αγ}ᵇᐧ ³³ᵃ{α}ᵇᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ; Elohist = ⁵⁻¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁴ᵃᐧ ¹⁵⁻¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃᐧ + ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁸ᵃ{αβ} (to הבור) ᵇᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᐧ ³²ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³³ᵃ{β}ᐧ ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇᐧ ³⁶. + This may be accepted as the basis of the exposition, though some + points are open to question, particularly the assumption that + all references to a tunic of any kind are to be ascribed to + Yahwist. + +=1‒11. The alienation between Joseph and his brethren.=――=1, 2.= +Three disjointed fragments of Priestly-Code, of which verse ¹ is +the original continuation of 36⁶⁻⁸ (see page 429); and ²ᵃ{α} is a +heading from the Book of _Tôledôth_ (see page 40 f.), which ought to +be followed by a genealogy,――perhaps 35²²ᵇ⁻²⁶,¹ which we have seen to +stand out of its proper connexion (page 423): ²ᵃ{βγ}ᵇ then introduces +Priestly-Code’s history of Joseph, which has been mostly suppressed +by the redactor.――The clause וְהוּא נַעַר is difficult. As a parenthesis +(Driver) it is superfluous after the definite statement of Joseph’s +age in ²ᵃ{β}, and leaves us with a wrong identification of the sons of +the concubines with the previous אחיו. If it be joined to what follows, +Gunkel has rightly seen that we want a word expressing something that +Joseph was or did in relation to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The +meaning probably is that Joseph, while shepherding with (all) his +brethren, fell out with the four sons of the concubines. + + ¹ Rather than 46⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, as suggested by Kurtz (quoted by Hupfeld + _Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung_ + 216). + + With this change, Dillmann’s objections to the unity of verse + ² fall to the ground, and the whole may be safely ascribed to + Priestly-Code (note the chronology, the supplementary נשי אביו, + and the phrase דבה רעה).――Short as the fragment is, it shows that + Priestly-Code’s account was peculiar in two respects: (1) He + restricts the hostility to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, and + (2) he traces it to Joseph’s reporting their misdeeds to Jacob. + It is plain that Priestly-Code is no mere supplementer of the + older history, but an independent author, though his account has + been sacrificed to the more graphic narratives of Yahwist and + Elohist. + + * * * * * + + =1.= מגורים (17⁸) and ארץ כנען (but see page 474) are characteristic + of Priestly-Code.――=2.= רעה ב׳] ‘like verbs of governing’ (Strack); + so 1 Samuel 16¹¹ 17³⁴.――והוא נער] Gunkel suggests וה׳ נֵעֹר על (Niphal + √ עור: compare Jeremiah 6²² etc., and the Hithpael in Job 17⁸), + or וה׳ רֹעֶה (= ‘kept company with’),――neither proposal just + convincing.――דבתם רעה (so Numbers 14³⁷)] literally ‘brought the + report of them evil,’ ר׳ being second accusative, or tertiary + predicate (Davidson § 76). A bad sense is inherent in דִּבָּה, which + is a late word, in Hexateuch confined to Priestly-Code (Numbers + 13³² 14³⁶ ᶠᐧ). + + * * * * * + +=3, 4= (Yahwist). _Now Israel loved Joseph...._] These are evidently +the opening words of Yahwist’s Joseph-story, in which the sole motive +of the brothers’ hatred is the father’s favouritism towards the +_son of_ his _old age_ (16² 44²⁰ Yahwist).――כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים] a shirt or tunic +reaching to the extremities (פַּסִּים), _i.e._ the wrists and ankles, +whereas the ordinary under-garment was sleeveless, and reached only +to the knees. That it was an unusual habiliment appears also from +2 Samuel 13¹⁸ ᶠᐧ; but speculations as to its mythological significance +(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 384) have no +support in either passage.――=4.= _could not address him peaceably_] or, +‘salute him.’ The text is doubtful (_v.i._).――=5‒11.= Joseph’s dreams +(Elohist).――=6, 7.= The first dream――a harvest scene――represents +Jacob’s family as agriculturists (see on 26¹²); in verses ²ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ +46³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ they are shepherds. There may be some hint of the immediate +cause of its fulfilment, a failure of the harvest (Gunkel), though +this is questionable.――=8a.= _Wilt thou, forsooth, be king over +us?_] The language points beyond the personal history of Joseph +to the hegemony of the ‘house of Joseph’ in North Israel (Judges +1²² ᶠᐧ).――=9.= The second dream presages Joseph’s elevation not only +over his brothers, but over his father (Holzinger), _i.e._ Israel +collectively.――_eleven stars_] Supposed by some to be an allusion to +the signs of the Zodiac (Delitzsch, Gunkel, al., compare Jeremias _Das +Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 383), the twelfth being +either Joseph himself, or the constellation obscured by Joseph as +the sun-god. The theory will stand or fall with the identification of +Jacob’s twelve sons with the Zodiacal signs (see pages 534 f.); the +absence of the article here makes it, however, at least improbable +that the theory was in the mind of the writer.――=11.= _envied_ is the +appropriate word for Elohist’s account, as ‘hated’ (verse ⁴) is for +Yahwist’s (⁵ᵇ and ⁸ᵇ are redactional).――_his father kept the matter_ +(in mind)] LXX διετήρησεν. Compare Luke 2¹⁹ᐧ ⁵¹. + + While significant dreams bulk largely in Elohist’s + Joseph-narrative (chapter 40 f.), it is characteristic of + this section of the work that the dreams contain no oracular + revelations (like 20³ ᶠᶠᐧ 31¹¹ᐧ ²⁴), but have a meaning in + themselves which is open to human interpretation. The religious + spirit of these chapters (as also of chapter 24), both in + Yahwist and Elohist, is a mature faith in God’s providential + ruling of human affairs, which is independent of theophanies, + or visible interpositions of any kind. It can scarcely be + doubted that such narratives took shape at a later period of + Old Testament religion than the bulk of the patriarchal legends. + + * * * * * + + =3.= ועשה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויעש. As + the tense can hardly be frequentative, it is best to restore וַיַּֽעֲשֶׂה + (Ball, Kittel).――כתנת פסים] Compare Josephus _Antiquities of the + Jews_ vii. 171: ἐφόρουν γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀρχαίων παρθένοι χειριδωτοὺς + ἄχρι τῶν σφυρῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ βλέπεσθαι χιτῶνας. Except LXX + (χιτῶνα ποικίλον) and Vulgate (_tunicam polymitam_ [but compare + verse ²³]), all Versions here support this sense: Aquila χιτῶνα + ἀστραγάλων, Symmachus χιτῶνα χειριδωτόν, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac + phrase) (‘with sleeves’), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כיתונא דפסי, etc. In 2 Samuel + 13, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshiṭtå curiously change sides (χιτὼν + καρπωτός, _talaris tunica_, (‡ Syriac word) [= tunica striata]). + The real meaning is determined by New Hebrew and Aramaic + פַּס (Daniel 5⁵ᐧ ²⁴) = אָפְסַיִם, Ezekiel 47³; see Bevan, _A Short + Commentary on Daniel_ 100.――=4.= אחיו²] Hebrew MSS, _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX בניו; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac + phrase).――דַּבְּרוֹ לשלום On the suffix, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 115 _c_. + But no other case occurring of דִּבֶּר with accusative of person + addressed (Numbers 26³ is corrupt), Gunkel points דְּבָרוֹ (‘could + not take his matter peaceably’), Kittel emends to לְדַבֵּר לוֹ ל׳ (the ל + might be omitted: see Exodus 2³ etc.).――=5b= is out of place + _before_ the telling of the dream, and is omitted by LXX.――=7.= + Insert חלמתי at the beginning, with LXX.――אִלֵּם] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; + אֲלֻמָּה, Psalms 126⁶†.――=8b.= Another redactional addition, though + found in LXX; note the plural ‘dreams’ when only one has been + told.――=10a.= ויספר――אחיו is an interpolation intended to explain + what immediately follows. LXX omits, and seeks to gain the same + end by inserting לאביו ו before לאחיו in ⁹. + + * * * * * + +=12‒17. Jacob sends Joseph to inquire after his brethren.=――=12, 13a, +14b= Yahwist ∥ =13b, 14a= Elohist (see the analysis below). In Yahwist, +Jacob is dwelling in _the vale of Hebron_; the sons have gone to +_Shechem_. If the incident of chapter 34 belonged to the same cycle +of tradition, the brethren would perhaps hardly have ventured into the +neighbourhood of Shechem so soon (see page 418); though it has been +argued that this very circumstance accounts for Jacob’s solicitude. +In Elohist we find no indication of either the starting-point or +the goal of the journey. =14a= suggests that the flocks were at +some distance from Jacob’s home: possibly the narrative is based +on a stratum of Elohist in which Jacob’s permanent residence was at +Bethel (see on 35¹).――=15‒17.= The man who directs Joseph to Dothan +is not necessarily a neighbour of the family who knew Joseph by +sight (Gunkel); nor is the incident a faded version of a theophany +(Holzinger, Bennett): it is simply a vivid description of the +uncertainty of Joseph’s persistent search for his brethren.――_Dôthān_ +(2 Kings 6¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judith 3⁹ 4⁶ 7¹⁸) is the modern _Tell Dōthān_, near +Ǧenīn, about 15 miles North of Shechem. Some local legend may have +connected it with the history of Joseph. + + ¹⁵⁻¹⁷ would be a sufficiently natural continuation of ¹⁴ᵇ + (Yahwist), and Gunkel’s conjecture (above) establishes no + presumption to the contrary. They may, however, be from Elohist: + in this case it is probable that Elohist did not mention Shechem + at all, nor Yahwist Dothan. + + * * * * * + + =12‒14= is composite. ישראל shows that ¹²ᐧ ¹³ᵃ belong to Yahwist; + and הנני shows that ¹³ᵇ is from Elohist (compare 22¹ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ¹¹ 27¹ + 31¹¹). Hence ¹⁴ᵃ is not a specification, but a variant, of ¹³ᵃ, + continuing ¹³ᵇ. ¹⁴ᵇ obviously follows ¹³ᵃ.――=12.= אֹתֹ] with + _puncta extraordinaria_, because for some reason the text was + suspected.――=14.= מעמק חברון (23²ᐧ ¹⁹)] The words might be a gloss + based on Priestly-Code (35²⁷ 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 50¹³); but Steuernagel’s + proposal to remove them (_Die Einwanderung der israelitischen + Stämme in Kanaan_ 36) takes too little account of the + fragmentariness of Yahwist’s narrative in chapter 35; and + Gunkel’s argument that the journey was too long for a young + lad is weak.――=17.= שמעתי] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX שמעתים.――דתינה, דתן] The form with י is the older + (compare Egyptian _Tu-ti-y-na_, Müller, _Asien und Europa nach + altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 88), the other an accommodation to + a common nominal termination. The ending ־ַיִן is not dual, but an + old (Aramaic ?) locative corresponding to Hebrew ־ַיִם (see pages + 342 f.; Barth, _Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen_, + 319⁵; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 88 _c_). + + * * * * * + +=18‒30. The plot to murder Joseph frustrated by Reuben= (Elohist), +=or Judah= (Yahwist).――=18a, 19, 20= Elohist ∥ =18b= Yahwist. Common +to both sources is the proposal to kill Joseph; Elohist develops it +most fully, revealing the motive of the crime and the device by which +it was to be concealed.――=19.= _yon master-dreamer_] a mocking epithet; +compare ²⁰ᵇ.――=20.= _and throw him_ (his dead body) _into one of the +pits_] The idea would suit either narrative; and we cannot be sure +that the indefinite ‘one of the pits’ does not come from Yahwist +(see ²²).――=21= Yahwist ∥ =22= Elohist. In ²¹ we must read _Judah_ +for _Reuben_.――_and delivered him out of their hand_] is premature +(verse ²³): the clause might stand more naturally in Yahwist between +²³ and ²⁵, though the rest of the verse must be left where it is +(so Gunkel).――_we will not kill him outright_] Judah has as yet no +counter-proposal.――=22.= Reuben, on the other hand, has his scheme +ready: he appeals to the antique horror of shed blood, which cries +for vengeance on the murderer (4¹¹).――_this pit_] a particular cistern +which Reuben knew to be empty of water (²⁴ᵇ). It is probable that one +of the numerous pits round Dothan was traditionally associated with +the fate of Joseph (Gunkel): compare the _Khan Ǧubb Yūsuf_ near Safed, +incorrectly identified with the Dothan cistern (_Biblical Researches +in Palestine_, ii. 418 f.).――=24= (Elohist).――=25‒27, 28aβ= (Yahwist). +The fate of Joseph is apparently still undecided, when Judah makes an +appeal to the cupidity of his brothers (_what profit, etc.?_), by +proposing to sell him to some passing Ishmaelites.――=25.= _a caravan +... from Gilead_] The plain of Dothan is traversed by a regular trade +route from Gilead through Beisan to Ramleh, and thence (by the coast) +to Egypt (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 127). Shechem also +lies on several routes from the East of the Jordan to the coast.――The +natural products mentioned (_v.i._) were much in request in Egypt +for embalming, as well as for medicinal and other purposes.――=26.= +_cover his blood_] Ezekiel 24⁷, Isaiah 26²¹, Job 16¹⁸.――=28.= +_twenty_ (shekels) _of silver_] compare Leviticus 27⁵ with Exodus +21³² (see Driver).――=28aαb, 29, 30= (Elohist). Joseph is kidnapped by +trading Midianites, who pass unobserved after the brothers have left +the spot.――=30.= Only now does Reuben reveal his secret design of +delivering Joseph. It is interesting to note his own later confusion +of the intention with the act, in 42²². + + That the last section is from another source than ²⁵⁻²⁷ appears + from (a) the different designation of the merchants, (b) the + absence of the article showing that they have not been mentioned + before, (c) Reuben’s surprise at finding the pit empty. The + composite narrative requires us to assume that the brethren are + the subject of וימשכו ויעלו, against the natural construction of the + sentence. + + * * * * * + + =18a= and =18bα= are obviously doublets; the analysis adopted + above gives the simplest arrangement.――ויתנכלו] ‘acted craftily,’ + only found in late writings (Numbers 25¹⁸, Malachi 1¹⁴, Psalms + 105²⁵†), but the √ occurs in Aramaic and Assyrian.――On the + accusative, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 117 _w_.――=19.= בעל החלמות + The rendering above is a little too strong; for the use of בעל + as ‘noun of relation,’ see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 127 b.――=21.= + נכנו נפש] Second accusative of respect, Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 117 _ll_.――=22.= אל־הבור הזה] LXX εἰς ἕνα τῶν λάκκων, a false + assimilation to verse ²⁰.――=23.= את־כתנתו] LXX omits. It is + impossible to say whether this and the following appositional + phrase are variants from Elohist and Yahwist respectively, + or whether the second is a (correct) gloss on Yahwist. + Vulgate combines both in the rendering _tunica talari et + polymita_.――=25.= וישבו לאכל־לחם] Assigned by many critics (Dillmann, + al.) to Elohist, and certainly not necessary in Yahwist. But we + still miss a statement in Elohist that the brothers had moved + away from the pit.――נכאת (43¹¹†)] supposed to be ‘gum-tragacanth’; + Arabic _naka’at._――צֳרִי = [וּ]צְרִי] the resinous gum for which + Gilead was famous (43¹¹, Jeremiah 8²² 46¹¹ 51⁸, Ezekiel 27¹⁷†); + possibly that exuded by the mastic-tree; but see _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 465 f.――לֹט (43¹¹†) Greek λήδανον, Latin _ladanum_, + the gum of a species of cistus-rose (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, + 2692 f.). Mentioned amongst objects of Syrian tribute (_ladunu_) + by Tiglath-pileser IV. (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_², 151).――=27.= לישמעאלים] LXX + הָאֵלֶּה. The word is + apparently used in the general sense of ‘Bedouin,’ as Judges 8²⁴ + (compare 6¹ etc.): see on 16¹².――בשרנו] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix וּ.――=28b= is + assigned to Elohist because of ויביאו, Yahwist using הוריד in this + connexion (²⁵ 39¹ 43¹¹ etc.).――=29.= אין] LXX οὐχ ὁρᾷ. + + * * * * * + +=31‒36. The deceiving of Jacob.=――=31, 32.= Gunkel remarks that the +sending of a bloody token is a favourite motive in popular tales. +Whether the incident is peculiar to Yahwist, or common to Yahwist and +Elohist, can hardly be determined (_v.i._)――=33.= _an evil beast has +devoured him_] Exactly as verse ²⁰ (Elohist). A slight change of text +in ³² (_v.i._) would enable us to take the words as spoken by the sons +to Jacob (so Gunkel). =34, 35.= The grief of Jacob is depicted in both +sources, but with a difference. Elohist (³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵇ) hardly goes beyond +the conventional signs of mourning――‘the trappings and the suits of +woe’; but Yahwist (³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵃ) dwells on the inconsolable and life-long +sorrow of the bereaved father. This strain of pathos and subjectivity +is very marked in Yahwist in the Joseph narratives.――_rent his clothes +... put on sackcloth_] On these customs, the origin of which is still +obscure, see Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, 11 ff.; Grüneisen, +_Der Ahnenkultus Und Die Urreligion Israels_, 61 ff.; Engert, _Ehe- +und Familienrecht der Hebräer_, 96 ff.――=34b.= הִתְאַבֵּל, chiefly used +in reference to the dead, includes the outward tokens of mourning: +Exodus 33⁴, 2 Samuel 14²; compare Isaiah 61³, Psalms 35¹⁴.――=35.= +_all his daughters_] There was really only one daughter in the family. +A similar indifference to the prevalent tradition in details is seen +in the disparity of age between Joseph and his brothers (verse ³), +and the assumption that Rachel was still alive (¹⁰).――_go down ... +as a mourner_] Jacob will wear the mourner’s garb till his death, +so that in the underworld his son may know how deep his grief had +been (Gunkel). The shade was believed to appear in _She’ōl_ in the +condition in which it left the world (Schwally 63 f.).――=36= (Elohist) +resuming ²⁸ᵇ. See, further, on 39¹. + + * * * * * + + =31.= The reason for assigning the verse to Yahwist (Gunkel) + is the precarious assumption that Joseph’s coat plays no part + at all in Elohist. There is a good deal to be said for the view + that it belongs to Elohist (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.).――=32.= + ויביאו] Gunkel וַיָּבוֹאוּ, ‘and they came’ (see on ³³ above), which + would be an excellent continuation of ³¹: in Elohist they dip + the coat in blood, _come_ to their father, and _say_ ‘an evil + beast,’ etc.; in Yahwist they _send_ the coat unstained, and let + Jacob form his own conclusion.――In any case ויביאו וגו׳ is Elohist’s + parallel to Yahwist’s וישלחו וגו׳.――הכר־נא (compare 38²⁵), and the + disjunctive question (compare 18²¹ 24²¹) point distinctly to + Yahwist (Dillmann).――הַכּתנת] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 _l_.――=33.= + After בני, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Peshiṭtå insert היא.――טָרֹף טֹרַף] compare 44²⁸. On infinitive absolute + Qal used with Pual, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _w_.――=35.= ויקומו] + LXX συνήχθησαν δέ, adding καὶ ἦλθον before לנחמו.――=36.= והמדנים] + Read with all Versions והמדינים as verse ²⁸. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XXXVIII. + _Judah and Tamar_ + (Yahwist). + +Judah, separating himself from his brethren, marries a Canaanitish +wife, who bears to him three sons, ‛Er, ’Ônān and Shēlāh (¹⁻⁵). +‛Er and ’Onan become in succession the husbands of Tamar (under the +levirate law), and die without issue; and Judah orders Tamar to remain +a widow in her father’s house till Shelah should reach manhood (⁶⁻¹¹). +Finding herself deceived, Tamar resorts to a desperate stratagem, +by which she procures offspring from Judah himself (¹²⁻²⁶). With the +birth of her twin sons, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, the narrative closes (²⁷⁻³⁰). + + The story rests on a substratum of tribal history, being in the + main a legendary account of the origin of the principal clans + of Judah. To this historical nucleus we may reckon such facts + as these: the isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes + (see on verse ¹); the mixed origin of its leading families; + the extinction of the two oldest clans, ‛Er and ’Onan; the + rivalry of the younger branches, Pereẓ and Zeraḥ, ending in the + supremacy of the former; and (possibly) the superiority of these + two (as sons of Judah) to the more ancient Shelah (his grandson). + See Steuernagel, _Die Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme + in Kanaan_ 79 f.; where, however, the ethnological explanation + is carried further than is reasonable.――It is obvious that the + legend belongs to a cycle of tradition quite independent of + the story of Joseph. The latter knows of no separation of Judah + from his brethren, and this record leaves no room for a reunion. + Although Priestly-Code, who had both before him, represents + Judah and his sons as afterwards accompanying Jacob to Egypt + (46¹²), there can be no doubt that the intention of this passage + is to relate the permanent settlement of Judah in Palestine. + Where precisely the break with the prevalent tradition occurs, + we cannot certainly determine. It is possible that the figure + of Judah here is simply a personification of the tribe, which + has never been brought into connexion with the family history + of Jacob: in this case the events reflected may be assigned to + the period subsequent to the Exodus. It seems a more natural + supposition, however, that the legend ignores the Exodus + altogether, and belongs to a stratum of tradition in which + the occupation of Canaan is traced back to Jacob and his + immediate descendants (see pages 418, 507).――On some touches of + mythological colouring in the story of Tamar, see below, pages + 452, 454. + + _Source._――The chapter is a pure specimen of Yahwistic + narration, free from redactional manipulation. The following + characteristics of Yahwist may be noted: יהוה, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; רע בעינו, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰; + הבה־נא, ¹⁶; הכר־נא, ²⁵ (37³²); כי־על־כן, ²⁶; ידע; ²⁶; further, the + naming of the children by the mother, ³⁻⁵; and the resemblance + of ²⁷ ᶠᐧ to 25²⁴ ᶠᐧ. Since the sequence of 39¹ on 37³⁶ would + be harsh, it is probable that chapter 38 was inserted here by + Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ (Holzinger). + +=1‒5. Judah founds a separate family at Adullam.=――=1.= _went down +from his brethren_] Since the chapter has no connexion with the +history of Joseph, we cannot tell when or where the separation is +conceived to have taken place. From the situation of _‛Adullām_, it is +clear that some place in the central highlands is indicated. Adullam +is _possibly ‛Īd el-Mīye_ (or _‛Aid el-Mā_), on the border of the +Shephelah, 12 miles South-west of Bethlehem and 7 North-east of +Eleutheropolis (Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 193; Smith, +_Historical Geography of the Holy Land_, 229). It is marked on the +Palestinian Survey map as 1150 feet above sea-level. + + The isolation of the tribe of Judah was a fact of capital + importance in the early history of Israel. The separation is + described in Judges 1³ ᶠᶠᐧ; in the song of Deborah (Judges 5) + Judah is not mentioned either for praise or blame; and his + reunion with Israel is prayed for in Deuteronomy 33⁷. The + rupture of the Davidic kingdom, and the permanent cleavage + between south and north, are perhaps in part a consequence of + the stronger infusion of foreign blood in the southern tribe. + The verse suggests that the first Judahite settlement was at + ‛Adullam, where the tribe gained a footing by alliance with + a native clan named Ḥîrāh; but Meyer (_Die Israeliten und + ihre Nachbarstämme_, 435 f.) thinks it presupposes a previous + occupation of the region round Bethlehem, and deals merely with + an extension towards the Shephelah. It is certainly difficult + otherwise to account for the verb ירד (contrast וַיַּעַל, Judges 1⁴); + but were Judah’s brethren ever settled at Bethlehem? Gunkel’s + emendation, וַיָּרָד, ‘freed himself’ (see on 27⁴⁰; compare Hosea 12¹), + would relieve the difficulty, but is too bold for a plain prose + narrative. + + * * * * * + + =1.= ויט] LXX ἀφίκετο the precise force here of נטה, ‘turn + aside,’ is doubtful. The change of עד to אל (Ball) is unnecessary + (compare 1 Samuel 9⁹). + + * * * * * + +=2.= A more permanent amalgamation with the Canaanites is represented +by Judah’s marriage with or _Bath-Shûa‛_ or _Bath-Sheva‛_ (See on +verse ¹²). The freedom with which connubium with the Canaanites is +acknowledged (contrast 34. 24³) may be a proof of the antiquity of the +source (Holzinger, Gunkel).――=5b.= _in Kĕzîb, etc._] It is plausibly +inferred that Kĕzîb (= _’Akzîb_, an unknown locality in the Shephelah, +Joshua 15⁴⁴, Micah 1¹⁴) was the centre of the clan of Shelah; though +LXX makes all three births happen there. + + * * * * * + + =2.= וּשְׁמוֹ] LXX וּשְׁמָהּ. See on verse ¹².――=3.= ויקרא] Better as + verses ⁴ᐧ ⁵ ותקרא (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Hebrew MSS).――=5.= שֵׁלָה] LXX Σηλώμ; compare + the gentilic שֵׁלָנִי, Numbers 26²⁰.――והיה] is impossible, and _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ויהי little better. Read + with LXX וְהִיא.――בכזיב] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + בכזבה, compare כֹּזֵבָא, 1 Chronicles 4²².――אתו] LXX אֹתָם.――Nothing can + be made of the strange renderings of ⁵ᵇ in Peshiṭtå and Vulgate: + (‡ Syriac phrase); _quo nato parere ultra cessavit_ (compare + 29³⁵ 30⁹). + + * * * * * + +=6‒11. Tamar’s wrong.=――=6.= _Tamar_, the Hebrew word for date-palm, +occurs twice as a female name in David’s family (2 Samuel 13¹ +14²⁷). There is therefore little probability that it is here a +personification of the city of the same name on the South border of +Palestine (Ezekiel 47¹⁹) (so Steuernagel). A mythological origin is +suggested on page 452 below.――As head of the family, Judah chooses a +wife for his first-born (24³ 34⁴ 21²¹), as he is also responsible for +the carrying out of the levirate obligation (⁸ᐧ ¹¹).――=7.= No crime +is alleged against _‛Ēr_, whose untimely death was probably the only +evidence of Yahwe’s displeasure with him (Proverbs 10²⁷).――=8‒10.= +_’Onān_, on the other hand, is slain because of the revolting manner +in which he persistently evaded the sacred duty of raising up seed +to his brother. It is not correct to say (with Gunkel) that his +_only_ offence was his selfish disregard of his deceased brother’s +interests.――=11.= Judah sends Tamar home to her family, on the pretext +that his third son Shelah is too young to marry her. His real motive +is fear lest his only surviving son should share the fate of ‛Er and +’Onan, which he plainly attributes in some way to Tamar herself.――_in +thy father’s house_] according to the law for a childless widow +(Leviticus 22¹³, Ruth 1⁸). + + The custom of levirate marriage here presupposed prevailed + widely in primitive times, and is still observed in many + parts of the world. In its Hebrew form it does not appear + to have implied more than the duty of a surviving brother to + procure male issue for the oldest member of a family, when + he dies childless: the first-born son of the union is counted + the son, and is the heir, to the deceased; and although in + Deuteronomy 25⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ the widow is said to become the wife of + her brother-in-law, it may be questioned if in early times the + union was more than temporary. It is most naturally explained + as a survival, under patriarchal conditions, of some kind of + polyandry, in which the wife was the common property of the + kin-group (Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², + 146 ff.); and it naturally tended to be relaxed with the + advance of civilisation. Hence the law of Deuteronomy 25⁵⁻¹⁰ is + essentially a concession to the prevalent reluctance to comply + with the custom. This is also illustrated by the conduct of + ’Onan: the sanctity of the obligation is so strong that he does + not dare openly to defy it; yet his private family interest + induces him to defeat its purpose. It is noteworthy that the + only other historical example of the law――the analogous though + not identical case of Boaz and Ruth――also reveals the tendency + to escape its operation.――See Driver, _A critical and exegetical + commentary on Deuteronomy_ 280 ff. (with the authorities there + cited); also Engert, _Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer_, + 15 ff.; Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 66 ff. + + Judah’s belief that Tamar was the cause of the deaths of ‛Er + and ’Onan (_v.s._) may spring from an older form of the legend, + in which she was actually credited with death-dealing power. + Stucken and Jeremias recognise in this a common mythical + motive,――the goddess who slays her lovers,――and point to the + parallel case of Sara in the Book of Tobit (3⁸). Tamar and Sara + (_šarratu_, a title of Ištar) were originally forms of Ištar + (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 381 f.). + The connexion is possible; and if there be any truth in Barton’s + speculation that the date-palm was sacred to Ištar (_A Sketch + of Semitic Origins_¹, 92, 98, 102 ff.), it might furnish an + explanation of the name Tamar. + + * * * * * + + =7.= יהוה²] LXX ὁ θεός.――=8.= יַבֵּם] Deuteronomy 25⁵ᐧ ⁷†; + denominative from יָבָם, the _terminus technicus_ for ‘husband’s + brother’ in relation to the levirate institution.――=9.= + והיה אם] ‘as often as’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _o_.――שִׁחֵת + (sc. _semen_)] in the sense of ‘spoil,’ ‘make ineffective’ + (Brown-Driver-Briggs).――נְתָן־ for תֵּת] only again Numbers 20²¹; + compare הֲלֹךְ, Exodus 3¹⁹, Numbers 22¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶.――=10.= אשר עשה] + LXX, prefix הַדָּבָר.――=11.= שְׁבִי, וַתֵּשֶׁב] Ball al. propose שֻׁבִי, וַתָּשָׁב, + after Leviticus 22¹³; but see Isaiah 47⁸. + + * * * * * + +=12‒19. Tamar’s daring stratagem.=――=12.= _Bath-Shūa‛_] See the +footnote.――_was comforted_] a conventional phrase for the effect +of the mourning ceremonies; see Jeremiah 16⁷.――The death of Judah’s +wife is mentioned as a palliation of his subsequent behaviour: “even +in early times it was considered not quite _comme il faut_ for a +married man to have intercourse with harlots” (Gunkel).――On the +_sheep-shearing_, see 31¹⁹.――_Ḥîrāh his associate_] (see verse ¹) +is mentioned here because of the part he has to play in the story +(verses ²⁰⁻²³).――_went up ... to Timnah_] This cannot be the +Danite Timnah (Joshua 15¹⁰ 19⁴³, Judges 14¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁵), which lies lower +than ‛Adullam. Another Timnah South of Hebron (Joshua 15⁵⁷), but +unidentified, might be meant; or it may be the modern _Tibne_, West +of Bethlehem, though this is only 4 miles from ‛Adullam, and room has +to be found for ‛Enaim between them (but _v.i._ on verse ¹⁴).――=14.= +_her widow’s garments_] Compare Judith 8⁵ 10³ 16⁸.――She assumes the +garb of a common prostitute, and sits, covered by _the veil_ (see +below on verse ²¹), by the wayside; compare Jeremiah 3², Ezekiel 16²⁵, +Epistle of Jeremiah 43.――=15.= _for she had covered her face_] This +explains, not Judah’s failure to recognise her, but his mistaking +her for a harlot (see verse ¹⁶).――=17.= _a kid of the goats_] Compare +Judges 15¹. The present of a kid on these occasions may be due to +the fact that (as in classical antiquity) the goat was sacred to +the goddess of love (Pausanias vi. 25. 2 [with Frazer’s Note, volume +iv. 106]; compare Tacitus _Histories_ 2, 3, and Lucian, _Dialogi +Meretricii_ 7. 1) (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.= The master-stroke +of Tamar’s plot is the securing of a pledge which rendered the +identification of the owner absolutely certain. _Seal_, _cord_, and +_staff_ must have been the insignia of a man of rank amongst the +Israelites, as seal and staff were among the Babylonians (Herodotus +i. 195)¹ and Egyptians (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 228 f.). The +_cord_ may have been used to suspend the seal, as amongst modern town +Arabs (Robinson, _Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 36), or may +have had magical properties like those occasionally worn by Arab men +(Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 166). For illustrations of +ancient Hebrew seals, see Benzinger, _Hebräische Archäologie_² 82, +179 f., 228 ff. + + ¹ Σφρηγῖδα δ’ ἕκαστος ἔχει καὶ σκῆπτρον χειροποίητον· ἐπ’ + ἑκάστῳ δὲ σκήπτρῳ ἔπεστι πεποιημένον ἢ μῆλον ἢ ῥόδον ἢ + κρίνον ἢ αἰετὸς ἢ ἄλλο τι· ἄνευ γὰρ ἐπισήμου οὔ σφι νόμος + ἐστὶ ἔχειν σκῆπτρον.――Similarly Strabo, XVI. i. 20. + + * * * * * + + =12.= בת־שׁוּעַ] Apparently a compound proper name, as in 1 + Chronicles 2³ = בת־שֶׁבַע (compare 1 Chronicles 3⁵ with 2 Samuel 11³ + etc.), through an intermediate בת־שֶׁוַע. LXX, both here and verse ² + (but _not_ 1 Chronicles 2³), gives שוע as the name of Judah’s + _wife_.――רֵעֵהוּ] LXX, Vulgate רֹעֵהוּ, ‘his shepherd,’ wrongly.――=13.= + חָם] ‘husband’s father,’ 1 Samuel 4¹⁹ᐧ ²¹†. Smith (_Kinship and + Marriage in Early Arabia_², 161 f.) finds in the Arabic usage a + distinct trace of ba‛al-polyandry; the correlative is _kanna_, + “which usually means the wife of a son or brother, but in the + Ḥamāsa is used ... to designate one’s own wife.”――=14.= וַתְּכַס] so + Deuteronomy 22¹², Jonah 3⁶. Read either וַתִּכָּס, Niphal (Gunkel), or + וַתִּתְכַּס, Hithpael, with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + (as 24⁶⁵).――בפתח עינים] Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Vulgate _in + bivio itineris_, and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ take the meaning to + be ‘at the cross-roads’ (of which there are several on the short + way from ‛Aid el-Mā to Tibne). The sense is good, and it is + tempting to think that these versions are on the right track, + though their rendering has no support in Hebrew usage. If עינים be + a proper name it may be identical with the unknown עֵינָם of Joshua + 15³⁴, in the Shephelah.――וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ] LXX וְהוּא לֹא נְתָנָהּ לוֹ, better.――=15.= + end] LXX + καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν. + + * * * * * + +=20‒23. Judah fails to recover his pledge.=――=20.= It is significant +that Judah employs his _fidus Achates_ Ḥirah in this discreditable +affair, and will rather lose his seal, etc., than run the risk +of publicity (verse ²³).――=21.= _Where is that Ḳĕdēshāh?_] +strictly ‘sacred prostitute,’――one ‘dedicated’ for this purpose to +Ištar-Astarte, or some other deity (Deuteronomy 23¹⁸, Hosea 4¹⁴†). + + This is the only place where קדשה appears to be used of + an ordinary harlot; and Luther (_Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 180) points out that it is confined to the + conversation of Ḥirah with the natives, the writer using זוֹנָה. + The code of Ḥammurabi (§ 110) seems to contemplate the case + of a temple-votary (_ḳadistu_, _Die Keilinschriften und das + Alte Testament_³, 423; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 380) separating herself for private prostitution; and + it is possible that this custom was familiar to the Canaanites, + though not in Israel.――That the harlot’s _veil_ (verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁹) + was a symbol of dedication to Ištar the veiled goddess (_Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 276, 432; _Das Alte + Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 109) is possible, + though it is perhaps more natural to suppose that the veiling of + Ištar is an idealisation of the veiling of her votaries, which + rests on a primitive sexual taboo (compare the bridal veil 24⁶⁵). + + * * * * * + + =21.= מקמהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Peshiṭtå המקום (verse ²²). If this reading be accepted, there is + no reason to hold that עינום (if a place-name at all) was Tamar’s + native village.――הִוא] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + ההיא; but see 19³³ etc. + + * * * * * + +=24‒26. The vindication of Tamar. =――=24.= As the widow of ‛Er, or +the betrothed of Shelah, Tamar is guilty of adultery, and it falls to +Judah as head of the family to bring her to justice.――_Lead her out_] +a forensic term, Deuteronomy 22²¹ᐧ ²⁴.――_let her be burnt_] Death by +burning is the punishment imposed in Ḫammurabi, § 157, for incest with +a mother, and was doubtless the common punishment for adultery on the +part of a woman in ancient Israel. In later times the milder penalty +of stoning was substituted (Leviticus 20¹⁰, Deuteronomy 22²³ ᶠᶠᐧ, +Ezekiel 16⁴⁰, Jonah 8⁵), the more cruel death being reserved for +the prostitution of a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21⁹; compare +Ḫammurabi § 110).――=25.= By waiting till the last moment, Tamar makes +her justification as public and dramatically complete as possible. +Addressing the crowd she says, _To the man who owns these things, +etc._; to Judah himself she flings out the challenge, _Recognise to +whom this seal, etc., belong!_――=26.= _She is in the right as against +me_ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 133 _b_³; compare Job 4¹⁷ 32²)] _i.e._, her +conduct is justified by the graver wrong done to her by Judah. + + To suppose that incidents like that recorded in ¹²⁻²⁶ were of + frequent occurrence in ancient Israel, or that it was the duty + of the father-in-law under _any_ circumstances to marry his + son’s widow, is to miss entirely the point of the narrative. + On the contrary, as Gunkel well shows (365 f.), it is just + the exceptional nature of the circumstances that explains the + writer’s obvious admiration for Tamar’s heroic conduct. “Tamar + shows her fortitude by her disregard of conventional prejudice, + and her determination by any means in her power to secure her + wifely rights within her husband’s family. To obtain this right + the intrepid woman dares the utmost that womanly honour could + endure,――stoops to the level of an unfortunate girl, and does + that which in ordinary cases would lead to the most cruel and + shameful death, bravely risking honour and life on the issue. + At the same time, like a true mother in Judah, she manages her + part so cleverly that the dangerous path conducts her to a happy + goal.”――It follows that the episode is not meant to reflect + discredit on the tribe of Judah. It presents Judah’s behaviour + in as favourable a light as possible, suggesting extenuating + circumstances for what could not be altogether excused; and + regards that of Tamar as a glory to the tribe (compare Ruth 4¹²). + + * * * * * + + =24.= כמשלש] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ more + correctly כמשלשת.――=25.= On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + §§ 116 _u_, _v_, 142 _e_; Driver _A Treatise on the use of the + Tenses in Hebrew_ § 166 ff.――לְאיש] construct state with clause + as genitive; Holzinger al. point לָאיש.――החתמת] feminine only + here.――הפתילים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הפתיל (as verse ¹⁸).――=26.= + כי־על־כן] see on 18⁵. + + * * * * * + +=27‒30. Birth of Pereẓ and Zeraḥ.=――The story closely resembles that +of Rebekah in 25²⁴⁻²⁶ (38²⁷ᵇ = 25²⁴ᵇ), and is probably a variation of +the same originally mythical theme (see page 359).――=28.= The _scarlet_ +thread probably represents some feature of the original myth (note +that in 25²⁵ ‘the first came out _red_’). The forced etymology of +_Zeraḥ_ (verse ³⁰) could not have suggested it.――=29.= _What a breach +hast thou made for thyself!_] The name _Pereẓ_ expresses the violence +with which he secured the priority.――=30.= _Zeraḥ_] An Edomite clan in +36¹³ᐧ ³³. On the etymology, _v.i._ + + To the name Pereẓ, Cheyne (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient + Israel_, 357) aptly compares Plutarch’s account of the birth + of Typhon, brother of Osiris: “neither in due time, nor in + the right place, but _breaking through with a blow_, he leaped + out through his mother’s side” (_De Iside et Osiride_ chapter + 12).――The ascendancy of the Pereẓ clan has been explained by the + incorporation of the powerful families of Caleb and Jeraḥmeel, + 1 Chronicles ⁵ᐧ ⁹ (so Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, + i. 158 f.); but a more obvious reason is the fact that David’s + ancestry was traced to this branch (Romans 4¹⁸⁻²²). + + * * * * * + + =28.= ויתן־יד] _sc._ הַנֹּתֵן (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _e_); LXX + ὁ + εἷς.――=29.= ויהי כְּמֵשִׁיב] An ungrammatical use of the participle. + Read with Ball ויהי כְּמוֹ הֵשִׁיב (compare 19¹⁵).――פרצת――פרץ] cognitive + accusative. The rendering as a question (מה = ‘why’: Delitzsch, + Dillmann, Driver) is less natural than that given above; and to + detach עליך פרץ [_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עלינו] + as a separate exclamation (‘A breach upon thee!’) is worse. + LXX (τί διεκόπη διὰ σὲ φραγμός;) Vulgate, Peshiṭtå take the + verb in a passive sense.――ויקרא] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ותקרא (so verse ³⁰).――=30.= + זֶרַח] as a Hebrew word would mean ‘rising’ (of the sun, Isaiah + 60³) or ‘autochthonous’ (= אָזְרָח). A connexion with the idea of + ‘redness’ is difficult to establish. It is commonly supposed + that there is a play on the Aramaic זחריתא (which is used here by + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, and is the equivalent of Hebrew שָׁנִי), + and Babylonian _zaḫuritu_ (so Delitzsch, Driver, Gunkel, al.); + but this is not convincing. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XXXIX. + _Joseph is cast into Prison_ + (Yahwist). + +Joseph is sold by the Ishmaelites (37²⁸ᐧ ³⁶) to an Egyptian householder, +who finds him so capable and successful that ere long he entrusts him +with the whole administration of his estate (¹⁻⁶). But his master’s +wife conceives a guilty passion for him, and when her advances are +repelled, falsely accuses him of attempted outrage, with the result +that he is thrown into prison (⁷⁻²⁰). Here again he wins the favour +of his superior, and is soon charged with the oversight of the prison +(²¹⁻²³). + + _Source._――With the exception of a harmonising gloss in ¹ᵇ{α}, + and a sprinkling of Elohist variants (discussed in the notes), + the whole passage is from Yahwist. It represents the chief + divergence between the two recensions of the history of Joseph. + In Yahwist, Joseph is first sold to a private Egyptian איש מצרי, + verse ¹), then cast into the state prison in the way here + narrated, where he gains the confidence of the (unnamed) + governor, so that when the butler and baker are sent thither + they naturally fall under his charge. In Elohist, Joseph is + sold at once to Potiphar (37³⁶), the palace officer in whose + house the butler and baker are afterwards confined (40³ᵃ); and + Joseph, without being himself a prisoner, is told off to wait + on these eminent persons (40⁴). The imprisonment, therefore, + is indispensable in Yahwist, and at least embarrassing in + Elohist.――This conclusion is partly confirmed by the literary + phenomena: יהוה, ²ᐧ ³ᐧ ⁵; the Ishmaelites, ¹; הוריד, ¹; הצליח, ³ᐧ ²³; + מצא חן, ⁴; בגלל, ⁵. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that none + of these occur in the central section, ⁷⁻²⁰; and (Wellhausen, + _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 56) positively assigns ⁶⁻¹⁹ to Elohist, + because of the phrases יפה תאר ויפה מראה, ⁶ᵇ (compare 29¹⁷); ויהי א׳ + הדברים ה׳, ⁷ (compare 15¹ 22¹ᐧ ²⁰ 40¹ 48¹); ראו, ¹⁴; and לאלהים, ⁹. + These are not decisive (see Dillmann, 403; Holzinger, 231), and + on the whole the material argument must be held to outweigh the + dubious linguistic evidence that can be adduced on the other + side.――Procksch (42 f.) assigns ⁷⁻¹⁰ to Elohist and ¹¹⁻²³ to + Yahwist; but nothing is gained by the division. + +=1‒6. Joseph becomes the controller of an Egyptian estate.=――=1.= +_But Joseph had been taken down, etc._] while his father was mourning +over him as one dead (37³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ); the notice resumes 37²⁸ᵃ.――_a certain +Egyptian_] who is nameless in Yahwist (_v.i._).――=2.= The secret of +Joseph’s success: a combination of ability with personal charm which +marked him out as a favourite of Yahwe (compare ³ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²³).――_remained +in the house, etc._] under his master’s observation, instead of being +sent to work in the field.――=4a.= _served him_] _i.e._, ‘became his +personal attendant.’――The phrase is a variant from Elohist (compare +40⁴).――=4b.= In Yahwist, Joseph’s position is far higher, that, namely, +of _mer-per_ (_mer-pa, mer en peri-t, etc._), or superintendent of the +household, frequently mentioned in the inscriptions (Ebers, _Ägypten +und die Bücher Moses_ 303 ff.; Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 187 +f.).――=6a.= _knew not with him_] (_i.e._ with Joseph [verse ⁸]): +‘held no reckoning with him’;――a hyperbolical expression for absolute +confidence.――=6b= is introductory to ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. + + * * * * * + + =1.= The words פוטיפר――הטבחים are a repetition by Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ + from 37³⁶ (Elohist), in order to harmonise the two sources. + But the contradiction appears (1) in the meaningless איש מצרי + after the specific designation (this is not to be got rid + of by Ebers’s observation that under a Hyksos dynasty a high + official was not necessarily a native Egyptian), and (2) the + improbability of a eunuch being married (though cases of this + kind are known [Ebers, 299]).――פוטיפר] LXX Πετεφρη[ς], an exact + transcription of Egyptian _Pedephrē_ = ‘He whom the sun-god + gives’ (see _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 665b; _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 3814); but the long _o_ of the Hebrew has not been + explained. Compare Heyes, 105‒112.――סריס] means ‘eunuch’ in + New Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, (as is shown by the denominative + verbs = ‘be impotent’), and there is no case in Old Testament + where the strict sense is inapplicable (Gesenius, _Thesaurus + philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris + Testamenti_ 973 b). That such a word should be extended to mean + ‘courtier’ in general is more intelligible than the reverse + process (so Heyes, 122), in spite of the opinion of several + Assyriologists who derive it from _ša rêši_ = ‘he who is the + head’ (Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen + Gesellschaft_, liii. 116; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte + Testament_³, 649).――שר הטבחים] LXX ἀρχιμάγειρος, a title like + שר המשקים and ש׳ האופים in chapter 40 (Elohist). Compare רב הט׳, + 2 Kings 25⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Jeremiah 39⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ 40¹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc., Daniel 2¹⁴. The + טבחים were apparently the royal cooks or butchers (1 Samuel + 9²³ ᶠᐧ), who had come to be the bodyguard (Smith, _The Old + Testament in the Jewish Church_², 262¹).――=2.= איש מצליח] The + intransitive Hiphil is thought by Dillmann, Gunkel, al. to be + inconsistent with Yahwist’s usage (verses ³ᐧ ²³ 24²¹); therefore + Elohist.――=4.= בעיניּו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Vulgate בעיני אדניו.――וכל־יש־לו] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ inserts אשר as verse ⁵ ᵇⁱˢᐧ ⁸.――=4a= is wholly + assigned to Elohist by Gunkel; but וימצא חן pleads strongly for + Yahwist. + + * * * * * + +=7‒20. Joseph tempted by his master’s wife.=――=7‒10.= The first +temptation. The solicitation of a young man by a married woman is a +frequent theme of warning in Proverbs 1‒9.――=9a.= אֵינֶנּוּ does not mean +‘there is none’ (which would require אֵין), but ‘he is not.’――=9b.= _sin +against God_] The name Yahwe is naturally avoided in conversation with +a foreigner. All the more striking is the consciousness of the divine +presence which to the exiled Israelite is the ultimate sanction of +morality.――=11, 12.= The final temptation.――On the freedom of social +intercourse between the sexes, see Ebers, 306 f. But the difficulties +raised about Joseph’s access to the harem do not really arise, when +we remember that Yahwist is depicting the life of a simple Egyptian +family, and not that of a high palace official (see Tuch).――=13‒20.= +The woman’s revenge.――=14.= A covert appeal to the jealousy of +the men-servants against the hated Hebrew, and to the fears of the +women, whom she represents as unsafe from insult (_to mock us_). An +additional touch of venom lurks in the contemptuous reference to her +husband as ‘_he_.’――_Hebrew_ may be here a general designation of the +Asiatic Bedouin (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², +387); but see on 40¹⁵.――=19.= Her distorted account of the facts has +the desired effect on her husband.――_his wrath was kindled_] against +Joseph, of course. There is no hint that he suspected his wife, and +was angry with her also (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=20.= Imprisonment +would certainly not be the usual punishment for such a crime as Joseph +was believed to have committed; but the sequel demanded it, Joseph’s +further career depending on his being lodged in the _place where the +king’s prisoners were bound_. That he became a king’s slave (according +to Ḥammurabi § 129) is not indicated (against Jeremias _Das Alte +Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 388). The term for _prison_ +(_v.i._) is peculiar, and recurs only ²¹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³ 40³ᐧ ⁵. + + To this episode in Joseph’s life there is an Egyptian parallel + so close that we can hardly fail to recognise in it the original + of the Hebrew story. It is the ‘Tale of the two brothers’ in the + d’Orbiney Papyrus, assigned by Egyptologists to the 19th dynasty. + Two brothers lived together, the older Anpu having a house and + wife, and the younger Batu serving him in the field. One day + Batu enters the house to fetch seed for the sowing, and is + tempted by his brother’s wife, exactly as Joseph was by his + mistress. Furiously indignant――“like a panther for rage”――he + rejects her advances, out of loyalty to the brother who has been + like a father to him, and expresses horror of the ‘great sin’ + which she had suggested. Promising silence, he returns to his + brother in the field. In the evening Anpu comes home to find + his wife covered with self-inflicted wounds, and listens to a + tale which is a perfect parallel to the false accusation against + Joseph. Anpu seeks to murder his brother; but being at last + convinced of his innocence, he slays his wife instead. Here the + human interest of the story ceases, the remainder being fairy + lore of the most fantastic description, containing at least a + reminiscence of the Osiris myth. (See Ebers, 311 ff.; Erman, + _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 378 ff.; Petrie, _Egyptian Tales + Translated from the Papyri_, ii. 36 ff.; Völter, _Aegypten und + die Bibel_, 50 f. [who takes the story as a whole to be founded + on the myth of Set and Osiris].) It is true that the theme is + not exclusively Egyptian (see the numerous parallels in Lang, + _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, ii. 303 ff.); but the fact that + the scene of the biblical narrative is in Egypt, and the close + resemblance to the Egyptian tale, make it extremely probable + that there is a direct connexion between them. + + * * * * * + + =8.= מה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ מאומה (verse + ²³).――בבית] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate בביתו.――=10.= לשכב אצלה and להיות עמה look like + variants; but one swallow does not make a summer, and it would + be rash to infer an Elohistic recension.――=11.= כהיום הזה] A very + obscure expression, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 400 b. Of the + other occurrences (Deuteronomy 6²⁴, Jeremiah 44²², Ezra 9⁷ᐧ ¹⁵, + Nehemiah 9¹⁰†) all except the last are perfectly transparent: + ‘as [it is] this day,’――a sense quite unsuitable here. One + must suspect that the phrase, like the kindred כַּיּוֹם and כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה + (compare especially 1 Samuel 22⁸ᐧ ¹³), had acquired some elusive + idiomatic meaning which we cannot recover. Neither ‘on a certain + day’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _s_) nor ‘on this particular + day’ (Brown-Driver-Briggs) can be easily justified.――=13.= + וינס] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + ויצא + (¹²ᐧ ¹⁵).――=14.= לצַֽחֶק בנו] see on 26⁸.――=15.= אצלי] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate (_pallium quod + tenebam_) read בידי,――wrongly, since to have said this would + have been to betray herself (Delitzsch, Dillmann).――=17= end] + LXX + καὶ εἶπέν μοι Κοιμηθήσομαι μετὰ σοῦ [LXXᴬ Κοιμήθητι μετ’ + ἐμοῦ].――=18.= ויהי כהרימי] LXX ὡς δὲ ἤκουσεν ὅτι ὕψωσα.――וינס] LXX, + Peshiṭtå + ויצא.――=20.= בית הסהר] Only in ²⁰⁻²³ 40³ᐧ ⁵ (Yahwist). + The name may be Egyptian (see Ebers, 317 ff.; Driver _A + Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 768 a, _n._), but has not been + satisfactorily explained.――מְקום אשר] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 130 + _c_.――אסורי] so _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ (and + also in verse ²²); but read with Qrê אסירי (²²). + + * * * * * + +=21‒23.= =Joseph in prison.=――His good fortune and consequent +promotion are described in terms nearly identical with those of verses +¹⁻⁶.――In Yahwist, the governor of the prison is anonymous, and Joseph +is made superintendent of the other prisoners. + + * * * * * + + =21.= ויתן חנו] (as Exodus 3²¹ 11³ 12³⁶†) genitive of object = + ‘favour towards him.’――=22.= עֹשֵׁים] On omission of subject, see + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 116 _s_.――הוא היה עשה] LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ omitted.――=23.= + בידו] LXX πάντα γὰρ ἦν διὰ χειρὸς Ἰωσηφ.――מצליח] LXX + ἐν ταῖς + χερσὶν αὐτοῦ. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XL. + _Joseph proves his Gift of interpreting Dreams_ + (Elohist). + +Joseph is appointed to wait on two officers of the court who have +been put under arrest in his master’s house (¹⁻⁴), and finds them +one morning troubled by dreams for which they have no interpreter +(⁵⁻⁸). He interprets the dreams (⁹⁻¹⁹), which are speedily verified by +the event (²⁰⁻²²). But his eager request that the chief butler would +intercede for him with Pharaoh (¹⁴ ᶠᐧ) remains unheeded (²³). + + _Source._――The main narrative, as summarised above, obviously + belongs to Elohist (see page 456 f.). Joseph is not a prisoner + (as in Yahwist 39²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ), but the servant of the captain of + the guard (compare 37³⁶ 41¹²); the officers are not strictly + imprisoned, but merely placed ‘in ward’ (במשמר) in Potiphar’s + house (³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷); and Joseph was ‘stolen’ from his native land + (¹⁵ᵃ; compare 37²⁸ᵃ), not sold by his brethren as 37²⁸ᵇ + (Yahwist).――Fragments of a parallel narrative in Yahwist can + be detected in ¹ᵃ{β}ᵇ (a duplicate of ²), ³ᵃ{β} (from אל־בית ה׳) ᵇ + (Joseph a prisoner), ⁵ᵇ (the officers imprisoned), and ¹⁵ᵇ.――In + the phraseology note Yahwist’s המשקה, האפה, ¹ᐧ ⁵ᵇ ∥ Elohist’s + שר המשקים, ש׳ האפים, ²ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²³; Yahwist בית הסהר, ³ᵃ{β}ᐧ + ⁵ᵇ ∥ Elohist משמר, ³ᵃ{α}ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷; while שר הטבחים, ³ᐧ ⁴, and סריס, + ²ᐧ ⁷, connect the main narrative with 37³⁶ (Elohist).――That in + Yahwist the turn of Joseph’s fortune depended on the successful + interpretation of dreams does not explicitly appear, but may be + presumed from the fact that he was afterwards brought from the + dungeon to interpret them (41¹⁴ᵃ{β} Yahwist). + +=1‒8. Pharaoh’s officers in disgrace: their dreams.=――=1.= _the +butler ... the baker_] Yahwist writes as if the king had only one +servant of each class: his notions of a royal establishment are +perhaps simpler than Elohist’s. In Babylonia the highest and oldest +court offices are said to have been those of the baker and the butler +(_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 54; compare +Zimmern, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, +liii. 119 f.).――=2.= _chief of the butlers ... bakers_ (Elohist)] +The rise of household slaves to high civil dignity seems to have +been characteristic of the Egyptian government under the 19th dynasty +(Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 105). Titles corresponding to +those here used are ‘scribe of the sideboard,’ ‘superintendent +of the bakehouse,’ etc. (Erman, 187).――=3a.= The officers are not +incarcerated, but merely detained in custody pending investigation +(Gunkel).――=3b = (Yahwist). _bound_] _i.e._ ‘confined’; compare +39²² ᶠᐧ.――=4.= Joseph is charged with the duty of waiting on them (שֵׁרֵת +as 39⁴, 2 Samuel 13¹⁷). =5‒8= is a skilful piece of narration: the +effect of the dreams is vividly depicted before their character is +disclosed.――=5.= _each according to the interpretation of his dream_] +a sort of _idem per idem_ construction, meaning that the dreams +had each a peculiar significance.――=5b= (Yahwist).――=8.= _no one +to interpret it_] No professional interpreter, such as they would +certainly have consulted had they been at liberty.――_interpretations +belong to God_] The maxim is quite in accord with Egyptian sentiment +(Herodotus, ii. 83), but in the mouth of Joseph it expresses the +Hebrew idea that inspiration comes directly from God and is not a +מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה (Isaiah 29¹³). + + On the Egyptian belief in divinely inspired dreams, see + Ebers, 321 f.; Wiedemann, _Religion of the ancient Egyptians_ + 266 ff.; Heyes, 174 ff.: on the belief in classical antiquity, + Homer _Iliad_ ii. 5‒34, _Odyssey_ iv. 795 ff.; Cicero, _De + Divinatione_ i. § 39 ff. etc.; in modern Egypt, Lane, _An + Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_⁵, + i. 330. While this idea was fully shared by the Israelites, the + _interpretation_ of dreams, as a distinct art or gift, is rarely + referred to in Old Testament (only in the case of Joseph, and + that of Daniel, which is largely modelled on it). Elsewhere + the dream either _contains_ the revelation (20³ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.), or + carries its significance on its face (28¹² ᶠᶠᐧ 37¹⁰). See Stade + _Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ § 63. 1. + + * * * * * + + =1.= משׁקֵה――והאפה] On the syntax, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 128 _a_, + 129 _h_; Davidson § 27 (_b_): compare verse ⁵.――=2.= ויקצף is the + regular continuation of the time-clause in ¹ᵃ (Elohist).――סָֽריסיו] + with so-called _qamez impurum_; so always except in construct + state (40⁷ etc.).――=3.= במשמַר] Better perhaps במשמָר (compare + verse ⁴), with בית as accusative of place. So verse ⁷.――=4.= ימים + = ‘for some time’; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 139 _h_.――=6.= זעף] ‘be + fretful’; elsewhere late (Daniel 1¹⁰, Proverbs 19³, 2 Chronicles + 26¹⁹†).――=8.= פתר אין] On the order, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 + _o_.――פתרנים] LXX פתרנָם. + + * * * * * + +=9‒19. The dreams interpreted.=――=9‒11.= The butler had seen a vine +pass rapidly through the stages of its growth; had seemed to squeeze +the ripe grapes into a cup and present it to Pharaoh,――a mixture of +the ‘realistic’ and the ‘fantastic’ which belongs to the psychology of +the dream (Gunkel). It is disputed whether the drinking of the fresh +juice is realism or phantasy. “The ordinary interpretation is that +the king drank the fresh grape-juice; but as the butler sees the +natural process of the growth of the grapes take place with dream-like +swiftness, so probably it is taken for granted that the juice became +wine in similar fashion” (Bennett; so Gunkel). On the other hand, +Ebers (_Durch Gosen zum Sinai_², 492) cites two texts in which a +beverage prepared by squeezing grapes into water is mentioned.――=12, +13.= The interpretation: the butler will be restored to his office +within three days.――_lift up thy head_] Commonly understood of +restoration to honour. But in view of the fact that the phrase is +used of the baker also, it may be doubted if it be not a technical +phrase for release from prison (as it is in 2 Kings 25²⁷, Jeremiah +52³¹).――=14, 15.= Joseph’s petition.――_remember me_] On the difficult +construction, _v.i._――_from this house_] Not the prison (as version, +below), but Potiphar’s house, where he was kept as a slave.――=15a.= _I +was stolen_] compare 37²⁸ᵃ{α} (Elohist).――_the land of the Hebrews_] +The expression is an anachronism in the patriarchal history. It +is barely possible that both here and in 39¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ (41¹²) there is a +faint reminiscence of the historical background of the legends, the +early occupation of Palestine by Hebrew tribes.――=15b= (Yahwist) was +probably followed in the original document by an explanation of the +circumstances which led to his imprisonment.――=16‒19.= The baker’s +dream contains sinister features which were absent from the first, +the decisive difference being that while the butler dreamed that he +actually performed the duties of his office, the baker only sought +to do so, and was prevented (Gunkel).――=16.= _three baskets of white +bread_] The meaning of חֹרִי, however, is doubtful (_v.i._).――_upon my +head_] See the picture of the court-bakery of Rameses III. in Ebers, +_Ägypten und die Bücher Moses_ 332; Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, +191. According to Ebers, the custom of carrying on the head (Herodotus +ii. 35) was not usual in ancient Egypt _except_ for bakers.――=17.= _in +the uppermost basket_] Were the other two empty (Holzinger, Bennett)? +or were they filled with inferior bread for the court (Gunkel)?――_all +manner of bakemeats_] The court-baker of Rameses III. “is not content +with the usual shapes used for bread, but makes his cakes in all +manner of forms. Some are of a spiral shape like the ‘snails’ of our +confectioners; others are coloured dark-brown or red,” etc. (Erman, +192).――_while the birds kept eating_] In real life he would have +driven off the birds (compare 15¹¹); in the dream――and this is the +ominous circumstance――he cannot.――=19.= _lift thy head from off thee_] +In view of the fulfilment, it is perhaps better (with Ball) to remove +מעליך as a mistaken repetition of the last word of the verse, and to +understand the phrase of the baker’s release from prison (see on verse +¹³). The verb _hang_ may then refer to the mode of execution, and +not merely (as generally supposed) to the exposure of the decapitated +corpse. Decapitation is said to have been a commoner punishment in +Egypt than hanging, but the latter was not unknown (Ebers, 334). The +destruction of the corpse by birds must have been specially abhorrent +to Egyptians, from the importance they attached to the preservation +of the body after death. For Old Testament examples, see Deuteronomy +21²² ᶠᐧ, Joshua 10²⁶, 2 Samuel 4¹², and especially 2 Samuel 21 ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰. + + * * * * * + + =10.= והוא כפרחת] Not ‘when it budded’ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ), + for such a use of כְּ with a participle (Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 164 _g_) is dubious even in the Mishnah (_The Jewish Quarterly + Review_, 1908, 697 f.). If the text be retained we must render + ‘as if budding’ (Driver, _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses + in Hebrew_ page 172²). Ball emends (after LXX καὶ αὐτὴ θάλλουσα) + והיא מַפְרַחַת (compare Job 14⁹, Psalms 92¹⁴); Kittel כְּפָרְחָהּ.――נִצָּהּ] The + masculine נֵץ does not occur (in this sense) in biblical Hebrew, + and a contraction of ־ָתָהּ to ־ָהּ is doubtful (Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 91 _e_); hence it is better to read נִצָּה as accusative: ‘it (the + vine) went up in blossom.’ It is possible that here and Isaiah + 18⁵ נִצָּה means ‘berry-cluster’; see Derenbourg, _Zeitschrift für + die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, v. 301 f.――הבשילו] literally + ‘cooked’; Hiphil only here.――Note the asyndetous construction, + expressing the rapidity of the process.――=13.= יִשָּׂא――אָת־ראשך] LXX + μνησθήσεται ... τῆς ἀρχῆς σου; similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ.――כֵּן] literally ‘pedestal,’ used metaphorically as + here in 41¹³, Daniel 11⁷ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ³⁸†.――=14.= כי אם־זכרתני] LXX ἀλλὰ + μνήσθητί μου, Vulgate _tantum memento mei_; similarly Peshiṭtå + and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. Something like this must be the + meaning; the difficulty is (since a precative perfect is + generally disallowed in Hebrew) to fit the sense to any known + use of the bare perfect. (a) If it be perfect of certitude, + the nearest analogy seems to me to be Judges 15⁷, where כי אם has + strong affirmative force, perhaps with a suppressed adjuration, + as 2 Kings 5²⁰ (חי יהוה כי אם רצתי): ‘thou wilt surely remember me.’ + To supply a negative sentence like ‘I desire nothing [except + that thou remember me]’ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 _d_; Delitzsch, + Strack), destroys the idea of perfect of certainty, and is a + doubtful expedient for the additional reason that כי אם may mean + ‘except,’ but hardly ‘except that.’ (b) It may be future perfect, + in which case the אם must have its separate conditional sense; + and then it is better (with Wellhausen) to change כי to אַךְ: ‘only, + if thou remember me.’ The objection (Delitzsch, Dillmann) that + the remembrance is too essential an element of the request to + be made a mere condition, has no great weight; and might be + met by giving אִם interrogative force (Holzinger). See, further, + Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 119 + (δ).――ועשית־נא] The only case of consecutive perfect followed + by נא (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 105 _b_).――מן־הבית הזה] LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ seem to have read מן־הַבּוֹר הזה, or + מִבֵּית הַסֹּהַר הזה.――=16.= חֹרִי] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, commonly derived from + √ חָוַר ‘be white’; so virtually LXX, Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘of nobility’ (דְּחֵרוּ). Others + (Rashi, al.) understand it as a characteristic of the baskets: + ‘perforated’ (from חוֹר, ‘hole’). The βαϊνά (of palm-leaves) + of Symmachus seems to rest on Aramaic (Field).――=19.= מעליך¹] + Omitted by two MSS and Vulgate (Ball, Kittel). + + * * * * * + +=20‒23. The dreams fulfilled.=――=20.= That it was customary for the +Pharaoh to celebrate his birthday by court assemblies and granting of +amnesties, is proved for the Ptolemaic period by the tables of Rosetta +and Canopus.――_lifted the head_] see on verse ¹⁹.――=23.= The notice of +the butler’s ingratitude forms an effective close, leaving the reader +expectant of further developments. + + * * * * * + + =20.= הלדת את־] as Ezekiel 16⁵; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _w_, + 121 _b_.――=21.= מַשְׁקֶה] is never elsewhere used of the office of + butler: perhaps ‘over his [Pharaoh’s] drink’ (as we should say, + ‘his cellar’), as Leviticus 11³⁴, 1 Kings 10²¹, Isaiah 32⁶ (so + Gesenius, _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et + Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_, Dillmann).――=23.= וַיּשכחהו] Expressing + “a logical or necessary consequence of that which immediately + precedes” (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _l_); compare Davidson § 47. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XLI. + _Joseph becomes Viceroy of Egypt_ + (Jehovist, Priestly-Code). + +Two years after the events of chapter 40, the king of Egypt has a +wonderful double dream, which none of his magicians is able to +interpret (¹⁻⁸). The chief butler is naturally reminded of his own +experience, and mentions Joseph, who is forthwith summoned into the +royal presence (⁹⁻¹⁴). Having interpreted the dreams as a prophecy of +a great famine (¹⁵⁻³²), Joseph adds some sage advice on the right way +to cope with the emergency (³³⁻³⁶); and Pharaoh is so impressed by his +sagacity that he entrusts him with the execution of the scheme, and +makes him absolute ruler of Egypt (³⁷⁻⁴⁶). In pursuance of the policy +he had foreshadowed, Joseph stores the surplus of seven years of +plenty, and sells it during the subsequent famine (⁴⁷⁻⁵). + + _Analysis._――The connexion of this chapter with the preceding + appears from ¹ᵃ and ⁹⁻¹³: note שר המשקים, ש׳ האפים, ש׳ הטבחים, משמר, + קצף (40²); Joseph the servant of the ש׳ הט׳; the officers confined + in his ‘house’; Joseph ‘with them’ (¹⁰, compare 40³ᐧ ⁴); and + compare ¹¹ with 40⁵. In the first half of the chapter there is + no sufficient reason to suspect a second source except in ¹⁴ᵇ + (Yahwist); the repetitions and slight variations are not greater + than can be readily explained by a desire for variety in the + elaboration of detail. The whole of this section (¹⁻²⁸) may + therefore be safely assigned to Elohist (compare ואין־פותר אותם, + ⁸, ופתר אין אתו, ¹⁵ with 40⁸ᵃ; ¹⁶ with 40⁸ᵇ).――In the second + half, however, there are slight diversities of expression and + representation which show that a parallel narrative (Yahwist) + has been freely utilised. Thus, in ³³ Joseph recommends the + appointment of a single dictator, in ³⁴ the appointment of + ‘overseers’; in ³⁴ a _fifth part_ is to be stored, in ³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸ + _all_ the corn of the good years; in ³⁵ᵇ{α} the collection is to + be centralised under the royal authority, in ᵇ{β} localised in + the different cities; צבד בר alternates with קבץ אכל (³⁵ᵇ{α}ᐧ ⁴⁹ ∥ + ³⁵ᵃᐧ ⁴⁸). Further, ³⁸ seems ∥ ³⁹; ⁴¹ ∥ ⁴⁴; and ⁴⁵ᵇ ∥ ⁴⁶ᵇ; ⁴⁵ᵃ פוטי + פרע = פוטיפר can hardly be from Elohist, who has employed the name + for another person (37³⁶). Some of these differences may, no + doubt, prove to be illusory; but taken cumulatively they suffice + to prove that the passage is composite, although a satisfactory + analysis cannot be given. For details, see the notes below; and + consult Holzinger 234; Gunkel 380 f.; Procksch 43 f.――⁴⁶ᵃ is + from Priestly-Code, and ⁵⁰ᵇ is a gloss. + +=1‒8. Pharaoh’s dreams.=――=2.= _from the Nile_ (_v.i._)] the source +of Egypt’s fertility (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 425 ff.), +worshipped as ‘the father of the gods,’ and at times identified with +Osiris or Amon-re (Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, 14 f., +80 ff.).――_seven cows, etc._] “According to Diodorus Siculus i. 51, +the male ox is the symbol of the Nile, and sacred to Osiris, the +inventor of agriculture (_ib._ i. 21).... The Osiris-steer often +appears accompanied by _seven cows_, e.g. on the vignettes of the old +and new Book of the Dead” (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten +Orients_², 389).――=4.= The devouring of one set of cows by the other +is a fantastic but suggestive feature of the dream; the symbolism is +almost transparent.――=5‒7.= The second dream is, if possible, more +fantastic and at the same time more explicit.――=6.= _blasted with the +east-wind_ (LXX ἀνεμόφθοροι)] the dreaded sirocco or, _Ḥamsīn_, which +blows from the South-east from February to June, destroying vegetation, +and even killing the seed-corn in the clods (Ebers, 340; Erman, +_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 9; Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy +Land_, 67 ff.).――=8.= _all the magicians and wise men of Egypt_] +The possessors of occult knowledge of all sorts, including the +interpretation of dreams (see page 461); compare Tacitus, _Histories_ +iv. 83: “Ptolemæus ... sacerdotibus Ægyptiorum, quibus mos talia +intellegere, nocturnos visus aperit”; see Ebers, 341‒349. The +motive――the confutation of heathen magic by a representative of the +true religion――is repeated in the histories of Moses (Exodus 7‒9) +and Daniel (chapters 2. 5); compare Isaiah 47¹² etc. + + * * * * * + + =1.= ופרעה חלם] Participial clause as apodosis; see Driver _A + Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 78 (3).――היאר] + An Egyptian loan-word (_’iotr_, _’io’r_ = ‘stream’), used in + Old Testament of the Nile and its canals (except Isaiah 33²¹, + Job 28¹⁰, Daniel 12⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ); found also in Assyrian in the form + _ya’aru_. See Ebers, 337 f.; Steindorff, _BA_, i. 612 (compare + 171).――=2.= אחו (41¹⁸, Job 8¹¹†)] ‘Nile-grass’ = Egyptian _aḥu_, + from _aḥa_, ‘be green’ (Ebers, 338). LXX ἄχει occurs also + verses ³ᐧ ¹⁹, Isaiah 19⁷, Sirach 40¹⁶.――=3.= ודקות] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ ורקות (so verse ⁴). It is naturally + difficult to decide which is right; but Ball pertinently points + to the alliterations as determining the choice: read therefore + ר׳ in ³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁷, but דּ׳ in ⁶ᐧ ²³,――in other words, ר׳ always + of the cows and דּ׳ always of the ears.――אצל] LXX omits, thus + making all the 14 cows stand together.――=4.= ותאכלנה] LXX + שֶׁבַע; + so ⁷ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴. LXX has many similar variations (which need not + be noted), revealing a tendency to introduce uniformity into + the description.――=8.= ותפעם] ‘was perturbed’; as Daniel 2³ (2¹ + Hithpael), Psalms 77⁵.――חרטמים] Only in this chapter, in Exodus + 7‒9 (Priestly-Code), and (by imitation) in Daniel 2². The word + is thus practically confined to Egyptian magicians, though + no Egyptian etymology has been found; and it may be plausibly + derived from Hebrew חֶרֶט, _stylus_.――אתם] Read with LXX אֹתוֹ, after + חלמוֹ; the dream is ‘one’ (verses ²⁵ᐧ ²⁶). + + * * * * * + +=9‒14. Joseph summoned to interpret the dreams.=――=9.= The butler’s +ungrateful memory is stimulated by the opportunity of ingratiating +himself with his royal master, though this requires him to _make +mention of_ his old offence.――=12.= _according to each man’s dream +he interpreted_] Note the order of ideas as contrasted with verse ¹¹ +(40⁵): there is a pre-established harmony between the interpretation +and the dream, and the office of the interpreter is to penetrate the +imagery of the dream and reach the truth it was sent to convey.――=13.= +_I was restored ... he was hanged_] Literally ‘Me one restored,’ +etc., according to Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_, _e_. To suppose the +omission of _Pharaoh_, or to make Joseph the subject, is barely +admissible.――=14.= _and they brought him hastily from the dungeon_] +is a clause inserted from Yahwist.――_shaved himself_] his head and +beard,――a custom which seems to have been peculiar to the priests +under the New Empire (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 219; compare +Herodotus, ii. 37). + + * * * * * + + =9.= את־פרעה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ better + אל פ׳.――חטאַי] LXX חטאִי (singular). The resemblance of the clause (⁹ᵇ) + to 40¹ does not prove it to be from Yahwist (Gunkel).――=10.= אתי] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אתם, LXX אתנו.――=11.= + ונחלמה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 49 _e_.――=12.= ויפתר――פתר] LXX καὶ + συνέκρινεν ἡμῖν. + + * * * * * + +=15‒24. Pharaoh’s recital of his dreams.=――=15.= _thou canst hear a +dream to interpret it_] _i.e._, ‘thou canst interpret a dream when +thou hearest it’: Hebrew subordinates the emphatic clause where we +would subordinate the condition.――=16.= Compare 40⁸.――The answer (on +the form, _v.i._) exhibits a fine combination of religious sincerity +and courtly deference.――=17‒21.= The first dream.――The king gives a +vivid subjective colouring to the recital by expressing the feelings +which the dream excited. This is natural, and creates no presumption +that a parallel narrative is drawn upon. Similarly, the slight +differences in phraseology (תאר for מראה, דַּלּוֹת, etc.) are due to the +literary instinct for variety.――=22‒24.= The second dream. + + * * * * * + + =15.= תשמע] _Oratio obliqua_ after לֵאמֹר (without כי), + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 157 _a_; Davidson § 146, _R._ 1.――=16.= + בִּלְעָדַי] literally ‘Apart from me’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא מן חוכמתי), used + as 14²⁴. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read + בִּלְעֲדֵי אלהים לא יֵעָנָה = ‘Apart from God, one will not be answered,’ + etc.; compare Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase)" (‘Dost thou expect + that apart from God one will answer?’ etc.). Vulgate _Absque me + Deus respondebit_, shifting the accent. There seems a _double + entendre_ in the use of יענה: ‘answer’ and ‘correspond’: ‘God + will give an answer corresponding to the welfare,’ etc.――=19.= + דלות] ‘flaccid’; LXX omitted.――=21.= קרבֶנָה] On the suffix + compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_.――מראיהן] Singular (_ib._ § 93 + _ss_).――=23.= צנמות] Aramaic = ‘dried,’ ‘hardened.’ The word is + ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in Old Testament, and is omitted by LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå.――אחריהם] MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ הֶן――. The irregular gender of Massoretic Text only + here in this chapter. + + * * * * * + +=25‒32. The interpretation.=――=25‒27a.= The general outline of the +interpretation: the dream is one; it is a presage of what is to +happen; the number seven refers to years. The methodical exposition +is meant to be impressive.――=27b= brings the climax: _There shall be +seven years of famine_ (so Procksch _v.i._).――=28.= It is uncertain +whether הוּא refers back to ²⁵ᵇ (‘This is what [I meant when] I said +to Pharaoh’), or to ²⁷ᵇ (‘This is the announcement I [now] make to +Pharaoh’). In any case =29= looks like a new commencement, and may +introduce a variant from Yahwist (_v.i._).――=31.= ולא יִוָּדַע goes back to +the ולא נוֹדַע of ²¹.――=32.= If the dream is one, why was it twice repeated? +Because, says Joseph, the crisis is certain and urgent. So he rounds +off his finished and masterly explanation of the dreams. + + * * * * * + + =26.= פרת] Omission of article may be justified on the + ground that the numeral is equivalent to a determinant + (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _x_); but _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ הפרות is much to be preferred.――=27.= הרֵקוֹת] + ‘empty.’ The pointing is suggested partly by the contrast to + מלאֹת (²² etc.), partly by the fact that (in Massoretic Text) רַק + has not been used of the ears. We ought undoubtedly to read הַדַּקּוֹת + (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå).――יהיו וגו׳] + The translation above is not free from difficulty; it omits a + prediction of unusual plenty preceding the famine, which is, + nevertheless, presupposed by what follows. But the ordinary + rendering is also weak: why should the seven thin ears alone + be fully interpreted? Besides, שִׁבֳּלִים is feminine.――=28‒32.= The + critical difficulties of the chapter commence in this section. + Procksch assigns ²⁹⁻³¹ to Yahwist (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_), instancing כִּלִּה (compare 18³³ 24¹⁵ᐧ + ¹⁹ 27³⁰ 43² 44¹²), and כָּבֵד (12¹⁰ 43¹ 47⁴ᐧ ¹³) as characteristic + of Yahwist; but they are not decisive. Gunkel limits Yahwist to + ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰ᵃᐧ ³²ᵇ{β} (∥ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁰ᵇᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³²ᵃᵇ{α} Elohist). This is on the + whole more satisfying, since ונשכח and ולא יִוָדַע appear to be doublets + (Dillmann); but a positive conclusion will hardly be reached. + + * * * * * + +=33‒36. Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh.=――Here Joseph proves himself to +be no mere expert in reading dreams, but a man with a large reserve +of practical wisdom and statesmanship.――=33‒35.= There is an apparent +discrepancy between the appointment of a single official (³³ᵃ) and +that of a commission of ‘overseers’ (³⁴ᵃ); and again between the +fifth part (³⁴ᵇ) and the whole (³⁵ᵃ); we note also the transition +from singular (וחמש) to plural (ויקבצו, etc.). For attempts at division +of sources, see below.――=34.= The taxing of a fifth part of the crop +seems to have been a permanent Egyptian institution (see on 47²⁴), +whose origin the Hebrews traced to the administration of Joseph.――=35.= +_under the hand_ (_i.e._ the authority) _of Pharaoh_] compare Exodus +18¹⁰, 2 Kings 13⁵, Isaiah 3⁶. + + * * * * * + + =33‒36.= The passage is certainly composite, and can be + resolved into two nearly complete sequences as follows: Elohist + = ³³ᐧ ³⁴ᵇᐧ ³⁵ᵇ{α} (to פרעה) ³⁶ᵃ{βγ}; Yahwist = ³⁴ᵃᐧ ³⁵ᵃᵇ{β} (from + אֹכֶל)ᐧ ³⁶ᵃ{α} ᵇ. Characteristic of Elohist are איש בר, ארץ מצרים, צבר, + against Yahwist’s פקידים (with פִּקָּדוֹן), הארץ, קבץ אכל; and the only + necessary change is יצברו to יצבר. The result corresponds pretty + closely with Gunkel’s analysis; that of Procksch differs + widely.――=33.= יֵרֶ֫א] see Baer-Delitzsch page 78; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 75 _p_. Strack, however, holds the true reading to be + יֵ֫רֶא.――=34.= יעשה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + ויעש. To the peculiar idiom, Delitzsch compares the Latin _fac + scribas_; יעשה may, however, mean ‘take action,’ as 1 Kings + 8³².――וחמש] LXX plural.――=35.= אכל בערים ושמרו] Ball prefixes וְיִתְּנוּ + (as verse ⁴⁸); some such expedient is necessary to make sense + of the last word.――For ושמרו, _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå have ישמרו; LXX συναχθήτω (יצברו?).――=36.= + פִּקָּדוֹן] Leviticus 5²¹ᐧ ²³†; obviously suggested here by פקדים in + verse ³⁴. + + * * * * * + +=37‒46. Joseph’s elevation.=――=37, 39= (Elohist) ∥ =38= +(Yahwist).――The _thing_ that _was pleasing to Pharaoh, etc._, is not +the interpretation of the dreams, but the practical suggestion with +which it was followed up, though it was the former which proved that +Joseph was truly inspired. The statement that the policy commended +itself comes from Elohist; in Yahwist, Pharaoh improves upon it +by entrusting the supervision to Joseph himself instead of to +the ‘overseers’ he had proposed.――=38.= _the spirit of God_] here +first mentioned in Genesis as the source of inward illumination and +intellectual power. The idea that eminent mental gifts proceed from +the indwelling of the divine spirit, which is implied in Pharaoh’s +exclamation, was probably ancient in Israel, although the proofs of it +are comparatively late (compare Exodus 31³, Numbers 27¹⁸; see Stade, +_Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments_ § 43. 1).――=40.= _over my +house_] The dignity may be compared to that of “Mayor of the palace” +under the Merovingian kings; compare 1 Kings 4⁶ 16⁹, Isaiah 22¹⁵ +etc.――=41.= _over all the land of Egypt_] The most coveted civic +office in Egypt was that of the _T’ate_, the chief of the whole +administration, “the second after the king in the court of the palace” +(see Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 87 ff., 69). The elevation of +Syrian slaves to such dignities is likewise attested for the age of +the New Empire (_ib._ 106, 517 f.).――=42.= The form of investiture is +specifically Egyptian.――_his signet-ring_] used in sealing documents +(Esther 3¹² 8⁸), and given as a token of authority (Esther 3¹⁰ 8², +1 Maccabees 6¹⁵ etc.).――_fine linen_] the weaving of which was +carried to extreme perfection in Egypt; Erman, 448 ff.――_the golden +collar_] There is probably an allusion to ‘the reward of the gold,’ a +decoration (including necklets of gold) often conferred in recognition +of eminent service to the crown (Erman, 118 ff.: see the engraving, +208¹).――=43.= _the second-best chariot_] Horses and carriages first +appear on monuments of the 18th dynasty, and must have been introduced +“during the dark period between the Middle and the New Empire” (Erman, +490).――_they cried before him ’Abrēk_] A very obscure word; for +conjectures, _v.i._――=44.= An almost exact parallel (Yahwist) to +⁴¹ (Elohist).――=45a.= Joseph’s marriage.――The conferring of a new +name naturally accompanied promotions like that of Joseph (Erman, +144).――_the high priest of ’Ôn_] was an important personage in the +religion and politics of the New Empire (see Erman, _Life in Ancient +Egypt_, 76, 83, 89, and _passim_), and the priestly college there was +reputed the greatest in the country for learning (Herodotus, ii. 3; +Strabo, XVII. i. 29). _’Ôn_ (Egyptian _Anu_) is Heliopolis, 7 miles +North-east of Cairo, an ancient seat of the worship of the sun-god +Ra.――On the other names in the verse, _v.i._――=45b= and =46b= are +doublets.――=46a= (Priestly-Code). The chronology is altogether +inconsistent with the assumptions of Jehovist regarding the relative +ages of Joseph and Benjamin (see Bennett 360).――_stood before Pharaoh_] +compare 47⁷ (Priestly-Code). + + ¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine + Nachkommen in Ägypten_ 248 ff. + + * * * * * + + =37‒46.= _Analysis._――To Elohist we may pretty confidently + assign ³⁷ᐧ ³⁹ (נבון וחכם as ³³) ⁴⁰; to Yahwist ³⁸ᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵. Whether + Yahwist’s parallel to ⁴⁰ commences with ⁴¹ (Procksch), or is + delayed to ⁴⁴ (Gunkel), it is hard to decide. ⁴¹ᵇ reads like a + formula of investiture accompanying the action of ⁴²ᵃ, of which + ⁴³ᵇ would be the explication. ⁴⁶ᵇ{β} would be a natural sequel + to ⁴³ᵃ (ויעבר). Hence, if a division must be attempted, that of + Procksch may be followed, viz., Elohist = ⁴⁰ᐧ ⁴²ᵇᐧ ⁴³ᵃᐧ ⁴⁶ᵇ{β}; + Yahwist = ⁴¹ᐧ ⁴²ᵃᐧ ⁴³ᵇᐧ ⁴⁴ᐧ ⁴⁵.――=38.= הנמצא] 1st plural imperfect + Qal.――=40.= ועל־פיך ישק] LXX ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου ὑπακούσεται. The + meaning ‘kiss’ being obviously unsuitable, Tuch, Delitzsch, + Dillmann render ‘arrange themselves’ (from Arabic _nasaḳa_); + others point יָשֹׁק, ‘run’; but no explanation is quite satisfactory. + על־פיך may, of course, mean ‘at thy command’ (45²¹, Exodus 17¹ + etc.).――רק הכסא] ‘only as regards the throne’; Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 118 _h_.――=41.= אתך] LXX + σήμερον.――=42.= שֵׁשׁ] Apparently an + Egyptian word (Coptic _šens_), replaced in post-Exilic Hebrew + by בּוּץ. It is disputed whether it means cotton alone, or linen + alone, or both; see Dillmann’s exhaustive note on Exodus + 25⁴, and _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2800 f.――הזהב] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ זהב.――=43.= בְּמִרכבת] Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 85 _h_.――ויקראו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Peshiṭtå ויקרא.――אַבְרֵךְ] The word remains an enigma. The + resemblance to Hebrew ברך has misled no ancient Version + except Aquila (γονατίζειν) and Vulgate (_ut genuflecterent_). + Peshiṭtå renders (‡ Syriac phrase); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דין אבא למלכא; + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ דין אבא למלכא רב בחכמתא ורכיך בשנייא; LXX has κῆρυξ as + subject of verb (Vulgate also has _clamante præcone_). The + speculations of Egyptologists are too numerous to mention: + see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._, or Heyes, 254 ff. The best is + that of Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ vi. 317 + ff.), who considers that it is a call to ‘Attention!’ (Egyptian + _’b r-k_; literally, ‘Thy heart to thee!’). Friedrich Delitzsch + (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225) suggested a connexion with Assyrian + _abarakku_ (the title of a high official), which his father + declared to be a “neckischer Zufall”! Radical emendations of the + text have been proposed by Ball ([ל]אמר כ׳ נין) and Cheyne (אַבִּר כינאתן + = ‘Mighty one of Chuenaten’ [Amenophis IV.]: _Orientalische + Litteraturzeitung_ iii. 151 f.); these are wholly unsatisfying, + and the latter has not survived the criticisms of Müller + (_ib._ 325 f.): see _Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, + 467.――ונתון] ‘thus placing.’ As continuation of ויתן in ⁴²ᵃ, the + infinitive absolute is grammatically correct (Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 113 _z_); and though the idiom is infrequent, there is no + reason to suspect the text. ――=45.= צָֽפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ] LXX Ψονθομφανήχ + (transposing צ and פ? [see Nestle, _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxv. 209 ff.]). The old + interpretations follow two lines: (1) ‘Revealer of secrets’ + (Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ ii. 91; Peshiṭtå, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Patr.), connecting with Hebrew צפן; and + (2) ‘Saviour of the world’ (Coptic _p-sot-om-ph-eneḫ_, Delitzsch, + Holzinger); so Vulgate, Jerome _Quæstiones sive Traditiones + hebraicæ in Genesim_. Of modern Egyptological theories the one + most in favour seems to be that propounded by Steindorff in + _Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde_ xxvii. + 41 f.: that it represents Egyptian _De- pnute-ef‛-onḫ_, and + means ‘The god speaks and he lives.’ It is said (_ib._ 42) that + personal names of this type (though with the _proper_ name of + a deity) are common from the beginning of the 22nd dynasty. + See the discussion in Heyes, _op. cit._ 258 ff., who prefers + the interpretation of Lieblein (_Proceedings of the Society + of Biblical Archæology_, 1898, 202 ff.): _defenti_ [or + _defenta_]_-pa-anḫ_ = “celui qui donne la nourriture de la + vie.”――אָֽסְנַת] Explained, with some hesitation, as ‘belonging to + (the goddess) Neith’ (Steindorff, Spiegelberg, al.).――פוטי פרע] + (LXX Πετεφρῆ, etc.) is a fuller form of פוטיפר; see on 39¹.――It + is worthy of remark that, except in the case of Asenath, + the suggested Egyptian analogues of these names do not + occur, save sporadically, earlier than the 22nd dynasty + (that of Shishak).――=45b.= LXX omits.――=46.= פרעה מלך מצרים + is an amplification in the style of Priestly-Code (Exodus + 6¹¹ᐧ ¹³ᐧ ²⁷ᐧ ²⁹ 14⁸). + + * * * * * + +=47‒57. Joseph’s measures for relief of the famine.=――=47, 49= +(Elohist) ∥ =48= (Yahwist). He stores corn during the seven years +of plenty.――=50‒52= (Elohist?). Joseph’s two sons.――_Mĕnaššeh_] +interpreted quite grammatically as ‘causing to forget.’ The etymology +is not to be taken too literally, as if the narrator meant that Joseph +had actually forgotten his father’s house (compare Psalms 45¹¹).――=52.= +_made me fruitful_] The name of the tribe is generally thought to +contain the idea of fruitfulness, from the fertility of the region in +central Palestine which it occupied.――=54‒57.= The beginning of the +famine.――=54, 55= contain a slight discrepancy. According to ⁵⁴ᵇ the +Egyptians had no lack of bread, and consequently no need to apply +to Joseph, though they were indebted to his forethought. In ⁵⁵ they +are famishing, and have to buy their food from Joseph: this view +is connected with 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=56.= _opened all that was in them_] +Read with LXX ‘all the granaries,’ though the Hebrew text cannot be +certainly restored (_v.i._)――=57.= prepares for the next scene of the +drama (chapter 42). + + State granaries, for the sustenance of the army, the + officials and the serfs, were a standing feature of Egyptian + administration (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 107 f.; compare + 433 f.), and were naturally drawn upon for the relief of the + populace in times of scarcity (_ib._ 126). The ‘superintendent + of the granaries’ was a high officer of state, distinct, as a + rule, from the vizier or _T’ate_ (page 469); but a union of the + two dignities was just as easy under exceptional circumstances + as the combination of the Premiership with the Chancellorship + of the Exchequer would be with us (see Erman, 89). We can + readily understand that such a wise and comprehensive provision + impressed the imagination of the Israelites, and was attributed + by them to a divine inspiration of which one of their ancestors + was the medium (compare Gunkel 384).――Besides these general + illustrations of the writer’s acquaintance with Egyptian + conditions, two special parallels to this aspect of Joseph’s + career are cited from the monuments: (1) Ameny, a monarch under + Usertsen I. (12th dynasty), records on his grave at Beni-Hasan + that when years of famine came he ploughed all the fields of his + district, nourished the subjects of his sovereign and gave them + food, so that there was none hungry among them. (2) Similarly, + on a grave of the 17th dynasty at El-Kab: “When a famine arose, + lasting many years, I distributed corn to the city in each + year of the famine” (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des + alten Orients_², 390; Driver 346 f.). For the sale of grain to + foreigners, we have the case of Yanḫamu, governor of Yarimutu, + in the Amarna letters (see below on 47¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ).――It is impossible + to desire a fuller demonstration of the Egyptian background + of the Joseph-stories than chapter 41 affords. The attempt to + minimise the coincidences, and show that “in a more original + and shorter form the story of Joseph had a North Arabian and + not a Palestinian and Egyptian background, and consequently that + ‘Pharaoh, king of Egypt,’ should be ‘Pir’u, king of Miṣrim’” + (_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 454‒473), tends to + discredit rather than confirm the seductive Muṣri-theory, which + is pushed to such an extravagant length. + + * * * * * + + =47‒57.= _Analysis._――Starting from the presumption that the + storing of food in the cities and the direct appeal of the + famishing people to Pharaoh are not from the same source, the + best division seems the following: Elohist = ⁴⁷ᐧ ⁴⁹ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵃᐧ ⁵⁵ᐧ ⁵⁶ᵇ; + Yahwist = ⁴⁸ᐧ ⁵³ᐧ ⁵⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵⁶ᵃᐧ ⁵⁷ (compare Gunkel and Procksch). ⁵⁰⁻⁵² + are universally assigned to Elohist (on account of אלהים) in + spite of the fact that the children are named by the father. + Priestly-Code’s authorship is perhaps excluded by the explicit + etymologies, to which there are no real analogies in that + document. The verses in any case interrupt the context of + Jehovist, and may be a supplementary notice inserted by a late + hand at what seemed the most suitable place.――=47.= לקמצים] The + √ is elsewhere peculiar to Priestly-Code (Leviticus 2² 5¹² 6⁸, + Numbers 5²⁶†); and Ball assigns ⁴⁶⁻⁴⁸ to that source. But the + sense ‘by handfuls’ is doubtful, and is represented by none of + the old versions except the clumsy paraphrases of Vulgate and + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; so that the text is probably at fault. LXX has + δράγματα; Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (‡ Syriac word) and לאוצרין + [with (‡ Syriac word) and וכנשר for זתעש]――=48.= שנים אשר היו] Read + with _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX השנים אשר היה + הַשָּׂבָע.――=50.= שְׁנַת] LXX τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη.――=51.= נַשּׁני] Piel only here; + both the form and the irregular vocalisation (Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 52 _m_) are chosen for the sake of assonance with מְנַשֵּׂה.――=54.= + היה] LXX οὐκ ἦσαν; so Peshiṭtå――a natural misunderstanding.――=56.= + אשר בהם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אשר בהם בר. The + context imperatively demands a noun [LXX σιτοβολῶνας, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word)]. Lagarde (_Symmicta_ i. 57) suggested a Hebrew + equivalent of Talmud. אישבורא; Wellhausen some derivative of שבר; + Delitzsch, Ball, and Kittel (combining _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ and Peshiṭtå) אוצרות הַבָּר.――וישבר] Pointed וַיַּשְׁבֵּר + (Hiphil); compare 42⁶.――ויחזק וגו׳] LXX omits.――=57.= הארץ¹] Better + הארצות as LXX (compare ⁵⁴). + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XLII. + _Joseph’s Brethren come to Egypt to buy Food_ + (Elohist, Yahwist) + +One thing is still wanting to the dramatic completeness of the story +of Joseph: the recognition of his greatness by his family, or (in +Elohist) the fulfilment of his youthful dreams. This is the theme of +the second part of the history (chapters 42‒45), where the writers +tax their inventiveness to the utmost in retarding the _dénouement_ +of the plot. Two visits to Egypt, and not fewer than four interviews +with Joseph, are needed to prepare for the final reconciliation; and +the hearers’ attention is all the while kept on the stretch by the +surprising expedients adopted by Joseph to protract the suspense and +excite the compunction of his brethren.――In chapter 42 we are told how +the ten brothers are brought to Egypt by stress of famine (¹⁻⁴), are +recognised by Joseph, and denounced and imprisoned as spies (⁵⁻¹⁷); +and how after three days’ confinement they are sent home, leaving +Simeon behind them as a hostage (¹⁸⁻²⁸). Arrived in Canaan, they +relate their adventure to Jacob, who bitterly complains of the loss of +two children, and refuses to trust Benjamin to their charge (²⁹⁻³⁸). +The incident of the money found in the sacks (²⁵ᐧ ²⁷ ᶠᐧ ³⁵) increases +the dread with which they contemplate a return to Egypt. + + _Analysis._――Chapter 42 belongs _a potiori_ to Elohist, and + 43. 44 to Yahwist (Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs + und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 58 ff.). A + distinct difference of representation appears from a comparison + of 42²⁹⁻³⁷ (which, _pace_ Procksch, is an undiluted excerpt from + Elohist) with 43³⁻⁷ 44¹⁹⁻²³ (Yahwist). “In chapter 42, Joseph + secures, by the detention of Simeon, that the brethren shall + return under any circumstances, with Benjamin or without; in + chapter 43 f., on the contrary, he forbids them to return unless + Benjamin is with them” (Wellhausen). In Yahwist, moreover, + the brethren do not volunteer the information that they have + a younger brother, but it is drawn out of them by searching + questions. It is certain (from doublets and phraseology) that + both Yahwist and Elohist are represented in 42¹⁻¹⁴; though the + former is so fragmentary that it is difficult to reconstruct + a narrative consistent with 43³ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ. Apparently, the + colloquy reproduced in 43⁷ 44²⁰⁻²³ 43³ must have followed the + acknowledgment that they were all one man’s sons (¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ + Elohist),――a view which seems to fit in with all the literary + indications. Elohist’s account can easily be traced with + the help of ²⁹⁻³⁷: it includes the charge of espionage + (⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ³⁰), the imprisonment (¹⁷ᐧ ³⁰), the detention + of Simeon (¹⁹ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ³³ ᶠᐧ), the command to bring down Benjamin + (¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ³⁴), and the putting of the money in the sacks + (²⁵ᐧ ³⁵).――In ¹⁻¹⁴, the more obvious doublets are ¹ᵃ ∥ ²ᵃ, + ⁵ᵃ ∥ ⁶ᵇ, ⁷ᵃ ∥ ⁸, ¹¹ᵃ ∥ ¹³ᵃ; characteristic phrases of Yahwist: + ירד, ²ᐧ ³; ונחיה ולא נמות, ² (43⁸ 47¹⁹); קרא אסון, ⁵ (42³⁸ 44²⁹); ישראל, + ⁵; אֹכֶל, ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰. Possibly also לראות את־ערות הארץ, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹²ᵇ, is Yahwist’s + variant for Elohist’s מרגלים, ⁹ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ etc. (compare ³⁰ᐧ ³¹ᐧ ³⁴) + (Gunkel). Hence we may assign to Yahwist ²ᐧ ³ᵃᐧ ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵{?}ᐧ ⁷ (except + וידבר אתם קשות, which should probably follow ⁹ᵃ in Elohist [Dillmann, + Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel]), ⁹ᵇ{β}ᐧ ¹⁰ᐧ ¹¹ᵃᐧ ¹²; and to Elohist all + the rest (so Gunkel nearly: Procksch, however, very plausibly + assigns ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ to Priestly-Code).――After ¹² there is no trace of + Yahwist till we come to ²⁷ᐧ ²⁸ᵃᵇ{αβ}, an obvious duplicate of + ³⁵, containing Yahwist’s peculiar word אמתחת.――²⁹⁻³⁷ are from + Elohist: note the name Jacob, ²⁹ᐧ ³⁶; Reuben’s leadership, ³⁷; + and the words הביאו, ³⁴; תסחרו ³⁴ (37²⁸ [? 34²⁰ ᶠᐧ]); כֻּלָּנָה, ³⁶. + We also obtain some new expressions which may be employed + as criteria of Elohist: קשות, ³⁰ (compare ⁷); כנים, ³¹ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁴ + (compare ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹); רעבון בתיכם, ³³ (compare ¹⁹); שׂק, ³⁵ (compare + ²⁵).――³⁸ belongs to Yahwist, but its proper place is after + 43² (see on the verse).――A peculiar feature of this and the + following chapters is the name ארץ כנען, which is elsewhere in + Genesis characteristic of Priestly-Code (see page 245). From + this and some similar phenomena, Giesebrecht and others have + inferred a Priestly redaction of the Joseph pericope; but the + usage may be due to the constant and unavoidable antithesis + between Canaan and Egypt (see page 438 above). + +=1‒4. The journey to Egypt.=――=1, 2.= Another effective change +of scene (compare 39¹ 41¹), introducing the deliberations in +Jacob’s family regarding a supply of food; where the energy and +resourcefulness of the father is set in striking contrast to the +perplexity of the sons.――=4.= Benjamin has taken Joseph’s place in +his father’s affection (44²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ); Jacob’s unwillingness to let him +out of his sight is a leading motive both in Yahwist and Elohist. + + * * * * * + + =1.= שֶׁבֶר] of uncertain etymology, is always used of grain as + an article of commerce (Amos 8⁵, Nehemiah 10³²).――יעקב] LXX + omits.――תתראו] LXX ῥᾳθυμεῖτε (? = תְּאַחֲרוּ, Kittel). Though the + Hithpael occurs elsewhere only in the sense of ‘face one another + in battle’ (2 Kings 14⁸ᐧ ¹¹ = 2 Chronicles 25¹⁷ᐧ ²¹), a change + of text is uncalled for.――=2.= ויאמר] LXX omits.――משם] LXX מעט אכל + (as 43²); read perhaps משם אכל.――=3.= עשרה] ‘ten in number,’ + accusative of condition.――=4.= יעקב] LXX omits. + + * * * * * + +=5‒17. The arrival in Egypt, and first interview with Joseph.=――On =5, +6a=, _v.i._――=6b.= As suspicious strangers the brothers are brought +before the viceroy.――_bowed themselves, etc._] Reminding Joseph of +his dreams (verse ⁹). The original connexion in Elohist is broken by +the insertion of verse ⁷ from Yahwist.――=7= (Yahwist) ∥ =8= (Elohist). +That Joseph was not recognised by his brethren is natural, and +creates a situation of whose dramatic possibilities the narrators +take full advantage. The strange mixture of harshness and magnanimity +in Joseph’s treatment of his brothers, the skill with which he plays +alternately on their fears and their hopes, the struggle in his mind +between assumed severity and real affection, form the chief interest +of the narratives up to the time of the final disclosure. It is +unnecessary to suppose that the writers traced in all this the +unfolding of a consistent ethical purpose on Joseph’s part, and +it is certainly an exaggeration to speak of it as an exhibition of +‘seelsorgerische geistliche Weisheit’ (Delitzsch). On the other hand, +to say that his object was merely to punish them (Gunkel), is clearly +inadequate. To the writers, as to the brethren, the official Joseph is +an inscrutable person, whose motives defy analysis; and it is probably +a mistake to try to read a moral meaning into all the devices by which +his penetrating knowledge of the human heart is exemplified.――=9.= +_Ye are spies_] A charge that travellers in the East often encounter +(see page 484 below). The eastern frontier of Egypt was fortified and +closely watched (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 537 ff.), and a band +of ten men seeking to cross it excited suspicion.――_the nakedness of +the land_] Not its poverty, but its open and defenceless spots.――=11= +(Yahwist) ∥ =13= (Elohist). _sons of one man, etc._] Their eagerness +to clear their character betrays them into a disclosure of their +family circumstances, which in Yahwist is followed up by direct +interrogation and a warning that they need not return without their +youngest brother (page 473 above); while in Elohist, Joseph seizes on +the reference to Benjamin as a test of their veracity, and threatens +that they shall not leave Egypt until he is produced (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――_one is +not_] It is a fine instance of literary tact that Joseph never presses +the question as to the fate of the missing brother.――=14.= _This is +what I said_] ‘It is as I have said’ (compare 41²⁸). Joseph maintains +his opinion with well-feigned official obstinacy (Dillmann).――=15, 16.= +_By this shall ye be tested_] The pretext covers a real desire to see +Benjamin, which is explicitly avowed in Yahwist (44²¹ᵇ 43³⁰).――_By the +life of Pharaoh_] In Egypt the king was honoured as a god (Diodorus +i. 90; Erman, _A Handbook of Egyptian Religion_ 36 f.); and the oath +by his life is attested by an inscription of the 20th dynasty. The Old +Testament analogies cited by Knobel (1 Samuel 17⁵⁵, 2 Samuel 11¹¹) +are not in point, since they do not differ from the same formula +addressed to private persons (1 Samuel 20³ 25²⁶).――=17.= The three +days’ imprisonment is rather meaningless after verse ¹⁶ (see page +477). Gunkel remarks on the prominence of imprisonment in the Joseph +narratives, and surmises that a good many Hebrews had known the inside +of an Egyptian jail. + + * * * * * + + =5a= reads like a new beginning, and =5b= is superfluous after + ¹⁻⁴. Procksch is probably right in the opinion that ⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃ are + the introduction to Priestly-Code’s lost narrative of the visit, + a view which is confirmed by the unnecessary explanation of + ⁶ᵃ, and by the late word.――=6.= שליט] only Ecclesiastes 7¹⁹ + 8⁸ 10⁵ [Ezekiel 16³⁰] and Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel + (Kuenen _Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en + de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds_ i. page 318). + The resemblance to Σάλατις, the name of the first Hyksos king + in Josephus, _Against Apion_ i. 77, can hardly be other than + accidental.――הוא²] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ והוא.――=9.= עֶרְוָה] literally _pudenda_, is + only here used of defencelessness. Arabic _‛aurat_ is similarly + used of a ‘breach in the frontier of a hostile country’ + (Lane, 2194 c); compare _Ḳoran_ Surah 33¹³ “our houses are + _‛aurat_,”――a nakedness, _i.e._ unoccupied and undefended. + LXX has τὰ ἴχνη (reading perhaps עקבֹת [Ball]); Symmachus τὰ + κρυπτά.――=10.= ועבדיך] compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 _a_: _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå omit + ו.――=11.= נחנו] So Exodus 16⁷ᐧ ⁸, Numbers 32³², Lamentations + 3⁴²† (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 32 _d_); _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ אנחנו.――כנים] literally ‘right men,’ is used + of persons only in this chapter.――=13.= בני איש אחד] LXX omits, + perhaps rightly; compare the ∥ verse ¹¹.――=16.= האסרו] Improved + expressing a determination, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _c_.――הי פרעה] + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 93 _aa_¹. The distinction between הַי and חֵי + is a Massoretic caprice (Dillmann).――At the end of the verse + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ inserts a refusal of + the condition in the exact terms of 4444²²ᵃ{β} (Yahwist), which + undoubtedly smooths the transition to verse ¹⁷, but cannot be + original. + + * * * * * + +=18‒26. The second interview.=――After three days Joseph appears to +relent, and to entertain the idea that they may after all be telling +the truth. He now proposes to retain only one of them as a hostage, +and let the rest carry corn for their starving households.――=18.= +_I fear God_] the guardian of ‘international religious morality’ +(Gunkel), which is presupposed throughout the patriarchal history; see +on 20³ 39⁹.――=21.= _Nay, but we are guilty_] The confession is wrung +from them by the distress (צָרָה) which has overtaken them, reminding +them of Joseph’s distress of soul (צָרַת נפשו) when they left him to +die,――_when he pleaded with us_] This touch of pathos is not recorded +in chapter 37.――=22.= Reuben had a right to dissociate himself from +the confession of guilt, for he had _meant_ to save Joseph; but like +many another man he claims credit for his good intention rather than +for the temporising advice he had actually given (37²²).――_his very +blood is required_] in spite of the fact that the speaker had kept +them from actual bloodshed.――=23.= _an interpreter_] This is the only +place in the patriarchal history where diversity of language appears +as a bar to intercourse.――=24.= Joseph is moved to tears by this +first proof of penitence.――_Simeon_ is chosen as hostage as the oldest +next to Reuben, of whose attempt to save him Joseph has just learned +for the first time. The effect on the brothers would be the same as +in 43³³.――=25.= The rest are treated with great generosity; though +whether the restoration of the money is pure kindness or a trap, we +can hardly say.――_provision for the way_] Hence in Elohist the sacks +are not opened till the journey’s end (³⁵). + + Verses ¹⁵⁻²⁴ show a disconnectedness which is unusual in + the lucid and orderly Joseph story, and which cannot be + explained by discrepancies between Yahwist and Elohist. The + first proposal――to send one man to fetch Benjamin――leads + to no consequences, but is followed, most unnaturally, by + the imprisonment of all the ten. This in like manner serves + no purpose but to give Joseph time to change his mind. And + the colloquy of the brothers (²¹ ᶠᐧ) could hardly find a less + appropriate place than the moment when hope breaks in on their + forebodings. The proper setting for the imprisonment would + seem to be their first encounter with Joseph (as verse ³⁰ + LXX); and the confession of guilt would stand in a suitable + connexion there. It is possible that ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ are a variant to ¹⁹ ᶠᐧ, + belonging to a somewhat different recension. If Gunkel (page 387) + be right in thinking that the earliest form of the legend knew + of only one visit to Egypt, it is easy to conceive that in the + process of amplification several situations were successively + invented, and that two of these have been preserved side by side + by an editor, in spite of their imperfect consistency. + + * * * * * + + =18.= זאת עשו וחיו] See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 110 _f_.――=19.= אחד] + without article (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + האחד) _ib._ § 134 _d_; compare 43¹⁴; contrast 42³³.――=20.= + ויעשו־כן] The words are out of place (compare ²⁵ᵇ). Did they stand + originally after verse ¹⁶?――=21.= אבל] ‘Nay, but――,’ indicating + an affirmation of what one would gladly deny (see on 17¹⁹).――צרת] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בצרת.――אלינו²] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עלינו כל.――=25.= ולהשיב] + Continuation of verb finite by infinitive (as here) is very + unusual (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _f_).――ויעש] ויעשו? compare + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate. + + * * * * * + +=26‒38. The return to Canaan.=――=27, 28.= Yahwist’s parallel to ³⁵ +(Elohist).――To leave room for the latter, the account is cut short +with the opening of the first sack. In Yahwist, _each_ man found +his money at the ‘inn’ (43²¹).――=28.= _their heart went out_] ‘their +courage sank.’ Partly from the anticipated accusation of theft (43¹⁸), +but still more from the superstitious notion that God was bringing +trouble upon them.――אַמְתַּחַת] Yahwist’s peculiar word for ‘corn-sack’ +(_v.i._)――The last clause, however, _What has God_ (אלהים) _done to +us?_] is apparently taken from Elohist, probably transposed from the +end of ³⁵ (Kautzsch-Socin).――=29‒34.= They recount their experiences +to Jacob.――=30.= _treated us as spies_] Better, as LXX (_v.i._), +‘put us in ward as spies.’――=35.= See on ²⁷ ᶠᐧ. The incident explains +Jacob’s foreboding (verse ³⁶) that Simeon and Benjamin are as good as +lost.――=36.= _Me have ye bereaved ... upon me all this has come_] The +point of the complaint is that it is _his_ children, not their own, +that they are throwing away one after another: to which Reuben’s offer +to sacrifice his two sons is the apt rejoinder.――=37= is Elohist’s +variant to 43⁹: here Reuben, there Judah, becomes surety for Benjamin. +In Elohist an immediate return to Egypt is contemplated, that Simeon +may be released; hence the discussion about sending Benjamin takes +place at once. In Yahwist the thought of returning is put off to the +last possible moment (43⁸), and the difficulty about Benjamin does not +yet arise.――=38= therefore has been removed from its original context: +see on 43¹ᐧ ².――_bring down ... to She’ōl_] See on 37³⁵. + + * * * * * + + =27.= שקו] Read אמתחתו with LXX.――מספוא] characteristic of + Yahwist (24²⁵ᐧ ³² 43²⁴), also Judges 19¹⁹†.――מלון] (√ לון) strictly + ‘resting-place for the night’ (Exodus 4²⁴) or ‘night encampment’ + (Joshua 4³),――perhaps a rude shelter of bushes or canvas + (compare מלונה, ‘hut,’ Isaiah 1⁸ 24²⁰) rather than a khan or + caravanserai.――כספו] Elohist says צרור כספו (³⁵ ᵇⁱˢ); so LXX here, + wrongly.――אַמְתַּחַת] A word recurring 13 times in chapters 43 f. + (Yahwist), and nowhere else in Old Testament: LXX is invariably + μάρσιππος. The √ מתח = ‘spread out’ (Isaiah 40²²), found in + New Hebrew Aramaic Arabic.――=28.= הנה] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX add הוא unnecessarily.――חרד אל] pregnant + construct; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 119 _gg_.――=30.= ויתן אתנו] LXX + + ἐν φυλακῇ (= בַּֽמִּשְׁמָר).――=32.= אנחנו אחים] _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå transposed.――=33.= רעבון] Read with + LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ שבר ר׳, as verse ¹⁹.――=34.= את־אחיכם] + LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate prefix ו.――=35.= On the syntax, compare + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 111 _g_.――=36.= כלנה] for כֻּלָּן, as Proverbs + 31²⁹ (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 91 _f_). On Elohist’s preference for + these lengthened suffixes, see Dillmann on 41²¹. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTERS XLIII. XLIV. + _The second Visit to Egypt_ + (Yahwist). + +The supply of food being exhausted, another family council is held, +at which Jacob’s reluctance to part with Benjamin is at last overcome +by Judah becoming surety for his safe return: the eleven brethren set +out with a present for Joseph and double money in their hand (¹⁻¹⁴). +To their surprise they are received with every mark of honour as +the guests of the viceroy; and their fears give place to convivial +abandonment at his hospitable table (¹⁵⁻³⁴). But Joseph has devised +one more trial for them: his silver cup is secretly placed in +Benjamin’s sack, and on their homeward journey they are overtaken with +the accusation of theft. Brought back to Joseph’s presence, they offer +to surrender their freedom in expiation of some hidden guilt which God +has brought home to them (44¹⁻¹⁶). But when Joseph proposes to detain +Benjamin alone, Judah comes forward and, in a speech of noble and +touching eloquence, pleads that he may be allowed to redeem his pledge +by bearing the punishment for his youngest brother (¹⁷⁻³⁴). + + The second journey “brings to light the disposition of the + brethren to one another and to their father, thus marking an + advance on the first, which only brought them to the point of + self-accusation” (Dillmann). That is true of the narrative as + it stands; but since the first journey is taken almost entirely + from Elohist and the second from Yahwist, the difference + indicated is probably due to the different conceptions + represented by the two writers, rather than to a conscious + development of the plot. + + _Source._――That the chapters are not the continuation of + 42 (Elohist) appears (a) from the more reasonable attitude + attributed to Joseph, (b) from the ignoring of Simeon’s + confinement, and (c) the consequent postponement of the second + journey to the last moment, and (d) the divergent account of + the first meeting with Joseph (page 473). Positive points of + contact with Yahwist are (a) the discovery of the money at the + first halting-place (43²¹), (b) Judah as spokesman and leader + (43³ ᶠᶠᐧ ⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 44¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), (c) the name Israel (43⁶ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹), + and the expressions: אֹכֶל, 43²ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²² 44¹ᐧ ²⁵; האיש (of Joseph, + without qualification), 43³ᐧ ⁵ᐧ ⁶ ᶠᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹³ ᶠᐧ 44²⁶; ונחיה ולא נמות, 43⁸; + התמהמהּ, 43¹⁰; ירד and הוריד, 43¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²²; אמתחת, 43¹²ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ + 44¹ ᶠᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ ᶠᐧ; מלון, 43²¹; מספוא, 43²⁴; קרה אסון, 44²⁹. The only + clear traces of Elohist’s parallel narrative are the allusions + to Simeon in 43¹⁴ᐧ ²³ᵇ. Procksch makes ¹²ᵃᐧ (∥ ¹²ᵇ{α}) ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ + ¹⁵ᵃ{β}ᵇᐧ ¹⁶ᵃ{α}ᐧ ²³ᵇ a continuous sequence from Elohist; but the + evidence is conflicting (note האיש, ¹⁴; וירדו, ¹⁵ᵇ): see, however, + on ¹². + +=1‒14. The journey resolved on.=――=2.= Jacob speaks in evident +ignorance of the stipulation regarding Benjamin; hence 42³⁸ (Yahwist) +stands out of its proper place. The motive of the transposition is +obvious, viz., to account for the seeming rejection of Reuben’s +sponsorship in 42³⁷. + + The original order in Yahwist can be recovered by the help of + 44²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. After verse ² there must have been an announcement, + in terms similar to 44²⁶, of the necessity for taking Benjamin + with them, to which Jacob replies with the resolute refusal + of 43³⁸ (compare 44²⁹). Then follows (³ ᶠᶠᐧ) the more emphatic + declaration of Judah, and his explanation of the circumstances + out of which the inexorable demand had arisen (see Wellhausen + _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des + Alten Testaments_² 59 f.). + +=3‒5.= Judah’s ultimatum. On the difference of representation from +Elohist, see page 473 above.――=6.= The reproachful question is +intelligible only on the understanding that Jacob has just heard +for the first time that he must part with Benjamin.――=7.= _according +to the tenor, etc._] In accordance with the governor’s leading +questions.――=8‒10.= Judah becomes responsible for Benjamin’s safety +(as in Elohist Reuben, 42³⁷).――=9.= _I shall be a sinner, etc._] For +the idea, compare 1 Kings 1²¹: guilt is measured not by the moral +intention, but by the external consequences, of an action.――=11‒14.= +Jacob yields to the inevitable; but with characteristic shrewdness +suggests measures that may somewhat ease the situation.――=11.= _the +produce of the land_] its rarer products, as a token of homage. On זִמְרָה, +_v.i._――On צֳרִי, לֹט, נְכֹאת, see 37²⁵.――_honey_] may here mean grape-syrup, +the _dibs_ of modern Syria (see Robinson, _Biblical Researches in +Palestine_, ii. 81, iii. 381); but there seems no reason to depart +from the usual Old Testament sense of the word, viz., the honey of +the wild-bee (see Kennedy’s careful article in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, +2104 ff.).――_pistachio-nuts_ (_v.i._) are highly esteemed as a +delicacy in Egypt and Syria, although the tree is said to be rarely +found in Palestine (according to Rosen, _Zeitschrift der deutschen +morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xii. 502, not at all).――=12.= _double +money ... and the money, etc._] can hardly mean double money _besides_ +that which had been returned; unless (Procksch) the first clause be +a variant from Elohist, we must take וְ as = ‘namely.’――=14.= _’Ēl +Shaddai_ does not occur elsewhere in Yahwist or Elohist (see on 17¹), +and may be redactional. On the composition of the verse, _v.i._――_as I +am bereaved, etc._] An utterance of subdued resignation: compare 42³⁶, +2 Kings 7⁴, Esther 4¹⁶. + + * * * * * + + =3.= בלתי] followed by nominal sentence, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 163 + _c_.――Instead of אתכם, LXX has ὁ νεώτερος καταβῇ πρὸς μέ.――=5.= + משלח] LXX + τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν μεθ’ ἡμῶν.――=10.= כי עתה] ‘in + that case,’ as 31⁴²; see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _ee_.――=11.= + זִמְרָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. LXX καρποί, Vulgate _optimis fructibus_, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ דַּמְשֶׂבַּֽח בארעא, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The + meaning is obscure. The derivation from √ זמר, ‘praise’ [in + song] (Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Tuch, al.) is perhaps + too poetic to be natural, though it yields a good sense; that + from √ זמר, ‘prune,’ is hardly suitable (see Dillmann). D. H. + Müller (in Gesenius _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_¹⁰ + page 983) connects with Aramaic (‡ Syriac word), ‘admire’: + ‘admirable products,’――practically the same idea as Tuch. (On + Arabic _ḏamara_, _ḏimār_ [agreeing _phonetically_ with Aramaic + and Hebrew], v. Lane, 977 f.)――בטנים] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. Almost + certainly nuts of _Pistacia vera_, belonging to the terebinth + family (hence LXX τερέμ[β]ινθον, so Vulgate), for which the + Syrian name is (‡ Syriac word) (Aramaic בוטנא, Arabic _buṭm_, + Assyrian _buṭnu_); see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._――=12.= + כסף משנה] compare משנה כסף, verse ¹⁵; and see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 131 _e_, _q_.――המושֶׂב] See Baer-Delitzsch page 79 (‘pathachatum + uti expresse ait Masora’), Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 72 _bb_, + 93 _pp_.――=14.= אחר] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX האחד. The phrasing is peculiar, and suggests that + Redactorᴶᵉʰᵒᵛⁱˢᵗ may have added to Yahwist the words אחר ואת־בנימין, + at the same time inserting לכם (which LXX omits), to bring about + the desired allusion to Simeon.――שכָֽלתי] Pausal: Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 29 _u_. + + * * * * * + +=15‒25. In Joseph’s house.=――=15.= They first present themselves +before Joseph at his official bureau, and are afterwards conducted by +the steward to his private residence. The house of a wealthy Egyptian +of the 18th dynasty will be found described in Erman, _Life in Ancient +Egypt_, 153, 177 ff.――=16.= Joseph’s desire to ‘set his eyes on’ +Benjamin being now gratified, he rewards his brothers by a display of +kindness which must have seemed excessive.――_slay and make ready_] +In Egypt, according to Herodotus ii. 37, 77, Diodorus i. 70, flesh +was eaten daily by priests and kings, although the former had to +abstain from certain kinds of animal food (Knobel-Dillmann).――=18.= +To the simple-minded peasants all this looks like an elaborate +military stratagem to overwhelm them by main force and reduce them to +slavery.――=19‒22.= To forestall the suspicion of theft, they offer to +return the money found in their sacks.――_in its full weight_] On the +weighing of money, see 23¹⁶.――=23.= _your money came to me_] Therefore +what you found has nothing to do with it. The steward has entered +into Joseph’s purpose, and encourages them to believe that it was a +supernatural occurrence, but of auspicious omen, and not, as they had +imagined, a calamity.――The notice of Simeon’s release is here inserted +as the most convenient place, from Elohist.――=24.= Compare 24³².――=25.= +_they had heard, etc._] In conversation with the steward (compare +verse ¹⁶). + + * * * * * + + =16.= אִתָּם] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Vulgate אֹתָם וְ.――בנימין] LXX + אחיו בן־אמו (verse ²⁹).――טְבֹחַ] The only + case of imperative in _ō_ with final guttural (Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 65 _b_).――=18.= וייראו] LXX וַיִּרְאוּ.――השב] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX הַמּוּשָׁב (verse ¹²).――להתגלל] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read להתגדל (see Ball). LXX τοῦ + συκοφαντῆσαι ἡμᾶς, Vulgate _ut devolvat in nos calumniam_. The + text is not to be questioned.――=20.= בִּי] Always followed by אדני + (44¹⁸, Exodus 4¹⁰ᐧ ¹³, Numbers 12¹¹ Joshua 7⁸, Judges 6¹³ᐧ ¹⁵ 13⁸, + 1 Samuel 1²⁶, 1 Kings 3¹⁷ᐧ ²⁶†). It is commonly derived from √ + בעה, ‘ask,’ or (Brown-Driver-Briggs) Arabic _bayya_, ‘entreat’: + might it not rather be regarded as a shortening of אָבִי (2 Kings + 5¹³, Job 34³⁶) from √ אבה, ‘be willing’?――=23.= אביכם] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX אבתיכם.――=24.= + האיש――ויתן] LXX omits.――=25.= יאכלו] LXX more easily יאכל (of Joseph). + + * * * * * + +=26‒34. At Joseph’s table.=――=27, 28.= Joseph’s courteous inquiries +as to their welfare and that of their father are a studied prelude +to――=29‒31=, his profound emotion at the sight of Benjamin,――_his_ +(full) _brother, the son of his mother_. The disparity in age +must have been great (בְּנִי): one wonders whether the narrative does +not presuppose that Benjamin had been born since Joseph had been +lost.――=30, 31.= For the second time (42²⁴) Joseph’s affection +finds relief in tears, and again he restrains himself, that he +may carry out his plan.――The interlude reveals, as Gunkel remarks, +a power of psychological observation which is absent from the +oldest legends.――=32‒34.= The feast brings two more surprises: +the arrangement of the brothers in the order of seniority (see on +42²⁴); and the special favour shown to Benjamin.――=32= affords an +interesting glimpse of Egyptian manners. Joseph’s isolation at table +was perhaps due to his having been admitted a member of the priestly +caste (41⁴⁵), which kept itself apart from the laity (Knobel-Dillmann). +The Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners, which +would have been perfectly intelligible to the later Jews, evidently +struck the ancient Israelites as peculiar (Gunkel). Compare Herodotus +ii. 41.――=34.= The custom of honouring a guest by portions from the +table is illustrated by 2 Samuel 11⁸; compare Homer, _Iliad_ vii. +321 f., _Odyssey_ iv. 65 f., xiv. 437.――_five times_]. + + It is hardly accidental that the number five occurs so often in + reference to matters Egyptian (41³⁴ 45²² 47²ᐧ ²⁴, Isaiah 19¹⁸). + Whether there be an allusion to the five planets recognised by + the Egyptians (Knobel), or to their ten days’ week (Dillmann), + it is impossible to say. Jeremias (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte + des alten Orients_², 385) connects it with the five intercalary + days by which the Egyptian calendar adjusted the difference + between the conventionalised lunar year (12 months of 30 days) + and the solar year (365 days),――these belonging to Benjamin as + the representative of the 12th month! The explanation is too + ingenious, and overlooks the occurrence of the numeral where + Benjamin is not concerned. + + * * * * * + + =26.= ויביאׄו] On Daghesh or Mappiq in א, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § + 14 _d_.――ארצה] LXX prefix אפים.――=27.= השלום] noun? or adjective? + See Gesenius-Kautzsch § 141 _c_⁴.――=28.= After Athnach _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX insert ויאמר ברוך האיש ההוא + לאלהים,――a parallel to the benediction on Benjamin (²⁹): clumsy + in expression and hardly original.――=29.= אמרתם] LXX + להביא,――an + interesting and perhaps correct addition.――יָחנך] for יְחָנְךָ (as + Isaiah 30¹⁹); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _n_.――=30.= וימהר ויבקש] + ‘hastily sought,’ though an intermediate clause between the + complementary verbs is very unusual.――אל] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ על.――=32.= למצרַיִם] Better לַמִּצְרִים: + so versions Ball.――LXX adds πᾶς ποιμὴν προβάτων, in mistaken + accommodation to 46³⁴.――=34.= וישא] LXX, Peshiṭtå וישאו.――ידות] = + ‘shares’ or ‘times,’ 47²⁴, 2 Kings 11⁷, 2 Samuel 19⁴⁴, Nehemiah + 11¹, Daniel 1²⁰†.――וישכרו] hardly ‘got drunk’: שכר of convivial + drinking, Haggai 1⁶, Canticles 5¹. + + * * * * * + +=XLIV. 1‒17. The cup in Benjamin’s sack.=――=1, 2.= This final test +of the brethren’s disposition is evidently arranged between Joseph +and the steward on the evening of the banquet, to be carried out at +daybreak (verse ³).――=1b.= _each man’s money, etc._] Though this seems +a useless repetition of 42⁵⁵, with no consequences in the sequel, the +clause ought scarcely to be omitted (with Gunkel) before ²ᵃ.――=2.= +_the silver cup_] Joseph’s ordinary drinking-vessel, but at the +same time an implement of divination (verse ⁵): therefore his most +precious possession.――=3‒5.= The trap is skilfully laid: just when +they have emerged from the city, and think all danger is left behind, +exulting in the fresh morning air, and still unwearied by travel, +they are arrested by the steward’s challenge, and finally plunged in +despair.――=4.= _Why have ye ... good?_] LXX adds, ‘Why have ye stolen +my silver cup?’ The addition seems necessary in view of the following +זֶה.――=5.= _and, moreover, he divines with_ (or _in_) _it_] See on +verse ¹⁵. + + On the widely prevalent species of divination referred to + (κυλικομαντεία, λεκανομαντεία,), compare Augustine, _De civitate + Dei_, vii. 35; Strabo, XVI. ii. 39; Iamblichus, _De mysteriis_ + iii. 14. Various methods seem to have been employed; _e.g._, + amongst the Babylonians oil was poured into a vessel of water, + and from its movements omens were deduced according to a set of + fixed rules of interpretation: see Hunger, _Becherwahrsagung bei + den Babyloniern nach zwei Keilschriften aus der Hammurabi-zeit_ + (_Leipziger Semitistische Studien_, 1903, i. 1‒80).――An + interesting modern parallel is quoted by Driver (358¹), and + Hunger (4), from the Travels of Norden (_circa_ 1750), where a + Nubian sheikh says: ‘_I have consulted my cup_, and I find that + you are Franks in disguise, who have come to spy out the land.’ + + * * * * * + + =1.= LXX inserts Ἰωσήφ as subject.――יוכלון שאת] Ball plausibly, + יוכלו לשאת.――=2.= גָּבִיעַ] Used of the golden cups of the candlestick + (Exodus 25³¹ ᶠᶠᐧ 37¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ); elsewhere only Jeremiah 35⁵, along + with the ordinary word for ‘cup’ (כּוֹס), of the ‘bowls’ of wine + set before the Rechabites.――=3, 4.= On the syntax of these + verses see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 142 _e_, 156 _f_; Davidson §§ + 141, 41, _R._ 3. The addition in LXX runs: ἵνα τί ἐκλέψατέ μου + τὸ κόνδυ τὸ ἀργυροῦν;.――=5.= נַחֵשׁ] The derivation of this verb + from נָחָשׁ, ‘serpent,’ first suggested by Bochartus (_Hierozoicon, + sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ i. 3), + is supported by (amongst others) Nöldeke (_Zeitschrift für + Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413) and Baudissin + (_Studien zur semitischen religionsgeschichte_ i. 287); on the + other hand, see Wellhausen _Skizzen und Vorarbeiten._, iii. 147; + and William Robertson Smith _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 115. + + * * * * * + +=6‒9.= The brethren appeal to their honesty in the matter of the money +returned in their sacks, and propose the severest punishment――death to +the thief, slavery for the rest――should the missing article be found +with them.――=10.= The servant holds them to their pledge, but offers +easier terms: the thief alone shall be Joseph’s slave.――=11‒13.= To +the dismay of the brethren the cup is found in Benjamin’s sack.――=12.= +_beginning ... youngest_] A calculated strain on the brethren’s +suspense, and (on the part of the narrator) an enhancement of +the reader’s interest: compare 1 Samuel 16⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=13.= Their +submissiveness shows that no suspicion of a trick crossed their minds; +their sense of an adverse fate was quickened by the still unsolved +mystery of the money in the sacks, to which they had so proudly +appealed in proof of their innocence.――=14‒17.= The brethren before +Joseph.――=14.= _he was still there_] had not gone out to his place of +business (see 43¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁷), but was waiting for them.――=15.= _that a man +in my position_ (one of the wise men of Egypt) _can divine_. + + It is difficult to say how much is implied in this claim of + superhuman knowledge on Joseph’s part. No doubt it links itself + on the one hand to the feeling in the brethren’s mind that a + divine power was working against them, and on the other to the + proofs they had had of the governor’s marvellous insight. But + whether Joseph is conceived as really practising divination, or + only as wishing his brothers to think so, does not appear. Not + improbably, as Gunkel surmises, the motive comes from an older + story, in which the prototype of Joseph actually achieved his + ends by means of occult knowledge. + + * * * * * + + =8.= כסף¹] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + הכסף.――=9.= אתו] LXX + τὸ κόνδυ.――ומת] _The Samaritan Recension of + the Pentateuch_ יומת, equally good.――=12.= החל ... כלה] infinitives + absolute (הָחֵל ... כַּלֵּה) would be more idiomatic than the perfect + (so Ball). + + * * * * * + +=16.= _God has found out, etc._] The exclamation does not necessarily +imply consciousness of particular guilt (see on 43⁹), and is certainly +not meant as a confession of the wrong done to Joseph: at the same +time we may be sure that that is the crime to which their secret +thoughts gravitate (42²¹ ᶠᶠᐧ).――=17.= Judah’s proposal that _all_ +should remain as slaves is rejected by Joseph, who insists on +separating Benjamin’s fate from that of the rest. Did he purpose to +retain him by his side, while sustaining the rest of the family in +their homes? + + * * * * * + + =16.= Wellhausen (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60) would omit יהודה + and read ויאמרו; but the text is safeguarded by verse ¹⁴, and the + change is uncalled for. Judah speaks here in the name of all, + in ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ for himself. + + * * * * * + +=18‒34. Judah’s plea for Benjamin.=――The speech, which is the finest +specimen of dignified and persuasive eloquence in the Old Testament, +is perhaps modelled on the style of forensic oratory to which the +Hebrews were accustomed in public assemblies at the city gates +(contrast the stilted oration of Tertullus in Acts 24). Sincerity and +depth of feeling are not more remarkable than the skilful selection +and disposition of the points most likely to appeal to the governor: +(1) a recital of the interview in which Joseph had insisted on +Benjamin being brought down (¹⁹⁻²³); (2) a pathetic description of +the father’s reluctance to part with him, overcome only by the harsh +necessity of hunger (²⁴⁻²⁹); (3) a suggestion of the death-stroke +which their return without Benjamin would inflict on their aged parent +(³⁰ᐧ ³¹); and, lastly, (4) the speaker’s personal request to be allowed +to redeem his honour by taking Benjamin’s punishment on himself +(³²⁻³⁴).――The Massoretes commence a new Parashah with verse ¹⁸, +rightly perceiving that Judah’s speech is the turning-point in the +relations between Joseph and his brethren.――=19‒23.= On the divergent +representations of Yahwist and Elohist, see on page 473 above.――=20.= +_to his mother_] See page 449.――=28.= The words of Jacob enable +Judah to draw a veil over the brothers’ share in the tragedy of +Joseph.――_and I have not seen him till now_] Compare the rugged pathos +of Lowell’s + + “Whose comin’ home there’s them that wan’t―― + No, not life-long――leave off awaitin’.” + +The simple words, with their burden of suppressed emotion, +have a meaning for the governor of which the speaker is all +unconscious.――=29.= _in trouble to She’ōl_] Compare 42³⁸ 37³⁵ +44³¹.――=30.= _his soul_ (not ‘life’) _is bound up, etc._] a figure +for inalienable affection; as 1 Samuel 18¹. + + * * * * * + + =18.= כמוך כפ׳] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 161 _c_.――=20.= לאמו] LXX + לאביו.――=24.= אבי] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå אבינו (so LXX, Peshiṭtå in ²⁷, and LXX, + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate in ³⁰).――=28.= ואמר] LXX καὶ εἴπατε.――=31.= + הנער] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå + אִתָּנוּ (as verse ³⁰).――=32.= אבי] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ אביו, Peshiṭtå אבינו.――=34.= אתי] LXX + אִתָּנוּ. + + * * * * * + + + CHAPTER XLV. + _Joseph reveals himself to his Brethren_ + (Elohist, Yahwist). + +The crisis so slowly matured and so skilfully led up to is at last +reached, and in a scene of inimitable power and tenderness Joseph +makes himself known to his brethren (¹⁻⁸). In a message to his father +he discloses his plans for the future, inviting the whole family to +settle in Egypt while the famine lasted (⁹⁻¹⁵). The invitation is +confirmed by the king (¹⁶⁻²⁰); and the brethren depart laden with rich +gifts and provision for the journey (²¹⁻²⁴). Jacob, after a momentary +incredulity, is cheered by the prospect of seeing Joseph before his +death (²⁵⁻²⁸). + + The _sources_, Elohist and Yahwist, are here so intimately + blended that a complete analysis is impossible. The main fact is + the preponderance of Elohist, which appears both from language + (אלהים, ⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹; יעקב, ²⁵; חרה בעינֵי, ⁵ [31³⁵]; צדה, ²¹ [42²⁵]; בר, + ²³; perhaps also מזון, ²³; and טענו את־בעירכם, ¹⁷ [contrast Yahwist’s + ויעמס על־חמרו, 44¹³]), and representation: contrast verse ³ with + 43²⁷ ᶠᐧ, ¹⁷⁻²⁰ with 46³¹‒47⁵ (Yahwist), where Joseph’s kindred + are apparently brought under Pharaoh’s notice for the first time. + Indubitable traces of Yahwist are found in ⁴ᵇᐧ ⁵ᵃ (the _selling_ + of Joseph), ¹⁰ (Goshen,――see the notes), ²⁸ (ישראל); these are + supported by the expressions, התאפק, ¹ᵃ (as 43³¹); נעצב, ⁵ᵃ; + הוריד, ¹³; נפל על־צוארי, ¹⁴. Thus far in the main Wellhausen and + Dillmann. More subtle and less reliable criteria are applied + by Gunkel (402 f., 406), and (with very different results) + by Procksch (52 f.). It is probable that ³ (Elohist) is ∥ ⁴ + (Yahwist), and (against Procksch) ⁹ (Elohist) ∥ ¹³ (Yahwist). + But it is very doubtful if the dismissal of the attendants (¹) + be inconsistent with the overhearing of the weeping (²), or + if the latter be necessarily connected with the Pharaoh’s + invitation (¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ).――Some minor questions, such as the ‘waggons’ + of ¹⁹ᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²⁷ (compare 46⁵), and the authorship of verses ¹⁹⁻²¹, + must be reserved for the notes. + +=1‒8. The disclosure.=――=1, 2.= Joseph’s self-restraint gives way +before Judah’s irresistible appeal.――It is pressing matters too far +to say that the dismissal of the attendants is a device to keep his +relation to the strangers a secret from Pharaoh (see on the sources +above).――=3.= _is my father yet alive?_) The question is slightly +less natural in the context of Yahwist (see 43²⁶ ᶠᐧ 44²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ) than +in Elohist, where the absence of any mention of Jacob since the +first visit (42¹³) might leave room for uncertainty in Joseph’s +mind. But since he does not wait for an answer, the doubt can +hardly be real.――_were troubled before him_] Compare 50¹⁵⁻²¹ (also +Elohist).――=4.= Yahwist’s parallel to verse ³,――probably the immediate +continuation of verse ¹ (compare 44¹⁸).――=5‒8.= With singular +generosity Joseph reassures them by pointing out the providential +purpose which had overruled their crime for good; compare 50²⁰. The +profoundly religious conviction which recognises the hand of God, +not merely in miraculous interventions, but in the working out of +divine ends through human agency and what we call secondary causes, is +characteristic of the Joseph-narrative amongst the legends of Genesis: +see Gunkel 404 (compare chapter 24).――=7.= שְׁאֵרִית] ‘remnant,’ perhaps +in the sense of ‘descendants’ (2 Samuel 14⁷, Jeremiah 44⁷). But the +use of פְּלֵיטָה (strictly ‘_escaped_ remnant,’ compare 32⁹) is difficult, +seeing the whole family was saved (_v.i._).――=8.= _a father to +Pharaoh_] Probably an honorific title of the chief minister (compare +1 Maccabees 11³², Add. Esther 3¹³ 8¹²); see, further, _inf._ + + * * * * * + + =1.= התודע] Numbers 12⁶† (Elohist?).――=2.= מצרַיִם] LXX + כל־המצרִים. The pointing מצרִים _without_ article (Gunkel) is no + improvement.――וישמע] LXX, Peshiṭtå וַיִּשָּׁמַע, as in verse ¹⁶; so + Holzinger, Gunkel. The clause, however, is best regarded as + a doublet of the preceding, in which case Massoretic Text + is preferable.――=3.= יוסף²] LXX + ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, ὃν ἀπέδοσθε + εἰς Αἴγυπτον (as verse ⁴).――מפניו] LXX omits.――=4a.= LXXᴬ omits + entirely.――=5.= ואל־יחר בעיניכם] (compare 31³⁵) is Elohist’s variant + to אל־תעצבו (6⁶ 34⁷ Yahwist).――מִחְיָה] In Judges 6⁴ 17¹⁰ the word + signifies ‘means of subsistence’; in 2 Chronicles 14¹² perhaps + ‘preservation of life’; and so here if the pointing be right. + Ball plausibly emends מְחַיֶּה, ‘preserver of life’ (1 Samuel + 2⁶).――=6.= חריש וקציר] Exodus 34²¹ (Yahwist?).――=7.= החיות לפליטה] The + want of an object after הח׳ is harsh (compare 47²⁵ 50²⁰). The + omission of the ל (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX, Peshiṭtå, Olshausen, Ball, al.) improves the grammar, but + the sense remains unsatisfying (_v.s._).――=8.= אב ... אדון] That + the words are used in their Hebrew sense (‘father’ ... ‘lord’) + is not to be questioned; in spite of the fact that Brugsch has + compared two Egyptian titles, identical in form but altogether + different in meaning (see Driver _A Dictionary of the Bible_, + ii. 774; Strack, page 157 f.). + + * * * * * + +=9‒15. Joseph’s message to his father.=――That both Yahwist and Elohist +recorded the invitation may be regarded as certain, apart from nice +questions of literary analysis: Eerdmans’ suggestion that, in Yahwist, +Jacob conceived the project of going down to Egypt “auf eigene Faust” +(_Die Komposition der Genesis_ 65, 70) being contrary to every natural +view of the situation. We may therefore be prepared to find traces of +the dual narrative in these verses.――=10.= On _the land of Goshen_, +see the footnote.――_be near to me_] The clause is not inconsistent +with the preceding; for, as compared with Canaan, Goshen was certainly +‘near’ to where Joseph dwelt. Nevertheless it is best regarded as a +variant from Elohist, continued in ¹¹ᵃ. It is only in Yahwist that the +Israelites are represented as dwelling in Goshen.――=12‒15.= The close +of Joseph’s speech, followed by his affectionate embrace, and the free +converse of the brethren.――=13= and =14= (Yahwist) are respectively +parallel to ⁹ and ¹⁵ (Elohist). + + * * * * * + + =10.= גשן] LXX Γέσεμ Ἀραβίας (as 46³⁴). The name is peculiar + to Yahwist (46²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ 47¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᐧ ²⁷ 50⁸, Exodus 8¹⁸ 9²⁶ †); + Priestly-Code has ‘land of Ramses’ (47¹¹), compare Exodus + 1¹¹ 12³⁷, Numbers 33⁵); while Elohist uses no geographical + designation. That Priestly-Code and Yahwist mean the same + locality is intrinsically probable (though Naville considers + that the land of Ramses was a larger area than Goshen), and + is confirmed by recent excavations. The city of Pithom (see + on 46²⁸) has been identified by Naville with the modern _Tell + el-Maskhuṭa_, 12 miles West of Ismailia, in Wādī Ṭumīlāt, a long + and narrow valley leading “straight from the heart of the Delta + to a break in the chain of the Bitter Lakes,” and therefore + marking a weak spot in the natural defences of Egypt (Erman, + _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 525 f.). In the same region, though + not quite so far East, excavations at the village of _Ṣafṭ + el-Ḥenneh_ have established its identity with _Pa-soft_ (also + called on local inscriptions _Kes_), which is stated to have + been the capital of the 20th Nome of Lower Egypt. A rare name of + this nome is _Kesem_; and it is at least a plausible conjecture + that this is the same as the biblical גּשֶׁן (Γέσεμ); and if so + the situation of Goshen is fixed as a part of Wādī Ṭumīlāt + surrounding Saft el-Ḥenneh. A confirmation of this may be found + in the Ἀραβία of LXX, for this in Græco-Roman times (Ptolemy iv. + 5, 53) was the name of one of the 23 nomes of the Delta, whose + capital Φακοῦσσα (compare Strabo, XVII. i. 26) has long been + conjectured to be the ancient _Kes_, preceded by the article + _pa_.――See Naville, _Land of Goshen_, etc. (Fifth Memoir of EEF, + 1887), 15 ff., 20; _Store City of Pithom_, etc. (⁴ 1903), 4 ff.; + Spiegelberg, _Der Aufenthalt Israels in Aegypten im Lichte + der aegyptischen Monumente_ etc. 52; Müller in _Encyclopædia + Biblica_, 1758 ff.; and Griffith in _BD_, ii. 232 f.――=11.= + כלכל] compare 50²¹ (Elohist).――פן־תורש] ‘lest thou come to want’ + (literally ‘be dispossessed’); compare Judges 14¹⁵, Proverbs + 20¹³ 23²¹ 30⁹. + + * * * * * + +=16‒20. Pharaoh’s invitation.=――This, as already explained, is +peculiar to Elohist. It is just possible (though hardly probable) that +in this source Joseph’s invitation (⁹⁻¹¹) extended only to his father, +while the idea of transplanting the whole family emanated from the +king.――=16a.= Compare verse ².――=18.= _the best of the land (v.i.) ... +the fat of the land_] The expressions are not altogether inapplicable +to Goshen (Wādī Ṭumīlāt), which was rendered fertile by a canal, +and is still spoken of as the best pasture-land in Egypt (Robinson, +_Biblical Researches in Palestine_, i. 53 f.). But since Elohist never +mentions a separate location in Goshen, there is no need to force that +sense upon them; the meaning is general: the best of everything that +Egypt can afford (_v.i._).――=19.= The opening words (_v.i._) throw +some doubt on the originality of the verse; and there certainly +seems no more reason for ascribing it to Yahwist (Gunkel) than to +Elohist.――The _baggage- waggon_ (עֲגָלָה) is said to have been introduced +into Egypt from Canaan, with its Semitic name (Egyptian _‛agolt_): +Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 491.¹――=20.= _Let not your eye pity_] +The phrase is Deuteronomic, and seems a very strong one for concern +about household implements. According to Yahwist (¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᵇ 46¹ᐧ ³²) +they brought ‘all they possessed,’ which, if they were half-nomads, +would be possible without waggons. + + ¹ Compare Heyes, _Bibel und Ägypten: Abraham und seine + Nachkommen in Ägypten_ i. 251. + + * * * * * + + =17.= טען] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον (Aramaic); contrast עמס, 44¹³ + (Yahwist).――בעיר Exodus 22⁴, Numbers 20⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ (Elohist), Psalms + 78⁴⁸†.――=18.= טוּב] = ‘best things,’ as verses ²⁰ᐧ ²³ 24¹⁰, 2 Kings + 8⁹; LXX πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν.――For ‘the best _part_,’ Priestly-Code + uses מֵיטָב (47⁶ᐧ ¹¹).――=19.= ואתה צֻּוֵּיתָה] The passive is awkward in + itself, and has no syntactic connexion with the following זאת עשו + [hence Peshiṭtå inserts (‡ Syriac phrase)]. Dillmann, Kittel + emend ואתה צַוֵּה אֹתָם; Ball ואתה צוה את־זאת (after LXX Σὺ δὲ ἔντειλαι + ταῦτα; compare Vulgate); Gunkel וְאֹתָהּ צִוֵּיתִי: the first is best. But + it is still difficult to understand the extreme emphasis laid + on this point; and a suspicion remains that either the whole + verse (Dillmann), or the introduction, is due to a scribe who + wished to make it clear that the waggons were not sent without + Pharaoh’s express authority: see on verse ²¹. + + * * * * * + +=21‒28. The brethren return to Canaan.=――=22.= Presents of expensive +clothes are a common mark of courtesy in the East: compare Judges +14¹² ᶠᐧ ¹⁹, 2 Kings 5⁵ᐧ ²² ᶠᐧ.――_changes of raiment_] such as were +substituted for ordinary clothing on festal occasions (see on +27¹⁵).――Benjamin receives _five_ such suits: see on 43³⁴.――=23.= _of +the best_ (produce) _of Egypt_] A munificent return for Jacob’s modest +complimentary present (43¹¹).――_corn and bread and sustenance for +the journey_] compare verse ²⁰.――=24.= _Do not get excited by the +way_] _sc._, with mutual recriminations,――a caution suggested by +42²².――=25‒28.= Jacob’s reception of the tidings.――=26.= _his heart +became cold_, or _numb_] unable to take in the startling intelligence, +as too good to be true.――=27.= But gradually, as they rehearse _the +words of Joseph_, and show him the _waggons_ as a pledge of his power, +_his spirit revived_] he recovered his wonted energy of thought and +action.――=28.= From Yahwist.――_It is enough_] The father’s heart +is indifferent to Joseph’s grandeur ⁹ᐧ ¹¹) and princely gifts; the +fact that his son lives is sufficient consolation for all he has +endured (compare 46³⁰). The psychology of old age could not be more +sympathetically or convincingly treated. + + * * * * * + + =21.= ויעשו――ישראל] The statement is premature, and furnishes + an additional indication that this part of the narrative has + been worked over. The repeated ויתן also suggests a doublet or + interpolation. In ¹⁹⁻²¹, Dillmann leaves to Elohist only ויתן להם י׳ + עגלות ויתן להם צדה לדרך; Kautzsch-Socin only the second of these clauses, + the rest being redactional.――צדה לדרך] as 42²⁵ (Elohist).――=23.= + כְזאת] (so pointed only here): ‘in like manner’ (Judges 8⁸).――מזון) + (2 Chronicles 11²³†) from an Aramaic √ זון = ‘feed.’――Of the + three nouns, בר, לחם, and מזון, LXX expresses only לחם. Peshiṭtå + has (‡ Syriac word), ‘wine,’ for לחם, but perhaps through + dittography of (‡ Syriac word), ‘asses.’――=24.= אל תרגזו] LXX μὴ + ὀργίζεσθε, Vulgate _Ne irascamini_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לא תתנצון (‘quarrel’). But the Hebrew verb denotes + simply agitation, by whatever emotion produced.――=26.= פּוּג] In + Arabic and Syriac the √ means to be or grow ‘cold,’ in Syriac, + also, and New Hebrew, figuratively ‘grow inactive,’ ‘fail,’ + ‘vanish’; in Old Testament the prevailing idea seems to be that + of numbness (Br own-Driver-Briggs); compare Habakkuk 1⁴ (of + _tôrâh_), Psalms 38⁹.――=28.= רב] As an exclamation = ‘enough!’; + compare Exodus 9²⁸, Numbers 16³ᐧ ⁷, Deuteronomy 1⁶ 2³ etc. + + * * * * * + + + XLVI. 1‒XLVII. 12. + _The Settlement of Jacob and his Family in Egypt_ + (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code). + +Jacob, encouraged by a night vision at Beersheba, takes his departure +for Egypt (¹⁻⁷): (here is inserted a list of the persons who were +supposed to accompany him, ⁸⁻²⁷). He sends Judah to announce his +arrival to Joseph, who proceeds to Goshen and tenderly welcomes his +father (²⁸⁻³⁰). Having instructed his brethren in the part he wishes +them to play (³¹⁻³⁴), Joseph presents five of them before Pharaoh, and +obtains permission for them to settle for a time in Goshen (47¹⁻⁶). +Jacob’s interview with Pharaoh closes the account of the migration +(⁷⁻¹²). + + _Sources._――The narrative of Jehovist is several times + interrupted by excerpts from Priestly-Code, whose peculiar style + and viewpoint can be recognised in 46⁶⁻²⁷ 47⁵ᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷⁻¹¹ (but see + the notes below, page 439 ff.).――Disregarding these verses, we + have a continuous Yahwist narrative from 46²⁸‒47⁶: note ישראל, + ²⁹ᐧ ³⁰; _Goshen_, ²⁸ᐧ ²⁹ᐧ ³⁴ᐧ ¹ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁶ᵇ; the leadership of Judah, ²⁸; + the ignoring of Pharaoh’s invitation (45¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ Elohist); נפל על צוארי, + ²⁹; הפעם, ³⁰; מנעורינו, בעבור, ³⁴.――46¹⁻⁵ is in the main from Elohist, + as appears from the night vision, the form of address, ²; + Jacob’s implied hesitation, ³ (contrast 45²⁸); the name _Jacob_, + ²ᐧ ⁵ᵃ; אלהים, ²; אֵל, ³.――¹ᵃ (ישראל) and _possibly_ ⁵ᵇ belong + to Yahwist.――47¹² is doubtful,――probably Elohist (כלכל, as + 45¹¹).――See Wellhausen _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 60 f.; Dillmann, + Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, 54 f. (who assigns 47⁷ to Elohist + instead of Priestly- Code and 47¹² to Yahwist). + +=1‒7. Jacob bids farewell to Canaan.=――=1.= _came to Be’ersheba‛_] +There is in Elohist no clear indication of where Jacob lived after +his return from Laban (see on 35¹). If at Beersheba, the above clause +is redactional, written on the assumption that he started from Hebron +(37¹⁴ Yahwist). The point would be determined if ⁵ᵇ were the original +continuation of ⁵ᵃ, for it is absurd to suppose that the waggons were +first put to use in the middle of the journey (Wellhausen). But even +apart from that, the natural view undoubtedly is that Jacob would not +start until his misgivings were removed in answer to his sacrifice, +and that consequently his dwelling-place at this time was Beersheba. +That he sacrificed at the last patriarchal sanctuary on the way is +a much less plausible explanation.――_the God of ... Isaac_] Isaac is +apparently regarded as the founder of the sanctuary, as in chapter +26 (Yahwistᴴᵉᵇʳᵒⁿ); an Elohistic parallel to that tradition may +have existed though in 21³¹ (Elohist with Yahwistᴮᵉᵉʳˢʰᵉᵇᵃ) its +consecration is attributed to Abraham.――=2‒4.= The last of the +patriarchal theophanies. Compare 12¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, where the theophany +sanctions the occupation of Canaan, as this sanctions the leaving of +it (Dillmann); and 26², where, under circumstances similar to Jacob’s, +Isaac is forbidden to go down to Egypt.――=3.= _the God of thy father_] +As elsewhere in Genesis, אֵל denotes the local _numen_, who here +distinguishes himself from other divine beings,――a trace of the +primitive polytheistic representation (compare 31¹³ 35¹ 33²⁰ 21³³ +16¹³).――_Fear not, etc._] The purpose of the revelation is to remove +the misgiving natural to an old man called to leave his hearth +and his altar. The thought is confined to Elohist (contrast 45²⁸ +Yahwist).――_for ... nation_] The words, if genuine, should follow +the immediate grounds of comfort in verse ⁴. They are probably to +be regarded (with Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.) as an expansion of +the same character as 13¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ 22¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 28¹⁴ etc.――=4.= _I will go +down with thee_] So in 31¹³ the _’Ēl_ of Bethel is with Jacob in +Mesopotamia.――_bring thee up_] The reference must be to the Exodus +(Exodus 3⁸ 6⁸ etc.), not to Jacob’s burial in Canaan (47²⁹ ᶠᐧ +50⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ).――_lay his hand upon thine eyes_] _i.e._, close them after +death; for classical parallels, compare Homer _Iliad_ xi. 453, +_Odyssey_ xi. 426, xxiv. 296; Euripides _Phœnician Women_ 1451 f., +_Hecuba_ 430; Virgil _Aeneid_ ix. 487, etc. (Knobel-Dillmann).――=6, +7.= Priestly-Code’s summary of the migration (_v.i._). + + * * * * * + + =1.= באר שבע] LXX here and verse ⁵ τὸ φρέαρ τοῦ ὅρκου (see page + 326).――=2.= לישראל] The word has crept in from verse ¹ through + an inadvertence of the redactor or a later scribe: “‘God said + to Israel, Jacob! Jacob!’ is a sentence which no original + writer would have penned” (Wellhausen).――On the form of + the verse, see on 22¹¹.――=3.= מַֽרְדָה] From רֵדָה, the rare form + of infinitive construct of פ״י verbs, peculiar to Elohist: + see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 69 _m_²; Holzinger _Einleitung in + den Hexateuch_ 190.――=4.= גם עלה] See on 27³³ 31¹⁵. LXX εἰς + τέλος.――=5.= יעקב ²] LXX omits.――פרעה] LXX Ἰωσηφ.――=6, 7.= Compare + 12⁵ 31¹⁸ 36⁶ (Priestly-Code). Further marks of Priestly-Code: + רכש, רכוש, זרעו אתו (17⁷ᐧ ⁹ ᶠᐧ 35¹²), and the redundant phraseology. + + * * * * * + +=8‒27. A list of Jacob’s immediate descendants.=――The passage +professes to give the names of those who went down with Jacob to Egypt, +but is in reality a list of the leading clans of the Israelite tribes, +closely corresponding to Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ. These traditionally numbered +_seventy_ (compare the 70 elders, Exodus 24¹ᐧ ⁹, Numbers 11¹⁶). Closely +connected with this was another tradition, that the number of the +Israelites at the settlement in Egypt was 70 (Deuteronomy 10²²). In +the more careful statement of Exodus 1⁵ (Priestly-Code), this means +all the _descendants_ of Jacob at the time: _i.e._, it includes Joseph +(and presumably his sons, though they were in Egypt already) and, +of course, excludes Jacob himself. In the mind of the writer of the +present passage these two traditional schemes appear to have got mixed +up and confused. As it stands, it is neither an accurate enumeration +of Jacob’s descendants (for the number 70 includes Jacob and excludes +Er and Onan), nor a list of those who accompanied him to Egypt (for +it embraces Joseph and his sons: see on ²⁶ ᶠᐧ). When cleared of certain +obvious accretions (יעקב ובניו ⁸; ¹²ᵇ{α}; ¹⁵ᵃ{γ}; ובנתיו ¹⁵ᵇ; ששים ושש ²⁶ and +the whole of ²⁷ except the last word שבעים), we find as its nucleus +a list of Jacob’s sons and grandsons, originally compiled without +reference to the migration to Egypt, on the basis of some such +census-list as Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ + + That the section belongs in general to the Priestly strata + of the Pentateuch is seen from its incompatibility with the + narrative (and particularly the chronology) of Jehovist; from + its correspondence with Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 6¹⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ; and from + literary indications (ואלה שמות, ⁸ [compare 25¹³ 36¹⁰]; פדן ארם, ¹⁵; + נפש ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁸ᐧ ²²ᐧ ²⁵⁻²⁷; יצאי ירך, ²⁶). As regards its relation to the + main document of Priestly-Code, three views are possible: (1) + That the list was originally drawn up by Priestly-Code, and + afterwards accommodated to the tradition of Jehovist by a later + editor (Nöldeke, Dillmann, al.). This implies the perfectly + tenable assumption that Priestly-Code did not accept the + tradition as to the death of Er and Onan, or that of Benjamin’s + extreme youth at the time of the migration; but also the less + probable view that he numbered the sons of Joseph amongst those + who ‘went down’ to Egypt. (2) That the interpolations are due to + Priestly-Code, who thus turned an older list of Jacob’s children + into an enumeration of those who accompanied him to Egypt + (Driver). The only serious objection to this theory is that it + makes Priestly-Code (in opposition to Exodus 1⁵) reckon Jacob as + one of the 70. It is nevertheless the most acceptable solution. + (3) That the whole section was inserted by a late editor of + the school of Priestly-Code (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Gunkel, al.). + Even on this hypothesis, the original list will have had nothing + to do with the migration to Egypt.――The discrepancy in the + computation lies in the first section (⁸⁻¹⁵). The 33 of verse + ¹⁵ was in the original list the true number of the _sons_ of + Leah. The interpolator, whoever he was, had to exclude Er and + Onan; to make up for this he inserts Dinah (¹⁵ᵃ), and reckons + Jacob amongst the sons of Leah! Another sign of artificial + manipulation of the figures appears in the proportions between + the number of _children_ assigned to each wife: Leah 32, + Zilpah 16, Rachel 14, Bilhah 7 (in all 69); each concubine-wife + receiving just half as many children as her mistress. The text + of LXX presents some important variations _v.i._. + +=8a.= The heading is identical with Exodus 1¹ᵃ, except the +words יעקב ובניו, which are obviously interpolated (see introductory +note).――=8b‒15.= The sons of Leah: viz. _four_ sons of Reuben +(verse ⁹), _six_ of Simeon (¹⁰), _three_ of Levi (¹¹), _five_ sons +and _two_ grandsons of Judah (¹²), _four_ sons of Issachar (¹³), and +_three_ of Zebulun (¹⁴).――=15.= _thirty-three_ is thus the correct +number of sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob by Leah. To +preserve this number intact with the omission of Er and Onan, the +interpolator was obliged to add Dinah, and to include Jacob himself +(see below). + + =9.= Exactly as Exodus 6¹⁴, Numbers 26⁵ ᶠᐧ.――חנוך is also a + Midianite tribe (25⁴); the Reubenites occupied Midianite + territory (Joshua 13²¹).――חצרון] and כרמי] also Judahite clans (see + verse ¹² and Joshua 7¹).――=10.= (= Exodus 6¹⁵). Numbers 26¹² ᶠᶠᐧ + omits אהד and reads נְמוּאֵל for ימואל, and זרח for צהר.――צהר] The + name of Ephron’s father in 23⁸.――_the son of the Canaanitess_] + representing a clan of notoriously impure stock.――=11.= + (= Exodus 6¹⁶).――=12.= As Numbers 26²⁰ ᶠᐧ.――The note on the + death of Er and Onan is an interpolation (see above).――חצרון] + (see on verse ⁹) was a town in Judah (Joshua 15²⁵).――חמול] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ חמואל; LXX Ἰεμουήλ.――=13.= + (= Numbers 26²³ ᶠᐧ.――תולע] Compare the judge of the same name, + son of פואה, of the tribe of Issachar (Judges 10¹).――פֻּוָּה] _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, Peshiṭtå פואה, as 1 + Chronicles 7¹, Judges 10¹.――יוב] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ and LXX (Ἰασουβ[φ]) read ישוב as Numbers 26: Winckler + connects with _Yašub-ilu_ under the 1st Babylonian dynasty + (_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii. 68³).――=14.= (Numbers + 26²⁶).――אלון a Zebulunite judge in Judges 12¹¹.――=15.= ואת דינה בתו + and ובנתיו are glosses. + +=16‒18.= The sons of Zilpah (Leah’s handmaid): _seven_ sons of Gad +(¹⁶), _four_ sons, _one_ daughter, and _two_ grandsons of Asher (¹⁷): +_sixteen_ in all (¹⁸). + + =16.= (As Numbers 26¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ, with textual differences).――צפיון] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX צפון, as Numbers + 26¹⁵.――אצבן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ אצבעון, + LXX Θασοβαν, stands for אזני in Numbers 26¹⁶.――=17.= ישוה, a + variant of the following ישוי (?), does not appear in Numbers + 26⁴⁴ ᶠᐧ.――The two grandsons חבר and מלכיאל have been connected with + the _Ḫabiri_ and the (chief) _Milkili_ of the Amarna Tablets + (Jastrow, _Journal of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, xi. + 120). + +=19‒22.= The sons of Rachel: _two_ of Joseph (²⁰) and _ten_ of +Benjamin (²¹), in all _fourteen_. + + =20.= וַיִּוָּלֵד] LXX + υἱοί. But the relative clause אשר――אן was + probably added by the glossator, in which case the בנים of LXX + is superfluous.――LXX adds, in partial agreement with Numbers + 26²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, five names as sons and grandsons of Manasseh and + Ephraim.――=21.= In LXX only the first three names are sons of + Benjamin, the next six being sons, and the last a grandson, of + Bela‛. Still another grouping is found in Numbers 26³⁸⁻⁴⁰.――בכר] + (LXX Χόβωρ): compare Sheba‛ _the Bichrite_ in 2 Samuel 20¹: in + Numbers 26 בכר is an Ephraimite.――גרא] omitted in Numbers 26, is + the clan of Ehud (Judges 3¹⁵) and Shimei (2 Samuel 16⁵).――For + the two names אחי וראש, Numbers 26³⁸ ᶠᐧ has אחילם, for מפּים, שפופם + or שופם, and for חפּים, חוּפָם (see Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper + Names_, 35).――נעמן and ארד are sons of בלע in Numbers 26⁴⁰.――=22.= + ילּד] MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדה. + +=23‒25.= The sons of Bilhah (Rachel’s maid): _one_ of Dan (²³, in spite +of בני), and _four_ of Naphtali (²⁴): _seven_ in all. + + =23.= בני] So Numbers 26⁴², where for חושים we find שׁוּחָם.――=24.= + (as Numbers 26⁴⁸ ᶠᐧ).――שלם] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ שלום (as 1 Chronicles 7¹³), LXX Συλλήμ. + +=26, 27.= The final summations. + + The original computation (70 = 33 + 16 + 14 + 7) included Er + and Onan, but excluded Dinah and Jacob. The secondary figure + 66 (= 32 + 16 + 11 + 7) excludes Er and Onan, and Joseph and + his two sons, but includes Dinah. To make up the original 70 + it was necessary to reckon not only the family of Joseph (3), + but Jacob himself.――LXX, with its 5 additional descendants of + Joseph (see on verse ²⁰), makes the total 75 (so Acts 7¹⁴), but + inadvertently substitutes ἐννέα, instead of ἑπτά, for the שנים + of Massoretic Text ²⁷, overlooking the fact that both Jacob and + Joseph have to be reckoned in the 75.――=26.= יצאי ירכו] 35¹¹, Exodus + 1⁵.――=27.= ילּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ילדו. + +=28‒30. The meeting of Jacob and Joseph.=――=28.= _to direct before +him to Goshen_] The Hebrew here gives no tolerable sense. The meaning +cannot be that Judah was to guide the travellers to Goshen, for he +is sent straight to Joseph; and for the idea that Joseph was to give +the needful instructions for their reception in Goshen (Dillmann), +the expression would be extremely harsh. The only natural purpose of +Judah’s mission was to bring Joseph to meet his father; and the least +difficult course is to read (with versions _v.i._): _to appear before +him in Goshen_, which had already been indicated by Joseph as the goal +of the journey (45¹⁰).――=29.= _went up_] Goshen lying somewhat higher +than the Nile-valley.――=30.= The verse prepares us for the death-bed +scenes (47²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ), which in Jehovist must have taken place soon after, +not as in Priestly-Code at an interval of 17 years. + + * * * * * + + =28.= להורות] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX? + Peshiṭtå לְהֵרָאוֹת (Wellhausen לְהֵרָיֹת), which is confirmed by וַיֵּרָא + in the next verse. There is no need to take the לפניו in a + temporal sense. The construction is pregnant, but otherwise + unobjectionable; the tone of superiority assumed by Jacob + towards Joseph is hardly a serious difficulty. Ball thinks that + the συναντῆσαι of LXX implies a reading לְהִקִּרְאוֹת (‘to meet’); but + the Niphal of קרה would rather mean ‘to come upon unexpectedly’ + (Deuteronomy 22⁶, 2 Samuel 18⁹).――גשנה――גשן] LXX καθ’ Ἡρώων πόλιν + εἰς γῆν Ῥαμεσσή. Heroöpolis has been shown by the excavations + of Naville (_Store City of Pithom_, etc.⁴, 5 ff.; compare + Gillett in _Journal of [the Society of] Biblical Literature and + Exegesis_, December, 1886, page 69 ff.) to be Pithom (Exodus + 1¹¹), now _Tell el-Maskhuṭa_ (see page 488 above). The Bohairic + version substitutes _Pethom_ for the Ἡρώων of LXX. LXX thus + makes the meeting take place at the frontier town in the + Wādī Ṭumīlāt towards the desert (so verse ²⁹). The reading is + noteworthy textually as containing Priestly-Code’s name for + Goshen.――ויבאו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + Vulgate, Peshiṭtå ויבא (better).――=29.= על־צואריו עוד] LXX κλαυθμῷ + πίονι (variation πλείονι).――The עוֹד is strange; but compare + Psalms 84⁵ (Ruth 1¹⁴ is not in point).――=30.= פניך] Peshiṭtå + בני. + + * * * * * + +=XLVI. 31‒XLVII. 12.――Joseph obtains Pharaoh’s permission for his +brethren to settle in Goshen.=――=31‒34= (Yahwist). He prepares his +brethren for an introduction to Pharaoh, in the expectation that by +laying stress on their herdsmen’s calling they may have the desirable +frontier district of Goshen assigned to them. It is evident that +in Yahwist the migration was resolved on without the invitation, +or perhaps the knowledge, of the king.――=32.= _for they were +cattle-breeders_] a more comprehensive category than _shepherds_. +Gunkel thinks that the representation made to Pharaoh cannot have +been strictly true, or Joseph would not have made such a point of +it;¹ and we must at least suppose that he advises them to emphasise +that side of their life which was most likely to gain the end in view. +Unfortunately, while he bids them say they are cattle-breeders, they +actually describe themselves as shepherds (47³), and yet Pharaoh would +make them cattle-overseers (47⁶ᵇ). Some confusion of the two terms +may be suspected, but as the text stands, nothing can be made of +the distinction.――=34.= _that ye may dwell, etc._] What motive in +the mind of the king is appealed to is not quite clear. If the last +clause――_for every shepherd, etc._――be genuine, it was the Egyptian +abhorrence of the class to which they belonged. But such a feeling +would be more likely to exclude them from Egypt altogether than to +procure their admission to the best pasture-land in the country, where +Pharaoh’s herds were kept (47⁶ᵇ). Moreover, while there is evidence +that swine-herds (Herodotus, ii. 47) and cowherds (Erman, _Life +in Ancient Egypt_, 439 f.) were looked down on by the Egyptians, +the statement that shepherds were held in special abhorrence has not +been confirmed; and the clause (³⁴ᵇ{β}) is probably an interpolation +suggested by 43³². See, further, on 47³ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=XLVII. 1‒5a, 6b= +(Yahwist). Pharaoh grants the request.――=1.= _and behold ... Goshen_] +It is evident that in this narrative Joseph relies on the _fait +accompli_ to procure a favourable response from Pharaoh. The idea +that Pharaoh decided such matters in person may be naïve (Gunkel); +it is certainly a curious restriction of the absolute authority +elsewhere assigned to Joseph.――=2.= _he had taken five, etc._] On +the significance of the number, see on 43³⁴.――=3, 4.= The anticipated +question (46³³) is answered in accordance with Joseph’s instructions, +though the phraseology differs by the substitution of רֹעֵי צֹאן for +אַנְשֵׁי מִקְנֶה.――It is possible that the repeated ויאמרו is due to the omission +between ³ and ⁴ of a further question by Pharaoh as to the reasons +for their coming to Egypt (so Ball, Gunkel). The whole leads up to +a straight-forward request for a temporary domicile in Goshen; and +the point may be simply that as herdsmen they had brought their means +of subsistence with them, and needed nothing but grazing land, which +must have been obtainable in spite of the famine. There is no hint +of any aversion to the strangers or their manner of life.――=6b.= +_Let them dwell, etc._] is the continuation of ⁵ᵃ in LXX (_v.i._), +whose arrangement of these verses is obviously more original than +that of Massoretic Text.――As an additional favour, Pharaoh offers to +take any capable members of the family into his service as _cattle +superintendents_ (שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה),――an office frequently mentioned in the +monuments as one of high dignity (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, +94 f., 108, 143). The breeding of cattle was carried to great +perfection in ancient Egypt (_ib._ 436 ff.). + + ¹ So Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 42; _The Expositor_, + August, 1908, page 124 f.), who draws the conclusion that, + as the Israelites here represent themselves as nomads, they + cannot have really been so! + + The admission of pastoral tribes within the frontier of Egypt + is an incident twice represented in Egyptian inscriptions of + the period here supposed. Under Ḥor-em-heb of the 18th dynasty, + some barbarians have a definite district assigned to them by + a high officer; and reference has already been made (page 437) + to the Edomite nomads who in the time of Merenptah were allowed + to pass the fortifications and feed their flocks in “the great + pasture-land of Pharaoh”――probably this very Wādī Ṭumīlāt + where Goshen was (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten + Orients_², 393; Driver, 372). + + * * * * * + + =31.= ואל־בית אביו] LXX omits, perhaps rightly.――=32.= כי――היו] + regarded as a gloss by Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, + Gunkel, al.――=34.= גשן] LXX Γεσεμ Ἀραβίᾳ.――רעה] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ (Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ) + רעי.――=2.= מקצה] = ‘from the totality of,’ as 1 Kings 12³¹, Exodus + 33² (otherwise Genesis 19⁴).――לקח] (pluperfect) _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ + עִמּוֹ.――=3.= אחיו] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + אחי יוסף.――רעה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ רעי (as + 46³⁴). + + * * * * * + +=5, 6a, 7‒11.= Jacob before Pharaoh (Priestly-Code).――=5.= The text of +LXX (_v.i._) supplies the following opening to Priestly-Code’s account +(continuing 46⁷): _And Jacob and his sons came to Egypt to Joseph; +and Pharaoh king of Egypt heard it_ (⁵ᵃ), _and Pharaoh said to Joseph, +etc._――It is plain that ⁵ᵇ continues _this_ conversation and not that +between Pharaoh and the five brethren.――=6a.= Here Pharaoh himself +selects _the best_ [part] _of the land_ for the Hebrew family to dwell +in (see verse ¹¹).――=7.= Joseph introduces his father to Pharaoh,――an +impressive and dignified scene.――_blessed_], _i.e._ ‘saluted’ on +entering (compare 1 Samuel 13¹⁰, 2 Kings 4²⁹, 2 Samuel 13²⁵ 19⁴⁰), +but recorded, no doubt, with a sense that “the less is blessed of the +better” (Hebrews 7⁷).――=9.= _few and evil_] The expression shows that +Priestly-Code must have recorded Jacob’s long exile with Laban and his +protracted sorrow for the loss of Joseph; it is still more interesting +as showing that that writer could conceive a good man’s life as spent +in adversity and affliction.――=11.= _the land of Ra‛mses_] The name +only here and LXX 46²⁸ (see on 45¹⁰), so called from the city built +by Ramses II. (Exodus 1¹¹) and named after him ‘the house of Ramses,’ +in the East of the Delta (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 48). The +situation is still uncertain; Naville (_Goshen_, 20) was inclined to +identify it with Ṣafṭ el-Ḥenneh (see page 488); but Petrie now claims +to have discovered its site at _Tel er-Reṭabeh_, in the middle of Wādī +Ṭumīlāt, 8 mile West of Pithom (_Hyksos and Israelite Cities_, 1906, +page 28 ff.)――=12.= Probably from Elohist ∥ ²⁷ᵃ (Yahwist). + + * * * * * + + =5, 6.= The overlapping of Yahwist and Priestly-Code at this + point can be proved and corrected from LXX. After ⁵ᵃ (omitting + לאמר) LXX reads ⁶ᵇ; then ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Ἰωσὴφ Ἰακὼβ + καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἤκουσεν Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου (= ויבאו + מצרימה אל־יוסף יעקב ובניו וישמע פרעה מלך מצרים); then ⁵ᵃ (repeated) ⁵ᵇᐧ ⁶ᵃᐧ ⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. + It will hardly be disputed that the text of LXX is here the + original, and that Priestly-Code’s narrative commences with + the additional sentences quoted above. The editor of Massoretic + Text felt the doublet to be too glaring; he therefore omitted + these two sentences; and then by transposition worked the two + accounts into a single scene. A further phase is represented by + Hexateuch Syriac, where ⁵ᵇ and ⁶ᵃ are omitted. We have here an + instructive example of the complex process by which the sources + were gradually worked into a smooth narrative, and one which + deserves the attention of those writers who ridicule the minute + and intricate operations which the critical theory finds it + necessary to attribute to the redactors.――=6b.= ואם ידעת וְיֶשׁ־] See + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 120 _e_. The היש of _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ is certainly not preferable (Ball).――=11.= + מיטב] verse ⁶, Exodus 22⁴, 1 Samuel 15⁹ᐧ ¹⁵†. The identification + of מ׳ הארץ with the ‘land of Ramses’ probably rests on a + misunderstanding of Elohist’s טוב הא׳ (see on 45¹⁸), and a + combination of it with Yahwist’s גּשֶׁן.――=12.= הטף] apparently + including here the women: compare 50²¹. + + * * * * * + + + XLVII. 13‒27. + _Joseph’s Agrarian Policy_ + (Yahwist?). + +Joseph is here represented as taking advantage of the great famine +to revolutionize the system of land-tenure in Egypt for the benefit +of the crown. In one year the famishing people have exhausted their +money and parted with their live-stock, in exchange for bread; in the +next they forfeit their lands and their personal freedom. Thus by a +bold stroke of statesmanship private property in land (except in the +case of the priests) is abolished throughout Egypt, and the entire +population reduced to the position of serfs, paying a land-tax of 20 +per cent. _per annum_ to the king. + + _Source._――The section ¹³⁻²⁶, dealing as it does with + matters purely Egyptian and without interest for the national + history of Israel, occupies an anomalous position among the + Joseph-narratives, and cannot be confidently assigned to + either of the main documents (Wellhausen _Die Composition des + Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² + 61). Linguistic indications are on the whole in favour of + Yahwist: כבד, ¹³; נחיה ולא נמות, ¹⁹ (42² 43⁸); ידות, ²⁴ (43³⁴); + מקנה הצאן ומקנה הבקר, ¹⁷ (26¹⁴); מצא חן בעיני, ²⁵ (see Gunkel and + Dillmann). But there are also traces of Elohist’s diction: חזק, + ²⁰; הבה, הבו, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (29²¹ 30¹,――differing from 11³ᐧ ⁴ᐧ ⁷) (Dillmann, + Holzinger); besides some peculiar expressions very unusual in + Pentateuch: להה, ¹³; אפם, ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ; תשם (Qal), ¹⁹; הֵא, ²³ (Dillmann). + It is possible that Holzinger (251 f.) and Procksch (54 f.) are + right in thinking the passage composite; but no satisfactory + analysis can be effected. That it is out of place in its present + connexion is generally admitted, but that it finds a more + suitable position between chapters 41 and 42 (Dillmann, Gunkel, + al.) is not at all obvious. It is not improbable that a piece + of so peculiar a character is a later addition to the original + cycle of Joseph-legends, and belongs neither to Yahwist nor + Elohist.――Verse ²⁷ appears to be from Priestly-Code, with + glosses (see the notes). + +=13, 14.= Joseph takes up all the money in Egypt and Canaan. _Canaan_ +is bracketed with Egypt as far as verse ¹⁵, after which the situation +is purely Egyptian. It is natural to suppose that the references to +Canaan are interpolated (Holzinger, Gunkel); but considering the close +political relations of the two countries, it would be rash to assume +this too easily.――_15‒17._ The live-stock is next exhausted.――_horses_] +See on 12¹⁶.――=18‒22.= The people surrender their lands and persons +for bread. This is the decisive stroke of Joseph’s statecraft, making +a return to the old conditions impossible; and it is noteworthy that +(as if to relieve Joseph of the odium) the proposal is represented as +coming from the people themselves.――=18.= _that year ... the second +year_] Not the first and second years of the famine (for we can hardly +suppose that the money and cattle were exhausted in a single year), +but simply two successive years.――=19.= _buy us and our land_] The +only basis of personal independence in a state like ancient Egypt +being the possession of land, the peasants know that in parting with +their land they sacrifice their freedom as well.――_give seed, etc._] A +temporary provision (see verse ²⁴) for the time of famine, or perhaps +for the first sowing after it was over (Holzinger). It is in any case +most natural to suppose that these drastic changes took place towards +the end of the 7 years.――=21.= _and the people he reduced to bondmen_] +Read so with Versions, _v.i._ (Knobel, Dillmann, Delitzsch, al.). +The Massoretic Text: ‘he brought them over to the cities’ appears +to mean that he brought the rural population to the cities where +the corn-magazines were (41³⁵ᐧ ⁴⁸); but the emphasis on the object +leads us to expect a parallelism to the appropriation of the land in +verse ²⁰ (Dillmann). A universal redistribution of the inhabitants +(Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Tuch, al.) could not be expressed by the words, and +would, moreover, be a senseless measure.――=22.= The priests’ property +was exempted, because they had a statutory provision of food, and +did not need to sell their lands. So the writer explains a privilege +which existed in his day (see page 501 below). Compare Erman, _Life +in Ancient Egypt_, 129, where Ramses III. is said to have given +185,000 sacks of corn annually to the temples.――=23‒26.= Institution +of the land-tax.――=23.= _Here is seed for you_] The gift is not +to be repeated; hence the incident naturally belongs to the end of +the famine.――=24.= _a fifth part_] According to Oriental ideas, and +considering the fertility of Egypt, the impost is not excessive; +a much higher percentage being frequently exacted under Eastern +governments (compare 1 Maccabees 10³⁰, and the authorities cited by +Dillmann page 444). On the severities of taxation under the New Empire, +see _Life in Ancient Egypt_, 122.――=25.= The people gratefully accept +the terms.――=26.= The arrangement is fixed by administrative decree, +and survives to the time of the writer.――=27.= (Priestly-Code, _v.i._) +is the conclusion of the settlement of Israel in Egypt (verse ¹¹). + + The system of land-tenure reflected in verses ¹³⁻²⁶ is supposed + by Erman to have actually arisen through the extermination of + the old landed aristocracy which followed the expulsion of the + Hyksos and the founding of the New Empire (_Life in Ancient + Egypt_, 102 f.). The same writer thus sums up what is known or + surmised of social conditions under the New Empire: “The landed + property was partly in the hands of the state, partly in those + of the priesthood; it was tilled by peasant-serfs; there seem + to have been no private estates belonging to the nobility, at + any rate not under the 19th dynasty. The lower orders consisted + mostly of serfs and foreign slaves; the higher, of officials in + the service of the state and of the temples” (_ib._ 129). The + peculiar privileges of the priests (and soldiers) are attested + by Diodorus, i. 73 f.; Herodotus, ii. 168 (but compare ii. 141): + the latter says that every priest and warrior possessed 12 + ἄρουραι of land tax-free. Of the amount of the land-tax (one + fifth) there appears to be no independent confirmation.――The + interest of the biblical account is ætiological. The Hebrews + were impressed by the vast difference between the land-tenure + of Egypt and that under which they themselves lived; and sought + an explanation of the ‘abnormal agrarian conditions’ (Erman) + prevailing in the Nile-valley. Whether the explanation here + given rests on any Egyptian tradition, or is due to the national + imagination of Israel, working on material supplied by the story + of Joseph, remains as yet uncertain (see Gunkel 410 f.). + + The close connexion between Egypt and Palestine in the matter + of food-supply is illustrated by the Amarna letters, where + a powerful minister named Yanḫamu is frequently mentioned as + holding a position somewhat corresponding to that of Joseph. + Yanḫamu, whose name suggests Semitic extraction, was governor of + an unknown province called Yarimuta, which some have tried (but + on the slenderest grounds) to identify with the biblical Goshen + (Winckler, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 215; Jeremias + _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, 391³). The + references imply that he had control of the state-granaries; + and complaints are made of the difficulty of procuring supplies + from the high-handed official; in particular, it is alleged that + the people have had to part with their sons and their daughters, + and the very woodwork of their houses, in return for corn (see + Knudtzon, _El-Amarna Tafeln_, page 407). That this historic + figure is the original of some features in the portrait of + Joseph (a combination first suggested by Marquart, and approved + by Winckler, Cheyne, Jeremias, al.) is conceivable enough; + though definite points of contact are very restricted, and the + historical background of Yanḫamu’s activity has completely faded + from the biography of Joseph. + + An equally striking, and equally unconvincing, parallel is + pointed out by Eerdmans (_Vorgeschichte Israels_, 68) from a + much later period――the end of the 19th dynasty,――when, according + to the Papyrus Harris, Arisu (_’I-’ir-sw_), a Syrian, “in years + of scarcity” which followed “the abundant years of the past,” + “made the whole land tributary to himself alone” (see Petrie, + _A History of Egypt_ iii. 134). The resemblance vanishes on + closer inspection. Arisu is simply a Syrian chief, who, in a + time of anarchy, gets the upper hand in Egypt by the help of + his companions, oppresses the people, and engages in a crusade + against the native religion. To say that “the circumstances + of this time correspond in all respects [ganz und gar] to the + statements of the Joseph-stories,” is a manifest exaggeration. + + * * * * * + + =13.= ותלהּ] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ ותלא. The + √ להה is Aramaic ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = לאה, ‘languish.’ It is one of + several rare expressions which occur in this section.――=14.= + שֹׁבְרִים] LXX + ויכלכלם (verse ¹²).――=15.= אָפֵם] The verb only here + (and verse ¹⁶) in Pentateuch: elsewhere poetic (Isaiah 16⁴ 29²⁰, + Psalms 77⁹†).――כסף] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + הכסף, LXX כספנו (so verse ¹⁶).――=16.= לכם] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate + לֶהֶם.――=17.= נהל] Only here in + the sense of ‘sustain’ [with food]; elsewhere, if the √ be the + same, it means ‘lead’ (to watering-place, goal, etc.): see page + 414.――=18.= כי אם] may be rendered equally well (with LXX) ‘that, + if’ (protasis to לא נשאר), or with Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘but’ [_sondern_] + (Delitzsch, Holzinger).――=19.= גם אנחנו גם אדמתנו] LXX avoids the + bold zeugma, and substitutes καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐρημωθῇ, as at the end + of the verse.――ונחיה] LXX ἵνα σπείρωμεν (ונזרע?).――=21.= העביר――לערים] + Massoretic Text is supported by Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, + while _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX read + העביד――לעבדים, as does the loose paraphrase of Vulgate.――=23.= הֵא] + Only Exodus 16⁴³ and Aramaic Daniel 2⁴³.――=24.= בתבואת] It seems + necessary here to take ת׳ as a noun of action: ‘at the bringings + in’ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Delitzsch, Dillmann), though elsewhere it + always means ‘increase’ or ‘produce.’ To omit ב (with LXX) does + not yield a natural construction.――לאכלכם] Ball happily emends + לְאֹכֶל לָכֶם.――ולאכל לטפכם] Better omitted with LXX.――=26.= לחמש] LXX לְחַמֵּשׁ. + חֹמָשׁ is not found, and the expression is very awkward. A good + sense might be obtained by transposing לְחַמֵּשׁ לפרעה (with LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ); + but whether that is the original text is very doubtful.――=27.= + The verse is usually divided between Yahwist and Priestly-Code; + but ישראל is no sure sign of Yahwist, since it denotes the nation. + The only characteristic of Yahwist is בארץ גשן, which may be very + well excised as a gloss: the rest may then quite suitably be + assigned to Priestly-Code (compare נאחז, פרה ורבה). + + * * * * * + + + XLVII. 28‒XLVIII. 22. + _Jacob’s last Interview with Joseph_ + (Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly-Code). + +The death-bed scenes of Jacob are described in great detail by all +three narrators, because of the importance of the dying utterances of +the last ancestor of all Israel. There are four main incidents: (1) +Jacob’s charge to Joseph with regard to his burial (²⁸⁻³¹); (2) the +blessing of Joseph and his two sons (48); (3) Jacob’s oracles on the +future of all the tribes (49¹⁻²⁸); and (4) his instructions regarding +his burial in Machpelah (²⁹⁻³³).――The first two may be conveniently +treated together. + + _Sources._――The triple thread of narrative is shown by the + three beginnings: 47²⁸ (Priestly-Code), 47²⁹ (Yahwist), and + 48¹ (Elohist). To Priestly-Code belong 47²⁸ 48³⁻⁶: note the + chronology and syntax of 47²⁸, the connexion of 48³ ᶠᐧ with + 35⁶ᵃᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²; אל שדי, ³; הפרה והרבה, ⁴; קהל עמים, ⁴; אחזת עולם, ⁴; הוליד, + ⁶.――Equally decisive are the indications of Yahwist in 47²⁹⁻³¹; + ישראל, ²⁹ᐧ ³¹; אם מצאתי וגו׳, ²⁹; שים נא ידך וגו׳, ²⁹ (24²); חסד ואמת, ²⁹ (24⁴⁹ + 32¹¹); שכבתי עם־אבתי, ³⁰.――The analysis of 48¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸⁻²² is more + doubtful: formerly the passage was treated as a unity and + assigned to Elohist (Hupfeld, Wellhausen, _Die Composition des + Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_² + 61 f., Driver al.), but the evidences of double recension are + too numerous to be overlooked. (See Budde, _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iii. 56 ff.) Thus, while יעקב, + ²ᵃ, and אלהים, ⁹ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²⁰ ᶠᐧ, and האמרי, ²², point to Elohist, ישראל, + ²ᵇᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹⁰ ᶠᐧ ¹³ ᶠ, and הצעיר, ¹⁴, point to Yahwist. A clue to the + analysis is supplied by (a) the double presentation of Manasseh + and Ephraim, ¹⁰ᵇ ∥ ¹³ (ויגשׁ); and (b) the obvious intrusion of + ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ between ¹⁴ and ¹⁷. ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ hang together and are + from Yahwist; ¹⁵ links on to ¹², and ¹³ ᶠᐧ presuppose ¹⁰ᵃ. Taking + note of the finer criteria, the analysis works out somewhat as + follows: Elohist = ¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰ᵇᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹²ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{βγ}ᵇᐧ ²¹ᐧ ²²; + Yahwist = ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹³ᐧ ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᵃ{α} (to ההוא);――deleting ישראל + in ²ᵇ{?}ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹ as a redactional explication. So in general + Dillmann, Kautzsch-Socin, Holzinger, Gunkel; also Procksch, who, + however, places ²¹ᐧ ²² before ⁷ in Elohist’s narrative.――The + source of ⁷ is difficult to determine; usually it has been + assigned to Priestly-Code or Redactor, but by Gunkel and + Procksch to Elohist (see the notes). + +=28‒31. Joseph promises to bury Jacob in Canaan.=――=28= +(Priestly-Code). Jacob’s age at the time of his death; compare +47⁹.――=29‒31= (Yahwist). Compare the parallel in Priestly-Code, +49²⁹⁻³².――=29.= On the form of oath, see on 24².――=30.= _lie with my +fathers_] _i.e._, in She’ôl (see on 25⁸); compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁶, +1 Kings 2¹⁰ etc.――_in their burying-place_] But in 50⁵ (also Yahwist) +Jacob speaks of “my grave which I have digged for myself.” The latter +is no doubt the original tradition, and the text here must have +been modified in accordance with the theory of Priestly-Code 49³⁰ ᶠᐧ +(Wellhausen).――=31.= _bowed over the head of the bed_] An act of +worship, expressing gratitude to God for the fulfilment of his last +wish (compare 1 Kings 1⁴⁷). Holzinger’s conjecture (based on 1 Samuel +19¹³), that there was an image at the top of the bed, is a possible, +though precarious, explanation of the origin of the custom. The +mistaken rendering of LXX (_v.i._) may have arisen from the fact +that the oath over the staff was an Egyptian formality (Spiegelberg, +_Recueil des Travaux_, xxv. 184 ff.; compare _Encyclopædia Biblica_, +4779¹; Sayce, _Contemporary Review_, August, 1907, 260). + + * * * * * + + =29.= ויקרבו――למות] Compare Deuteronomy 31¹⁴ (Yahwist), 1 Kings + 2¹.――=30.= ושכבתי] must be taken as protasis to ונשאתני (Strack, + Holzinger, Gunkel, al.).――בקברתם] Kittel בקברתי, to resolve + the contradiction spoken of _supra_. But where intentional + manipulation of the text is to be suspected, small emendations + are of little avail.――=31.= המטה] LXX τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ, Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) (= מַטֵּהוּ); compare Hebrews 11²¹. Other Versions + follow Massoretic Text, which is undoubtedly right: see 48² 49³³. + + * * * * * + + + XLVIII. + Adoption and blessing of Joseph’s two sons. + +=1, 2.= The introduction to all that follows: from Elohist.――_took +his two sons._] It seems implied in verse ⁸ that Jacob had not yet +seen the lads,――so soon did his last illness follow his arrival +in Egypt.――=3‒6.= Priestly-Code’s brief account of the adoption of +Ephraim and Manasseh. Dillmann thinks the verses have been transferred +from their original connexion with 49²⁸ᵇ, where they were spoken +in presence of all the brethren.――=3, 4.= The reference is to the +revelation at Luz (35¹¹ ᶠᐧ), where the promise of a numerous offspring +was coupled with the possession of Canaan. On the phraseology, +see above.――=5.= _And now_] In view of these promises he elevates +Ephraim and Manasseh to the status of full tribes, to share with +his own sons in the future partition of the land.――_Ephraim and +Manasseh_] The order is the only hint that Ephraim was the leading +tribe (compare verse ²⁰ Elohist); but it is not that usually observed +by Priestly-Code (see Numbers 26²⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 34²³ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 14⁴ 16⁴ 17¹; +otherwise Numbers 1¹⁰).――_as Reuben and Simeon_] The two oldest are +chosen for comparison.――=6.= Later-born sons of Joseph (none such, +however, are anywhere mentioned) are to be _called by the name of +their brethren, etc._] _i.e._, are to be counted as Ephraimites and +Manassites.――=7.= The presence of Joseph reminds the dying patriarch +of the dark day on which he buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath. The +expressions reproduce those of 35¹⁶⁻²⁰.――עָלַי] _to my sorrow_; literally +‘(as a trouble) upon me’ (compare 33¹³). + + The notice――one of the most pathetic things in Genesis――is very + loosely connected with what precedes, and must in its original + setting have led up to something which has been displaced in the + redaction. But it is difficult to find a suitable connexion for + the verse in the extant portions of any of the three sources. + In Priestly-Code (to which the word פַּדָּן at first sight seems to + point), Delitzsch, Dillmann, al. would put it immediately before + [ועתה] אני נאסף in 49²⁹; but that view relieves no difficulty, and + leads nowhere. A more natural position in that document might be + after the mention of the burial of Leah in 49³¹ (verse ³² may be + an interpolation); but the form of the verse is not favourable + to that assumption, and no good reason can be imagined for the + transposition. (See Budde _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche + Wissenschaft_, iii. 67 f.) Bruston (in _Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 208) puts forward the + attractive suggestion (adopted by Kautzsch-Socin, Ball, Gunkel, + Procksch, al.) that the verse introduced a request to be buried + in the same grave as Rachel. Such a wish is evidently impossible + in Priestly-Code; and Bruston (followed with some hesitation by + Ball, Kautzsch-Socin) accordingly found a place for it (with the + necessary alterations of text) between 47²⁹ and ³⁰ (Yahwist): + against this 50⁵ᐧ ¹¹ seem decisive. Gunkel and Procksch assign + it to Elohist, the latter placing it after verse ²², which is + certainly its most suitable position in Elohist. But is the idea + after all any more conceivable in Elohist than in Priestly-Code? + The writer who recorded the request, whoever he may have + been, must have supposed that it was fulfilled; and it is not + just likely that any writer should have believed that Jacob + was buried in the grave traditionally known as Rachel’s. + No satisfactory solution can be given. Hupfeld and Schrader + consider the verse redactional; so Budde, who thinks it was + inserted to correct Priestly-Code’s original statement that + Rachel was buried in Machpelah (see on 49³¹). + + * * * * * + + =1.= ויאמר] So 1 Samuel 16⁴ 19²². The plural ויאמרו is more usual + in such cases (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_²): we might also + point as Niphal וַיֵּאָמֵר (Joshua 2²).――At end of verse add with + LXX ויבא אל־יעקב.――=2.= ויגד] Better וַיֻּגַּד.――=2b= is usually assigned to + Yahwist because of ישראל. But the clause comes very naturally + after ²ᵃ; and as there are three other cases of confusion + between the two names in this chapter (⁸ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ²¹), the name is not + decisive.――=4.= קהל עמים] 28³; compare 35¹¹.――לזרעך] LXX לך ולז׳.――אחזת + עולם] 17⁸.――=7.= פַּדָּן] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, + LXX + אֲרָם, as in every other case where the name occurs (see on + 25²⁰). That the difference is documentary, and points to Elohist + rather than Priestly-Code, is a hazardous assumption (Gunkel); + and to substitute חרן, for the sake of accommodation to Yahwist + (Bruston, Ball), is quite arbitrary.――רחל] LXX + ἡ μήτηρ σου (so + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_). + + * * * * * + +=8, 9.= Elohist’s narrative is resumed.――Observe that Jacob _sees_ the +boys (who are quite young children [41⁵⁰]), whereas in ¹⁰ᵃ (Yahwist) +he _could not see_.――=9b= is usually assigned to Yahwist, but for +no very convincing reason.――=10b, 11= (Elohist). _I had not thought, +etc._] The words are charged with deep religious feeling: gratitude +to the God in whose name he is to bless the lads, and whose marvellous +goodness had brought his clouded life to a happy end.――=12= (Elohist). +_from between his_ (Jacob’s) _knees_] There must be a reference to +some rite of adoption not described, which being completed, Joseph +removes the children and _prostrates himself_ to receive the blessing +(continued in ¹⁵).――=10a, 13, 14= (Yahwist). Whether this is a second +interview in Yahwist, or a continuation of that in 47²⁹⁻³¹, does not +appear; in either case something has been omitted.――=10a.= See on +27¹.――=13 f.= The crossing (_v.i._) of Jacob’s hands has a weird +effect: the blind man is guided by a supernatural impulse, which +moves unerringly in the line of destiny. The right hand conveys the +richer blessing.――=15, 16.= The Blessing (Elohist).――The three-fold +invocation of the Deity reminds us of the Aaronic benediction (Numbers +6²⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ), which has some resemblance to a feature of Babylonian +liturgies (see Jeremias, _Hölle und Paradies_, 30): “in such cases the +polytheist names all the gods he worships, the ancient monotheist all +the names and attributes of the God he knows” (Gunkel).――_before whom +... walked_] compare 17¹.――_who shepherded me_] Compare 49²⁴, Psalms +23¹ 28⁹, Isaiah 40¹¹. The image is appropriate in the mouth of the +master-shepherd Jacob (Dillmann).――=16.= _the Angel ... evil_] The +passages in Jacob’s life where an angel or angels intervene (28¹¹ ᶠᶠᐧ +31¹¹ 32² ᶠᐧ) all belong to the source Elohist; they are not, however, +specially connected with deliverances from evil; and the substitution +of ‘angel’ for ‘God’ is not explained.――_let my name be named in them_] +‘Let them be known as sons of Jacob,’ and reckoned among the tribes +of Israel.――=17‒19.= Continuing ¹⁴ (Yahwist).――Joseph thinks his +father had counted on the elder being on his left (Joseph’s right) +hand, and will now correct his mistake.――=19.= But Jacob, speaking +under inspiration, declares his action to be significant.――_the +fulness of the nations_] A peculiar expression for populousness. +Compare Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (‘myriads of Ephraim’; ‘thousands of +Manasseh’).――=20.= The clause _And he blessed them that day_] is (if +not redactional) the conclusion of Yahwist’s account: the words of +blessing are not given. The rest of the verse concludes the blessing +of Elohist (¹⁵ ᶠᐧ).――_By thee_ (LXX _you_) _shall Israel bless_] The +formula must have been in actual use, and is said to be still current +amongst Jews (Strack).――_he put Ephraim before Manasseh_] If the +words are original (Elohist), they call attention to the fact that +in the benediction Ephraim had been named first, and find in that +slight circumstance an augury of the future pre-eminence of Ephraim +(Gunkel).――=21, 22.= Closing words to Joseph (Elohist).――=21.= A +prediction of the return to Canaan, in terms very similar to 50²⁴ +(also Elohist). The explicit anticipations of the Exodus are probably +all from this document (15¹⁶ [?] 46⁴ 50²⁴).――=22.= _one shoulder_] +The word שְׁכֶם may very well (like the synonymous כָּתֵף) have had in common +speech the secondary sense of ‘mountain-slope,’ though no instance +occurs in Old Testament. At all events there is no reasonable doubt +that the reference is to the city of Shechem, standing on the ‘slope’ +of Gerizim, the most important centre of Israelite power in early +times (see page 416), and consecrated by the possession of Joseph’s +tomb (Joshua 24³²). The peculiar value of the gift in Jacob’s +eyes is that the conquest was a trophy of his warlike prowess,――a +tradition which has left no trace whatever except in this verse (see +below).――_With my sword and with my bow_] Contrast Joshua 24¹². + + Verses ²¹ᐧ ²² stand in no organic connexion with each other, + or with what precedes. Verse ²², in particular, not only + presupposes a version of the capture of Shechem different from + any found elsewhere¹ (see page 422 above), but is out of harmony + with the situation in which the words are assumed to have been + uttered. For it is scarcely credible that Jacob should have + referred thus to a conquest which he had subsequently lost, and + which would have to be recovered by force of arms before the + bequest could take effect. But further, the expression ‘above + thy brethren’ naturally implies that the portions of the other + sons had been allotted by Jacob before his death. The verse, + in short, seems to carry us back to a phase of the national + tradition which ignored the sojourn in Egypt, and represented + Jacob as a warlike hero who had effected permanent conquests in + Palestine, and died there after dividing the land amongst his + children. The situation would thus be parallel to the so-called + ‘Blessing of Jacob’ in chapter 49, which is also independent of, + though not quite incompatible with, the final recension of the + patriarchal history and the migration to Egypt. For the first + statement of this theory, see Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 227, 414 f. + + ¹ Attempts to bring the notice into line with the recorded + history, by inserting לא before בחרבי and בקשתי (as Joshua + 24¹²) (Kuenen), or by taking לקחתי as a future-perfect (Tuch, + Delitzsch, Strack, al.), are obviously unsatisfactory. + + * * * * * + + =8.= מי אלה] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + + לך.――=9.= ויאמר²] LXX + Ἰακώβ.――ואברכֶם (Baer-Delitzsch, page 80). + On the pausal seghol, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 29 _q_, 60 + _d_.――=11.= רְאֹה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _n_ (compare 31²⁸).――פללתי] + Literally ‘had not judged’; only here = ‘opine.’――=12.= וישתחו] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå have + the plural.――לאפיו] hardly makes sense. Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå + לוֹ אַפַּיִם.――=14.= את־ימינו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + inserts יד.――שֵׁכֵּל] Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אחכימינין, deriving from √ שׂכל, ‘be + prudent’ (whose Piel does not occur); but LXX ἐναλλὰξ, Vulgate + _commutans_, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ פרג. + These Versions may be guessing at the sense; but most moderns + appeal to Arabic _šakala_, a _secondary_ meaning of which is + to ‘_plait_ two locks of hair together and _bind_ them to the + other locks.’ In spite of the philological equivalence, Driver + is justly sceptical of so remote an analogy.――כי מנשה הבכור] LXX + omits.――=15.= את־יוסף] LXX אתם] wrongly, the original connexion + being with ¹²ᵇ.――מעודי] (Numbers 22³⁰†) ‘ever since I was.’ LXX, + Peshiṭtå, Vulgate ‘from my youth’ (מנעורי ?).――=16.= For המלאך, + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ reads המלך.――=19.= + ואולם] ‘but for all that’ (compare 28¹⁹).――=20.= בך] LXX בכם.――יְבָרֵךְ] + LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå יִבָּרֵךְ (Niphal; see on 12³). The most natural + form would be Hithpael יתברך.――=22.= שכם אחד] LXX Σικιμα ἐξαίρετον, + Aquila ὦμον ἕνα. For אַחַד instead of אֶחָד, see Gesenius-Kautzsch + § 130 _g_. On כָּתֵף in the sense of ‘mountain-slope’ (_v.s._), see + Numbers 34¹¹, Joshua 15⁸ [Isaiah 11¹⁴?], etc. + + * * * * * + + + XLIX. 1‒28a. + _The Blessing of Jacob._ + +This important and difficult section――one of the oldest pieces of +Hebrew poetry which we possess――consists of a series of oracles +describing the characters and fortunes of the twelve tribes of Israel, +as unfolded during the age of the Judges and under the early monarchy. +That it was composed from the first in the name of Jacob appears +clearly from internal indications (verses ³ ᶠᐧ ⁹ᐧ ⁽¹⁸⁾ᐧ ²⁶); but that +it was actually uttered by the patriarch on his death-bed to his +assembled sons is a hypothesis which several considerations combine +to render incredible. In the first place, the outlook of the poem +is bounded (as we shall afterwards see) by a particular historical +situation, removed by many centuries from the supposed time of +utterance. No reason can be imagined why the vista of the future +disclosed to Jacob should open during the settlement of the tribes +in Canaan, and suddenly close at the reign of David or Solomon; why +trivial incidents like the maritime location of Zebulun (verse ¹³), +or the ‘royal dainties’ produced by Asher (²⁰), or even the loss of +tribal independence by Issachar (¹⁵), etc., should be dwelt upon to +the exclusion of events of far greater national and religious +importance, such as the Exodus, the mission of Moses, the leadership +of Joshua, or the spiritual prerogatives of the tribe of Levi. It is +obvious that the document as a whole has historic significance only +when regarded as a production of the age to which it refers. The +analogy of Old Testament prophecy, which has been appealed to, +furnishes no instance of detailed prevision of a remote future, +unrelated to the moral issues of the speaker’s present. In the next +place, the poem is animated by a strong _national_ sentiment such as +could not have existed in the lifetime of Jacob, while there is a +complete absence of the family feeling which would naturally find +expression in the circumstances to which it is assigned, and which, in +fact, is very conspicuous in the prose accounts of Jacob’s last days. +The subjects of the oracles are not Jacob’s sons as individuals, but +the tribes called by their names (see ²⁸ᵃ); nor is there any allusion +to incidents in the personal history of Jacob and his sons except in +the sections on Reuben and on Simeon and Levi, and even there a tribal +interpretation is more natural. Finally, the speaker is not Jacob the +individual patriarch, but (as is clear from verses ⁶ᐧ ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹⁶) Jacob +as representing the ideal unity of Israel (see Kohler, page 8 f.). +All these facts point to the following conclusion (which is that of +the great majority of modern interpreters): the poem is a series of +_vaticinia ex eventu_, reflecting the conditions and aspirations of +the period that saw the consolidation of the Hebrew nationality. The +examination of the separate oracles will show that some (_e.g._ those +on Issachar and Dan) are certainly pre-monarchic; and that indeed +all may be so except the blessing on Judah, which presupposes the +establishment of the Davidic kingdom. The process of composition must +therefore have been a protracted one; the poem may be supposed to have +existed as a traditional document whose origin dates from the early +days of the Israelite occupation of Palestine, and which underwent +successive modifications and expansions before it took final shape +in the hands of a Judæan poet of the age of David or Solomon. The +conception of Jacob as the speaker belongs to the original intention +of the poem; the oracles express the verdict of the collective +consciousness of Israel on the conduct and destiny of the various +tribes, an idea finely suggested by putting them in the mouth of the +heroic ancestor of the nation. Ultimately the song was incorporated +in the patriarchal tradition, probably by the Yahwist, who found a +suitable setting for it amongst the dying utterances of Jacob. + + _Literary Parallels._――Before proceeding to consider the more + intricate problems arising out of the passage, it will be useful + to compare it with (1) the Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and + (2) the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33).――1. The former is + like an instantaneous photograph: it exhibits the attitude and + disposition of the tribes in a single crisis of the national + history. It resembles Genesis 49 in the strong feeling of + national unity which pervades it, and in the mingling of + blame and commendation. It reveals, however, a very different + historical background. The chief differences are: the entire + ignoring of the southern tribes Judah, Simeon, and Levi; the + praise bestowed on Issachar; the substitution of Gilead for Gad; + and the division of the unity of Joseph into its constituents + Ephraim and Machir (= Manasseh). The importance of these and + other divergences for the determination of the relative dates + of the two documents is obvious, although the evidence is + frequently of a kind which makes it very difficult to form + a confident judgement.――2. The Blessing of Moses shows signs + (especially in the section on Joseph) of literary dependence on + Genesis 49; it is therefore a later composition, written very + probably in North Israel after the division of the kingdom (see + Driver _A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy_ + 388). It is distinguished from the Blessing of Jacob by its + uniform tone of benediction, and its strongly religious point + of view as contrasted with the secular and warlike spirit + of Genesis 49. Simeon is passed over in silence, while his + ‘brother’ Levi is the subject of an enthusiastic eulogium; + Judah is briefly commended in a prayer to Yahwe; the separation + of Ephraim and Manasseh is recognised in an appendix to + the blessing on Joseph. All these indications point more or + less decisively to a situation considerably later than that + presupposed by the oracles of Jacob. + + _Date and Unity of the Poem._――That the song is not a perfect + literary unity is suggested first of all by the seemingly + complex structure of the sections on Dan (two independent + oracles) and Judah (with three exordiums in verses ⁸ᐧ ⁹ᐧ ¹⁰). + We find, further, that a double motive runs through the series, + viz., (1) etymological play on the name of the tribe (Judah, + Zebulun?, Dan, Gad, Asher?), and (2) tribal emblems (chiefly + animal) (Judah, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin): one + or other of these can be detected in each oracle except those on + Reuben and Simeon-Levi. It is, of course, not certain that these + are characteristic of two independent groups of oracles; but the + fact that both are represented in the sayings on Judah and Dan, + while neither appears in those on Reuben and Simeon-Levi, does + confirm the impression of composition and diversity of origin. + The decisive consideration, however, is that no single period + of history can be found which satisfies all the indications of + date drawn from the several oracles. Those on Reuben, Simeon, + and Levi refer to events which belong to a remote past, and were + in all probability composed before the Song of Deborah, while + these events were still fresh in the national memory; those + on Issachar, Dan, and Benjamin could hardly have originated + after the establishment of the monarchy; while the blessing of + Judah clearly presupposes the existence of the Davidic kingdom, + and must have been written not earlier than the time of David + or Solomon. A still later date is assigned by most critics + since Wellhausen, (_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der + historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments_³ 320) to the blessing + on Joseph, which is generally considered to refer to the kingdom + of North Israel and to the Aramæan wars under the dynasties of + Omri and Jehu. It is argued in the notes below that the passage + is susceptible of a different interpretation from that adopted + by the majority of scholars, and may, in fact, be one of the + oldest parts of the poem. As for the rest of the oracles, + their character is such that it seems quite impossible to + decide whether they originated before or after the founding + of the kingdom. In any case we hardly get much beyond a broad + chronological division into pre-Davidic and post-Davidic oracles; + but at the same time that distinction is so clearly marked as + to exclude absolutely the hypothesis of unity of authorship.――It + has been supposed by some writers (Renan, Kuenen, al.) that + the poem consists of a number of fugitive oracles which had + circulated independently among the tribes, and were ultimately + collected and put in the mouth of Jacob. But, apart from the + general objection that characterisation of one tribe by the + rest already implies a central point of view, the inadequacy of + the theory is seen when we observe that all the longer passages + (Reuben, Simeon-Levi, Judah, Joseph) assume that Jacob is the + speaker, while the shorter pieces are too slight in content + to have any significance except in relation to the whole.――An + intermediate position is represented by Land, who distinguished + six stages in the growth of the song: (1) A primary poem, + consisting of the two tristichs, verses ³ and ⁸, written at the + time of David’s victories over the Philistines, and celebrating + the passing of the hegemony from Reuben to Judah: to this + verse ⁴ was afterwards added as an appendix. (2) A second poem + on Judah, Dan, and Issachar (verses ⁹ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ: distichs), + describing under animal figures the condition of these tribes + during the peaceful interval of David’s reign in Hebron: to + which was appended later the verse on Benjamin (²⁷). (3) The + Shiloh oracle (verses ¹⁰⁻¹²), dating from the same period. (4) + The decastich on Simeon and Levi (verses ⁵⁻⁷), from the time of + the later Judges. (5) The blessing of Joseph (²²⁻²⁶), a northern + poem from about the time of Deborah. (6) The five distichs on + Zebulun, Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali (in that order: verses + ¹³ᐧ ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²¹), commemorating the victory of Deborah and Barak + over the Canaanites. The theory rests on dubious interpretations, + involves improbable historical combinations, and is altogether + too intricate to command assent; but it is noteworthy + nevertheless as perhaps the first elaborate attempt to solve + the problem of the date and integrity of the poem, and to do + justice to the finer lines of structure that can be discovered + in it.――On the whole, however, the theory of the ‘traditional + document’ (_v.s._), altered and supplemented as it was handed + down from one generation to another, while sufficiently elastic, + seems the one that best satisfies all the requirements of the + problem (so Gunkel, 420 f.). + + The _order_ in which the tribes are enumerated appears to be + partly genealogical, partly geographical. The six Leah-tribes + come first, and in the order of birth as given in chapters + 29 f., save that Zebulun and Issachar change places. Then follow + the four concubine or hybrid tribes; but the order is that + neither of birth nor of the mothers, the two Zilpah-tribes, + Gad and Asher, coming between the Bilhah tribes, Dan and + Naphtali. The Rachel-tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, stand last. + Geographically, we may distinguish a southern group (Reuben, + Simeon, Levi, Judah), a northern (Zebulun, Issachar, Dan?, Gad + [trans-Jordanic], Asher, Naphtali), and a central group (Joseph, + Benjamin). The general agreement of the two classifications + shows that the genealogical scheme itself reflects the tribal + affinities and historical antecedents by which the geographical + distribution of the tribes in Palestine was in part determined. + The suggestion of Peters (_Early Hebrew story_, 61 ff.), that + the ages of Jacob’s children represent approximately the order + in which the respective tribes obtained a permanent footing in + Canaan, is a plausible one, and probably contains an element + of truth; although the attempt to reconstruct the history of + the invasion and conquest on such precarious data can lead to + no secure results. It is clear at all events that neither the + genealogical nor the geographical principle furnishes a complete + explanation of the arrangement in Genesis 49; and we have to + bear in mind the possibility that this ancient document may have + preserved an older tradition as to the grouping and relations + of the tribes than that which is given in the prose legends + (chapters 29. 30).――On the question whether a sojourn in Egypt + is presupposed between the utterance and the fulfilment of the + predictions, the poem naturally throws no direct light. It is + not improbable that in this respect it stands on the same plane + as 48²² (34. 38), and traces the conquest of Palestine back to + Jacob himself. + + _Metrical Form._――See Sievers, _Metrische Studien_, i. 404 ff., + ii. 152 ff., 361 ff. The poem (verses ²⁻²⁷) exhibits throughout + a clearly marked metrical structure, the unit being the trimeter + distich, with frequent parallelism between the two members. The + lines which do not conform to this type (verses ⁷ᵇᐧ ¹³ᵇᐧ ¹⁸, and + especially ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶) are so few that interpolation or corruption + of text may reasonably be suspected; although our knowledge of + the laws of Hebrew poetry does not entitle us to say that an + occasional variation of rhythm is in itself inadmissible. + + _Source._――Since the poem is older than any of the Pentateuchal + documents, the only question that arises is the relatively + unimportant one of the stage of compilation at which it was + incorporated in the narrative of Genesis. Of the primary sources, + Elohist and Priestly-Code are excluded; the former because + of the degradation of Reuben, which is nowhere recognised by + Elohist; and the latter by the general tendency of that work, + and its suppression of discreditable incidents in the story + of the patriarchs. The passage is in perfect harmony with + the representation of Yahwist, and may without difficulty be + assigned to that document, as is done by the majority of critics. + At the same time, the absence of literary connexion with the + narrative leaves a considerable margin of uncertainty; and it + is just as easy to suppose that the insertion took place in + the combined narrative Jehovist, perhaps by the same hand which + inserted the Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy (see Wellhausen + _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher + des Alten Testaments_² 62). That it was introduced during the + final redaction of the Pentateuch is less probable, especially + if ²⁸ᵇ{β} (ויברך) was the original continuation of ¹ᵇ in + Priestly-Code (see on verse ¹). + + Monographs on the Song: Diestel, _Der Segen Jakob’s in Genesis + xlix. historisch erläutert_ (1853); Land, _Disputatio de carmine + Jacobi_ (1858); Kohler, _Der Segen Jakob’s mit besonderer + Berücksichtigung der alten Versionen und des Midrasch + historisch-kritisch untersucht und erklärt_ (1867); compare + also Meier, _Geschichte der poetischen National Literatur der + Hebräer_ (1856), pages 109‒113; Peters, _Journal of the Society + of Biblical Literature and Exegesis_, 1886, pages 99‒116; and + see the copious references in Tuch or Dillmann. + +=1, 2. Introduction.=――The poem begins with a preamble (verse ²) +from the hand of the writer who composed or collected the oracles and +put them in the mouth of Jacob. ¹ᵇ is a prose introduction, supplied +probably by the editor who incorporated the Song in the narrative +of Yahwist or Jehovist; while ¹ᵃ appears to be a fragment of +Priestly-Code divorced from its original connexion with ²⁸ᵃᵇ{β} by +Redactorᴾᵉⁿᵗᵃᵗᵉᵘᶜʰ.――=1b.= _that I may make known, etc._] The poem is +expressly characterised as a prophecy (not, however, as a _blessing_ +[as ²⁸ᵇ]), which it obviously is as ascribed to Jacob, though the +singer’s real standpoint is contemporary or retrospective (page 508 +above).――_in the after days_] The furthest horizon of the speaker’s +vision (_v.i._).――=2.= A trimeter distich, exhibiting the prevalent +metrical scheme of the poem: + + Assemble, ye sons of Jacob, + And hearken to Israel your father! + +With the call to attention, compare 4²³, Deuteronomy 32¹, Isaiah 1¹⁰ +28¹⁴, etc.――Whether in the mind of the poet Israel is the literal or +the ideal father of the nation may be doubtful: compare verse ⁷, and +page 509 above. + + * * * * * + + =1.= באחרית הימים] The phrase occurs 13 times in Hebrew Old + Testament (Numbers 24¹⁴, Deuteronomy 4³⁰ 31²⁹, Isaiah 2², + Jeremiah 23²⁰ 30²⁴ 48⁴⁷ 49³⁹, Exodus 38¹⁶, Hosea 3⁵, Micah 4¹, + Daniel 10¹⁴†), and its Aramaic equivalent in Daniel 2²⁸. In the + prophets it is used technically of the advent of the Messianic + age; here and elsewhere (Numbers 24¹⁴ etc.) it has the general + sense of the remote future (like Assyrian _aḫrat ûmi_: _Die + Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 143). That the + eschatological sense is primary, and the other an imitation + of prophetic style (Gunkel), cannot be proved; and there is no + justification for deleting either the phrase itself (Staerk, + _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xi. 247 + ff.), or the whole clause in which it occurs (Land).――=2.= + The repetition of ושמעו is against the rules of parallelism. We + may either omit the word in ²ᵃ (Gunkel, Sievers), or vary the + expression (ועאזינו, והקשיבו) in ²ᵇ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Ball). Metrically, + either expedient would be admissible, but the former is much + easier. In LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ ἀκούσατε is used thrice. + + * * * * * + +=3, 4. Reuben.= + + ³ Reuben! My first-born art thou: + My strength and best of my vigour. + Exceeding in pride and exceeding in fury, + ⁴ Impetuous as water, thou may’st not excel. + For thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; + There thou profanedst ⸢the⸣ couch.... + +The original presents both obscurities and niceties not reflected in +the translation; but the general sense is clear. As the first-born, +Reuben is endowed with a superabundant vitality, which is the cause +at once of his pre-eminence and of his undoing: his energy degenerates +into licentious passion, which impels him to the crime that draws down +the curse. As a characterisation of the tribe, this will mean that +Reuben had a double share of the ‘frenetic’ Bedouin nature, and wore +out his strength in fierce warfare with neighbouring tribes. If the +outrage on his father’s honour (verse ⁴) have historic significance +(see below), it must denote some attack on the unity of Israel which +the collective conscience of the nation condemned. It is to be noted +that the recollection of the event has already assumed the legendary +form, and must therefore reach back to a time considerably earlier +than the date of the poem (Gunkel).――=3b, 4a.= _exceeding ... excel_] +No English word brings out the precise force of the original, where +the √ יתר occurs three times in a sense hovering between ‘exceed’ +and ‘excel.’ The idea of excess being native to the root, the +renderings _pride_ and _fury_ are perhaps preferable to ‘dignity’ and +‘power,’ ³ᶜ as well as ⁴ being understood _sensu malo_, as a censure +of Reuben.――=4b.= _Then ... went up_] A corrupt text: for various +suggestions, _v.i._ Gunkel’s translation ‘Then I profaned the couch +which he ascended,’ at least softens the harsh change from 2nd person +to 3rd. + + The ‘birthright’ of Reuben must rest on some early ascendancy + or prowess of the tribe which has left no traces in history. Its + choice of a settlement East of the Jordan (Numbers 32, etc.), + shows an attachment to nomadic habits, and perhaps an unfitness + for the advance to civilised life which the majority of the + tribes had to make. In the Song of Deborah, Reuben is still + an important tribe, but one that had lost enthusiasm for the + national cause (Judges 5¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). In the Blessing of Moses it + still survives, but is apparently on the verge of extinction + (Deuteronomy 33⁶). It was doubtless exhausted by struggles + like those with the Hagarenes (1 Chronicles 5¹⁰ᐧ ¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), but + especially with the Moabites, who eventually occupied most of + its territory (compare Numbers 32³⁷, Joshua 13¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ with Isaiah + 15, Jeremiah 48 _passim_, and Moabite Stone).――The incident + to which the downfall of Reuben is here traced (⁴ᵃ{β}ᵇ) is + connected with the fragmentary notice of 35²², and is variously + interpreted: (1) According to William Robertson Smith, _Kinship + and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 109², Steuernagel, _Die + Einwanderung der israelitischen Stämme in Kanaan_ 16, Holzinger, + it records the fact that Reuben had misused its power as the + leading tribe to assail the independence of a weaker member + of the confederation (Bilhah, or one of the Bilhah-tribes),――a + rather hazardous speculation. (2) Another theory, not + necessarily inconsistent with the former (see William Robertson + Smith, _l.c._), finds a reference to the persistence in + Reuben of an old Semitic custom of marriage with the wives or + concubines of a (deceased!) father (Dillmann, Stade, _Geschichte + des Volkes Israel_, i. 151 f.), which the general moral + sense of Israel had outgrown. In this case we must suppose + that 49⁴ contains the germ of the legend of which 35²², with + its particular mention of Bilhah, is a later phase. (3) It + is probable that the _form_ of the legend has been partly + determined by a mythological motive, to which a striking + parallel is found in the story of Phœnix and Amyntor (_Iliad_ + ix. 447 ff.: quoted above, page 427).――_Metrical Structure._ + The oracle is better divided as above into three distichs, than + (with Massoretic Text) into two tristichs (so Land, who assigns + each to a separate author). The trimeter measure is easily + traced throughout (except line 3) by following the Hebrew + accents, supplying Maqqeph after כי and אז in verse ⁴. Line 3 may + be scanned uu´|u´|u´ (Sievers). + + * * * * * + + =3a.= ראשית אוני (Deuteronomy 21¹⁷, compare Psalms 78⁵¹ 105³⁶)] + Not ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου (LXX, Theodotion), still less _principium + doloris mei_ (Vulgate from אָוֶן, ‘trouble’; so Aquila, Symmachus); + but ‘best part of my virility’ (Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ). + On ראשית, see page 12; און as Hosea 12⁴.――=3b.= LXX σκληρὸς + φέρεσθαι καὶ σκληρὸς αὐθάδης; Vulgate _prior in donis, major + in imperio_.――יֶתֶר (abstractum pro concreto) might mean ‘excess’ + (Aquila, Symmachus), or ‘superiority’ (Vulgate), or ‘remnant’ + (Peshiṭtå; so Peters, page 100): whether it is here used in + a good sense or a bad (for the latter, compare Proverbs 17⁷) + depends on the meaning assigned to the next two words.――שאת] + Literally ‘lifting’ (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, + Peshiṭtå), several times means ‘exaltation’; but in Habakkuk 1⁷ + it has distinctly the sense of ‘arrogance,’ the idea preferred + above. To read שְׁאֹת, ‘turbulence’ (Gunkel), is unnecessary, + and שֵׁאת, ‘destruction’ (Peters), gives a wrong turn to the + thought.――עָז] Pausal for עֹז, ‘power,’ but the sense of ‘fury’ is + supported by verse ⁷, Isaiah 25³.――=4.= פחז――תותר] LXX ἐξύβρισας + ὡς ὕδωρ, μὴ ἐκζέσῃς; Aquila ἐθάμβευσας ... περισσεύσῃς; + Symmachus ὑπερέζεσας ... οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος; Vulgate _effusus + es sicut aqua, non crescas_; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The + comparison to water is ambiguous; and it is doubtful if we may + introduce the simile of water ‘boiling over’ (Symmachus, LXX + and many moderns). The image may be that of a wild rushing + torrent,――a fit emblem of the unbridled passion which was + Reuben’s characteristic (so Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ).――פהז] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ פחזת. Though the other Versions also + have 2nd person, we cannot assume that they _read_ so; and the + analogy of verse ³ leads us to expect another abstractum pro + concreto. The noun is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; the particle occurs Judges + 9⁴, Zephaniah 3⁴, with the sense ‘reckless’ or ‘irresponsible’ + (compare פחזות, Jeremiah 23³²). In Arabic the √ means ‘be + insolent,’ in Aramaic ‘be lascivious’: the common idea is + perhaps ‘uncontrollableness’ (_ut s._).――אל־תותַר] For the pausal + _a_, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 53 _n_, and compare Ruth 2¹⁴.――=4b.= + No very acceptable rendering of this difficult clause has been + proposed. If we follow the accentuation, יצועי is object of עלה, + and יצועי עלה a detached sentence: ‘Then thou actedst profanely. He + went up to my bed’; but apart from the harsh change of person, + this is inadmissible, because חִלֵּל is never used intransitively. + To read עָלִיתָ with LXX is perhaps a too facile emendation; and + to omit עלה with Vulgate is forbidden by rhythm. On the whole it + is best (with Gunkel) to point חִלַּלְתִּ, and take עלה as a relative + clause (_v.s._). Other suggestions are: ח׳ יצועַי עֹלֶה (Land); יצועֵי בִלְהָה + (Geiger, Kittel); י׳ יוֹלֶדְךָ (Ball); but all these are, for one reason + or another, objectionable. + + * * * * * + +=5‒7. Simeon and Levi.= + + ⁵ Simeon and Levi――brothers! + Weapons of ruth are their daggers (?). + ⁶ Into their council my soul would not enter, + In their assembly my mind would not join: + For in their anger they slaughter men, + And in their gloating they disable oxen. + ⁷ Accursed be their wrath for it is fierce, + And their rage for it is cruel! + I will divide them in Jacob, + And scatter them in Israel. + +=5a.= _brothers_] Hardly ὁμόγνωμοι (scholium in Field) = ‘true +brother-spirits’ (Tuch al.), or ‘associates’ in a common enterprise. +The epithet is probably a survival from an old tradition in which +Simeon and Levi were the only sons of Leah (see 34¹ᐧ ²⁵; compare Meyer, +_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 286¹, 426). It is universally +assumed that that incident――the treacherous attack on Shechem――is the +ground of the curse here pronounced; but the terms of the oracle are +perfectly general and in part unsuited to the supposed circumstances; +and it seems to me to be the habitual character of the tribes which +is denounced, and not any particular action.――=5b.= The translation +is doubtful, owing partly to uncertainty of text, and partly to +the obscurity of the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מְכֵרָה (_v.i._). The rendering +above gives a good sense, and Ball’s objection, that daggers are +_necessarily_ implements of violence, has no force.――=6a.= _council +... assembly_] The tribal gatherings, in which deeds of violence +were planned, and sanguinary exploits gloated over. The distich +expresses vividly the thought that the true _ethos_ of Israel was +not represented in these bloody-minded gatherings.――=6b.= _men ... +oxen_] The nouns are collectives.――_slaughter ... hough_] Perfects of +experience. The latter operation (disable by cutting the sinew of the +hind-leg) was occasionally performed by Israelites on horses (Joshua +11⁶ᐧ ⁹, 2 Samuel 8⁴); to do it to a domestic animal was evidently +considered inhuman. No such atrocity is recorded of the assault on +Shechem (see 34²⁸).¹――=7b.= _in Jacob ... in Israel_] The speaker is +plainly not the individual patriarch, nor the Almighty (Land), but the +personified nation. + + ¹ Zimmern (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 162 f.) finds + in ⁶ᵇ a reminiscence of the mutilation of the celestial + Bull by Gilgameš and Eabani in the Babylonian Gilgameš-Epic. + Simeon and Levi, like Gilgameš and Eabani, represent the + Gemini of the Zodiac; and it is pointed out that the Bull in + the heavens is ἡμίτομος, _i.e._ only its fore-half appears + as a constellation. The אישׁ then corresponds to the tyrant + Ḫumbaba, who was slain by Gilgameš and Eabani; and Jacob’s + curse answers to the curse of Ištar on the two heroes for + mutilating the Bull.――Whatever truth there may be in this + mythological interpretation, it does not relieve us of + the necessity of finding a _historical_ explanation of the + incidents. + + The dispersion of these two tribes must have taken place at a + very early period of the national history. As regards Simeon, + it is doubtful if it ever existed as a separate geographical + unit. Priestly-Code is only able to assign to it an inheritance + scooped out of the territory of Judah (compare Joshua 19¹⁻⁹ + with 15²⁶⁻³²ᐧ ⁴²: see also 1 Chronicles 4²⁸⁻³³); and so-called + Simeonite cities are assigned to Judah as early as the time of + David (1 Samuel 27⁶ 30³⁰, 2 Samuel 24⁷; compare 1 Kings 19³). + In the Blessing of Moses it is passed over in silence. Traces of + its dispersion may be found in such Simeonite names as Shime‛i, + Shāûl, Yāmîn in other tribes (William Robertson Smith, _The + Journal of Philology_ ix. 96); and we may assume that the + tribe had disappeared before the establishment of the monarchy + (see Steuernagel, 70 ff.; Meyer, _Die Israeliten und ihre + Nachbarstämme_, 75 ff.).――Very different was the fate of Levi. + Like Simeon, it lost its independence and, as a _secular_ tribe, + ceased to exist. But its scattered members had a spiritual + bond of unity in the possession of the Mosaic tradition and the + sacred lot (Deuteronomy 33⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ), in virtue of which it secured a + privileged position in the Israelite sanctuaries (Judges 17 f.), + and was eventually reconstituted on a sacerdotal basis. The + contrast between this passage, where Levi is the subject of a + curse, and Deuteronomy 33, where its prerogatives are celebrated + with enthusiasm, depends on the distinction just indicated: + here Levi is the secular tribe, destroyed by its own ferocity, + whose religious importance has not yet emerged; there, it is + the Priestly tribe, which, although scattered, yet holds the + _sacra_ and the Tôrāh of the Yahwe-religion (Wellhausen, _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_⁶ 136 ff.).――The _Metre_ is regular, except that + in the last two lines the trimeters are replaced by a binary + couplet. That is no sufficient reason for deleting them as an + interpolation (Sievers). + + * * * * * + + =5b.= LXX συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν (Old Latin + _consummaverunt iniquitatem adinventionis suæ_); Aquila + σκεύη ἀδικίας ἀνασκαφαὶ [αὐτῶν]; Vulgate _vasa iniquitatis + bellantia_ [Jerome _arma eorum_]; Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בארע תותבותהון עבדו נבורא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ [מאני] זיינא שנינא למחטוב + היא אשתמודעותהון.――כלי] So Aquila, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ; + but _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כִּלּוּ: ‘they accomplished.’――מכרתיהם] As to the + consecutive text, that of LXX cannot be certainly restored; + Kethîb is supported by Aquila, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (מְכֻרֹת׳: + compare Exodus 16³ 21³⁵ 29¹⁴), by Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ (from √ + נכר, see Abraham Ibn Ezra), and probably Vulgate. The textual + tradition must therefore be accepted as fairly reliable. Of the + many Hebrew etymologies proposed (see Dillmann, 459), the most + plausible are those which derive from √ כרר, or (reading מִכְרֹ׳) + from √ כרה, ‘to dig.’ No √ כרר, ‘dig,’ is actually found, though + it might perhaps be assumed as a by-form of כרה: this would give + the meaning ‘digging instrument’ (compare _gladio confodere_), + which Vollers (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 355) tries + to support from Assyrian. The √ כרר means in Arabic ‘to turn’ + or ‘wheel round’; hence Dillmann conjectured that מְכֵרָה may be + a _curved_ knife or sabre. Some weapon suits the context, but + what exactly it is must remain uncertain. How far the exegesis + has been influenced by the resemblance to the Greek μάχαιρα (R. + Johanan [died, 279 A.D.], cited in _Bereshith Rabba_ § 99; Rashi) + we cannot tell. Ball and Gunkel take the word to be מִכְרָה, the + former rendering ‘plots’ (from Arabic _makara_, ‘to plot’) and + the latter ‘pits’ (compare מִכְרֶה, Zephaniah 2⁹); but neither כִּלּוּ חֲמַס + מִכְרֹתָם (Ball) nor כִּלַי וְחָמָס מִכְרֹתֵיהֶם [‘knavery and violence are their + pits’] (Gunkel) is so good as the ordinary interpretation. Ball, + however, rightly observes that מִכְרֹתָם yields a better metre than + תֵיהֶם――(so Sievers).――=6a.= כבדי] Read with LXX כְּבֵדִי, ‘my liver,’ the + seat of mental affections in Lamentations 2¹¹ (compare Psalms + 16⁹ 30¹³ 57⁹ 108²: Massoretic Text כָּבוֹד): compare _kabittu_, + ‘Gemüth,’ in Assyrian.――תחד] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_ יחר. Since כָּבֵד is masculine, read יֵחַד.――=6b.= רצון] + ‘self-will,’ ‘wantonness’; compare Nehemiah 9²⁴ᐧ ³⁷, Esther 1⁸ 9⁵ + etc.――עִקֵּר] On certain difficulties in the usage of the word, see + Batten, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + xxviii. 189 ff., where it is argued that the sense is + general――‘make useless.’――שׁוֹר] Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ read שׁוּר, ‘wall,’ perhaps to avoid the + supposed contradiction with 34²⁸ ᶠᐧ. Hence the correct ταῦρον + of LXX is instanced in _Mechilta_ as a change made by the LXX + translators (see page 14).――=7.= ארור, ועברתם] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ אדיר, ועברתם.――עָֽז] Here pausal form + of עַז (contrast verse ³). + + * * * * * + +=8‒12. Judah.= + + ⁸ Judah! Thee shall thy brethren praise―― + Thy hand on the neck of thy foes―― + Bow down to thee shall thy father’s sons. + + ⁹ A lion’s whelp is Judah, + From the prey, my son, thou’rt gone up! + He crouched, he couched like a lion, + And an old lion――who shall arouse him? + + ¹⁰ Departs not the sceptre from Judah, + Nor staff from between his feet, + Until ... come ... (?), + And to him the peoples obey. + + ¹¹ Binding his ass to the vine, + And his foal to the choicest vine! + He washes his raiment in wine, + And his clothes in the blood of the grape! + ¹² With eyes made dull by wine, + And teeth whitened with milk! + +=8.= _Thee_] The emphasis on the pronoun (see Gesenius-Kautzsch +§ 135 _e_) is explained by the contrast to the preceding oracles: at +last the singer comes to a tribe which he can unreservedly praise. +Nowhere else does the poem breathe such glowing enthusiasm and such +elevation of feeling as here. The glories of Judah are celebrated +in four aspects: (1) as the premier tribe of Israel, ⁸; (2) as the +puissant and victorious lion-tribe, ⁹; (3) as the bearer (in some +sense) of the Messianic hope, ¹⁰; (4) as lavishly endowed with the +blessings of nature, ¹¹ ᶠᐧ.――יְהוּדָה, יוֹדוּךָ] The same fanciful etymology +as in 29³⁵.――_thy hand ... foes_] The image seems to be that of a +defeated enemy, caught by the (back of the) neck in his flight, and +crushed (Exodus 23²⁷, Psalms 18⁴¹, Job 16¹²).――_thy brethren ... +thy father’s sons_] The other tribes, who acknowledge the primacy of +Judah.――=9.= A vivid picture of the growth of Judah’s power; to be +compared with the beautiful lyric, Ezekiel 19²⁻⁹.――_a lion’s whelp_] +So Deuteronomy 33²² (of Dan). The image naturally suggests the ‘mighty +youth’ of the tribe, as its full development is represented by the +_lion_, and _old lion_ of the following lines. Hence the clause +מִטֶּרֶף――עָלִיתָ is rendered by some (Gunkel al.): _On prey, my son, thou +hast grown up_ (been reared), which is perhaps justified by Ezekiel +19³. But it is better to understand it of the lion’s ascent, after +a raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable +security (⁹ᵇ).――_he crouches, etc._] So (of Israel as a whole) +Numbers 24⁹.――=10a.= Judah’s political pre-eminence.――_sceptre ... +staff_] The latter word (מְחֹקֵק) might be used personally = ‘prescriber +[of laws]’ (LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ al.); but שֵׁבֶט is +never so used, and parallelism requires that מחקק should be understood +of the commander’s _staff_ (Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ = 108⁹).――_from +between his feet_] The chieftain is conceived as seated with his +wand of office held upright in front of him. The Bedouin sheikhs and +headmen of villages are said still to carry such insignia of authority. + + The question arises whether the emblems denote (a) kingly + authority, or (b) military leadership of the other tribes, or + merely (c) tribal autonomy. Driver (_The Journal of Philology_ + xiv. 26) decides for (a), because (1) שבט, without qualification, + suggests a royal sceptre; (2) the last phrase presents the + picture of a king seated on a throne; (3) the word ישתחוו in ⁸ᵇ + most naturally expresses the homage due to a king (compare 37⁷). + But in favour of (c) it might be urged (1) that מחקק never has + this meaning, and (2) that שבט is the word for ‘tribe’ (_e.g._ + verses ¹⁶ᐧ ²⁸), and, if the passage be early, is likely to be + used as the symbol of tribal independence. The idea of military + hegemony (b) is in no way suggested, apart from the connexion + with verse ⁸, which is dubious. The point has an important + bearing on the exegesis of the next clause. If (a) be right, + the Davidic monarchy is presupposed, and ¹⁰ᵇ assigns a term to + its continuance; whereas, if (c) be right, ¹⁰ᵇ is possibly (not + necessarily) a prophecy of David and his dynasty. See, further, + the note at the end of this verse. + + * * * * * + + =8.= ידך] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX + יָדָיךָ.――=9.= מטרף] LXX ἐκ βλαστοῦ, taking the word as in 8¹¹, + Ezekiel 17⁹.――לביא] LXX σκύμνος, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase). The + common rendering ‘lioness’ is based on Arabic, but it is by + no means certain that in Hebrew the word denotes specially the + female. It is never construed as feminine; and in Ezekiel 19² + the pointing לְבִיָּא shows that the Massoretes considered לָבִיא as + masculine.――=10a.= שבט and מחקק are found together in Judges 5¹⁴, + where מחקק (∥ משֵׁךְ בש׳) has the personal sense of ‘commander.’ But + in Numbers 21¹⁸, Psalms 60⁹ [= 108⁹] it denotes the commander’s + staff; and since שבט is always the instrument, the impersonal + sense is to be preferred here: hence the ἄρχων of LXX is wrong, + and the personal renderings of מח׳ in all Versions at least + doubtful.――מבין רגליו] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + מבין דגליו, ‘from between his banners,’ gives no sense. LXX, + Theodotion, Vulgate interpret after Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ ‘from + his thighs’; and hence Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘from his sons’ sons,’ + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘from his seed.’ + + * * * * * + +=10b.= The logical relation of the two halves of the verse is clear: +the state of things described by ¹⁰ᵃ shall endure _until_――something +happens which shall inaugurate a still more glorious future. Whether +this event be the advent of a person――an ideal Ruler――who shall take +the sceptre out of Judah’s hands, or a crisis in the fortunes of +Judah which shall raise that tribe to the height of its destiny, +is a question on which no final opinion can be expressed (see +below).――_and to him_] Either Judah, or the predicted Ruler, according +to the interpretation of ¹⁰ᵇ{α}.――_obedience of peoples_] Universal +dominion, which, however, need not be understood absolutely. + + The _crux_ of the passage is thus ¹⁰ᵇ{α}: עד כי־יבוא שילה. For a + fuller statement of the various interpretations than is here + possible, see Werliin, _De laudibus Judæ_, 1838 (not seen); + Driver _The Journal of Philology_ xiv. 1‒28 (and more briefly + _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 410‒415); + Posnanski, _Schilo Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre_: + 1 Theil: _Auslegung von Genesis 49¹⁰ im Alterthume [und] bis zu + Ende des Mittelalters_, 1904; Dillmann 462 ff.――The renderings + grammatically admissible fall into two groups, (i.) Those which + adhere to the _textus receptus_, taking שילה as a proper noun (a) + ‘Until Shiloh come’ (Shiloh, a name of the Messiah), the most + obvious of all translations, first became current in versions + and commentaries of the 16th century, largely through the + influence of Sebastian Münster (1534). Although the Messianic + acceptation of the passage prevailed in Jewish circles from the + earliest times, it attached itself either to the reading שֶׁלֹּה (ii. + below) or to the rendering ‘his son’ (שׁיל), or (later and more + rarely) to שֵׁי לוֹ (‘gifts to him’). The earliest trace (if not + the actual origin) of Shiloh as a personal name is found in the + following passage of the Talmud (_Sanhedrin_ 98_b_): אמר רב לא איברי + עלמא אלא לדוד ושמואל אמר למשה ורבי יוחנן אמר למשיח מה שמו דבי ר׳ שילא אמרי שילה שמו שנאמר עד כי יבא + שילה (the words are repeated in _Echa Rabba_, with the addition + שלה כתיב): “Rab said, The world was created only for the sake of + David; but Samuel said, For the sake of Moses; but R. Yoḥanan + said, For the sake of the Messiah. What is his name? Those of + the school of R. Shela say, Shiloh is his name, as it is said, + ‘Until Shiloh come.’” The sequel of the quotation is: “Those of + the school of R. Yannai say, Yinnôn is his name, as it is said + (Psalms 72¹⁷), Let his name be for ever, before the sun let his + name be perpetuated (יִנּוֹן). Those of the school of R. Ḥaninah say, + Ḥanînāh is his name, as it is said (Jeremiah 16¹³), For I will + give you no favour (חֲנִינָה). And some say Menahem is his name, ♦as + it is said (Lamentations 1¹⁶), For comforter (מְנַחֵם) and restorer + of my soul is far from me. And our Rabbis say, The leprous one + of the school of Rabbi is his name, as it is said (Isaiah 53⁴), + Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath + carried them, though we did esteem him stricken (_sc._ with + leprosy), smitten of God, and afflicted.” Now there is nothing + here to suggest that Shiloh was already a current designation + of the Messiah any more than, _e.g._, the verb ינון in Psalms 72¹⁷ + can have been a Messianic title. Yet, as Driver says, it is + “in this doubtful company that Shiloh is first cited as a name + of the Messiah, though we do not learn how the word was read, + or what it was imagined to signify.” Subsequently Shiloh as a + personal name appears in lists of Messianic titles of the 11th + century (Posnanski, 40), and it is so used (alongside of the + interpretation שֶׁלּוֹ) by Samuel of Russia (1124). Partly from this + lack of traditional authority, and partly from the impossibility + of finding a significant etymology for the word (_v.i._), + this explanation is now universally abandoned.――(b) ‘Until he + [Judah] come to Shiloh’ (Herder, Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann + [hesitatingly], al.). This is grammatically unexceptionable + (compare 1 Samuel 4¹²), and has in its favour the fact that + שילה (שִׁלוֹ, שִׁילוֹ [originally שִׁילוֹן]) everywhere in Old Testament is + the name of the central Ephraimite sanctuary in the age of + the Judges (Joshua 18¹ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Samuel 1‒4 etc.). At the great + gathering of the tribes at Shiloh, where the final partition + of the land took place (Joshua 18 f.), Judah is imagined to + have laid down the military leadership which had belonged to + it during the wars of conquest; so that the prophecy marks the + termination of that troubled period of the national life. But + all this is unhistorical. The account in Joshua 18 belongs to + the later idealisation of the conquest of Canaan; there is no + evidence that Judah ever went to Shiloh, and none of a military + hegemony of that tribe over the others, or of a subjugation + of ‘peoples’ (¹⁰ᵇ{β}), until the time of David, by which + time Shiloh had ceased to be the central sanctuary. Even if + (with Dillmann) we abandon the reference to Joshua 18, and + take the sense to be merely that Judah will remain in full + warlike activity till it has conquered its own territory, it + is difficult to see (as Dillmann himself acknowledges) how that + consummation could be expressed by a coming to Shiloh.――(c) + The translation ‘As long as one comes to Shiloh,’ _i.e._ for + ever (Hitzig, Tuch), gives a sense to עד כי which is barely + defensible.――(ii.) Those which follow the text underlying all + ancient Versions except Vulgate, viz. שֶׁלֹּה = אֲשֶׁר לוֹ. (a) ‘Until he + comes to that which is his’ (Orelli, Br.) involves an improbable + use of the accusative; and it is not easy to see how Judah’s + coming to his own could be the signal for the cessation of any + prerogatives previously enjoyed by him.――(b) ‘Until that which + is his shall come’ is a legitimate rendering; but the thought is + open to the same objection as ii. (a).――(c). The most noteworthy + of this group of interpretations is: ‘Until he come whose’ [it + is], _sc._ the sceptre, the kingdom, the right, etc.; _i.e._ the + Messiah. This has the support not only of nearly all Versions, + but of Ezekiel 21³² (where, however, the subject המשפט is + expressed). The omission of the subject is a serious syntactic + difficulty; and this, added to the questionable use of שֶׁ־ + in an early and Judæan passage, makes this widely accepted + interpretation extremely precarious. The first objection would + be removed if (after a suggestion of Wellhausen [see _Die + Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten + Testaments_² 320]) we could delete the following ולו as a gloss, + and read ‘Until he come whose is the obedience,’ etc. But + metrical considerations preclude this, as well as the more + drastic excision of שלה as a gloss on ולו (_ib._ 321).――Of + conjectural emendations the only one that calls for notice is + that of Ball (followed by Gressmann), who reads משְׁלֹה: ‘Until his + ruler (_i.e._ the Messiah) come.’ + + ♦ duplicate word “as” removed + + With regard to the general scope of the verse, the question + recurs, whether the term fixed by ¹⁰ᵇ{α} is historic or ideal; + whether, in other words, it is a prophecy of the Davidic kingdom + or of a future Messiah. (1) The tendency of recent scholars + has been to regard verse ¹⁰ as Messianic, but interpolated + (Wellhausen, Stade, Dillmann, Holzinger, Driver, al.), on the + double ground that it breaks the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹, and + that the idea of a personal Messiah is not older than the 8th + century. But (apart from the question whether the subject in + ¹¹ ᶠᐧ be Judah or the Messiah) the connexion between ⁹ and ¹¹ + is in any case not so obvious as to justify the removal of ¹⁰; + and the assumption that the figure of the Messiah is a creation + of the literary Prophets is based more on our ignorance of the + early religious conceptions of the Israelites than on positive + evidence. (2) Accordingly, Gunkel (followed by Gressmann, _Der + Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie_, 263) finds in + the passage proof of a pre-prophetic eschatology, which looked + forward to the advent of a Ruler who should found a world-empire, + the point of the oracle being that till that great event + Judah’s dominion should not pass away. It is difficult, however, + to believe that the climax of a blessing on Judah is the + expectation of a world-ruler who takes the sceptre out of + Judah’s hands; and though a reference to a Messianic tradition + is quite conceivable, it is probable that it is here already + applied to the Davidic monarchy. (3) It seems to me, therefore, + that justice is done to the terms and the tenor of the oracle + if we regard it as a prophecy of David and his dynasty,――a + _vaticinium ex eventu_, like all the other oracles in the + chapter. The meaning would be that Judah shall retain its + tribal independence (see on ¹⁰ᵃ) against all adversaries until + its great hero makes it the centre of a powerful kingdom, + and imposes his sovereignty on the neighbouring peoples. As + for the enigmatic שילה, we may, of course, adopt the reading + שֶׁלּוֹ, which is as appropriate on this view as on the directly + Messianic interpretation. But if the oracle rests on an early + eschatological tradition, it is just possible that שִׁלֹה is a + cryptic designation of the expected Ruler, which was applied + by the poet to the person of David. Bennett (page 397) calls + attention to the resemblance with שֵׁלָה in chapter 38; and it is a + wonder that those who recognise mythical elements in the story + of Judah and Tamar have not thought of identifying the שלה of + our passage with Judah’s third son, of whose destiny the story + leaves us in ignorance. Is it possible that this connexion was + in the minds of the Jewish authorities (_v.i._), who render שילה + ‘his youngest son’? (see Posnanski, 36³). + + * * * * * + + =10b.= עד――שילה] LXX, Theodotion ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ + [variants ᾧ τὰ ἀποκείμενα ..., ᾧ ἀποκείμενα ... etc.]; Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac phrase); Vulgate _donec veniat qui mittendus est_ + (reading שָׁלֻחַ: compare Σιλωάμ (ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Ἀπεσταλμένος), John + 9⁷); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ עד עלמא עד דייתי משיחא דדילהּ היא מלכותא; Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ + לד זמן די ייתי מלכא משיחא זעיר בנוי. This last curious rendering (‘the youngest + of his sons’) is followed by Kimchi and others; and apparently + rests on a misunderstanding of שִׁלְיָתָהּ (‘afterbirth’) in + Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷ (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ זעיר בנהא).――עד כי־] Only here with + imperfect. With perfect (26¹³ 41⁴⁹, 2 Samuel 23¹⁰) it always + marks a limit in the past (‘until’); but עַד alone sometimes + means ‘while,’ both with perfect and imperfect (1 Samuel 14¹⁹, + Psalms 141¹⁰), and so עַד שֶ־ (Canticles 1¹²), עד לא (Proverbs 8²⁶), + and עד אשד לא (Ecclesiastes 12¹ᐧ ²ᐧ ⁶): see Brown-Driver-Briggs, + page 725 a. The translation ‘as long as’ is thus perhaps not + altogether impossible, though very improbable.――שילה] MSS + and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ שלה, probably + the original text. The _scriptio plena_ may have no better + foundation than the common Jewish interpretation שִׁילוֹ, ‘his + son,’――an impossible etymology, since there is no such word as + שִׁיל in Hebrew, and the two forms which appear to have suggested + it (viz., New Hebrew שָׁלִיל = ‘fœtus’ and שִׁלְיָה = ‘afterbirth’ + [Deuteronomy 28⁵⁷†]) are obviously superficial and fallacious + analogies. The Massoretic vocalisation is therefore open to + question, and we are free to try any pronunciation of the + _Kethîb_ שלה which promises a solution of the exegetical riddle + with which we are confronted. In spite of the unanimity of the + Versions, the pointing שֶׁלֹּה is suspicious for the reasons given + above,――the presence of――שֶׁ in an early document, and the want + of a subject in the relative sentence. On the other hand, the + attempts to connect the word with √ שׁלה, ‘be quiet,’ are all + more or less dubious. (a) There is no complete parallel in + Hebrew to a noun like שִׁילֹה from a ל״ה root. If it be of the type + _qîtôl_, the regular form would be שִׁילוֹי; although König (ii. page + 147) argues that as we find בֶּכֶה alongside of בְּכִי, so we might have + a שִׁילֹה alongside of שִׁילוֹי. Again, if _ô_ be an apocopated form of + the nominal termination _ôn_, the √ would naturally be not שׁלה + but שׁיל (in Arabic = ‘flow,’ whence _seil_, ‘a torrent’) or שׁול. + It is true there are a few examples of _un_apocopated nouns of + this type from ל״ה verbs (קִיִצוֹן, אִיתוֹן, [Ezekiel 40¹⁵?], הֵרוֹן [Genesis + 3¹⁶†――probably an error for the regular הֵרָיוֹן, Hosea 9¹¹, Ruth + 4¹³†]); and the possibility of deriving the form in _ô_ from + a root of this kind cannot be absolutely excluded (compare אֲבַדֹּה + with אֲבַדּוֹן). (b) But even if these philological difficulties could + be removed, there remains the objection that שׁלה (as contrasted + with שׁלם) is in Old Testament at most a negative word, denoting + mere tranquillity rather than full and positive prosperity, + and is often used of the careless worldly ease of the ungodly. + For all these reasons it is difficult to acquiesce in the view + that שִׁלֹה can be a designation of the Messiah as the _Peaceful_ + or the _Pacifier_; while to change the pointing and render + till tranquillity (שֶׁלֶה) ‘come,’ is exposed to the additional + objection that the וְלוֹ of the following line is left without an + antecedent.――יקּהת] (Proverbs 30¹⁷†) _Dagesh forte dirimens_. The + √ appears in Arabic _waḳiha_, ‘be obedient’; Sabaean וקה. That + a verb (יִקָּהֲלוּ, יִקָּווּ?) would be more natural (Ball) is not apparent; + the verbs in Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ paraphrase the sense given + above. The √ was evidently not understood by LXX, Theodotion + (προσδοκία), Vulgate (_expectatio_), Aquila (σύστημα), Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) all of which probably derived from √ קַוַה (Aquila + from √ קוה, II.: Brown-Driver-Briggs). + + * * * * * + +=11, 12.= As usually understood, the verses give a highly coloured +picture of Judæan life after the conquest, in a land where vines +are so common that they are used for tethering the ass, and wine +so abundant that garments are washed in it. As a description of the +vine-culture for which Judah was famous, the hyperbole is perhaps +extreme; and Gressmann (_l.c._ 287) takes the subject to be not +the personified tribe, but the Ruler of verse ¹⁰, the verses being +a prediction of the ideal felicity to be introduced by his reign. +Whether this be the original sense of the passage or not is hard to +decide; but Gressman is doubtless right in thinking that it supplied +the imagery for the well-known picture of the Messianic king in +Zechariah 9⁹.――=12.= LXX, Vulgate take the adjectives as comparatives: +‘brighter than wine (_v.i._) ... whiter than milk’: but this is less +natural. + + The section on Judah lacks the unity of the first two oracles, + and is very probably composed of strophes of diverse origin + and date. Verse ⁸ opens with a play on the name, like verses + ¹⁶ᐧ ¹⁹, while verse ⁹ starts afresh with an animal comparison, + like verses ¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁷ᐧ ²⁷ (see Introductory Note, page 510). The + impression of discontinuity is partly confirmed by the poetic + form; verse ⁸ being an irregular tristich, and the remainder a + series of 7 perfect trimeter distichs. The dekastich ¹⁰⁻¹² seems + distinct from what precedes (note the repetition of the name + in ¹⁰), but is itself a unity. The proposal to remove verse ¹⁰ + as a late Messianic interpolation, and to make verse ¹¹ the + continuation of verse ⁹, does not commend itself; and the + excision of the third line in verse ¹⁰ (Meier, Fripp) merely + avoids an exegetical difficulty by sacrificing the strophic + arrangement. + + * * * * * + + =11.= אסרי] with archaic case-ending: compare בני below, and + perhaps חכלילי in verse ¹².――שׂרֵקָה] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον = שׂרֵק, Isaiah + 5², Jeremiah 2²¹ [שָׂרֹק, Isaiah 16⁸]; probably from the _red_ + colour of the best grapes.――סותה] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ כסותה, ‘covering’ (Exodus 21¹⁰ etc.). סוּת + (√ סָוָה?) does not occur elsewhere.――=12.= חכלילי] In Proverbs 23²⁹ + חַכְלִלוּת עינים means ‘_dulness_ of eyes,’ the effect of excessive + drinking. This is the only sense justified by etymology + (Assyrian _akâlu_, ‘be gloomy’; Arabic _ḥakala_, IV, ‘be + confused’: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ חכל), and must be + retained here, although, of course, it does not imply reproach, + any more than שׁכר in 43³⁴. LXX χαροποι[οί], ‘glad-eyed’; and + similarly Vulgate, Peshiṭtå. + + * * * * * + +=13‒15. Zebulun and Issachar.= + + ¹³ Zebulun shall dwell by the shore of the sea, + And ... shore of ships (?), + And his flank is on Ẓidon. + + ¹⁴ Issachar is a bony ass + Crouching between the panniers (?): + ¹⁵ And he saw that rest was good, + And that the land was sweet; + So he bent his shoulder to bear, + And became a labouring drudge. + +=13.= _shall dwell_] An allusion to the etymology in 30²⁰. It is +plausibly conjectured that יִשְׁכֹּן has been substituted by mistake +for the original יִזְבֹּל (Gunkel al.).――The second and third lines are +unintelligible, and the text is probably corrupt. The comparison +of Zebulun to a recumbent animal, with ‘itself’ (וְהוּא) towards the +sea-coast, and its hind-parts towards Ẓidon (Dillmann, Gunkel, al.), +is unsatisfying and almost grotesque. Deuteronomy 33¹⁹ᵇ shows that +it is the advantageousness of Zebulun’s geographical position which +is here celebrated.――_Ẓîdôn_] may be a name for Phœnicia, in whose +commercial pursuits it has been surmised that Zebulun became more and +more involved (Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 171).――=14.= +_bony_] _i.e._ strong-limbed. Issachar had strength enough, but +preferred ease to exertion.――הַמִּשְׁפְּתָֽיִם] The common interpretation +‘sheep-pens’ has no appropriateness here, and may be a conjecture +based on Judges 5¹⁶. Equally unsuitable are the renderings of the old +Versions (‘boundaries,’ etc.), and the ‘fire-places’ or ‘ash-heaps’ +which the Hebrew etymology would suggest. The form is dual, and one +naturally thinks of the ‘panniers’ carried by the ass (_v.i._).――=15.= +מְנוּחָה] A technical term for the settled, as contrasted with the nomadic, +life (Gunkel).――_a labouring drudge_] literally ‘became a toiling +labour-gang’; compare Joshua 16¹⁰. מַס is a levy raised under the +system of forced labour (_corvée_). That a Hebrew tribe should submit +to this indignity was a shameful reversal of the normal relations +between Israel and the Canaanites (Joshua 16¹⁰ 17¹³ [= Judges 1²⁸], +Judges 1³⁰ᐧ ³³ᐧ ³⁵). + + The two northern Leah-tribes found a settlement in Lower Galilee, + where they mingled with the Canaanite inhabitants. According to + Joshua 19¹⁰⁻¹⁶, Zebulun occupied the hills north of the Great + Plain, being cut off from the sea both by Asher and by the strip + of Phœnician coast. We must therefore suppose that the tribal + boundaries fluctuated greatly in early times, and that at the + date of the poem Zebulun had access at some point to the sea. + The almost identical description on Judges 5¹⁷ is considered by + Gunkel to have been transferred from Zebulun to Asher,――a view + which, if it can be substantiated, affords a reliable criterion + of the relative dates of the two oracles. The district of + Issachar seems to have been between the Great Plain and the + Jordan, including the Vale of Jezreel,――a position in which + it was peculiarly difficult for a Hebrew tribe to maintain its + independence. The tribe is not even mentioned in the survey of + Judges 1, as if it had ceased to be part of Israel. Yet both it + and Zebulun had played a gallant part in the wars of the Judges + (Judges 4⁶ᐧ ¹⁰ 5¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁸ 6³⁵ 5¹⁵). The absence of any allusion to + these exploits lends colour to the view that this part of the + poem is of older date than the Song of Deborah. + + * * * * * + + =13.= חוף ימים] Judges 5¹⁷; compare ח׳ הים, Deuteronomy 1⁷, Joshua 9¹, + Jeremiah 47⁷, Ezekiel 25¹⁶†: חוף is never found with any other + genitive except in the next line.――והוא וגו׳] One is tempted to + construe prosaically thus: ‘And _that_ a shore for ships, with + its flank on Ẓidon’; but this would entail elision of לְ, to + the detriment of the rhythm: besides, the repetition of חוף + and the unique combination ח׳ אניּת are suspicious. Ball reads + יגור for לחוף (after Judges 5¹⁷), and deletes the last line.――על] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Vulgate, + Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ע͏ד.――=14.= חמר גרם] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ ח׳ גרים, ‘ass of sojourners’ (unless + גָּרִים be an adjective from גרם). LXX τὸ καλὸν ἐπεθύμησεν (= חָמֶד גָּרַם: + Ginsburg, _Introduction of the Massoretico-critical edition of + the Hebrew Bible_ page 254); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Aquila + and Vulgate support on the whole Massoretic Text.――בין המשפתים] + Judges 5¹⁶†, but compare Psalms 68¹⁴. The three passives are + somehow interrelated, although no sense will suit them all. + Versions mostly render ‘territories,’ or something equivalent, + both here and in Judges. But the διγομίας of LXX in Judges (see + Schleusner) is noteworthy, and shows that the rendering above + has some show of authority. So the late Græcus-Venetus ἡμιφόρτια. + For the rest, see Moore on Judges 5¹⁶.――=15.= טוב] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ טובה.――למס עבד] LXX ἀνὴρ γεωργός + (Ginsburg, _l.c._).――On מס, see Brown-Driver-Briggs, and Moore, + _Judges_ page 47. + + * * * * * + +=16‒21. Dan, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.= + + ¹⁶ Dan shall judge his people, + As one of the tribes of Israel. + ¹⁷ Be Dan a serpent on the way, + A horned snake on the path, + That bites the hoofs of the horse, + And the rider tumbles backwards! + + ¹⁸ [I wait for thy salvation, Yahwe!] + + ¹⁹ Gad――raiders shall raid him, + But he shall raid their rear! + + ²⁰ Asher――his bread shall be fat, + And he shall yield dainties for kings. + + ²¹ Naphtali is a branching terebinth (?) + Producing comely tops (?). + +=16.= _Dân ... judge_] See on 30⁶.――_his people_] Not Israel, but +his own tribesmen. The meaning is not that Dan will produce a judge +(Samson) as well as the other tribes (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), nor +that he will champion the national cause (Ewald, Delitzsch, Dillmann, +al.); but that he will successfully assert an equal status with the +other tribes. Note that in Judges 18²ᐧ ¹¹ᐧ ¹⁹ the Danites are spoken of +as a ‘clan’ (מִשְׁפָּחָה).――=17.= The little snake, concealed by the wayside, +may unhorse the rider as effectually as a fully armed antagonist: by +such insidious, but not ignoble, warfare Dan in spite of his weakness +may succeed.――שְׁפִיפֹן] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον is probably the _cerastes cornutus_, +whose habits are here accurately described (see Driver, and Tristram, +_The Natural History of the Bible_, 274).――=18.= An interpolation, +marking (as nearly as possible) the middle of the poem (so Olshausen, +Ball, Sievers, al.). The attempts to defend its genuineness as a +sigh of exhaustion on Jacob’s part, or an utterance of the nation’s +dependence on Yahwe’s help in such unequal conflicts as those +predicted for Dan, are inept.――Dan was one of the weakest of the +tribes, and perhaps the latest to secure a permanent settlement +(Judges 1³⁴ ᶠᐧ, Joshua 19⁴⁷, Judges 18). Its migration northward, and +conquest of Laish, must have taken place early in what is known as +the Judges’ period; and is apparently presupposed here and in Judges +5¹⁷.――=19.= Strictly: ‘A marauding band shall attack him, but he shall +attack their heel’ (reading עֲקֵבִם, _v.i._); _i.e._, press upon them +in their flight. The marauders are the warlike peoples to the East, +specially the Ammonites (1 Chronicles 5¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ, Judges 10 f.), who at +a later time dispossessed the tribe (Jeremiah 49¹). As yet, however, +Gad maintains its martial character (compare 1 Chronicles 12⁸⁻¹⁵), +and more than holds its own.――=20.= Asher settled in the fertile strip +along the coast, North of Carmel. The name occurs as a designation +of Western Galilee in Egyptian inscriptions of the time of Seti +and Ramses II. (see Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen +Denkmälern_, 236 ff.).――_fat_] Probably an allusion to the +oil (Deuteronomy 33²⁴) for which the region was, and still is, +famous.――_royal dainties_] fit for the tables of Phœnician kings +(compare Ezekiel 27¹⁷).――=21.= The verse on Naphtali is ambiguous. +Instead of אַיָּלָה, ‘hind,’ many moderns read אֵילָה (‘a spreading terebinth’). +The following clause: ‘giving fair speeches,’ suits neither image; on +the one view it is proposed to read ‘yielding goodly lambs’ (אִמְּרֵי), on +the other ‘producing goodly shoots’ (אֲמִרֵי). No certain conclusion can +be arrived at. + + * * * * * + + =17.= שפיפן LXX ἐνκαθήμενος, taking the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον as an + adjective.――ויפל Ball וַיַפֵּל (after Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word)).――=19.= + גָּד] The name is here (otherwise than 30¹¹) connected with גדוד, + ‘band’ (1 Samuel 30⁸ᐧ ¹⁵ᐧ ²³, 1 Kings 11²⁴, 2 Kings 5² 6²³ etc.), + and with √ גוד, ‘assail’ (Habakkuk 3¹⁶, Psalms 94²¹†).――עקב] Read + עקבָם, taking the ם from the beginning of verse ²⁰.――=20.= מאשר] + Read with LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate אָשֵׁר.――שמנה] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמן.――=21.= אִיָּלָה שלחה] So Aquila, + Vulgate (Jerome, _Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in + Genesim_). Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ probably had the + same text, but render ‘a swift messenger.’ On Jerome’s _ager + irriguus_ (_Quæstiones sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) + and its Rabbinical parallels, see Rahmer, _Die Hebräischen + Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus_ page 55. LXX στέλεχος + seems to imply אֵילָה; but Ball dissents.――הנתן] After either אַיָּלָה + or אֵילָה, נֹתְנָה would be better.――אִמְרֵי] ‘words,’ is unsuitable, and + caused Peshiṭtå and Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ to change the metaphor to + that of a messenger. An allusion to the eloquence of the tribe + is out of place in the connexion. The reading אֲמִרֵי, ‘topmost + boughs,’ has but doubtful support in Isaiah 17⁶ (see the + commentary). אִמֵּר, ‘lamb,’ is not Hebrew, but is found in Assyrian, + Phœnician, Aramaic, and Arabic. LXX ἐν τῷ γενήματι is traced by + Ball to בִּפְרִי; but?――שֶׁפֶר] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.――Ball argues ingeniously, + but unconvincingly, that אַיָּלָה belongs to verse ²², and that the + פרת of that verse stood originally in ²¹. His amended text reads: + + נפתלי פֹּרָת שְׁלֻחָה + הנתנה פְּרִי שפר + + _Naphtali is a branching vine,_ + _That yieldeth comely fruit._ + + * * * * * + +=22‒26. Joseph.= + + ²² A fruitful bough (?) is Joseph―― + A fruitful bough by a well (?). + + * * * * * + + ²³ And ... dealt bitterly with him, + And the archers harassed him sorely. + ²⁴ Yet his bow abode unmoved, + And nimble were the arms of his hands. + Through the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, + Through the ⸢name⸣ of the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone, + ²⁵ Through thy father’s God――may he help thee! + And El Shaddai――may he bless thee! + Blessings of heaven above, + Blessings of Tĕhôm ⸢ ⸣ beneath, + Blessings of breast and womb, + ²⁶ Blessings of ... (?), + Blessings of the eternal, ⸢mountains⸣, + ⸢Produce⸣ of the everlasting hills―― + Be on the head of Joseph, + And on the crown of the consecrated one of his brethren. + + The section is full of obscurities, and the text frequently + quite untranslatable. Its integrity has naturally not passed + unquestioned. We may distinguish four stages in the unfolding of + the theme: (1) The opening tristich (²²), celebrating (as far as + can be made out) the populousness and prosperity of the central + double-tribe. (2) Joseph’s contest with the ‘archers’ (²³ᐧ ²⁴ᵃ). + (3) A fourfold invocation of the Deity (²⁴ᵇᐧ ²⁵ᵃ{αβ}). (4) + The blessing proper (²⁶ᵃ{γδ}ᵇᐧ ²⁶), which closely resembles + the corresponding part of the Blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy + 33¹³⁻¹⁶), the two being probably variants of a common original. + Meyer (_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.) + accepts (1), (2), and (4) as genuine, but rejects (3) as a + later addition, which has displaced the original transition + from the conflict to the blessing. Fripp (_Zeitschrift für die + alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 262 ff.) would remove + (3) and (4) (²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶), which he holds to have been inserted by + an Ephraimite editor from Deuteronomy 33: Holzinger seems in the + main to agree. Sievers also (II. 362) questions the genuineness + of ²⁴ᵇ⁻²⁶ on metrical grounds. But we may admit the northern + origin of some of the verses, and the resemblance to Deuteronomy + 33, and even a difference of metre, and still hold that the + whole belongs to the earliest literary recension of the Song to + which we have access. The warm enthusiasm of the eulogy, and the + generous recognition of Joseph’s services to the national cause, + are no doubt remarkable in a Judæan document; but such a tone + is not unintelligible in the time of David, when the unity of + the empire had to be maintained by a friendly and conciliatory + attitude to the high-spirited central tribes. + +=22.= On the ordinary but highly questionable rendering, the image +is that of a young thriving vine planted by a fountain and thus well +supplied with water, whose tendrils extend over the wall.――_a fruitful +bough_] Or ‘A young fruit-tree’: literally ‘son of a fruitful [tree’ +or ‘vine’]. There is probably an etymological allusion to Ephraim (פְּרָת += אֶפְרָת: Wellhausen).――=23, 24.= The figure is abruptly changed: Joseph +is now represented as beset by troops of archers, whose attack he +repels.――_dealt bitterly ..._] The following word וָרֹבּוּ requires some +amendment of text (_v.i._).――=24.= _abode unmoved_] or ‘constant.’ +Taken with the next line, this suggests a fine picture: the bow held +steadily in position, while the hand that discharges the arrows in +quick succession moves nimbly to and fro (Gunkel). The expressions, +however, are peculiar, and a different reading of the second +line given in some Versions is approved by several scholars +(_v.i._).――_Strong One of Jacob_] A poetic title of Yahwe, recurring +Isaiah 49²⁶ 60¹⁶, Psalms 132²ᐧ ⁵, and (with Israel for Jacob) Isaiah +1²⁴. See, further, the footnote below.――_Through the name_] מִשֵּׁם, +the reading of Peshiṭtå and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, though not entirely +satisfactory, is at least preferable to the meaningless מִשָּׁם of +Massoretic Text.――_the Shepherd of the Israel-Stone_] A second +designation of Yahwe as the Guardian of the Stone of Israel,――either +the sacred stone of Bethel, or (better) that of Shechem (Joshua +24²⁶ ᶠᐧ), which was the religious rendezvous of the tribes in +early times (see page 416): so Luther, _Die Israeliten und ihre +Nachbarstämme_, 284¹. Both text and translation are, however, +uncertain (_v.i._).――=25, 26.= The construction is ambiguous: it is +not clear whether the lines beginning with _Blessings_ are a series +of accusatives depending on the וִיבָרְכֶךָּ of ²⁵ᵃ (‘may he bless thee +_with_ blessings,’ etc.), or subjects to תִּֽהְיֶין in ²⁶ᵇ. The second +view is adopted above; but the ambiguity may be an intentional +refinement.――=25aαβ.= _’Ēl Shaddai_] For the reading, _v.i._; +and see on 17¹.――=25aγδb, 26a.= The blessings, arranged in three +parallel couplets,――the first referring to the fertility of the +soil.――_Blessings of heaven above_] Rain and dew, the cause of +fertility (so Deuteronomy 33¹³ emended).――_Tĕhôm ... beneath_] +The subterranean flood, whence springs and rivers are fed: see +on 1². ――_Blessings of breasts and womb_] Contrast the terrible +imprecation, Hosea 9¹⁴.――=26a.= Passing over the first four words +as absolutely unintelligible (_v.i._), we come to the third pair of +blessings: _... of the eternal mountains ... of the everlasting hills_ +(Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶)] In what sense the mountains were +conceived as a source of blessing is not clear,――perhaps as abodes of +deity; compare the ‘dew of Hermon’ (Psalms 133³).――The word rendered +_produce_ is uncertain; we should expect ‘blessings,’ as LXX actually +reads (_v.i._).――=26b.= _Be on the head_] as in benediction the hand +is laid on the head (48¹⁴): compare Proverbs 10⁶ 11²⁶.――נְזִיר אֶחָיו] So +Deuteronomy 33¹⁶. The נָזִיר is either the _Nazirite_――one ‘consecrated’ +to God by a vow involving unshorn hair (Judges 13⁵ᐧ ⁷ etc.)――or the +_prince_ (so only Lamentations 4⁷). For the rendering ‘crowned one’ +there are no examples. The second interpretation is that usually +adopted by recent scholars; some explaining it of the Northern +monarchy, of which the Joseph-tribes were the chief part; though +others think it merely ascribes to Joseph a position of princely +superiority to his brethren. The other view is taken by Sellin +(_Beiträge zur israelitischen und jüdischen religionsgeschichte_ ii. 1, +132 ff.) and Gunkel, who conceive the ancient Nazirite as a man like +Samson, dedicated to single-handed warfare against the foes of Israel +(compare Schwally, _Semitische Kriegsaltertümer_, 101 ff.), and hold +that Joseph is so designated as being the foremost champion of the +national cause. The interpretation is certainly plausible; but it +derives no support from the word קָדְקֹד (∥ ראשׁ), which is never used in +connexion with the Nazirite, and is quite common in other connexions +(see Deuteronomy 33²⁰). + + The opinion confidently entertained by many scholars (see + Wellhausen, _Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen + Bücher des Alten Testaments_² 321), that the Blessing of Joseph + presupposes the divided kingdom, rests partly on this expression, + and partly on the allusion to an arduous struggle in ²³ ᶠᐧ. But + it is clear that neither indication is at all decisive. If נָזִיר + could mean only ‘crowned one,’ we should no doubt find ourselves + in the time of the dual monarchy. In point of fact, it never + denotes the king, and only once ‘princes’; and we have no + right to deny that its import is adequately explained by the + leadership which fell to the house of Joseph in the conquest of + Canaan (Judges 1²² ᶠᶠᐧ). Similarly, the ‘archers’ of verse ²³ + _might_ be the Aramæans of Damascus, in which case Joseph would + be a name for the Northern kingdom as a whole; but they may as + well be the Midianites (Judges 6 ff.) or other marauders who + attacked central Israel between the settlement and the founding + of the monarchy, and whose repeated and irritating incursions + would admirably suit the terms of the description. The general + considerations which plead for an early date are: (1) The + analogy of the rest of the poem, some parts of which are + earlier, and none demonstrably later, than the age of David + or Solomon. (2) The incorporation of the blessing in a Judæan + work is improbable at a time when Israel was a rival kingdom. + (3) Although Joseph sometimes stands for the Northern kingdom, + it can hardly do so here in an enumeration of the tribes. + Consequently it takes us back to the time when Joseph was still + a single tribe, or when at least the separation of Ephraim and + Manasseh was not clearly recognised: the addition in Deuteronomy + 33¹⁷ᵇ is instructive in this regard (see Gunkel, and Sellin, + _l.c._ 134). + + * * * * * + + =22.= בן פרת] בֵּן is construct state: the rhythmic accent forbids + the usual shortening of the vowel with Maqqeph (בֶּך).――פֹּרָת] + Contracted from פֹּרִיָּת, ‘fruitful’ (Isaiah 17⁶ 32¹², Ezekiel + 19¹⁰, Psalms 128³), or פֹּרַיַת, with archaic feminine termination. + פֹּארָה, ‘bough’ (Ezekiel 17⁶ 31⁵ᐧ ⁶), might be thought of, but + would be hardly suitable as genitive after בן.――Down to עין + the Versions have substantially the same text.――בנות צעדה עלי שור] + defies explanation. Literally _filiæ discurrerunt super murum_ + (Vulgate). But בנות = ‘tendrils,’ has no analogy; צעד means + ‘march’ or ‘stride,’ but not ‘extend’; and the discord of number + is harsh (notwithstanding Gesenius-Kautzsch § 145 _k_). The + Versions reveal early corruption of the text, without suggesting + anything better. LXX υἱός μου νεώτατος (= _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ בני צעירי) πρὸς μὲ ἀνάστρεψον (= עָלַי שׁוּב). + Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase).――Zimmern’s zodiacal theory, which + identifies Joseph with the sign Taurus, finds two tempting + points of contact in the consonantal text: reading פָּרָת = פָּרָה, + ‘juvenca,’ at the beginning, and שוֹר, ‘ox,’ at the end. But the + reconstruction of the text on these lines, with the help of + Deuteronomy 33¹⁷ (see _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 164 + ff.; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 399), + has no title to respect: against it see Ball, page 116.――=23.= + וָרֹבּוּ] From √ רבב, a by-form of רבה,¹ ‘shoot,’ with intransitive + perfect (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 67 _m_). The simple perfect + between two consecutive imperfects being suspicious, the + least change demanded is וַיָּרֹבּוּ. _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX (ἐλοιδόρουν) and Vulgate (_jurgati sunt_) read + וַיְרִיבֻהוּ, ‘strove with him.’ Parallelism suggests a noun as subject + to וַיְמ׳; we might read רַבִּים, ‘bowmen’ (Jeremiah 50²⁹), or (since + the line is too short) רֹבֵי קֶשֶׁת (21²⁰)――=24a.= LXX καὶ συνετρίβη + μετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν [= וַתִּשָּׁבֵר בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתָּם].――ותשב] Peshiṭtå + (‡ Syriac word) = וַתָּֽשָׁב. The sense ‘abide’ for ישׁב is justified + by Leviticus 12⁴, 1 Kings 22¹, Psalms 125¹, and nothing is + gained by departing from Massoretic Text.――באיתן] Literally + ‘as a permanent one’ (בְּ _essentiæ_).――ויפזר] 2 Samuel 6¹⁶†. LXX + καὶ ἐξελύθη, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) may represent ויפזרו (see + Ball).――[LXX יָדָם] זרועי ידיו] is a hard combination, but perhaps not + too bold.――=24b.= אֲבִיר] occurs only in the passive cited above. + It is reasonably suspected that the Massoretic changed the + punctuation to avoid association of ideas with אַבִּיר, ‘bull,’ the + idolatrous emblem of Yahwe in North Israel. Whether the name + as applied to Yahwe be really a survival of the bull-worship of + Bethel and Dan is another question; אַבִּיר (strong) is an epithet + of men (Judges 5²², Job 24²² 34²⁰, Jeremiah 46¹⁵, 1 Samuel 21⁸ + etc.), and horses (Jeremiah 8¹⁶ 47³ 50¹¹) much more often than + of bulls (Psalms 22¹³ 68³¹ 50¹³, Isaiah 34⁷), and might have + been transferred to Yahwe in its adjective sense. On the other + hand, the parallelism with ‘Stone of Israel’ in the next line + favours the idea that the title is derived from the cult of the + Bull at Bethel, which may have had a more ancient significance + than an image of Yahwe (compare Meyer, _Die Israeliten + und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 282 ff.; Luther, _Zeitschrift + für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. 70 ff.). The + further inference (Nöldeke, Luther, Meyer) that Jacob was + the deity originally worshipped in the bull is perhaps too + adventurous.――מִשָּׁם] So LXX, Vulgate; but Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ + מִשֵּׁם.――אבן ישראל] Compare צור יש׳, 2 Samuel 23³, Isaiah 30²⁹; also א׳ הָעֶזָר, + 1 Samuel 4¹ 5¹ 7¹². The translation above agrees with Peshiṭtå; + Massoretic Text puts רֹעֶה in apposition with א׳ י׳ (so Vulgate); + LXX ♦ἐκεῖθεν ὁ κατισχύσας Ἰσραήλ omits אבן, and may have read עזר + (Ball). The line is too long for the metre, but אבן is the one + word that should _not_ be omitted.――=25.= ויעזרך ... ויברכך] Compare + Psalms 69³³, and see Ewald § 347 _a_.――ואת־] Read with _The + Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμός), + Peshiṭtå וְאֵל: though שֶׂדַּי alone (Numbers 24⁴ᐧ ¹⁶) would be suitable + in an ancient poem.――רבצת] Metrically necessary in Deuteronomy + 33¹³, but here redundant; probably, therefore, a gloss from the + other recension (Sievers).――=26.= אביך גברו על־ברכת הורי עד־] There are + two stages of corruption, one remediable, the other not. The + last line is to be restored with LXX ברכת הַרְרֵי עַד, ‘blessings of + the eternal mountains’ (Deuteronomy 33¹⁵, Habakkuk 3⁶). But + the first three words, though represented by all Versions, must + be wrong; for to put ברכת under the regimen of על destroys the + parallelism, and the verb גָּֽבְרוּ cuts off תהיין from its subject. What + is obviously required is a line parallel to ברכת שדים ורחם. Gunkel’s + suggested emendation, though far from satisfying, is the best + that can be proposed: ברכת אָב אַךְ נֶּבֶר וָעֻל = ‘Blessings of father, + yea, man and child.’――אביך] _The Samaritan Recension of the + Pentateuch_, LXX + ואמך, suggested no doubt by the previous + line.――הורי] Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ render + ‘my progenitors,’ by an impossible derivation from √ הרה, + ‘be pregnant.’――תאות] English Version ‘utmost bound’ (so + Delitzsch, from √ תאה or תוה; see Brown-Driver-Briggs), + has no real philological or traditional justification. + If the text were reliable, it might be the common word + ‘desire,’ from √ אוה (LXXᶜᵘʳˢⁱᵛᵉˢ, Old Latin Version, Vulgate, + Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ), in the sense of ‘desirable things.’ + With some hesitation I follow above Olshausen, Gunkel, al., + reading תבואת after Deuteronomy 33¹⁴. But LXXᴮ ברכת has great + weight (all the greater that the translator has lost the thread + of the thought), and ought perhaps to be preferred.――נזיר] is + not necessarily a derivative from the noun נֵזָר, ‘diadem,’ = ‘the + crowned one’; more probably it comes from the verb directly,――נזר + = ‘dedicate’ (compare נדר)――which admits various shades of + meaning. Of the Versions LXX, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ represent the + idea of ‘prince’ or ‘ruler,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ ‘the separated one,’ + Vulgate, Saadya ‘the Nazirite,’ Peshiṭtå ‘the crown’ (נַזָר). + + ¹ But see above on 21²⁰. + + ♦ “κεῖθεν” replaced with “ἐκεῖθεν” + + * * * * * + +=27. Benjamin.= + + ²⁷ Benjamin is a ravening wolf: + In the morning he devours the prey, + And at eve divides the spoil. + +Benjamin is praised for its predatory instincts, and its unflagging +zest for war. The early history contains a good deal to justify the +comparison: its fight with Moab (Judges 3¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ), its share in the +struggle with the Canaanites (Judges 5¹⁴), its desperate stand against +united Israel (Judges 19 f.); it was famous for its skill in slinging +and archery (Judges 20¹⁶, 1 Chronicles 8⁴⁰ 12², 2 Chronicles 14⁷ 17¹⁷). +But a special reference to the short-lived reign of Saul is probable: +the dividing of spoil reminds us of the king who clothed the daughters +of Israel with scarlet and ornaments (2 Samuel 1²⁴).――The contrast +between this description and the conception of Benjamin in the +Joseph-stories is an instructive example of how tribal characteristics +were obscured in the biographical types evolved by the popular +imagination. + + * * * * * + + =27.= זאב יטרָף] Descriptive imperfect, see Davidson § 44, _R._ 3, + § 142. On pausal _ā_ see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 29 _u_.――עד] = + ‘booty,’ Isaiah 33²³, Zephaniah 3⁸ [? Isaiah 9⁵]; LXX ἔτι. + + * * * * * + +=28abα= (to אביהם) is the subscription to the poem; the remainder of +the verse belongs to Priestly-Code, and probably continued ¹ᵃ in that +source.――_the tribes of Israel, twelve_ in number] The division into +12 tribes is an artificial scheme, whose origin is uncertain (see +Luther, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxi. +33 ff.; Peters, _Early Hebrew Story_, 55 ff.). It obtained also +amongst the Edomites, Ishmaelites, and other peoples; and in Israel +betrays its theoretic character by the different ways in which the +number was made up, of which the oldest is probably that followed in +the Song of Jacob. In Deuteronomy 33, Simeon is omitted, and Joseph +divided into Ephraim and Manasseh; in Priestly-Code (Numbers 2) Joseph +is again divided, to the exclusion not of Simeon, but of Levi. + + The recently revived theory of a connexion between the original + sayings of the Blessing and the signs of the Zodiac calls for + a brief notice at this point. The most striking correspondences + were set forth by Zimmern in _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. + (1892), 161 ff.; viz., Simeon and Levi = Gemini (see page 517); + Judah = Leo, with the king-star Regulus on its breast (בין רגליו); + and Joseph = Taurus. This last comparison, it is true, rests on + Deuteronomy 33 rather than Genesis 49, and is only imported into + this passage by a violent reconstruction of verse ²² (page 530). + Other possible combinations mentioned by Zimmern are Issachar + = Aselli (in Cancer), Dan = Serpens (North of Libra), Benjamin + = Lupus (South of Scorpio), and Naphtali = Aries (reading + אַיִל for אַיָּלָה). Stucken (_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen + Gesellschaft_, 1902, 166 ff.), after a laboured proof + that Reuben corresponds to Behemoth (hippopotamus), an old + constellation now represented by Aquarius, completed the circle + after a fashion, with the necessary addition of Dinah = Virgo + as the missing sign; and his results are adopted by Jeremias + (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 395 ff.). + A somewhat different arrangement is given by Winckler in + _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii. 465 ff. These conjectures, + however, add little to the evidence for the theory, which must + in the main be judged by the seven coincidences pointed out in + Zimmern’s article. That these amount to a demonstration of the + theory cannot be affirmed; but they seem to me to go far to show + that it contains an element of truth. It is hardly accidental + that in each series we have one double sign (Gemini, Simeon-Levi) + and one female personification (Virgo, Dinah), and that all + the animal names occurring in the Song (lion, ass, serpent, + ram?, ox?, wolf) can be more or less plausibly identified with + constellations either in the Zodiac or sufficiently near it + to have been counted as Zodiacal signs in early times. The + incompleteness of the correspondence is fairly explained by two + facts: first, that the poem has undergone many changes in the + course of its transmission, and no longer preserves the original + form and order of the oracles; and second, that while the + twelve-fold division of the ecliptic goes back to the remotest + antiquity, the traditional names of the twelve signs cannot all + be traced to the ancient Babylonian astronomy. It may be added + that there is no _prima facie_ objection to combinations of + this sort. The theory does not mean that the sons of Jacob + _are_ the earthly counterparts of the Zodiacal constellations, + and nothing more. All that is implied is that an attempt was + made to discover points of resemblance between the fortunes + and characteristics of the twelve tribes on the one hand, and + the astro-mythological system on the other. Such combinations + were necessarily arbitrary, and it might readily happen that + some were too unreal to live in the popular memory. Where the + correspondence is plausible, we may expect to find that the + characterisation of the tribe has been partly accommodated to + the conceptions suggested by the comparison; and great caution + will have to be observed in separating the bare historical facts + from the mythological allusions with which they are embellished. + In the present state of the question, it may be safely said that + the historical interpretation must take precedence. The Zodiacal + theory will have to be reckoned with in the interpretation of + the Song; but it has as yet furnished no trustworthy clue either + to the explanation of obscure details, or to the restoration of + the text. + + * * * * * + + =28.= שבטי ישראל] LXX υἱοὶ Ἰακώβ.――איש אשר כְּ׳] Such a construction is + impossible. We must either omit the relatives (Versions) or read + איש איש (Olshausen, Delitzsch, Kautzsch-Socin, Gunkel, al.). + + * * * * * + + + XLIX. 28b‒L. 26. + _The Death and Burial of Jacob; and the Death of Joseph_ + (Priestly-Code, Yahwist, Elohist). + +Jacob charges his sons to bury him in the family sepulchre at +Machpelah, and expires (²⁸ᵇ⁻³³). Joseph causes the body to be embalmed; +and, accompanied by his brethren and an imposing _cortège_, conveys +it to its last resting-place in Canaan (50¹⁻¹⁴). He pacifies and +reassures his brethren, who fear his vengeance now that their father +is gone (¹⁵⁻²¹). He dies in a good old age, after exacting an oath +that his bones shall be carried up from Egypt when the time of +deliverance comes (²²⁻²⁶). + + _Sources._――49²⁸ᵇ{β}⁻³³ belongs to Priestly-Code, with the + possible exceptions of ³² (a gloss), and the clause ³³ᵃ{β}; note + the reference to chapter 23 and the identical phraseology of the + two passages; also the expressions גוע, אחזה, נאסף אל־עמיו (_bis_).――In + chapter 50, verses ¹²ᐧ ¹³ are from Priestly-Code (Machpelah, etc.: + note also that the suffix in בניו refers back to 49³³). Verses + ¹⁻¹¹ᐧ ¹⁴ are mainly Yahwist (ישראל, ²; מצא חן בע׳, ⁴; גּשֶׁן, ⁸; הכנעני, ¹¹: + note the reference [⁵ ᶠᐧ] to Joseph’s oath [47²⁹⁻³¹]); and ¹⁵⁻²⁶ + Elohist (אלהים, ¹⁹ᐧ ²⁰ᐧ ²⁴ᐧ ²⁵; כלכל, ²¹ [45¹¹ 47¹²]; התחת אלהים אני ¹⁹ + [30²]): the resemblance to 45⁵ᐧ ⁷; and the backward reference + in Exodus 13¹⁹, Joshua 24³²). The analysis might stop here + (Dillmann, Wellhausen, Driver, al.); but a variant in ¹⁰ + (¹⁰ᵇ ∥ ¹⁰ᵃ{β}), and the double name of the place of burial + suggest that there may be two accounts of the funeral (see + Kautzsch-Socin _An._ 242). Holzinger, Gunkel, Procksch, + however, seem to me to go too far in the attempt to establish + a _material_ difference of representation (_e.g._, that in + Elohist’s account Joseph’s brethren did not go up with him to + the burial). Traces of Yahwist in ¹⁵⁻²⁶ are equally + insignificant (see the notes). + +=28b‒33. Jacob’s charge to his sons.=――=28bβ.= The sequel to ¹ᵃ in +Priestly-Code. Note the close formal parallel to 28¹ (Priestly-Code): +_And ... called ... and blessed ... and charged ... and said ...――each +with a special blessing_] _v.i._――=29, 30.= See on chapter 23.――=31.= +_Abraham and Sarah his wife_] 25⁹ 23¹⁹. The burying-place of Isaac +(35²⁹) is not elsewhere specified; and the burials of Rebekah and +Leah are not recorded at all.――On the possibility that the notice of +Rachel’s burial (48⁷) stood here originally, see page 504 f.――=32.= +Probably a gloss (_v.i._).――=33.= _drew up his feet into the bed_] The +clause may have been inserted from Yahwist; compare 48²ᵇ.――As in the +case of all the patriarchs except Joseph, the actual account of the +death is left to Priestly-Code. + + * * * * * + + =29.= ויצו אותם] LXX omits.――אל־עַמִּי] Read אל־עַמַּי (compare ³³): see + on 25⁸.――=30.= For בשדה המ׳, LXX has simply במכפלה, and for the + following השדה, המערה.――=31.= קברתי] LXX קָֽבְרוּ.――At the end of + the verse Budde would add ואת־רחל as Priestly-Code’s original + statement (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, + iii. 82).――=32.= The verse has no syntactic connexion with the + preceding, the construction is cumbrous in the extreme, and the + notice superfluous after ³⁰ᵇ. It should probably be deleted as + a marginal variant to ³⁰ᵇ (so Delitzsch, Gunkel).――מקנה] LXX במ׳. + + * * * * * + +=L. 1‒14. The burial of Jacob.=――=1.= The forms in which Joseph’s +grief expressed itself were doubtless conventional, though they are +not elsewhere alluded to in Old Testament.――=2.= The Egyptian practice +of embalming originated in ideas with which the Hebrew mind had no +sympathy,――the belief that the _ka_ or ghostly double of the man might +at any time return to take possession of the body, which consequently +had at all costs to be preserved (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, +307). In the cases of Jacob and Joseph (verse ²⁶), it is merely an +expedient for preserving the body till the burial could take place. +On the various methods employed, see Herodotus, ii. 86‒88; Diodorus, +i. 91; and Budge, _The Mummy_, 160 ff., 177 ff.――_the physicians_] +In Egypt the embalmers formed a special profession.――=3.= _forty days +... seventy days_] The process of embalming occupied, according to +Diodorus, over 30 days, according to Herodotus, 70 days; exact data +from the monuments are not yet available (Erman, 315, 319 f.; Budge, +179). The mourning for Aaron and Moses lasted 30 days (Numbers 20²⁹, +Deuteronomy 34⁸); the Egyptians (who are here expressly mentioned) +are said to have mourned for a king 72 days (Diodorus, i. 72).――=4‒6.= +Joseph seeks Pharaoh’s permission to absent himself from Egypt. Why +he needed the court to intercede for him in such a matter does not +appear.――=5a.= Compare 47²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――_have digged_] The rendering ‘have +purchased’ is possible, but much less probable (compare 2 Chronicles +16¹⁴). The confused notice Acts 7¹⁶ might suggest a tradition that +Jacob’s grave was in the plot of ground he bought near Shechem (33¹⁹ +Elohist), which is the view maintained by Bruston (_Zeitschrift für +die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 202 ff.). On any view the +contradiction to 47³⁰ remains.――=7‒9.= The funeral procession is +described with _empressement_ as a mark of the almost royal honours +bestowed on the patriarch. Such processions are frequently depicted +on Egyptian tombs: Erman, 320 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_, +119 f.――_horsemen_, however, never appear in them: “We have no +representations of Egyptians on horseback; and were it not for +a few literary allusions, we should not know that the subjects +of the Pharaoh knew how to ride” (Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, +492 f.).――=10, 11.= The mourning at the grave.――_Gōren hā-Āṭād]_ +‘the threshing-floor of the bramble’; the locality is unknown +(_v.i._).――=11.= _Ābēl Miẓraim_] one of several place-names compounded +with אָבֵל = ‘meadow’ (Numbers 33⁴⁹, Judges 11³³, 2 Samuel 20¹⁵, +2 Chronicles 16⁴); here interpreted as אֵבל מִצְרַיִם ‘mourning of Egypt.’ The +real name ‘meadow of Egypt’ may have commemorated some incident of the +Egyptian occupation of Palestine; but the situation is unknown.――The +record of the actual burying in Yahwist and Elohist has not been +preserved. + + It is difficult to say whether _Gōren hā-Āṭād_ and _Ābēl + Miẓraim_ are two different places, or two names for one place. + Jerome (_Onomastica Sacra_, 85¹⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ) identifies the former with + Bethagla (= _‛Ain Ḥaǧla_, or _Ḳaṣr Ḥaǧla_, South of Jericho + [Buhl, _Geographie des alten Palaestina_, 180]), but on what + authority we do not know. The conjecture that it was in the + neighbourhood of Rachel’s grave depends entirely on a dubious + interpretation of 48⁷. Since there appears to be a doublet in + verse ¹⁰ (¹⁰ᵃ{β} ∥ ¹⁰ᵇ), it is natural to suppose that one name + belongs to Yahwist and the other to Elohist, and therefore there + is no great presumption that the localities are identical (בג׳ הא׳ + in ¹¹ may be a gloss). According to the present text, both were + East of the Jordan (¹⁰ᵃᐧ ¹¹ᵇ); but such a statement if found in + one document would readily be transferred by a redactor to the + other; and all we can be reasonably confident of is that one or + other was across the Jordan, for it is almost inconceivable that + א׳ בע׳ הירדן should be an interpolation in _both_ cases. Since it is + to be assumed that in Yahwist and Elohist the place of mourning + was also the place of burial, and since the theory of a _détour_ + round the Dead Sea and the East of Jordan to arrive at any + spot in West Palestine is too extravagant to have arisen from + a fanciful etymology, it would seem to follow that, according + to at least one tradition, Jacob’s grave was shown at some now + unknown place East of the Jordan (Meyer, _Die Israeliten und + ihre Nachbarstämme_, 280 f.). Meyer’s inference that Jacob was + originally a transjordanic hero, is, however, a doubtful one; + for the East is dotted with graves of historic personages in + impossible places, and we have no assurance that tradition was + more reliable in ancient times. + + * * * * * + + =2.= חנט] verse ²⁶, Canticles 2¹³†. Apparently a Semitic √, + meaning in Arabic ‘become mature,’ applied in Hebrew Aramaic and + Arabic to the process of embalming.――=3.= חנֻטים] ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; + abstract plural. = ‘embalming.’――=4.= בכיתו] The feminine only + here, for בְּכִי. The suffix probably genitive object (weeping _for_ + Jacob).――דברו־נא] Add with LXX עָלֵי.――=5.= השביעני] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXXᴬᐧ ᵃˡᐧ + לפני מותי.――הנה אנכי מת] LXX + omits. The phrase occurs in Elohist 48²¹, and (without הנה) + 50²⁴.――כריתי] LXX, Vulgate, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ‘have digged’; Peshiṭtå + ‘have purchased,’ Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אַתְקְנֵת = ‘have prepared.’ The + first sense preponderates in usage (the second, Deuteronomy 2⁶, + Hosea 3², Job 6²⁷ 40³⁰†), and is here to be preferred.――את־אבי] + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ + כאשר השביעני.――=10.= + אטד] The word for ‘bramble’ in Jotham’s parable from Gerizim, + Judges 9¹⁴ ᶠᐧ (only Psalms 58¹⁰ again). Can there be an allusion + to the threshing-floor of this passage at Shechem?――=11.= בג׳ האטד] + Possibly a gloss from verse ¹⁰. If so, שמהּ (_The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ שמו), referring to גרן (whose gender + is uncertain), must have been substituted for שם המקום (so Vulgate, + Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Gunkel). + + * * * * * + +=12, 13.= The account of the actual burial (from Priestly-Code).――It +is significant that here the Egyptians take no part in the obsequies: +the final redactor may have assumed that they were left behind at +the mourning place East of the Jordan.――See further on 49²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=14= +(Yahwist). The return to Egypt. + + * * * * * + + =12.= בניו לו] The suffixes find no suitable antecedents nearer than + 49³³, the last excerpt from Priestly-Code.―כאשר צום] LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ καὶ + ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ.――=13.= שדה] LXX τὸ σπήλαιον, and so again for + את־השדה.――=14.= אחרי――אביו] LXX omits. + + * * * * * + +=15‒21. Joseph removes his brethren’s fears=.――The verses contain a +variation of the theme of 45⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ (Gunkel), as if to emphasize the +lesson of the whole story, that out of a base intent God brought good +to His people.――=15.= _saw_] _i.e._ ‘realised,’――took in the full +significance of the fact (compare 30¹). If it were meant that they +‘learned’ for the first time that their father was dead, the inference +would surely be not merely that the brethren had not been present +at the funeral (Gunkel), but that Elohist had not recorded it at +all.――=16, 17.= They send a message to Joseph, recalling a dying +request of their father (not elsewhere mentioned).――_the servants of +the God of thy father_] Religion is a stronger plea than even kinship +(Gunkel).――=18.= Compare 44¹⁶. The verse may have been inserted from +Yahwist (_v.i._).――=19.= _am I in God’s stead?_] (30²): to judge +and punish at my pleasure.――=20.= Compare 45⁵ᐧ ⁷ᐧ ⁸.――=21.= The +continuance of the famine seems presupposed, in opposition to the +chronology of Priestly-Code (47²⁸). + + * * * * * + + =15.= לוּ וגו׳] Conditional sentence with suppressed apodosis, + Gesenius-Kautzsch § 159 _y_.――=16.= ויצוו] LXX καὶ παρεγένοντο, + and Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), seem to have read וַיִּגְּשׁוּ, which + if correct would make the excision of verse ¹⁸ from Elohist + almost imperative (see on the verse). But the sense of צִוָּה, ‘to + commission,’ is justified by Exodus 6¹³, Jeremiah 27⁴, Esther + 3¹² etc.; and נגש would not properly be followed by לאמר.――=17.= + אָנָּא] a strong particle of entreaty; in Pentateuch only Exodus + 32³¹.――=18.= גם――לפניו] LXX omits.――For וילכו, Ball (after Vatke) + reads ויבכו, which would give point to the following גם. But the + change is not necessary: וילכו would mean ‘they went away’ only + if they had previously been present. That certainly seems + implied in ¹⁷ᵇ (apart from the reading of LXX, Peshiṭtå in ¹⁶); + and hence there is much to be said for assigning verse ¹⁸ to + Yahwist (Dillmann, Holzinger, Procksch).――=19b.= LXX reads + τοῦ γὰρ θεοῦ ἐγὼ εἰμί.――=20.= אלהים] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ והא׳: LXX, Peshiṭtå, Vulgate also have the + copula.――=21.= ועתה] LXX εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς. + + * * * * * + +=22‒26. Joseph’s old age and death.=――=22.= _a hundred and ten years_] +Compare Joshua 24²⁹. It is hardly a mere coincidence, but rather +an instance of the Egyptian affinities of the narrative, that 110 +years is at least three times spoken of as an ideal lifetime in +Egyptian writings (Stern, _Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache +und Altertumskunde_, 1873, 75 f.).――=23.= Joseph lived to see his +great-grandchildren by both his sons,――another token of a life +crowned with blessing (Psalms 128⁶, Proverbs 13²² 17⁶ etc.). The +expressions used of Ephraim’s descendants are somewhat difficult +(_v.i._).――_Mākîr_] the most powerful clan of Manasseh, in the Song +of Deborah (Judges 5¹⁴) numbered among the tribes of Israel, and +possibly therefore an older unit than Manasseh itself (see Meyer, +_Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme_, 507, 516 f.).――The expression +_born on Joseph’s knees_ implies the adoption of Machir’s sons by +Joseph (see on 30³), though the action does not seem to have any +tribal significance.――=24, 25.= Joseph predicts the Exodus (as did +Jacob, 48²¹), and directs his bones to be carried to Canaan. For the +fulfilment of the wish, see Exodus 13¹⁹, Joshua 24³².――_his brethren_ +are here the Israelites as a whole (verse ²⁵).――=26.= The death of +Joseph.――_in a coffin_] or mummy-case, the wooden inner shell, shaped +like the mummy, which was placed in the stone sarcophagus (see Erman, +_Life in Ancient Egypt_, 315 f.; Ball, _Light from the East_, 121). A +mythological allusion to the ‘coffin’ of Osiris (Völter, 55) is not to +be thought of. + + * * * + +“This ‘coffin in Egypt,’” remarks Delitzsch, “is the coffin of all +Israel’s spiritual satisfaction in Egypt.” Gunkel shows sounder +judgement and truer insight when he bids us admire the restful close +of the narrative, and the forward glance to the eventful story of the +Exodus. + + * * * * * + + =22.= ובית] LXX καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ πανοικία.――=23.= + בני שלשים] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ בנים ש׳: so LXX, + Peshiṭtå Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ. שִׁלֵּשִׁים means ‘great-grandchildren’ + (Exodus 34⁷); hence בני ש׳ ought to mean ‘great-great-grandchildren’ + (not, of course, of Ephraim, but of Joseph in Ephraim’s line). + But there being no reason why the descent should be carried + further in the line of Ephraim than in that of Manasseh, we + must understand ‘great-grandchildren,’ whether we read with + _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, or take בני ש׳ as + appositional genitive (see Dillmann).――על־ברכי] _The Samaritan + Recension of the Pentateuch_ בימי, ‘in the days of,’――‘a bad + correction’ (Ball), supported by no other Version.――=24.= נשבע] + LXX + ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν.――=25= end. Add with Hebrew + MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå, + Vulgate אִתְּכֶם, ‘with you.’――=26.= ויישם] _The Samaritan Recension + of the Pentateuch_ ויושם. See on 24³³. + + * * * * * + + + + + INDEXES. + + + I. ENGLISH. + + Abel, 103 ff. + + ’Ābēl Miẓraim, 538. + + ’Abîda‛, 351. + + ‛Abîmā’ēl, 221. + + Abimelech, 316 ff., 325 ff., 363 ff. + + _Abî-râmu_, 292. + + Abraham, + his religious significance, xxvi f.; + his migration, xxi, xxvii f., 238, 242 ff.; + as Mahdi, xxviii, 247; + legend of, xliv, 241 f.; + covenants with, 276 ff., 289 ff.; + name of, 244, 292 f.; + death of, 341, 351 f. + + Abram, name, xxv, 292. + + Abram, Field of, xxv, 244. + + Accusative, + of condition, 77, 282, 474. + of definition, 29. + after passive, 220. + of place, 376. + of time, 260. + + ‛Ādāh, 118, 429 f. + + Adapa and the South-wind, myth of, 92. + + ’Adbe’ēl, 353. + + ‛Adullām, 450. + + Aetiological motive in myth and legend, xi f., 70, 95, 140, 332, 362. + + Agriculture, 84, 87, 106, 110, 185, 365. + + ’Aḥuzzath, 367. + + ‛Ai, 247. + + ‛Aḳān, 434. + + ‛Akbôr, 436. + + ’Akkad, 210. + + ’Almôdād, 221. + + ‛Amālēḳ, 263, 431. + + Amorite, 215, 263, 265, 282, 503. + + ’Amrāphel, 257. + + Anachronisms, v, xviii, 116, 149, 265, 272, 316, 364, 419, 463. + + ‛Anāmîm, 212. + + Angel of God, 323, 342, 376. + + Angel of Yahwe, 286 f. + + Angels, 31, 36, 141 f. + + Anthropomorphism, instances of, 7, 37, 51, 129, 149, 154, 172, 300, + 328, 411. + + ‛Apriw, xvi, 218 f. + + ’Arām, 206, 333 f. + + ’Aram-naharaim, 342. + + Aramæans, xxiii, 334, 356, 358, 403 f. + + ’Ărān (’Oren), 434. + + Araraṭ, 166. + + Archaisms, 29, 272, 306, 399. + + ’Ariōk, 258. + + ‛Arḳî, 216. + + ’Arpakshad, 205, 231. + + Article, anomalous pointing of, 163. + + Article, with construct, 348, 395. + + ’Arvād, 216. + + ’Āsenath, 471. + + Asher, xviii, 388, 528. + + ’Ashkenaz, 197. + + ‛Ashterôth-Ḳarnaim, 260, 262. + + ’Āshûr, 351, 354. + + ’Asshûr, 211, 350. + + ’Asshûrîm, 350. + + ‛Avîth, 435. + + Ayyāh, 434. + + + Ba‛al Ḥānān, 436. + + Babel, 210, 227. + + Babel-legends, 228 f. + + Bāsemath, 430. + + Bdellium, 60. + + “Bear upon knees,” 386. + + _Beena_ marriage, 70, 384. + + Bĕ’ēr Lahay Rōî, 288, 347 f., 352. + + Beersheba, 325 ff., 331, 366 f., 491. + + Beker, 494. + + Bela‛, 259, 435. + + Benjamin, 426, 534. + + Ben-’ônî, 426. + + Bered, 288. + + Berossus (quoted), 41 f., 132, 137. + + Bethel, 247, 377 ff., 423 ff., 446. + + Bethû’ēl, 333. + + Betyl, 380. + + Bilhāh, 386. + + Bilhān, 434. + + Blessing, 38, 498. + + Blessing of Jacob, 507 ff.; + Monographs on, 512. + + Blood, crying for vengeance, 170, 447, 477. + + Blood-revenge, 110, 112 ff., 374. + + Books, “traditional,” xxx, 509, 511. + + Boẓrāh, 435. + + Bûz, 333. + + + Cain, 100, 102, 121 f. + + Cain-legend, origin of, 111 ff. + + Camel, 249 f., 345. + + Canaan, 182 ff., 187, 201, 245. + + Case-endings (old), 29, 117 f., 267, 399, 524. + + Chaldæans, 237, 333. + + Chaos, 14, 16, 19, 43, 46. + + Chedorla‛omer, 258. + + Cherubim, 89 f. + + Chronology, xiv f., 134 ff., 167 f., 233 f. + + Circumcision, 296 f., 420. + + Cities of the Plain, destruction of the, 310 ff. + + Cohortative form with vav consecutive, 405. + + Concubine-slave, xvii, 285. + + Cosmogonies, 6 ff., 18; + Babylonian, ix, 20, 41 ff.; + Etruscan, 50; + Indian, 46; + Persian, 19, 50; + Phœnician, 46, 48 ff. + + Covenants, + divine, 171 ff., 280 ff., 290 ff.; + human, 325 ff., 367 f., 400 ff.; + -feast, 367, 401; + idea of, 283 f., 297 f.; + sign of, 172, 294, 297. + + “Covering of the Eyes,” 319. + + Cult-legends, xi f., lx, 379, 411. + + Cup (in divination), 483. + + “Cut off” (from people, etc.), 294. + + + Damascius (quoted), 42. + + Dan, 266, 387, 527. + + Dead Sea, vii, 252, 264, 273 f. + + Debōrāh, 425. + + Dedān, 204, 350. + + Deluge traditions, 174 ff.; + origin of, 180 f.; + Babylonian, 175 ff.; + Greek, 179 f.; + Indian, 179; + Phœnician, 180; + Phrygian, 180; + Syrian, 180. + + Diḳlāh, 221. + + Dînāh, 389, 421. + + Dinhābāh, 435. + + Dioscuri, 302, 312. + + Dîsh-ān, -ôn, 434. + + Divine Names in Genesis, xxxv ff., xlviii f. + + Dôdānim, 199. + + Dôthān, 446 f. + + Dreams, 316, 376, 394, 397, 445, 460 ff., 465 ff. + + Dreams, interpretation of, 461, 466. + + Dûmāh, 353. + + + Eabani (legend of), 91 ff., 517. + + Eden, 57. + + Eden, site of, 62 ff. + + Edom, Edomites, 356, 362, 373, 437. + + Egypt, river of, 283. + + Egyptian domination in Palestine, xvi, xviii, 538. + + Egyptian influence on Joseph-story, 442. + + Elam, Elamites, 204 f., 257 ff., 272, 276. + + ’Êlath (’Êlôth), 262, 436. + + ’Edā‛āh, 351. + + ’Eliezer, 279. + + ’Elîphaz, 431. + + ’Elîshāh, 198. + + Elohistic source, + of Genesis, xxxvi ff.; + characteristics of style, etc., xlvii ff.; + age of, lii ff. + + ’Ēlôn, 494. + + Ēl-Pārān, 261. + + Embalming, 537. + + ’Ēmîm, 263. + + Enoch-legend, 132. + + ’Enôsh, 126. + + _Enuma elǐs_, 9, 43 ff. + + Envy of the Gods, 75, 87, 94, 229. + + ‛Êphāh, 351. + + ‛Ēpher, 351. + + Ephraim, 471, 504, 530, 540. + + ’Ephrāth, 426. + + Eponyms, xx f., xxv, 189 f., 265. + + Erech, 210. + + Esau, 359 ff., 405 ff., 428 ff. + + ‛Eseḳ, 366. + + Ethnographic idea in legend, xii, xix ff., 186, 356, 403, 411 f., + 427, 450. + + Etymological motive in legends, xiii, 220. + + Eudemos (quoted), 49. + + Euhemerism, 147. + + Eve, 86, 102; + and the Serpent, 85 f. + See חַוָּה. + + Exodus, date of, xv. + + + Family, + genealogical division of, 194; + patriarchal type of, 189; + religious solidarity of, 152. + + Fig leaves, 76, 93. + + Firmament, 21 f. + + Five (occurrence of numbers in matters Egyptian), 483. + + Flood. See Deluge. + + Flood-narrative analysed, 147 ff. + + Fragmentary hypothesis, xxxii, xxxvii. + + + Gad, 387, 528. + + Gaḥam, 334. + + Gematria, 266. + + Genealogies, artificial character of, 231. + + Genealogy, + Cainite, 98; + Sethite, 99 f.; + relation of Cainite and Sethite, 138 f.; + Edomite, 428 ff.; + Shemite, 231; + of Ishmael, 352 f.; + of Ḳeturah, 350; + of Nāḥôr, 332 ff.; + of Teraḥ, 235 ff. + + Genesis, Book of. + Title, ii f. + canonical position of, i. + scope of, ii. + nature of tradition in, iii ff., xxxii. + structure and composition of, xxxii ff. + ruling idea of, xxxiii. + sources of, xxxiv ff. + + Gera, 494. + + Gerār, 217, 315, 325, 364, 366. + + Gîḥôn, 61. + + Gilead, 402 f. + + Gilgameš Epic, 91, 175 ff., 209, 517. + + Girgashite, 216. + + Golden age, 35, 73, 87, 92, 159. + + Gōmer, 196. + + Good and evil, knowledge of, 95. + + Gōren hā-’Āṭād, 538. + + Goshen, 488, 495, 497 f. + + Granaries (State), 472. + + + Ḫabiri, xvi, xxii, 187, 218, 265. + + Hadôrām, 221. + + Haḍramaut, 221. + + Hagar, 284 ff., 322 ff. + name, 286. + + Haggada, 28, 33, 237, 245. + + Hām, 262. + + Ḥām, 182, 195. + + Ḥamath, 217. + + Ḫammurabi, xiv, xxii, xxvii, 257 f., 335. + + Ḫammurabi, Code of, xvii, xviii, xix, 285, 454, 455, 459. + + Ḥămôr, 416, 421. + + Ḥănôk, 117, 351, 493. + + Hārān, 236. + + Ḥarrān, 238. + + Ḥavîlāh, 59, 65, 202. + + Ḥaẓeẓôn-Tāmār, 263. + + Ḥăzô, 333. + + “Head,” to “lift up,” 462 f. + + Hebrews, 187, 217, 265, 458, 462 f. + + Hesperides, 94. + + Ḥeẓrôn, 494. + + Ḥiddeḳel, 61. + + Historicity of chapter 14, xviii f., 271 ff. + + History and legend compared, iii f. + + Hittites, xvi, 214 f., 336, 368. + + Ḥivvite, 216. + + Hobah, 267. + + Ḥōrite, 263, 433, 437. + + Ḥûl, 206. + + Ḥûshām, 435. + + + Image of God, 31 f. + + Immortality, 88, 92, 95, 132. + + Imperative, + expressing consequence, 243. + expressing a determination, 476. + + Imperfect consecutive, + expressing ‘paradoxical consequence,’ 307. + expressing descriptive, 533. + + Incubation, 376. + + Infinitive absolute, + used as jussive, 294; + expressing irony, 398; + after its verb, 307. + + Infinitive, gerundial, 87. + + Intoxication, 183, 482. + + ‛Irād, 117. + + Isaac, + name, 321; + birth of, 321; + sacrifice of, 327 ff.; + marriage of, 339 ff., 358; + death of, 428. + + Isaac, Fear of, 399, 402. + + Ishmael, 287, 352. + Ishmaelites, 448. + + Israel, name, 409 f. + Israel-Stone, Shepherd of, 531. + + Issachar, 389, 525 f. + + + Jābāl, 115, 120. + + Jabboḳ, 407. + + Jacob, + name, 360; + history of, 355‒428; + legends regarding, 356; + as tribal eponym, xxiv, 356 f.; + grave of, 538; + as transjordanic hero, 538. + + Jacob, Strong One of, 531. + + Japheth, 183 ff., 195, 208. + + Javan, 198. + + Jerusalem, 268, 328. + + Joseph, + name of, 389 f.; + story of, 438‒528; + elements in Joseph-legend, 441 f.; + as diviner, 484; + his agrarian policy, 498 ff.; + parallel figures in history, 501 f.; + blessing on, 529 ff.; + death of, 540. + + Jûbāl, 120. + + Jubilee-periods (Klostermann’s theory of), 233 f. + + Judah, + name of, 386, 519; + separation from his brethren, 450 f.; + his leadership in Yahwist, lvi, 443, 495, etc. + + Judah, blessing on, 518‒525. + + Jussive of purpose, 227. + + Jussive unapocopated, 22. + + Justification by faith, 280. + + + Ḳādēsh, 262. + + Ḳadmonites, 284. + + Kalnēh, 210. + + Kaphtōrîm, 213. + + Kaslûḥîm, 213. + + Ḳēdār, 352. + + Ḳedēshāh, 454. + + Kelaḥ, 211, 354. + + Ḳemû’ēl, 333. + + Ḳênān, 131. + + Ḳenaz, 431. + + Ḳenites, 113, 284. + + Ḳenizzites, 284. + + Ḳeṭurah, 349 f. + + Kĕzîb, 451. + + Kid, as gift, 453. + + Ḳiryath-’Arba‛, 335. + + Kittîm, 199. + + Ḳôraḥ, 432. + + Ḳoran, 140, 166. + + Kudur-lagamar, 258 f. + + Kûsh, 61, 65, 200, 207. + + + Lamech, 117, 133; + Song of, 120 ff.; + sons of, 120, 123. + + Land-tenure in Egypt, 501. + + Leah, 383, 385, 387 ff., 420, 493 f., 516. + + Legend, idealisation of, xiii. + + Legendary aspects of Genesis, v ff. + + Lehābîm, 213. + + Leṭûshîm, 351. + + Levi, 386, 420, 518. + + Levirate marriage, 452. + + Libation, 424. + + _Literal minuscule_, 40. + + Liver, as seat of mental affection, 517. + + Loṭ, 236. + + Lôṭān, 313, 433. + + Lûd, Lûdîm, 206, 212. + + Lûz, 378 f. + + + Ma‛akāh, 334. + + Mādai, 197. + + Magic, 96. + + Māgôg, 197. + + Mahălal’ēl, 131. + + Maḥanaim, 405. + + Mākîr, 540. + + Makpēlāh, 337 f. + + Mamre, 254, 265. + + Mānaḥath, 432 f. + + Manasseh, 471, 504, 540. + + Marduk, 209 f. + + Mash, 207. + + Masrēḳāh, 435. + + Massā, 353. + + Matriarchate, 102, 344. + + Maẓẓēbāh, l, 378 f., 401, 416, 424. + + Medān, 350. + + Media, Medes, 197. + + Mehêṭab’ēl, 436. + + Melkiẓedeḳ, 267 ff. + + Meshech, 199. + + Messianic applications, 79 ff., 185 f., 521 ff. + + Methuselah, 132 f. + + Mibsām, 353. + + Mibẓār, 436. + + Midian, Midianites, 350, 448. + + Mishmā‛, 353. + + Miẓpāh, 401 ff. + + Miẓraim, 201, 285. + + Mizzāh, 431. + + Mōchos (quoted), 49. + + Mōhar, xviii, 319, 346, 383 f., 395, 419. + + Monotheism, ix, 6, 25, 48, 72, 178, 269, 301. + + Môreh, 245 f. + + Moriah, land of, 328 f. + + Mourning rites, 335, 374, 449, 537. + + Muṣri-theory, 201, 249, 285, 472. + + Myth and legend distinguished, viii f., xxv. + + + Na‛amāh, 120. + + Naḥôr, 232. + + Names, 68; + popular etymology of, xiii f.; + naming of child by mother, 105 f., 314, 385; + naming of child by father, 296; + person and name, 127; + proper noun compounded with participle, 131. + + Nāphîsh, 353. + + Naphtali, 387, 527 f. + + Naphtûḥîm, 213. + + Nebāyôth, 352. + + Negeb, 248. + + Nephîlîm, 140, 145 f. + + Nile, 465. + + Nimrod, 207. + + Nineveh, 211. + + Noah, 133, 151 ff., 174, 181 ff., 195. + + Nod, 111. + + Nomadic life, 111. + + Numbers (sacred), 8, 39, 98, 326, 483. + + + Oath, 345. + + Oath, by genital organs, 341. + + Oath, by king’s life, 476. + + ‛Ôbāl, 221. + + ’Oholîbāmah, 430. + + Olive, 156. + + ’Ôn, 470. + + Ônām, 434. + + Ophir, 222. + + _Oratio obliqua_ without כִּי, 248. + + + Paddan Aram, lxiv, 358, 425. + + Paradise. See Eden. + + Paradise Legend, origin and significance of, 90 ff. + + Pārān, 324. + + Parenthesis, 14, 34. + + Passive of Qal, 345. + + Pathrûsîm, 213. + + Patriarchal tradition, + background of, xiv ff.; + local centre of, lv. + + Patriarchs, + as individuals, xxiii ff.; + as deities, xxiv f.; + as eponymous ancestors, xx f. + + Peleg, 220, 232. + + Peniel, 410 ff. + + Pĕ‛ô, 436. + + Peoples, Table of, 187 ff. + + Pereẓ, 456. + + Perfect, + of certainty, 172, 462; + of confidence, 388. + of experience, 120, 517. + of instant action, 172, 337; + modal use of, 321; + with sense of pluperfect, 283. + + Philistines, 213, 327, 363 ff. + + Philo Byblius (quoted), 48, 66, 105, 123 f. + + Pîkōl, 325. + + Pildāsh, 333. + + Pîshôn, 59. + + Pithom, 488, 495. + + Plural, + of eminence, 318, 396; + of species, 321. + + Polytheism, traces of, 160, 303, 318, 424, 491. + + Potiphar, 457, 471. + + Prayer, 305, 358 f., 406. + + Priestly code, + in Genesis, lvii ff.; + chronology of, 135; + characteristics of, lx ff.; + literary style of, lxii ff., 11, 149; + geographical horizon of, 191 ff. + + Prophet, li, 317. + + Prophetic guilds, xxxi. + + _Protevangelium_, 81, 97. + + _Puncta extraordinaria_, 413, 446. + + Punic _Tabella devotionis_, 85. + + Pûṭ, 201. + + + Rachel, 383, 386, 388 f., 426 f., 504 f.; + grave of, 426. + + Rainbow in mythology, 172 f. + + Ra‛māh, 203. + + Ra‛mses, land of, 498. + + Reclining at table, 300. + + Reḥôbôth, 366, 436. + + Resen, 211. + + Re‛u, 232. + + Re‘û’ēl, 431. + + Reuben, 386, 388, 427, 515. + + Re’ûmāh, 333. + + Rîphath, 197. + + + Sabæans, 203, 350. + + Sabbath, 35 f., 38 f. + + Sabtāh, 202. + + Sabtekāh, 203. + + Sacrifice, 105, 157; + child and animal, 331 f.; + essence of, 330; + patriarchal, l, lx, 491. + + Salem, 268. + + Sanchuniathon (quoted), 48, 71 f., 123, 140. + + Sanctuaries, + origin of, xii, 246; + as repositories of tradition, xxxi, 415. + + Sarah, 237, 248 ff., 284 ff., 295, 300 ff., 315 ff., 335. + + Seba, 202. + + ‘Seed of woman,’ 80 ff. + + Sē‛îr, 262, 360, 412, 414, 430, 437. + + Serpent, in Paradise, 72 f., 93 f.; + + Serpent-worship, 81. + + Serûg, 232. + + Sēth, 125 f., 131, 139. + + Shammāh, 431. + + Sheba, 202, 203, 222, 350. + + Shechem, 246, 421, 507. + + Shēlāh, 451, 524. + + Sheleph, 221. + + Shēm, 195, 269. + + Shemites, 217 ff., 231 ff. + + Sheôl, 352, 449. + + Shepherd, ideal, 398. + + Shiloh, xxxi, 522 f. + + Shin‛ār, 210, 225. + + Shôbāl, 433. + + “Short stories” of Genesis, xxviii f. + + Shûaḥ, 350. + + Shûr, 286, 315 f., 353 f. + + Siddim, 260. + + Signet-ring, 454, 469. + + Simeon, 386, 420, 518. + + Sin, 97, 129, 317. + + Sînite, 216. + + Sinuhe, Tale of, xvi, xvii. + + Siṭnāh, 366. + + “Sons of God,” 141 f. + + “Speak over the heart,” 419. + + Spirit of God, 17 f., 469. + + Stone-worship, 380, 531. + + Story-tellers, professional, xxxi. + + Sukkôth, 415. + + Supplementary Hypothesis, xxxii, xxxvii. + + + Taboos, 66, 398, 410, 454. + + “Tale of the two brothers,” 69, 459. + + Tāmār, 451. + + Tarshîsh, 198. + + Ṭebaḥ, 334. + + Tel-Amarna Tablets, 92, 187, 201, 413, 501 f. + + Têmā, 353. + + Têmān, 431. + + Teraḥ, 232. + + Teraphim, 396, 423. + + Tid’al, 259. + + _Tiḳḳûnê Sōpherîm_, 304, 345. + + Timna‛, 433. + + Timnāh, 453. + + Tîrās, 199. + + Tithe, 379. + + Tōgarmāh, 197. + + Tôla‛, 494. + + Tôledôth, xxxiii f., 39 ff., 174, 231, 358, 428; + Book of, 40, 130, 236, 428 f., 443. + + Totem clan-names, 232, 383, 386. + + Tradition, historical value of, vii, xiii ff. + + Tree, + of Life, 88, 90, 94; + of Knowledge of Good and Evil, 94 f. + + Tûbal, 120, 199. + + Tubal-Cain, 115, 119 f. + + Twin-births, xvii, 103, 359. + + + Ur, 229, 236. + + Usōos, xi, 124, 360. + + ‛Uẓ, 206, 333. + + ’Ûzāl, 221. + + + Vav consecutive in subordinate clause, 369. + + Veil, 348, 454. + + _Volkssage_, iv. + + Vow, 378 f. + + + Women (no religious standing in Old Testament), 169. + + Word of God, 7. + + Word of Jahwe, 277 f. + + ‘World-egg,’ 18, 49 f. + + + Ya‛aḳōb-ēl, xvi, xviii, 360, 390. + + Yahwistic source, xxxiv ff.; + a composite work, xliv ff., 1 ff., 240 f.; + characteristics of, xlvii ff.; + date of, lii ff.; + place of origin, lv. + + Ya‛lam, 432. + + Yanḫamu, 441, 501 f. + + Ye‛îsh, Ye‛ûsh, 431. + + Yeraḥ, 221. + + Yered, 131. + + Yĕṭûr, 353. + + Yidlāph, 333. + + Yishbaḳ, 350. + + Yiskāh, 238. + + Yithrān, 434. + + Yôb, 494. + + Yôbāb, 222, 435. + + Yoḳṭān, 220. + + Yôseph-ēl, xvi, 389. + + + Zebulun, 389, 525 f. + + Ẓemārî, 217. + + Zeraḥ, 431, 456. + + Ẓib‛ôn, 434. + + Ẓîdôn, 215, 525. + + Zikkurat, 226, 228 f., 377, 380. + + Ẓillāh, 118. + + Zimrān, 350. + + Ẓôar, 252 f., 257, 309. + + Zodiac, signs of, 22, 26, 44, 65, 90, 133, 146, 181. + + Zodiacal theory of the tribes, 445, 517, 530, 534 f. + + Ẓōhar, 494. + + Zûzîm, 263. + + + II. HEBREW + + אֲבִיר, 531. + + אֲבָל, 296, 476. + + אַבְרֵךְ, 470. + + אֵד, 55. + + אָדָם, 56, 66, 68, 83, 125, 130. + + אֲדָמָה, 56. + + אַדְמוֹנִי, 359. + + אוֹת (= ‘consent’), 420. + + אֲחָדִים, 225. + + אָחוּ, 465. + + אחרית הימים, 513. + + אִי, 200. + + אֵל, 398, 491; + אל עולם, 327; + אל עליון, 270; + אל ראי, 289; + אל שׁדי, 290 f., 481. + + אלהים, xxxv ff.; + article with, 131, 159; + אלהי השמים, 342. + + (הָ)אֵל = הָאֵלֶּה, 307, 309, 364. + + אָלָה, 367. + + אֵלָה, אַלָּה, 245. + + אֵלוֹן, אַלּוֹן, 245, 424. + + אַלּוּף, 432. + + אֻמָּה, 353. + + אמר (= ‘speak’), 107. + + אמר אל־, 316. + + אַמְתַּחַת, 477. + + אֱנושׁ, 126. + + אַף כִּי, 73. + + אִשָּׁה and אִישׁ, 69. + + אֵשֶׁל, 326. + + אֶת־, (= ‘with’), 102. + + אֹת (= ‘sign’), 25, 103, 110, 112, 172. + + + בְּ, various uses of, 30, 149, 169, 226, 383, 530. + + בֹּאֲכָה, 214. + + בא לפבי, 160. + + בהמה, 29. + + בִּי, 481. + + בינות, 367. + + בְּכֹרָה, 362. + + בִּלְעָדַי, 271, 467. + + בֶּקַע, 344. + + בִּקְעָה, 225. + + ברא, 14 f. + + בְּרִית, 163, 276, 283 f., 367; + נתן (הקים) ב׳, 171; + בעלי ב׳, 266. + + בתר (_piel_), 281. + + + גִּבּוֹר, 146, 207. + + גָּבִיעַ, 483. + + גּוֹזָל, 281. + + גּוֹי, 316. + + גּוֹיִם, 259. + + גָּחוֹן, 78. + + גַּל, 401. + + גֹּפֶר, 160. + + + דִּבָּה, 443. + + דּוּדָאִים, 388. + + דְּמוּת, 30. + + דַּמֶּשֶׂק, 278 f. + + דֶּשֶׁא, 23 f., 24. + + + הָבָה, 225. + + הֶבֶל, 103. + + (היא) הוא, 60. + + הָלַךְ (= ‘die’), 279. + + הֲפֵכָה, 310. + + + וְ = ‘namely,’ 481. + + וָלָד, 237. + + וּן――(termination), 306. + + + זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, 33. + + זִמְרָה, 480. + + + חבר אל־, 260. + + חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים, 382. + + חַוָּה, 85, 103, 139. + + חַיְתוֹ אֶרֶץ, 29. + + חָלִלָה, 305. + + חלק, 267. + + חָם, 453. + + חמאה, 300. + + חֵמָר, חֹמֶר, 226. + + חֵמָת, 323. + + חנט, 537. + + חָנִיךְ, 266. + + חנךְ, 116. + + חרה, 104 f. + + חרטמים, 466. + + חֹרִי = white bread, 463. + + חתן, 419. + + + טַבָּחִים, 457. + + טירה, 353. + + טען, 488. + + + יְאֹר, 465. + + יָבָם, 451. + + יָדוֹן, 143. + + ידות (= ‘shares’ or ‘times’), 482. + + ידע (euphemistically), 101, 125. + + יום, 5, 20 f. + + יֵמִם, 432 f. + + יֶפֶת, 195. + + יָצַר, 56. + + יצר הרע, 150. + + יְקוּם, 153. + + יקע, 408. + + יָרָה, 402. + + ירשׁ, 488. + + יתר, 514. + + + כברת הארץ, 426. + + כהיום הזה, 458. + + כי אם, 500. + + כי אם זכרתני, 462 f. + + כי־על־כן, 300. + + כי עתה, 480. + + כַּיּוֹם, 362. + + כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן, 252. + + כַּלָּה, 238. + + כֵּן, 462; + כֵּנִים, 475. + + כִּנּוֹר, 118. + + כֹּפֶר, 161. + + כרה, 516, 537. + + כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים, 444. + + כָּתֵף, 506. + + + לְ, various uses of, 153, 170, 226, 337, 414, 434. + + לֵאָה, 383. + + לְאֹם, 359. + + לביא, 519. + + לבנה, 392. + + להה, 499. + + לֹט, 448. + + לטש, 119, 351. + + לעט, 361. + + + מָאוֹר, 24. + + מַבּוּל, 154. + + מגדנת, 346. + + מֶגֵן, מִגֵּן, 269. + + מַהְפֵּכָה, 311. + + מוֹלֶדֶת, 236. + + מוֹעֵד, 26. + + מחה, 151. + + מחויאל, 117. + + מִחְיָה, 487. + + מחקק, 519 f. + + מי זהב, 436. + + מין, 24, 167. + + מִכְסֶה, 157. + + מְכֵרָה, 516. + + מלאכה, 36, 414. + + מִן, 78, 108, 142. + + מְנוּחָה, 526. + + מִנְחָה, 104. + + מֹנִים, 394. + + מַס, 526. + + מָקוֹם (= ‘sacred place’), 246, 376, 423. + + מֵרֵעַ, 367. + + מִשְׁפְּתַיִם, 526. + + מֶשֶׁק, 278 f. + + מְתוּשָׁאֵל, 117. + + מְתוּשֶׁלַח, 132 f. + + מְתַעְתֵּעַ, 370. + + + נְאֻם יהוה, 331. + + נֶגְדּוֹ, 67. + + נהל, 414, 499. + + נָזִיר, 532. + + נחשׁ, 391, 483. + + נין ונכד, 325. + + נכאת, 447. + + נֶסֶךְ, 425. + + נסע, 225. + + נֶפֶשׁ, 34, 245, 369. + + נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, 28 f., 56. + + נִצָּה, 462. + + נָשָׂא פָּנִים, 309. + + נָשָׂא רַגְלַיִם, 381. + + נָשָׁה, 410. + + + סות, 524. + + סֻלָּם, 377. + + סַנְוֵרִים, 307. + + ספד, 336. + + סריס, 457. + + + עֵבֶר, 217. + + עִבְרִי, עִבְרִים, 187, 217, 265, 458 f. + + עגָלָה, 489. + + עַד כִּי־, 520. + + עֵדֶן, 57. + + עֲדָשִׁים, 362. + + עוּגָב, 118. + + עָוֹן, 109. + + עֵזָר, 67. + + (הָ)עַי, 247. + + עכר, 421. + + על־בלי, 396. + + עַמִּים (= ‘father’s kin’), 294. + + עָנָה בְּ, 392. + + עָקַד, 330. + + עִקֵּר, 517. + + עָרְוָה, 475. + + ערום, 70, 71, 73. + + עָרַךְ, 330. + + עַרְמוֹן, 392. + + (כָּ)עֵת חַיָּה, 301. + + עתר, 358. + + + פָּגַע בְּ, 405. + + פּוּג, 490. + + פחז, 514. + + פִּילֶגֶשׁ, 333. + + פְּלֵיטָה, 487. + + פלל, 505. + + פִּנָּה, 344. + + פַּרְעֹה, 249. + + פְּרָת, 61. + + פֹּרָת, 529 f. + + פתה, 184. + + פתח עינים, 453. + + + צבא, 36. + + צַדִּיק, 158 f. + + צְדָקָה, 280. + + צֹהַר, 161. + + צחק, 321, 364. + + צֵידָה, 369. + + צֶלֶם, 30. + + צָֽפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ, 470. + + צֳרִי, 447. + + + קֶדָם, 351; + קֵדְמָה, 353; + [בני]קדם, 381; + [מ]קדם, 57, 253. + + קַיִן, 102, 113. + + קנה, 102, 268. + + (מ)קצה, 496 f. + + קרא בשם י׳, 127. + + קְשֵׁיטָה, 416. + + קַשָּׁת, 324. + + + רָאשִׁים, 59. + + רֵאשִׁית, 12 f., 514. + + רבב, 530. + + רבה, (= ‘shoot’), 324. + + רַהַט, 392. + + רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם, 420. + + רְחֹבֹת עִיר, 211. + + רִחֵל, 383. + + רִיד, 373. + + רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ, 157. + + רִיק, 266. + + רכשׁ, רְכוּשׁ, 245. + + רְפָאִים, 263 f. + + רַק, 318, 370. + + רָקִיעַ, 21, 46. + + + שְׂאֵת, 106 f., 514. + + שׂוּחַ, 348. + + שֵׁיחַ, 54, 323. + + שׂכל, Hiphil, 75. + + שֵׁכֵּל, 505. + + שֵׁמְלָה, 183. + + שְׂנוּאָה, 385. + + שָׂפָה, 224 f. + + שָׂרָה, 237. + + שָׂרַי, 295. + + שׂרֵקָה, 524. + + + שֶׁ, as relative, 144, 521, 523. + + שֵׁבֶט, 520. + + שֶׁבֶר, 474. + + שָׁבַת, 36 f. + + שָׁגַג, 143. + + שֹׁהַם, 60. + + שָׁוֵה, 262, 267. + + שׁוּף, 79. + + שׁחט, 330. + + שׁילה, 520 ff. + + שֶׂלִּיט, 474. + + שָׁלֵם, 415. + + שִׁלֵּשִׁים, 540. + + שֵׁם, 195, 226. + + שׁמר משׁמרת, 364. + + שִׁפְחָה, 285. + + שְׁפִיפֹן, 527. + + שֹׁקֶת, 344. + + שׁרץ, 27 f. + + שֵׁשׁ, 469. + + שֵׁת, 126. + + + תאוה, 532. + + תֵּבָה, 160 f. + + תהו ובהו, 16, 50. + + תְּהוֹם, 17, 23, 44 f., 48, 164, 532. + + תולדות, xxxiii f., 39, 174, 235, 358. + + תּוֹשָׁב, 336. + + תְּלִי, 369. + + תמים, 159. + + תֵּנּוּר, 283. + + תַּנִּין, 28. + + תַּרְדֵּמָה, 68, 281. + + תשוקה, 82, 107. + + + + + Advertisements. + + + The International Critical Commentary + + VOLUMES NOW READY + +=Numbers.= By the Rev. G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, +Mansfield College, Oxford. + + “Most Bible readers have the impression that ‘Numbers’ is a dull + book only relieved by the brilliancy of the Balaam chapters and + some snatches of old Hebrew songs, but, as Prof. Gray shows with + admirable skill and insight, its historical and religious value + is not that which lies on the surface. Prof. Gray’s Commentary + is distinguished by fine scholarship and sanity of judgment; + it is impossible to commend it too warmly.”――_Saturday Review_ + (London). + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Deuteronomy.= By the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius +Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. + + “It is a pleasure to see at last a really critical Old Testament + commentary in English upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and + especially one of such merit. This I find superior to any other + Commentary in any language upon Deuteronomy.” + Professor E. L. CURTIS, of Yale University. + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Judges.= By Rev. GEORGE FOOT MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor of +Theology in Harvard University. + + “The work is done in an atmosphere of scholarly interest and + indifference to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least + refreshing.... It is a noble introduction to the moral forces, + ideas and influences that controlled the period of the Judges, + and a model of what a historical commentary, with a practical + end in view, should be.”――_The Independent._ + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=The Books of Samuel.= By Rev. HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., Professor +of Old Testament Literature and History of Religion, Meadville, Pa. + + “Professor Smith’s Commentary will for some time be the standard + work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly + work so faithfully accomplished.”――_The Athenæum._ + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=The Book of Psalms.= By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., +Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, Union +Theological Seminary, New York, and EMILIE GRACE BRIGGS, B.D. + + “Christian scholarship seems here to have reached the highest + level yet attained in study of the book which in religious + importance stands next to the Gospels. His work upon it is not + likely to be excelled in learning, both massive and minute, + by any volume of the International Series, to which it + belongs.”――_The Outlook._ + 2 Volumes. Crown 8vo. Price, $3.00 each _net_. + +=Proverbs.= By the Rev. CRAWFORD H. TOY, D.D., LL.D., Professor of +Hebrew in Harvard University. + + “This volume has the same characteristics of thoroughness and + painstaking scholarship as the preceding issues of the series. + In the critical treatment of the text, in noting the various + readings and the force of the words in the original Hebrew, it + leaves nothing to be desired.” + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Amos and Hosea.= By WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., late +Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature and President of the +University of Chicago. + + “He has gone, with characteristic minuteness, not only into + the analysis and discussion of each point, endeavoring in every + case to be thoroughly exhaustive, but also into the history of + exegesis and discussion. Nothing at all worthy of consideration + has been passed by. The consequence is that when one carefully + studies what has been brought together in this volume, + either upon some passage of the two prophets treated, or upon + some question of critical or antiquarian importance in the + introductory portion of the volume, one feels that he has + obtained an adequately exhaustive view of the subject.”――_The + Interior._ + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Esther.= By L. B. PATON, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hartford +Theological Seminary. + + This scholarly and critical commentary on the Book of Esther + presents in full the remarkable additions to the Massoretic + text and the variations in the various versions beginning with + the Greek translation and continuing through the Vulgate and + Peshitto down to the Talmud and Targums. These are not given in + full in any other commentary, yet they are very important both + for the history of the text and the history of the exegesis. + Crown 8vo. $2.25 _net_. + +=Ecclesiastes.= By GEORGE A. BARTON, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical +Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. + + “It is a relief to find a commentator on Ecclesiastes who is + not endeavoring to defend some new theory. This volume, in + the International Commentary series, treats the book in a + scholarly and sensible fashion, presenting the conclusions + of earlier scholars together with the author’s own, + and providing thus all the information that any student + needs.”――_The Congregationalist._ + Crown 8vo. $2.25 _net_. + +=St. Matthew.= By the Rev. WILLOUGHBY C. ALLEN, M.A., Fellow of Exeter +College, Oxford. + + “As a microscopic and practically exhaustive study and itemized + statement of the probable or possible sources of the Synoptic + Gospels and of their relations, one to another, this work has + not been surpassed. I doubt if it has been equaled. And the + author is not by any means lacking in spiritual insight.”――_The + Methodist Review_ (Nashville). + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=St. Mark.= By the Rev. E. P. GOULD, D.D., sometime Professor of New +Testament Exegesis, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. + + “The whole make-up is that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive + critical study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind + ever attempted in the English language, and to students and + clergymen knowing the proper use of a commentary it will prove + an invaluable aid.”――_The Lutheran Quarterly._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=St. Luke.= By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D., sometime Master of +University College, Durham. + + “We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy + of the interpretations.... It seems to us that the prevailing + characteristic of the book is common sense, fortified by + learning and piety.”――_The Herald and Presbyter._ + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Romans.= By the Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret +Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the +Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, M.A., D.D., Principal of Kings College, London. + + “We do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on + Romans yet written in English. It will do much to popularize + this admirable and much needed series, by showing that it + is possible to be critical and scholarly and at the same + time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible + readers.”――_The Church Standard._ + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_. + +=Ephesians and Colossians.= By the Rev. T. K. ABBOTT, D.D., D.Litt., +formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, now of Hebrew, Trinity College, +Dublin. + + “An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one that none + of us can afford to be without. It is the work of a man who has + made himself master of this theme. His exegetical perceptions + are keen, and we are especially grateful for his strong defense + of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great monuments + of Pauline teaching.”――_The Expositor._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Philippians and Philemon.= By Rev. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D., Professor +of Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York. + + “Professor Vincent’s Commentary appears to me not less + admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and + its clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of + these Epistles.”――Dr. GEORGE P. FISHER. + Crown 8vo. $2.00 _net_. + +=St. Peter and St. Jude.= By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG, D.D., sometime +Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University, New York. + + “The careful and thorough student will find here a vast amount + of information most helpful to him in his studies and researches. + The international Critical Commentary, to which it belongs, will + prove a great boon to students and ministers.”――_The Canadian + Congregationalist._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Genesis.= By the Rev. JOHN SKINNER, D.D., Principal and Professor of +Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church +of England, Cambridge, England. + + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_ (Postage additional). + +=The Books of Chronicles.= By the Rev. EDWARD L. CURTIS, Ph.D., D.D., +Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, and Rev. ALBERT A. MADSEN, Ph.D. + + Crown 8vo. $3.00 _net_ (Postage additional). + + + + + The International Theological Library + + + EDITORS’ PREFACE + +THEOLOGY has made great and rapid advances in recent years. New lines +of investigation have been opened up, fresh light has been cast upon +many subjects of the deepest interest, and the historical method has +been applied with important results. This has prepared the way for a +Library of Theological Science, and has created the demand for it. It +has also made it at once opportune and practicable now to secure the +services of specialists in the different departments of Theology, and +to associate them in an enterprise which will furnish a record of +Theological inquiry up to date. + +This Library is designed to cover the whole field of Christian +Theology. Each volume is to be complete in itself, while, at the +same time, it will form part of a carefully planned whole. One of the +Editors is to prepare a volume of Theological Encyclopædia which will +give the history and literature of each department, as well as of +Theology as a whole. + +The Library is intended to form a series of Text-Books for Students of +Theology. + +The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compactness of +statement. At the same time, they have in view that large and +increasing class of students, in other departments of inquiry, who +desire to have a systematic and thorough exposition of Theological +Science. Technical matters will therefore be thrown into the form +of notes, and the text will be made as readable and attractive as +possible. + +The Library is international and interconfessional. It will be +conducted in a catholic spirit, and in the interests of Theology as +a science. + +Its aim will be to give full and impartial statements both of the +results of Theological Science and of the questions which are still +at issue in the different departments. + +The Authors will be scholars of recognized reputation in the several +branches of study assigned to them. They will be associated with +each other and with the Editors in the effort to provide a series +of volumes which may adequately represent the present condition of +investigation, and indicate the way for further progress. + + CHARLES A. BRIGGS + STEWART D. F. SALMOND + + + ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS + +=THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPÆDIA.= By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., +Professor of Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, Union Theological +Seminary, New York. + +=AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By S. R. +DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ +Church, Oxford. + [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._ + +=CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By FRANCIS CRAWFORD BURKITT, +M.A., Norrisian Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge. + +=OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.= By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D., Professor of +Old Testament Literature, Meadville, Pa. + [_Now Ready._ + +=CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By FRANCIS BROWN, D.D., +LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological +Seminary, New York. + +=THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.= By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., +sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. + [_Now Ready._ + +=AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By Rev. +JAMES MOFFATT, B.D., Minister United Free Church, Dundonald, Scotland. + +=CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By CASPAR RENÉ GREGORY, D.D., +LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of +Leipzig. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE LIFE OF CHRIST.= By WILLIAM SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret +Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. + +=A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.= By ARTHUR C. +MCGIFFERT, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theological +Seminary, New York. + [_Now Ready._ + +=CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By FRANK C. PORTER, D.D., +Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. + +=THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., sometime +Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. + [_Now Ready._ + +=BIBLICAL ARCHÆOLOGY.= By G. BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, +Mansfield College, Oxford. + +=THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH.= By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., LL.D., sometime +Principal of New College, Edinburgh. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE EARLY LATIN CHURCH.= + [_Author to be announced later._ + +=THE LATER LATIN CHURCH.= + [_Author to be announced later._ + +=THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES.= By W. F. ADENEY, D.D., Principal of +Independent College, Manchester. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE REFORMATION.= By T. M. LINDSAY, D.D., Principal of the United +Free College, Glasgow. + [_2 volumes. Now Ready._ + +=CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.= By PAUL +SABATIER, D.Litt. + +=SYMBOLICS.= By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt., Professor of +Theological Encyclopædia and Symbolics, Union Theological Seminary, +New York. + +=HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.= By G. P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., +sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University, New +Haven, Conn. + [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._ + +=CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.= By A. V. G. ALLEN, D.D., sometime Professor +of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, +Cambridge, Mass. + [_Now Ready._ + +=PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION.= By ROBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D., sometime +Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. + +=THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS.= By GEORGE F. MOORE, D.D., LL.D., Professor +in Harvard University. + +=APOLOGETICS.= By A. B. BRUCE, D.D., sometime Professor of New +Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. + [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._ + +=THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD.= By WILLIAM N. CLARKE, D.D., Professor +of Systematic Theology, Hamilton Theological Seminary. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.= By WILLIAM P. PATERSON, D.D., Professor of +Divinity, University of Edinburgh. + +=THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.= By H. R. MACKINTOSH, Ph.D., Professor of +Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh. + +=THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., +sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.= By WILLIAM ADAMS BROWN, D.D., +Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York. + +=CHRISTIAN ETHICS.= By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., Pastor of Congregational +Church, New Haven. + [_Revised and Enlarged Edition._ + +=THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH.= By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, +D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio. + [_Now Ready._ + +=THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER.= The Rev. A. E. GARVIE, M.A., D.D., Principal +of New College, London, England. + +=RABBINICAL LITERATURE.= By S. SCHECHTER, M.A., President of the +Jewish Theological Seminary, New York City. + + >>> OTHER VOLUMES WILL BE ANNOUNCED LATER. + + + VOLUMES NOW READY + +=An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.= By Professor +S. R. DRIVER, D.D., D.Litt. + + “As a whole there is probably no book in the English Language + equal to this ‘Introduction to the Literature of the Old + Testament,’ for the student who desires to understand what the + modern criticism thinks about the Bible.”――Dr. LYMAN ABBOTT, in + _The Outlook_. + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. = By ARTHUR C. +MCGIFFERT, Ph.D., D.D. + + “The clearness, self-consistency, and force of the whole + impression of Apostolic Christianity with which we leave + this book goes far to guarantee its permanent value and + success.”――_The Expositor._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Christian Ethics.= By NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D. + + “As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most + attractive treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. + Patient and exhaustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating + and suggestive in the topic it handles, we are confident that it + will be a help to the task of the moral understanding and + interpretation of human life.”――_The Living Church._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Apologetics; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. = By ALEXANDER +BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D. + + “We have not for a long time taken a book in hand that is more + stimulating to faith.... Without commenting further, we repeat + that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, + and sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. + No theological library should be without it.”――_Zion’s Herald._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Old Testament History.= By HENRY PRESERVED SMITH, D.D. + + “Prof. Smith has, by his comprehensive and vitalized + history, laid all who care for the Old Testament under great + obligations.”――_The Independent._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Ancient Catholic Church.= By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., LL.D. + + “As a comprehensive work on the formative stage of the Church’s + experience the volume will easily find its place in the + front rank among books on the subject composed in the English + language.”――_The Interior._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Reformation in Germany.= By THOMAS M. LINDSAY, M.A., D.D. + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Reformation in Lands Beyond Germany.= By THOMAS M. LINDSAY, D.D. + + “Together these two volumes will at once take their place as the + classical English History of the Reformation.”――_The Expository + Times._ + + “The good balance of material which he has attained by a self- + denying exclusion, as well as by much research and inclusion of + fresh material, makes the work a real addition to our materials + for study.”――_The Congregationalist._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Canon and Text of the New Testament.= By CASPER RENÉ GREGORY, D.D., +LL.D. + + “The book is a treasury of learning, and its fairness in dealing + with the matter in hand is admirable. From first to last, the + purpose of the author is not to show upon how slight basis + our confidence in the canonicity of the New Testament is + based, but rather upon how solid a foundation our confidence + rests.”――_Journal and Messenger._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Greek and Eastern Churches.= By WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D. + + “It seems to me an excellent and most useful piece of work. I + do not know anything in English which covers the same ground and + am sure Dr. Adeney has put us all in his debt by his scholarly, + well-balanced and judicious treatment.”――_Prof. William Adams + Brown._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Christian Doctrine of God.= By WILLIAM N. CLARKE, D.D. + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. Postage Additional. + +=The Theology of the New Testament.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., LL.D. + + “It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial + research and statement.”――_The Congregationalist._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=History of Christian Doctrine.= By GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D. + + “It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best + History of Doctrine that we have in English.”――_The New York + Evangelist._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Christian Pastor and the Working Church.= By WASHINGTON GLADDEN, +D.D., LL.D. + + “A comprehensive, inspiring and helpful guide to a busy pastor. + One finds in it a multitude of practical suggestions for the + development of the spiritual and working life of the Church, and + the answer to many problems that are a constant perplexity to + the faithful minister.”――_The Christian Intelligencer._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=Christian Institutions.= By ALEXANDER V. B. ALLEN, D.D. + + “Professor Allen’s Christian Institutions may be regarded as + the most important permanent contribution which the Protestant + Episcopal Church of the United States has yet made to general + theological thought.”――_The American Journal of Theology._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Theology of the Old Testament.= By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., +D.Litt. + + “We hope every clergyman will not rest content until he has + procured and studied this most admirable and useful book. + Every really useful question relating to man――his nature, his + fall, and his redemption, his present life or grace, his life + after death, his future life, is treated of.”――_The Canadian + Churchman._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +=The Christian Doctrine of Salvation.= By GEORGE B. STEVENS, D.D., +LL.D. + + “Professor Stevens has performed a task of great importance, + certain to exert wide and helpful influence in settling the + minds of men. He has treated the subject historically and + has given to Christ the first place in interpreting his own + mission.”――_Congregationalist and Christian World._ + Crown 8vo. $2.50 _net_. + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77363 *** |